Evening Star

I see no reason to deny this possibility! No one here has claimed that our system is the world's best, just that it does seem to be more efficient and effective than America's and thus, we are not that eager to privatize insurance coverage. Life expectancy is certainly not the only measure of health but it is certainly one that is useful. You do seem to have a valid point there but I'm not sure that that is an argument in favour of privatized coverage either.

Ha, I kept trying to make this point too. It's why I'm unconvinced that privatizing health insurance in more areas is actually going to make things cheaper for anyone. No one listened to me either.

And I'm sure you don't need to be reminded that there are American radio stations with uninspired canned playlists.

They do. There are many radio stations in Canada with more eclectic and interesting playlists than Q107.

The Hip is actually really big in Buffalo. Seriously, though, unimaginative radio stations are not the CRTC's/Cancon's fault. Rock radio may be even worse in Syracuse.

Ha, yeah, actually, I just remembered the irony that so many people in Buffalo loved the Edge 102.1! Our Lady Peace played my (US) school's Fallfest. (I wonder if 97 Rock actually plays more, or at least deeper, Rush tunes than Q107...)

(xposts to Jack Weber's first comment on 97 Rock)

Ha, I lived in Buffalo for 3 years. 97 Rock is pretty kickass, as classic rock radio goes. I like that they still do things like play entire album sides or maybe throw out some lesser-known Deep Purple cut or something once in a while. (One day while I was driving through Buffalo, they were literally playing 10 Journey songs in a row! Whatever you think of Journey, that's pretty wild for a commercial classic rock station.) Detroit radio is kind of incredible in a different way. You sometimes get some funk, soul, and Motown classics that I'd never expect on a Canadian station.

Proposed in February 1970 and passed in November 1970: http://archives.cbc.ca/economy_business/the_media/topics/1150/ I believe the implementation may only have begun in 1971. Robert Wright's "Dream, Comfort, Memory, Despair": Canadian Popular Musicians and the Dilemma of Nationalism, 1968-1972 actually states that the regulations were imposed from January 1970 but I can't find another source to support that.

I have generally tended to agree with the Idealistic Pragmatist that our Greens are environmentalist Red Tories: http://idealisticpragmatist.blogspot.com/2006/10/garth-going-green-makes-sense.html May does seem fairly progressive at times though. I'd certainly never associate anything about the Greens with Marxism. (You could argue that free-marketeers are also engaging in market-driven 'top-down social engineering'. That doesn't make them Marxists.) Anywho, a month and a half ago, Ekos was telling us that under-25s lean NDP-Liberal-Green in that order: http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2010/10/. They're fickle, kids these days. Something else interesting is that, in both polls, both the NDP and Greens seem to do better with voters who don't have post-secondary education! (I just made a huge bulls-eye, I realize.)

CanCon rules don't ban anything. I will look up the Howard Stern issue. No one on this thread has advocated banning SunTV. The question was just whether we think it will have a good effect. (You have a reasonable point that journalism has always been slanted. At least everyone knows what Fox's slant is.)

When has the CRTC banned US media content (unless you're talking about commercials on US TV shows)? Is there any country more saturated with US media than Canada?

Quite like Argus's suggestions. I also find the system of 'feds pay/provinces decide' quite unfortunate. Sadly, I suspect that at least QC (and perhaps AB?) will stand in the way of greater centralized control.

Why?

(Three times, twice with majorities, not even counting his first massive majority...)

What do you think of the idea that tackling poverty and social inequalities could end up reducing demands on the health care system? I have no problem with Michael's suggestions for better oversight and reporting on performance in the system.

What I meant was that whether health coverage is public or private, Canadians are going to have to pay for it. Either we'll pay via taxes or affected families/individuals will pay themselves via premiums and fees. So there's no guarantee that privatized coverage (which is what I was talking about - not private provision of services) will actually reduce the cost of health care.

Tbh, this shit will make it hard to vote Liberal a third time: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/12/07/ombudsman-g20-security-rule-report856.html That does make me see where Bill is coming from re regard for individual rights. (Don't see how McGuinty's done anything racist though. Is this a Caledonia thing?) I'm in Puppatello's riding btw and the only potential factors that could get me to vote Liberal instead of NDP next time are: i) paralysing fear of the provincial PCs and/or ii) if the NDP were to run an incompetent campaign. I dunno what chance the ONDP has here tbh. Brian Masse's pretty popular federally but the municipal election seemed to suggest an anti-labour/left mood in the electorate.

It is kind of a goofy look but you do know that the NDP has done better with Layton as leader than with anyone else in the last 20 years, right? (Since my Dad has always had a similar moustache, I never really had the moustache/porn association in my head.)

This opinion piece raises the valuable point that a more economically egalitarian society might be healthier and thus less of a drain on the health-care system: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/to-manage-health-costs-invest-in-social-well-being/article1828960/

This makes sense to me. I'd suggest Pearson. Mance and Bourgeoys sound like completely random choices tbh.

(Mine too. I'm especially satisfied and impressed by my community health centre. I was guessing that maybe the situation is harder in more remote or rural areas?)

Otherwise, I don't think that these points, most of them valid, are necessarily an argument for privatization or even a two-tier system. Costs will rise but they will have to be paid by us somehow. If they're not distributed via taxation and public spending, they will just be dumped on unfortunate seniors and their families. I'm not 100% opposed in principle to allowing private competition in some areas (although I'd actually be more interested in seeing expanded OHIP for things like dental and eye care) but is there evidence to show that this would actually reduce costs? Costs are higher in the American private system.

I actually strongly favour increasing the retirement age.

I would be interested in learning what the countries who are beating us are doing.