kimmy

Time to change the "brand image" of French in Canada ok, but why French? There are a number of languages that would create far more opportunities in global trade than French. Ah! NOW we're getting somewhere! Here's the ad I'm picturing: ...it's 3:59pm on Albert St in downtown Ottawa. The clock rolls over to 4:00pm, and instantly the street is flooded with attractive, expensively-dressed young government workers. They stampede into pubs, as shiny new European sedans stream out of parkades. Voice-over: "If you want to roll like this, learn French." Now THAT will put butts in French Immersion seats! awww... -k

I hear that I may need to install pontoons on my rollerblades if I'm going down to the river valley today. -k

The target audience for this sort of radio show is angry old-people who have nothing better to do with the sad remnants of their lives than complain about things. Today's music, today's TV, today's kids, and most especially, today's government. Complaining about the government is one of the few pleasures left that these withered old cranks have left. The Liberals have formed the government for the past 12 years, but rest assured that if somebody else forms the government in Ottawa, the angry old-people will still phone Rutherford to complain. -k {"Git off ma lawn, you damned kids!"}

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. I'm not playing silly. 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? 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. "Binding precident" or not... surely the principles underlying the Quebec decision will apply in future decisions. Surely Supreme Court decisions are not random outcome events. It's already out there, and probably well enough known to you that I don't need to recite it here. (...) 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? Tobacco, alcohol, and firearms are all demonstrably bad for society, but all of them are legal for sale with appropriate regulation. While we recognize the potential harm and apply appropriate regulation to reduce harm, we don't ban them outright because that wouldn't be consistent with our belief that adults should be able to engage in commerce if they wish. 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? Profit motive will bring capital into the system to "bake a bigger pie™". That's not speculation; that's obvious. It's been noted by critics of the recent case that Dr Chaoulli's challenge was in part funded by other groups wanting to start private clinics. Quite obviously there's a lot of interest in putting private capital into healthcare. Why will this yield better outcomes? Because shortage of capital is one of the major factors limiting the capacity of our healthcare system. We will be able to care for more patients. Is Kimmy Imaging Inc performing MRIs in Canada? For Canadian patients? Ok, then I submit that I'm part of Canada's healthcare system. Noooo. We have laws to maintain a monopoly on demand, not supply. Ok, that needs some explanation. As I see it, healthcare is the commodity in short supply, the high demand is evidenced by the long waiting lists, and laws like the one struck down in Quebec maintain a monopoly on the supply of healthcare services. What does "a monopoly on demand" mean? -k

What actually *is* asymmetrical federalism? Are there any actual principles, or is it just a catchphrase? In practice, it seems to mean Paul Martin does whatever is politically expedient to avoid confrontations with provinces east of Manitoba and west of Ontario. -k

I believe this is the framework of the plan: 10-year plan 2004-05 $2.125 billion 2005-06 $3.125 2006-07 $3.440 2007-08 $3.298 2008-09 $3.029 2009-10 $3.037 2010-11 $3.426 2011-12 $4.952 2012-13 $6.569 2013-14 $8.283 Given the current cost of $130 billion annually, this basically works out to an average of 3% increase per year. Probably not even enough to keep up with rising costs. It is interesting to note that the plan is heavily back-loaded... $19.8 billion of the $41.3 billion total is in the final 3 years. In the first 7 years of the plan, there's a total of $21.5 billion, an average of $3.07 billion per year... 2.4% annual increases for the next 7 years... almost certainly not enough to keep up with the rate costs are rising. Fixed for a generation?! It won't even be fixed in a generation. -k

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. 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!) And having ruled this way once, has the SC not established a precident? Anyway, now that you've acceded that this onus exists and is proper, is the aforementioned compelling argument against private healthcare now forthcoming? I think this is rather important. It appears (to me at least) that according to law, it's not up to proponents of private care to show that it would be *good*, its up to opponents of private care to show that it would be *bad* for the public interest. 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. 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. You don't really have any reason to restrict my ability to engage in commerce unless you can show this. But yes, 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. Here is another one: basic math. Your argument has been that if the capital exists, it should be taxed and put into the public system. Well, let's examine that. Say 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. But wait: what if I'm in Sweal-World? In Sweal-World, the marginal income tax on $20 million isn't 50%, it's maybe 60% and maybe GST is higher, too; maybe 8%, to provide stronger funding for healthcare. Of the initial $20 million, the government takes $12 million, and of the $8 million I have left, I pay another $640,000 in GST. I spend my $7.36 million on ... I dunno, I buy an extravagant home and car and crap like that, and sink the rest into investment funds. In Sweal-World, the government has taken $12.64 million of the lottery winnings, instead of $10.7 million. About 2 million more to spend, and maybe most of it even goes into the healthcare system (if the elected officials in Sweal-World are more honest and competent than the ones in Real-World, at least.) So in Sweal-world, the result of stronger taxes on Kimmy's lottery winnings is that the healthcare system is $1.94 million stronger than it would be in Real-World. But in Kim-World, the healthcare system is $9.3 million stronger. I think you'd agree that the demand for healthcare services is far higher than the supply of healthcare services. Isn't that supposed to be the kind of situation that inspires investment in a free-market economy? And yet we have laws to maintain a monopoly supply of this precious commodity... to whose benefit? I'm sorry, I just don't understand the logic. It's hardly utopian. For the purposes of this discussion, I don't care who implements it. ... 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 question of who is going to impliment it has bearing on the question of whether your poll is a reflection of any *real* choice facing Canadians. I maintain that it isn't. -k

Oh! Get this, Canada has a shortage of doctors relative to other leading nations! That *couldn't* have anything to do with our healthcare system, could it? It *couldn't* be that our system restricts the number of health professionals working in Canada. It *couldn't* be that our system encourages health professionals to take their valuable skills to countries where they can earn more. Could it? Nah, couldn't be. -k

True, that. Just because somebody says they're tolerant and openminded doesn't actually mean they are, and they're certainly not likely to admit that they aren't in today's climate. As for sending an openly gay PM to Saudi Arabia, that's an interesting point (the Saudis seem willing to deal with powerful women-- Madeline Albright, Condoleeza Rice-- despite being culturally unaccustomed to doing so. They may have had little choice, however.) What about a recent example-- Paul Martin's visit to India and his meeting with the leader of the Sikh Golden Temple, where PMPM received an earful from the Sikh leader on the issue of SSM. The Sikhs are apparently not noted for tolerance of homosexuals either. Would an openly gay PM have even been allowed to meet with the Sikh leader? Perhaps that's not a terribly important issue, except for the fact that the Liberals consider the Sikh community to be an important segment of its voters in many areas of the country. The Sikh leader admonished Canadian Sikhs to not support homosexuality. Imagine you were a voting deligate at your party's leadership convention, and one of the candidates is openly gay. No matter how tolerant you might personally be, doesn't strategic thinking have to come into this? If you're a Conservative, choosing an openly gay party leader would quite likely cost you support within one of your core constituencies-- social conservative voters. If you're a Liberal, choosing an openly gay party leader would quite likely cost you support within one of your core constituencies-- Sikh and Muslim voters. Even if you personally are very tolerant and openminded... don't you have to consider whether choosing an openly gay leader has the potential to hurt your party when you go to the polls? -k

The fact you present is not what causes me to question your intelligence. The conclusion which you have drawn from this fact is what causes me to question your intelligence. Your insistence on drawing a faulty inference from this information, and your inability to understand simple principles that are presented to you is what casts serious doubt on your intelligence. These are rather fundamental symptoms of a mental handicap, in fact. In all honesty, having this conversation with you reminds me of helping my cousin's autistic son. Like you, he continually repeats the few facts he knows but his ability to assimilate new information is severely limited. He has, over time, learned that if his hand-held video game stops working, it means "Battery's dead." And when anything else stops working, whether it's a power-failure or a car that stalls, he proclaims "Battery's dead." As the information cybercoma provided (thanks for the excellent link, cybercoma! ) demonstrates, there have been considerable advances in MRI technology since 1993 that have reduced the cost of the machines enormously. Something else to consider: aside from the cost of the machine itself, there's the question of where to put it. I've toured the University of Alberta Hospital's MRI research facility, which is deep underground in a specially constructed wing. It has heavy, expensive magnetic shielding which cost as much to install as buying an MRI machine. This is necessary because MRI machines use magnetic fields stronger than the magnets that they use on cranes to lift cars at the auto-wreckers. The older machines caused such powerful magnetic fields that it disrupted electronics, especially computer monitors. And even deep underground and surrounded by magnetic shielding, the powerful magnetic fields of the MRI machines still caused computer monitors upstairs to distort when the machines were in operation, so they've also purchased new LCD monitors for the staff so they can use the machines without disrupting administrative work. Those older MRI machines are now used primarily for research by the UofA's biomedical engineers and diagnostic imaging researchers. The hospital has newer, better machines that are upstairs and don't need to be buried deep underground. Why? Advances (in active magnetic shielding) made since 1993 have allowed MRI machines to be installed without the ridiculous expense of building a Saddam Hussein-style shielded bunker to house the machines. Since 1993 they've developed better electromagnets that are smaller, less expensive, and require less liquid nitrogen to operate. (Supercooling is required to generate the powerful magnetic fields used in MRI machines. Liquid nitrogen is the primary expense in operating an MRI machine.) And then there's the question of who'd operate a bunch of MRI machines back during the Mulroney years. There weren't exactly a lot of MRI technicians just walking around at the time. As well, some of the most useful MRI techniques weren't even developed by 1993. One of the reasons so many more MRI machines have been purchased recently is that they are becoming so much more useful. Researchers (like the ones in the basement at the UofA) are continually developing new ways that MRI machines can give more information. During the Mulroney years, doctors didn't know how to do nearly as much with an MRI machine. It is the ongoing development that has made these machines so important in medicine today. If you don't think enough MRI machines were purchased during the Mulroney years, why don't you check out MRI wait-lists during the Mulroney years? I bet there wasn't a waiting-list at all, because doctors simply didn't request many MRIs at the time. In 1993, buying and installing an MRI machine was ridiculously expensive, and yielded results that are not nearly as valuable as the results MRI machines can generate today. Health boards did not buy many before 1993 because the cost/benefit ratio was ridiculously poor. For all but a few research-oriented hospitals, buying MRIs during the Mulroney years would have been a foolish decision that took funding away from areas that at the time were far more needed than more MRI scanners. You could buy a DVD player as early as 1997, but unless you were very rich or very stupid, you didn't buy one for at least a couple of years. The machines costed a fortune, and there weren't very many movies for it. For most consumers, the price was too high and the benefits were too low. And I guarantee that if you look at statistics for other countries, you will find that their number of MRI machines has gone up dramatically since 1993 as well. And then there's the question of who actually buys MRI machines. Did the Mulroney government buy *any* MRI machines? Did the Chretien government buy *any* MRI machines? Well, probably not. The federal government doesn't make purchasing decisions. They just provide a share of the funding for provincial healthcare authorities. If you really feel that the Chretien government's funding for healthcare was so awesome, why don't you have a look at the federal government's share of healthcare expenses during the 1990s. uh-oh. Not so awesome, is it. There you go, THELIBERAL. There's the information, if you're interested in attempting to actually learn something. However, I suspect I've wasted my time; you'll look at this, comprehend none of it, and say "Yeah but the number of MRIs has gone up 400% since 1993 " (or, as my cousin's son might say, "Battery's dead.") -kimmy

If I recall, when I challenged you to provide documentation for what seemed like a fantastical claim, you clarified that they were merely a fast-growing group, then gave me a citation so vague that it would have taken me a full day to find the article to determine to what extent it supported your claims. All of this in the context of a discussion where you said I was too ignorant to be allowed to vote because I assumed that your mention of dangerous religious fundamentalists was a reference to radical Muslims and not Apocalyptic Pentacostals. Probably an excellent example of the sort of attitude that has irritated Tawasakm. -k

While I realize you couldn't let pass an opportunity to beat your "The regionalists, children! The regionalists!" drum, I don't think it's particularly relevant to the question of public vs private services. Don't you think there's some merit to the view that the real blow to "social progress" in this country wasn't anything Mulroney or Manning did, but rather Paul Martin's 1995 budget? I'm sure I'll hear that the demagogues forced them to do it. "The demogogues, children! The demogogues!" who never once formed the government. Your arguments just serve to try to deflect criticism from the people who have been running the country for the past 12 years. In any event, largely beside the point of what the Curious Sweal and I have been discussing. -k

Only if you promise to help me find Waldo. -kimmy

On a similar note, Pierre Trudeau was a tight-fisted miser who wouldn't put computers in school classrooms. And, as I mentioned earlier, John A MacDonald made a complete joke of the Royal Canadian Air Force, not buying a single plane during his time as Prime Minister. Seriously, THELIBERAL, are you so stupid as to believe this figure you keep repeating is of any merit, or are you simply attempting to bait people? -k

To the shock of no-one... except a few Luddites, knuckleheads, imbeciles, and Tom DeLay. -k

Albertans will be content with the status quo, as long as the status quo remains comfortable. -k

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, unless there's some compelling reason why they shouldn't be allowed to. If I want to go out and purchase an MRI machine, I should be allowed to, unless there's a compelling reason to the contrary. If I want to sell MRI services, I should be allowed to, unless there's a compelling reason why I shouldn't be allowed to. What I'm getting at is that it seems to me that the onus should be on opponents of private care to demonstrate this compelling reason for restricting my ability to engage in commerce. Not the reverse. We can conclude one of two things from this. That our kind of public healthcare has been done poorly, or that our kind of public healthcare cannot be done. If the former, then the managers have been the problem and I have no need to answer for them. If you argue the later, then I would invite you to explain why. My answer to reason two is partly to do with your answer to reason one. 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? 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? Are you expecting them to work some miracle next time they're elected to office? I don't see why you would. Even they've said they're happy with what they've done. In response to last week's ruling, they said "hey, it's fixed already! Last September's health accord! Fixed for a generation!™" Or, how about precident? Are there nations where "our kind of healthcare" is done better than in Canada? As this has been debated, there have been examples raised of countries where mixed-delivery systems are providing excellent care, but I haven't heard any mention of countries where "Canada-style" healthcare is being done better than in Canada. 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. It seems an oxymoron to me. Well, that seemed to work pretty well for a large number of years. But anyway, no, I don't think it has to do with the name of the political party who governs. Whoever has charge of the reins needs to apply sufficient resources in an intelligent fashion. 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. Nope, no cues, no exceptions. If we follow my way a family in that situation would be an anomaly because waiting lists would not be allowed to pose such dangers. The policy for anyone in that situation (should it somehow develop) would be that the system reacts to fix it forthwith. 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? -k

At first I was rolling my eyes, thinking "good lord... more of this crap?" But actually it's quite fascinating. As we've seen repeatedly over the past few months, there seem to be people with an almost obsessive need to believe they live in a fantasy world. There are many different versions, but there seem to be many common elements. In each of these fantasies we see a secret ruling cabal (they might be Illuminati, or 12-foot tall lizards from space, or The Shadowy Men Conspiracy... if those aren't all one and the same!) We see the terrible weapons these secret rulers possess to enforce their will... invisible mind-control machines, secret police, "chem trails", mass hypnosis transmitted through TV or from radio waves from cell-phone towers or satellites, childhood immunizations, a media that is keeping The Truth hidden from the masses. We see true believers who know that they are among the few who have to power to resist, while the masses remain unknowing of the real threat. And we see that these few freedom fighters possess the secret weapons that can bring the secret rulers to their knees. Power crystals to protect against mind-control rays! Orgone cannons to destroy chem-trails and clouds of mind-controlling fumes! Psychic powers that keep them one step ahead of enemy agents. The power to spread their knowledge through a secret network (or, at least, the Internet.) It seems to me that a fan of Jung's theories might suggest there was something archetypal at work here. This mythology, with a few changes of details, seems to have been with us for a while. Neo's quest to destroy The Matrix... Mulder and Scully's efforts to find The Truth... Luke Skywalker's battle agaist the Dark Side... Frodo's quest to throw The Ring into Mount Doom... and now our brigade of Internet heroes trying to bring NESARA into law. Perhaps this belief in secret conspiracies of hidden enemies is at the root of other things like the persecution of Jews or the Salem Witch Trials. There seems to be something almost built into us that seeks to find a cause to identify with and an enemy to fight against, and in the absense of anything more substancial, witches and Illuminati and 12-foot tall lizards from space seem to be sufficiently compelling adversaries for some. -kimmy

This is well-said, Fleabag, and I agree completely. Individual situations will always dictate such things. If someone asks me to believe something completely ludicrous (like, say, "Apocalyptic Pentacostals are taking over North Africa!") I will certainly not believe them without being shown cold hard evidence. If I'm going to present claims that I know people are going to dispute, I usually make some effort to have my information checked out beforehand so that I can defend my views. I think that if you're writing a report for your professor, you'll have an idea of which claims you'll need to footnote with supporting documentation. -k

Yes, that sounds like a government program to me. I believe that a subsidized program taking advantage of the large number of private daycare industry that already exists (and perhaps providing better certification and standards in the industry) could work without becoming a gigantic boondoggle. I'm not sure of the specifics of Dryden's plan, but if he runs it like he ran the Maple Leafs, I have no doubt it'll suck (Boo-Yah!) -k

I think there are a lot of problems with (a) the court purporting to conclude that their keyhole view of evidence would allow them to make sweeping policy conclusions of this kind, and ( b ) the correctness of their analysis of the evidence before them, and ( c) whether the evidence is credible and sustains the claims made for it at all. In short, I don't believe it, irrespective of what the court found. I'm not sure why it would matter what you believe. The relevant part is that the court says that based on the example of other countries, the claim that preventing private operations in healthcare is necessary to protect the public good is not sufficiently well-supported to justify suppressing an individual's rights. Our legislators can get to work and figure out some policy consistent with both the public good and individual rights. Or, I guess, they can use the not-withstanding clause... I don't think your question is germane to the point we are discussing. The situation you've implied in it inappropriately crosses up individual civic choices with personal needs. If these parents AND the rest of their society had attended as well to health care as you suggest, they would not be faced with the misfortune you describe. I think you're wrong. We all pay our 7% on our SUVs (and bicycle tires...) And (whether we like it or not) the Saviors of Healthcare Party ™ have been in power for 12 consecutive years. We pay taxes (enough taxes to build a hefty annual budget surplus) and a plurality of us have elected the party which claims to attend to our healthsystem in the way you depict, and to what result? Waiting lists that the court feels are inconsistent with the right to life and personal security. Earlier you described my theory that allowing private capital investment into the health system would "bake a bigger pie" (as Belinda.ca would say) as "wildly speculative." In turn, I describe your vision of "here's how healthcare should be" as utter fantasy. Surely you don't believe that paying just our taxes and voting Liberal will create such a system. So, exceptions and cue-jumping in cases that tug at our heartstrings sufficiently to create public outcry? -k

Argus, "whinge" isn't a misspelling, it's a word in its own right. It's like "whine", but sounds more sophisticated. Call people "whiners", and you sound uncreative. But call them "whingers", and you sound sophisticated. I'd only heard British people use "whinge" before now, but that's one of the wonders of the Internet. You can learn slang from all over the globe! For me, the internet has shattered the illusion that the British are classier than us Colonials. Bob Hope? No, I don't believe he should have been kicked off the stage... but I don't believe you'd have found Bob Hope on the stage at a debate society or academic forum. He'd have kicked himself off that stage, or more likely never got on it. There are certainly messages that deserve only a one line response (or none at all). However, if I've gone to the trouble of thoroughly articulating a position, and somebody replies with a one-liner about Gurmant Grewal's tape-recorder or so on, I don't think that's constructive in the least. It's just partisan boosterism. The mentality is "well if she made a point for her side, then I've gotta make a point for my side, even if I don't have anything relevant to say." In this respect, it's much like August's comparison to sports-fans. What is it about Canadian politics that provokes this spirit of "boo-yah!" combativeness? -k

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. Why? The Supreme Court rejected that argument, pointing to other western democacies that have achieved shorter waiting times with mixed systems. 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?? Ok, so say that you've paid your taxes with a smile, you voted for the Saviors of Healthcare Party ™ and done everything you possibly could to strengthen the public system... but your child is still sick and too far back on a waiting list. Now what do you do? -k

The level of funding of the public system is a related issue, but it's not the issue. We'd all like to see shorter waiting times in the public queue, but doe. The ruling made by the Supreme Court last week said, basically, that preventing people from purchasing medical insurance and services is a violation of the rights to life and personal security guaranteed under Quebec's charter. While it's uncertain what the impact in other provinces will be, it seems certain that this ruling will result in legal challenges all across the country. So, by all means advocate for the strengthening of the public system... and there's nothing in the ruling that prevents that. But our hypothetical guy now has the right to spend his $60,000 on a lifesaving operation instead of that stupid SUV (... provided he's a Quebec resident, at least.) -k

I don't recall anybody accusing her of "sleeping her way to the top". There might be something to the argument that there was gender bias in some of the comments made about her, however I think the main accusation made against her has been that she acted out of opportunism and ambition, not principle as she claimed. -k