Saturn

I wonder if we will hear more complaints about the size of the test sample. No, but expect complaints about misrepresentation of the poll resutls from the left-wing media (Edmonton Sun).

Here is an interesting article on the costs of tax cuts: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/06/...ternatives.html

Reported to moderator. Let's have some of your thoughts:

Thanks for the insight but some of us work better with deadlines. I guess I should have asked: Do we have a deadline for this apparent homework assignment? Yes, 2050. Coincidentally, Harper and Rona will most likely be dead by then and so will most of us.

Yes, it is clearly bad. You can't say a system works well when it takes 10 hours to have a basic broken arm or wrist set in a hospital. It takes far too long for cancer treatment, far too long to even get in to see a specialist before the treatment. It takes far too long for diagnostic tests, and far too long for basic operations. Get used to it? I don't choose to. Why should Canadians get used to it when those in other countries do not face such waits? It takes so long because we don't have enough people to perform these procedures. If we have a private system, how exactly is the number of doctors going to increase? We have 50,000 doctors and that's it. Public or private, that number is not going to go up. Or do you intend to let anyone off the street be a doctor in a private system?

Why was the country rich enough in the past and not now ? i don't think there was nearly as much programs back then, maybe they were better with money... I don't know. If canadian health care won't follow that idealism for a two-tiered set up then some guy who can't afford health care is in trouble as the better more skilled doctors/professionals gravitate towards the better paying private sector, no there needs to be regulations in this so that the doctors get paid a set wage (which is already a nice chunk of change) health gets delivered, and wait times reduced. It all comes down to the medical associations who do everything in their power (and they have a lot of power) to keep the number of health practitioners down to a minimum. Like everything else it's a question of supply and demand and since they cannot affect demand (demand is going up as it is with our aging population) the key to charging rediculous prices for their services is to keep the supply of health care professionals at the lowest level possible. In the meantime we have several thousand doctors washing dishes and driving cabs but they cannot be allowed to practise because that would lower the current doctors's wages and we all know that they can't possibly make ends meet with less than $400K/year. It is an artificially created crisis for the benefit of doctors (who expect a good raise when the system is privatised) and private investors and insurance companies (who expect to make $50 billion or so a year from a private system). My goodness. you are the most obvious socialist on this site. EVERYONE of the people who took medicine that I knew when I was in school has went to the US and stayed there. That was nurses and Dr's. Perhaps we could try to keep our own Dr's here before we try to have a guy trained in medicine who trained at the U of Mozambique qualified to do surgery here? But you're right - it's all the greedy Dr's fault. It is. In Canada we have fewer residency spots (you need to go through a 3-year residency program at a hospital to become a doctor) than the number of medical students graduating in the country. So, 1,500 students graduate and only 1,200 can train to become doctors. The rest can wash dishes or go to the US and practice medicine. The same goes for foreign doctors. They pass their medical exams (which puts them at par with a canadian graduate) but they can't get into the residency programs. So they go to the US. The proportion of immigrant health care professionals who leave Canada within 5 years of arrival is 3 times higher than the proportion of computer programmers who leave Canada, which is 3 times higher than immigrants in any other field of work. So we let them come here, pass the medical exams and then we ship them directly to the US to take care of american patients. And we wait 8 months to see a dermatologist. Aren't we bright!

That's garbage, the reason they can't practice here is because they don't meet Canadian medical educational standards, depending on where the immigrant comes from, their foreign education may be of lower quality than education obtained in Canada. The title degree of an educational program mighjt be the same, but is worth less in Canada. I don't agree with lowering our standards in order to accommodate foreign medical workers. I wouldn't be averse to a program which allows an MD from another country to retrain or work as an intern for a year so, prior to sitting an exam. Possibly free of charge if they promise to practice in remote areas for a min. period of time. In fact, I think the Ontario gov't was talking about such a program at one time. They also need to increase the spots in Universities for Canadian students. What you are saying is garbage, because you can't argue that US or European doctors are any worse than Canadian doctors and they are still not allowed to practice in Canada. Even Canadians who graduated and got their licence in the US cannot practice in Canada. What the heck - even doctors from one province cannot practice in another without going through a bunch of hoops. That's plain dumb. Ensuring doctors meet licencing standards is "dumb"? Tell ya what, I'm all for people like you going on a voluntary list of those willing to be treated by any immigrant who calls himself a doctor. All of you and your families will be seen by immigrant doctors whose credentials and training are unknown and abilities unproved. I'm sure you won't mind. I'll definitely take a doctor who is a specialist in the US (and Canadian btw). But the Ontario medical association won't take her despite the fact that the Hospital for Sick Childen in TO is begging them do let her practise because the hospital does not expect anyone with her credentials to even apply for the possition in the next 2 years and the hospital badly needs neonatal specialists right now (there has been a great shortage in years). But the medical association thinks it's much better to fly the sick babies to New York, where that same person will take care of them, than to have her work in Canada. So, no, I definitely wouldn't mind her taking care of my child - I'd just prefer that she does it here not in New York.

Why was the country rich enough in the past and not now ? i don't think there was nearly as much programs back then, maybe they were better with money... I don't know. If canadian health care won't follow that idealism for a two-tiered set up then some guy who can't afford health care is in trouble as the better more skilled doctors/professionals gravitate towards the better paying private sector, no there needs to be regulations in this so that the doctors get paid a set wage (which is already a nice chunk of change) health gets delivered, and wait times reduced. It all comes down to the medical associations who do everything in their power (and they have a lot of power) to keep the number of health practitioners down to a minimum. Like everything else it's a question of supply and demand and since they cannot affect demand (demand is going up as it is with our aging population) the key to charging rediculous prices for their services is to keep the supply of health care professionals at the lowest level possible. In the meantime we have several thousand doctors washing dishes and driving cabs but they cannot be allowed to practise because that would lower the current doctors's wages and we all know that they can't possibly make ends meet with less than $400K/year. It is an artificially created crisis for the benefit of doctors (who expect a good raise when the system is privatised) and private investors and insurance companies (who expect to make $50 billion or so a year from a private system).

Why was the country rich enough in the past and not now ? Because we let people into our country who used medical services more than they paid in. Ponder these two points. Please take the time to read them: 1- 50,000 people with Canadian ID's were living in Lebanon as Canadians were amazed to learn. Most were from Montreal. Under our laws, they are allowed to come here to get a medical procedure. Even if they never paid into the system or have leved in Canada for less than a year or never paid taxes. Suppose 1% need a medical procedure each year. That is 500 medical procedures each year. Most of these people lived in Montreal. So lets say that's 350 surgeries a year. Thus, the system gets clogged with one surgery patient a day from people that aren't even living in the country. Multiply this with all the other countries where people are living and are not paying taxes. 2 - A co-worker arrived with his brother from Syria 5 years ago. He was 22 years old. He used services and took a student loan and went to University. Got out 4 years later and at 27 he got his first job with me as a team mate. He was in poor healtch and came here with knee problems. Syria he said 'leaves you to die'. It was amusing hearing him call Canadians 'forgiegners'. But that's another topic. He basically waiting 9 months or so and got a knee surgery. He was always getting xrays and such. Then after the surgey, he was in physio therepy for 6 months. He complained that his knee joint was still sometimes achning and is pusing for another surgery. I estimated in total, Canadian tax payers, as a gross, total most likely spent $50,000 to $100,000 on all his medical attention while he has done nothing but use services from our country. He held his job for 1 year and is now unemployed using more gov't services. -- I can tell many more stories like this but i'm trying to cut this short. I am very close the immigrant circle in my personal life TRUST ME. I see first hand what happens. How a Pakistani down the street from me brought in his mother and skipped the queue to get a catorach eye surgery in less than a month of her ariving in Canada (ninja head scarf and all). He used his Pakistani medical connections in our system. I felt like contacting the media over this. Our system DOES work if it's only intended for born Canadians or for people that have paid into it for 20 years, it DOES NOT work when we open our doors internationally to 300,000 people a year, most of which are family sponsored, with elderly, sick, ailing, etc. who use our precious healthcare system. Now, we have 8 month waiting lists with poeple DYING on them all the time just so the Liberal party could create a political fanchinse within our country and we can be 'fair' to 'everyone'. Oh, there we go...it's all the evil immigrants that cause all your problems. Pfff.

This is such a pile of nonsense that it's not worth responding to.

That's garbage, the reason they can't practice here is because they don't meet Canadian medical educational standards, depending on where the immigrant comes from, their foreign education may be of lower quality than education obtained in Canada. The title degree of an educational program mighjt be the same, but is worth less in Canada. I don't agree with lowering our standards in order to accommodate foreign medical workers. I wouldn't be averse to a program which allows an MD from another country to retrain or work as an intern for a year so, prior to sitting an exam. Possibly free of charge if they promise to practice in remote areas for a min. period of time. In fact, I think the Ontario gov't was talking about such a program at one time. They also need to increase the spots in Universities for Canadian students. What you are saying is garbage, because you can't argue that US or European doctors are any worse than Canadian doctors and they are still not allowed to practice in Canada. Even Canadians who graduated and got their licence in the US cannot practice in Canada. What the heck - even doctors from one province cannot practice in another without going through a bunch of hoops. That's plain dumb.

You are kidding, right? Harper and democracy do not belong in the same sentence. Democracy does not include wasting our money on an issue that's been decided long ago and whipping his caucus to vote a certain way on all issues that are currently being decided.

No, they shouldn't. If tomorrow they decide that their beliefs dictate that white Jewish women should not be allowed to vote, would you let them do it? Ok, you perhaps would but I don't care for your sexist, racist views, so it's just not going to happen. It's not up to the majority to take away the rights of minorities.

There we go again making up numbers as we go. Transportation actually accounts for 25% of GHG emissions vs 19% for oil and gas production (that's higher in 2006 and probably exceeding transportation at this point). http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.ns...060901xe06.html

I guess the eliminates my wife, an ICU nurse, her father, a lawyer with the Law Society, her mother, a RN and her sister, a Master's graduate from McGill in Physics. I'll tell them they'll have to get back on the boat to London because they are taking some Canadian's job. They are a distinct minority among immigrants and you know it. You want to see where immigrants are? Call a taxi or go into your nearest welfare office or public housing project. Ya, if you called a taxi you'd get an immigrant doctor behind the wheel because of xenophobes like you who would rather wait 8 months to see a doctor than be touched by a man of colour.

The market has a wonderful way of self correcting. If and when this happens the standard of living and wages in this country will drop until it is "competitive" with other countries. That would allow us to establish a new equilibrium where the standard of living everyone is about equal everywhere and the jobs are distributed randomly across countries. The argument that free traders make is the pie grows bigger so we don't need to worry about a drop in standard of living. Consider the following numbers:Today: Developing World: 20, Industrialized World: 100, Pie = 120 Future: Developing World: 60, Industrialized World: 80, Pie = 140 As you can see, this scenario shows that it is possible for the pie to get bigger but the share of that pie which industrialized countries enjoy actually drops. There is nothing in free trade theory that says the pie will always grow fast enough to ensure entire countries will never end up losers. In fact. most free trade opponents will acknowledge that some people always end up poorer because of free trade - they just refuse to acknowledge that the group of people who end up losing from free trade could easily represent 50-60% of the population of Canada. What you need to note here though is that the pie always gets bigger for multi-national companies. It is the same corporations who run manufacturing in China as in North America. To them it doesn't matter that the relative share of NA drops aganst China's share. All that matters is that the pie gets bigger because they get the same proportion of the total pie. Of course they will always argue that whatever is good for them is good for north americans too. Do you expect them to say it isn't?

I think you are mixing cause and effect, if there was a significant demand for the US products then the consumers would demand that procedures be expidited. If the Canadian govenment tried to do the same with Japanese imports they would find the biggest complainers would be Canadians that want to buy Japanese vehicles. The reality is, the big three can only sell product in NA because they sell it cheap compared to the imports. If the big three want to sell to into Japan and Korea then they would have to sell them on price - an extremely difficult thing to do given the wages and benefits demanded by CAW workers in NA. For that reason, if I was an executive at the big three, I would not waste my time trying to get product built in North America shipped to Japan. I would set up a new factory in China and ship the product from there. In fact, that is what I believe the big three are doing already. The reality is that NA cars are gas guzzling monstrocities of poor quality and nobody wants them. Toyota builds cars right here in Ontario and pays it's workers just as much as the NA three. The materials are the same, the workers are the same, their pay is the same and the cars cost the same. The difference is that consumers buy Toyotas like hot cakes and the NA3 cars sit in the dealership lots. The key is that Toyota is spending far more in it's engineering department than the NA three. The NA three are spending far more money on lawyers and lobbyists to fight environmental standards and public transportation instead of on designing and building cars that consumers want. And then they blame their workers for it as if the guys in the factory design who design those lemons.

LOL!!! And the Europeans emit less GHGs because they use diesel, which doesn't produce GHGs. LOL! Anti-environmentalists just shine with their brilliance.

Lol!!! Where on earth do you live??? Hehehehe.. Go do your research. Go check your head. There are far more white immigrants in this country than visible minorities. Immigrants are overall better educated than the Canadian born population and our economy needs them. Immigration provides a steady inflow of grown educated people, who didn't cost us a penny to raise and educate. Without them our population and our economy will be shrinking substantially. The fact that you are picking on immigrants and on non-white immigrants in particular shows that you are a racist xenophobe and gives your argument no substance whatsoever.

I don't know, that's why I'm asking geoffrey, he's an Albertan and I'm not. In terms of policies, I have no idea what would please Albertans and Torontonians at the same time. I would, however, as a start, take Howard Dean's advice and not concede any province or riding. The Liberals should certainly campaign hard in Alberta and ask Albertans for their vote. They may or may not get it, but I agree that it's a sign of respect to ask. If they don't even bother to put forth an effort to campaign in Alberta, it's no wonder they aren't going to vote Liberal. I imagine that doing otherwise would only make Albertans feel forgotten, like their vote doesn't matter....am I right? Of course you are right. But IMO there is nothing the Liberals can do to change the way Albertans feel. The Liberals have put a lot of effort to reach out to the west. That's why landslide Annie was the # 2 person in Martin's cabinet and a top cabinet minister in all of Chretien's cabinets. That's why when the oil industry asked Martin to get the federal government out of the oil business, he sold our stake in PetroCanada. Alberta asked that Kyoto gets put on the backburner - that's what the liberals did. That's why Martin gave billions to the beef industry in Alberta and why he and every other federal and provincial politician were eating mad cow beef in front of the cameras. Did Albertans show any sign of appreciation for any of these things? Not to my knowledge, quite the contrary - they want to separate more than ever and nothing would make them happier than to see the "eastern basterds freezing in the dark". No matter how much effort the liberals (or the NDP) put into campaigning in Alberta they will never get any recognition for it - they never have, they never will. IMO, the Liberals couldn't have gotten any seats in Alberta even if they had elected Ralph Klein to lead them.

There are no large areas with 30% visible minorities in Canada. Your racist, xenophobic views are exacly why there are 100 degrees of separation between you and ROC. And what, are you native to complain about immigration?

I just edited my post as you were posting. What I meant is that Kennedy might not be able to gain seats outside of Edmonton, but he should at least try. I think it's more important to reach out to Albertans, and show them that they aren't forgotten, even if that doesn't translate into seats. Of course it is highly desirable to reach out to everyone but do you have any suggestions on how to reach out to Albertans without having your hand bit off?

As someone pointed out earlier, you would rather drink poison than vote for any party other than the Conservatives. Martin put so much effort in appeasing Alberta that he just broke his neck banging his head against the "western alienation" wall. Dion is smart enough to realize that no matter what he does, he can never expect any kind of positive return on effort in Alberta. Either way you are not going to be happy, so it's your own fault that you are so rigid in your opinions that you've pulled yourself out of the game altogether.

Not at all really. Shows your disconnect with your fellow citizens to say something that ridiculous. You know nothing about Alberta, or BC. This is nothing but a completely rediculous comment. My very obvious point was that there are 40 seats in Toronto - none of them conservative (as many seats as Alberta and Saskatchewan combined) and just because there are conservative seats ourside that area, does not mean that they have representation in TO. What matters are people, not area, and TO happens to have as many people as Alberta and Saskatchewan combined. They have seats in Langley, Burnaby, Delta, White Rock, Port Moody/Port Coquitlam, Maple Ridge... ect. ect. They have more seats in the GVA than any other party actually (not a plurality though). So what exactly are you talking about? Montreal does not have the population of Alberta. It's a serious concern yes, but they are part of that distinct nation right? So ya, they've got representation there. There is no Liberal within 700km of Calgary and further from Edmonton. That's a bit of a problem. Pretending to not see the obvioius again? Then memorize this: Unpopulated land doesn't matter - people do. Montreal does have as many people as Alberta and the conservatives didn't get a single seat anywhere near Montreal. 700 km doesn't mean anything in a country with such uneven distirbution of the population. There isn't a single conservative seat within 1000 miles of Resolute but you ain't mentioning that. In the suburbs, yes. If you count places like Burlington as the GTA then fine. But what about Toronto (& even surrounding areas like Mississauga & brampton)? There's what, 2 and a half million in Toronto alone? Oshawa isn't far. Do that many live in just Toronto? By population, who holds the most representation in Southern Ontario? Would be interesting to figure out, I'm a little too tired and not interested in doing so though. If you want to play that game, then the Liberals aren't represented in rural/suburban Ontario as much as the CPC isn't in Toronto. That's just ridiculous. Look at the map! Every single riding which is entirely urban is red or orange - all cities of over 100,000 are red and orange - in order of population: Toronto, Ottawa, Mississauga, Hamilton, London, Windsor, Kitchener-Waterloo, Thunder Bay, Brantford, Kingston. The only exeption is Oshawa and since you are too lazy to find out why let me tell you why: Because some 30% of NDP voters went and voted strategically for the Liberals to avoid sending a conservative MP to Ottawa - a pretty bad choice because if only a third of them had voted for their first choice the riding would have been held by the NDP (by voting strategically they got exactly what they were trying to avoid - just another fluke due to our retarded voting system). By population the Conservatives hold a mere 20% of the seats in Ontario. All that blue in the map is huge unpopulated areas. It's the poorly-educated, rural, and aging population that cares more about gay marriage than the future of the country. No doubt. But here's the deal. Toronto represents immigrant urban. Alberta represents: immigrant urban (Edmonton/Calgary), white urban (Calgary/Edmonton), lots and lots of white suburban, and considerable rural. And the Liberals can't even convince one riding. That's trouble. I can understand why the CPC doesn't appeal to blacks in inner city Toronto. But I can't understand the Liberals happy acceptance of not being able to be elected no matter the demographic in Alberta. The fact that they just give up and say oh well shows why we really need not bother with Liberal governments from an Alberta perspective. They have no interest in gaining seats here... though I'll tell you it's alot easier for them to do so then they think. Great point! Using racist remarks/analysis to support your point is exacly why your views are not respected in this part of the country.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. I have yet to hear Stephane Dion admit that he's learned any lesson at all. Has he ever said that he was part of a government that created adscam or did nothing about the environment? You'll have to wait along time before Stephane Dion will admit to any mistake and it's not because he's partisan, it's because he truly thinks he's right. English-Canadians are going to get to know Dion soon and his pretentious ways. It's no surprise that he had the support of not one cabinet colleague and very few fellow caucus members. Harper at least has shown an ability to change his mind. There's something of the village curé in Dion. He's no snob but he can be inflexible, dogmatic, irritatingly pretentious and even small-minded. Ask Thomas Mulcair. ---- And Saturn you are welcome to be partisan and defend an opinion but would you please knock off the "You're a bigger idiot" type comments. You may disagree with Conservatives but they're not idiots. "Has he ever said that he was part of a government that created adscam or did nothing about the environment?" First of all, admitting a mistake never gets you anywhere in politics. If anything, the voters reward dishonesty and punish those who are trying to be honest. Chretien would have swept the sponsorship scandal under the carpet, just like he did with all his other scandals, and he would have gotten another majority as a reward (like he did after sweeping his other scandals under the carpet). Martin (the naive fool) took responsibility, tried to set things straight and do the right thing and consequently got slaughtered for Chretien's mess even though he took no part in it. Neither did Dion. Secondly, Dion was part of a government that did little on the environment (but at least they did something) but so were landslide Annie, Ralph Goodale and Martin who was obsessed with appeasing Alberta as if that was going to get him anywhere. Ralph and Martin had the wallet and they did not give Dion the necessary resources to deal with GHGs. Dion's hands are no longer tied. "He's no snob but he can be inflexible, dogmatic, irritatingly pretentious and even small-minded. Ask Thomas Mulcair." It's funny that you describe Dion this way because this description fits Harper perfectly. On top of that Harper is a snob and an arrogant one at that. Ask Preston Manning. I'm not sure what you mean by "You're a bigger idiot" type comments. I never said you were an idiot.