.

[Wild Bill]

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.

Nice "straw man" argument! You scold me for what I never said! You ARE on the left, I guess!

Speaking only for myself, I couldn't care less if I'm treated as more important than someone else. Or less important, for that matter. I have never held expectations of special treatment and would feel embarrassed if I received it!

No, I don't complain that I have to wait longer than some other citizen. I complain that we ALL often have to wait too long!

The argument is whether or not the system is timely, efficient and cost-effective/self-sustaining. You are attempting to deflect legitimate criticism as mere "snobbery".

Again, nice try!

[Dave_ON]

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

Depends on the generation My parents grew up with imperial, so I straddle both worlds. My daughter however, who is 12 only knows height/weight in metric. How many Canadians measure the seed limit in MPH, or distance from point A to point B?

In short we mostly translate so you 'mericans don't get lost.

Come on BC even you can't defend a vastly inferior system of measurement like the Imperial system.

[icman]

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

Saying that we will create a support system within our economy to help people in need is not the same as socialism.

Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled co-operatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system. - Wikipedia

It is very stereotypically "American" of you to label the desire to lift as many people as possible out of squallor as Socialist and then sniff at the ideas because of the label you put on them, rather than debate the merit of the idea and the ability to provide it.

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

Again, rights are not determined by divine decree - we decide what a right is or is not as a group and move forward from there. If we decide that basic health care is a right, then it is. If not, then not. Currently Canada does not protect the right of health care in our Charter, but we have acted similarly as though it were through the CHA and our Provincial health insurance apparati, and it has done us well so far.

[blueblood]

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.

Yet you get to cherrypick that harpers policy was the cause of the "recession" in canada, while you give ontario a free pass saying the "recession" was to blame for ontario's financial state. Oh and guess who's joining the corporate tax cut bandwagon, that would be ontario.

Never mind that harper ran surpluses in 2006 and 2007 while cutting taxes and is projected to slay the deficit in 20142015. Not only that canada has had a steadily falling unemployment and gdp growth through the recovery. Seems like low taxes are working to me.

Now we bring up the usa. Clinton had a republican house when the budget was balanced, and the impending threat of the bond vigilantes threatening to cash in. Clintons main man james carville wants to be reincarnated as the bond market for goodness sakes!

Then there's blaming bush and the banks for the recession. Jimmy carter and clinton have blood on there hands with that one along with every person stupid enough to buy a house when they couldn't afford it. Seems to me govt intervention causes more problems than most want to believe.

[blueblood]

A

Edited May 5, 2011 by blueblood

[icman]

Nice "straw man" argument! You scold me for what I never said! You ARE on the left, I guess!

Speaking only for myself, I couldn't care less if I'm treated as more important than someone else. Or less important, for that matter. I have never held expectations of special treatment and would feel embarrassed if I received it!

No, I don't complain that I have to wait longer than some other citizen. I complain that we ALL often have to wait too long!

The argument is whether or not the system is timely, efficient and cost-effective/self-sustaining. You are attempting to deflect legitimate criticism as mere "snobbery".

Again, nice try!

If I misunderstood your posts, then I apologize. Most of the posters arguing your side hold simple arguments like "I can pay, so screw everyone else" and I took your comments within this context. Can you acknowledge that most of the people on this board advocating for fundamental change in the health care system use arguments like "people who can pay more should be able to aquire better/faster service than those who can't?"

Yes, our system needs some tweaking, its not perfect. But that's not the same thing as adopting a system that will definately make more poor people suffer from lack of access to reasonable care.

[icman]

Yet you get to cherrypick that harpers policy was the cause of the "recession" in canada, while you give ontario a free pass saying the "recession" was to blame for ontario's financial state. Oh and guess who's joining the corporate tax cut bandwagon, that would be ontario.

Um, no. Canada's recession was caused by the financial meltdown in the US, which occured primarily due to lack of regulatory oversight on mortgage originations. Our dependence on the US to buy our shit caused Canada's recession. The global recession was caused by the world's dependence on the value of US currency, which tanked when their economy cracked. Canada only survived beter than everyone else as a result of strong banking regulations, which reduced much (not all) of our exposure.

I never said that Harper caused the recession. I said that his policies were not what kept Canada insulated from the worst of the recession.

Never mind that harper ran surpluses in 2006 and 2007 while cutting taxes and is projected to slay the deficit in 20142015. Not only that canada has had a steadily falling unemployment and gdp growth through the recovery. Seems like low taxes are working to me.

This is the classic partisan issue of "if it were my side it would be better, and if it were your side it would be worse" without any objective measure. Harper's surplusses in 2006 and 2007 were because of Martin's policies prior to Harper taking office. Harper's policies didn't start taking effect until 2008, and they worsened the economy for Canada, in my opinion. But then, you'll credit Harper with Canada's emergence from the recession, whereas I will not. I will credit improved performance in the US, the pressure in 2007 on Ontario manufacturing causing improvements in productivity, and the great soaring price of oil for the creation of a new petro-state (which we now are).

Now we bring up the usa. Clinton had a republican house when the budget was balanced, and the impending threat of the bond vigilantes threatening to cash in. Clintons main man james carville wants to be reincarnated as the bond market for goodness sakes!

I can't speak to Carville or bond vigilantes. What I can say is that much of Clinton's positive impact on the economy happened when he began implementing economic policies in his first two years, when he enjoyed a Democratic Congress. Those policies placed the US in a position to balance the budget in later years, when he happened to have a Republican Congress.

Then there's blaming bush and the banks for the recession. Jimmy carter and clinton have blood on there hands with that one along with every person stupid enough to buy a house when they couldn't afford it. Seems to me govt intervention causes more problems than most want to believe.

I absolutely blame Bush and the Banks, and Clinton, for the recession. Decoupling the mortgage process into separate silos, and then defunding regulatory oversight over the myriad companies that now could originate paper, was practically an invitation to repeat the savings and loan scandal. And that's exactly what happened. In fact, it wasn't practically an invitation, it WAS an invitation. Allowing securitization of these poorly or improperly validated loan originations dragged all the stock market players into the mess. I blame Clinton for allowing deregulation to happen (even though he was under pressure to let it happen by a Republican Congress), and I blame Bush and all the free-market imbeciles out there simply for their being stupid financiers. Well, they weren't stupid. If they were attempting to do better for the USA, then they were stupid. But the fact that they are not stupid leads to a different conclusion. Do you think Bush and his administration and his friends suffered in the bloodbath? They profited handsomely in the mess. No-one with a brain could have overlooked the inevitable crash, which indicates that Bush and his administration weren't working for the USA when they reduced regulatory oversight on the financial markets. They were working for the people who profited from the disaster.

Edited May 5, 2011 by icman

[bush_cheney2004]

...I absolutely blame Bush and the Banks, and Clinton, for the recession.

But earlier you stated that Canada's recession was caused by a dependence on the US....so which is it? The Americans have recessions all the time without Canada's permission, if you don't mind.

[icman]

But earlier you stated that Canada's recession was caused by a dependence on the US....so which is it? The Americans have recessions all the time without Canada's permission, if you don't mind.

Read the post more carefully. I was very clear about the cause.

[blueblood]

Um, no. Canada's recession was caused by the financial meltdown in the US, which occured primarily due to lack of regulatory oversight on mortgage originations. Our dependence on the US to buy our shit caused Canada's recession. The global recession was caused by the world's dependence on the value of US currency, which tanked when their economy cracked. Canada only survived beter than everyone else as a result of strong banking regulations, which reduced much (not all) of our exposure.

I never said that Harper caused the recession. I said that his policies were not what kept Canada insulated from the worst of the recession.

This is the classic partisan issue of "if it were my side it would be better, and if it were your side it would be worse" without any objective measure. Harper's surplusses in 2006 and 2007 were because of Martin's policies prior to Harper taking office. Harper's policies didn't start taking effect until 2008, and they worsened the economy for Canada, in my opinion. But then, you'll credit Harper with Canada's emergence from the recession, whereas I will not. I will credit improved performance in the US, the pressure in 2007 on Ontario manufacturing causing improvements in productivity, and the great soaring price of oil for the creation of a new petro-state (which we now are).

I can't speak to Carville or bond vigilantes. What I can say is that much of Clinton's positive impact on the economy happened when he began implementing economic policies in his first two years, when he enjoyed a Democratic Congress. Those policies placed the US in a position to balance the budget in later years, when he happened to have a Republican Congress.

I absolutely blame Bush and the Banks, and Clinton, for the recession. Decoupling the mortgage process into separate silos, and then defunding regulatory oversight over the myriad companies that now could originate paper, was practically an invitation to repeat the savings and loan scandal. And that's exactly what happened. In fact, it wasn't practically an invitation, it WAS an invitation. Allowing securitization of these poorly or improperly validated loan originations dragged all the stock market players into the mess. I blame Clinton for allowing deregulation to happen (even though he was under pressure to let it happen by a Republican Congress), and I blame Bush and all the free-market imbeciles out there simply for their being stupid financiers. Well, they weren't stupid. If they were attempting to do better for the USA, then they were stupid. But the fact that they are not stupid leads to a different conclusion. Do you think Bush and his administration and his friends suffered in the bloodbath? They profited handsomely in the mess. No-one with a brain could have overlooked the inevitable crash, which indicates that Bush and his administration weren't working for the USA when they reduced regulatory oversight on the financial markets. They were working for the people who profited from the disaster.

So let me get this straight. Martin slashes taxes and he's a hero. Harper essentially does the same thing and caused the recession. Harper was pm in 0607, his minister of finance passed a budget, which happened to be a surplus, yet martin who had no part in writing it gets credit? But all of a sudden in 2008 because the economy takes a small hit, its all of a sudden harper's fault? I suppose in your eyes martin gets credit for canada coming out of the recession better than any country in the g8.

Ill let the lefists of the world blame bush, he's their whipping boy of all the world's ills. Even though democrats made policy of having everyone having to own a house regardless of income. North america is still the best place on the planet and free market economics are the reason why, hell why is asia copying our way of doing things? The numbers don't lie, free market societies are far better than controlled societies.

[Posc Student]

The lone Tory in Newfoundland and Labrador

Peter Penashue was the loneliest man in Cartwright that day. The newly elected Conservative MP for Labrador had rolled up in the coastal town early in the campaign to find not one person at the scheduled event.

But as they were leaving town, he said in a phone interview this week, a taxi pulled them over and the cabbie asked for posters and buttons to distribute. It was an reassuring sign that there was support to be tapped in a riding that historically has been a Liberal stronghold.

....

Continue reading

I was hoping there would be more to this article but the begining pretty much says it all.

[icman]

So let me get this straight. Martin slashes taxes and he's a hero. Harper essentially does the same thing and caused the recession. Harper was pm in 0607, his minister of finance passed a budget, which happened to be a surplus, yet martin who had no part in writing it gets credit? But all of a sudden in 2008 because the economy takes a small hit, its all of a sudden harper's fault? I suppose in your eyes martin gets credit for canada coming out of the recession better than any country in the g8.

Ill let the lefists of the world blame bush, he's their whipping boy of all the world's ills. Even though democrats made policy of having everyone having to own a house regardless of income. North america is still the best place on the planet and free market economics are the reason why, hell why is asia copying our way of doing things? The numbers don't lie, free market societies are far better than controlled societies.

I shall answer in reverse order.

Free market economics are great... to a point. If we had a completely free market, well then, murder would be illegal, but murder for pay wouldn't, because it generates revenue for someone. Markets need regulation. If not, you will have armies of con-artists robbing old ladies of their pension checks, and defending their actions with "caveat emptor". You think Enron should have been allowed to continue operating as they were? You think that the most recent financial crisis was just fine with you? My problem with people like you, sir, is that when con-artists (aka cold-calling mortgage brokers) swindle someone, you blame the mark for their ignorance rather than the con-artist for being a predator.

Most of the people who went upside down on their mortgages were swindled into it by a mortgage originations business that makes its money on volume, and thus will sign anyone that they can, regardless of that person's ability to pay. The homebuyer can't make an intelligent decision on affordability when there are low payments for 3 years before the payments rise 30%, or there is a balloon payment in the future keeping initial payments low. These mortgage brokers preyed on peoples' hopes and their belief in the American dream. Once the debt was securitized and sold, they didn't give a shit because their risk was out the door and the money was in their pocket. It doesn't bother you that the financial institutions picking up mortgage-backed securities didn't do their due diligence on the quality of the debt they were buying? This latest financial debacle in which the free-wheeling US specifically has embroiled the entire world is a perfect example of why free markets should not be left alone without some reasonable oversight.

As for Harper and Martin, they didn't do essentially the same thing. That's like saying a tabby and a lion are the same animal. Martin slashed taxes and spending. Harper slashed already low taxes, and increased spending, a combination that any businessperson will tell you doesn't work.

If you think slashing taxes is always better under any and all circumstances, tell me how we build roads if we don't have any taxation? How do we provide universal education without any taxation of any kind? How do we provide universal health care without taxation of any kind? Where does the money come from to supply our military?

Go ahead. I'm listening

[RNG]

I shall answer in reverse order.

Free market economics are great... to a point. If we had a completely free market, well then, murder would be illegal, but murder for pay wouldn't, because it generates revenue for someone. Markets need regulation. If not, you will have armies of con-artists robbing old ladies of their pension checks, and defending their actions with "caveat emptor". You think Enron should have been allowed to continue operating as they were? You think that the most recent financial crisis was just fine with you? My problem with people like you, sir, is that when con-artists (aka cold-calling mortgage brokers) swindle someone, you blame the mark for their ignorance rather than the con-artist for being a predator.

Most of the people who went upside down on their mortgages were swindled into it by a mortgage originations business that makes its money on volume, and thus will sign anyone that they can, regardless of that person's ability to pay. The homebuyer can't make an intelligent decision on affordability when there are low payments for 3 years before the payments rise 30%, or there is a balloon payment in the future keeping initial payments low. These mortgage brokers preyed on peoples' hopes and their belief in the American dream. Once the debt was securitized and sold, they didn't give a shit because their risk was out the door and the money was in their pocket. It doesn't bother you that the financial institutions picking up mortgage-backed securities didn't do their due diligence on the quality of the debt they were buying? This latest financial debacle in which the free-wheeling US specifically has embroiled the entire world is a perfect example of why free markets should not be left alone without some reasonable oversight.

As for Harper and Martin, they didn't do essentially the same thing. That's like saying a tabby and a lion are the same animal. Martin slashed taxes and spending. Harper slashed already low taxes, and increased spending, a combination that any businessperson will tell you doesn't work.

If you think slashing taxes is always better under any and all circumstances, tell me how we build roads if we don't have any taxation? How do we provide universal education without any taxation of any kind? How do we provide universal health care without taxation of any kind? Where does the money come from to supply our military?

Go ahead. I'm listening

No one is advocating no taxation. Where the tax money is wasted is of concern though.

The bolded parts above are just silliness. The free market wasn't given a chance to work in this recession. Had existing laws been applied openly, talking largely the American situation, many companies would have cratered, and the net result would have been a stronger economy in the end.

And I get so frustrated that Harper was forced to do stimulus spending by the Libs and NDP against his beliefs, trying to make parliament work and then gets criticized for running a deficit. Go figure.

[cybercoma]

icman, we have another "free" market problem coming down the pipe, thanks to guess who? Goldman Sachs again:

"How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis"

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis

Investment banking. Don't create anything of value, make millions, and hurt everyone else along the way. These people are the scum of the earth.

[blueblood]

icman, we have another "free" market problem coming down the pipe, thanks to guess who? Goldman Sachs again:

"How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis"

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis

Investment banking. Don't create anything of value, make millions, and hurt everyone else along the way. These people are the scum of the earth.

Oh no providing liquidity in the futures market and investing in one of north americas largest exports is so evil

people were starving when the europeans flooded the market with cheap subsidized food. At least there is now incentive for places like africa to ramp up food production.

[cybercoma]

Liquidity is discussed in the article. It doesn't seem like you read it all the way through. It's good that there are investors entering into the market to create that liquidity. The problem is that instead of buying low and selling high, they're hanging onto the investments and using futures for long-term investments. That doesn't create liquidity. It artificially drives the prices up and creates a bubble, like the housing market.

[blueblood]

Liquidity is discussed in the article. It doesn't seem like you read it all the way through. It's good that there are investors entering into the market to create that liquidity. The problem is that instead of buying low and selling high, they're hanging onto the investments and using futures for long-term investments. That doesn't create liquidity. It artificially drives the prices up and creates a bubble, like the housing market.

Isn't that buying low and selling high? That's what a bubble is. Its now more than ever important for farmers and producers to do research into the markets to see trends. Those that don't get burned, c'est la vie.

But let's not forget the vorocious appetite for food that asia has just developed. South america did well with that as well as north america.

[jbg]

It's Harry I'm waiting for.

He's on another forum doing what, who knows.

Here he is:

It was a good election campaign.

Congratulations to the winners.

[jbg]

Where's waldo??

I'm assuming he went to Nunavut sometime in February expecting that tailpipe emissions would give him beach weather. That tends be bad for one's health.

Edited May 12, 2011 by jbg

[CPCFTW]

icman, we have another "free" market problem coming down the pipe, thanks to guess who? Goldman Sachs again:

"How Goldman Sachs Created the Food Crisis"

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis

Investment banking. Don't create anything of value, make millions, and hurt everyone else along the way. These people are the scum of the earth.

Has the left found a new boogeyman to replace corporations.. The evil investment bankers? No one was starving before investment banking!

If anything, investment bankers have created a situation where food is valued appropriately. Everyone needs food, of course it should be expensive, there is unlimited demand and limited supply.

[ninjandrew]

Has the left found a new boogeyman to replace corporations.. The evil investment bankers? No one was starving before investment banking!

If anything, investment bankers have created a situation where food is valued appropriately. Everyone needs food, of course it should be expensive, there is unlimited demand and limited supply.

I keep hearing again and again how there is actually not a limited supply of food, for the demand of it that is. Something to do with people eating way more food than they need to, throwing a ton of it out, and stockpiling, perhaps among other things. Apparently there is more than enough food out there to feed the whole planet. As for the source of this information; tons of articles in magazines and on the internet over the last decade.

[RNG]

I keep hearing again and again how there is actually not a limited supply of food, for the demand of it that is. Something to do with people eating way more food than they need to, throwing a ton of it out, and stockpiling, perhaps among other things. Apparently there is more than enough food out there to feed the whole planet. As for the source of this information; tons of articles in magazines and on the internet over the last decade.

I didn't bother reading it, but several of the news websites I visit each morning had a story today about how the UN says 1/3 of all food is garbaged. So ....................

[CPCFTW]

I keep hearing again and again how there is actually not a limited supply of food, for the demand of it that is. Something to do with people eating way more food than they need to, throwing a ton of it out, and stockpiling, perhaps among other things. Apparently there is more than enough food out there to feed the whole planet. As for the source of this information; tons of articles in magazines and on the internet over the last decade.

Nice "source". There may be enough food if we all become vegetarians and live off of cereal, bread, and soy. I'll keep eating my red meat while you guys can hold hands and sing kumbaya while roasting soy wieners around a campfire. Or are campfires a waste of our precious resources too? Hahaha

[ninjandrew]

Nice "source". There may be enough food if we all become vegetarians and live off of cereal, bread, and soy. I'll keep eating my red meat while you guys can hold hands and sing kumbaya while roasting soy wieners around a campfire. Or are campfires a waste of our precious resources too? Hahaha

But like RNG said, 1/3 of it goes in the trash. Sooooo.........

[CPCFTW]

But like RNG said, 1/3 of it goes in the trash. Sooooo.........

Hint: Food is perishable.