segnosaur

True , but statictically almost the same. Unreported went to 34% from 31%. Not really sure if you can say that its "statistically" almost the same. Overall percentage increased by 3%, but it actually works out to a 10% increase from period to period. (Plus, those figures were from a few years ago... we don't know what they are now.) In a way it did. The statistics reflect cases where the arrest was the most serious charge a person faced, Yes, I did notice that particular statement. That's why, when I was discussing the situation, I mentioned that a drug arrest might be part of an arrest for petty theft (as an example). The drug arrest would be considered the more serious charge, but the person would still have been arrested/charged anyways for the lesser crime if the drug law did not exist. (I'm going on the assumption that petty theft would be considered the 'lesser charge' here.)

Hey, maybe with that ability to mime things, you can get a show on CBC TV.

Oh I'm sorry,I forgot how much American programing helps to educate its viewers about Canada. We already have something that helps educate Canadians about Canada... its called school. Perhaps you might have heard of it. (And here's a little hint... fictional shows appearing on networks are not "educating viewers about Canada (or any country really)". They are entertainment. Thanks to the CBC. No, thanks to the various cultural traditions, both shared among all Canadians and unique amongst all sub-groups, that manages to keep us distinct. Heck, look at the U.S.... an urban New Yorker is about as different from a rural Alabama resident as they are from a Torontonian. Both the New Yorker and Alabamian even live in the same country, yet magically they've managed to retain their own sub-culture. You see, what you have done is engaged in a false appeal from authority. McCulloch and McDonald may be fine comedic talents, but there is no reason to believe they would have any more knowledge about history, etc. than others. Of course, I could point out that: - The comedy network (the one most likely to have hosted their show) didn't even exist in the mid-90s (Launched in 1997) - Ironic that they would claim that their show wouldn't get picked up by cable, considering their show was carried on HBO in the US - There show, while produced in Canada, did very little to "illustrate Canada". Yes it was good sketch comedy, but for most of the sketches people probably couldn't tell if it was produced in the U.S. or Canada. Yet early on you talked about CBC "educating us about Canada"... well, where was the education there?

2 comments about the article.... - The article sounds more like a pro-drug legalization article than one dealing with public safety. - The article also claims we have a 'falling crime rate'. That may not necessarily be accurate. The reported crime rate may be decreasing, but there have been increases in unreported crimes (reported via surveys conducted by statistics Canada.) The article itself touches on part of the problem (for example, mentioning violent crime) without getting deep enough into the subject There probably is enough crime to keep the police more than busy enough, even if we did legalize drugs. Edited to add: While the article mentions increases in drug arrests, keep in mind that not all of those arrests are just for drug position. A person might have been arrested for (for example) petty theft (something that people should be arrested for, even if it is a minor crime), and the drugs were found following the arrest. Sadly, the article doesn't mention how many cases are made where drug possession is the only charge that is made.

Note: I said I didn't want to play the 'bias' game... but here is an example: "There is not a great cultural culture, if you allow me the expression, among the Conservatives" - Daniel Lessard, CBC Radio bureau chief, following a conservative election victory. (He has since gone on to apologize for the remarks.)

Not only that, we're not even sure what they accounted as being part of the summit cost, and what they didn't. It seems that here, we included everything as part of the summit cost. That's quote possible too. Of course, I'm not necessarily discounting the possibility that there was some waste. Its inevitable when you get a project as big as the G8/G20 summit. I just get annoyed when people jump in with the whole "OMG! Billion dollars wasted!" rhetoric. Lets try to actually put some perspective on things, shall we?

You are, of course, making the rather incorrect assumption that the U.S. and its media is some monolithic organization dedicated to "subverting Canada". The fact is, despite complaints of media consolidation, is far from coherent in any sort of messages. You can find opinions in the U.S. running across a wide political spectrum. And yes, we may partake in many forms of American entertainment, but frankly I think there are more than enough cultural differences to keep the 2 countries separate. And if nobody ever watches that Comedy? Of course, you're also making the rather unsupported assumption that without the CBC those comedy writers/actors will be out of work. The fact is, there have been many shows on other networks (Corner Gas, Due South, Red Green, etc.) And if Rick Mercer or the '22 minutes' group wasn't appearing on CBC, there's a good chance they would find a home on either another broadcast network, or on Cable. Not necessarily sensitive with me... I'm more concerned with the financial costs.

A jesus christ on a pogo stick... not this bunk again. Yes, the summit was expensive, but guess what? all summits are. The G8 summit held roughly a decade earlier (when Chretien was P.M.) had similar costs (when you factored in the length of the conference, the number of attendees, and inflation.) And the reason the summits in places like the U.S. are so much cheaper is because the U.S. spends more on its military on a daily basis that the added cost of security is minimal. From: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/828308--g20-canada-s-billion-dollar-summit-mystery: Summit expert John Kirton at the U of T, who helped produce the report on summit expenses, says the projected Canadian costs are reasonable....He said the estimated costs for last year’s G20 meetings in Pittsburgh and London do not reflect the higher investment the U.S. and Britain make in day-to-day military security compared with Canada. “There are military bases everywhere in the United States,” he said. “Americans pay for it everyday. It’s billed to the Pentagon.” They have to hold the conference in cities that have the facilities to handle it. That means having enough hotels (for the delegations and the media) and airport capacity to handle the influx. Cannes is a tourist destination. It has a nearby airport and plenty of hotel space. Actually very little was spent on the lake. (I believe it was only a few thousand.) There had been early reports that it cost $2 million. However, the 'lake' was actually part of the media center, and the often-quoted price of $2 million was actually for the entire center. The lake was a small part of it, and was basically an 'interior decorating' decision. Yeah, may sound a bit silly, but unless you wanted everyone to be confined to an empty room, some sort of interior design was necessary.

Could be. Show us where that was said . It was mentioned in the first 10 seconds of the intro. From the clip: "The weather in Toronto is stormy today, with heavy winds, thunderstorms, and a 100% of four years of Rob Ford. The Penny pinching councilman stormed the city elections last night when he walked away with nearly half the votes". Again, nothing that I see as terribly biased. Heck, given his calls to cut costs, calling him "Penny pinching" is something he might almost call a compliment.

I listened to that clip... to be honest, I don't really think it is an example of liberal bias. (And remember, this is coming from someone who thinks the CBC should be privatized or eliminated.) I saw the 'four year storm' as simply a statement that his expected leadership will take a different tone than previous municipal terms. (I'm not from Toronto, but didn't Ford campaign on the subject of "shaking things up"?) Many of the other things that were talked about in the interview (such as repeated challenges to specify "where will cuts be made") were what I would consider "good journalism". (I would certainly hope that they applied the same resolution when interviewing previous mayors.) It may have been a bit questionable to call him while he was distracted by his coaching duties, but I can't say for sure without knowing the real circumstances surrounding the interview setup.

Once again, I'm not denying that increasing costs are a problem and need to be addressed. However, that does not mean the issue of how to best administer health care services at a certain price point is one that should also be ignored. Even if we manage to hold the line on costs, heck, even if we manage to reduce the costs, we still want to make sure we allocate resources in the most optimum way. Its the same way if health care costs us $1 per person, $5000 per person, or $1 million per person. Continually bringing up increased costs is an issue that has to be addressed does not change the fact that at any given price point allocation can be adjusted to optimize the system. Heck, even if we managed to control costs. Even if we cut medical costs in half and they never ever increased in our lifetime, it would not eliminate the need to discuss the best way to deliver health care services.

Nope, they haven't. If you think they have, then point me to their posts. That's because you're satisfied with a "mighty hand wave", no actual evidence needed. (Well, as long as its something that supports your own opinions.) You never have to do anything in an on line forum. You have the ability to respond to or ignore any question or point that's been raised. However, I have a right to keep bringing up the point that at no point have you (or anyone else) given any reasoning or evidence why the Private/public mixture that is so successful in other countries will not work here. So, ignoring a question is considered 'moving on'? Or you coud, you know, actually answer the questions. Why do you think Canada is unable to maintain a public/private partnership when other countries have managed to do so successfully for years/decades? Why are so many of the countries that are ranked hire than Canada (in various ratings) mixtures of public/private systems? Why do you think keeping the same system will result in improved output when it hasn't happened lately? Yeah, I know, actually coming up with, you know, evidence and data and stuff can be SOOO boring. Much more enjoyable for everyone involved for you to waive your mighty hand, and expel a massive fart from your rear. More convincing too.

No, I'm not. Actually, yes you are. One of your early posts, you talked about "Improve accountability and downsize bureaucracy.". But nowhere have you sated why you think that will automatically be done when it hasn't been done yet. Do you really think governments like government waste? (Hint: probably not, since it looks bad come election time.) And if it hasn't been done yet, there's no reason to expect it to be done in the future. Come to think of it, you've also never justified another claim you made: Why you expect a public system to die when they bring in a private/public mix, when other countries have managed to maintain mixtures to even better success than Canada. I already explained my position on this. Nope. You've given lame analogies that don't fit. You've dismissed arguments with a mighty wave of your hand. Nowhere have you given any sort of justification that we have a reason for things to be "all better" just by tinkering. The difference is, I've provided evidence to support my conclusions. You have waved your mighty hand (or is it farted? Not sure). All those things are exactly the work I said needs to be done. They have been trying to do that work for years within the existing framework and have been unsuccessful. Definition of insanity... doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting the same results. First of all, when it comes to issues like wait times, high costs, etc. there are degrees of problems. One country can be better off than another and still have problems. Secondly, by any measure I've seen, Canada has NEVER been at the top in terms of health care. WHO overall rankings: France at the top WHO rating of responsiveness: U.S. at the top London study: Sweden at the top All of those countries allow at least some private delivery. Why do you think that is? Its possible to change the degree of a problem. If you cut wait times in half, you still have a problem of wait times, but its not as severe. And behold the mighty wave of the hand. The claim that there is no "lasting improvement" from changing to a private/public system. If you don't think public/private systems will provide any improvement, why are the top ranked systems in the WHO study private/public mixtures? And behold the crap of someone who is unable to read/understand. At no point have I ever stated we should go to an all-private system. (Bonam echoed my sentiments exactly when he stated: Why does everyone assume adding a private component to Canada's health care system means tossing everything out and copying the US system? This is a blatant and extreme red herring.) Yet here you are dragging up the U.S. system even though nobody here is suggesting that that is the way we want our health care system to go. Oh, that's right, you did say that it was the "thin edge of the wedge", but at no point have you stated why you think Canada is so incompetent that it can never manged a public/private health care mix even though such mixtures are common in the world.

Yes, you're right. We also have users that pay for their own drugs (with or without private insurance), privately-run labs doing blood tests, and doctors practices are basically private businesses. But when we talk about "private vs. public health care" and "single payer", we are using it as a short form to refer to the issue of delivery of basic health care services such as appointments with your M.D., specialists, and hospital visits. (Its just easier than bringing up the whole issue of dental/eye care thing.) Strangely enough, those "private components" (Dental/eye care) can be obtained pretty much on demand, at least from places near me. No waiting.

This isnt a public vs private issue. Its very possible that a good healthcare system could be run 100 private, 100 public, or anywhere in between. I never claimed that health care costs were not increasing, and that they didn't have to be addressed. However, given a set of costs and an available amount of money, the issue is how to allocate those resources properly. Yes, control costs... but that shouldn't preclude having the best possible system at that price point.

Actually, no it doesn't. The difference is, when you made your claims about "privatizing will accomplish nothing", you were doing so without actually providing any evidence. Hence my statement about proof by "waving your mighty hand...". On the other hand, the discussion about private and public health care DOES have a point. For evidence, I point to the multitude of countries that have successfully mixed public and private systems, and achieved superior results to Canada's. I don't assume the government will do that, But that's exactly what you're doing. You dismiss any wholesale changes with a suggestion that we "just need to find a better way within the current constructs". If that "better way" hasn't been found after all these decades, why are you assuming it will be any time in the future? Its a literary device I use to illustrate when a person makes a statement which is so baffling and contradictory to reality that an extra expression is needed, indicating more or less "How much of reality did you ignore in forming your opinion?" Actually, there are things that are 'wrong'... excessive wait times (for emergency rooms, diagnostic procedures and certain specialized procedures), lack of a primary care doctor by many. Yes, MOST people have MOST of their basic needs met. Doesn't mean that everything is hunky dory. And unfortunately no reason to believe the current 'single payer public system' will address those issues. And no need to stick to your tiny little Toyota Echo (public system) when you could be driving around in a Caddy (combined public/private system).

Well, given the fact that we're comparing medical coverage systems at identical times, then yes, studies from 2000 are helpful. Do you have specific reasons to believe that changes since then would invalidate the findings of the 2000 study? I'd love to have more recent studies. In fact in other health care debates I have quoted more recent data than the 2000 WHO rankings. Canada isn't the same country either. Neither is Germany, France, Canada, or the megapower of Togo.

Please, tell me which ones. Here's some of the top ranked countries in the WHO health care ranking... 1. France: Allows private health care 2. Italy: Allows private health care and features copays 3. San Marino: Allows private health care 4. Andorra: Government does not pay entire health care bill, patients may buy insurance 5. Malta: Allows private health care 6. Singapore: Private delivery allowed (but with price controls) 7. Spain: Allows private health insurance allowing people to bypass lengthy waiting times 8. Oman: Not a "western" country so I won't include this 9. Austria: Allows private doctors/insurance 10. Japan: Patient has a "copay" So, tell me, what other western country ranks ahead of Canada yet has an all-public system? Actually, no it doesn't. Yes, health care costs might be increasing. Yes, even with "imperfect" delivery most people will be cared for. But if health care can be made better than it would otherwise be, then we should make that attempt.

Your magic bullet, my magic bullet. Time and time again we get told by the government that they will find "effiecencies" that will save us money and make things better. Why are you automatically assuming that a government will actually find and implement those changes when they've had limited or no success so far? And with a mighty wave of your had you dismiss all who oppose you. Or was that a fart? Its hard to tell. Not sure what "proposal for privatization" you're referring to. I've made a couple of suggestions where we can add private health care but haven't given any concrete proposals yet. What I HAVE done is pointed to other countries that have managed to combine public and private health care and the result was better success than Canada. And none of those other countries have seen their public systems disappear. Ummm... so? I never claimed the problem was severe either. I admitted that most of the time the system functions successfully. The same can also be said for the U.S. (You know, the private system so many condemn.) Ummmm.... my opinions are supported by data too. Such as the 'data' that systems that mix public and private health systems (in western economies anyways) rank higher that Canada (where we have greater restrictions on "private" care.)

Actually, the "massive cash injections" may not actually improve our health care rankings, and may in fact harm them. (Not that I think adding more was a bad thing, just that if we're concerned primarily about rankings you may be disappointed.) You see, the WHO rankings combine both the quality of health care and the cost. If costs rise proportionally to quality, you won't see us go up in the rankings (even if we are getting treated better.) Heck, since often the greatest improvements are often the cheapest (and the marginal improvements will be less for additional money spent) we can actually see our rankings go down. The U.S. ranks at #1 in some measures of health care (according to the WHO). They drop in rankings largely because their system costs so much. Ah, ok. Thanks. There's not a lot of details to go on here. However, I did find a few There is some validity in it, but I would add a few caveats before fully accepting their conclusions: - They restricted their results to preventable deaths under 75. However, the life expectancy in most of those countries is closer to 80, and the amount of resources used in the last few years is often disproportionate to the individual's earlier years - The report attempts to remove things like smoking and diet from the analysis (which is good), but they also remove things like accidents, which also consume health resources. I also have concerns that they make references to including "certain cancers/infections".... without knowing more, its hard to say if there was any sort of confirmation bias going on - The article talks about extending life, but it says nothing about quality of life. I should also point out that the earlier poster was dealing with costs (at least when this particular study was mentioned). It does not appear that this particular study was dealing with costs at all.

Do you have a reference for that? (Couldn't find anything on a quick search.) "Preventing death" is a pretty strange term... what are they referring to as a "prevented death"? They considering only after-diagnosis situations? Do they look at total lives saved or years of life added? Do they factor in cost? Need a little context here to do analysis.

Lifespan is not necessarily an accurate measure of health care success, especially when you're comparing countries that are so close to each other. - Lifestyle choices (e.g. diet, violence in society, geography, etc.) and accounting differences can have an impact. (e.g. I believe the U.S. has a different classification for 'live birth' than other countries, so a baby that would be considered still-born in some countries is counted as a live birth/death in the U.S.). - It says nothing about the quality of life. i.e. is it better to have a few extra years, but to be subject to various ailments, or is it better to have a higher quality of life? And consider this... Japan has an even higher life expectancy than Canada, yet according to Wikipedia their system is one where people have to pay a portion of their own health care! (See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/) While our costs are roughly near those of European countries, we actually rank 30th in the WHO 2000 survey, behind countries like France, Japan and the U.K. that all have some sort of user-pay system.

that describes my back and many others as well...cost of lumbar fusion in the US can be between 90-110K how many blue collar workers have that kind of cash to fast track themselves into a private system... Well, according to the CDC, more than 85% of people actually have health insurance, so they probably wouldn't need to pay for that themselves. (See: http://www.emaxhealth.com/1506/cdc-number-americans-without-health-insurance-coverage-increases) Of the remaining 15% who don't have insurance, some are wealthy enough to pay for their own health care directly, some were only uninsured temporarily (e.g. in the process of changing jobs). Only a minority have been without health care for a significant time. So, it comes down to the following 2 options: - everyone has to wait months and months to handle the back injury (along with the additional problems that come with waiting) - The vast majority get treated right away, but a minority of people get really screwed Both options are "bad" and neither one is objectively better than the other. Of course, as I said before, for most of us pushing for private health care its irrelevant, since we don't want to eliminate the public option, we just want to find a way to provide a mixture that takes the best of both worlds. You know, like other countries (not Canada or the U.S.) have done.

Once again, why are you assuming that? As has been pointed out before, other countries have managed to maintain various mixtures of private and public health care. Why can they keep both systems going, but Canada couldn't? Ah yes, the "magic bullet" that will somehow cure all the problems. All you need is for them "somehow" to find the inefficiencies. Yup, there are a lot of successes, but you only hear the complaints. But guess what? The same also applies to the U.S. system too... you hear only about the "poor working stiff who goes bankrupt because he gets sick", but you never hear of the majority of the people who get decent quality treatment, usually faster than they would get in the Canadian system. Not that I'm saying the U.S. system is actually better than Canada's. (Nor am I saying its worse). And I certainly don't want to go to an "all private health care" system.

In addition to the mistake you made about federated countries not having unicameral parliaments, there is something else to remember.... All of the countries you mentioned are relatively small geographically, and except for one or 2 cases (e.g. South Korea) have a smaller population base than Canada. The reason why a Senate with regional representation is better in countries like Canada and the U.S. is because of the size of the population and the diversity of cultures between various regions of the country. Oh, and by the way... putting South Korea in a list of 'best functioning' democracies is a bit questionable. Until the mid to late 80s they were seen as having fairly authoritative rule, and its only been in the past decade or 2 that they've become what we'd recognize as a full fledged democracy.