eyeball Posted May 12, 2012 Report Posted May 12, 2012 You can't compare eastside Vancouver to Canada. It's a special little zoo maintained by the bleeding heart liberals of BC (who never EVER go near the place) filled with drug addicts and the homeless. If conservatives had their way the place would be fumigated. Many of the homeless are actually mentally ill people from elsewhere around the province who are fleeing the small town stigmatization they face where they come from for the anonymity of the big city. There's also little if anything in the way of services for these people where they come from because of a lack of funding from the right-wing Liberal Party of BC. So you're correct to point out the problem is largely created by Liberals but you'd have to be shit-faced drunk to think this is due to their bleeding hearts. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bleeding heart Posted May 12, 2012 Report Posted May 12, 2012 (edited) Many of the homeless are actually mentally ill people from elsewhere around the province who are fleeing the small town stigmatization they face where they come from for the anonymity of the big city. There's also little if anything in the way of services for these people where they come from because of a lack of funding from the right-wing Liberal Party of BC. So you're correct to point out the problem is largely created by Liberals but you'd have to be shit-faced drunk to think this is due to their bleeding hearts. It's sometimes demoralizing to even try to respond to reactionary hatred, eyeball, but this is top-notch. And for pity's sake, why do people who are almost 100% aligned with the Canadian Liberal Party (like the Conservatives are) so angry at their ideological comrades? Edited May 12, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Jack Weber Posted May 12, 2012 Report Posted May 12, 2012 (edited) Many of the homeless are actually mentally ill people from elsewhere around the province who are fleeing the small town stigmatization they face where they come from for the anonymity of the big city. There's also little if anything in the way of services for these people where they come from because of a lack of funding from the right-wing Liberal Party of BC. So you're correct to point out the problem is largely created by Liberals but you'd have to be shit-faced drunk to think this is due to their bleeding hearts. The same thing happened in Ontario woth the Harris government.... Folks like Scotty wanted tax cuts,they got'em... Certain programs got cut such as funding for psychiatric hospitals and those that were borderline to be institutionalized got put out in the street... Guess what?? Homeless problems showed up... The answer?? Because we cannot admit that sometimes we actually require a certain level of taxation for a modern society to function,we had our current federal finance minister,Jim Flaherty,wanting to jail the homeless on "compassionate grounds"... All playing into the simple minded reactionaries who didn't like some of the side effects of their blessed tax cuts... Edited May 12, 2012 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
jacee Posted May 12, 2012 Report Posted May 12, 2012 (edited) Doctors stage sit-in over refugee health care cuts About 80 doctors staged a sit-in at the Toronto office of federal cabinet minister Joe Oliver Friday, with the activists demanding to meet with the minister to raise concerns about changes to health care for refugees and refugee claimants "I just cannot understand how my government can take the most vulnerable of people and decide it's appropriate to make them more vulnerable," said Dr. Paul Caulford, a Scarborough, Ont., family physician, who has worked with immigrants and refugees for decades. The new policy is set to take effect at the end of June. It means many refugee claimants will only be treated if they have an infection or disease that poses a risk to public health. "Does this mean it's OK that a person seeking refuge in Canada dies from heart disease or from untreated diabetes, as long as they don't infect the rest of us with tuberculosis?" asked Dr. Tatiana Friere-Lizama, a perinatologist at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto. http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/investigations/immigration/article/1177387--physicians-occupied-mp-s-office-over-cuts-to-refugee-health-care?bn=1 “This is supposedly a cost-saving measure for the government, but the cost of delaying treatment will result in more emergency visits, more intensive care visits,” said pediatrician Anna Banerji, an Order of Ontario recipient. Order of Ontario recipient. I gotta say ... I've never seen doctors protest for their patients before. For their fees and tuition fees, yes, but this is the first time I recall doctors protesting on behalf of patients. Kudos to them! Edited May 12, 2012 by jacee Quote
bleeding heart Posted May 13, 2012 Report Posted May 13, 2012 I gotta say ... I've never seen doctors protest for their patients before. For their fees and tuition fees, yes, but this is the first time I recall doctors protesting on behalf of patients. Kudos to them! A lot of doctors take their responsibilites as health care professionals very seriously, thankfully. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Keepitsimple Posted May 13, 2012 Report Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) The same thing happened in Ontario woth the Harris government.... Folks like Scotty wanted tax cuts,they got'em... Certain programs got cut such as funding for psychiatric hospitals and those that were borderline to be institutionalized got put out in the street... Guess what?? Homeless problems showed up... Oh quit with the Harris Bogeyman. Homelessness has gone up mainly due to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You cannot force people into institutions - nor can you force them to take medication - unless they are a danger to themselves or others. That's why there are so many "borderline" mentally ill people on the streets - it is their "Charter Right" to be there. That's why a flood of homelessness started in the 80's. It's called the law of unintended consequences. Edited May 13, 2012 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
eyeball Posted May 13, 2012 Report Posted May 13, 2012 Oh quit with the Harris Bogeyman. Homelessness has gone up mainly due to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You cannot force people into institutions - nor can you force them to take medication - unless they are a danger to themselves or others. That's why there are so many "borderline" mentally ill people on the streets - it is their "Charter Right" to be there. That's why a flood of homelessness started in the 80's. It's called the law of unintended consequences. Do you have a study or the findings of a commission or panel that's come up with this conclusion? Is it what Harris cited as the reason why he was forced to stop providing services for mental illness? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Argus Posted May 13, 2012 Report Posted May 13, 2012 The same thing happened in Ontario woth the Harris government.... Folks like Scotty wanted tax cuts,they got'em... Certain programs got cut such as funding for psychiatric hospitals and those that were borderline to be institutionalized got put out in the street... Guess what?? Homeless problems showed up... The answer?? Spend billions and billions and billions and billions more dollars on health care. And we still have homeless. And we still have an utterly incapable, incompetent mental health system with crazies roaming the streets. The lefties answer to all problems is to simply throw more money at it. Unfortunately, as Ontario's experience with the McGuinty government has shown, that really doesn't work when the government itself is so hopelessly inept it has no clue what the problems are, much less how to solve them. And why does everyone rag on Harris? The Ontario health care system never deteriorated to the kind of mess we see in Quebec, and have seen for many years, under a series of leftiesh liberal and PQ governments. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 13, 2012 Report Posted May 13, 2012 I gotta say ... I've never seen doctors protest for their patients before. For their fees and tuition fees, yes, but this is the first time I recall doctors protesting on behalf of patients. Kudos to them! Has it occurred to you that if the government isn't paying for these services, then these doctors are the ones not being paid? These doctors have set themselves up to serve a particular clientelle, so this decision by the government hits them directly in the pocketbook. After all, there's no law that says they can't treat people for free. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 13, 2012 Report Posted May 13, 2012 A lot of doctors take their responsibilites as health care professionals very seriously, thankfully. Really? Then they'll be treating these people for free, right? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bleeding heart Posted May 13, 2012 Report Posted May 13, 2012 Really? Then they'll be treating these people for free, right? What in the world are you talking about? Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Argus Posted May 13, 2012 Report Posted May 13, 2012 What in the world are you talking about? Well, if they take their responsibilities as 'health care professionals' so seriously then they'll just ignore the fact the government won't pay them to do this any more. It's something they'll feel a responsibility for and so will treat these people without regard to what the government says. Uh, right? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bleeding heart Posted May 13, 2012 Report Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) Well, if they take their responsibilities as 'health care professionals' so seriously then they'll just ignore the fact the government won't pay them to do this any more. It's something they'll feel a responsibility for and so will treat these people without regard to what the government says. Uh, right? First of all, I don't presume to to speak for other people, and invent their opinions for them. Second--as you'd know if you read the piece, which you self-evidently did not--part of their complaint is that such "cost-cutting" measures actually can increase costs over the long run. Edited May 13, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Guest Peeves Posted May 13, 2012 Report Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) First of all, I don't presume to to speak for other people, and invent their opinions for them. Second--as you'd know if you read the piece, which you self-evidently did not--part of their complaint is that such "cost-cutting" measures actually can increase costs over the long run. And that is always the ready response by the nay sayers on anything that tightens the belt on fiscal restraint. It may well, but the alternative is simply unacceptable. "Such "cost-cutting" measures actually can" reduce costs as intended. With good reason. Those that 'come' for the benefits and are now getting months and months of freebies will now determine it's not worth the time. If the prize is gone, the abuse will be lessened. If a child born here won't be deemed a Canadian, fewer will make the effort of birthing here either. Common sense. Take away the carrot and use the stick. Edited May 13, 2012 by Peeves Quote
bleeding heart Posted May 13, 2012 Report Posted May 13, 2012 And that is always the ready response by the nay sayers on anything that tightens the belt on fiscal restraint. But it's not necessarily "fiscal restraint," not if things like, oh, say, costs are at issue. It might be the ready response because it's a strong argument. It may well, but the alternative is simply unacceptable. Why? "Such "cost-cutting" measures actually can" reduce costs as intended. With good reason. Those that 'come' for the benefits and are now getting months and months of freebies will now determine it's not worth the time. Or they'll come anyway and incur increased costs thanks to the initial, knee-jerk cost-cutting measures. If the prize is gone, the abuse will be lessened. Yes, if both history and current events tells us anything, it's that reducing things like health-care improves society. I mean, it's never happened outside an Ayn Rand tract or a Robert A. Heinlein novel...but that doesn't mean it isn't fact. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Argus Posted May 13, 2012 Report Posted May 13, 2012 First of all, I don't presume to to speak for other people, and invent their opinions for them. Second--as you'd know if you read the piece, which you self-evidently did not--part of their complaint is that such "cost-cutting" measures actually can increase costs over the long run. Look. Let's look at this from a budgetary perspective. The government is spending far more money than it takes in. The economy is shaky, and so this is hardy the time to be raising taxes. That means cuts have to be made. But what cuts? Everything government spends money on is designed to either help or protect. Now given the nature of liberal western democracy, and how governments come and go, politicians keep coming up with new ideas on how to better help or protect. Each of these new ideas, when implemented, costs money. The problem is, the old ones are rarely done away with. So the plethora of things government does to help or protect multiplies, as does the cost. Eventually, some of it has to be pruned back. And as I said, EVERYTHING the government does is designed to help or protect. That means EVERYTHING has its defenders who can make a case as to how cutting THIS program will lessen the help or protection of whatever. So are we to cut nothing? The logic behind the government's decision here is threefold. One is obviously to make money. Another is to prevent the abuse of the system by people who aren't legitimate refugees but simply want free health care before returning home. But another is the feeling among a lot of Canadians that people who are not Canadians should not be getting health care Canadians aren't entitled to. I went to the dentist for a cleaning a couple of weeks back, and I paid at the desk. I bought reading glasses last year, and they weren't cheap. The government didn't pay for these things for me, a Canadian, so why should it be paying for them for refugees? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bleeding heart Posted May 13, 2012 Report Posted May 13, 2012 Look. Let's look at this from a budgetary perspective. The government is spending far more money than it takes in. The economy is shaky, and so this is hardy the time to be raising taxes. That means cuts have to be made. But what cuts? Everything government spends money on is designed to either help or protect. Now given the nature of liberal western democracy, and how governments come and go, politicians keep coming up with new ideas on how to better help or protect. Each of these new ideas, when implemented, costs money. The problem is, the old ones are rarely done away with. So the plethora of things government does to help or protect multiplies, as does the cost. Eventually, some of it has to be pruned back. And as I said, EVERYTHING the government does is designed to help or protect. That means EVERYTHING has its defenders who can make a case as to how cutting THIS program will lessen the help or protection of whatever. So are we to cut nothing? The logic behind the government's decision here is threefold. One is obviously to make money. Another is to prevent the abuse of the system by people who aren't legitimate refugees but simply want free health care before returning home. But another is the feeling among a lot of Canadians that people who are not Canadians should not be getting health care Canadians aren't entitled to. I went to the dentist for a cleaning a couple of weeks back, and I paid at the desk. I bought reading glasses last year, and they weren't cheap. The government didn't pay for these things for me, a Canadian, so why should it be paying for them for refugees? I appreciate the civil response, and should have approached it this way myself. First of all, the entire premise of your argument here sounds right. A tremendous amount of debate is about what money should be spent on, and what it shouldn't; where cuts can be made, where they can't, and so on. (Obviously.) I consider the refugee isue to be a legitimate use of money, because of dire situations. The abuse of the system is no doubt very real, but I don't see punishing those with legitimate claims is the answer. I see your point, too, about the dentist and your glasses; but the problem, in my view, isn't that refugees get them and you don't; it's that you don't, period. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Guest Peeves Posted May 13, 2012 Report Posted May 13, 2012 I appreciate the civil response, and should have approached it this way myself. First of all, the entire premise of your argument here sounds right. A tremendous amount of debate is about what money should be spent on, and what it shouldn't; where cuts can be made, where they can't, and so on. (Obviously.) I consider the refugee isue to be a legitimate use of money, because of dire situations. The abuse of the system is no doubt very real, but I don't see punishing those with legitimate claims is the answer. If it's a legitimate claim as a refugee they will indeed get benefits, but benefits should be reasonable, not simply everything and anything. There must be a determination as to how far the government..."WE" are prepared to fund. To date funding has been excessive and abused according to most. I see your point, too, about the dentist and your glasses; but the problem, in my view, isn't that refugees get them and you don't; it's that you don't, period. Fine, you want more tax payer funded socialism, more hand outs that further increase our taxes. So, if and when our money in the governments coffers, allow Canadians to have free glasses and dental care and a chicken in every pot, then extend that benefit to non Canadian, non tax paying appliers for status. Meantime stop soaking the tax payer as the Liberals did to curry favor and immigrant votes. I want rational dealings on costs in all quarters including benefits for wanna be refugees that more often than not suck our system for benefits then drop their claim leaving us broker and till now..NO wiser. Quote
bleeding heart Posted May 13, 2012 Report Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) Fine, you want more tax payer funded socialism, more hand outs that further increase our taxes. Did you say you support an increase in military spending? You want the socialism to be extended, but just not in every direction. So, if and when our money in the governments coffers, allow Canadians to have free glasses and dental care and a chicken in every pot, then extend that benefit to non Canadian, non tax paying appliers for status. Meantime stop soaking the tax payer as the Liberals did to curry favor and immigrant votes. I want rational dealings on costs in all quarters including benefits for wanna be refugees that more often than not suck our system for benefits then drop their claim leaving us broker and till now..NO wiser. [/font][/i] As Argus--who to at least some degree agrees with you--pointed out, we all think money should be cut in certain realms, and not cut in others. But let's not pretend that Canadian Conservatives are not believers in Big Government and big spending. Because they certainly are. Edited May 13, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
eyeball Posted May 13, 2012 Report Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) But let's not pretend that Canadian Conservatives are not believers in Big Government and big spending. Because they certainly are. "No cost is to high" Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety "We're just getting started" Rob Nichols, Conservative, Minister of Justice Edited May 13, 2012 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
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.