Freedom, Health Care, Glasnost & Perestroika

[Canadian Blue]

What BS. Opted for? It was a referral to a place where the surgery was done no place else as well.

Opted for is what people do to jump ahead of people. I see no evidence of that.

You mean Belinda Stronach's surgery isn't done at all in Canada. Isn't that just another example of the problems with our healthcare system.

Klein was demonizing Ottawa to try and get his bill passed with full support.

We were demonizing Ottawa because Ottawa demonizes us. It's a give and take relationship, we give you our wealth for a billion dollar boondoggle [gun registry] while we call you guys assholes.

Harper talked about going after big polluters at an even greater rate while spending like crazy across the country. Upset about that?

Definitely, but at the very least he wasn't talking about increasing my taxes while doing it.

Like I stated before, I usually vote for the lesser of two evils. Even though the GST cut didn't do much, it was better than the Liberal Party plan to put a tax on everything so the federal government could run the nurseries of the nation.

Chretien was joking around. He was an ass a lot of the time.

I doubt it, their's a reason why all Senators appointed from Alberta at the time were Liberal Party hacks.

No, your party wants to end the gun registry even when it has support from the police who access it thousands of time a day.

Exactly how many crimes have been solved by the gun registry? By the way both the Auditor General and Julian Fantino the current head of the OPP are opposed to the gun registry due to the fact it's ineffective. Here's a direct quote:

We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.

Ironically enough the Liberal Party is the principal opponent of giving Border Guards and the CBSA firearms so they can properly do their job. One Liberal MP stated that he wants the CBSA to act more like a bank instead of a law enforcement agency. In conclusion the Liberal Party doesn't really care about stopping the flow of guns, but is more concerned about projecting an image of political correctness.

For even more delicious irony here's a quote from the webmaster of the CFC John Hicks:

"During my tenure as the CFC webmaster I duly informed management that the website that interfaced to the firearms registry was flawed. It took some $15 million to develop and I broke it inside of about 30 minutes."

Once again, perhaps spending $1 billion dollars targeting Ducks Unlimited wasn't a good policy...

But their's more, even the Violence Policy Center, one of the largest pro-gun control groups in the US is opposed to implementing a Canadian style registry because it's ineffective.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[Huston]

Neither do I. However, we seem to be looking at the solution offered south of us.

It seems you can't post without personalizing to the person. It seems to be your ideology.

No, it is not. The south is large corporations that offer limited choice that pushes up prices. It is regulated for them and against smaller health alternatives.

In Canada, some people seem to want to end public financing of it in favour of privatization with little evidence to show how it will make things better.

It will only work when certain regulations are removed. Bill C-61 will make that difficult.

Privatizations means alternatives. If the government will only pay for certain kinds of health care, it should not force others out of the way through regulations.

[jdobbin]

You mean Belinda Stronach's surgery isn't done at all in Canada. Isn't that just another example of the problems with our healthcare system.

No, actually. There are certain surgeries and doctors that are only available in certain places. Or do you think that we should have all types of surgery done here, no matter how specialized?

We were demonizing Ottawa because Ottawa demonizes us. It's a give and take relationship, we give you our wealth for a billion dollar boondoggle [gun registry] while we call you guys assholes.

I agree that the gun registry was a waste.

However, don't play the game that Alberta is the victim here. They have been demonizing Ottawa for a long time simply because it plays well and diverts from their own faults.

Definitely, but at the very least he wasn't talking about increasing my taxes while doing it.

He was planning on letting industry pass on even higher costs to you.

Like I stated before, I usually vote for the lesser of two evils. Even though the GST cut didn't do much, it was better than the Liberal Party plan to put a tax on everything so the federal government could run the nurseries of the nation.

Harper's plan was to cost more according some economists.

I doubt it, their's a reason why all Senators appointed from Alberta at the time were Liberal Party hacks.

Well, there you go. He does have friends in Alberta.

Exactly how many crimes have been solved by the gun registry? By the way both the Auditor General and Julian Fantino the current head of the OPP are opposed to the gun registry due to the fact it's ineffective. Here's a direct quote:

Which you don't have a link for.

The policy of the chiefs of police is that the registry remains a tool for law enforcement.

Ironically enough the Liberal Party is the principal opponent of giving Border Guards and the CBSA firearms so they can properly do their job. One Liberal MP stated that he wants the CBSA to act more like a bank instead of a law enforcement agency. In conclusion the Liberal Party doesn't really care about stopping the flow of guns, but is more concerned about projecting an image of political correctness.

Feel free to drop the registry then. There are still many police who believe it is a useful tool.

I thought it was bad policy to begin with and have stated thus in this forum many times.

The cheaper thing to do was to make sure that gunowners registered their guns on their firearms certificate which they themselves carried. Anyone registering their weapons in this way would not be subject to a central registry and anyone volunteering this information could a discount on their FAC. No fuss, no muss and useful for the police to track stolen weapons.

Edited December 17, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

No, it is not. The south is large corporations that offer limited choice that pushes up prices. It is regulated for them and against smaller health alternatives.

Once you open up to privatization, the NAFTA allows for U.S. companies to come and work in Canada. You are saying that deregulation in Canada will keep them from similar practices?

It will only work when certain regulations are removed. Bill C-61 will make that difficult.

Privatizations means alternatives. If the government will only pay for certain kinds of health care, it should not force others out of the way through regulations.

And what countries use these practices you speak of so we can analyze the differences?

[ToadBrother]

Unfortunately, which is why our system will likely be bankrupt because people are more receptive to emotion than reality. Most people like yourself refuse to look at any reform of the system simply because you don't want to be "American."

I never said I was against reform. I am against attempts by Albertan Conservatives to try to bolster their own case (and particular remedy) by claiming that somehow this is an East-West issue. Alberta's peculiar battle is Alberta's peculiar battle.

[ToadBrother]

No, your party wants to end the gun registry even when it has support from the police who access it thousands of time a day.

Let's be clear here, I think we're talking about the long gun registry and the gun laws in general, which are useless, and in some cases worse than useless. In my town, we've had increasing bear problems, including houses being broken into and pets killed, and I can assure you that many of are giving the middle finger to the cops and conservation officers, and have our ammo and guns ready.

I'd challenge the notion that it's accessed thousands of times a day. I doubt even the DNA database is accessed that often. The abuse of legitimate gun owners, in particular long gun owners in rural Canada by a pack of mamby-pambies from Toronto is one of the major affronts to our way of life by people so detached from the vast majority of our landmass that they think their problems (due in large part by uncontrolled poverty, drug abuse and organized crime) can be solved by idiotic laws.

Beyond that, I don't think it's the job of our elected officials to make the police's jobs easier by impinging upon the long-standing freedoms of its citizens. Do you honestly think making a hunter or a rancher jump through the expensive and worthless loops will make the pathetic mess that urban Canada is any safer?

Edited December 17, 2008 by ToadBrother

[Canadian Blue]

Which you don't have a link for.

The policy of the chiefs of police is that the registry remains a tool for law enforcement.

It's a partisan site, but I have no reason to believe that they lied about the quote.

http://www.gunowners.org/op0507.htm

As for what the Policy of the Chiefs of Police is, quite frankly it doesn't really matter to me. Not so much that I have a lack of respect for the heads of police, but that many of these policies are made based upon politics.

Even if a police officer were to go to a call, they should still be prepared for an armed situation. The registry is no reason to become complacent.

There are certain surgeries and doctors that are only available in certain places. Or do you think that we should have all types of surgery done here, no matter how specialized?

Yes, quite frankly we shouldn't have to rely on a separate nation in order for Canadian citizens to get medical care.

However, don't play the game that Alberta is the victim here. They have been demonizing Ottawa for a long time simply because it plays well and diverts from their own faults.

Diverts from our own faults, like having the second freest economy in North America? Perhaps more provinces should try emulating some of Alberta's tax policies in the hopes that it could kickstart their economies instead of begging for cash from Ottawa.

He was planning on letting industry pass on even higher costs to you.

Kind of like a carbon tax?

Harper's plan was to cost more according some economists.

Economics is a dismal science, and most often economists are more directed by political biases instead of common sense. Are we talking about the economists that write in Adbusters, or the ones that write for CATO?

Well, there you go. He does have friends in Alberta.

Of course, their's always failed Liberal candidates who are aching for an appointment to the Senate.

Feel free to drop the registry then. There are still many police who believe it is a useful tool.

I thought it was bad policy to begin with and have stated thus in this forum many times.

Why did you spend all that time defending it then?

[jdobbin]

I'd challenge the notion that it's accessed thousands of times a day.

Challenge away. It is the police that produce those numbers.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati..._canguns19.html

Police groups say they check the registry 5,000 times a day, whether as part of a routine traffic stop or before officers enter a home to stop a dispute, although one analyst says that the database is full of errors.

[Canadian Blue]

Gun registry or no registry, each police officer should approach every situation as if a gun could be involved.

As well the quote you included stated that the registry had a magnitude of errors.

[Huston]

Once you open up to privatization, the NAFTA allows for U.S. companies to come and work in Canada.

Yeah?

You are saying that deregulation in Canada will keep them from similar practices?

Deregulation? No better regulation.

And what countries use these practices you speak of so we can analyze the differences?

Does that matter? You make it sound we have access to all information. So loaded question. Ahhh.. I'm scared to try new things.. Yet the only way to do that is through a free-market.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Huston

[jdobbin]

Gun registry or no registry, each police officer should approach every situation as if a gun could be involved.

As well the quote you included stated that the registry had a magnitude of errors.

It does. In part because it frozen due to Tory efforts.

[jdobbin]

Yeah?

Who expect to operate under the same rules as those in the U.S.

Deregulation? No better regulation.

Which may be illegal under NAFTA.

Does that matter? You make it sound we have access to all information. So loaded question. Ahhh.. I'm scared to try new things.. Yet the only way to do that is through a free-market.

Not afraid to try new things. Just waiting for convincing evidence that eliminates wait times and provides better healthcare.

[August1991]

A belief, an ideology. But does it? Really? Is business able to operate more efficiently?

Well look around buddy boy... All the "efficient" businesses going down the tubes, banks, car manufacturers, and more.. Must be all that efficiency? Taking peoples livelihoods on down with them. One would think had these business been run efficiently they would wether the storm, but infact, they have been run foolishly, corruptly.

But cars aren't healthcare.

Healtcare is a human right, a car is not.

pure speculation. And you couldn't substantiate this if you tried.

It seems the supporters of for profit medicine, are the biggest promoters of a nonsensical ideology.

Business can do things more efficiently, and cost effectivley.

Pure ideological fantasy, and years of corporate brainwashing done to serve... drum roll please.. CORPORATIONS.

I quote you at length Kuzadd because you inadvertently get at the heart of the issue.

A "profit" is merely a measured way to say that the benefit of something is greater than its cost. How can one argue with such a concept? Why would society indulge an activity that destroys value? We can argue about how to measure these things but it seems to me that if the cost is greater than the benefit, then it's not a good course of action.

How is this relevant to this thread, our health system and Couillard's speech?

At present in Canada, we have no way of knowing whether one policy or practice is a net benefit or a net cost. Our health system functions like the Soviet Union where no one knew costs or benefits. Such bureaucratic systems become increasingly encumbered by regulations and rules. Some people (often small town politicians) can game the bureaucracy. Overall, we suffer and no one can imagine anything different. Anyone who has lived in a centralized command economy understands this situation perfectly.

This is Couillard's main point. Our health system lacks the accurate signals to allocate resources properly.

Back in the real world, GM, Bell Canada and Nortel have all seen their share prices fall by as much as 90%. Walmart OTOH has seen its share price rise.

I'm really not seeing the parallel.

The parallel between Rimouski and Manitoba is that both are small, homogeneous places. It is possible to have a State solution, probably using someone else's money. Edited December 17, 2008 by August1991

[Smallc]

The parallel between Rimouski and Manitoba is that both are small, homogeneous places.

Oh, now I get it. You don't know what you're talking about. Makes much more sense now.

[jdobbin]

The parallel between Rimouski and Manitoba is that both are small, homogeneous places.

One is a province and one is a city.

And what do you mean homogeneous?

[ToadBrother]

Diverts from our own faults, like having the second freest economy in North America? Perhaps more provinces should try emulating some of Alberta's tax policies in the hopes that it could kickstart their economies instead of begging for cash from Ottawa.

Well, not all provinces have the raw fossil fuel supplies that Alberta does. I wasn't aware that there were people that actually thought that Alberta somehow pulled itself out of its duldrums, rather than simply being rather like that the price of a barrel of oil provided the economic "miracle".

And besides, isn't the oil patch now coming hat in hand looking for bailouts from the Federal Government? When the price of oil is astronomically high, suddenly it's because Ralph Klein was some sort of economic genius, but when the price of oil drops below the threshold necessary to sustain Alberta's oil industry, it's all about Alberta getting its fair shake.

I'd like to believe that it's only the Conservatives and their supporters that are hypocrites, and not the entire province.

[August1991]

Oh, now I get it. You don't know what you're talking about. Makes much more sense now.

The population of Manitoba is about 1 million and the diversity is nothing like, say, Brooklyn.

I once knew a student from PEI and as she explained to me, if she had a problem with her student loan, she phoned "Mabel" - since Mabel was the single bureaucrat in Charlottetown who kept tabs on all PEI student loans.

Places like Manitoba, PEI and Rimouski are past masters at gaming larger bureaucracies.

Please understand that once you leave the price mechanism behind, you enter the never, never land of noblesse oblige. I'm not claiming that Manitoba or Rimouski receives an undue share. In fact, no one knows who gets what but it is fair to say that the pie will get smaller.

As I say, Canada's health care system is Soviet and I agree with Couillard, our health system will meet eventually with an end similar to the Soviet Union for the same reason. "You can't manage what you can't count."

Edited December 17, 2008 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

TB,

How precisely would it work? Would the taxpayer still effectively be funding it, so that this whole "private health care" claim would amount to nothing more than contracting out? If it is truly private, how do you assure that such hospitals don't bleed the public system of doctors and nurses? Will the public system effectively become a health care ghetto?

Yes, the public would fund it. These would be new hospitals. If doctors and nurses are scarce, that's a separate issue that should be addressed. Incidentally, that's yet another failing of the healthcare consumer that they're not pressing for more doctors and nurses.

Private healthcare advocates talk a lot about waiting lists, as if that is the only metric of health care.

It's actually pretty important, I think. And the fact that there aren't consistent waiting lists being published regularly should tell you something about the accountability of the system.

Well, the US, for instance, may not have the wait lists we have, but there's still a reasonable proportion of the population that is underinsured or uninsured who basically bankrupt themselves for serious procedures.

Let's not talk about the US then. Let's talk about our system instead.

So how would this private system be prevented from doing that, or would poor people be funneled off to the public system (see that in relation to ghettoizing the public system), in effect destroying the equality of access provision.

It would be run by a company that would manage services in return for a fee. They would make a profit if they managed better than the public system.

I'm not necessarily against private healthcare, but it cannot come at the expense of the public system.

The public system is deteriorating for some reason. I think it's that politics is too prevalent in the way its managed. We need an organization to deliver services without an eye to opinion polls.

[Smallc]

The population of Manitoba is about 1 million and the diversity is nothing like, say, Brooklyn.

I once knew a student from PEI and as she explained to me, if she had a problem with her student loan, she phoned "Mabel" - since Mabel was the single bureaucrat in Charlottetown who kept tabs on all PEI student loans.

Oh yeah...well...I hate to break it too you, but Manitoba is certainly not like PEI and its certainly not what you think it is. We have many hospitals...many large hospitals, and from my experience, most of them work quiet well most of the time.

[ToadBrother]

TB,

Yes, the public would fund it. These would be new hospitals. If doctors and nurses are scarce, that's a separate issue that should be addressed. Incidentally, that's yet another failing of the healthcare consumer that they're not pressing for more doctors and nurses.

It's actually pretty important, I think. And the fact that there aren't consistent waiting lists being published regularly should tell you something about the accountability of the system.

I see no evidence that business is any more accountable. At least with politicians you can fire them by voting them out of office.

Let's not talk about the US then. Let's talk about our system instead.

And how precisely would your system differ than the US's? In what fundamental way?

It would be run by a company that would manage services in return for a fee. They would make a profit if they managed better than the public system.

And if they don't?

The public system is deteriorating for some reason. I think it's that politics is too prevalent in the way its managed. We need an organization to deliver services without an eye to opinion polls.

If it is taxpayer funded, then at the end of the day, it must be accountable in some way. And please, don't wave the "business is accountable through profits" nonsense. The latest fiascos have demonstrated just how unaccountable business can be, unless you call bankruptcies and buyouts a form of "accountability". So how would it be accountable if not ultimately to the electorate? After all, it would still be taxpayer money. I suppose you can pay ten bucks an hour for cleaning staff, but then you get ten bucks an hour worth out of it (I've seen personally these staff in action, hospitals in BC are nothing like they were ten years ago).

Virtually every health care system in the industrialized world is in one stage of crisis or another. The problem ultimately isn't politics, it isn't whether it's run by evil socialists or evil corporate entities, it's because in most industrialized countries, the demographic is getting older, the system is becoming burdened by insufficient numbers of young healthy taxpayers coming into the system to pay for the baby boomers who are now beginning to strain the system. All the user fees, all the contracting out (which is, let's face it, what you're really saying) won't fix the root issue. The only thing that will is more babies, and that will only begin to fix it in twenty to twenty five years, even if we saw birth rates skyrocket right now.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

TB,

Yes, the public would fund it. These would be new hospitals. If doctors and nurses are scarce, that's a separate issue that should be addressed. Incidentally, that's yet another failing of the healthcare consumer that they're not pressing for more doctors and nurses.

It's actually pretty important, I think. And the fact that there aren't consistent waiting lists being published regularly should tell you something about the accountability of the system.

Let's not talk about the US then. Let's talk about our system instead.

It would be run by a company that would manage services in return for a fee. They would make a profit if they managed better than the public system.

The public system is deteriorating for some reason. I think it's that politics is too prevalent in the way its managed. We need an organization to deliver services without an eye to opinion polls.

The public health care system in Canada is being degraded by bureaucracy, additional administrative expenses. Those expenses increase with a private/public system. A functional solution to that problem would be reduce administrative expenses. Look at the reality of the current system; a federal system implemented and administered by provinces on a shared cost basis. If that is not bad enough add in all of the regional authorities inside each provincial system. Now factor in all the individual administrative efforts of the separate hospitals and clinics. Suggesting that you would reduce administrative expenses by adding in another private administrative effort is simply foolish and unbelievable. It defies logic to reach that conclusion as no form of a private public system yet proposed addresses this issue.

[August1991]

Oh yeah...well...I hate to break it too you, but Manitoba is certainly not like PEI and its certainly not what you think it is. We have many hospitals...many large hospitals, and from my experience, most of them work quiet well most of the time.

I suspect that someone from PEI would take slight to your post as you seem to have taken slight at mine.

I meant no harm. (As it is, both my parents came from tiny communities, one from Newfoundland - current population 700,000 or so.)

Such places are nothing like Moscow or Paris.

The public health care system in Canada is being degraded by bureaucracy, additional administrative expenses. Those expenses increase with a private/public system.

Fortin, the additional expense is not administrative charges. The expense (cost) is due to confusion.

No one knows what is going on. Well meaning hospital administrators use spread sheets and computer programs to figure out how to organize ER and surgical staffing. Meanwhile, hospital staff meet in committees or chat during a cigarette break and gossip about rumoured changes. No one really knows what the effect of anything is - but any change with the potential to affect a person's livelihood meets with immediate scrutiny.

This is how the Soviet Union operated and how most bureaucracies operate. The only question is how far they can divorce themselves from reality and for how long. The managers at GM have a short leash. The managers in the Ontario health ministry have a long leash.

Edited December 17, 2008 by August1991

[Smallc]

I suspect that someone from PEI would take slight to your post as you seem to have taken slight at mine.

I meant no harm. (As it is, both my parents came from tiny communities, one from Newfoundland - current population 700,000 or so.)

Such places are nothing like Moscow or Paris.

I have no problem with PEI....which Manitoba is nothing like. I live in a city with about 700 000 people. I don't live in a tiny community (most of the time anyway). Oh, and N & L is closer to 500 000.

To your other point, Montreal is not Paris or Moscow either.

[kuzadd]

I quote you at length Kuzadd because you inadvertently get at the heart of the issue.

A "profit" is merely a measured way to say that the benefit of something is greater than its cost. How can one argue with such a concept? Why would society indulge an activity that destroys value? We can argue about how to measure these things but it seems to me that if the cost is greater than the benefit, then it's not a good course of action.

one can define profit in a number of ways and not necessarily in the way you describe.

example: during the icestorm , generator prices were jacked up to gouge desperate buyers.

The benefit of having a generator is always the same. (ability to produce power)

That doesn't change.

What changed was the circumstance.

Increased demand.

In this case increased demand lead to price gouging, the function of the generator nor cost of manufacture did not change.

But was the price gouging "beneficial"? To whom?

You make a number of assumption with public single payer tax system.

You assume that we don't get good value for the money.

Yet, you cannot demonstrate through any sort of other means that we would get better value through a private system.

When all information points to massively increased costs and vast swathes of the population being excluded.

These would not constitute good value for the $$$.

This is something that I am surprised the so called 'conservatives' do not grasp.

Now lets get back to our jacked up generator prices...

Private health care with jacked up prices to make profit, how much profit? As much as they can get.

That could be 100 percent profit for all we know!

This will fall on insurers of course, or should I say people lucky enough to have insurance.

Insurance rates will increase. People will be unable to afford said premiums, more and more will fall through the cracks. Sound familiar at all?

We have had an efficient system in this country for what sixty years?

The problem in the system is underfunding, and it will only get worse as the boomers age.

But that is the intention here anyway, to destroy the system by underfunding it.

problem, reaction , solution.

The means to that end is for people who offer nothing but assertations, unsubstantiated of course, to make enough noise........

[Peter F]

August 1991:

if the cost is greater than the benefit, then it's not a good course of action.

In the matter of healthcare, cost can never exceed benefit. Its an effing GoldMine!