The Terrible Sweal
-
Posts
1,710 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by The Terrible Sweal
-
-
HAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHA!!!
HAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!\
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.
...How will intensifying two-tier health-care solve that problem???... 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?
-
I don't think I'm unique in identifying your resentment and your rather outdated fervour for class struggle and punishing the rich.
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.
Forelock-tuggers? Are you British, by any chance?No, ekchoolee, simply erudite.
You want to take money from those who worked hard and took risks to make it,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.
-
I drew you over here mostly to be sure that you had read (and had the opportunity to respond to) my argument as to how allowing private participation in healthcare will expand the capacity of the system and improve access for everyone,
What I've seen so far is that you think that would happen, but not why or how.
Your lack of response to any of that is telling.I responded with the point about money in private hands, discussed below.
My assumption was that the *only* reason a "classical liberal" would have for preventing that poor man from spending his $60,000 to save his life would be if spending that money was contrary to the public goodYes.
(ie, forces others farther back in the waiting list, or similar.)Not chiefly.
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.
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.
-
How about we "boil it down" like this ... Which do you want?
(1) Everybody gets "5/10" healthcare regardless.
(2) Everybody gets "7/10", but can get "8/10" if they're willing and able to spend more."
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.
... What do you do?(1) Spend it on the SUV. Saving your child's life is unfair, because a poor kid wouldn't have the same opportunity to be saved.
(2) Save your child's life."
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?
-
I am pretty sure the Conservatives don't want an election. I think Mr. MacKay was concerned with the confidence vote because the Liberals may want one. If they have a number of people not make the vote Tuesday, they will try and pin it on the Tories and it is clear the Tories and Block will not vote for this money bill.
TTS can you grow up a little and just state your point or I get this erg to use Dithers and Wacky in front of the other leaders’ names and we don't need that.
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.
-
TTS can you grow up a little and just state your point or I get this erg to use Dithers and Wacky in front of the other leaders’ names and we don't need that.
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"?
-
This is hardly surprising, coming from you. It evokes the typical resentment of the rich that so many on the Left feel.
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.
Why not ask if people want their kids to have big houses like the rich, and food that's just as good as the rich, and houses that are just as fancy as the rich?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!
So you don't like Capitalism.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.
... the shallow nature and limited attention span of the average voter in most urban centres pretty well.Prejudice and disdain will not win votes.
You want to know how to get elected? First, pick a pretty face with a smooth voice as a leader.You need to move away from strategy based on fantasy and imagination. You think Chretien was a pretty face and a smooth voice?
He doesn't have to have any intelligence, experience, ideas or honesty.Oh yeah? Why didn't this work for Stock or Firewall then?
Then, you do polls to find out what people want. You offer them that, ...You think it's more practical to oppose the voters and deny their wishes!?!?
-
Liberal MP Calls for Senator to ResignWalt Lastewka says he's appalled by Biron's decision.
This is starting to get very ugly.
And stupid.
-
... while it's not particularly fair that money gives people a head start in life, I can't see how you could level the playing field without ridiculous and quite likely illegal restrictions on personal liberty.
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 don't think it sucks because it's "truth." I think it sucks because it's a distortion of the truth, based on a flawed assumption.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.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???
HAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHA!!!
HAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
But quite apart from paranoia, how can you consider it an improvement to expand and intensify the very thing you identify as a problem???
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???
-
At a basic level, it comes back to this:
If someone has earned their $60,000 through only the most meritudinous of activities, they should be able to spend it on a ridiculous SUV... but not on surgery to save their own life?
Right.
...
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.)
I would agree with his position if I did believe that healthcare was "zero-sum", but I'm far from convinced.I believe that an increased role for private healthcare providers would cause an immediate influx of capital from entrepreneurs investing in much-needed infrastructure.
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.
-
I guess this is what they call a "push poll", huh?
All polling is push polling. I'm just honest enough to be obvious about it.
If a system that allows the rich to spend their filthy lucre on privatized healthcare also happens to improve the quality of care for everybody, then I'll be perfectly comfortable ...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.
... I'm comfortable with the knowledge that the rich have better ... educations ...!!!€
Why on Earth do you find that comforting!?!?
I think your attempt to "boil it down" sucks, to be completely honest.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.)
-
My assessment:
Liberal:
La Presse
Globe
Star
CanWest except National Post
CTV
CBC TV
CBC Radio
Conservative:
National Post
Global TV
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.
-
Sorry, but I haven't heard anything about this. Please post a link.
A link? Why would he post a link? All that would do is show how his diatribe lacks any connection to reality.
-
No, most of all the CPC is handicapped by having an attitudinal impairment.
That's what I love about you Sweal, your well thought out and well articulated arguments.
Is anything about my comment unclear to you?
-
The reality is that this is the situation today, just as it was yesterday, just as it will be tomorrow.
So we fix it, not succumb flapping our hands feebly.
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:
“They ... act like self destructing robots when faced with a situation they can’t understand and they actually spew smoke and rattle and jump up and down,” says Nerenberg.Consider...
In the real world, they call this guy a huge moron! Whoever gave him the permission to even write should be shot with a ball of his own shit.It is the most biased bunch of bullshit and I wasted my time even reading it!
...
She is not the most prominent woman in politics, she is a waste of skin.
What kind of drugs do they feed this doofus?
-
I think you're right Newf. I don't think the CPC played the Grewal thing right. I think they don't play the game well most of the time. However, wouldn't you say the CPC is handicapped from the beginning by not having the decades of experience in government that the Libs have. Most of all the CPC is handicapped by an unfair press.
No, most of all the CPC is handicapped by having an attitudinal impairment.
-
I hate to break it to you, people are already have healthcare choices according to their means, whether you want to believe it or not.
So how will making that worse make it any better?
Allowing people to die because they have to wait YEARS for their first appointment to a specialist is grossly irresponsible and quite frankly makes our healthcare system look like crap.But allowing people to die because they have no money will make our health care system look better?
-
Increasing gov. spending is not the only way of fighting unemployment. And deficit spending, though an inflationary influence, need not produce substantial actual inflation.
But more fundamentally, there isn't really anything that wrong with a little inflation. In fact, without some inflation, you are probaly experiencing no growth.
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.
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.
Supreme Court of Canada
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
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?