shortlived

They aren't handouts they are money that is owed to them. If you lease your land to someone on conditions you expect those conditions to be fulfilled. understand you are standing on (or sitting on) native land right now. The british crown has no divine right to annex another peoples land. the legacy of conquest is not an ethical one, and treaty for land must be looked at from our ethical standards today. Illegal contract yesterday is still illegal contract. It is easier just to support cheating and robbing people, but people with higher moral standards won't accept those types of cultural legacies as acceptable. They aren't handouts, they are monies owed to first nations. owing someone money isn't the same as charity. It wasn't free land. It wasn't discovered. It was possessed before the English crown arrived in North America.

Absolute BS the british were the ones who instigated settler conflict in the area that was to become BC, they annexed native land by force, as well by trickery under false terms murder the chief of a band under the auspice of treaty negotiations. You know nothing about Bc history to make statements like that. The british invaded native land, annexed it and ignored native custom. you are utterly ignorant.

Let them have the mine it will solve two problems, first, it will put them to work, give them adequette shelter, and the key is just insuring their income is taxed property. Natives are just being abused, it was their title, and it was taken from them through unethical means. We don't need that mine. If they are going to make money from it they are going to operate it. I'm not saying DeBeers doesn't deserve to make money, but all this mining stuff is sh!ting on first nations. It is white interests that are effecting peoples lives. Just like ring of fire it will piss on attawapiskat which is in the path of runoff from the mega mine being developed north of Nakina. These resource operations should be done consensually on a lease term basis hammered out with first nations groups just going in there and ruining natives quality of life is unethical. I'm with the OPP on not interfering with legitimate protest to abuse of first nations groups. Also the article lies, the stuff ain't too heavy to fly it, it is too expensive and will compromise their profits cause it is cheaper to drive it in, there is a clear difference, and the Sun article is a deception. The government is just giving away land and subsurface rights... when in fact the government was suppose to hold in trust the land and provide fair value for the land, if companies are making millions off the land it wasn't exactly sold(read expropriated) for a fair price. Resource extactors of first nations lands have too good a deal, especially when they don't get a fair cut of proceeds off extraction and damages to adjoining lands, ecosystems and waterways. DeBeeers also has other options like sea delivery, or hovercraft, they just don't want to pay those prices. They could also set up a factor on site or alter their mining methods. I have to say it reflects poorly on the company to base its operations solely on access to a winter road. The same is true of other northern mining developments depending on a sole route of access to maintain safety of operations is just absurd. I can't understand why with advanced carbon alloy manufacture why such destructive open pit mining projects would exist in the first place. Oh and if it is true "multi-national monopoly held by DeBeers. They have warehouses in multiple countries filled to the ceiling with diamonds, but don't sell more than so many a year, to purposefully drive the price up and make more money." then why not use some of your strategic reserve instead of tearing up the planet for more warehouse space? It is just unneeded destructive process. Good business is good, however, society should weigh the need of ripping open and destroying an area the size of Toronto while there are billions of dollars of the resource stockpiled that would last for years, and this for a product that can be manufactured for less than the sale price artificially. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLoC8qIdsps

Where is the evidence? IMO if China wanted to attack places in Canada it could do so domestically within Canada through both technological agents and personnel already stationed in Canada. They would not need to attack from their capital. Chinese not stupid.

OK yes the government mandated that kids be taken away from their families even against their parents wishes, further they were penalized if they did not allow it. The program has many negative effects including spreading TB into various remote locations.... it was bad, yes the government knew of the issues and continued the program.. there were reports many times that fudged the situation. the program was unethical by todays standards and improperly administered with the intention none other than to force assimilation and turn natives into unskilled labourers. They were treated the same way or worse than delinquents and youth criminals for being aboriginal. Meanwhile elites sent their kids to boarding schools trained them to be professionals... see the difference, it was just racial and class warfare so prevalent of that misguided era in Canadian history. It wasn't sending them off to school, it was sending them off to a prison labour camp. Their culture wasn't broken. Mandatory schooling has improved a bit but it is still representative of government forcing a staus quo that will force people to be indoctrinated rather than free to live from the land. Is the sole reason is so that they can take advantage of people by providing them only enough information to be manipulated? It is all about social control.

NO THEY Can't. I know the rules. First off they have to provide notice, except in emergency sitautions. If you don't have their service then they cannot use your property without your permission. While in practice everyone is expected to be forced by utilities. People such as myself who do not have utility service, will enforce the trespass notice because they have no legitimate grounds to invade my property and privacy. Also bylaws may differ, but notice is expected else it is an invasion of privacy, unless it is an emergency situation. Only individuals such as fire officers are provincially delegated and none is federal, However if you give notice to the fire officer, they have to give notice (your local laws may differ) In my case I've looked into it and the letter of the law is very clear, no one has right to enter your property without notice unless it is an emergency. Secondarily if you do not have utility service they cannot enter your property -- however if there is already equipment on your property you can ask for it to be removed. The allowance of land use is problematic but it in those events does represent an infringement on your title. if you don't have utility services you can request a private companies equipment to be removed from your property. If not it is legally your property and you can remove it yourself if there are no specific laws granting it, but even then it is a form of an expropriation and unlawful limitation on title. Notice is required except for emergency situations. You are either being obtuse or pussy footing around the fact I stated if a prohibition notice is given, this means the notice is received. Posting an allowance only to yodel into your property would be sufficient prohibition to stop them from doing anything but yodeling. No trespassing YODEL ONLY ZONE, no right of entry no solicitors, do not disturb, trespassers will be prosecuted, notice from the owner of _____. No approach to house, DANGER, high voltage area, do not enter. No government agents, no creeps, no EI employees, no DEA, no vacume sales people, no anyone without express permission of the owner, this property is off limits, man eating shotgun on property beware of landmines. WARNING! Rusty nails and used condom pathway. Object that looks like door is really high power dc microwave transmission system. Cannibal rehab building. DO NOT TRESPASS |-UCKER! Rights of way aren't peoples property.. they are rights of way. easements do not denote "full rights to title" they are easements.

What changed? Apparently unemployment claims have gone up..

The fiscal crag is looming again... it is pretty clear they have been squeezing away the calamity http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/02/25/automatic-us-budget-cuts-could-force-some-philly-tourist-spots-to-shut-down/ Its not like its New Years eve.. but we are on another 4 day countdown... This is only 85 billion though... not a trillion... I could do 85 billion no problem, oh wait I did. as if NK would launch...

He elicits the idea that he is on a Xanax prescription in me.

-------- DUDE A PROHIBITION NOTICE CAN COME IN THE FORM OF A LETTER ALSO A sign posted in clear view is more than sufficient notice to make an arrest I said nothing about the police being called. You can be arrested after the fact, the corruption of police in dealing with various matters is completely secondary to the ability for an individual to arrest someone for trespassing on their property who has been served a prohibition notice. A fence is enough to make an arrest. The point here is that no government employees do not have divine right to trespass, not be fined, and not be arrested for trespass, and no there is no default right to investigate people or search their property without a search warrant. Those sorts of acts are just corrupt, illegal and unconstitutional conduct by government agencies. The point here is people do not have to submit to the violation of their privacy nor submit to unlawful search.

How much is their deficit this time? Wow they are going to stop over spending in their last term. I bet I could eliminate a deficit my last term too. Wow, lets over spend for 12 years and then only spend as much as we have left after paying debt interest and bonds... wow what a financial feat... lomg, talk about moronic promises. WHAT ABOUT THE DEBT YOU'VE ADDED 133% to. This GDP growth should be matched with debt accrued and the interest on debt to get a better idea.. 25 billion is 10% of government revenues... clearly government revnue is being lost by 10% / year meaning they have well more than a whole year of debt in terms of revenue and then even at 1% interest that is already 1% of government revenue reduced from their time in office for as long as the debt isn't paid off.. if that is 2% interest that is 2% of government revenue tied up in only their debt... add in past governments debts that is probably a good 10% of government revenue just servicing debt interest. That is 10 cents on every dollar the government spends is due to deficit spending. That is a lot of loss on your taxes, say you pay 10,000 on a year 1000$ of that is interet alone if not more. Eliminating the deficit is jus economic voodoo, if you spend 300 billion over your revenue in 10 years that is a whole year of savings tofind.

No, a prohibition notice in advance is sufficient, you don't need to double tell them, the telling them to leave part is only in the event of a prohibition notice not being given in advance. NOTICE THE OR?? NOT AND.. if you are given notice by the owner of a property not to go on the property and you do you can be arrested, like I said you are just being stupid. This doesn't have to be before, it can be in the form of a no trespass sign or a letter given 20 years in advance,

Apparently I hear a lot of what makes Trudeau is his world class team at mission control. Of most interest is Trudeau's link to power corp... Ted Johnson, although he has some big people in his corner. You really can't get a much higher administrative team of currents. I think if you look at who he is drawing as his supporters you will see that he has key people behind his campaign. He looks at home in the whitebrim too... http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.869863!/httpImage/image.jpeg_gen/derivatives/landscape_960/image.jpeg sorry for trolling with that pic... he looks like he could ride a bucker. I wonder what his reasons for refusing a one on one debate the Garneau were... Garneau might say Garneau told reporters at a press conference that Trudeau was "untested" and was hiding behind a "carefully crafted public relations campaign." Justin might say Trudeau tweeted: "I respect all the candidates for #LPCLdr. See you in Halifax, Marc. I hear there are 1 on 1s. ;-)".

No they can't if a prohibition notice is given read the TPA act ontario. Very few can without notice and/or permission, and that is generally reserved to only emergency situations, or in the case of utilities repair work. Government agents just can't walk onto your property to ask question for investigation if there is a tresspass prohibition notice prohibiting them access to your property. You may like to think they can, but legally they can't. You can arrest them if they enter your property and refuse to leave on your notice. Government agents don't have legal immunity for asking questions and any ingorance to that is just representative of green and blue wall corruption that destroys society. Entry to question someone requires a warrant, and they in the event of police questioning have right to counsel, and do not have to say anything. Trespass is illegal. In order to enter a property to investigate you need a warrant, in the event of a tresspass notice in form of a sign, spoken or written communication, including a trespass prohibition notice given in advance of attempted entry to the government. You are being stupid. An emergency is not the same as investigation. police officer, or the occupier of premises, or a person authorized by the occupier may arrest without warrant any person he or she believes on reasonable and probable grounds to be on the premises in contravention of section 2. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 9 (1). Trespass an offence 2. (1) Every person who is not acting under a right or authority conferred by law and who, (a) without the express permission of the occupier, the proof of which rests on the defendant, (i) enters on premises when entry is prohibited under this Act, or (ii) engages in an activity on premises when the activity is prohibited under this Act; or ( does not leave the premises immediately after he or she is directed to do so by the occupier of the premises or a person authorized by the occupier, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $2,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 2 (1).\ The only laws are in regard to emergency situations for police and firefighters, ---- inspection WITH NOTICE by fire marshals---- and possibly some bylaws from place to place. it requires a warrant, to investigate a property that a trespass notice exists for. It is trespass otherwise, as well as a violation of unreasonable search A police officer, believing a crime to be in progress may enter a property to stop the commission of an offence, a citizen may enter a property if an indictable offense is being committed to make an arrest. (however the issue still remains that the individuals may still be liable to charges, much like a police officer, if they arn't right or use force based on unreasonable grounds)

well except perhaps brazeau he's on team liberal. I notice however you say has been, do you mean has been or is?

There are no rules for order in the house of commons other than fancy. Parliamentary process is meant to allow due process (which includes fair facilitation of who has the speakers time). However in an equal and free society it does not facilitate censorship. Paper exists to as well as a plethora of communication methods. Sure 12 people can speak at once does that make people happy? does that further society? The speaker can choose to only listen to one of them or to communicate with, its not who is speaking that matters it is who the speaker and clerk is listening to. The point here is people can do what they want, but processes used by one person are those processes, people can choose to follow that persons view or not. We are all inviolable individuals. Our rights are upheld only as much as they are upheld. If 12 people can be put on record than there is no reason why 12 people shouldn't speak. That is what committees are generally for though. None the less I'll say whatever I want within my rights, the repercussions of that speech is mine to bear for myself whether they result in good or ill, the basis however is to further a good society. Temporality is not the end all. Meaning is far more important than words. People can do whatever they want, doing so without a look into the future would be a little imprudent however. It is a violent world people can get hurt or killed, in making the choice to stand you need to decide who you are willing to hurt and kill and what it will take for you to do that. Procedure is often abused in parliament rather than employed for public well being. They send paper to the senate. Woooo.

No I'm not confused at all you seem to be omitting there were multiple wars and violence within parliament, how is that for your constitution. It is natural law, the rest is civil conduct, its not you who sets that limit for me. Your views are those of a stooge. Everyone has freedom of choice. I can take down anything that stops that. God is supreme. That is no man. There are no limits on personal liberties other than ones willingness to be bound by those things. This is about nothing more than just and reasonable rule. No one not in parliament or the queen has divine right. Persons liberties in a free society are unbound. Those principles can not be drown by an ocean of ink nor many continents of paper. They cut off the kings head, there are no limits. Don't test me. This isn't a game. I know what I mean. You can bind yourself to someone elses view, it isn't mine, the speaker has no more right to speak than I , for I am the speaker. My house is the whole. Not you not the other. I'll say what I want if it is to further society. My choice is martial force to uphold, and I will do so to my last breath. If you want to die trying to stop me or kill someone else to censor then you are the problem. This is not suggesting unreasonable conduct but it is upholding every individuals right to set there own conduct within the laws of society. The law is unconstitutional if it restricts my right to free expression without a just and reasonable basis. This is a "no situation exists" basis. so applying rationale to censor is totally unjust. Oh, you cannot say a member has any rights another member of society does not have. The privileges in an equal society are free, the constitution does not protect parliamentary rights, rules and procedures, which in an equal society all people have equal access to. Uhm people have the right of conscience belief and opinion so your view is wrong they very much do have the right to express within the limits of the law which is constitutional in value. restricting constitional rights is not able to be done by the government of Canada. No member of the commons has the power to pass law, not the speaker not the prime minister.

One persons interferance is another persons expression. Procedure is not supravires to the constitution. You can defend your constitional rights to the death. If it is not against the law, you can do it. That is the bottom line. Anything other than that is fancy. This isn't about being unreasonable but it is about setting the limits of conduct as exists in the constitution, and the laws which are in place constitutionally. The only limit on constitutional rights is laws passed in parliament not the commons, based on principles of fundamental justice in accordance with good government. That's it. The rest is all mutual agreement, because people have the right to defend their rights to the full extent of the law that means repelling force with force and use of lethal force to prevent life or limb in required to insure security of person.

Its affairs cannot lawfully infringe the personal liberties enshrined in the constitution. Parliament is not above the constitution anymore that ended in 1982. Those rules and procedure cannot violate the constitution, and peoples constitutional rights. End of story. The federal government is prohibited from violating the constitution by policy, or general law. An individual has the choice to be bound by parliament but they are not legally required if it violates the constitution. Any physical attempt to deprive those liberties can meet force with force honourably in defence against assault or violation of security of person. It is the constitution you are uncanadian if you don't hold those values true and instead put your faith in past fancies that were put under just rule in 1982, as opposed to dictatorial rule that did not provide for a free and democratic society. You are just trumping the status quo and you are morally wrong. This just underpins the aspect of parliament not being free or democratic, in a society of supposed equals. You don't like it, someone dies. IF parliament does not base its own morality on that expected of society by the laws they pass how do they have moral authority.

I would set a priority on need and luxury. Then any luxury items we convert to renewable close system resources so they are sustainable. It isn't about oil being taken from the ground, it is about the destruction of the homeostatis of the environment, and risk to our health by petrochemicals, as well as the problem of petrochemicals for things like agriculture for plant growth. There are a lot of issues, but taking oil from the ground isn't the problem, except not really understanding if it does anything down there. It is what happens when it is taken from the ground from that point until the end of time. Oil isn't evil, the bad stuff oil does is, and oil ain't all bad, it just can't be abused. I would propose that government work with industry to provide alternatives by crown corporations that offer products that improve industrial practice or taxes to mitigate the damages to public health and space. If goods arn't within the need rationing in profitable industries than these industries should be expected to buy Canadian made alternatives, to mitigate and reduce the harm caused through industrial process, sold by the federal government, or be taxed for damages to health and environment. But this ain't about stopping oil it is about mitigating the damages that oil can cause if used simply for economic gain, the advantage of that gain at cost of all else is simply not acceptable. We need to transition from oil dependence, and to do this we must provide an alternative and to insure that abuse to society as a whole is not possible by environmental destruction and health damages at the hands of a small few who have tremendous gains while the rest are left to suffer at the hands of corporate greed directed toward pubic resources in the publics earth, and the publics collective resource legacy. The gain of those today at the hands of our future wellbeing is paramount of failure of the governments role as a social safety net that responsible government is suppose to be. Nothing less than greed and corruption by public figures living out partisan interests that amount to criminal conduct, that being directly harming the physical well being through pin pricks of environmental degredation. The key is infrastructure renewal, when infrastructure needs renewed it must be to enhance a transitioning to a new sustainabe economy based on Canadian self provisioning and regional supply on a renewable basis. I say put the unemployed to work, and have those who have benefited off corruption and abuse pay into that work from their proceeds of crime and economic greed. All business ain't bad but the business of facilitating unemployment and poverty in a system that is locked down on big oil is just plain diabolic, and should go down in infamy. It just ain't oil oil just has a bad rap, it is largely the military industrial complex, we need to transition that to renewable resource, and to do that we have to put the military to work on renewable resource development, especially in remote areas, and we need to put the exiles from our society to work in remote areas developing renewable resources rather than have them eat up tax payer funds in jail, and to give them a chance to earn money to support themselves once their restitution orders have been paid, rather than living off dokey. It is really the issue of pubic resource and public space destruction, that is what must be mitigated, and that is why environmental tax or investment into reducing environmental damages to public space and health are mitigated. We need to provide an impetus to change, not just take money from the industries to spend on more unneeded programs and lining the pockets of party allies. It is a paradigm shift that was needed before these problem began. It won't happen with a continuation of the past, destructive revolution will bring us no where other than destruction, we must stand united and educate and move soceity not to hardship but to badly needed change for a better tomorrow one where we are not dependent on destroying our environment, and one that oil industry is clean industry. Just like the rest when they get there too. To insure trade equality foreign corporations would have the same options on imports to Canada, either paying the tax or investing in industry in Canada to reduce harm the public space and health caused by the products introduced to Canada. some of that money, the remainder after lifetime damages within canada are assessed, can go to foreign aid for environmental improvement in the origin countries through direct investment in those programs by the government of Canada should the host country agree to it. The other part is suing industry who contributes to physical harm and indirect damages for communal benefit of public space. but that is much like suing tobacco companies, we aren't even smokers of industry and we are being harmed, that is far worse than lighting a cigarette and getting cancer imo. If we inplace protection to insure that industry isn't about making money but instead about need, but allowing luxury if it doesn't kill random people and lowe rtheir quality of life by pissing industrial waste into our water supply and food source. If industry functions for the public good, then there is no problem, but if we are being raped and abused for the purpose of greed and lust, they should burn. Corporations have a social responsibility, and the problem is a system of political corruption. We must get rid of the idiots and corrupt people in government. In democratic soceity that is the choice. I am no king by tryranny and my view is only my view. Change must come from many individuals as one. We all die. I'm not concerned. Life isn't about biology, but a principle and moral humanity is something that pervades in purpose in life. Its not what you do but why you do it, and if that is to help a good society that is moral, if it is about your own interests, without mind of the greater whole, then it is not. If we have that in mind, the question should only be to educate one another on the merits of a course of action. Life ain't all good. It is your choice what you do with the oil, it is your choice if you extract it. Just like I have that choice too. The big picture helps. I don't see all, I don't know all for I am only human, I do what I think is right, and that is all I expect from you. My prayer in life in communion with god is that my soul asks for atonement and for good to fullfill itself on earth. That is what my heart speaks even if consumed by my life's own endeavors. I'm not a martyr but I will balance the effects of my actions if they are shown to me. I can't see what I am not shown. My hope is that god guides me so that I can see it, and I have no doubt my conscience will rest on that. That doen't mean closing my eyes because I know the view is coming it means being ready to bring that into my being so I can do what good I can to help gods mission in improving life for humanity. I won't claim to see the big picture but I will claim to have seen the back of it.

It is just a means to silence on cultural grounds. If the person is within the law, they should not be silenced in a free society. The westminister system's parliamentary censoring violates the constitution, since the federal government cannot deprive constitutional rights, any constitutional aspect is thus null if it violates the principles of the constitution. " Disruptive behaviour would be by reasonable decorum. The principles of parliamentary rules are to not limit discourse and discovery. The proper process is to bring the member to the bar of parliament not to censor them, members of parliament cannot be suspended, by convention suspended members have continued to sit, but can be fined for doing so, and in that event the fine would be illegal because it is unconstitutional. The role of parliament is for dialogue not for tyranny. People have a recourse to assault and "harassment" but if it does not meet the criminal grounds it is political and corrupt. the basis however is that parliament has grounds to bring to the bar a member for crminal conduct within the house but they could still appeal to the queen or courts as applicable. harassment is 264. (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them. ..repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them; That is what megaphones are for, if it ain't assault it ain't too loud. What do they pay the interpreters and sound system people for? get better headphones dolts. Also both semifore and sign language exist. we can't allow political freedom and free speech, this is canada afterall....

Pumping out more people doesn't negate the vast majority of people who get cancer in their lifetime or respitory issues like asthma. The quality of life is not equal to length of life, you can live a long time and have a really crappy place to live, it doesn't make your life any better. People whose rivers and lakes have been polluted with toxic chemicals poisoning their wildlfe and land havn't benefited from the industry. We could have the same good stuff without a fossil fueled based economy. Your point is absurd and one with blinders on. As said there are alternatives to fossil fuels people just like making money off it because rich people like being rich, the poor get nothing but pain and misery at the hands of capitalist pigs who are all about themselves.

I like mexico except being robbed there. It would be nice to compare the growth figures with inflation and see if the infaltionary rate for the period was 1% or higher. If inflation was about 1.5% relative growth was only like 0.5% on the year. If the US dollar value goes up higher than the canadian dollar canadian assets will also depreciate in terms of GDP, meaning it will go down further, this assuming a us dollar gain on the canadian dollar.......... that 0.5% gdp growth will float away on exchange rate alone.

If I'm not mistaken there is already a treaty between the 'Inuit' inualivut or what have you and the province of Quebec there as far as I am aware arrangements between the federal government Quebec and Ungava Inuit corporation that oversees commerce in the area. What money are you talking about? It might be ethical to provide benefits to inuit who contest the treaty with a portion of any crown proceeds provided they do not partake in ungava group's programs. and/or provide a per capita land title allotment from lands taken from the treaty on an individual basis matched with traditional land use, and hunting rights to the totality of the land. the question was about money, but money is just paper, it isn't land, and it isn't goods, 5$ here is 2$ there, its not the same. A million dollars in a remote location doesn't buy you as much as a million dollars in a city. When a carton of milk is $10 and a pack of icecream is $20, it is just a whole different economy. People who don't agree to the treaty need to be taken care of and their portion of the land given back to them legally. This majority binds stuff or the cheif binds is totally contradictory to modern contract law. Although I think we all have equal entitlement to land, I think we should agree mutually on destructive land uses. Expropriation of land for non public health and safety concerns is morally wrong.

PS there was a backdrop to the program that everyone pays for basic coverage for those in poverty. If everyone drops off, so what, they are still paying for the poor. if you aren't in poverty you have money. aren't getting a good deal, you'll die anyway the only difference Is you are leaving everyone else with debt and interest. that's why there is a death tax if you don't pay off your personal share of the debt to on a per capita basis (with hardship considerations for next of kin) If they want a private plan give them a private plan. The baseline is that we need to both raise people out of poverty by employing them so they can pay their own way, as well as insure they are taken care of for health and safety considerations while in poverty, provided they oblige the work program. Part of being a humane society is not leaving people on the curb to resort to crime and torment. Yes people can pay for the 10-20% who cannot pay first by taxing the medical industry and secondarily having people pay a medical poverty tax for people who are taking part in the work program or who are medically incapable of participating in the work program. The fee would be split between the family portion and the social portion, with the medical industry required to pay a medical charity portion for medical imports and medical services and production for domestic use. but only direct cost of medicare, an option for private insurance, and it totally scrapped from income taxes and general revenue and transfers. Medicare needs to have insurance considerations for lifestyle as a prompt for people not to neglect their health, and to see the cost of health, but it isn't program or no program it is private insurance or pubic insurance to choose between, either that or risksing no coverage, which technically is not an advantage, I don't like mandatory anything but technically speaking I think a court order should be required to exempt oneself from insurance, a little like car insurance. I don't think it should be needed but people should be able to demonstrate they have the assets to pay in absence of an insurance plan a certain amount of savings, owning a house stock etc.. to allow them to be exempt, and a deposit that is automatically applied to health insurance on prearrangement in event of financial asset limit loss.