Jump to content

Liberals make major announcement


Argus

Recommended Posts

"Canada is in crisis!" Justin Trudeau said today in Ottawa. "Our hospitals lack patients! Tumbleweeds roll down empty corridors! The employees in Canadian nursing homes weep from loneliness because of the lack of elderly Canadians available to fill their beds! We foresaw this problem, which is why we DOUBLED the number of seniors allowed to immigrate to Canada only two years ago! But it's not enough! We must DOUBLE it again! The more elderly citizens we have the better our economy is!"

No, this has nothing to do with next year being an election year! Why would you even think that! Our immigration policies are set with Canada's needs in mind, not the venal, short term election interests of self-serving politicians eager to get immigrant votes!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lottery-immigration-reunification-1.4791705

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, capricorn said:

This is not right. When I become old and withering I want my turn at hallway medicine, and if I'm lucky a long term bed in a hospital ward. Guess now I'll have to compete with newly arrived old and withering immigrants for a spot.

Don't worry. It will only mean an extra few billion a year in health costs. Well worthwhile if it helps the Liberals get ethnic votes!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Argus said:

"Canada is in crisis!" Justin Trudeau said today in Ottawa. "Our hospitals lack patients! Tumbleweeds roll down empty corridors! The employees in Canadian nursing homes weep from loneliness because of the lack of elderly Canadians available to fill their beds! We foresaw this problem, which is why we DOUBLED the number of seniors allowed to immigrate to Canada only two years ago! But it's not enough! We must DOUBLE it again! The more elderly citizens we have the better our economy is!"

No, this has nothing to do with next year being an election year! Why would you even think that! Our immigration policies are set with Canada's needs in mind, not the venal, short term election interests of self-serving politicians eager to get immigrant votes!

 

As a disabled retiree, I can assure you the health care system is a mess, at least here in the GTA. I've been hospitalized in the recent past, spending endless sleepness nights on an emergency room gurney as an "admitted" patient waiting for a bed to become available, and during the wait having to share an often filthy bathroom with dozens of other patients and their visitors. Try brushing your teeth at a sink covered in hair and vomit, as I have had to do. I won't return to hospital unless I'm in a coma. Otherwise, I'll simply decline at home until I reach a state where I can persuade somebody to approve an assisted death. It really is that bad. I sometimes wonder whether the approval of assisted suicide amounts to an admission that the health care system can't and won't be improved.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, scribblet said:

Good point.   Fortunately I haven't been through that, but find that, to put it mildly, our system is severely lacking.   

And it's not going to get any better until we start putting pressure on politicians to improve it. What has improved about our health care in the last decade? Nothing. As to immigration, the numbers just keep going up and up.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Argus said:

And it's not going to get any better until we start putting pressure on politicians to improve it. What has improved about our health care in the last decade? Nothing. As to immigration, the numbers just keep going up and up.

 

Cynical politicians like Trudeau don't and won't acknowledge the link between immigration and declining public services even though I suspect most Canadians clearly understand it. I think the health care system is too far gone to be adequately reformed within the current model. Rather, I believe we should permit the sale of private health insurance and otherwise attach eligibility for health care services to objective eligibility criteria like length of residency in Canada in combination with the number of years people have filed and paid taxes, with a combination of say 25 to 35 required to establish eligibility for benefits for all of those older than 40.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, turningrite said:

As a disabled retiree, I can assure you the health care system is a mess, at least here in the GTA. I've been hospitalized in the recent past, spending endless sleepness nights on an emergency room gurney as an "admitted" patient waiting for a bed to become available, and during the wait having to share an often filthy bathroom with dozens of other patients and their visitors. Try brushing your teeth at a sink covered in hair and vomit, as I have had to do. I won't return to hospital unless I'm in a coma. Otherwise, I'll simply decline at home until I reach a state where I can persuade somebody to approve an assisted death. It really is that bad. I sometimes wonder whether the approval of assisted suicide amounts to an admission that the health care system can't and won't be improved.

Yup medicare for all will fix everything... the socialist left keep telling us...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, h102 said:

Well it would save 1 trillion over the current system.

1 trillion over a 10 year period if everything worked as intended....which if its government involved won't be. All the while give us longer wait time with worse care? no thanks. I think free market and deregulation of health care is the way to go. Look at laser eye surgery, used to cost 20k now its only 2k. This is only possible because its completely outside of insurance scheme and deregulated allowing free-market to lower cost while improving patient care. Tell me a government ran healthcare system that can achieve both objective, I'll wait. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, paxamericana said:

 Tell me a government ran healthcare system that can achieve both objective, I'll wait. 

Well... all of them ?  The US system is the most expensive and has the worst outcomes, from what I have heard ?  I do think it has the possibility to be better than Canada's though if they can just get it together to set up the system for the 'public'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well... all of them ?  The US system is the most expensive and has the worst outcomes, from what I have heard ?  I do think it has the possibility to be better than Canada's though if they can just get it together to set up the system for the 'public'.

I am about as far away from a "socialist" as you will find, but what I CAN claim is enough maturity to look at the facts and park the partisan rhetoric.  EVERY one of the former G7 except the USA has some sort of public sick care with more-or-less universal insurance.   They all cost less than the US system and most have better outcomes.  The first concern is the insurance side:  Universal coverage is something that needs to be there.   In the US, I think the numbers are close to 60% are covered by some kind of government paid or provided medical insurance through Medicare, Medicaid, GI or VA benefits, Federal, state or municipal employment - so there is a precedent for state sponsored sick care.   What has been shown time and time again is that insurance companies don't seem to be very good at providing fair administration.   Universal coverage does not HAVE to mean government being the insurer, but one way or another, government needs to control the provision of fundamental sick care coverage either as a provider or as an iron-fisted regulator and advocate.

The other facet is service delivery.  Where we screw up horribly in Canada is by letting government have a monopoly on service delivery.  In most countries, state and private service delivery co-exist happily with funding provided by whatever system of universal insurance (at least for basic or necessary service).

What needs to be considered is what is the engine of the economy?   It is not, as most would think, big business, it is small business.   Main Street is the source of almost all entry into the world of business and where most wealth is created.  Small business is the wellspring of a healthy capitalist economy.  In the US, small business can not afford decent sick care.  I have met many, many people who have come to middle/late life as small scale employers and do not have workable coverage themselves.  When a medical problem surfaces, they end up either bankrupt or dead, or both.   One of the companies I have in the US we keep open because our lead hand's wife has a bizarre medical problem and if we were to close down (we should have done so several years ago) she would not be re-insurable (and we doubt the state provided alternative would keep her alive).   We have a fairly good medical benefit package because we gave the staff a choice many years ago to select either more money into the pay packets or a very expensive medical insurance plan - as it once again was needed to cover a serious problem that one employee had.  Time and again, I hear of people who can't really do a startup because of the benefit costs as a small user.   North of the 49th, it is simply not something we even THINK about when opening a new business.   Even our somewhat broken system works far better than any but a gold plated plan in the US and is never an impediment to doing business.

The real problem with having a total free market in sick care is that it does not always produce the desired results of competition lowering prices.  It tends to be dominated by those who would take as much advantage as possible to profit from their involvement.  Those factors are SO BIG in the US that it colours the way service is delivered.  Big Pharma is famous for this - to the extent that their influence results in massive use of drugs that are ineffective, symptom related only, or staggeringly overpriced (orphans being scooped up going from pennies a dose to thousands of dollars - well documented).   Big Med is not much better.  Yes, there are some EXTREMELY good facilities available in the US, but they are only available to the tiny fraction of the population that has a gold plated insurance plan or pockets full of liquidity.   Finally the third REALLY BIG elephant in the corner of the room - the LLL - the Legal Liability Lottery.   Not only does that free market for lawyers extract massive cost from the sick care system, it determines how medicine is practiced.  Instead of diagnosing and treating, a massive amount of prophylactic services are DEMANDED to keep practitioners and their host companies appearing to have done all that is "necessary" not to diagnose and treat, but to avoid lawsuits.

You will notice that I very clearly NEVER call most of what medical insurance does "health" care - as it is not.   The old saw "you get what you pay for" is spot on.  We pay for illness and injury, so the whole system is designed to do things that providers get paid for.  HEALTH care is the extreme opposite - as providing such is done at direct cost to the sick care "business".   So, we have precious little actual "health care" at all.   Almost zero chance of that changing significantly in a free market of sick care as the US model shows.

The bottom line is that sick care SHOULD be a social service, NOT a business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This should shore up their Chinese ethnic vote, especially in BC where they'll face a tougher fight than last time. Look for more ethnic pandering in the lead-up to the election - and any criticism will be met with cries of intolerance and racism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well... all of them ?  The US system is the most expensive and has the worst outcomes, from what I have heard ?  I do think it has the possibility to be better than Canada's though if they can just get it together to set up the system for the 'public'.

That's intellectual dishonesty there. If you are suggesting that all socialized healthcare system is better at giving patient care than ours then you are wrong. The reason why the US system cost so much is because it is a mixture of socialized and capitalist. Its got the worse of both worlds. You will see an improvement if you move to either side. But only a capitalized system will provide both expediency and quality of care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, h102 said:

Well it would save 1 trillion over the current system.

If it provides an inferior level of care, though, as I've experienced here in Ontario, what's the point of it? In some respects, a terrible system like the one we have is almost worse than having no system at all. We assume we're covered for necessary health care. I used to do so. Those who believe this should think again. I've learned from bitter experience that the "universal" coverage system is a sham.

Edited by turningrite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

...if they can just get it together to set up the system for the 'public'.

Yabut some doofus will shout socialism and point to Cambodia or some thing and...the public down there falls for it every time.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yabut some doofus will shout socialism and point to Cambodia or some thing and...the public down there falls for it every time.

Obama understood the American health care system's basic problem, inadequate access, when he proposed a "public option." He chickened out in response to vociferous attacks from the right and the insurance industry. Canadians would no doubt be wary of copying the American model but other systems like those in many European countries offer hybrid models within dominant publicly sponsored systems. Perhaps it could be called a "private option" model. As I think our current so-called "universal" public monopoly is irretrievably broken, this might provide a solution of sorts for us. We should also consider attaching health care eligibility to objective residency and contributory criteria. Too many people who haven't paid into the system, including both newcomers and Canadians who return from abroad when they're older and/or ill, are getting a free ride. I've come to understand this problem during the countless hours and days I've spent in hospitals over the past couple years. Unless Canadians are prepared to pay big tax increases, which I suspect they/we are not, we must adopt a new model based on rational principles. "Free health care for all" isn't rational and has led to an inferior and declining system. It's not free. Somebody has to pay the bills. And the people who pay the bills should have a right to adequate care when they need it.

Edited by turningrite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

 we must adopt a new model based on rational principles

Fine, in the meantime why the hell can't you people stop or get your stupider ilk to stop irrationally lumping public health care in with communism?  I mean, its like deliberately farting in an elevator and expecting people not to notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/21/2018 at 10:16 AM, turningrite said:

Cynical politicians like Trudeau don't and won't acknowledge the link between immigration and declining public services even though I suspect most Canadians clearly understand it. I think the health care system is too far gone to be adequately reformed within the current model. Rather, I believe we should permit the sale of private health insurance and otherwise attach eligibility for health care services to objective eligibility criteria like length of residency in Canada in combination with the number of years people have filed and paid taxes, with a combination of say 25 to 35 required to establish eligibility for benefits for all of those older than 40.

I believe that what you really meant to say is that Canada is too far gone, right or should I say left? LOL. Massive third world refugee Immigration and diversity is our strength according to your prime mistake of Canada. With tens of thousands of more old third world folks now being allowed into the country will only help contribute more to the destruction and of the end of what was once a great wonderful and beautiful British/European nation who have allowed it all to happen.

I guess that there are just too many people concerned more about going to the mall shopping, watching or playing sports or getting ready for the next birthday or Tupper wear party that there is just not enough time in the day to give a shit about what is going on in Canada these days. Aw well, our grandchildren will get to reap the rewards and will get to see it all as to what their grandparents have left them in a couple of decades or so. Way the go to all those day dreaming Canadians out there who thought that all is okay in Canada land today. :unsure: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

Obama understood the American health care system's basic problem, inadequate access, when he proposed a "public option." He chickened out in response to vociferous attacks from the right and the insurance industry. Canadians would no doubt be wary of copying the American model but other systems like those in many European countries offer hybrid models within dominant publicly sponsored systems.

 

Universal access to a long wait list is not universal access to healthcare (Supreme Court of Canada).   The U.S. system has public and private access with excess capacity for many procedures, so much so, several Canadian provinces have standing contracts with U.S. providers across the border.   After all these years debating health care in this forum, I still don't know why Canadians have to wait so long for health care, emergency or otherwise.   What are they waiting for ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2018 at 4:34 AM, paxamericana said:

1 trillion over a 10 year period if everything worked as intended....which if its government involved won't be. All the while give us longer wait time with worse care? no thanks. I think free market and deregulation of health care is the way to go. Look at laser eye surgery, used to cost 20k now its only 2k. This is only possible because its completely outside of insurance scheme and deregulated allowing free-market to lower cost while improving patient care. Tell me a government ran healthcare system that can achieve both objective, I'll wait. 

Its an elective surgery though, and the cost went down even in countries that government pay for it, so big fail for your free market superior claim.  No free market can cover poor people and minors because they don't have money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Universal access to a long wait list is not universal access to healthcare (Supreme Court of Canada).   The U.S. system has public and private access with excess capacity for many procedures, so much so, several Canadian provinces have standing contracts with U.S. providers across the border.   After all these years debating health care in this forum, I still don't know why Canadians have to wait so long for health care, emergency or otherwise.   What are they waiting for ?

We were waiting for assisted death. Now that we have it our health care system can continue to deteriorate because the final option is available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

Fine, in the meantime why the hell can't you people stop or get your stupider ilk to stop irrationally lumping public health care in with communism?  I mean, its like deliberately farting in an elevator and expecting people not to notice.

Your stupider ilk? To whom are you referring? I'm a non-ideologue, believing that all ideologies, political, social and religious, contain the seeds of their own destruction. I believe only in rationality, i.e. whether an idea or policy serves an objective, demonstrable and sustainable purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...