Who is the bigot?

[Riverwind]

As I have said previously, nowhere does the judgment have more than anecdotal testimony on its side. The casual dismissal of expert witnesses who testified to the dangers of private care is egregious. There are studies that show the deterioration of health systems following the introduction of parallel private care. There are studies that debunk the "pie-in-the sky" hopes of the 4 villains of the piece.

Eureka, look at the experiences of the other non-US OECD countries. Almost all provide universal healthcare to everyone and have a private parallel system. This idea that the private care is going to destroy the public system is a uniquely Canadian myth that has no facts to back it up.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It's unconstitutional for a government to force people to wait ..

Says you, not the courts.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I CAN offer you a supreme c_ourt ruling clearly stating that a parallel private system would not be harmful to the public system. 

No, you certainly cannot.

Read it and weep.  Below is a direct exerpt from the supreme court ruling. 

I think you misunderstand the basis of my objection. I'm well aware of the decision. It just does not amount to what you claimed about it.

First, it is not a 'clear ruling', as the court split 3 to 3 to 1. The passage you quoted is a decision of at most 3 judges.

Second, the court is incapable of making a finding that it would not hurt he public system. The furthest the court can go is to say that the evidence before them in the case does not establish the harm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, evidence brought forth by:

Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of

New Brunswick, Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Augustin

Roy, Senator Michael Kirby, Senator Marjory Lebreton,

Senator Catherine Callbeck, Senator Joan Cook, Senator Jane

Cordy, Senator Joyce Fairbairn, Senator Wilbert Keon,

Senator Lucie Pépin, Senator Brenda Robertson and Senator

Douglas Roche, Canadian Medical Association and Canadian

Orthopaedic Association, Canadian Labour Congress, Charter

Committee on Poverty Issues and Canadian Health Coalition,

Cambie Surgeries Corp., False Creek Surgical Centre Inc.,

Delbrook Surgical Centre Inc., Okanagan Plastic Surgery

Centre Inc., Specialty MRI Clinics Inc., Fraser Valley MRI

Ltd., Image One MRI Clinic Inc., McCallum Surgical Centre

Ltd., 4111044 Canada Inc., South Fraser Surgical Centre Inc.,

Victoria Surgery Ltd., Kamloops Surgery Centre Ltd., Valley

Cosmetic Surgery Associates Inc., Surgical Centres Inc.,

British Columbia Orthopaedic Association and British Columbia

Anesthesiologists Society

And by the way that's exactly my point you raised: The government couldn't find one witness to support it's claim with empirical eveidence.

BTW SWEAL you seem pretty sharp, I'd have thought it above you to nitpick.

Yes, evidence brought forth by:

Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of

New Brunswick, Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Augustin

Roy, Senator Michael Kirby, Senator Marjory Lebreton,

Senator Catherine Callbeck, Senator Joan Cook, Senator Jane

Cordy, Senator Joyce Fairbairn, Senator Wilbert Keon,

Senator Lucie Pépin, Senator Brenda Robertson and Senator

Douglas Roche, Canadian Medical Association and Canadian

Orthopaedic Association, Canadian Labour Congress, Charter

Committee on Poverty Issues and Canadian Health Coalition,

Cambie Surgeries Corp., False Creek Surgical Centre Inc.,

Delbrook Surgical Centre Inc., Okanagan Plastic Surgery

Centre Inc., Specialty MRI Clinics Inc., Fraser Valley MRI

Ltd., Image One MRI Clinic Inc., McCallum Surgical Centre

Ltd., 4111044 Canada Inc., South Fraser Surgical Centre Inc.,

Victoria Surgery Ltd., Kamloops Surgery Centre Ltd., Valley

Cosmetic Surgery Associates Inc., Surgical Centres Inc.,

British Columbia Orthopaedic Association and British Columbia

Anesthesiologists Society

You seem pretty sharp, Sweal. I would've thought it above you to nitpick.

The ruling is CLEAR.

[The Terrible Sweal]

And by the way that's exactly my point you raised:  The government couldn't find one witness to support it's claim with empirical eveidence.

You keep making claims that are at odds with reality. The government brought forth many witnesses who supported its claims with empirical evidence. True, about half the judges weren't convinced by that evidence, but so what?

The ruling is CLEAR.

Not in the least.

[JerrySeinfeld]

And by the way that's exactly my point you raised:  The government couldn't find one witness to support it's claim with empirical eveidence.

You keep making claims that are at odds with reality. The government brought forth many witnesses who supported its claims with empirical evidence. True, about half the judges weren't convinced by that evidence, but so what?

The ruling is CLEAR.

Not in the least.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You obviously haven't read the ruling. The court actually cites the witnesses, their claims and the FACT that no empircal evidence was brought forht to supprt those claims.

I beg you, please: show me this famous empirical evidence or direct meto where I can find it???

You're just mad because someone important (the court) finally said what used to be unheard of in this country: there's nothing wrong with private care.

Man, that's gonna be a tough slug for Paul Martin and the crew next campaign. Stating things that are completely at odds with reality.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Sweal, the REALITY is the lefties can't find any proof for their wild claims that private care will ruin the public system.

It's quite comical to see a lefty bash the court, the very same court that they applaud on issues of SSM.

Man you lefties take it tough when you lose...

[The Terrible Sweal]

You obviously haven't read the ruling.  The court actually cites the witnesses, their claims and the FACT that no empircal evidence was brought forht to supprt those claims.

One of three judgements says threis no emprical evidence for SOME of the contentions before them. But they cannot change the fact that empirical evidnece was presented. All they can do is reject the evidence.

I beg you, please:  show me this famous empirical evidence or direct meto where I can find it???

Did you read the "dissenting" opinion? Did you review the material filed in the court? Did you read the decisions of the courts below, and the evidence filed there?

[The Terrible Sweal]

It's quite comical to see a lefty bash the court, the very same court that they applaud on issues of SSM.

I have disagreed with various SCC decisions over time, chiefly based on the particulars of the decisions rather than any inclination to support or defy the court.

And, I'm not leftwing, I'm a Classical Liberal.

[JerrySeinfeld]

You obviously haven't read the ruling.  The court actually cites the witnesses, their claims and the FACT that no empircal evidence was brought forht to supprt those claims.

One of three judgements says threis no emprical evidence for SOME of the contentions before them. But they cannot change the fact that empirical evidnece was presented. All they can do is reject the evidence.

I beg you, please:  show me this famous empirical evidence or direct meto where I can find it???

Did you read the "dissenting" opinion? Did you review the material filed in the court? Did you read the decisions of the courts below, and the evidence filed there?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the claims are unfounded and without empirical evidence. What part of that don't you understand? It's amazing that somehow, even when Libs LOSE in court, they still turn it around as if their opinion is the RIGHT one and that no one, not even the Supreme Court of Canada can suggest otherwise.

Deal with it Sweal. Private care is coming and we'll all be the better for it. Smile this is a GOOD thing

[JerrySeinfeld]

It's unconstitutional for a government to force people to wait ..

Says you, not the courts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Say the courts.

Um...where you been? This is what the entire fabric of the case was about. The reason the government was taken to court was because the patient was dnied the right of life liberty and security of person by being forced to wait over a year in the public system for a hip replacement.

Even lower courts which upheld the ban on private care ruled that the law violated the constitution, but upheld the ban anyway to "protect" the public system.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the claims are unfounded and without empirical evidence. 

Three judges of the SCC ruled something like that on the the evidence before them.

It's amazing that somehow, even when Libs LOSE in court, they still turn it around as if their opinion is the RIGHT one and that no one, not even the Supreme Court of Canada can suggest otherwise.

One: The decision we are discussing did not provide any decision under the Candian Charter. Two: In my opinion the judges who found against the government position made a wrong decision. It happens.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It's unconstitutional for a government to force people to wait ..

Says you, not the courts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Say the courts.

I'm afraid you are mistaken.

Three judges said the Charter is violated, three said it wasn't, and one declined to rule on the Cdn. Charter (confining her decision to the Quebec bill of rights only). The effect of all that is that the law would not be unconstitutional.

[Argus]

And are you convinced by those excerpts. I suggest that it must be the most embarrassing double talk ever seen in a judgment of the SCC in Canada. It might equally well have been taken from Alice in Wonderland.

Not even close. Their ruling on banning third party advertising during elections was a mystefying collection of ludicrous socialist/communist paranoia and political theories. It made no legal or logical sense, and was barely coherent.

But you liked that decision so you thought their reasoning was just swell.

[JerrySeinfeld]

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the claims are unfounded and without empirical evidence. 

Three judges of the SCC ruled something like that on the the evidence before them.

It's amazing that somehow, even when Libs LOSE in court, they still turn it around as if their opinion is the RIGHT one and that no one, not even the Supreme Court of Canada can suggest otherwise.

One: The decision we are discussing did not provide any decision under the Candian Charter. Two: In my opinion the judges who found against the government position made a wrong decision. It happens.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sweal I have a newsflash for you. Courts tend to pass judgement on the EVIDENCE BEFORE THEM. The rub? The entire government of Quebec and all of their witnesses couldn't come up with satisfactory emprirical evidence to prove their ideological claims.

It is telling when an entire government with all of it's power and legal teams can't find the evidence to one man and his doctor's desire to get the tr

[Guest eureka]

Critics of the United States and private sector provision of health care are quick to point out that the US now spends, per annum, approximately $6000 per capita on health care, (or more than 15% of Gross Domestic Product} with outcomes (according to key indicators such as life expectancy and levels of disease) inferior to those of many European countries spending much less.  (e.g. the United Kingdom spends about $2000 per capita).  However, much of the expense is due to the importance Americans place on access expensive but often futile services, the right of the individual to make his or her own choices (which often are not cost effective), and the necessity of service providers to cover themselves by performing expensive but unnecessary tests to “cover themselves” before providing treatment.  There are signs that employers are refusing to spend more on the healthcare of their employees.  This has had a number of interesting repercussions, for example, the introduction of substantial “deductibles” or “first amounts payable”, making healthcare less accessible to the general populace.  It is interesting to note that expenditure on health care in Canada (which has a public sector-based health care system) is fast catching up with the US.  In all probability this is because 90% of the Canadian population live within 50 miles of the US border, so that the US private sector alternative, accessed by crossing the border for treatment, is relatively simple for most and provides strong competition for the Canadian system.

This is a smal excerpt from the last conference of International Health Care Providers which includes the insurers.

It just might help you understand, Jerry, that there is a wealth of empirical evidence to show the deleterious effects of private care.

The studies you want are, as I have already written, Romanow, Kirby and Mazankiwski. All three wanted ony one tier with the latter two trying to find an increased role for their corporate friends that was not a parallel system.

Besides those, there was a report in the Toronto Star not long ago from, possibly the WHO, though I ma not sure of that. The report stated without equivocation that nowhere that there was a private system along with the public did care not deteriorate in the public system. The European systems that do have private, or two-tier care are all experiencing difficulty in maintaining the public.

Britain, for examplem has recently thrown a huge amount of money into the public system to try to make up the loss and the deteriation of their system.

You really should be a little more circumspect before you crow. I am told by former debating opponents that crow does not taste very good.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Critics of the United States and private sector provision of health care are quick to point out that the US now spends, per annum, approximately $6000 per capita on health care, (or more than 15% of Gross Domestic Product} with outcomes (according to key indicators such as life expectancy and levels of disease) inferior to those of many European countries spending much less.  (e.g. the United Kingdom spends about $2000 per capita).   However, much of the expense is due to the importance Americans place on access expensive but often futile services, the right of the individual to make his or her own choices (which often are not cost effective), and the necessity of service providers to cover themselves by performing expensive but unnecessary tests to “cover themselves” before providing treatment.  There are signs that employers are refusing to spend more on the healthcare of their employees.  This has had a number of interesting repercussions, for example, the introduction of substantial “deductibles” or “first amounts payable”, making healthcare less accessible to the general populace.  It is interesting to note that expenditure on health care in Canada (which has a public sector-based health care system) is fast catching up with the US.  In all probability this is because 90% of the Canadian population live within 50 miles of the US border, so that the US private sector alternative, accessed by crossing the border for treatment, is relatively simple for most and provides strong competition for the Canadian system.

This is a smal excerpt from the last conference of International Health Care Providers which includes the insurers.

It just might help you understand, Jerry, that there is a wealth of empirical evidence to show the deleterious effects of private care.

The studies you want are, as I have already written, Romanow, Kirby and Mazankiwski. All three wanted ony one tier with the latter two trying to find an increased role for their corporate friends that was not a parallel system.

Besides those, there was a report in the Toronto Star not long ago from, possibly the WHO, though I ma not sure of that. The report stated without equivocation that nowhere that there was a private system along with the public did care not deteriorate in the public system. The European systems that do have private, or two-tier care are all experiencing difficulty in maintaining the public.

Britain, for examplem has recently thrown a huge amount of money into the public system to try to make up the loss and the deteriation of their system.

You really should be a little more circumspect before you crow. I am told by former debating opponents that crow does not taste very good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I appreciate the contribution but your personal comments about my debating style are unnecessary.

I am willing to accept that private health care alternatives are no panacea; all systems have their drawbacks -- yes even ours. My main contention is that we shouldn't sut down debate on the issue and close our eyes to possibilities that might actually improve ourr system just because we are ideologically opposed to privatization.

I could address the issue that the US system is unique due to the litigous nature of that society and the costs that lawsuits bear to the system but I won't go there. I will readily concede that the US system is not something I'd be prepare to copy here in Canada. I'd also point out that the UK system, from what I have read, is the least enviable in Euraope, and that countries like Freance have a much more enviable system (yes -- with a private component)

And although the supreme court of Canada has not seen any evidence of it, I will even concede that there is a possibility that the public system could weaken with the introduction of Private insurance.

I suppose there is some element of ideology involved here, but my belief is that I am OK with some people getting quicker care than others if it means the average wait times would drop. I think your average poor mother of three cancer victim would be happy to get surgery a couple of months earlier even if she knew some rich SOB from West Van was getting his surgery right away because he's rich.

The whole "equal but this bad" mentality isn't for me.

[Guest eureka]

The point that the "Right" seems not to have taken, Jerry, is that no one is opposed to private healthcare for ideological reasons. The opponents oppose because reason and experience show what we are saying: that is, that a private component has everywhere been an unsuccessful experiment. The evidence is there and there is not a shred of evidence to say that adding a cost to the system will not either make it much more expensive or less efficient.

Britain used to have the finest system in the world by a long way. It was too expensive in the view of some but not af the beneficiaries. Then camr privatization and the ranking plummeted.

All those European countries that have two-tier health are now struggling with the results. There is much unrest in France right now as that system is becoming less than the No. 1 model through the introduction of such things as co-payment or deductibles - something like that, I forget exactly what the problem is.

The point of it all is that the best models that have existed are the British and the Canadian when they were fully public. That is not an idological position. It is empirical experience.

[JerrySeinfeld]

The point that the "Right" seems not to have taken, Jerry, is that no one is opposed to private healthcare for ideological reasons. The opponents oppose because reason and experience show what we are saying: that is, that a private component has everywhere been an unsuccessful experiment. The evidence is there and there is not a shred of evidence to say that adding a cost to the system will not either make it much more expensive or less efficient.

Britain used to have the finest system in the world by a long way. It was too expensive in the view of some but not af the beneficiaries. Then camr privatization and the ranking plummeted.

All those European countries that have two-tier health are now struggling with the results. There is much unrest in France right now as that system is becoming less than the No. 1 model through the introduction of such things as co-payment or deductibles - something like that, I forget exactly what the problem is.

The point of it all is that the best models that have existed are the British and the Canadian when they were fully public. That is not an idological position. It is empirical experience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not convinced. Neither is the supreme Court.

I have yet to see government do ANYTHING more efficiently than private enterprise.

What I DO know is that I live in a country with a public system that is lacking.

Let me ask this question. What is more imprtant to YOU: timely delivery of care of equality? I should start a new poll on that very question.

[kimmy]

We've already be over that, just above.  The simple unadorned semantic meaning of the poll question should produce a masive preference among people to have prime healthcare for their children. You'd only vote against your kids  if you complicate the question by importing an ideologcial stance on how healthcare ought to be apportioned.  My actual question contains no implications about the 'hows' of heathcare, but a lot of people seem to have felt it necessary to react as if it did.

There you go again. How do you get "prime healthcare" out of the question you asked? As I keep saying-- your preference for "Option B" and condemnation of "Option A" is based on the assumption that "Option B" provides awesome healthcare for your kids and "Option A" provides shitty healthcare for your kids. If that's what you actually wanted to ask, then why didn't you ask "Do you want awesome healthcare for your kids, or shitty healthcare for your kids?" if it was your intention to determine whether people want awesome healthcare or shitty healthcare? And what have the rich got to do with either?

And reading the question, why would anybody assume that giving my kids healthcare equal to the healthcare the rich are getting would mean giving my kids better healthcare? Come on! Hello, this is Canada! There's no fucking way that would happen! The only way my kids will get healthcare equal to that which Belinda.ca's kids and Martin's grandkids receive is if Belinda.ca's kids and Martin's grandkids are forced to go through months of waiting-lists too.

You'd have to be on crack to think our universal public healthcare will ever be funded enough to treat your kids and my kids like Belinda.ca's kids can get treated if she opens up her checkbook. Instead of daydreaming about that, why don't we just say "fuck it" and go make our own billion dollars? It'd be easier.

Who would win a fight between Batman and Spiderman

Spiderman, unless Batman found a way to outfox him.

You just hate Batman because he's a rich, white conservative. Hater.

-k

[JerrySeinfeld]

We've already be over that, just above.  The simple unadorned semantic meaning of the poll question should produce a masive preference among people to have prime healthcare for their children. You'd only vote against your kids  if you complicate the question by importing an ideologcial stance on how healthcare ought to be apportioned.  My actual question contains no implications about the 'hows' of heathcare, but a lot of people seem to have felt it necessary to react as if it did.

There you go again. How do you get "prime healthcare" out of the question you asked? As I keep saying-- your preference for "Option B" and condemnation of "Option A" is based on the assumption that "Option B" provides awesome healthcare for your kids and "Option A" provides shitty healthcare for your kids. If that's what you actually wanted to ask, then why didn't you ask "Do you want awesome healthcare for your kids, or shitty healthcare for your kids?" if it was your intention to determine whether people want awesome healthcare or shitty healthcare? And what have the rich got to do with either?

And reading the question, why would anybody assume that giving my kids healthcare equal to the healthcare the rich are getting would mean giving my kids better healthcare? Come on! Hello, this is Canada! There's no fucking way that would happen! The only way my kids will get healthcare equal to that which Belinda.ca's kids and Martin's grandkids receive is if Belinda.ca's kids and Martin's grandkids are forced to go through months of waiting-lists too.

You'd have to be on crack to think our universal public healthcare will ever be funded enough to treat your kids and my kids like Belinda.ca's kids can get treated if she opens up her checkbook. Instead of daydreaming about that, why don't we just say "fuck it" and go make our own billion dollars? It'd be easier.

Who would win a fight between Batman and Spiderman

Spiderman, unless Batman found a way to outfox him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You just hate Batman because he's a rich, white conservative. Hater.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

GO KIMMY!

You're hilarious in a good way. Go GIRL!!!!

[The Terrible Sweal]

There you go again.  How do you get "prime healthcare" out of the question you asked?

There is prime healthcare and less-than-prime health care. The question asks which one you want for your kids. Not HOW, not WHY, just which.

... your preference for "Option B" and condemnation of "Option A" is based on the assumption that "Option B" provides awesome healthcare for your kids and "Option A" provides shitty healthcare for your kids. 

No. It is not about which "provides" better care it is about which of two qualities you want. Venturing into the "provides" question is exactly the ideological bent the question was meant to bring to the surface.

... why would anybody assume that giving my kids healthcare equal to the healthcare the rich are getting would mean giving my kids better healthcare?

The question was do you Equal-or-Better, or Worse.

You'd have to be on crack to think our universal public healthcare will ever be funded enough to treat your kids and my kids like Belinda.ca's kids

Why?

BTW, I never thought Batman is conservative. I took him as an old money New England democrat.

[Guest eureka]

Once again, Jerry, you ask the wrong question. I don't blame you for that, though, since a generation of neocons has used the "either......orelse" scare tactic.

There is no reason that we cannot have both timely delivery and equality. That is what we had before the money men - the carpet baggers - got their hands on the levers of government.

[Argus]

The point that the "Right" seems not to have taken, Jerry, is that no one is opposed to private healthcare for ideological reasons.

Ludicrous. Most of the left is opposed to health care on ideological reasons. Including you. To suggest there is any logical basis to your shrill opposition is to raise peels of laughter throughout this site.

The opponents oppose because reason and experience show what we are saying: that is, that a private component has everywhere been an unsuccessful experiment.

Except for France and Germany and Belgium and Holland and Sweden and Finland and Spain and Ireland and Israel and Norway and Denmark and Italy and Australia and .......

Britain used to have the finest system in the world by a long way.

You've said this before. When I asked you when your answer was a sheepish silence.

All those European countries that have two-tier health are now struggling with the results.

Twaddle. The aging boomers are putting a strain on health care systems everywhere, but the Europeans are handling it far better than we are. You're much better off being sick in France or Germany than in Canada. You won't wait ten hours to see a doctor with a broken bone in a European hospital, unless it's the UK.

There is much unrest in France right now as that system is becoming less than the No. 1 model through the introduction of such things as co-payment or deductibles - something like that, I forget exactly what the problem is.

Assuming you ever knew, which is unlikely. France has economic problems with high unemployment and a high, continuing budget deficit through government inefficiencies. And there is ALWAYS unrest in France.

They still have better health care than us, though, as do most Europeans. They also pay cheaper prescription costs because we voted in governments, both Tory and Liberal, which took bribes from the big pharmaceutical companies to let them raise our prices. And if you think that's likely to stop have a look at how much money the Liberals are taking in donations from all the major pharmaceutical corporations.

Of all the things the Mulroney Tories are accused of this one never seems to make the top 100, but to me it was by far the most egregeous example of government corruption during their entire time in office. And it remains one of the more glaring examples of Liberal hypocrisy and corruption, for they fought it tooth and nail while in opposition, then never said a word after getting elected - and having their war chests flooded with money from the international pharmaceutical corporations.

[kimmy]

There you go again.  How do you get "prime healthcare" out of the question you asked?

There is prime healthcare and less-than-prime health care. The question asks which one you want for your kids. Not HOW, not WHY, just which.

... your preference for "Option B" and condemnation of "Option A" is based on the assumption that "Option B" provides awesome healthcare for your kids and "Option A" provides shitty healthcare for your kids. 

No. It is not about which "provides" better care it is about which of two qualities you want. Venturing into the "provides" question is exactly the ideological bent the question was meant to bring to the surface.

The exact question was:

I want my children ad parent to have...

worse healthcare than the rich?

at least as good heathcare as the rich?

Naturally I assumed that your option B meant that the rich should have to sit through months of wait-lists too. What's the alternative? That my kids get treated like billionaires when they're sick? pshuh. Right.

Why?

Because this is Canada. Because the people who've taken healthcare where it's gotten over the past 12 years will be in charge for perpetuity. Because "fixed for a generation" apparently means putting in enough new money to *almost* keep up with inflation. Because our system has provided us with a number of physicians that's less than other top nations. Because addressing the shortcomings will require an infusion of capital expenditure that I can't picture happening without private participation.

Like, seriously-- what do you picture actually changing? How do you picture this change actually occuring?

-k

[JerrySeinfeld]

Once again, Jerry, you ask the wrong question. I don't blame you for that, though, since a generation of neocons has used the "either......orelse" scare tactic.

There is no reason that we cannot have both timely delivery and equality. That is what we had before the money men - the carpet baggers - got their hands on the levers of government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What colour is the sky in your world?

Did you see the Liberal attack ads last election? "EITHER vote for us OR you will end up with a terrible, american style health care system."

MY either/or is logical. EITHER we have some degree of private insurance OR we don't. It's a fair question.