The Terrible Sweal

Why should that line of argument only apply to healthcare? Maybe not ONLY health care, but (from a 'justice' perspective) health care because sickness and injury are not generally the reward of merit or demerit, but merely the afflictions of chance. Humans club together against the afflictions of chance (i.e. Nature) in order that we can compete on the fields of actual merit. By doing so we create (have created?) the conditions for a virtuous circle of prosperity. With the caveat that I don't think this question is very telling on the question above, I answer this one with a 'depends'. It depends on whether the someone holds that buying power based on merit or not. The answer to that question depends on where you choose to draw your circles of obligation. Hmmm. Sort of a multiprong question there. Without any knowledge of IMT's activities, it boils down to this: Do I think the world economy is 'fair'? No. Do I think the Canadian economy is 'fair'? No. Rather a long winded straw-man there. I don't recall ever suggesting remedial plastic surgery was not worthwhile. Sorry if you find my imagery too vivid.

What exactly do you allege the PM has done?

Good advice here.

A little contradiction there, perhaps? Anyway, why do you conclude health care is a private good? Do suggest it has no connection to public health? If we worried a little bit less about the injustices of health care reforms and worried a little bit more about not wasting resources, we may well be surprised to find that our health care system will be more equitable. Evasion.

I've heard the Gomery has a high personal popularity rating in Quebec right now. Can anyone tell me about this?

Wiz of Oz So if the Canadian voters are Dorothy, which party leaders are the Tinman, etc.?

The gov't cannot fund the system to ensure that any possible surgery can be done in a reasonable period of time. Preventing people from paying for their own care sooner makes many people suffer. For example, a carpenter who hurts his knee on the job is covered by workers compensation. Workers compensation is allowed to pay for his surgury in a private clinic because it is cheaper than paying benefits for 2 years while he is on the waiting list. That same carpenter hurts his knee in his house has to wait two years and goes bankrupt in the meantime because he can't work. Or he could go to the US and pay $50K for an operation that would only cost $20K in Canada - if he was allowed. I cannot understand why anyone thinks the ban on private health care is fair. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Fair", eh? Now there is a loaded word. Is it fair that Michael Jackson can pay to have his face ruined with equipment that could be saving a life? There are a couple of important points to remember in this analysis. If you consider 'health care' to be an insurance system, the least expensive way to provide that would be that coverage be universal as this lowers administrative redundancy and shares risk widest. If you consider health care to be a 'public good', economics tells us it will never be adequatley provided by the market alone. If you consider health care a scarce resource, you face the question: is it OK to our society that wealth should decide who lives comfortably and who dies in agony? Now, it may be beneficial to try business strategies to seek efficencies in heatlh care. But anyone who wants to move away from a single-payer, universal coverage system needs to answer these issues.

I.e. regardless of what the real evidence may be, you condemn them. Nothing in the evidence so far indicates anyone was willing to try to tamper with the commisioner's findings. Murphy mused about seeking an interim report. Whoop de doo. It was still up the the commish whether he'd give it.

August, I really, really don't understand why you come up with this stuff.If you don't understand me, then you don't understand the country that you claim to represent. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks for no bothering with any sort of substantive answer. It confirms to me what I think you're post is all about: Scurrilous politicking. As for representing the country, I'm unaware of ever having made such a claim.

What does the NDP have to do with our conversation? You are an NDP supporter, are you not? I've already told you I'm not. Is it foolishness, or is it dishonesty which leads you to make obviously untrue statements? I've not threatened any legal action at all. Please try to stick with reality. You think I've got somerhing wrong? Then be specific, and we'll see who talks thru his hat.

The NDP's problem is nobody in Canada really wants a CAW government.

Excellent for you. Now you know how to communicate a little better here. Now this is NDP sleaze! Dosanj and Murphy broke no laws even going by the doctored tapes. On the other hand, you are skating pretty close to libel.

Thanks for the recommendation.

FYI, in Canada. using the capital "L" generally indicates the Liberal party. If you mean the political philosophy it's better to use a small "l". Or even better to be more specific, e.g. 'classical liberal' in my case.

For now, but if you keep supporting doctored tapes you'll hang yourselves. I'm not a Liberal. And what's with moving the answers around? It's quite confusing.

For now, but if you keep supporting doctored tapes you'll hang yourselves. I'm not a Liberal.

This post moved back to the thead I was answering on.

Get real. When Wells talked straight, it was straight talk. When Harper talks straight it's an overly sweeping, unsupported accusation. Except for failing spectacularly, yes, Harper's success is admirable. What could he possibly offer?? Meanwhile, doctoring tapes to support a false allegation sits okay with your sense of ethics, does it? I sure don't understand what problem you think they don't understand.

The government under Mulron$#@&*#$ paid high interest on the debt because it devised high interest rate policies.

So this is NDP ethics, is it? Piling on to a bandwagon of bribe-seeking and fraudulent tapes? Marvellous. Nothing like the high road, eh? Weekends and translations? No one needed the CPC to provide a translation! And 13 DAYS of weekend? Crap. It takes about 4.5 hours to copy 4 hours of tapes. It takes two minutes to call a newspaper and another 45 minutes to send a reporter out to collect them. The moment the dumbies refused to relase the tapes it was obvious that they were knee deep in tory sleaze. If the NDP wants to cosy up to these kinds of criminal tactics, they might as well cut their own throats. All the NDP has going for it is the high road, so they better watch their step.

It may be hard for tories to grasp this, but many people think allowing someone to suffer or die simply because they don't have a lot of money is not fair or desireable. Maybe not horrible, but certainly objectionable if the rich person has done nothing to merit the benefits. Doesn't it seem about 100% more likely that they think that way out of a desire to ensure care for themselves and loved ones? Why must you impute 'envy' were sensible self-interest is a sufficient explanation?

August, I really, really don't understand why you come up with this stuff. Even if you believe every allegation at the Gomery thing, all there is there is a cabal of back room players around Chretien. Bad to be sure, but nothing implicating the party at large or the main players in the government today.

Rank nonsense. We have nothing of the sort. We have no solid evidence of that at all. We have evidence that Martin told them NOT to, and we have [tory tampered] evidence of them NOT doing that.

You mean like when they outlawed slavery in the U.S.? Or veterans' support legislation? Or penal reform laws? Of course you'd think that, but fortunatly we don't base public policy on empty-headed kneejerk silliness.

Who's asking? Is there some reason you're asking butt-stupid questions? All I've said is I don't see racism as a necessary conclusion from what was said. Is there some reason you want to discourage me from expressing that opinion?