mentalfloss Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 Looks good on the NDP to be leading another unanimous motion. NDP drug shortage motion gets government's supportThe House of Commons unanimously supported a motion from the NDP on Wednesday that would require drug companies to report any planned production disruptions to Health Canada. Conservative MPs, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper, sided with the NDP and the Liberals when the non-binding motion was put to a vote Wednesday. Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq still favours the current voluntary reporting system but her office said it hasn't closed the door on bringing in regulations in the future. Steve Outhouse, a spokesman for Aglukkaq, said if voluntary reporting doesn't prove to be effective, Health Canada could consider introducing a mandatory system to force companies to keep governments informed. The motion from the NDP called on the government to develop a nationwide strategy to anticipate and respond to drug shortages, require companies to report planned disruptions in production and expedite the safety reviews of medications. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/14/pol-drug-shortage.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) I guess the NDP isn't that dangerous afterall, since the Conservatives keep supporting their motions. Good for Harper, btw. Edited March 15, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 Nice to see parliament actually working for a change. It's a lot easier to come to agreements when you're discussing things for the benefit of Canadians rather than just trying to make each other look bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 This must be part of Harpers Extremely Secret Agenda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 It sounds like people are almost confused/suprised to see that there is a political party(NDP) that actually care/sympathize for the well being of Canadians! Vote NDP! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 What's a "planned disruption?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 It sounds like people are almost confused/suprised to see that there is a political party(NDP) that actually care/sympathize for the well being of Canadians! Vote NDP! WWWTT You mean a political party(NDP) that actually care/sympathize for the well being of unionized Canadians! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 What's a "planned disruption?" The recent discontinuing Oxycontin might be an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 It sounds like people are almost confused/suprised to see that there is a political party(NDP) that actually care/sympathize for the well being of Canadians! I actually AM surprised to see the NDP just thinking about what's good for Canadians rather than what's political. It's a rare move for them, and I applaud it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 I actually AM surprised to see the NDP just thinking about what's good for Canadians rather than what's political. It's a rare move for them, and I applaud it. You know it's the NDP's motion that got passed and not vice versa, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 You know it's the NDP's motion that got passed and not vice versa, right? I know, it's incredible! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 I know, it's incredible! I agree. It's incredible unusual that the Conservatives would do something for all Canadians, but I guess that's what happens when the spotlight is being shined on you for potentially being responsible for one of the largest cases of electoral fraud in this country's history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 I agree. It's incredible unusual that the Conservatives would do something for all Canadians, but I guess that's what happens when the spotlight is being shined on you for potentially being responsible for one of the largest cases of electoral fraud in this country's history. No it's incredible that the NDP took the time to actually propose something worth supporting, rather than their usual senseless bickering, false accusations, and attempts to destroy the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 You keep telling yourself that. Perhaps one day you'll come back to reality and see that the NDP has had some of the most economically successful governments this country has ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 NDP has had some of the most economically successful governments this country has ever seen. What colour is the sky in your world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) Nice to see parliament actually working for a change.It's a lot easier to come to agreements when you're discussing things for the benefit of Canadians rather than just trying to make each other look bad. Huh?Health care is a provincial jurisdiction. There is no federal department of education. Why is there a federal health department? I suspect that Aglukkaq is simply repeating Harper's line here. (Call it a firewall.) The federal government favours good health care for all because health is a provincial issue. ---- The far more important question is to ask why we have drug shortages. Well, why do millions of Canadians lack a family doctor? In short, our provincial governments have chosen Soviet health systems. And now we have shortages. What will happen next in Canada's health system? Since we have adopted the Soviet model, after shortages the next step is bribery. So, I'd say that Canadian doctors/hospital administrators will enjoy good all-expense-paid trips to Florida condos. Edited March 16, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Health care is a provincial jurisdiction. There is no federal department of education. Why is there a federal health department? Because there are certain health related matters that require federal regulation because of jurisdiction. Health Canada doesn't really deliver health care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Because there are certain health related matters that require federal regulation because of jurisdiction. Health Canada doesn't really deliver health care. Delivery is generally considered private with a public single-payer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Article from 2002. Highlight mine: Delivering Health Care Services: Public, Not-For-Profit, or Private?Highlights · How care is financed is not the same as how it is delivered. · “Private delivery” is not a homogeneous category. Private providers can be not- for-profit (NFP) or for-profit (FP); in turn, for-profit includes a range from small businesses (FP/s), such as physicians’ offices, to corporate organizations which are expected to provide returns on investment to their shareholders (FP/c). The characteristics, and implications, of these different types of organizations vary considerably. · In Canada, most health care delivery is already private. Although about 70% of Canadian health care is financed publicly, almost all of this care is already delivered by private (usually NFP) providers. · Comparing public, NFP, and FP delivery is complicated because they usually do not offer the same services. Because they need to make a profit, FP organizations will tend to serve potentially profitable services and client groups. Many attempts to compare costs or outcomes are, in effect, comparing “apples to oranges.” · The desirability of encouraging FP delivery depends upon how such firms make their profits. Potential ‘win-win’ situations exist if savings result from strong economies of scale (especially for services which can span jurisdictional boundaries) or better management. However, savings frequently arise from more contentious measures, including freedom from labour agreements (and different wage levels and skill mixes), evasion of cost controls placed on other providers, sacrifice of difficult-to- measure intangibles, risk selection/cream skimming, or even dubious practices. · When services are delivered privately, it is necessary to monitor performance. Such monitoring is often costly and difficult; these costs must be included in any fair comparison of alternative delivery approaches. · Performance monitoring is more likely to work for services whose outcomes are easy to measure; however, many health care services are too complex to be treated in this way. · If performance cannot easily be monitored, NFP delivery is more likely to provide high quality outcomes than is FP delivery, with FP/c being the most vulnerable to poor outcomes. · To the extent that economic advantages arise from private delivery, the literature suggests these derive more from the imposition of competition than from ownership type. You can read the whole article here: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CP32-79-17-2002E.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) Smallc and cybercoma, you have avoided the greater question: Why do Canadians suffer shortages when seeking health care? Why do millions of Canadians have no family doctor? Why must Canadians wait for weeks or months before a health appointment? Why do Canadians accept that a trip to an emergency room means several hours of sitting? Has the NDP/PQ/Liberal made State health care the new Catholic Church? Is this now the Canadian religion? Should we all wait for a priest to be free before we can confess? Edited March 16, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) Because everyone should pay out-of-pocket for healthcare. Delivery would be so much better if people could just pay out-of-pocket, instead of having to use the single-payer system. That's what you want to hear, right? Edited March 16, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) Because everyone should pay out-of-pocket for healthcare. Delivery would be so much better if people could just pay out-of-pocket, instead of having to use the single-payer system.That's what you want to hear, right? No, that's not what I'm saying.I'm simply saying that your idea of health care is Soviet. It's not sustainable. Eventually, it doesn't work. --- Millions of Canadians, 50 years after Tommy Douglas and the Canada Health Act, will attest to my opinions. We all know it doesn't work. Edited March 16, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm simply saying that your idea of health care is Soviet. It's not sustainable. Eventually, it doesn't work. What's my idea of healthcare? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) What's my idea of healthcare? Single payer with union monopoly. Am I wrong?---- Cybercoma, you miss my point. The current Canadian model is not sustainable. Harper intends to let provinces figure out what to do. I think Harper is right. And he has the Constitution on his side. Edited March 16, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Single payer with union monopoly. Am I wrong? ---- Cybercoma, you miss my point. The current Canadian model is not sustainable. Harper intends to let provinces figure out what to do. I think Harper is right. And he has the Constitution on his side. No. Your point was clear. You said Soviet-style. Did the Soviets have a publically-funded and privately-delivered healthcare system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.