The Terrible Sweal
-
Posts
1,710 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by The Terrible Sweal
-
-
The reason for my question is that it seems like every time someone suggests something about abortion, same sex marriage or health care in this country that DOESN'T follow the Liberal agenda, that person is thrown to the wolves and told to shut up, called names etc.
It is difficult to take these kinds of complaints seriously in the absense of any specific examples. I follow events closely, and I canot recall any pro-forced-childbirth people being thrown to wolves. So I invite you to give examples for people to understand what you mean.
In previous conversations with others who have expressed the same as you here, I have noticed that some people feel that someone who uses her inherent righs to free expression to disagree is being 'intolerant'. Such a position is merely nonsense or special pleading, of course.
-
Canadians are much more comfortable with theifs ...
That's a false and digraceful accusation.
-
Now how does this fee charging harm others and reduce services to them?
You've been told probably a hundred times. 1. Competion between public and private systems will cause prices to rise in the public system. 2. Balkanizing the system sacrifices cost savings from ecomomies of scale. 3. The requirement for profitablility will take that portion of money out of the system.
There is no logical policy reason that necessary resources cannot be provided publicly and funded through taxes. The only reason for going privately is that people don't want to pay what it takes to care for everyone -- i.e. short-sighted selfishness (the trademark of neoconservatism everywhere).
-
Actually TS, the supreme court disagrees with you and agrees with Kimmy. Read lines 61-65 of the ruling. It clearly states that despite government witness after witness, the government was unable to bring ANY credible evidence other than pure fear-mongering that a parallel private system would in ANY was harm the public system.
So your theory is purely ideological and without empirical merit.
It seems you don't fully understand the situation. First, a Court decision is perfectly cpable of being either right or wrong ad this one is wrong. Next, the SCC passage you cite is not a majority conclusion on the overall issue. Nor is it an exhaustive analysis of public health policy. So much for the decision.
Now for the issue: you assert my "theory" is "ideological". Well then, you should be able to show how my position falls down on a logical basis, but so far that hasn't been accomplished.
-
Translation too, please.Res ipsa loquitur, almost.Res ipsa loquitur... the thing proves itself.
I'll take that to mean that you would not have voted for Maurice Duplessis or J. Edgar Hoover simply because they were gay.What a screwball question. What light do you think it adds to the issue here, I wonder.Anyway, in the case you describe, the term I would apply is 'bigotted'. What other answer would you expect?
I have no idea where you are getting that notion.
I would not vote for either of them because they were both corrupt crypto-fascists.
-
I'm quite serious. I assume that people in the rest of Canada have guarantees very similar to the ones ruled on in the Quebec case. And having ruled this way once, is there any reason to suspect the court won't rule the same way when similar laws are challenged elsewhere in Canada?
I don't know the Quebec law well enough to know how like or unlike laws in the rest of Canada it may be. Certainly, it is possible that analogous facts will tend to have the same logic applied to them. However, there may be important differences in the laws which will produce different results.
Also, the composition of this judges on this bench will probably not be repeated when these other laws are tested, so the outcome is somewhat less than perfectly predictable. If you search the media you might find some interesting stories on this point.
...In thestructure of court case perhaps, but this is apulic policy debate. Anyway, private is less good than public because it is more expensive, not equitable and undermines the public effort.
yeah, but if the Supreme Court didn't buy that, why should I?
The supremes didn't find against all of those reasons, they only found against the last one. (ANOTHER reason this decision is faulty, btw.)
As for undermining the public effort, you should be persuaded by my logic (and that of the dissenting judges).
Why can't we have a system that guarantees a standard of care for everyone but is also consistent with our belief in peoples' right to engage in commerce?Well, I don't see any necessary conceptual problems with a regime of free market supply but the 'single payer' on the demand side. What would you say to that?
Let me know briefly and then I'll respond to the remainder of your (very interesting) comments.
-
What else would you call someone who would rather vote for a poor leader who's strait than vote for a great one who happens to be gay? If they truly wern't a homophobe then they would see the poll like this:
IF ever you had to choose between a good PM or a bad PM for who would you vote ?
The good PM?
The bad PM?
Good and bad are too subjective. The point is whether you'd vote for a gay or straight prime minister. Like Argus said, most gay politicians are left of center, so if you're a right supporter...why would you vote for a gay PM?
Worse yet, if you're strongly opposed to homosexuality and perhaps the agenda that the gay prime minister would push, would he not be a BAD PM in your eyes?
This poll is obviously absurd. So the true point is whether you'd vote for a gay prime minister or not.
What is absurd is the many prevaricating efforts to evade the simple meaning of this poll. Injecting extraneous elements (like a presumed leftwingness in a gay leader), or attempting to reinterpret the neutrality of the simple premise of 'good' or 'bad' merely highlight the value of this poll: it is constructed perfectly the quantify extreme 'homophobia' among respondents.
Res ipsa loquitur, almost.
I think most of us were pointing out that it was simplistic. Clearly that's not a problem for you.
So 'simplistic' is the new malapropism you intend to attempt on this, is it? The question was simple. The construction/selection of the question was anything but. It was careful and effective.
-
What else would you call someone who would rather vote for a poor leader who's strait than vote for a great one who happens to be gay?
Let me ask you a question. If a gay guy ran against a straight guy and the straight guy was the better candidate - how many homosexuals would vote for the gay guy regardless? Just because he's gay. And what pejorative term would you then invoke against them?
What a screwball question. What light do you think it adds to the issue here, I wonder.
Anyway, in the case you describe, the term I would apply is 'bigotted'. What other answer would you expect?
-
What else would you call someone who would rather vote for a poor leader who's strait than vote for a great one who happens to be gay? If they truly wern't a homophobe then they would see the poll like this:
IF ever you had to choose between a good PM or a bad PM for who would you vote ?
The good PM?
The bad PM?
Good and bad are too subjective. The point is whether you'd vote for a gay or straight prime minister. Like Argus said, most gay politicians are left of center, so if you're a right supporter...why would you vote for a gay PM?
Worse yet, if you're strongly opposed to homosexuality and perhaps the agenda that the gay prime minister would push, would he not be a BAD PM in your eyes?
This poll is obviously absurd. So the true point is whether you'd vote for a gay prime minister or not.
What is absurd is the many prevaricating efforts to evade the simple meaning of this poll. Injecting extraneous elements (like a presumed leftwingness in a gay leader), or attempting to reinterpret the neutrality of the simple premise of 'good' or 'bad' merely highlight the value of this poll: it is constructed perfectly the quantify extreme 'homophobia' among respondents.
Res ipsa loquitur, almost.
-
NDP? No thanks, I don't want a CAW goverment.
-
The term "specific costs" is the main point.
The significance of this point eludes me. No services of any kind can be offered without costs being paid (by someone).In the long run, no society can offer health services to all without imposing specific costs on some.At present, there is no direct connection between the amount people pay through taxes and the health services they consume. Users do not see a specific cost. This leads to innumerable problems and such a system is untenable in the long run. Margaret Thatcher described the problem best when she said that: "They have the usual socialist disease; they have run out of other people's money."
Well, at long last someone attempts something like an argument. If I understand correctly, you suggest that a public healthcare system will suffer from a 'tragedy of the commons' effect because there is no incentive to moderate one's consumption. Well, that could be a problem, I suppose, but, what is your reaction to each of these notions:
-accessing the healthcare system includes innate disincentives of inconvenience and exposure to sick people, and probes and tests and such;
-could market-type incentives be devised and applied to the user which maintain universality and would they solve the problem you identify;
-would reasonable rationing not solve the problem?
-
He is tuned into the reality the Quebec would be far more successful on it's own and have more say in the world arena.
There is no 'reality' to that whatsoever.
Alberta should take a lesson from this new Quebec attitude.What good would that do? Alberta can't separate anyway.
-
Right wingers are always concerned about crime and justice, ...
Well, that's half right, anyway.
Y'know what I find ironic, however? Argus, you make essentially the same arguments FOR more police as he opposes in regard to healthcare.
-
Interesting thread , Cartman. I fear however, you seek in vain for consistency from some parties on this point.
Hugo's position, for example, seems to be that any collective action he approves of is 'voluntary' and therfore acceptable (irrespective of the views of his neighors) and any collective action he disapproves of is oppression, with seemingly nothing but his subjective preferences forming the distinction.
-
People avoid paying taxes.While the money appears to exist now, it won't exist if you try to tax it.
I disagree, but what is your rationale for that position?
Yet, taxes are paid and government services are provided. The money exists, so you are mistaken.
Connection? Don't get the washing dishes analogy?I have time to wash dishes, and the desire exists to have cleaner dishes, so why are you surprised when I don't come to your house to wash dishes?This analogy (or whateverit is) seems to me to lack ay coherent connection to the question: Why prefer private expense on healthcare to public?
Here's a different, Hollywood-movie idea to consider: Go to the parking lot of a large shopping mall on a Saturday afternoon. Look at all the cars. Now, imagine that terrorists destroyed the mall and after the attack, the government had to coordinate getting all those cars back to the proper owners - or their families. Now then, how long does it take a shopping mall parking lot to empty after the mall closes on a normal Saturday?
Sweal, why is the second method so much easier than the first method? (BTW, the Russian government faced this exact problem with about 400 cars after the theatre hostage crisis a few years ago.)
???????????
You've now sent me from confused to totally lost. Instead of these increasingly arcane scenarios, I will again ask you to simply tell me: Why prefer private expense on healthcare to public?
Huh? Sweal, is that a serious question or are you merely being solipsistic?So are you guys arguing in favor of poverty or against it?Solipsistic?? Whatever.
My question was a serious one because I found certain comments suggested an inconsistency that is irreconcilable unless poverty is seen as appropriate or desireble.
Our society provides money to poor people who then go and buy the specific types of food they prefer.According to your reasoning, why not do the same with health care?
I've already explained that. Different qualities of food are not generally a matter of life and death.
But look, if the argument from the private health care lobby is that it is right and proper that possession of wealth be the criteria that decides who lives and dies, at least that would be consistent. Depraved perhaps, inefficient and short-sighted certainly, but consistent.
IOW, why must the State organize the production and distribution of health care services?I don't think it should micromanage, and I advocate private competitve supply solutions, but the reason for the state to provide equal health care for all is the same reason we provide (theoretically) equal police protection for all.
-
Reading through this thread, I get the impression Sweal wants society to guarantee a "basic minimum" to all citizens and Sweal includes health care in the basic minimum. IOW, Sweal wants a "guaranteed annual income".
I do think that would be good, but I don't see it as directly conected to the healthcare question.
I suggest Sweal look at the "negative income tax" idea first.I'm familiar withit somewhat through studying Milton Freidman. It sound like a good idea, but again, the connection to healthcare seems tenuous to me.
In the long run, no society can offer health services to all without imposing specific costs on some.The significance of this point eludes me. No services of any kind can be offered without costs being paid (by someone).
eureka, you don't get it. You think our health care system is in trouble because it lacks money (Mulroney, Martin, Harris never funded it properly). eureka, you're wrong.What is your reason, then?
-
Yes, I'm aware that the the decision applies only to Quebec. However, I'm sure that there will be challenges from elsewhere (I certainly hope Quebecers are not the only Canadians who have a guaranteed right to life and personal security!)
Please don't play silly just for the mere sake of it. Of course others have such rights; what concerns us here is the meaning and extent of them.
And having ruled this way once, has the SC not established a precident?Precedent applies only to what the court actually and specifically decides, not to what it does not decide. So no binding precedent applies to the Canadian charter from this case.
... is the aforementioned compelling argument against private healthcare now forthcoming?It's already out there, and probably well enough known to you that I don't need to recite it here.
But as I keep mentioning, I don't feel it's up to me to show you why I think private is *better* than public, I feel it's up to you to show me why private is *harmful* to the public good.In thestructure of court case perhaps, but this is apulic policy debate. Anyway, private is less good than public because it is more expensive, not equitable and undermines the public effort.
... I do think "private" offers some good things that public doesn't. As I explained in another thread I do think it would increase the capital investment in the system and help retain and attract health professionals to Canadian healthcare.I have read these theads assiduously and I did not see any such explanation, though I hae seen many assertions to that effect. Please EXPLAIN why private investment will yield better outcomes than equivalent public investment.
... Your argument has been that if the capital exists, it should be taxed and put into the public system. Well, let's examine that. ... I win $20 million in the lottery. Marginal tax rate is, what, 50% or something like that? I have no idea... but just say. So, I've got $10 million. And whatever I spend it on, I'm paying 7% GST. So, basically, the government has $10.7 million, and I have $9.3 million left of that $20 million. So, what do I do with my share?Well, suppose I'm in Kim-World and I want to buy an MRI machine and operate a private clinic. Ok, so I sink the whole $9.3 million into healthcare infrastructure. Canada's health system is $9.3 million stronger.
I don't see that Canada's healthcare system is any stronger. Kimmy's healthcare conglomerate is, but the healthcare systemis not improve by your mere possession of this machine without some further assumptions in this example.
In Sweal-World ...Kimmy if you want to have a serious discussion it is necessary that you present your opponent's positions fairly and accurately. You have not done so in this case. I really don't have the patience necessary to mollycoddle people who should know better.
Breifly put, in "Sweal-world" you get to spend the after tax winnings on whatever you like because healthcare is ALREADY paid for from the taxes. Since combining everyone's tax money makes healthcare less expensive, you get to keep more money to buy your SUV.
... And yet we have laws to maintain a monopoly supply of this precious commodity...Noooo. We have laws to maintain a monopoly on demand, not supply.
to whose benefit?The public benefit. The collective solution is less costly and more equitable. Conducted properly it would ensure more health is achieved overall.
So the logic I don't see is any support for a more expensive, inequitable, and therefor less publicly beneficial, private system.
-
In our country we tend to place a high value on peoples' personal freedoms. Our constitution reflects this. If people wish to engage in commerce with each other, they have the right to do so, ... the onus should be on opponents of private care to demonstrate this compelling reason for restricting my ability to engage in commerce.
In a court case this is captured by the government having to demonstrate that Charter S.1 is met. I accede that this onus exists and is proper. Note that the SCC did not overule the Quebec law based on the Charter, so outside Quebec, the legitimacy of similar legislation is an open question.
Of course the managers have been the problem, or at least part of the problem. Who, if not the Saviors of Healthcare Party , do you propose will bring about the utopia you envision?It's hardly utopian. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't care who implements it.
I believe you've said you support the Liberals only because you don't like the alternatives... well, in your view, if the Liberals are the best we've got and they've brought the healthcare system where it is over the past 12 years, what hope do you have that your vision is ever going to become reality?My vision was the reality until a few years of mismanagement led to the current "crisis".
But fundamentally, there's just the logic of it. I don't understand why people seem to think that preventing capital from being invested in the system, and restricting the number of places where medical professionals can work will somehow make the system stronger.But that is not my position. I want that capital to come onstream too, I just say it can and should be pooled for the common good rather than for private benefit.
I'm asking you and others to give me a lucid reason why private is better than public. It is no answer to answer me that private is better than nothing.
Are you sure it's worked well for a number of years, or is it just that our standards were not very high for a long time? I honestly don't know the answer to that.It worked well for a number of years.
Well, of course if anything goes wrong in Sweal-World it'd be an anomaly that could be fixed "forthwith". But what about a real healthcare system? Like, say, the one we're stuck with?The very point of our discussion is what each of thinks should be done. As such we are eac presuming we are not 'stuck with' the present conditions.
-
The Conservative's problems are not really centred on Stephen Harper's personality. Recent Conservative leaders' deficiencies have been symptoms of their party's infirmity rather tahn causes of it. Stockwell day was a ridiculous candidate for PM, but don't blame him. Ask instead who chose him and why.
Harper will be made to wear the coming defeat, but he didn't fail because he can't tell a joke. He failed because his party's choices are consistently shot thru with basically flawed worldviews.
This problem leads to things that look sometimes like strategic mistakes. And sometimes they are, but no planners can make a decent strategy when they don't let themselves acknowledge the nature of the terrain.
-
Venom, eh? Y'know what venom is?
You are filled with hatred, venom and bitterness towards others.
Fortunateley you're on guard with your superduper accurate venom detecter to safeguard general good cheer!
Thanks Arg.
-
So are you guys arguing in favor of poverty or against it?
-
Re: Theocratic Democracy. What you say is quite true, however a democracy with an established religion could be considered a Theocratic democracy. This could be of a type where ONLY members of the priesthood are allowed to be members of government and are elected by the general populous (usually members of said religion) or it could be that only members of the established religion could run for office.
I don't think you are really talking about a democracy in most of those situations.
-
Yes, that is a good thing however it is disturbing that some group may even consider it has the right to demand such a thing in the first place. That type of attitude seems a bit arrogant...........
It sure would be. But I don't think there's anyone out there who demanded that.
-
The Fraser Institute are not academics. They are paid rightist polemicists. That "report" has already been thoroughly discredited HERE nice try Sweal. Your little quibbles hardly count as "thoroughly discrediting".
A retarded flea could see that the methodology of that study was a joke. It scarcely needed me to point that out!
Hockey, Movies & Politics
in Political Philosophy
Posted
Voting is simply not an individual undertaking. An election is a civic exercise.
Of course one person's vote "doesn't matter". We are not dictators, we are citizens. So our votes matter together, not alone.