pinko
-
Posts
1,164 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by pinko
-
-
I know a number of men involved in disputes with their exes. In my experience, their willingness to contribute depends on two facts. The first, of course, is their monetary situation. The second is their relationship with their exes. If the relationship is bitter, they're far less likely to want to pay a dime. For example, one man's ex wife left him one day, right out of the blue. He had no idea there was even any problem in their marriage. He got legal papers from a lawyer demanding a divorce. His wife wouldn't even talk to him. He found out later she'd been having an affair with a guy she met at work. They have one child, and she rarely lets him see her at all. Is he cooperative in paying child support? Not especially so.
The narrative in these cases tends to be surly men who won't help out their sainted ex wives living in poverty with their poor children. In most of these cases it tends to be more like the surly man won't help out his bitch of an ex living with her boyfriend while both do their best to turn the children against him.
Note that I'm not saying the first type of situation doesn't exist. I know very well it does. There are some ripe bastards out there who won't do a thing to meet their responsibilities. But it would be easier to condemn such a situation if all such situations weren't lumped together painted with a broad brush of martyrdom for the mother, and if the guilt weren't automatically assigned to the evil penis-wielder. That is what the courts and FRO tend to do, and it can certainly lead to deaths by men driven beyond the brink.
There are several points you present that I would like to take issue with. As you know ours is an adversarial system. In such a system once legal counsel is retained it isn't unusual for the lawyer to contact the the other party. A lawyer doesn't have the authority to demand a divorce and in most cases seperation, custodial issues and place of residence are common points of discussion in the initial stages. Once one party petitions the court the other party is notified and the process begins. Whether legal counsel is engaged or not the issues are defined in a series of case conferences including financial disclosure and other issues such as those previously described.
Throughout the process there are opportunities to mediate the issues and as well the case conferences allow for advocacy and resolution of issues as they arise. The process itself has nothing to do with the tactics adopted by the litigants and from my point of view it is the litigants who should be held to account if found to be frustrating the objectives of the law. Of course each side paints the picture it wants to create but I would suggest the judiciary sees through such attempts and addresses them accordingly.
-
You have to remember, JBG, assuming you know it to begin with, that there is likely no more incompetent agency of government at any level in Canada than the Family Responsibility Office. It is notoriously backlogged, its computer systems unworking and unworkable, its staff obdurate, uncaring, and often unreachable. It cares no more what the custodial parent (the mother) says or wants than it does about what the non custodial parent (fathers) says or wants. It care about no one. It cares about its rules and regulations and answers, apparently, to no one.
In addition you have the family law courts. One must remember that lawyers often are attracted to areas of the law which is their preference. There is a certain crusading mentality to a lot of those female lawyers who go into family law, and the Ontario government has been quite content to appoint these crusading people onto the benches. This only adds to the marked unfairness of the legal system in dealings between men and women. A system which was heavily biased to begin with becomes more so with biased judges added to the mix.
Such a jaundiced view. Have you been involved in litigation in such a system?
-
Perhaps jbg could elaborate a bit more on the premise he has advanced. I have some knowledge of family law albeit from the perspective provided by a relationship involving my daughter and her participation in litigation involving custodial and maintenance matters. From such a perspective I have a different view than that described in the National Post article. Were my daughter to have relied on the deadbeat she and my grandson would not have survived financially. Fortunately she has a marketable skill and a husband who, while not the biological father of my grandson, provides the elements of fatherhood missing with respect to the deadbeat. The deadbeat is thousands of dollars in arrears and while he has spent a few days in jail for his delinquent behaviour seems to continue to be in default.
-
In the jurisdiction I live in there are predetermined support payment guidleines. Secondly if an individual's means change then the individual may apply to the courts to vary the level of payment. Deadbeat dads need to be held to account.
While the events described in the article are tragic this man had an obligation to contribute to the upbringing of his children.
-
Sure there are....from other Canadians (David Gratzer)...like this:
....Therein lies the dirty truth of Canadian health care. It is just like the old Soviet system: everything is free, nothing is readily available. Of course, it's entertaining to talk about people queuing for toilet paper in Moscow in 1976. It's far less funny to think about Canadian breast cancer patients waiting months for radiation therapy in 2006.Oh...and look...Mr. Gratzer is from...Manitoba!
So what. Just because some no name posits such a view doesn't make it the case. How about something credible for a change. By the way I notice he is linked to a neocon think tank and the discredited economic model offered by Milton Friedman.
-
"Utterly irrational. The government would pay between 50% and 90% LESS for these procedures. What you are arguing for is to pay the most taxes humanly possible."
No. What I am arguing for is a made in Canada solution that doesn't include some hair brained scheme combining a vacation and a medical procedure.
-
August1991:
You do realize there are no credible sources to support your claim that the Canadian healthcare system is like that of the former Soviet Union.
Here is an excerpt describing the model employed here in Manitoba.
"Teams may include practitioners such as
family physicians, nurse practitioners,
primary care nurses, social workers,
psychologists, psychiatrists, psychiatric
nurses, pain therapists, audiologists, wound
care specialists, and community developers
depending on availability and need. Two
providers from the same discipline can be
considered collaborative if they fulfill
different functions.
In smaller communities, a primary health care
team can comprise as few as two or three
providers, whereas in urban areas there can
be up to 50. Team size reflects the availability
of providers and the size and needs of the
community."
http://www.healthcouncilcanada.ca/docs/rpts/2009/TeamsInAction_Manitoba_Summary.pdf
-
No, I'm not. But my neighbours are. (They asked me and I asked my doctor's receptionist... ) They are looking for contacts in the same way people did in the Soviet Union. Eventually, they will find a doctor.
And then, "They'll be alright."
-----
Pinko, that's how the Soviet system worked. And that's how Canada's health system works now.
In Canada, IMHO, we are still a decade or so from direct bribes.
And then a decade later, we'll have a Gorbachev and a decade after that, a complete collapse in our Soviet health system, and our Soviet education system.
The Soviet system lasted for about 70 years (1917-1991).
I'm optimistic. Maybe our modern Soviet unionized health/education system, created in the 1960s, will last also for 70 years - to around 2030 or so.
-
Nice. Dodge the issues and name call. Excellent form.
Trump isn't presidential material.
-
"I bet that the killing of the poor police officer was in fact indirectly done by a vile system - as the conspiracy theorists say...Kachkar was what they call a "Manchruian Canidate" - a mindless assasin conditioned to eventyally snap and kill - and it seems that our militarized police made a lot of useful hay and got great and needed P R out of the death of Russell ..........someone should investigate who really is responsible for the death of the officer...like I said...there should be an investigation of the sequence of events that led to this human tragedy and great polical triumph at the expense of two men - one dead and the other half dead - and left to suffer for the next 25 years."
What planet did you say you lived on?
Here is some background information for you http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/926391--the-mystery-of-the-man-in-the-snowplow.
-
Patient outcomes cant be guaranteed in ANY system, but what you can do is study the doctors and the hospitals and accredit the ones that provide comparable patient outcomes to ours. Thats why groups like the JCI are important.
Youre a perfect example of that western attitude that nobody can do anything right besides us.
No they arent going anywhere because the Canadian government normally wont cover operations outside of Canada. Implement my plan, and a LOT of Canadians will use it because of the cash back incentive. And if they dont want to? If theyre stuck in the 70's like you, and think medical care done in other countries is performed in grass huts by a guy with a bone through his nose, then they dont have to go.
If you have so much confidence in what you are trying to promote I would like to suggest that you put your own money (not to be confused with taxpayer money) into the venture you have been describing. The solutions to our healthcare problems must lie within the borders of Canada and not in some pie in the sky scheme dreamed up by some so called visionary. I don't want my taxes paying for someone's vacation to India or anywhere else. The bottom line is care is available here in Canada and there is absolutely no need to supplement it with a trip abroad.
-
"I've also dealt with both the US and Canadian systems when it comes to mental illness and all I can say is without public health and more importantly public insurance, mentally ill people from the working class on down are basically doomed."
I think your most recent post is a fair description of the current state of affairs. As for the mental heathcare system I couldn't agree with you more.
-
Easy. This equipment is likely cutting edge... which will come down in cost over time.
It's not really the same thing. Specialists can become cheaper over time as well, though. The labour market for medical workers is highly controlled, so it's not a free market. Dre has suggested ways that services could be made cheaper by opening up the market.
If by this you mean there is an accreditation process and the number of openings in medical school is determined by public funding then you may have a point.
With respect to the equipment my point is that there is a capital cost associated with starting a business. I am not in a position to dispute your contention that the cost of such equipment will come down. That doesn't mean that the cost of such equipment will, in fact, come down.
To the best of my knowledge the clientale for the clinic is not confined to those from British Columbia.
I believe there is competition between the various clinics so to that extent, if I am correct, there is a
competitive element.
-
If you bought an Atari home video machine when they came out, it would have cost roughly an average week's pay. The Kinect, I believe, is $150.
Economics mostly makes things easier and cheaper over time. There are exceptions, for example, if you're dealing with non-renewable resources. But the economy will always seek out better/cheaper ways to do things, even in a healthcare monopoly.
It does work better, though, if people are paying more attention to the costs.
Here is a set of circumstances with which I have some knowledge. My son and his two partners run a fertility clinic. As you may know fertilty treatments, at least in British Columbia, are for the most part, out of the scope of medicare. Upon startup of the business a sigificant expenditure on equipment was required. Using this as an exmaple I would like you to illustrate the point you are attempting to make with your Atari example.
My son also works within the medicare system ultilzing another of his specialities and as such you might also attempt to address this point as it is within the scope of medicare.
-
ame='pinko' date='21 January 2011 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1295642496' post='618128']
These are good questions. Direct them to your provincial ministry of health.
I may do that if I feel there is a need to do so.
-
" Right now most Canadian medical tourists are either going for dental work, or theyre affluent people trying to get around waiting lists."
These medical tourists you refer to aren't very bright if they are going to India for dental work. While it is the case dental work isn't covered for most Canadians I have my dental work done through my Blue Cross insurance and it is always done expeditiously.
-
B_C, the way our provincial governments deal with excess demand is through "wait times". That is, rationing.
B_C, they don't pay for Canadians to go to the US for treatment except in extreme circumstances. Instead, they make Canadians wait. This waiting cost is borne privately by Canadians and yet shows up in no government budget or even in reported health cost statistics.
For older people, or people with contacts, this cost is lower. They can avoid the queue or tolerate it. For younger people, or people outside the "system", it is a nightmare.
Pinko strikes me as a classic example. Apparently, his son is a doctor so he has easy access to the medical system. (When a friend recently asked whether he shoudl marry a particular woman, I said that it was a good idea because she worked as a hospital administrator.)
Canada's health system is Soviet and it engenders an "I'm alright, Jack" mentality. It's also foolishly wasteful as people do all kinds of crazy things to obtain a coveted slot on a waiting list.
Geyser, in my initial response to the OP, I linked to a CBC article based on Statscan study that some 4 million Canadians do not have a family doctor.
If you have a family doctor, then "you're alright". But if you don't have one, what do you do?
This is the tip of the iceberg.
I take it the Geyser comment is directed at me. I notice you have avoided describing your background, if any , in the healthcare field. I am well aware of information like that contained in the CBC article you have highlighted. I am inclined to focus more broadly on the issues at hand over an extended period of time rather than cherry pick like you have. There is nothing earth shattering in that article.
Are you one of those 4 million people without a family doctor?
-
"Any set of services should generally decrease in cost over time, as productivity increases and innovation work their magic."
Do you have some examples to prove your point? If so provide them.
-
1. Monitor the queue status in the ways I have illustrated and benchmark it.
What queue status? What is the benchmark and how was it arrived at?
-
I've never said I've had a monopoly on anything. But your post sorta sounds like a talking point.
My post is to let you know you are fooling no one with your neocon philosophy. Now put your eyes back in your head and try to say something intelligent.
-
The truth can be a talking point.
It can and you certainly don't have a corner on the truth.
-
Michael:
You state:
"I think a good practice would be for wait times to decrease over time..."
That is a fine goal. Now tell me what steps need to be taken to achieve that goal. Please don't reiterate the private sector option.
You further state:
"and for an identified independent party measure that and provide the information back to consumers."
Which independent party are you referring to?
Finally you state:
"I also think costs for a defined set services should go down over time"
What is the set of services you refer to?
-
Shady from London, Ontario sure has neocon talking points down pat.
-
You entirely missed my point. I'm not staking out a position pro/against privatization. I'm saying it's the only new option being realistically discussed right now.
Why limit the options? I take the position that, whereever possible, best practices be adopted. If you want to discuss the issue in that context then maybe some headway will be made.
Debtor's prison for dads
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted · Edited by pinko
This is probably one of the major problems as quite often parents use the children as pawns in satisfying the need to win at all costs. This shows a lack of maturity on the part of the parents and conceivably damages relationships between parent and child.