The Terrible Sweal

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? That's a bad habit which may be causing you adverse cognitive effects. Why not just answer the question as put? This analogy (or whateverit is) seems to me to lack ay coherent connection to the question: Why prefer private expense on healthcare to public?

Childish response. So you're saying the Tories are not ideologues, do not actually care about traditional things like family, have no particular axes to grind or desires to change the system? Then why are you so afraid of them? Laughter is an honest response to a ridiculous argument. I'm not saying tories are not idealogues. I'm saying their idelogy is not consonant with social or human weal. ... If you allow more private funding then most health care alternatives will be open to at the very least, the middle class. ... All that extra money going into health care will atract additional suppliers. Okay, let me be serious here for a moment and ask the same of you. If the money exists to pay for more health care, and the desire exists for more health care, why not tax it and provide that healthcare universally?

Indeed, as a tory itis probably essential that you club together with persons who share your proclivities. How else to sustain resistance to reality? Anyway, I have no desire to punish 'the rich' as a group. I hope very soon to be rich myself! But I despise inequity, and I despise the squandering of wealth and opportunity inherent in systems of entrenched privilege. To bring this distinction alive or you: I cheer for Bill Gates, I piss on Thor Eaton. No, ekchoolee, simply erudite. Nope. Contrary to conservatives, 100% the opposite. I want to ensure that what our society rewards and promotes is intelligence, competence, purposeful action, drive, and integrity.

What I've seen so far is that you think that would happen, but not why or how. I responded with the point about money in private hands, discussed below. Yes. Not chiefly. If the money exists in private hands, why not just grab it and take it for the public system? Uh, I think the Supreme Court decision addresses that, don't you? ? No. And you haven't addressed it now either.

Your Scenario Two is wildly speculative. The real situattion is more like everybody gets 7/10 now, but people who can afford (in special situations) to pay for 9/10 want that privilege even though it means the base level for everyone will shrink to 4/10. You would think that most people would say number 2, but if they are willing to spend the 60,000 on that, why are they not willing to pay 7% tax on the SUV along with everyone else to save their child through a public system? Do they want to make sure only their child lives??

So, denied the chance to lynch Homulka in person, the mob turns its bloodthirst on anyone nearby. What's next, stoning her lawyers?

Willy has a point. This forum, and I include myself here, would be a lot more productive if we focused on the issues rather than using putdowns or derogatory descriptions of people or political parties we oppose. Willy's point (and I include yours too) would be better applied in a thread where that sort of thing went on, rather than here, where it didn't.

Dithers and Wacko are someone else's terms of abuse. But Harper personally and deliberatly signed on to the "firewall" thing. Is it something to be ashamed of now? Would it be bad to call Trudeau "Mr Charter"?

Evokes it in your fevered imagination perhaps. The idea that wanting equality with people equates with resenting them is something so ridiculous only a persn without an argumentative leg to stand on would propagate it. Because the answers it would bring from certain pathetic forelock-tuggers would be even more embarrassing than what we see on this poll ... people who love their ideologies more than their children! I don't like Capitalysticism. I prefer free and fair markets.

Your post exemplifies exactly the problem. You cannot, will not, accept the basic facts of your milieu. Prejudice and disdain will not win votes. You need to move away from strategy based on fantasy and imagination. You think Chretien was a pretty face and a smooth voice? Oh yeah? Why didn't this work for Stock or Firewall then? You think it's more practical to oppose the voters and deny their wishes!?!?

This is starting to get very ugly. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And stupid.

Illegal is only what the law says it is. Make a law that levels the playing field and then that's what's legal. I dn't know what you consider "ridiculous", so I can't respond to that part. I beg to differ. I think tpyou think it is "based on a flawed assumption" (hohoho) because you feel it sucks.

Because the Tories, ... , actually care about more than power. HAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!! ? Your answer to why we should allow full scale two-tier health care is 'because we already have two-tiers'. How will intensifying two-tier health-care solve that problem???

Right. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ... The Sweal's view is that our hypothetical patient had better just go spend his $60,000 on an SUV or a huge vacation or something, because if he's spending it on healthcare, then he is causing harm to another patient. Hardly. (You drew me over here to respond to imputed strawmen? Kinda disappointing.) This position presumes that money to pay for more health care exists in private hands. So, if the money to pay for more heallth care exists in private hands, then why not tax it sufficiently to pay for the level of need? After all, the hospital doesn't care who pays for the technicians salaries.

All polling is push polling. I'm just honest enough to be obvious about it. And if cutting a hole in my belly and tying my intestines to a bus was a safe way to lose wieght, it might become a popular activity. So what? The fact it there is no reasonable pospect that two-tier healthcare will improve the public system. !!!€ Why on Earth do you find that comforting!?!? Truth can be soooooo upsetting!

MacKay wants an election so Firewall Harper can lose and move on, making room for himself. (But for MacKay to imagine his political career has any more upside, is a complete pipedream, mind you.)

Your assessment is wonky. The Globe, the entire Canwest/Southam chain, and the Sun chain, and Global are all very Conservative. The Toronto Star is lefty. CBC is a bit lefty.

Have your say.

A link? Why would he post a link? All that would do is show how his diatribe lacks any connection to reality.

That's what I love about you Sweal, your well thought out and well articulated arguments. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is anything about my comment unclear to you?

So we fix it, not succumb flapping our hands feebly. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What incentive is there to fix the system when it already works fine - for them? ... and claim to be defending the system from those evil Tories who keep wanting to change it. If there' no incentive for a government to improe he system because they get taken care of, why would the tories have any more incentive to improve it??? But quite apart from paranoia, how can you consider it an improvement to expand and intensify the very thing you identify as a problem??

That was a brilliant summary and analysis. I'm going to have to read this Lietch more often. This part especially hits the nail on the head: Consider...

No, most of all the CPC is handicapped by having an attitudinal impairment.

So how will making that worse make it any better? But allowing people to die because they have no money will make our health care system look better?

But leftist thinking is that, the gov't has to get rid of unemployment themselves. They have to create all these programs and spend a fortune. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The idea of government spending as an economic stimulant has crept into right wing policy as well. Viz. GWBush. Of course what gets stimulated specifically differs quite a bit.