err

The hypocracy of the US is unbelievable. Bill Clinton never exhaled. (pun intended) We've all seen stories about George Bush in his younger days.... Our own Prime Minister has talked about decriminalizing pot... and then he'd send one of our own citizens to the states to be prosecuted and likely receive a sentence longer than a lot of murderers get (in Canada anyways)... You should send Paul Martin an email telling him not to let the USA push him around... or interfere with Canada and its laws.... [email protected]

You certainly live up to your name.....

I said nothing of the sort... I was merely commenting on the fact that a large percentage of pregnancies are unplanned.... Maybe we should get the non-paying spouses to form a club where they track each other down and make each other pay their dues ..... Hitler did... If you are a single guy, and you buy a car... do you think the dealership should give you a deal because you aren't going to use the back seats ???? Your charity is overwhelming... You've shown what kind of self-centred, mean-spirited person you really are.... How witty of you, but also how ignorant. You have no idea how I would choose or not choose to use my money given the choice. Let me ask you. As you have discretionary funds (over and above what you need for bare sustenance), why are you not voluntarily giving it away to those who are in more need, since that is obviously your philosophy? To admit that you don't would only show your own hypocrisy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think you've painted a pretty good picture of yourself just above... and I think it would sheds light on the the types of choices you would make... I think you gave everybody an idea of how you would choose not to use your money. As you have seen fit to presume that I do not practice what I preach, I'll share something with you. Aside from my taxes, I do regularly donate to a number of charitable (and politically motivated) organizations on a monthly basis, as auto-deductions from my bank account. I don't do it because of the tax write-offs that they buy me, because I still end up with less money than if I didn't donate.. I do it because it feels good to help people. But you probably wouldn't understand a motive like that.....

Could you imaging the accounting nightmare to sort every program out, every contributor, etc... Our government would not be nearly as efficient as it is if it were to implement such a system. Plus, given your arguments for "choice"... you know that the wealthiest who can afford their own health care are going to "choose" not to pay taxes on their income if they can get away with it. They will choose to help themselves... and not the less fortunate in our society....

I don't know much about your love life, but it happens to a lot of people.... unplanned pregnancy. The world would be underpopulated if every pregnancy were planned.... I'm all for it (going after the husband)... however, I don't think that you want to pay the taxes for a bigger government to track down the louts.... Chastity belts ??? I see the argument for "choice" as an argment for the choice not to contribute (to our society). You feel free to earn spoils from a society that provides you with an infrastructure that allows you to... but you don't want to give back to it... wait, no... you want the CHOICE of not contributing to that society. Huh ??? And given the strenuous arguments you have put into having your freedom of CHOICE, I don't think we should waste much time waiting for you charity...

Isn't it a shame they added exemptions for elderly women whose husbands died leaving them no life insurance. Or how about the single mom with 4 kids whose husband died with no life insurance... or just left her with no support. The government should come down hard on these parasites, shouldn't they Renegade??? I know that you'd like to open the question of how we can avoid helping those who need it most, but fortunately, most Canadians have a heart, and are glad that we live in a society where we look after each other.

Did you notice how soundly they were hoofed from office. His implementations were considerably more severe than his stated intentions. Do you have any idea how much they cut funding for single mothers?? Or a better question is do you even care ??? Living on the public dole is humiliating, regardless of the amount of welfare. If someone was not self-sufficeint, and had to rely on public assistance, should they be embarrassed? Sure they should. It is one of the motivations to get off welfare. How about feeding their chidren... If their children are starving, maybe then they'll get off their lazy asses and get good jobs ??? Not everybody on welfare is a "lazy bum", as you would have them described.Women with small children whose husbands have left them with no support... they probably don't want to be in that position... and should they put their kids up for adoption so that they can meet your standards of productivity... Should they put them in a state-funded daycare so they can prove themselves in the workforce... with a net greater cost to the public.... Or should they give their children the best care that they can.... How about the elderly woman whose husband died and had no life insurance... should we cut off her benefits so she'll go to work at Walmart until she can't stand up any more... Or should we bring in euthenasia for those old folks who cannot contribute any more... even though they did all their lives..... If you can't think about these cases that deserve to be treated as humans, and not intentionally humiliated, then you are a sad case. Again, the term "mean-spirited" is probably the best description I can give of people with your sentiment if I have to refrain from resorting to explitives.

Mike Harris sounded mighty convincing when he put forth the same argument. But look what he did.... Decreasing welfare to the point of starving people into going to work is not an incentive, as you call it. One of the largest problems with your approach is that those "lazy" people who can work but dont... they'll get work... And the people who need it most (single mothers, disabled, elderly) will live a humiliating subsistance living. Your approach sounds "sensible" or "moderate", but the realistic net effects of it are devastating to the most unfortunate in our society....

Canada has far less expensive health care than the USA, and its waiting lines are infinitely long for millions and millions of Americans... How about throwing that into the mix.... And I love how you can compare Canada's spending to most European nations... Because you didn't explicitely say "per capita", I trust that it is not "per capita", and it is a bogus statistic to help lie to the public to steer them into believing their right-wing tripe.... Did the neo-cons at the Fraser institute fail to mention that the Europeans are accustomed to, and accept paying much higher taxes in return for the excellent "socialist" benefits that they get in return.... the article compares Canada's health care with Sweden's, but fails to mention that Swede's pay more than 40% tax.... and have probably the best social services of any country in the world.

WOAH!! Who is asking mom for a refund? Not I. All I want to do is go to the local bakery and plunk down my $8 and buy a pie. How does that stop mom from doing what she was originally going to do for everyone else anyway? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you borrow money from your mom for the pie, (analogous to getting public funding for a private service), thereby leaving her short of funds to make pies for the rest of the family, there is a problem. The "refund on ingredients" is analgous to a "tax deduction" as a result of use of the private service.... If you want to plunk down your own money for a pie, good for you.... enjoy it..

Buying a second car is not how you fix the first one... I think I said "Conservatives and other meatheads"... It is rather underhanded of you to proport that I would suggest that doctors, nurses, and the sick were meatheads. It is also quite the supposition that doctors, nurses, and especially the sick support a two-tier system... Hello, anybody home ??? Our public system is to pay for public services. If you want to pay for private services that are also publicly available for "free", you have the right to dip into your pocket to pay that non-approved vendor. But you are not allowed to dip into my pocket to pay for non-approved vendors.... You'll have to talk more slowly, because you aren't making any sense... We don't officially have a two-tier system, and we don't want a two-tiered system, and we don't want the public system to pay for a private system... Our Universal health-care system is supposed to provide all that is required as far as medical care (North American standards). There should be no need for an idividual to use a "pay for" private system. If our system is missing some "standard practice" treatments, then we should fix our system. If someone want's accupucture, or some other non-standard medical practice, let them pay for it, outside our public system. What's important here is whether they are good at medical care. It's half-brained conservatives like you who think that we shouldn't pay civil servants a good wage, or pay for the latest and greatest medical equipment to keep our taxes down... and then say that we should pay all kinds of extra money to private industry that cost a whopping load more than our public system for the same functions. You'll have to go back and think about how inconsistant you are in your convictions..... Let's hear some specific examples, backed up with some kind of acceptable proof.... And when we pay more money out of our pockets for private services, there will be less money left in the pocket for our public services.... So public services will go downhill.... And we'll all pay more taxes for your public/private service.... And I thought you were against paying more taxes... Again, you have an inconsistent position... When you have a hole in your bucket, do you fix it by drilling more holes in the bucket as you are advocating...... No, you patch the hole.... And you, with your conservative ideals, want to pay these higher wages, and you vehemently begrudge paying $17/hour to a LCBO employee... Your position is all over the place, contradicting yourself at every corner...

Not with PUBLIC money.... they're not..... With their OWN money, nobody's stopping them... Pass the joint... maybe it'll help me understand you .... as per the terms of funding of our health-care system.(thanx mirror) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Read the quote about the conditions for financing of our public health care... If you don't understand it, ask your mom to explain what it says. Especially note the words "non-profit", and "administerd by... public authority"....

The public system is the "company store" that we all pay into with our taxes. The government will occasionally send patients to the US for life-saving treatment when our public system cannot accomodate in a timely fashion. What the government needs to do is fix our services so that they meet all of our requirements. You have some deluded idea about what public health care is.... It is not a system for the poor, as your verbal diatribe would suggest. It is a system for everyone. And in its inception, there were conditions laid down so that Conservatives and other meathead couldn't bastardize the system... read the following quote. And your point is ??? We have a public system, paid for by public money. If you want to use a system that is not a public system, it shouldn't be paid for with public money.... Don't you get it ???? Rephrased, you are upset that you cannot give THE PUBLIC's money to an institution that's not publicly funded. I have no problem with you going to the USA and blowing your OWN money on whatever you want. What sensible Ontarians don't want is the public's tax dollars being diverted from the public system into a private system. That will leave less money in the public system, and hence, cut the quality of the public service, which will futher exacerbate the situation...

Excellent reply and CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR 2000th POST!!!!!! Keep it up.

You would remove the safety net from single mothers, the elderly, and the disabled because you want to get the few lazy people off public support. Either you are ignorant of all of the people that you'd hurt, and right after reading this, will change your ways, or you're a mean-spirited, cruel, uncaring scumbag like Mike Harris...

That's right. Like if you built a swimming pool with public funds, everybody should get to jump in and splash around. But making a separate pool for rich people, and a 'public pool' for the poorer people... doesn't seem right does it. If the rich people want their own swimming pool, they should pay for one. Their private clubs should be privately paid for. But the public one is there if they should choose to use it... It should be obvious, that if you pay for several (say 10 or 15 different language shcools, and 5 or 6 different religions) different systems, and administrative staff for each of them, that none of them will be adequately funded. I will agree that, concerning your own child's health, you should do whatever it takes. I certainly would for my children. However, this debate is about what our tax dollars should buy, and what kind of health care system we should be building or maintaining. I think that if there is something that should be fixed with our system, lets fix it, no go running elsewhere. If there are services that you feel that should be available in our health care system that are not available, or underfunded, then I think you should contact your provincial government and let them know about the deficiency, and that you think it should be fixed. In your house, do you let everybody take what they want out of your wallet.... Your wife, kids, in-laws, etc... You'd be in trouble if you did. If our provincial government let everybody do that to its purse, it would be in trouble too.... It (the purse) needs a strong central control, and our medical system needs to as per the terms of funding of our health-care system.(thanx mirror)

That's really a non-answer. What I asked was what makes the package indivisible and immutable? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's the one that the Canadian government offers... They don't have a "buy one get one free", no "scratch and dent sales", and no "partial subscriptions".

Are they living at home ???? really.... (and you have) ... raise the wages... I do think that $17 might be a little bit high for a general minimum wage. However, minimum wage should be high enough as an incentive for the lazier elements in our society to get off their buts and go to work... Currently it is below $8/hour. A minimum wage that's too low is not an incentive for a lesser ambitious person to work. A significant increase in minimum wage will also help the "working poor", of which there are many, to afford something of a life... What's more, is that this will provide a significant boost to the local economies. People who make minimum wage usually don't hide their cheques in the Cayman Islands... They spend them every week .... locally. Everyone in their local economy will benefit... Not just the recipients of the minimum wage...

Well, if you don't want the Canadian package, you can always take the USA package... but you'll have to move there to get it...

If you have a gift certificate that someone gave you for Canadian Tire , it is a bit ridiculous to rant about not being able to use it at "Source For Sports".... There are a great many services available in our health-care store... If you want to shop in a different store, by all means shop there... but you'll have to pay that shopkeeper... yourself....

Where do you get this from ??? I just said that our public purse should pay for public services... If you want private services, pay yourself. Is your rant (above) because you don't have an answer, and it makes you really mad that you don't have one???? Because it has nothing to do with anything that I said ???

Where do you get this from ??? I just said that our public purse should pay for public services... If you want private services, pay yourself. Is your rant (above) because you don't have an answer, and it makes you really mad that you can't think of one???? Because it (your rant) has nothing to do with anything that I said ???

Let's get the analogy a little more in line with the situation. If you want the pie, but don't have your own money to pay for it, what are you going to do... Your mom has offered to bake the pie for you. She tells you that if she lends you $8 to buy the pie at the private bakery, there won't be enough money in her wallet to bake a pie for the rest of the family.... What are you going to do... force her to give you the money and make your family starve, or work within a framework that will allow everyone to eat pie... Alternately, if you do have enough money (of your own) in your pocket to buy a pie at the bakery, then who's stopping you (from going to the USA for your pie)... But it would be ridiculous to ask your mom for a refund on the ingredients she paid for that went into the family pie because you bought your own pie...

The Fraser Institute's opinion on social services... That's like asking Hitler for an opinon on Jewish innovation.

No... only rich people will want to opt out... and maybe ignorant people.... And though the rich may be able to afford it, they'll want tax write-offs for any procedures they pay for... and they shouldn't be eligible for them... People in Canada receive many beneifits, not just health insurance.... and they pay taxes for a pool of benefits... Wealthy people still need to drive on our roads. they still need to use the public infrastructure... they still need the police, etc... They cannot opt out of the other services to cut their tax bill, and neither should they be able to opt out of a portion of their taxes for medical care...