Left versus right?

[Unpolarized]

After lurking and making a few posts, I have noticed the particularly unhelpful approach of saying "well the left created the problem" or 'the right started it". In the Canadian context, doe these terms, left and right, actually mean anything. I do not think so.

this is one way of looking at it:

Leftists advocate economic security and personal liberty. Leftists believe that economic liberty is dangerous because economically weak people will too readily agree to noncoercive transactions that leftists think are unfair.

Rightists advocate economic liberty and personal security. Rightists believe that personal liberty is dangerous because morally weak people will too readily engage in noncoercive behaviors that rightists think are immoral.

WHo is who and really does it mean anything to be catergorized as a lefty or a right besides just being a public relations tool that takes the really issue off the table and then it just becomes a name calling exercise?

Mostly what seems to be happening at the national level is one party has been in power too long and has got cocky and lazy and a little too fond of power and big mistakes have happened. It also happened to the last long lasting government. In my opinion, it has nothing to do with left and right.

[Michael Hardner]

That's kind of a cute oversimplification, but it gives one thought.

As for left vs right, they're so close in Canada that it defies belief that there could be this much divisiveness.

My ex-coworker had just emmigrated from Ukrane to Canada, got his citizenship and was confused about who to vote for in the election: "They're the same" he said.

[PocketRocket]

They're the same

Truer words were never spoke.

A decade and a half of Liberal government has made everyone forget just how bad the last Conservative government was.

I've been saying for 25 years that it's time to give someone new a chance.

Voted NDP for a while, then Reform.

But, being that I don't belong to a major union, the NDP is not for me.

Reform no longer exists.

Nor does the Conservative party.

They've morphed into something else, which to my mind, has yet to define itself in anything other than negative terms....."We're not like them because we wouldn't......."

I believe Preston Manning was our biggest hope of changing the political landscape in Canada.

Unfortunately, his vision has degenerated into another political 3 ring circus.

[Digby]

Lets all vote for the Christian Heritage Party !!!!

Better yet lets Run for them I think they only got 48 to run now and they need 50 to get tax exempt status .

[Black Dog]

Lets all vote for the Christian Heritage Party !!!!

Better yet lets Run for them I think they only got 48 to run now and they need 50 to get tax exempt status .

What about those of us whoare wholly uniterested in Christian Heritage?

[willy]

Nor does the Conservative party.

They've morphed into something else, which to my mind, has yet to define itself in anything other than negative terms....."We're not like them because we wouldn't......."

Here is a link to the policy that came out of the Convention.

http://www.conservative.ca/documents/20050...DECLARATION.pdf

An election platform will be forthcoming......

[I Miss Trudeau]

An election platform will be forthcoming......

Good. That means they're done for.

[err]

Our two major parties are both right wing parties. Only the NDP is on the left of centre.

The big difference between the Conservative/Reform/Alliance and the Liberals is that the Liberals pretend to care about social programs, health care, the cost of education, etc... When Paul Martin made his last throne speech, I though I was hearing Jack Layton.... However, we all know that he does not govern like he cares about the people of Canada, but rather the Corporations (and wealty elite) of Canada. He has an amazing record of giving tax breaks to Cororate Canada and debt reduction.... so he never ever seems to have any money left for health care, education, etc....

The Conservative party has shown its spots. It is at least honest that it cares more about Canada having an aircraft carrier than putting money into health care. In fact, the founder of the new Conservative/Reform/Alliance party, Preston Manning, along with Ontario Conservative Mike Harris, have just released a report recommending that Canada get rid of universal health care....

There is one other party that appears to be honest is the NDP party... the only major party that puts the citizens of Canada above the corporations of Canada... imagine that.

[Conservative1]

Cybercoma wrote this...I couldn't put it any better so i won't...don't go around supposedly accurately quoteing things you know nothing of...

The report did state that your public insurance would still cover what it covers and that would also pertain to private institutions. Those who have the money could then supplement that insurance, or pay for things outside the typical insured practices.

The report calls for Canadians to have the freedom to decide for themselves where they want to get their healthcare from. It also says that most times you're going to enter into the system through public doctors, clinics and hospitals before you're referred to private facilities if that's what you choose.

This misconception about public healthcare and public health insurance being eliminated really gets under my skin, as I know it does for you.

Really all Mike Harris and Preston Manning called for was the simple CHOICE to be there for Canadians, instead of this system now where the Canada Health Act (1984 -- over 20 years old) makes it illegal to have a choice.

People in Windsor, ON and the surrounding area are already being advertised to, through the Windsor Star, by medical facilities in Michigan. Thousands of people are already being referred to and are going to private clinics in the United States for quicker and better quality healthcare.

The Canadian government doesn't want to allow you that choice though. Preston Manning and Mike Harris' plan would give all of us greater freedom to choose what's best for us, instead of leaving it in the hands of bureaucrats who've made a career out of wasting our money.

[cybercoma]

Cybercoma wrote this...I couldn't put it any better so i won't...don't go around supposedly accurately quoteing things you know nothing of...

The report did state that your public insurance would still cover what it covers and that would also pertain to private institutions. Those who have the money could then supplement that insurance, or pay for things outside the typical insured practices.

The report calls for Canadians to have the freedom to decide for themselves where they want to get their healthcare from. It also says that most times you're going to enter into the system through public doctors, clinics and hospitals before you're referred to private facilities if that's what you choose.

This misconception about public healthcare and public health insurance being eliminated really gets under my skin, as I know it does for you.

Really all Mike Harris and Preston Manning called for was the simple CHOICE to be there for Canadians, instead of this system now where the Canada Health Act (1984 -- over 20 years old) makes it illegal to have a choice.

People in Windsor, ON and the surrounding area are already being advertised to, through the Windsor Star, by medical facilities in Michigan. Thousands of people are already being referred to and are going to private clinics in the United States for quicker and better quality healthcare.

The Canadian government doesn't want to allow you that choice though. Preston Manning and Mike Harris' plan would give all of us greater freedom to choose what's best for us, instead of leaving it in the hands of bureaucrats who've made a career out of wasting our money.

Thanks for quoting me, so I don't have to.

[Conservative1]

meh....it's a living

[err]

And what does this have to do with Left vs. Right ??

You guys should pat each others backs in the right forums.

[Conservative1]

And what does this have to do with Left vs. Right ?? 

Well you were spouting off non-truths about an easily accessible study that i (and apparently cybercoma) agree with. Further you have been corrected on this issue before, yet you refuse to let it die. So i do/did not intend to let you perpetuate this ridiculousness.

[cybercoma]

And what does this have to do with Left vs. Right ??

You guys should pat each others backs in the right forums.

Just making sure that everytime you misrepresent that report, we're here to correct you.

[Guest eureka]

How do you propose to continually correst him when you haven't the foggiest notion of what you are talking about?

The "Report" did propose getting rid of Universal Health Care.

Or don't you know what universal means?

[cybercoma]

How do you propose to continually correst him when you haven't the foggiest notion of what you are talking about?

The "Report" did propose getting rid of Universal Health Care.

Or don't you know what universal means?

By your definition then, Universal Health Care has already been destroyed since the public system (that will still be up and running after the conservatives get their way) is ALREADY referring patients to private care in the United States. If you lived in Southwestern Ontario, BC or parts of Quebec you'd know this, either that or you're turning a blind eye to it.

I can't possibly understand how people can defend our national healthcare system. We are tied for number one in spending on healthcare among OECD nations, but we're 16th in doctors per capita, 15th for access to advanced medical technology, 14th in percentage of total life expectancy disability free, 16th in infant mortality (one of the most important statistics in determining quality of life in a nation), 8th in mortality amenable to healthcare, 9th in potential years of life lost due to disease, and 6th in incidents of breast cancer mortality.

It is glaringly obvious that are very restrictive government monopoly on healthcare and insurance does NOT create a better system. It does not make us vastly superior to other nations in terms of health, regardless of what you would like to think.

To quote directly from the report:

Most importantly, you and your family will be fully insured against catastrophic illness, just as you are now, and will have continued access to all medically necessary services regardless of ability to pay.  These features of our current system will not only be retained.  They will be made far more sustainable.

But in addition, you will have more choice in health-care services resulting in shorter waiting times, access to the latest medical technology, and better care.  In most provines, when you are sick you will still most likely enter the health-care system through the door to a doctor's office, clinic, or a hospital that is part of the public health-care system.  But if your needs cannot be attended to promptly or satisfactorily, you will have the option of being referred to another facility offering equivalent or more specialized care where you can be treated sooner, and that facility, while licensed by the government, may well be financed and operated by a qualified private operator.  If the services provided by the private facility are core services covered by your provincial health-care insurance plan, upon presentation of your Health Care Card the cost of your treatment will be covered by the provine in accordance with the same fee schedule used at publicly run facilities.  If the services you require or desire are not covered by your provincial health-care insurance plan, they may be paid for directly or through any private supplementary health-care insurance plan (which is the case now).

As you can see it's a system that gives you options. It does not destroy Universal Access to care, instead it improves access to health-care and puts control in the hands of people that can be held responsible and are closer to the communities that require care. What does Ottawa know about the health care needs of people in BC? Who does someone in BC hold accountable for poor service? It's supposed to be the provinces who run the hospitals, but under the current system the federal government and the provinces currently blame each other for the problems refusing to take responsiblity. Under the new system it will be clear who is responsible, either the province or the private provider who is licensed by the government.

To not allow people access to private care is asinine at best. Nations like Sweden, Japan, France and Australia all have a combined health-care system which clearly beat the heck out of ours. Currently, Canadians who are willing to pay are being sent to the United States to get quicker services for vital services that they would otherwise have to wait for. A system exactly like the United States' system is NOT what is being proposed. Instead they're proposing giving the provinces more control over health-care (as it should have been from day one) since they are closer to the communities they will be serving and giving canadians the option of access to advanced technology and better service. All of which will still be paid for by a universal health care plan and/or a supplementary medical insurance plan (which is the case now through your employer's benefits package).

So, to even insinuate that our current system will be scrapped is entirely incorrect. It's not even implied in the report. All that is implied is giving people a choice in their health care, which is happening now with people going to the states. Instead of our money being lost to another country, it would be kept at home, improving our nation instead of theirs.

[Conservative1]

In addition to that it should be noted that private clinics are springing up across Canada as it is....especially in Quebec.

[Guest eureka]

World Health Organization Ranking of

International Health Care Systems

Country

Overall

health-care system performance rating

Total private and public spending on health as % of GDP

Total health spending per person (US$)

Public health spending as % of total health spending

Expected healthy life span (years)

France

1

9.8

2369

76.9

73.1

Italy

2

9.3

1855

57.1

72.7

Spain

7

8.0

1071

70.6

72.8

Japan

10

7.1

2373

80.2

74.5

Norway

11

6.5

2283

82.0

71.7

Netherlands

17

8.8

2041

70.7

72.0

U. Kingdom

18

5.8

1303

96.9

71.7

Sweden

23

9.2

2456

78.0

73.0

Germany

25

10.5

2713

77.5

70.4

Canada

30

8.6

1783

72.0

72.0

Australia

32

7.8

1730

72.0

73.2

United States

37

13.7

4187

44.1

70.0

I am afraid that these did not come out in the box that they should, however, they can be read.

You might try getting your information from the WHO instead of Preston Manning.

Access to advanced technology is not nearly so important as access (universal) access to technology. France, the top rated system does not allow access to technology that is not absolutely required. Many of the expensive frills in the American system are that.

Your interpretation of "my definition" is not very bright since I did not give a definition. My definition, however, would not exclude any one from access to care under any circumstance. The access proposed by Manning -and Harper- grades access according to wealth.

France has a co-payment requirement that is highly effective in cutting the frivolous use of healthcare. But, it mitigates this by having facilities where the co-payment would be an unacceptable burden. That is an idea that could be better done to make a system even better. Other than that, we could do worse than to muzzle Manning and Harper and look at the French system.

[Hugo]

There is already a thread on healthcare options here.

[cybercoma]

I am afraid that these did not come out in the box that they should, however, they can be read.

You might try getting your information from the WHO instead of Preston Manning.

Access to advanced technology is not nearly so important as access (universal) access to technology. France, the top rated system does not allow access to technology that is not absolutely required. Many of the expensive frills in the American system are that.

Your interpretation of "my definition" is not very bright since I did not give a definition. My definition, however, would not exclude any one from access to care under any circumstance. The access proposed by Manning -and Harper- grades access according to wealth.

France has a co-payment requirement that is highly effective in cutting the frivolous use of healthcare. But, it mitigates this by having facilities where the co-payment would be an unacceptable burden. That is an idea that could be better done to make a system even better. Other than that, we could do worse than to muzzle Manning and Harper and look at the French system.

I guess you're just going to go on with your rhetoric totally disregarding the fact that public healthcare and public health insurance will still exist. People will still have equal access to healthcare and private insurance (that most people get from their employers) will still cover costs.

It's plainly obvious that you want to continue to believe the Conservatives are going to make healthcare only accessible to the richest echelon of society, which is patently absurd to say the least.

If you're happy paying the most money for some of the crappiest service among OECD nations, more power to you I guess.

[err]

In addition to that it should be noted that private clinics are springing up across Canada as it is....especially in Quebec.

So if West Nile Virus or Herpes is springing up in your neighborhood, should we support it's growth ???

[Conservative1]

So if West Nile Virus or Herpes is springing up in your neighborhood, should we support it's growth ???

You really should go in for a tightening....

[Guest eureka]

Read Harper's policy statement and don't be so obtuse. I have cited it often enough. It is explicit in the intent to make access means tested and different for the middle class and the poor - his own words.

[cybercoma]

Read Harper's policy statement and don't be so obtuse. I have cited it often enough. It is explicit in the intent to make access means tested and different for the middle class and the poor - his own words.

The poor, more specifically the homeless, don't have access to healthcare as it is. Without an address you can't get a healthcard and without money how do you pay for prescription drugs with no third party plan?

Regardless, we shouldn't carry on about this in this thread. It's not the place for this.

[Bryan]

The Canadian definitions of right vs left are certainly different from those in the U.S.

When I talk politics, most people I know in Canada accuse me of being a right wing extremist, while exactly the same talking points get me labeled as being extremely left-wing by the Americans I know.