dre

Not that I know of. When you make 350k and get a big raise every year why would you. But if the government tried to bust the unions with right to work legislation (like they should), or open the market up to foreign competition then we would have a fight on our hands. Like I said the last thing on earth they want is for Canadians to have affordable care. And for us to have a system like France, doctors wages would need to be driven down by almost 50%. The average French doctor makes just over 100k.

I'm fine with those things too... Throw these in too... 1. A non-profit national malpractice fund. 2. Get rid of provincial medical associations, especially their role in the certification process. At the very least pass right to work legislation so that certified doctors can practice without being a member. 3. Fast track certification for foreign doctors that have practiced in JCI accredited hospitals in other countries. 4. Replace the residency system with an apprenticeship system, so that any practicing doctor can train another new doctor, whether its a doctor that immigrated to here, or a new student out of our own program. 5. Create a panel of doctors to set fees for different procedures. 6. Cover procedures done in JCI accredited foreign hospitals under the Canada health act as long as the government saves money on the procedure. Not only would this be of help to Canadians travelling abroad but it would put our own doctors into global competition, and make them more likely to accept the fees set by the previously mentioned panel. 7. End all forms of medical protectionism. For example a radiology scan could be electronically sent to doctors in any accredited hospital in the world, but the college of radiologists have successfully lobbied not only to prevent THAT, but to prevent scans being sent to other Canadian or American cities, and in many cases they cant even be sent to another hospital in the SAME CITY. The problem is... Its pretty easy to have good ideas, and learn what we can from the most successful systems. But Canadian doctors will fight tooth and nail to prevent Canadians from receiving affordable timely care. They don't want to get paid like French doctors, and they are smart and very well organized, and have a tremendous amount of clout and bargaining power, and the government has almost none. Imagine a government faced with a threat by doctors to walk off the job? That's why you start with number 6, 3, and 4. Erode their bargaining power, and weaken them... then maybe we could get some of the other things done.

ANY system would be stretched thin by an aging population. The answer here isn't to throw the baby out with the bath water and start again from scratch. The answer is to leverage global resources to get us through what is a temporary crunch. And that is the ONLY way to give provinces more bargaining power during negotiations with Medical Unions here at home. We need to address artificial scarcity, certify more doctors, and fund procedures done in accredited foreign hospitals. Our system used to work really well... we should restore federal funding levels, and use foreign hospitals for overflow until the babyboomers are all dead.

I don't see any evidence of that. Both sides like to spend big and borrow big, just on different things. See conservative support for the GWOT for example... the most expensive project in human history. Or conservative support for the F35 which would be the largest government expenditure in Canadian history. This whole "fiscal conservative" thing is just a boiler plate talking point. Its not actually real, or something conservatives do. This is true in Canada where the Harper government ran up record deficits, and in the US where the last republican to balance the budget was Eisenhour nearly 70 years ago.

A "balanced budget" isn't a conservative belief and never really has been. As for leftists despising Harper... That's just how politics works these days. People on the left would hate politicians on the right even if those politicians implemented what the left wanted letter for letter. And vice versa. Its just a big dumb game. People care more about the left/right culture war than their own well being and their own kids futures.

I never said I did. I don't know much about the subject, and I don't know what the best craft is for routine long range patrols. Sweden also has defensive defense doctrine. If we had that I would be less worried about arming our politicians.

My business is small... 8+ workers in the summer, 4 or so workers in the winter. Its an excavation company (skid steers, excavators, dumptrucks, etc), and construction services company. I guess I could have a credit card for each worker... I DO have a company card that I use for 90% of my purchases. But I use cash when employees need a few bucks before pay day. I sometimes buy clean fill and soil from local farmers, sometimes diesel. The guy where I dump thousands of tons of yard waste only takes cash. I don't cheat on my taxes... even when I pay cash I get receipts. Actually I DO do the occasion small cash job... sometimes youll do a quick 2 hour job, and the guy will just hand you a few hundred bucks when you're finished. Its pretty rare though.

Well almost our entire need is just to fly routine patrols. We don't need bombers. The F35 is specifically designed to bomb random dark-skinned people thousands of miles away. Military interventionalism jeopardizes our national security and we should starve the government of the tools that give it that ability.

The real question is why would we fight to force large Sunni populations in Iraq and Syria to be ruled by Iranian proxy governments in the first place.

Because he is saving the government a pile of money and taking pressure off the current system and it would create an incentive. It would also help the patient pay for the non medical costs like his flights, accommodations, a nice little post-op holiday, etc.

Frances system has more government management than Canada's. The entire population pays compulsory medical insurance fees, and the government sets "approved fees" for each procedure. Like Canada, doctors run their own private practices unless they work in government run hospitals, and like Canada they draw almost their entire income from government funded insurance. Its also similar to Canada in that patients are forced to pay a little bit of the costs. They government often pays for 70 then there's a co-pay but for long lasting illnesses like Cancer or Diabetes they are covered 100%. In Canada we pay insurance premiums. And like Canada.... you can purchase additional private medical insurance (I have Manulife) to augment your government funded plan. Doctors there make less money in wages, but they get to go to medical school for free. That's a good idea but I don't see it happening in Canada because tuition costs are increasing as fast as healthcare costs. The government would have to raise taxes. Malpractice insurance is also cheaper in France because all doctors prescribe to the same public malpractice insurance fund. The French National Insurance system also pays for a part of social security taxes owed by doctors that agree to charge the government-approved fees to keep wages lower, which appears to be nothing more than a shell game. The main differences are.. 1. There's more public funding and control. 2. The education and certification processes are government controlled and almost completely subsidized. A student Faculte de Medecine Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris will pay $264 for the entire year. 3. They have managed to avoid massive unionization. 4. The government in France funds a much larger portion of the total cost, and spends more as a percentage of GDP. Healthcare as a percentage of GDP Canada: 10.45% France: 11.54% Government expenditures as a percentage of total healthcare expenditures Canada: 70.93 France: 78.21 Private expenditures as a percentage of total healthcare expenditures Canada: 29.07 France: 21.79

They could start covering medical tourism under the Canada health act. Thats the only way our doctors and their medical associations will face real competition. You could make it so that the government splits the saving with the patient as long as they go to a JCI accredited hospital. For example... a triple bypass that costs the government 200k here could be done for 50k in India or Thailand. The government could split the saving with the patient, so the government saves 75k on the procedure, and the patient gets 75k to put in his pocket. Then Canadian doctors and their unions (errr medical associations) would face real global competition. And we wouldnt waste money retooling our system for a glut of old and sick people that wont be here in 20 years. The only real problem we have is the medical associations, and the fact that provincial governments have no cards to play during negotiations with them, and the fact that they control too much of the certification process. If we sourced procedures globally, there would be an abundance instead of a scarcity, and doctors here would be forced to compete with doctors countries where procedures cost much much much less. This has worked to bring down prices in every single sector its been applied to.

Doctors in private hospitals would still need 2 years of residency to practice. But its the governments and medical associations that control the certification process. Its not a fix for whats "broken". If anything private hospitals would increase wait times and drive up costs by offering higher salaries to entice doctors to leave the public system.

First of all wait times have nothing to do with the single payer system. We have a chronic shortage of physicians (especially family physicians), and theres not enough residency slots to keep up. Theres thousands of doctors that have aced the medical exams but still cant practice. This creates scarcity in services, and whether the payer is private or public will make no difference. Also we have provincial "medical associations" that in a blatant conflict of interest. Not only do they control the certification process but they negotiate wages on behalf of doctors with each province. Its in their interest to create artificial scarcity because that drives up wages. These medical associations need to be castrated, and we need to triple the amount of residency slots which will result in lower prices and a glut of new people willing and able to perform every kind of medical service. Screwing around the who the payer is will do nothing.

That sounds really good until you do a bit of research. First of all the RSSD you blow into when you get pulled over means jack shit. In order to obtain a conviction the accused (having failed the RSSD) has to be brought to the police station, given a 20 minute video recorded observation period, then tested using a real breathalyzer device. That device has to be carefully calibrated. In order for that machine to be accurate the "standard solutio"n has to be exactly 34 degrees, and a breath-tech has to examine the simulator thermometer during the calibration checks? If all that stuff doesn't happen correctly the machine wont give accurate results. The police are also directed to expedite the test so that they are taken "as soon as practicably possible". Did the cop maybe intentionally waste some time or take a bunch of detours on the way to the police station (perhaps waiting for a breath tech to arrive? If he did, that's illegal. Were you subjected to any liquids, gels, or creams which may effect the results of the test? Are you a diabetic with abnormal acetone levels? Its not as clear cut as you make it. Often the breath-tech will have to testify, and video of the test and calibration procedures will have to be viewed. Sometimes doctors, and toxicologists are necessary. The same set of survey data also concludes that crime (using either major categories) is down 20% in the last 10 years. No, not just murder. Every category besides sexual assault. And especially "severe" crimes (as defined by stats can) Let me guess... Motor vehicle theft is down 59% since 2004 because when peoples insured, licensed vehicles are stolen they just saw "nawwwwww. I wont report it, they can just HAVE my car and drive it around with my insurance"

Media Saturation This is perhaps the biggest problem when it comes to making good public policy on crime. Even through violent crime rates have plummeted and "serious crimes" are down almost 50% from 1985, and our citizens are by far the safest they ever have been... people "FEEL" like they are in more danger. This is because every single person carries a camera all day long now, and even though violent and serious crimes occur way less, we "SEE" them way more. And there's a multi billion dollar industry scrambling to get ratings by showing you as much of that type of content as possible. This again causes irrational people to be frightened and outraged, and ignore the fact that our system is working very well to reduce almost every type of crime... especially serious crimes like murder, armed robbery, and major assault. These people might be emotional, stupid, and irrational, but there's lots of them and politicians pander to them by authoring misguided policy that is not based on rational analysis or evidence.

Ah.... yes.

No its a function of years of budget cuts at every level for many years. We used to have public defenders on the payroll here where I live for example. They fired them all, and replaced them with legal aid, and then reduced the rates to the point where defense attorneys don't want the work. And even when they take the work they don't provide a robust defense because they are paid about as much as carpenters for their time. Also there are less violent offences occurring. Less than 30% of about a 400 thousand cases completed each year are for violent offences (the kind that throw law and order types into an emotional tizzy). Violent crime and crimes like robbery are in decline. The most common court cases are impaired driving. Groups like MADD have played the emotional victim card to politicians and lobbied them to tighten the laws to the point where you cant even have a glass of wine with dinner and drive home. The courts will complete about 50 thousand cases for impaired driving this year alone. As for your claim that paper work is slowing down throughput.... I dont see any evidence of that. Trials happen fast in all provinces but Quebec (138 days average). Cases take less than three months in most provinces. We are over prosecuting and over policing. In 1985 we had 50 thousand police officers. One for every 44 offences. Crime had been significantly reduced since then, yet we have about 70 thousand police officers today. Only 23 offences for each officer. There are only 57% as many "serious" crimes today as there were in 1985. Governments are making bad decisions to appease voter outrage over outlier cases. Even though crime is WAY WAY down, a significant portion the population does not think rationally and they will see one anomalous bad outcome and scream for more laws, more police and more prisons. This causes governments to "crack down and get tough" even in the fact of plummeting crime rates which further exacerbates problems in the system, and drives up the cost. The OP here is a good example of this. All it takes is one "tear jerker" and people are screaming to rip apart a system which has resulted in some of the lowest crime rates in human history and performs extremely well against those of our peers. Even if crime rates halfed again, they would be calling for more police, more prisons, more prosecutions, and more laws. And support for mandatory minimum sentencing will make all these problems worse in the future.

The second biggest reason for the backlog (besides all the wasteful frivolous cases), is the gutting of the system by governments. All across the country they are firing court staff, defunding legal aid, etc. In BC alone there are thousands and thousands of cases that will soon have to be dismissed due to the charges expiring. On the bright side... almost all kinds of crime are at an all time low, and crime rates are receding. So overall it seems like our system is working pretty well. Most of the cases being dismissed probably should have never been brought in the first place.

Police are over burdened by chasing kids around the park for smoking dope, chasing around sex workers, and millions of incidents around things that should not even be in the criminal code.

Well for one thing we jam them full of frivolous cases over things that shouldn't even be illegal... Like recreational drugs and prostitution for example. And to make it worse the idiotic war on drugs also generates a whole host of more serious offenses. Nearly 30 percent of assaults are drug related.... 27% of weapons violations.... Its the government and its laws that are broken. And the recent omnibus crime bill will just make things worse.

Yeah... I don't really disagree with you. I'm not saying that expanding the population and the amount of debt/money forever is a smart thing to do. Clearly it can only go on for so long. I was just trying to explain WHY it happens. I think for sure in the long term we need some kind of system of "real" money, and the best way for us to grow our standard of life will be to slow population growth or stop it, or even let it contract. The problem is no government wants to be in charge when the music stops, and there's massive pressure on governments coming from the financial sector to keep things going. What we need to do is get rid of commercial banking, and replace the credit system with an automatic system of self issued debt run by a computer system. Fix the size of the money supply to GDP, and just issue interest free credit to citizens based on their balance of trade. We keep investment banking but those banks have nothing to do with money creation. So for example... lets say the economy grew enough to warrant the introduction of 1 trillion dollars of new credit into the system... The system would allocate that money to citizens and corporations. You would just log on and access your credit. A really productive person or business would have access to quite a bit of credit. Someone that is not productive would have access to none. We would have to endure recessions instead of borrowing money to lessen the impact but neither our government or our people would ever be one cent in debt (with the exception of people that borrowed venture capital from investment banks)

There are no rules, and there IS exceptions. There is no universal direct link between population growth, and per-capita GDP. In 1800 Thomas Malthus argued that population growth would eventually depress living standards simply because humans either directly or indirectly live off the land, and the more people there is in any given area the less natural resources there is for each one. If your "country" was the size of one farm, and that farm was fully utilized then doubling the population would mean everyone has half as much food. A simple concept. Of course he didn't realize how technological development could change that. Every economy is different. What IS apparent however is that per-capita GDP in Canada has not followed the inverse relationship predicted my Malthus. In fact the opposite has happened. But you still cant infer from that a direct relationship between population growth and economic growth because there are so many other factors in play. The world bank did a study that shows growth in "human capital" accounts for roughly half of economic growth, but that still leaves the other half. The problem with allowing the population to stagnate in the west is that our entire economic and monetary systems are designed around growth. They were built at a time when the British Empire was rapidly expanding across the world, and designed to facilitate that. Our standard of life is either directly or indirectly related to the consumption of natural resources. And in our system the rate at which we exploit those resources is controlled by the amount of synthetic money in the economy. And since that synthetic money is primarily created as "promise to pay" money when people take out a loan from a commercial bank, our economy (in this system) is dependent on an ever increasing number of borrowers. Population growth increases demand for everything from homes to roads, to stores, etc etc. All of those things increase the amount of synthetic money in the economy. This is why banks, businesses, and governments are the primary drivers of population growth and immigration. But there is no RULE. There's no reason that a Canada with a static population of 1 million residents could not have very high standards of life... But we would have to separate usury from money creation, and make a totally different kind of economy, and a different kind of country. Could a Canada with 1 million residents afford to have a highway from Port Hardy to Newfoundland? Probably not. In a stagnant economy there will be almost no new construction, very few new businesses, very little in terms of new infrastructure development, etc I guess we could replace the massive employment generated by growing our civilization with exports... the problem with that is competing in global markets depresses our own wages because we expect a way higher standard of life for our 40 hour work week than pretty much everyone else on earth.

This is a really stupid comment, and its clear that you are the one that doesn't understand what a terrorist is. Islamic militants done impulsively attack every westerner they talk to. They try to blend into the population and act as normal as possible, and the well organized groups are disciplined. They plan specific attacks against specific targets, with specific goals. You could have completely normal conversation with many of them without ever having any idea they were militants. Also the term terrorist has no real meaning anymore, and is probably the most incorrectly used word in history behind maybe "fascism". Terrorism is a military tactic, and how you evaluate them depends on your perspective. For example... If Alqeada re-branded itself and started attacking Iran we would remove them from the "terrorist list" faster than rabbit gets fvcked, and we would probably start working with them or sponsoring them. When "the terrorists" are attacking our enemies we tone down the rhetoric. We call them "guerillas", or "paramilitary groups", or even "freedom fighters". The failure to recognize this is why the GWOT has gone so poorly and produced less than zero results.

Yup and just like here at home, the most conservative ones are the ones calling for violence.