Dave_ON

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/07/21/...ealth-care.html I read this article on the CBC and at first my knee jerk reaction was to get my back up about the issue. I mean honestly what could be more un-Canadian than going to the states and defaming our national institution of universal healthcare? It’s a veritable bastion of liberalism, the crown jewel in our self proclaimed moral superiority over our neighbors to the south. Now suffice it to say I don’t precisely agree with the way she went about it, I mean how very rude to air our dirty laundry on the international stage. Be that as it may it certainly caught some media attention. Now you would be hard pressed to find a Canadian that does not agree with some level of universal health care, after all it’s been with us since the 60’s and its all most of us have ever known. But what you will find is a wide range of disagreement on what to do about our system. If you care to read the blogs on the CBC about the article you’ll find many of them even refuse to acknowledge the problems in our system, as if talking about the issues with our system is taboo at best and at worst tantamount to high treason. The article, and subsequently many of the blogs got me thinking about our system and the problem inherent in it and I’m honestly at a loss for how to fix it. The issue as I see it is not that the government does not want to provide the services, or even most of the tax payers for that matter, but that the demand is high and the supply is low and therefore the services must be rationed accordingly. At a glance it appears the solution is quite simple, hire more doctors. While this would certainly solve the problem that is much easier said than done as the Tories no doubt have learned since 2006. Now don’t get me wrong I don’t fault them for not fulfilling their promise as it is nigh on impossible to fulfill. We are competing with a country that has turned healthcare into a multibillion dollar business that is extremely lucrative for any type of specialist. The problem with our system is not so much a shortage of GP’s it’s a shortage of specialists. Now it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that, someone that has spent a large part of their adult life to become a specialist when presented with two options, to work in Canada or in the US for more money, generally the more money option is going to win out. Honestly our public system can’t compete with the salary possibilities that the US can offer. The only advantage we have in Canada is that the amount of malpractice suites are significantly lower and some doctors see that as balancing out the salary differences. With the ever aging baby boomer population putting increasing demands on our health system the problems are only going to grow worse. All this leaves me questioning what is the solution? I think full privatization of services is out of the question, and even partial privatization or a two tiered system gives me pause. Nevertheless the fact remains that something needs to be done. While again I don’t like how the woman in the article went about it she does have a point. We need to talk about the problems in our system and ensure our politicians, regardless of their stripe, do something about the problem. We need real solutions or the system will continue to deteriorate. Are the Tories doing enough to address or even determine what the issues with healthcare are? Did the Liberals before them? What should the Tories or any government for that matter do going forward? What are your thoughts, solutions or suggestions?

So many fallacious implications so little time. The amount of erroneous assumptions contained in the above is absolutely staggering yet not at all surprising as they are entirely too common in our society today. First of all I want to address my absolute favorite quote from here which is conveniently located at the beginning of the post. “propagandizing a cultural lifestyle of free sex with multiple partners.” The free really caught my eye. I’m certain you weren’t implying that gay people are the sole proprietors of promiscuity. This would be a ridiculously unfounded and terribly difficult statement to make. Promiscuity is a tendency of males in general regardless of orientation it’s part of our biological makeup. Why do you think Harem’s were, and still are in some cases, such a common place matter in Eastern cultures? With 38% of marriages in Canada ending in divorce can you guess what one of the leading causes is? Cheating on your spouse or as you so eloquently put it free (usually) sex with multiple partners. As for cultural norms, I think you’d be hard pressed to prove that the views held by generally cantankerous, 50 something curmudgeons to be the “cultural norm”. Turn on a TV, watch a movie, listen to some music, you’ll see many straight people going against the “cultural norm”. Assuming of course that by cultural norm you mean a monogamous straight marriage. Many people choose not to get married, but live together, even raise kids together while not married. I think you’ll find the cultural norm is not at all what you think it is. As noted by others you can certainly substitute gay activist for social conservative. Both are political extremes. I think that if you put down that brush that you’re trying to paint us all with you might discover that we’re all quite different. I have gay friends of every political stripe, just like I have straight friends of the same. I’d love to write more but unfortunately my cultural lifestyle of having free sex with multiple partners keeps me far too busy to do so.

Indeed it is an impressive machine and it should be for 129k. Let's see with my 10k rebate that's a mere 119k, think I'll buy two at that price! The specs are pretty impressive though, 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. As i understand it the latest model can do it in 3.7. For those who are interested check out this link. http://www.teslamotors.com/buy/buyshowroom.php And for more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster

You shouldn't be at all surprised that your views aren't shared here. You can't even see left field from where you're standing on this issue. I've generally found your posts to be well thought out, if somewhat misguided, but I think you really missed the boat on this one. Wonder why the rest of the conservative fan boys have failed to chime in on this issue? Argus is conspicuously absent as are the rest of the LPC haters. So why are you fighting the good fight all by your lonesome? Harper using the Queen of Canada as his pawn in a political game? Come now, that's beyond ludicrous. Mostly because it gives Harper, who is far from dumb, entirely too much credit. The main issue you have failed to address and has been stated over and over again on this thread is that this is not an award that requires the advice of ministers to confer. Truly all you have provided is wild suppositions and borderline conspiracy theories, without even a shred of tenuous evidence. Avid disdain for Trudeau, Chretien, and our Monarch does not count as evidence by the way. I mean some actual links to back up your claims of this rather ingenious political maneuver on the part of the PM. You’ve also failed to demonstrate how this rather low key news story will have such a far reaching and disastrous affect on the LPC.

While I agree that Canada could certainly work toward becoming a more innovative country there are several factors we need to address before this can happen. Firstly we do not have sufficient facilities and infrastructure currently in place to support many R&D projects. The much vaunted Arrow is a prime example of this; while it was a great achievement certainly it was arrived at with a lot of assistance from the Americans and at a very high cost to the public. One lesson we have never really learned from our American neighbors is how to do things cheaply without sacrificing quality. Canadians are great at coming up with new ideas, the Americans are great at improving on those designs and doing so cheaply and efficiently. This is not to detract from such achievements like the CANDU reactor but in all honesty it is a very expensive piece of technology, not that nuclear reactors are cheap by any stretch but the CANDU took it to a new level. The other issue we need to address is time, new technology doesn’t happen over night or even in a few years. One of the major drawbacks to our political system is, often times ambitious projects are begun by one government and quickly undone by the following one. The Maple reactors are a prime example of how this happens. We would essentially need the support of all parties in the house to ensure any level of success in government R&D endeavors. Lastly we need to live within our means as it were, new technology is rarely cheap. As a country we have access to a vast amount of resources but due to our limited population we have a significantly smaller public fund to draw from. This is made even smaller by competing government programs. We have social essentials, healthcare, education, defense, roads etc. These all require money as well and proportionally shrink the pot. The other issue that is related is we need focus. We need to choose an area and focus on that preferably one we’re already fairly adept at like nuclear tech or some other form of power generating technology. Oil prices have nowhere to go but up as it is a finite resource, now is the time to invest in and develop alternative energy solutions. If we invest now before we are in dire need of it, we’ll be able to be a world leader in the industry when the time comes that oil is no longer the cheapest source of energy.

It's also interesting to note that the Tories are actually reinstating the Visa requirement that they removed back in 2007. Also the following article outlines Mexico's token retaliation. They are requiring Canadian diplomats obtain visa's only, visitors are not required to do so. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/16/c...sa-visa016.html

Read the post again, I said the Bloc DID do damage to the LPC's numbers but did proportionally more to the NDP.

You are quite correct politics did change in 1993 with the advent of the Bloc and the Reform parties. Oddly enough the Bloc did do damage to the LPC's numbers but I would purport they did substantially more to the NDP. Prior to the Bloc's creation the NDP were well on their way up, the 1988 election was their best showing ever at an amazing 43 seats. If the Bloc were to ever dissolve, which many speculate might happen when Gille retires, I'm certain the NDP would be courting many of those candidates. If that ever happens than I would say the NDP would definitely have a chance of forming the government, granted a minority at best. I would agree that the following breakdown is much more reasonable. CPC 60 LPC 60 Bloc 30 NDP 20 That's a total of 170 seats that are not likely to change hands. That leaves a total of 138 seats that are essentially up for grabs. It's not at all unreasonable to say that either the CPC or the LPC could take at least 95 of the seats they require to form a majority. But honestly it's really hard to peg a solid base number for any party as so many factors come into play. Hence we see things like 1993 with the old PC party reduced to 2 seats in the house or the Liberals in 1984 reduced to their worst showing ever of 40 seats. As always with politics there are many factors that affect the outcome. In the next election the economy will play a huge part in how that goes. As a rule Canadians tend to not change during a crisis, so barring any enormous blunders by the CPC and the timing of the election of course it could work out to their benefit. Either way it's going to be a tough fight, but anyone who isn't kidding themselves realizes it's not truly a 5 way competition. It's between the LPC and the CPC, eventually one side will give out to the advantage of the other.

Clearly you missed the point. The point being the base numbers are not static. This was clearly demonstrated in the last election hence the LPC ended up with substantially less seats then 105 seats sitting at 77. To assume that these base numbers cannot and will not change is unreasonable. Where did the 28 base seats go; some to the NDP, some to Bloc and some to the CPC. The seats change hands at the drop of a hat. Obviously it's not possible for both the CPC and LPC to have the same division of seats nor have they. This is the nature of the political pendulum in Canada. Take a look at history it's not as irrelevant as you'd like to make it out to be. You’d like to think that majorities are a thing of the past based on 5 years worth a data, that’s hardly sufficient time to consider it anything more than a short term trend. So obviously a LPC and CPC majority are both possible at the expense of the other parties. Let’s take your NDP base 30 seats for example, 30 seats I might remind you they have held only since 2006. Actually it was 29 seats but who’s counting? Prior to that in 2004 the NDP held 19 seats, in 2000 13 seats, in 1997 21, in 1993 a stunning 9 seats. In fact you have to go all the way back to 1988 to get above 30 when the NDP had 43 seats which was due in large part to another Liberal dud, Turner. You see the NDP only really flourish when the LPC is weak and the NDP base is really drawn from the LPC. I stand by my argument, Ontario and Quebec are the King makers, If the LPC can steal enough seats from the Bloc and make gains in Ontario a majority is well within their grasp. This was not a push poll in the least. This was a poll that was based on what has been a long term trend in Canadian politics and not something that from a historical stand point will be little more than an anomalous blip on the political radar. Both the LPC and the CPC have held majorities in the past and it is not even the least bit unlikely that they will do so again.

I'm certain it can be done, but how soon and how much more will it cost. The second problem is the utter lack of recharging facilities, unless you own a private residence, (ie. you don't rent or own a condo) you won't have a place to recharge your car, therefore you won't buy an electric only vehicle.

Agreed on that, though they have come a long way with battery life, they've still got a long way to go in terms of cold weather. I suppose the same issue would be true in Florida in the summer though to run the AC in the 30+ humidity.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/07/15/...ic-cars511.html So Ontario is jumping on the electric car band wagon. This is all well and good but I'm not convinced we have sufficient power infrastructure in place to handle the increased power demands. As it stands Ontario is already a power hog, this would only exacerbate that issue. Not to mention, especially in urban sections of Ontario, where the electric car is likely to gain the most traction, most apartment buildings, condos etc. do not have facilities that would support these and the government of Ontario hasn’t made any plans to invest in developing these facilities. Don’t get me wrong I think it’s a great idea and the electric car is long overdue, but given our current state of affairs, bringing on the electric car will mean a significant investment on the part of the province. OTOH this could definitely revitalize the auto manufacturing industry in Ontario, and if we can get sufficient government support could make Canada a leading manufacturer of electric cars.

Precisely, and if you can manage a good chunk of BC all the better. The lesson that the CPC learned was the West alone lands you in opposition.

I would tend to agree that the EU will no doubt retaliate as stated in my original post. This will be problematic and I feel it may result in the GoC revoking their decision. As I mentioned this is definitely not a permanent fix but should allow us sufficient time to come up with an alternative plan of action. Apparently one is on the way but we likely won't see any more about it until the fall session of Parliament resumes. I understand it does damage the tourist industry but at the same time it seems our solutions are few at this juncture. I do question the timing of it, as we are smack dab in the middle of tourist season. Surely the impact could have been minimalized had it been implemented in the late fall, and an alternative solution drafted come next tourist season. On a side not considering the recent EU seal ban and this imminent Visa retaliation, it seems to me that the EU is entirely too powerful an entity. We don’t really seem to have sufficient retaliatory tools at our disposal as we are only one country. If they take this type of approach to all matters it will only result in long term hurt for them. Protectionism hurts everyone, but no one more so than the people the protectionist measures are designed to protect. Wildbill the seal meat comment actually made me LOL.

Since you live in the present and are so very in touch with Canadian politics you are well aware that elections are won and lost in Quebec and Ontario, having BC in your pocket doesn't hurt either. You continuously tell us all that the Bloc has a base 40 seats and the NDP have a base 30. Fine let's look at the Liberal base number as well as the Conservative Base numbers. It's not out of the realm of reason to say that both have a solid 105 seat base. Keeping in mind that the current seat counts for the liberals is highly anomalous given their historical showings. This of course contributed to both the NDP's and Bloc's Spike in seats. So both parties have a base of about 105 seats that means they need to only make up 50 seats as compared to the NDP who would need to make up 125 seats. I ask you is it as likely that the NDP will make up 125 seats as it is that either the Liberals or the CPC will make up 50? Let's take it even a step further. Is it at all likely that the NDP would be able to take enough seats from the conservatives and the liberals to exceed the 105 seat mark; is it possible for them to close a 75 seat gap? Now let’s look at the LPC and the CPC. Both have their “write off” regions. For the LPC this is the Prairies, for the CPC this is Quebec and most of urban Ontario. If these parties would stop trying to break into each other strongholds and focus on the contested regions there would be a much better showing. The LPC’s should focus on Ontario, Quebec and BC; these are their best bet to win seats. If you throw in the Atlantic Provinces which are currently turning red they can close the 50 seat gap easily. Now as it stand the CPC have a lot more handicaps that will likely result in a decrease in their seat count next election. Some are their fault some are not. Namely the Arts Funding cuts really hurt them last election and is likely to be unrecoverable so long as Mr. Harper is at the helm. There is also the terrible economic showing this year, rising unemployment and the fact that they’ve been incumbent since 2006, all detriments that are not at all their fault. I think to state that majorities are a thing of the past is largely hyperbole. There are many factors that have contributed to our current political situation. Those factors are changing and this temporary minority rut that we’re in will pass. Will it be next election? Likely not, or even the election after that, but what we have seen is a trend towards the historical pendulum stability of the past. Honestly Canada needs a strong majority government with an equally strong opposition; this is how our government functions best. The Liberal/Conservative cycle of government is what has made our Country what it is today.

Because never in the entire history of our country has a party that is not the LPC or some incarnation of the CPC ever formed the government nor is it at all likely that they ever will. Both the above parties have formed majorities in the past and will again in the future.

This is an interesting article. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/14/c...sas-mexico.html I find it interesting what the Mexican authorities had to say about the situation. If this is in fact the case I can appreciate how we would want to curtail this type of behavior. However, is it really fixing the issue or just prolonging the process. Also the Czech government has implemented a retaliation visa requirement for some Canadians and they're going to attempt to get the EU involved in this issue. We need look no further than the ridiculous seal product embargo to see how very meddlesome the EU can be in instances like this. Thoughts? Should or will the GOC back down should the EU get involved? I personally hope they do not so long as a more permanent and effective screening process is put in place to prevent as much abuse of our refugee status as possible.

Benny if there were a Ministry of random and disjointed thoughts that was also responsible for thread drift, I'm certain you'd be appointed the Minister hands down.

I didn't realize that was the case. I thought that the reserve powers rested solely with the GG at least by convention, but I suppose in reality the GG is the vice regal only so it stands to reason the monarch could overrule her if she had sufficient reasons to do so.

First of all I wasn't attempting to apply a label though in reality you are quite correct that, that is what WASP is. I didn't mean it to come across as pejorative and I apologize if it did. I think of it as more of a description, like gay. It too can be used in a pejorative sense but it's how I and others would describe an aspect of my being. Generally, and generalizations aren't always accurate of course, people who are white anglo straight protestants can't understand what it is like to be a minority as they are part of the majority in this country. Thus they have a difficult time understanding why changes need to be made as in general they aren't disenfranchised by the status quo. Secondly to answer your question, the Stampede receives roughly $2 million in federal funding. Even though I don't personally enjoy the stampede, there are those that do, and I can appreciate the cultural and fiscal contributions it makes to our society. As such I have no problem with this funding, provided that other events, such as Pride are give due consideration also.

Of that there is no doubt, though be that as it may I'm not certain when the trend will end. The CPC and the Grits have been pretty much neck and neck since Ignatieff took over. Really only the NDP and the Bloc have suffered loss at this point. With the intensifying regionalization and polarization of the electorate who knows how long we'll be stuck in this parliamentary minority rut.

That’s an interesting link Dobbin thanks! Polls can be very misleading sometimes and don’t necessarily give a breakdown of how seats would fall. I would find it fascinating if in fact the seats did fall that way in a real election, 118 for the CPC and 117 for the Libs when we take out the speaker of the house that puts the CPC down to 117. Of course in that situation Mr. Harper might choose a speaker elsewhere. Either way the polls in the past few months have only confirmed what we’ve all been fairly certain of for quite some time, we’re headed for another minority government. Whether it’s a CPC lead or Lib lead remains to be seen. As to the poster that suggested PR I would submit that if this system were implemented we would be forever locked into a minority government rife with shifting alliances and dare I say it, coalitions. For all the faults of our first past the post system, when a majority is in place it guarantees a level of stability that is unheard of in PR systems. We may be in a minority holding pattern for the next election and possibly even the election after that, but reality is it will break and we’ll return to the majority parliaments we all know and love.

I'm not offended in the least just wondering where you draw the line. I happen to feel an event based on "cowboy" skills is utterly idiotic, that's simply my opinion. I guess my question to you still stands, is an event based on sexuality more or less idiotic than one based on one's ability to stay on the back of a bucking bronco the longest? Should it be eligible for public funding? To me the issue is not whether or not Pride gets Fed Funds; it's if other arguably "niche" events get Federal funding to the exclusion of pride. If we accept that they are both, from an objective perspective of course, cultural events why should one be funded and not the other? The only reliable criterion, which is currently in place, is return on investment and bang for the buck. Obviously the biggest events will win out, as it should be as they are the ones that are going to have the greatest tourist draw.

It's not particularly controversial more just informational. As a fan of the Monarchy I look forward to the visit. I would definitely go out for the event if she visits near here. The itinerary is yet to be announced. Would you go out for the Queens Visit? http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/07/12/queen-visit.html Also how do you land a cushy gig like "Secretary to the Queen" like Kevin MacLeod?

This is a topic that admittedly I know nothing about. I'm a firm believer in having a solid and well equiped millitary. I'm at a loss to understand why there is a disconnect. It seems like a lot of money is being spent, but is it enough? Is the goernment not spending it properly, is the DND the issue? Is it that we're so out of date that it costs that much just to "catchup"? I read this article this morning and even though it's in laymens terms I have no idea if the current equipment is sufficent to get the job done. Perhaps some of those that know more about the topic could elucidate me. Armyguy and BushChaney immediately comes to mind. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/07/08/...d-vehicles.html