Who is best to be the next PM of Canada?

[Guest eureka]

Actually, he is saying nothing. he simply makes assertions as fact to go with the insults.

I am pointing to the known desires of the CPC. It needs no more other than to say how it has changed. That, Argus does not do. Saying 'tisn't so will not do.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Some people seem to have a kind of bizarre, emotional attachment to the Liberal Party. To them, it really seems that if the Liberals are not government, the sky will fall.

(I can't believe a fear or loathing of Harper solely drives this. Can one of you Liberal supporters explain this to me?)

In the last federal election, I voted Liberal for the first time in over a decade.

I did so in part because I felt Paul Martin had demonstrated public administration ability in Finance.

I also did so in part because I don't like the two primary alternatives. The NDP are not a government in waiting. These people will be eaten alive by the civil service and shot to pieces on the financial side.

As for the ill-conceived, mutant off-spring of the Alliance and the PCs, the things I expect they would do are not desirable. So, two subjective judgements: what I expect of them, and how I evaluate those expected outcomes.

What do I expect? I expect we would see more acquience to US demands which are inappropriate for Canada. I expect we would see a diminishment in efforts to alleviate certain 'injustices'. I expect we would see an ideologically driven pro-capital emphasis in public policy which would hamper growth and progress, and indeed, leave our society vulnerable to substantial destruction of wealth. I think under these Neo-Tory's we might see more re-fighting of political battles as the forces of Unreason struggle to turn back development and progress.

[waynej625]

We simply remember BM's Gov't. nuff said. 

So that somehow makes Paul Martin a better choice that Stephen Harper? If we are going to use the paintbrush approach, how is Martin any better than the person he replaced. It is coming out that Chretien was involved in the sponsorship program right up to his hinnie, and Martin was Finance Minister at the time. Now one of two things were going on, either Martin was incompetent and wasn't smart enough to catch all of this under the table dealings with the ad executives and people's money, or he simply chose to ignore what was going on. Either way is is culpable, and therefore does not deserve the respect or confidence of the people of Canada.

I know that some of you will vote Liberal even after they blatently put their hand into your pocket's, take out your wallet, open it and remove all of the cash and credit cards, even then you will still go into the voting box and put an X beside the Liberal candidates name, and that my friend's does not speak well of you intelligence. Those arer the type of people who are lining up to buy ocean-front property in Arizona.

Even my friend who s Treasurer of his local Liberal Riding Association is having nightmares about what the party is doing.

[Argus]

Some people seem to have a kind of bizarre, emotional attachment to the Liberal Party. To them, it really seems that if the Liberals are not government, the sky will fall.

(I can't believe a fear or loathing of Harper solely drives this.  Can one of you Liberal supporters explain this to me?)

We simply remember BM's Gov't. nuff said.

I didn't like Brian Mulroney, but Brian Mulroney was a man of towering intellect, faultless honesty and unblemished integrity compared to Jean Chretien. And he was certainly no worse than Pierre Trudeau, whose thievery had some measure of care and discretion about it, but who liked through his teeth as he ran this country almost into the ground while eveyrone he ever knew became a millionaire on taxpayer funds.

[Argus]

Actually, he is saying nothing. he simply makes assertions as fact to go with the insults.

Assertions which are true, and for the most part, proveable, against delusional rantings which have nothing to back them up but bile.

[DAC]

Hi, all. It’s been a while since I’ve had time to look in here. I see the same fervour is abounding, though.

August1991:

Some people seem to have a kind of bizarre, emotional attachment to the Liberal Party.

Shakeyhands:

We simply remember BM's Gov't. nuff said. sad.gif

--------------------

"Canada will be a strong country when Canadians of all provinces feel at home in all parts of the country, and when they feel that all Canada belongs to them."

Pierre Trudeau - Canada's Greatest Prime Minister

When P.E.T. became PM, I was an ardent Liberal. He persuaded me that it was time to change. In almost the whole time since he became PM, the Liberals have been the governing party. Back then I was confident that all of Canada belonged to me; I felt at home wherever I went. Now I’m afraid I might be deported sometime soon, if it were not that I’m multi-generation Canadian, & so there’s nowhere to which to deport me.

Shakeyhands, given the quote from Trudeau you set as your theme, perhaps you should rethink which party you want to support.

[cybercoma]

Actually, he is saying nothing. he simply makes assertions as fact to go with the insults.

I am pointing to the known desires of the CPC. It needs no more other than to say how it has changed. That, Argus does not do. Saying 'tisn't so will not do.

All I'm saying is he debunked your "known desires" by explaining the CPC's position. Canada will not implode if the CPC is elected into office, contrary to what propaganda tells you. They're NOT going to cutoff public healthcare in one swoop, leaving millions of people dying in the streets...among all the other ridiculous nonsense people keep citing.

I'm not necessarily conservative, but it's only fair to look at them objectively.

[The Terrible Sweal]

They're NOT going to cutoff public healthcare in one swoop, leaving millions of people dying in the streets...

True. They are much more likely to carve it up in a piecemeal fashion, leaving millions of people to slowly bankrupt themselves or be sold to the mercies of someone's profit margins.

The only mystery is why Conservatives think Canadians should want this.

[Argus]

They're NOT going to cutoff public healthcare in one swoop, leaving millions of people dying in the streets...

True. They are much more likely to carve it up in a piecemeal fashion, leaving millions of people to slowly bankrupt themselves or be sold to the mercies of someone's profit margins.

The only mystery is why Conservatives think Canadians should want this.

Why do you think Europeans accept it? Are they just not as smart as you?

[Guest eureka]

Europeans don't accept "it." Most Europeans are in publically funded systems with the major part of healthcare deliverd by the state.

Harper has said over and over that he wants healthcare turned to the provinces and his preference for the private sector.

[The Terrible Sweal]

They're NOT going to cutoff public healthcare in one swoop, leaving millions of people dying in the streets...

True. They are much more likely to carve it up in a piecemeal fashion, leaving millions of people to slowly bankrupt themselves or be sold to the mercies of someone's profit margins.

The only mystery is why Conservatives think Canadians should want this.

Why do you think Europeans accept it? Are they just not as smart as you?

"Europeans" accept nothing of the sort. Clearly you are badly uninformed about health care in Europe.

[Argus]

Europeans don't accept "it." Most Europeans are in publically funded systems with the major part of healthcare deliverd by the state.

Yes, and the majority of health care in a similar system in Canada would continue to be delivered by the state. However, a significant portion would be delivered, and/or paid for by various private groups. As is the case in Europe.

And, oddly, Europeans tend to enjoy a generally better health care system than we do.

[Guest eureka]

I gave you the proportion of public moneys in Canada and Europe. The range is between 70 and 90%. Canada is at the lower end now.

[sir_springer]

Harper is the most qualified man in the country for the PMO. His integrity and honesty, conceded to be impeccable by even his staunchest critics, make his candidacy at this time particularly timely. Can't imagine anyone more qualified to clean up this thoroughly corrupted federal government.

Once he becomes PM, he'll be there for some time to come.

Far as I'm concerned, this is Canada's last gasp. If Ontario and the Maritimes persist in inflicting this country with corrupt, abysmally incompetant, and just plain asinine Liberal idiots and clowns to run our government...yet again over the pleas of westerners and Quebecers for some GD common sense and decency...then to hell with it.

[The Terrible Sweal]

His integrity and honesty, conceded to be impeccable by even his staunchest critics,

Actually, I don't concede that at all. I'd like to hear your case for that.

Once he becomes PM, he'll be there for some time to come.

Threats will get you nowhere, amigo.

[err]

I'd vote for The Terrible Sweal

Because his opinions are clearly better though out than the rest of the neocon tripe that I've read in this newsgroup.

But if I were forced to pick between the federal leaders, it appears, as was proven so clearly in the past weeks, Jack Layton is the only one who appears to be genuinely concerned with the Citizens of Canada.

[Argus]

I'd vote for Terrible Sweal.

Because his opinions are clearly better though out than the rest of the neocon tripe that I've read in this newsgroup. 

Ironic you can't even spell "thought".

[The Terrible Sweal]

I'd vote for The Terrible Sweal

Because his opinions are clearly better though out than the rest of the neocon tripe that I've read in this newsgroup. 

Thegue! Thegue very buch.

[scribblet]

The only mystery is why Conservatives think Canadians should want this.

Why do you think Europeans accept it? Are they just not as smart as you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Europeans have a mix of systems which are successful, France and Sweden for example. Harper does not want to 'privatize health care' he (and I agree) wants to see some private clinics and choices for users alongside a public health care system and within the Canada Health Act. He has been consistent on this.

I should have a choice as to where I spend my money and should have the option to pay for a procedure if I wish. I can pay for lazer eye surgery, cosmetic surgery etc. Men have been going to the private Shouldice Clinic for years. Why not an MRI if I needed on in a hurry? My choice, my money. cheers

P.S. I don't understand all the posts that have the email thingy only on them?

[Guest eureka]

Why the devil don't you read what Harper has said? Would it be too painful for you to expose yourself to the truth of that man?

Why should you not get a fast MRI with your money? You should not because Pharasaical privilege is not valued in Canada. Those who cannot afford to pay have an equal right to yours to live and to access the services that are intended to help keep them alive.

[Argus]

Why should you not get a fast MRI with your money? You should not because Pharasaical privilege is not valued in Canada. Those who cannot afford to pay have an equal right to yours to live and to access the services that are intended to help keep them alive.

Childish and belonging to a dead philosophy - communism.

Why should you be able to dictate to me what I spend my money on? Why should it be that while I save my money, not splurging on a car, and trips down south, I am then not free to use it to get an MRI and thus save myself months and months of pain?

The idea that you shouldn't be able to buy better health care is ludicrous. You can buy better food, better water, better housing, better clothes, better cars, and a better education. But you can't buy better health care? Well, you can buy better dental care, and better eye care. But you can't buy an MRI? There's no logic to these positions.

There's also no reality to them. When former Health Minister Alan Rock needed an operation he got it almost at once. When Chretien wanted an operation done he wen to the United States. Does anyone think Paul Martin is going to be sitting for hours in an emergency room waiting to get treated for a broken leg or sprained back? Give me a break!

The well-off, the well-connected, get better health care. Deal with it. All this anti privacy bullshit does it keep the middle class from getting better health care too, unless, of course, they go to the US for it. Which many do. I can tell you without hesitation that if my doctor told me I'd need an MRI and have to wait for treatment until I got one - a year or more away - I'd instantly cross the river into Quebec and get an MRI done at the local clinic there. If that was closed down I'd have to take my money across the border to New York.

So what you people with your minds wrapped in an ideological straight jacket should be doing is finding a way to incorporate that money into our system legally and to the best benefit of the public system. For example; a private clinic for basic health services, up to and including basic broken limbs - which is paid through medicair, but which gets a small additional subsidy per patient by those who wish expedited services. This would increase the number of available clinics and provide better service to people, as well as decreasing demand for emergency room services.

[cybercoma]

Why the devil don't you read what Harper has said? Would it be too painful for you to expose yourself to the truth of that man?

Why should you not get a fast MRI with your money? You should not because Pharasaical privilege is not valued in Canada. Those who cannot afford to pay have an equal right to yours to live and to access the services that are intended to help keep them alive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Too painful to be exposed to the truth? The irony is glaring.

An MRI scan is not a lifesaving procedure; however, the information obtained from that practice can be. MRI machines can be built and with more demand there could be more of them in the country given the purchasing power of the private clinics alongside public clinics. Instead we're forced to wait months for scans (ie: the girl in Windsor who had cancer on her brain stem, they knew this, but it still took 8 months for an MRI to be done). People are unduly subjected to further deteriorating health because we have a care system of universal delays.

Do you know what the solution finally was for this girl? OHIP paying for a portion of her MRI to be done in Detroit, as well as third party insurance from her mother paying another portion of it. Charitable organizations and people were the ones to pick up the rest of the tab because that girl getting the quickest care possible is what is valued here in Canada.

Quite frankly, our system is no better than the United States' system with its problems. We want to idolize and glorify this system of Universal healthcare, which is doing more harm than good to us. Sure the poor in the United States have a difficult time finding access to healthcare, but they do what they can to pay for it. There are options from third party insurance to charitable donations from several different organizations. This point is moot since a system like they have in the United States is ABSOLUTELY NOT what's being advocated.

Our healthcare system doesn't have the problem of the poor having a difficult time receiving services (unless they have no fixed address, can't afford to pay for the prescriptions on their own, etc.); our system just makes people wait for months on end while their health deteriorates, leaving them with no other option but to hope they don't get to the point of irreparable damage or death.

Both systems result in people suffering and dying due to flaws in their design. If you value that and want to unrealistically hold that system up as a godsend, then that's your choice. I think most Canadians, given the rational option (sans propaganda), would be more than happy to have a system that gives people the choice of where to get their healthcare services.

This does NOT mean trashing the public service at all. It means putting healthcare in the hands of the provines (who it's supposed to belong to anyway) because they know what's better for their communities than a detached government in Ottawa that can be particularly clueless about certain provinces' needs. It makes ONE level of government responsible for delivering healthcare and allows the citizens to hold them accountable for this.

This also means OHIP and other publicly funded health insurance will still apply to canadian citizens. You will still enter the system through public care most of the time and you will still use your healthcare card to pay for these services. The most important element here is that you have THE CHOICE to go to private care clinics....and I know, it's hard for the naysayers to believe...you get to use your PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE there. Staggering, I know.

Does this mean we'll be universally insured for our healthcare and be able to choose where to go to get it? Yes! Furthermore, productive Canadians who hold third party insurance (usually through their employers' benefit packages) would still be able to use that to supplement their public insurance (as we do now).

Those who are against the plan of having a two-tiered system are wholly supporting government as a dictator. Private hospitals will have to compete for clients and will be forced to provide better care at reasonable prices, or people won't "shop" there. They need to make money to stay alive, unlike our current system which the government runs into the ground. Our current hospitals are running deficits because they're so inefficiently administrated that it should be sickening to most Canadians our money is being wasted this way.

Allowing for private clinics to open, while maintaining our current public system will do nothing more than improve healthcare in Canada. It will free up public equipment, make the public system run more efficiently to compete, result in doctors being paid what they're worth for their services, keep Canadian money in Canada where it belongs and save the lives of millions of people.

To absolutely outlaw a two-tiered system, instead of continuing to advocate public healthcare as a component of our system while allowing private clinics to operate, is plain stupidity. It makes us no better than the country that completely ignores having public healthcare (see the United States) and does more harm to our people than good. We need to be pushing to have the best of both worlds in our country and anyone who says otherwise is simply demanding second-best for us. We should take a cue from countries like Sweden, France and Japan that have the absolute best healthcare in the world, not fight logic so we can live out a failed ideal.

[cybercoma]

Why should you not get a fast MRI with your money? You should not because Pharasaical privilege is not valued in Canada. Those who cannot afford to pay have an equal right to yours to live and to access the services that are intended to help keep them alive.

Childish and belonging to a dead philosophy - communism.

Why should you be able to dictate to me what I spend my money on? Why should it be that while I save my money, not splurging on a car, and trips down south, I am then not free to use it to get an MRI and thus save myself months and months of pain?

The idea that you shouldn't be able to buy better health care is ludicrous. You can buy better food, better water, better housing, better clothes, better cars, and a better education. But you can't buy better health care? Well, you can buy better dental care, and better eye care. But you can't buy an MRI? There's no logic to these positions.

There's also no reality to them. When former Health Minister Alan Rock needed an operation he got it almost at once. When Chretien wanted an operation done he wen to the United States. Does anyone think Paul Martin is going to be sitting for hours in an emergency room waiting to get treated for a broken leg or sprained back? Give me a break!

The well-off, the well-connected, get better health care. Deal with it. All this anti privacy bullshit does it keep the middle class from getting better health care too, unless, of course, they go to the US for it. Which many do. I can tell you without hesitation that if my doctor told me I'd need an MRI and have to wait for treatment until I got one - a year or more away - I'd instantly cross the river into Quebec and get an MRI done at the local clinic there. If that was closed down I'd have to take my money across the border to New York.

So what you people with your minds wrapped in an ideological straight jacket should be doing is finding a way to incorporate that money into our system legally and to the best benefit of the public system. For example; a private clinic for basic health services, up to and including basic broken limbs - which is paid through medicair, but which gets a small additional subsidy per patient by those who wish expedited services. This would increase the number of available clinics and provide better service to people, as well as decreasing demand for emergency room services.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To suggest that our public system doesn't handle services above broken limbs is absurd; you basically flush your entire argument down the toilet with that. Critical services should still be provided by the public system, in fact, all services should still be provided by the public system. If they say something needs to be done and it's going to take a year for you to wait, you then have the option of waiting a year and having it done, or finding a private clinic to do it for you right away for a little extra money.

There should be no limitations to our public healthcare system. The private system should simply be there as an option.

[Argus]

So what you people with your minds wrapped in an ideological straight jacket should be doing is finding a way to incorporate that money into our system legally and to the best benefit of the public system. For example; a private clinic for basic health services, up to and including basic broken limbs - which is paid through medicair, but which gets a small additional subsidy per patient by those who wish expedited services.  This would increase the number of available clinics and provide better service to people, as well as decreasing demand for emergency room services.

To suggest that our public system doesn't handle services above broken limbs is absurd; you basically flush your entire argument down the toilet with that.

Then perhaps I shouldn't make that argument - oh wait, I never did. I was suggesting an expansion in the hours and services offered by your typical privately run clinics in order to ease the long waits for services at emergency rooms in hospitals.

There should be no limitations to our public healthcare system.  The private system should simply be there as an option.

Agreed.

[Guest eureka]

So "Might makes Right" and wealth makes right, Argus, and it is childish and communistic to oppose that idea. What a good little follower of certain Fascist princoples you are becoming.

When Carlyle, a good Libertarian, originated that statement, he meant that Might would do Right and enforce the rights of others. He did not propose a superior class of society or greater privilege for himself.

We all have equal rights to access to healthcare. If it were not so, then we would all have the right to say that society has abandoned us and to commit any act necessary for our own survival - or even pleasure.