Canadian Blue

The poor and lower income groups are already screwed in our system, but we just learn how to redistribute our suffering. This has already been answered, and you're just a brick wall at the moment. You haven't bothered to respond to any argument put forward, and I'll say this once again. MOST NATIONS WITH UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE ALLOW SOME ELEMENT OF PRIVATE FOR PROFIT CARE, ODDLY ENOUGH THEIR HAVEN'T BEEN MASS DEATHS IN SINGAPORE, SWITZERLAND, THE NETHERLANDS, ETC.

Well, in Canada I'd be considered a libertarian. However I've already stated that the funding should follow the patient, and that we should allow a system of private insurance where people can choose which plan works best for them. If a poor guy does require life saving surgery he would still get it. If someone is willing to pay money to get a surgery done faster in the private sector then I'd allow it. I've already stated what I support, and so far you're argument has mostly been made up of saying that we should simply accept the current system and make no criticisms of it. It's not really social engineering if the individual is free to make their own choices in life. No, I've already stated what kind of system I support. I've already stated that their is no reason we can't have healthy competition and private enterprise in a universal framework. Right now you're just grasping at straws because you have no real argument against those of us who would like to see some reforms to the system.

Then the public centers should learn how to become more competitive with the private system. That's how competition works in a free society, if another entity is able to offer a service at better cost and better quality they will get more users.

No, unlike the left we actually make attempts to improve the system. Unfortunately I suppose critical thinking can do that to people who are individuals instead of collectivists.

Yes, because the collectivist ideologies like communism and fascism have never once had any negative effects on society. By the way, I think that their's a difference between society and government. Likely because most attempts by government to create a perfect society are fruitless and cause more harm than good. I'll admit I'm not a utopian, but usually I have enough sense to realize that compassion is better served if it's voluntary instead of compulsory.

We also engage in conspiracies with the Bilderberg Group and the International Financing Community. Bravo, nice dodge at arguing against allow some private healthcare based on the grounds that democracy is always right. However as Kim Campbell correctly pointed out elections are not the time to talk about policies. But it seems that support for some privatization is actually growing, and people aren't nearly as drawn to some base anti-Americanism as they once were. Smallc, if a private clinic which was operating in parallel with the public system why do you believe you have the right to tell people they can't get faster treatment if they are willing to pay for it. All you're repeating is that "we have problems" and then suggesting that throwing more money will solve all of our problems. Well guess what, it likely won't, and inefficiencies are not sovled through more layers of bureaucracy. I'm still amazed that you would not allow any healthcare reforms at all based on this fallacious notion you have that any reforms are akin to being "American."

I was mocking many of the liberals on here who argue that they support a mediocre healthcare system simply because they don't want any reform that would allow competition. I've also heard that if we throw money into a giant hole and burn it we could bring about more infrastructure jobs. Let me ask you something, if I want to get an operation done and a doctor is willing to do it for a price why do you believe in taking away from the liberty of Canadian's to pay for medical care if they wish to get it. You're entire argument thus far is that you don't want to be an American. I don't think you have any basis to say that people who support reform in the system are ideological when you base your arguments on a knee jerk anti-American sentiment instead of touting the benefits of a multi-layered bureaucracy over allow private health insurance.

Improvements? I don't know, that sounds like American talk. Which is why all of the people on here for Medicare always yell "AMERICAN" when anyone criticizes the way the system currently functions. Great Britian, are you seriously suggesting that the NHS is an example of privatized healthcare. Seriously dude, you should try learning more about the world, like Singapore or Netherlands. Not really, the only people who are trying to deceive Canadian's are those who defend are system by using anti-American sentiments as an excuse for mediocrity. No, it means actually looking at what other countries do when it comes to healthcare. Unlike you we are more internationalist in perspective and read about countries other than the United States. Odd, I could have sworn most countries with universal healthcare have some degree of private for profit medicine. Perhaps all of us evil libertarians don't want to kill old ladies like you suggest.

Perhaps we should nationalize all industry in the interests of ensuring the taxpayers don't get screwed. This is ridiculous reasoning, as it basically argues that people should simply give a monopoly to government over everything because one company screwed up. Not really, Canada can still implement our own laws and if you can please inform us how Canada will get the exact same system as the US I'd like to hear it. Because if business is incompetent, corrupt, or generally lazy, it'll either go bankrupt or in the case of Enron executives go to jail. With government we all get screwed over equally and the politicians keep their pay cheques and pensions. Only because you have no clue what the American system actually entails. As I said before you should try thinking more in terms of reason instead of waking up everyday telling yourself that you're not an American. I'd rather be able to spend $50 dollars of my own money to get a routine checkup in an expedient manner rather than wait months on end because you dislike the idea of allowing doctors the freedom to work in a private practice if they wish. But atleast we're not like those damn American's.

Just once when discussing healthcare in Canada I wish people wouldn't revert to their knee jerk anti-American tendencies. If you actually bothered to read what I wrote, which you haven't, you'll notice that the system I support would work in conjuction within the framework of universal healthcare. The difference is that the funding would follow the patient, and health insurance companies would instead have to compete for that money. If all people in the US who don't have insurance were aware of the kinds of welfare programs in place, the US would likely have coverage levels close to 99%. But I've stated many times before, I don't support a system anything like that of the United States, the only problem is that when liberals such as yourself hear anything positive said about business, competition, or private enterprise, the immediate kneejerk reaction is to talk about how that's "American" or give some half-baked tug at the heart strings. You still haven't stated why allowing provinces to allow changes in their healthcare delivery will be a bad thing, or for that matter why allowing even an element of competition in the system will denigrate universality. So far the only charge I've heard is that we can't do it because it sounds "American." Unfortunately I don't share such a repulsion whenever I hear the word "American."

Depends on the system. Awe yes, the good ole appeal to the heartstrings to tell us all why we should love being mediocre together. It'd odd that their still hasn't been a single rebuttal to the idea that competition would be a good thing in the healthcare system, or for that matter why provinces shouldn't experiment with different methods of healthcare delivery to see what works best for the citizens of this country. I personally still find it somewhat odd that individuals have blind trust of everything the government does, and will never consider allowing private healthcare to operate in Canada. Despite the fact that the majority of countries with universal healthcare often allow private for profit healthcare. But I suggest that you go off an make some half baked Hallmark movie about how Grandma won't get a new hip due to evil capitalists.

Think about it people, theirs a problem with the system when farm animals and pets get faster treatment than humans.

We did, take note of the massive cuts that took place in the early 90's and the fact we became the second freest economy in North America due to this crazy idea Albertan's have that private enterprise is a good thing. Something that apparently even Gordon Campbell in British Columbia realized when he cut taxes by 25%. By the way I'm not fan of the PC's, I think they've done a horrible job in the last 4 years when it comes to fiscal restraint and I'm not afraid to say so. I didn't vote for them in the last election precisely because of that fact. Our province is now facing a deficit because of the new royalty framework, not to mention the fact they've been spending money like a drunken sailor in a whorehouse. Yes they are. At the very least those companies can go bankrupt and investors can simply stop funding them, the same can't be said for government. No, that's corporate welfare. Something most principled conservatives would be against. With regards to healthcare, just once, just once I'd like to see someone whose against allowing private healthcare not point to the United States. If you're entire argument is that we shouldn't be "American" and that's it you should try re-evaluating your position so it's not based on an infantile knee jerk reaction. The United States healthcare system is just a mess of bureaucracy, massive regulation, and largely ineffective government welfare programs. What most people on here who are supportive of allowing private healthcare are arguing is that we should look at what the Netherlands, Switzlerand, and Singapore, do. They allow a large degree of private enterprise and competition yet it doesn't seem like people are out dying on the streets. That being said, what exactly is wrong with attempting a new way of doing things. I find this especially ironic coming from people who describe themselves as liberals, you'd think they'd be the last ones to be opposed to making any changes.

I remember when I was in Winnipeg in 2006 they were talking about starting to build this museum as well. I can't really judge the merits of it until they give us some details about what it'll entail. PS: I wonder if they're going to put an issue of Macleans in an exhibit to showcase what hate literature is.

So what you're arguing is that individual MP's should never be allowed to table any private members bills on the controversial issues of the day? Goatboy don't you realize that all the real policy decisions made by the Conservative Party happen in the Batcave. That's where we discuss how to make homosexuality illegal, plot to kill Clifford Olsen, and form laws which allow for a tougher sentence against those who murder pregnant women. That's why I can't be a Liberal, I don't shut off my brain just because nine people dressed up as Santa Claus made a ruling. As for Ignatieff, he won't be that bad. It could always be much worse.

Such as? Social policies could range from introducing tougher sentences for violent criminals, to ridding ourselves of the absurd Section 13 HRC's use to prosecute mainstream newspapers for hate speech. If the incrementalism that the Tories propose it to get rid of alot of these authoritarian policies put in place by previous governments which attempt to socially engineer a society or those laws and regulations which are an aversion to individual liberty then I have no problem with getting rid of them.

Gun registry or no registry, each police officer should approach every situation as if a gun could be involved. As well the quote you included stated that the registry had a magnitude of errors.

From my reading of Tom Flanagan and incrementalism, the policies he talks about are now regarding abortion, the death penalty, or gay marriage. What it more than likely deals with are tax cuts, free trade, privatization, the right to bear arms, senate reform, and ensuring basic individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech which has been eroded by the HRC's.

It's a partisan site, but I have no reason to believe that they lied about the quote. http://www.gunowners.org/op0507.htm As for what the Policy of the Chiefs of Police is, quite frankly it doesn't really matter to me. Not so much that I have a lack of respect for the heads of police, but that many of these policies are made based upon politics. Even if a police officer were to go to a call, they should still be prepared for an armed situation. The registry is no reason to become complacent. Yes, quite frankly we shouldn't have to rely on a separate nation in order for Canadian citizens to get medical care. Diverts from our own faults, like having the second freest economy in North America? Perhaps more provinces should try emulating some of Alberta's tax policies in the hopes that it could kickstart their economies instead of begging for cash from Ottawa. Kind of like a carbon tax? Economics is a dismal science, and most often economists are more directed by political biases instead of common sense. Are we talking about the economists that write in Adbusters, or the ones that write for CATO? Of course, their's always failed Liberal candidates who are aching for an appointment to the Senate. Why did you spend all that time defending it then?

Neo-con? Sorry you're going to have to define that for me, the terms been used so much that it's now a cliche.

I doubt it, Harper was never really known as a social conservative and when he ran in the Canadian Alliance leadership race he attacked Stockwell Day for going after the religious vote. When we hear about incrementalism that's dealing with economic policy, criminal justice, decentralization, and a Tripe-E Senate. No, he's a politician. But if you feel the NDP, Liberals, and Greens, should unite I say all the power to you.

You mean Belinda Stronach's surgery isn't done at all in Canada. Isn't that just another example of the problems with our healthcare system. We were demonizing Ottawa because Ottawa demonizes us. It's a give and take relationship, we give you our wealth for a billion dollar boondoggle [gun registry] while we call you guys assholes. Definitely, but at the very least he wasn't talking about increasing my taxes while doing it. Like I stated before, I usually vote for the lesser of two evils. Even though the GST cut didn't do much, it was better than the Liberal Party plan to put a tax on everything so the federal government could run the nurseries of the nation. I doubt it, their's a reason why all Senators appointed from Alberta at the time were Liberal Party hacks. Exactly how many crimes have been solved by the gun registry? By the way both the Auditor General and Julian Fantino the current head of the OPP are opposed to the gun registry due to the fact it's ineffective. Here's a direct quote: Ironically enough the Liberal Party is the principal opponent of giving Border Guards and the CBSA firearms so they can properly do their job. One Liberal MP stated that he wants the CBSA to act more like a bank instead of a law enforcement agency. In conclusion the Liberal Party doesn't really care about stopping the flow of guns, but is more concerned about projecting an image of political correctness. For even more delicious irony here's a quote from the webmaster of the CFC John Hicks: Once again, perhaps spending $1 billion dollars targeting Ducks Unlimited wasn't a good policy... But their's more, even the Violence Policy Center, one of the largest pro-gun control groups in the US is opposed to implementing a Canadian style registry because it's ineffective.

You ran for politics, think about it for one second. If Harper wanted to force a "poison pill" it would have to be something that most Canadian's would be sympathetic to coast to coast. Ending abortion and bringing in the death penalty are not that important to most people. I meant the LPC as a whole, I don't recall Chretien ever begging Jean Charest and Preston Manning to unite the right so he could face some opposition in the next election. [interesting to note though that many were contemplating a united right which would be led by Stephen Harper who was considered a social moderate due to his pro-choice positions and his opposition to social conservatism] If that's the case then most polticians if given the oppurtunity would attempt to obliterate their opposition. That's simply politics, the Liberals did the same thing when they called an early election in 2000 because they knew the Canadian Alliance would not be ready for it.

I find this one quite ironic since me and jdobbin are having a discussion about it.

Most of it was the left. For some reason I don't see people who find merit in competition over bureaucracy being against individuals having the chance to get faster healthcare delivery. Belinda Stronach. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...070914/20070914 I'm simply complaining when the federal government demonizes one province yet then is oddly silent for another simply because it can't elect a member in Alberta. I'm referencing the ads which attacked "big polluters" [aka. a certain resource rich province] while touting the benefits of welfare. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2000/11/23/elexn001123.html No need to. My party isn't foolish enough to suggest that gun violence in Toronto can be solved by targeting Ducks Unlimited.