Evening Star

Curious what you guys think of this article that argues that the Nordic social democratic model is actually good for business and entrepreneurship: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html It's not especially rigourous but it seems to make some good points. I'm predisposed to liking it though.

I'm not a fan of the current Liberals at all but tbf they never flip-flopped on Iraq.

Actually, the net movement has been in the other direction since 2004, it seems, although the numbers aren't nearly as high as the number of doctors going to the US was in the 90s: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Doctor+drain+turns+gain+Physicians+move+north/3497414/story.html And this may back up wyly regarding foreign-accredited doctors: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Foreign+doctors+passing+Canada+certification+exams+study/3617664/story.html Since doctors with US accreditation do seem to be automatically qualified for residency here, I am assuming that the standards in the US are probably not lower than ours though.

OK, Michael, but I also haven't seen the rigourous evidence to support August1991's position that Canada's health care system "revolves entirely" around scenarios of nepotism and corruption, certainly not from him. I didn't say everything is OK, just that I don't agree that the system is what he describes it to be.

August1991, I'm not an expert but what you describe just does not sound like the health care system I'm familiar with. Nor does it sound similar to anything else I've read by informed people. And I think that bush_cheney2004 is right about provincial payers' contracts with US providers: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/21/3/19.full.html

Tbf, there is a difference between choosing not to use a word in your own writing and changing the writing of someone else (who is dead and can't do anything about it), even if you are the publisher. (This still has nothing to do with Canada or the Liberal Party though.)

Clarify?

Surely there are accepted medical standards for evaluating relative need in many cases. If this means that we will sometimes have some bureaucracy following rules and standards to determine relative need and allocate resources, I'm not opposed to that. It sounds better to me than having a private for-profit bureaucracy allocating resources and services based on ability to pay. As for the comments about politicians or hockey players paying for faster care elsewhere (and in what numbers?), is it OK if I see "allocation based on need rather than ability to pay" as an ideal to aim for in Canada, even if it's not perfect? In any case, wealthy people who pay for care somewhere else are not tying up Canadian health-care resources. My concern was more that the resources and services we have in Canada, which still have a limit to them even if it's not a zero-sum situation, should be allocated based on need. I could be swayed to the 'private option' position if it could be shown that liberalizing the health insurance marketplace would actually allow for those resources and services in Canada to be expanded. As it is, I'm not sure that it would.

I don't think American health care sucks (especially considering that e.g. my family doctor practises on both sides of the border). It is the American model of health insurance coverage that I am not particularly a fan of. A system whereby Canadian public insurance is used to cover costs of care at American facilities via provincial contracts is a different issue and does not seem to contradict my stance on this. Canadian citizens are receiving quality care with socialized coverage. I would agree that in the long run, we should try to ensure that citizens can be treated within Canada.

This is so bizarre. The ruling on "Money for Nothing" was done by the CBSC, a private-sector self-regulating organization set up by the broadcasting industry. The change to Huckleberry Finn is being done by a private-sector publisher in Alabama ( http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/books/publisher-changes-n-word-to-slave-in-new-edition-of-huck-finn/article1858319/ ). Neither is staffed by anyone who was appointed by any Canadian prime minister. James Moore did make the right decision about the screening of Iranium. However, I don't know who made the original decision at Library and Archives, who hired them, and what role their party affiliation might have played.

Actually, McGill outranked U of T in the 2007, 2008, and 2009 Times Higher Education rankings, placing in the top 20 each time (#12 in 2007): http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/Rankings2009-Top200.html http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeCode=243&pubCode=1&navcode=137 (2007 rankings given next to the 2008 rankings) U of T did outrank McGill in 2010.

That's a better way of putting it, thanks.

...And it's CPC-ML that favoured the Albanian model iirc? Good old Bains...

#1's gotta be the Rhinos...

I dunno... A party that defines itself primarily in reference to and in reaction to two other parties doesn't really sound like a winner to me.

The LPC and CPC have both cut taxes, perhaps excessively. If you want to fund 'compassionate' social programmes, the money will have to come from somewhere. The LPC is a little more balanced than the CPC on Israel... The NDP already advocates even less pro-Israel policies, which is one issue that keeps them from having "strong support across the country". Seems a bit unlikely that some totally new party that afaict has little institutional support can achieve this better than parties that have been around for a century or more. Again, a middle ground between what and what? Compromise between what and what? By your own acknowledgement, the LPC and CPC are already very close on many fundamental issues.

This is why I see no point at all in supporting or even forming a 'centrist' party that positions itself in between two parties that are already rather close ideologically.

I do agree that it's less detailed when it comes to fundamental principles and philosophy than the Conservative list but there is quite a bit of information on policy when you go to the links, e.g. on "Arts and Culture", where their policy proposals are quite different from the CPC's.

This seems to be a start ("What We Stand For"), with more info when you click on the specific issues: http://www.liberal.ca/issues/

There was a similar editorial in the November Maclean's: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/15/politics-all-the-way-down/ I'll freely admit that I'm glad Harper's government has been less right-wing than I expected them to be though.

That's not because of socialized health insurance though (and the province is actively seeking doctors who will perform the procedure). I'm not clear on what point you're trying to make about the health care system and solutions to potential crises, unless it's just a "Scoreboard!" sort of deal.

And I don't know the answer to how the government will respond to increasing health care costs. A combination of all three sounds possible. I think that greater centralization of some services might help in some areas. I certainly agree with Michael about the need for information. Greater government control over drug prices, which could include bulk purchasing or even nationalization of some things, might potentially help.

Really, BM? I could only be swayed to this position if I could see that opening up the insurance market in this way would actually somehow allow for better-quality or just more health care to eventually become available, improving everyone's lot in the long run. Otherwise, I tend to feel that access to high-quality health care should be allocated by need rather than by ability to pay.

They won a majority just before Harris! (And have won majorities in many other provinces as well.)

Yeah, that was poor terminology on my part so I've modified it. I only meant to refer to dre's comment on "ex-slave states".