kimmy

Is Britain the only two-tier system you found, or is it just the only one that made your argument sound good? -k

In 1993, MRIs were still an emerging technology, largely experimental and used in research settings, not everyday medical use. MRIs were not in widespread in Canada before 1993 for the same reason that DVD players were not in widespread use in Canada before 1997. MRI has grown rapidly in the past decade for the same reason that DVD has grown rapidly in the past 5 years. The argument THELIBERAL is making is about as honest as pointing out the deplorable state of the Royal Canadian Airforce under John A MacDonald's regime. How dumb would someone have to be to fall for it? -k

How about we "boil it down" like this... "Suppose there are two systems of healthcare. One delivers everybody (rich or poor) a standard of care that could be rated at about a 5 on a scale of 1-10. The second delivers everybody a standard of care at about a 7, but for people willing to spend money, they could get faster service, giving a standard of care that's maybe 8 out of 10. 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." or "Suppose your child is sick and needs immediate medical care or he will die. You have $60,000 that you've been saving up for a ridiculous SUV, but you could spend the money on an operation to save your child instead. 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." Suppose we "boil it down" like *that*. Answer those, then tell me who loves their ideology more than their children. -k

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 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, even those who continue to utilize public facilities. Your lack of response to any of that is telling. If I've straw-manned you, I'm terribly sorry. It wasn't my intention. I made an assumption. 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 good (ie, forces others farther back in the waiting list, or similar.) There might be other ideological reasons, but none of them are very consistent with "classical liberalism". 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? -k

I disagree. I'll again direct you to the other thread for my explanation of why I believe otherwise. !!!€ Why on Earth do you find that comforting!?!? I didn't say I find it comforting, meat-head. I said I'm comfortable with it. Why? Because 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. I'm comfortable with it because the alternative makes me uncomfortable. (ostensibly the same reason you support the Liberals, isn't it?) Truth can be soooooo upsetting! 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. -k

Senator Biron is articulating a point of view that an elected individual could not. It takes a lot of courage for him to express such an unpopular view, and this is an argument in favor of having an unelected senate. I believe he's completely wrong, however. -k

I guess this is what they call a "push poll", huh? If you "boil it down" like this, I think you're making a drastic oversimplication. 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 knowing that the rich receive better care than my parents, just as I'm comfortable with the knowledge that the rich have better cars, homes, educations, etc. If a system that makes everybody equal just serves to make everybody equally miserable, then knowing that rich people have as long to wait as my parents will be cold comfort. I think your attempt to "boil it down" sucks, to be completely honest. Now get your ass back to the "Supreme Court" thread and respond to the message where I argue that healthcare isn't a zero-sum game. Pretty please. -k {voting for rich people getting better healthcare, just to piss people off.}

Excellent. I assume this means "meritudinous" willl soon be in widespread public usage. I can hardly wait; the royalties should be immense. -k

There have been some good messages in this thread! I will have to reread some of them. However, one that I think was especially good was Adelle's: The Supreme Court has simply said this isn't right. Fix it. Many of the people who in the past have defended the Supreme Court's independance and integrity and their authority to interpret the constitution, are now the people who are bitching about this particular Supreme Court decision. I suspect that some of the people who've in the past equated the "notwithstanding" clause with heresy on issues like gay rights or abortion or language, will be advocating for the use of the "notwithstanding" clause in this particular situation. Basically, the feel I'm getting is that a lot of people are of a mind that "We support the Charter and the Supreme Court (.... as long as we agree with their rulings.)" At a basic level, it comes back to this: Right. Apparently... not "right." I believe that ultimately it comes down to an argument that August1991 has been having on and off with others for weeks: is healthcare a "zero-sum" enterprise? 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. 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. (in the earlier discussion with The Sweal, I offered a hypothetical example where I won the lottery and spent my proceeds on a shiny-new MRI machine.) The counter-argument, no doubt, is that qualified healthcare professionals will be snatched away from the public system to work in the private system. I think maybe that is *partly* true, but only partly. First off, while the discussion tends to center on doctors who take many years to fully train, we tend to forget that many of the allied healtcare professionals take far shorter amounts of time to train. The technologists who will be operating my hypothetical imaging equipment clinic are graduates of 2 year technical school programs. As are respiratory therapists and many other professionals. I believe that the licenced practical nurses who would form most of the staff at private extended care facilities are trained in just a year or two. So, essentially, if we took action right now, we could have a generation of new allied health professionals ready to enter the field before the private enterprises are even ready to open their doors. I also believe that increased private presence in the healthcare field would help retain health professionals in Canada. I believe that American operations have been "poaching" Canadian-trained doctors and nurses for years. I believe that private healthcare operations in Canada could provide an alternative for the professionals considering moving to the states. Aside from creating more infrastructure and opportunities, private organizations could offer stock-options and other incentives for professionals who might otherwise go to the US in search of rewards. In highschool I talked to a respiratory therapist about the field; he informed me that many graduates of the program at his school immediately head off to Saudi Arabia to work for a few years. Why? Lots of job opportunities, huge money, no taxes. Maybe private clinics in Canada could provide job opportunities and financial incentives *without* the risk of being beheaded. And I believe that before too long the number of doctors and surgeons and anaesthesiologists in Canada would also catch up to the increased demand created by private providers. Immigration and increased retention would bring us to equilibrium before very long, and it would be an equilibrium where the *supply* of this scarce commodity "healthcare" is at a higher level than it is right now. So there you go, that is my argument as why healthcare *isn't* a "zero-sum" equation. React to me. -k

Well, I don't really agree, but I can at least respect the position. I could respect our leaders a little more if they'd just come out and say that, instead of promising the moon to relieve suffering... then delivering practically nothing when it comes time to pay for it. Foreign aid, peacekeeping, and international involvement are things that many Canadians place a high value on. If Martin respects people who holds those views, he should either pony up on the commitments he made, or else come out and articulate an argument like you've just made, Sweal. "Look, I know we promised more, but frankly we need the money for projects here in Canada." Our leaders making big promises and not delivering within our own country is something that frankly we've gotten too used to. Making big promises in the international community then not delivering can't do much for our international respect, which is something many Canadians supposedly place a high value on. -k

The CPC has not changed its position on SSM. The position agreed to at the policy convention still holds. I think Sparhawk is saying that they haven't been making an issue of it and that the only reason SSM is back in the news is that Pat O'Brien has brought it to the fore. Obviously the CPC has done a lousy job the last several month. Let's fire up Professor Peabody's Way-Bak Machine and return to early April... ...Jean Brault's testimony has just been made public. The press loves it, can't get enough. For the Tories, it's like winning the lottery. So what do they decide to do? They start feeding speculation that they're going to force an election. So instead of Gomery, the first 10 minutes of every national newscast is devoted to election speculation. Harper should have let the Liberals dig their own hole in wake of Brault's testimony... instead, he grabbed the shovel out of their hands and started digging one of his own. Then there was the confidence motion. Whether the government was obliged to call an election after losing that vote is an interesting question to legalists and scholars, but not for the average Canadian. For the average Canadian, the story was that the Tories had made some kind of gimmicky ploy to try to force an election. The public doesn't really like ploys, and the public didn't want an election. Again, Harper seems to have badly misjudged the public's mood. Then there was Belinda.ca... another event which damaged the Tories with the voters that they need to appeal to if they ever want to win an election. Stronach's decision is her own, but it certainly sounds like Harper gave Stronach a judge out the door. Another incident that makes me question his ability as a leader. And then the Gurmant Grewal fiasco. Holy crap, I don't even know where to begin. I think the fact that this guy continues to draw breath is damaging to the Tories... but Harper's handling of the issue has again not displayed good sense. Peter McKay had it right with his little "there's no angels in this... we need more information" comment. Harper, on the otherhand, got burned by his own doggedness in pursuing the issue. He thought he smelled blood... but it turned out to be menstruation from an angry wolverine. (yikes... my search for metaphors has finally gone too far.) So... there's four issues that have turned people off of the CPC. I don't think any of it's that the Liberals have been forgiven or anything... I think it's that some of the soft Liberal support had drifted to the CPC in April, and following 2 months of mismanagement by the Tories, that soft support has gone back to the Liberals now. And there's 4 reasons my estimation of Harper has really gone downhill the past few months. It has nothing to do with "hidden agendas" or "scary beliefs"... it's just my growing concern over his judgment. -k

because the internet is such a hostile place for Liberals that they have to go Underground? uh-huh Fans of ScottBrison's blog and the CanadaRocksThaHizzy.ca messageboard will have something new to add to their rotation, at least. -k {good luck with your project }

uh, hang on. ... dry here, right now Seriously, though, I think it's mostly in rural areas in southern Alberta. I think High River and Pincher Creek are the only settlements of any note affected. -k

Y'know, you're doing such an awesome job of showing off how enlightened you are, I was just going to let this stand on its own as a monument to your enlightment. But, never being one to leave well enough alone, I thought I'd do a quick search for some of your other nuggets of .. uh, "wisdom." Too bad the message board only lets you do 10 quotes in a message, because there are so many classics. Enlightenment is like so hot right now. You're like a furry little Buddha. I bet your blog makes for riveting reading. -kimmy {if I was a cavewoman, I'd blast you in the grill with my club.}

Greaat Not good news for us fun-loving liberterian types. But worse news for the lefty-types, who generally prefer their bogeymen to be of paler pigmentation. -kimmy

Even if this was purely to buy off Clement from pursuing the leadership, I don't uderstand what deficency of character it represents. *If* it was to buy off Clement from pursuing the leadership, I don't think it's a very good sign. I think a more noble person would prefer to defeat a rival with words and ideas, not by writing a cheque. -k

Right, get it. *Sigh* (although, your notion does make for a more vivid mental picture...) -k

Well, M Boisclair is under 40, looks to be very attractive, and he's web-savvy. So at the very least he's qualified to be Minister of Human Resources Development. Is this someone who we're likely to see take over the BQ if Duceppe moves to the PQ? Of course there are federalists wanting to discuss major political reform. But none of them are Liberals. Apparently, the Liberals. (shrug) I'm not an expert, but that's my conclusion too. However, if Landry feels that the accurate idea of what Canada should be is "sort of a two nations adventure", then as far as I'm concerned Mr Landry can go do "le back-flip" into "le empty pool." -k

Well golly! If "abacus" at the CanadaRocksThaHizzy.ca message board says the Conservatives are done for, then it must be so! I'm sure we can all agree that if there's one person in this country whose analysis is just on a higher level, it's "abacus" at the CanadaRocksThaHizzy.ca message board. -k

Oh shut up. I personally don't think you're any more enlightened than the Byfield clan. -k

We shall see, eureka. However, given all available evidence, I think its clear which of our positions is "rational analysis and decision making" and which is pure partisan pom-pom-waving boosterism. -k

If she'd used her vast personal wealth to purchase political support from Clement, is that something that you'd admire? Doesn't sound like a very small-L liberal thing to me. Do you mean corrupting a public official? That's differnt than wat we have here. Clement is a private citizen. That's a dodge. That wasn't what I asked. (edit: and if you're wondering why people think that you're an unpaid publicist for the Liberals, this sort of thing might be what's adding to the impression.) Yes, I'm aware that offering private citizens money to obtain desired behavior isn't a *crime*, but the question wasn't whether Belinda.ca has committed an offense, it was "in what possible way does this reflect on her character?" You're aware that there's lots of things that are not illegal yet still don't reflect well on a person. How comfortable are you with the idea that someone could essentially buy the leadership of one of our 3 major parties? -k

Well, if one is jetting about distributing the green to "firm up support", one would likely concentrate on areas where there is some "support" to "firm up". I recall the 2000 election campaign, when Chretien didn't bother to visit Calgary. When asked why the Prime Minister didn't bother to visit such a major city, Chretien's chief made some kind of witty comment that basically showed he recognized that no amount of Chretien campaigning in Calgary would bear fruit, and that the PM's efforts would be more valuable in other areas. I'd have thought that Anne McLellan would have had some influence in steering some goodies this way, given the difficult time she'll have winning her seat again. Does she actually have any pull? Or is Deputy PM just somebody that scrubs the crapper in the Prime Minister's office? -k

If Conservatives are jerks, I guess Liberals are either naive enough to believe that extravagant gifts in Ottawa come with no strings attached, or jaded enough to not even care. I'm sure there's probably an H.L. Mencken quip that would be perfect for the situation, but I'm to lazy to go find it. If she'd used her vast personal wealth to purchase political support from Clement, is that something that you'd admire? Doesn't sound like a very small-L liberal thing to me. -k

Oh jeez. You want an actual example, perhaps even evidence, of the sell out? My, if only we could extend the same courtesy to all MP's in his situation. When Belinda.ca crossed the floor, you Liberal types took great exception to suggestion that she'd "sold out", despite the fact that she was immediately rewarded with a position far above her merits. But Pat O'Brien leaves the party to sit by himself for no apparent incentive or reward, and he's a sell-out. Doesn't "sell-out" imply some kind of inducement? Personal gain? What are you proposing "the religious right" offered O'Brien? A truck-load of "Jeebus Saves" bumper-stickers? Do you have any reason to think that he made this decision based on anything other than principle? I'd like to hear the logic behind that. Seriously-- why are you people so insistent that Belinda.ca made her big jump for reasons of principle (despite the obvious personal gain she obtained) and yet believe that Pat O'Brien "sold out" (despite the absense of any apparent inducement.) If you're honest with me, I think you'll concede that it's just partisanship in action. -k