.

[RNG]

There always seems to be some confusion when we debate private health care. Some of it is deliberate!

You see, many on the left define private health care as anything non-unionized! Most hospital staff belong to unions. There has been a growth of private clinics, especially in Quebec, that provide many of the services formerly available only at a hospital. These of course almost always employ non-union workers.

So many critics on the left will make the claim that these clinics are "private health care" and should be closed down. In reality, these clinics are still covered by the Canadian Health Act. Nobody has to pay for their services. Public health care covers these costs exactly the same as if the care was done buy a hospital!

These private clinics save the system money. To label them as inherently "evil" by virtue of being "private health care" is really a sneaky trick.

^^^^^^

THIS

[Sandy MacNab]

I agree the snafu Deef pulled with the CF105 Avro Arrow may have been the biggest hit this country and perhaps the world ever experienced in aeronautical advancement, but it was likely influenced greatly by the US. I feel the most long term damage that was done to this country was cause by Trudeau and his Liberals. Trudeau and his cohorts raped and pillaged the country to cater to their rich friends and supporters in the east and after his 13 year spending spree we were in a severe depression with a huge dept, unemployment was very high as were mortgage rates and it has taken many years to recover. Yet to many Canadians Trudeau is considered the best Prime Minister we have had.

Trudeau was also contemptuous of Parliament -who can forget "fuddle-duddle" or the comment that MPs are "nobodys". And don't forget his contempt for the West and our aspirirations. That set the tone for the Liberal party from then till now. The NDP, being Liberal ass-kissers until May 2, 2011, followed suit.

[Sandy MacNab]

There always seems to be some confusion when we debate private health care. Some of it is deliberate!

You see, many on the left define private health care as anything non-unionized! Most hospital staff belong to unions. There has been a growth of private clinics, especially in Quebec, that provide many of the services formerly available only at a hospital. These of course almost always employ non-union workers.

So many critics on the left will make the claim that these clinics are "private health care" and should be closed down. In reality, these clinics are still covered by the Canadian Health Act. Nobody has to pay for their services. Public health care covers these costs exactly the same as if the care was done buy a hospital!

These private clinics save the system money. To label them as inherently "evil" by virtue of being "private health care" is really a sneaky trick.

If not a "sneaky trick" is certainly is a bald-faced lie. Publically funded, privately delivered health care is working well throughout the world. If funds are expended based on services delivered and such delivery is judged (say, bonuses granted) on objective criteria regarding efficiency and patient satisfaction, we don't have to have anything remotely as horrid as the American system. Or the Alberta system for that matter.

[Evening Star]

I doubt anybody outside of card-carrying Liberals feels too badly about Usual Dosage being gone.

Is there something I don't know about Dosanjh? He generally struck me as quite respectable, accomplished, and articulate (although I think I disagree with him on bulk drug purchasing).

[Bonam]

Is there something I don't know about Dosanjh? He generally struck me as quite respectable, accomplished, and articulate (although I think I disagree with him on bulk drug purchasing).

Every time I heard this guy on the radio or saw him on TV, which was probably a few hundred times over his time as premier and then as MP of my riding, he has just sounded way too aggressive and partisan. Almost everything that comes out of his mouth sounds like an attack ad. I was just seriously fed up and annoyed. Rather Wai Young and her terrorist scandals than another few years of this guy. Not to mention he presided over a horrible time in BC as premier, though much of that was the fault of his predecessor.

[icman]

They aren't necessarily wrong decisions. Reason must generally prevail but sometimes force must over-ride ideology.

Pliny, in majority governments, force and ideology are on the same side. One does not override the other - they go hand in hand. THAT's the problem with majority governments.

[icman]

It certainly makes them difficult to argue with. I'll raise a billion reasons to dislike the Harper, and they always talk about getting money.

For the record, I'm not TOTALLY distraught by the election results. Im not hardcore anti-Harper, just modestly so.

Funny, I'm the opposite. I'm much less anti-Conservative than anti-Harper.

[icman]

Except that the last item on the list is not something any government can guarantee, and in fact, with the risks still present of another recession (particularly if the Eurozone goes into the crapper even more), we may see unemployment rise no matter how much the Tories may wish otherwise.

No investor is going to give up investing in a region because of high taxes. They will move their money out of a region that has higher risk-reward ratios. We can work on either the risk or the reward side of the equation to make Canada attractive to investors.

The Conservative rhetoric has always been to lower taxes - etc ad nauseum - because it attracts businesses. Unfortunately, it is not true. There will always be investors willing to invest in Canada and there will always be businesses up and running in Canada because there is a market here to be serviced and a highly educated and skilled labour market to draw from. All the chanting of "reduce taxes, draw business, reduce taxes, draw business" is bullshit. It is an example of chasing the same money and money-managers that ran the global financial system into the ground. Frankly, those are investors and investing ideologies best tossed on the trash heap of failed ideas. As a Canadian, I would prefer to chase investors interested in safe, moderate returns than those hell-bent on easy money. But the Conservative rhetoric, if believed, will scare Canadians into thinking that if we don't adopt American-style, deregulated, free-market fiscal policies, no-one will invest in building Canadian businesses. That's crap. We may not turn over a buck as fast as our cowboy neighbours to the south, but we'll also not lose our shirt chasing the next get-rich-quick scheme. As Canada has shown in this latest recession, we will still have most of our money when everyone else has gambled it away.

Reducing corporate taxes and reducing social spending is NOT sound fiscal policy. It is merely one tactic, and one that the Americans have proved doesn't always work very well. Taking the time to determine the best investments for future growth, and then investing in them and nurturing those investments - THAT is sound fiscal management.

[icman]

There always seems to be some confusion when we debate private health care. Some of it is deliberate!

You see, many on the left define private health care as anything non-unionized! Most hospital staff belong to unions. There has been a growth of private clinics, especially in Quebec, that provide many of the services formerly available only at a hospital. These of course almost always employ non-union workers.

So many critics on the left will make the claim that these clinics are "private health care" and should be closed down. In reality, these clinics are still covered by the Canadian Health Act. Nobody has to pay for their services. Public health care covers these costs exactly the same as if the care was done buy a hospital!

These private clinics save the system money. To label them as inherently "evil" by virtue of being "private health care" is really a sneaky trick.

Critics on the left aren't worried about private clinics. They're worried about private funding. Canada already has private delivery. Every GP is a private health-care delivery agent. But private funding is another matter. Private funding causes poorer service for those with fewer resources, and there is no better illustration of this problem than our sibling to the south. The purpose of Canada's public health care system is to keep Canadians healthy as whole. It is not to provide market opportunities to investors wanting to take advantage of the returns in the health care sector, nor is it to ensure that people with means can get an MRI every time they get a sniffle. To ensure that Canadian's are healthy as a whole, Canada has adopted minimum care standards for everyone, and that means that no matter your huge bank account balance, you have to take your place in line behind the poor, unemployed, lowly and unworthy person ahead of you in the queue.

Too bad for you.

It seems to me that, other than long wait times for some procedures which could be improved by investing in equipment and human resources in those areas, the main complaints about our health care system are "It isn't good enough for me!" and "I'm important enough to get special treatment - how dare they make me wait in line with the unwashed masses." Well, the health care system is not for "you." It's for all Canadians, regardless of means, because Canada accrues great social and economic benefits from a healthy population.

[TimG]

Private funding causes poorer service for those with fewer resources, and there is no better illustration of this problem than our sibling to the south.

Prove it by providing evidence from any of the other countries in the world which also have private funding and a public system (e.g. France or Japan). I know you can't do it because the evidence does not exist. Private funding only affects the public system when the middle rely entirely on the private system. In the non-US model everyone gets basic coverage from the public system so has a stake in it.

ensure that Canadian's are healthy as a whole, Canada has adopted minimum care standards for everyone

Minimum care standards are fine. But telling people they have to go to the US if they want more than the minimum is absurd and hypocritical.

[bush_cheney2004]

....To ensure that Canadian's are healthy as a whole, Canada has adopted minimum care standards for everyone, and that means that no matter your huge bank account balance, you have to take your place in line behind the poor, unemployed, lowly and unworthy person ahead of you in the queue.

...or just ignore such a dubious social objective and purchase health care services directly with that bank account balance. Patriotically suffering in queue is optional for them.

[icman]

Prove it by providing evidence from any of the other countries in the world which also have private funding and a public system (e.g. France or Japan). I know you can't do it because the evidence does not exist. Private funding only affects the public system when the middle rely entirely on the private system. In the non-US model everyone gets basic coverage from the public system so has a stake in it.

If they (Japan, France, et. al.) have private financing for basic health care, how is it a public system?

When you say "In the non-US model everyone gets basic coverage from the public system", do you mean that there is a set of basic care procedures that are not allowed to be funded out of private insurance, and only elective items are allowed to be funded privately? That roughly equates to the system we have here in Canada now, does it not?

Minimum care standards are fine. But telling people they have to go to the US if they want more than the minimum is absurd and hypocritical.

Not saying that.

I want to encourage any system that gets the most care for the most people. At the end of the day, Canadian policies should benefit the most Canadians. Canadian health care policies should create a Canada filled with healthy people. Currently, the system we put in place to achieve that goal is based on the idea that everyone gets the same basic care, regardless of their means - aka universal access. If you want to keep universal access, then our discussion can become nuanced, and we can compare and contrast the different public/private mixed methods to meet the goal. If you don't want to keep universal access, you will have a steep uphill battle to convince me that a healthy Canada need not include healthy Canadians.

[icman]

...or just ignore such a dubious social objective and purchase health care services directly with that bank account balance. Patriotically suffering in queue is optional for them.

So why not disband any and all publicly funded health care, and completely deregulate the health care profession?

Where are you from, the 12th century? You do recognize that in a feudal society, you'd have been killed for your ambition to rise above your station by now, right?

[bush_cheney2004]

So why not disband any and all publicly funded health care, and completely deregulate the health care profession?

Because your assertion was that Canada forces people to wait in line regardless of wealth, and that just isn't true. Canada already has an n-tiered health care system. Williams, Stronach, and Chretien all went to the United States for health care, because they can. Sorry socialists, it happens every day.

Where are you from, the 12th century? You do recognize that in a feudal society, you'd have been killed for your ambition to rise above your station by now, right?

I am from America, of course.

Edited May 5, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[icman]

Because your assertion was that Canada forces people to wait in line regardless of wealth, and that just isn't true. Canada already has an n-tiered health care system. Williams, Stronach, and Chretien all went to the United States for health care, because they can. Sorry socialists, it happens every day.

I am from America, of course.

Yes, I can tell from the Socialist epithet (not very original, FYI) that you are American. The one place that has a widespread misunderstanding that Socialism is an economic system where people don't have ownership rights. The one place that happily labels fair treatment and egalitarian thinking as socialism.

Edited May 5, 2011 by icman

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, I can tell from the Socialist epithet (not very original, FYI) that you are American. The one place that has a widespread misunderstanding that Socialism is an economic system where people don't have ownership rights. The one place that happily labels fair treatment and egalitarian thinking as socialism.

Not the one place, but one of many places. Health care is not a right, not even in Canada. I suppose there is the choice to patiently wait in line. But your choice does not translate to limiting the liberty of others. The Supreme Court of Canada made short work of that in Chaoulli v. Quebec .

[blueblood]

No investor is going to give up investing in a region because of high taxes. They will move their money out of a region that has higher risk-reward ratios. We can work on either the risk or the reward side of the equation to make Canada attractive to investors.

The Conservative rhetoric has always been to lower taxes - etc ad nauseum - because it attracts businesses. Unfortunately, it is not true. There will always be investors willing to invest in Canada and there will always be businesses up and running in Canada because there is a market here to be serviced and a highly educated and skilled labour market to draw from. All the chanting of "reduce taxes, draw business, reduce taxes, draw business" is bullshit. It is an example of chasing the same money and money-managers that ran the global financial system into the ground. Frankly, those are investors and investing ideologies best tossed on the trash heap of failed ideas. As a Canadian, I would prefer to chase investors interested in safe, moderate returns than those hell-bent on easy money. But the Conservative rhetoric, if believed, will scare Canadians into thinking that if we don't adopt American-style, deregulated, free-market fiscal policies, no-one will invest in building Canadian businesses. That's crap. We may not turn over a buck as fast as our cowboy neighbours to the south, but we'll also not lose our shirt chasing the next get-rich-quick scheme. As Canada has shown in this latest recession, we will still have most of our money when everyone else has gambled it away.

Reducing corporate taxes and reducing social spending is NOT sound fiscal policy. It is merely one tactic, and one that the Americans have proved doesn't always work very well. Taking the time to determine the best investments for future growth, and then investing in them and nurturing those investments - THAT is sound fiscal management.

What do you know about fiscal management? Are you in business?

Let's look at the numbers over the last decade. 2 administrations with the same business plan - drop taxes. Martin and harper have dropped corporate and other taxes during the last decade. At the same time unemployment dropped and gdp rose. Not only that we decoupled ourselves from the usa economy and diversified into asia.

What's more intersting is that the area in canada with the worst finances picked another left leaning party to represent them in parliament. Quebec has some of the most ridiculous regulations and highest taxes in the country. Coincidence that their debt is at dangerous and unsustainable levels. Seems to me that cutting taxes has worked very well for canada as a whole.

[icman]

Not the one place, but one of many places. Health care is not a right, not even in Canada. I suppose there is the choice to patiently wait in line. But your choice does not translate to limiting the liberty of others. The Supreme Court of Canada made short work of that in Chaoulli v. Quebec .

Health care may not be a right in Canada, but since the adoption of universal health care, we have operated as though basic health care IS a right. Hence the Canada Health Act.

The question is not whether or not health care can be a right. It can. If Canadians want it to be a right, we can make it one. The question is whether or not we want basic health care to be universally accessible. And if we decide that it should be, then triage should not be predicated on wallet size, and rich people getting boob jobs and botox should not drain resources from poor people getting kidney transplants.

[bush_cheney2004]

Health care may not be a right in Canada, but since the adoption of universal health care, we have operated as though basic health care IS a right. Hence the Canada Health Act.

The CHA is a single payer health care insurance system, no more noble than the CPP retirement system, and subject to the exact same fiscal realities. Inalienable rights do not work that way.

The question is not whether or not health care can be a right. It can. If Canadians want it to be a right, we can make it one. The question is whether or not we want basic health care to be universally accessible. And if we decide that it should be, then triage should not be predicated on wallet size, and rich people getting boob jobs and botox should not drain resources from poor people getting kidney transplants.

But Canada has not decided any such thing, as there are wide disparities between access and treatments based on provincial resources. Rich people will always get their boob jobs, because they can. Poor people have no inherent claim to the products and services born of other peoples labor just because the organ in question happens to be a kidney.

Edited May 5, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Dave_ON]

Yes, I can tell from the Socialist epithet (not very original, FYI) that you are American. The one place that has a widespread misunderstanding that Socialism is an economic system where people don't have ownership rights. The one place that happily labels fair treatment and egalitarian thinking as socialism.

Now would also be a good time to point out they're the last nation standing that still uses the imperial system of measurement. If it was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me!

[bush_cheney2004]

Now would also be a good time to point out they're the last nation standing that still uses the imperial system of measurement. If it was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me!

How many Canadians know their height and weight in SI units?

[icman]

What do you know about fiscal management? Are you in business?

Let's look at the numbers over the last decade. 2 administrations with the same business plan - drop taxes. Martin and harper have dropped corporate and other taxes during the last decade. At the same time unemployment dropped and gdp rose. Not only that we decoupled ourselves from the usa economy and diversified into asia.

What's more intersting is that the area in canada with the worst finances picked another left leaning party to represent them in parliament. Quebec has some of the most ridiculous regulations and highest taxes in the country. Coincidence that their debt is at dangerous and unsustainable levels. Seems to me that cutting taxes has worked very well for canada as a whole.

You are only picking examples that support your notions, and ignoring those that don't, and in doing so, you made a factual mistake. During Martin's cutting of taxes, which was minimal, unemployment dropped and GDP rose. But during Harper's cutting of taxes, much deeper cuts than Martin, GDP has fallen and unemployment has risen. And our decoupling from the US economy has occured because of the changing US dollar against world currencies, not because Harper worked any magic. Canada survived because of solid regulations in banking kept in place by Martin (as FM and PM), regulations that Harper vigourously opposed until now (when there has been vivid illustration of their value). Harper's stated intent is to increase our dependence on the US economy, and nothing he has done in his 6 years to date says different.

Quebec's debt problems are only partially related to high taxes. Companies left Quebec due to the FLQ and violent separatist movement first, then, ironically, due to the enforcement of language laws that impacted not just businesses, but many of the owners' personal lives. Their insane regulatory requirements stem mostly from their misguided efforts to protect their culture. (Not that I think protecting French Canadian culture is misguided, just the methods.) Leaving aside the regulations about cultural protection, Quebecs regulatory regime is similar to that of Ontario's, a province that was prosperous until the recession killed its manufacturing industry.

Do you think that we should repeal workplace safety requirements so that we can compete with Taiwanese labour, with its high mortality and poor health services?

The US, under Bush, attacked regulatory regimes and slashed taxes, and thereby took a huge budget surplus left to him by Clinton and turned it into a huge deficit, setting the stage for the financial meltdown.

I am not arguing that higher taxes and stricter regulations are always good. I am arguing that national prosperity is not inversely related to taxes, and "taxes bad, ugh!" is not sound fiscal policy.

[icman]

Poor people have no inherent claim to the products and services born of other peoples labor just because the organ in question happens to be a kidney.

You make this statement as though it is an axiom, and it is not. Poor people have inherent claims to the producs and services born of other people's labour if, as a group, we say that they do. If we say that we will take care of the basic health of our citizens because it benefits Canada to do so, then guess what - poor people get health care disproportionate to their contribution to the fund. This is the way of all insurance, by the way, so what is your beef?

Edited May 5, 2011 by icman

[bush_cheney2004]

You make this statement as though it is an axiom, and it is not. Poor people have inherent claims to the producs and services born of other people's labour if, as a group, we say that they do.

LOL! And yet you bristle at the term "socialist".

If we say that we will take care of the basic health of our citizens because it benefits Canada to do so, then guess what - poor people get health care disproportionate to their contribution to the fund. This is the way of all insurance, by the way, so what is your beef?

I have no beef with the CHA, just any and all pretense that such services are a "right".

Being a selfish ass is a choice, not an inevitability.

Choice is good...even for selfish communists.

[icman]

How many Canadians know their height and weight in SI units?

I admit, not many, though the percentage is much higher in our youth. Even in cooking, we use Imperial still, and in construction. However, for long distance measurement, grocery shopping, and anything to do with engineering and scientific research, metric is the rule here.