Who is the bigot?

[kimmy]

Could be.  But the question didn't ask them any of that.  It asked whether they want equal or worse care for their children.  Those who answered the question as you suggest deliberately imported an ideological assumption into a the question in order to justify not marking 'equal to the rich' for their children. 

Choosing "option B" in the poll requires an ideological assumption too.

As I already argued, the real question is whether my kids should receive better medical care than the system presently provides, not how my kids' medical care stacks up against the medical care Belinda.ca's kids have access to.

And as I said in the thread itself, I think the way the question was phrased is an attempt to impugn the motives or character of those who question our present system ("the truth hurts," I believe you said in the thread.)

Not really. My question was not really a "crappy poll". It was an attitudinal test. It was not designed to impugn motives and character, more like identify them. Consider: personality testing theory

While you now say your crappy poll was not linked to the real issue facing Canadians in healthcare, I doubt anybody who viewed your thread viewed it as being separate from the issue currently in the news. "Boil it down" the poll suggests, and people who support private healthcare don't love their kids. A push poll, as you already conceded, designed to show that people don't want private care.

-k

[Argus]

Other than your fraternity-lampoon elaborations, can you offer any reason for voters not to think that the Conservatives are the party least favourable to universal public health care?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure. They haven't spent the last 14 years running it into the toilet like the Liberals have.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I have opposed SSM principally for one reason. That reason is that "Marriage" has a;ways been the union of two biologically and genetically complementary individuals.

I don't see how a bare 'it has always been so' is a sufficient reason for 'so it must always stay'.

[Black Dog]

Thank goodness we have the Conservatives to teach us all about respectful and rational public discourse.

ex-Conservative candidate calls Layton a "National Socialist"

Okay everyone, hands up all who think that the Duty National Socialist Leader, Jack Layton, would put himself at the back of the queue if he (or his wife) needed an MRI. I didn't think so.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Could be.  But the question didn't ask them any of that.  It asked whether they want equal or worse care for their children.   Those who answered the question as you suggest deliberately imported an ideological assumption into a the question in order to justify not marking 'equal to the rich' for their children. 

Choosing "option B" in the poll requires an ideological assumption too.

I don't see how.

As I already argued, the real question is ...

Feel free to conduct your own poll with whatever 'real' question interests you. MY 'real' question was the one I asked.

While you now say your crappy poll was not linked to the real issue facing Canadians in healthcare,

Linked? Of course it was. Don't put words in my mouth (unless you're putting your tongue in there with them).

"Boil it down" the poll suggests, and people who support private healthcare don't love their kids.

The people who self-selected wanting better health care for the rich than for their own children either read what the question said and answered what they think, or made an assumption about what the question should mean and answered the question based on that assumption rather than the plain interests of their children, or don't understand written English.

I make no conclusions about 'love'.

[THELIBERAL]

RE::Yeah, it should be called marriage because that's what it is. Persecuting gays, whether it be curtailing actual rights or in name only is still persecution, it perpetuates discrimination. If we deny gays the right to call their unions marriage the discrimination will be continued and given an oppurtunity to grow rather than being eliminated. All people are of equal importance, and should have equality, true EQUALITY, not some half-assed Conservative placating tactic.

Ya got that right. There is no other way to put it you have stated the very plain truth.

Some bigots are the last to realize the fact they are bigots.

Hint::: FOR THE BIGOTS HERE:::A good friend who is gay would not call his close friend a bigot to his face for fear of ending the relationship.

I'm not your friend so I can be more honest with you.

You're bigots if you think gays should not be allowed to call their unions marraige but you can!

[Guest eureka]

If you think that, then it is time you did a little growing up. Throwing bigot accusations around from safety is not a very creditable position.

The bigotry is in the minds of the accusers.

[I miss Reagan]

bigotry is in the minds of the accusers.

Pretty consistant with Eureka's line of thinking, demanding that you reach his conclusions from his premises.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The bigotry is in the minds of the accusers.

[kimmy]

Could be.  But the question didn't ask them any of that.  It asked whether they want equal or worse care for their children.  Those who answered the question as you suggest deliberately imported an ideological assumption into a the question in order to justify not marking 'equal to the rich' for their children. 

Choosing "option B" in the poll requires an ideological assumption too.

I don't see how.

The assumption being made is that option A provides a worse standard of care for average Canadians than option B. You stated the assumption explicitly yourself when I proposed that the choice might be between a system where everybody gets "5/10" care, or a system where the rich can buy "8/10" care but everybody has access to "7/10" care. No no, you said, we're talking about a system where everybody gets "7/10" care, or one where the rich get "9/10" care while the rest get only "4/10" care. In your own words you explained the ideological assumption built into your poll.

As I already argued, the real question is ...

Feel free to conduct your own poll with whatever 'real' question interests you. MY 'real' question was the one I asked.

Of course. You propose your little poll with its wink-wink-nudge-nudge connection to a current issue of considerable interest, but insist that the discussion be framed strictly in terms favorable to your viewpoint.

While you now say your crappy poll was not linked to the real issue facing Canadians in healthcare,

Linked? Of course it was. Don't put words in my mouth (unless you're putting your tongue in there with them).

Ok, fine. So your crappy poll didn't have a "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" connection to a current issue of considerable interest, it was an explicit link to a current issue of considerable interest.

"Boil it down" the poll suggests, and people who support private healthcare don't love their kids.

The people who self-selected wanting better health care for the rich than for their own children either read what the question said and answered what they think, or made an assumption about what the question should mean and answered the question based on that assumption rather than the plain interests of their children, or don't understand written English.

I make no conclusions about 'love'.

Sure you did. "...people who love their ideology more than they love their children," remember?

While you contend that that conclusion is a correct and obvious inference from the question you asked, I maintain that you can't draw that conclusion from the question without making assumptions about the relative quality of the healthcare provided in each system. Specifically:

If the system in Option A gives better healthcare to your children than in option B, then if your children's welfare was your foremost concern, you'd choose option A even if the quality of care isn't as good as Belinda.ca's kids get.

If I was convinced the system in Option B gave my kids better care than the system in Option A, I'd choose it if my kids' welfare was my foremost concern.

If the system in Option B gives my kids the exact same standard of care as the system in Option A, then it has no effect at all on me personally... but it means you've made my kids and Belinda.ca's kids equal not by elevating my kids, but by punishing Belinda.ca's kids. That's just spiteful, don't you think?

-k

[The Terrible Sweal]

Choosing "option B" in the poll requires an ideological assumption too.

I don't see how.

The assumption being made is that option A provides a worse standard of care for average Canadians than option B.

That's just the flip side of the faulty assumption the child-haters inported. It is not an implicit or a required assumption someone needs to make simply to say they want equal or better healthcare for their children.

You stated the assumption explicitly yourself when I proposed that the choice might be between a system where everybody gets "5/10" ...

Please. That was much later down the thread. My opinions on healthcare are not built into the plain meaning of the question.

I make no conclusions about 'love'.

Sure you did. "...people who love their ideology more than they love their children," remember?

You're right. I guess I do make

conclusions about love too.

If the system in Option A gives better healthcare to your children than in option B, then if your children's welfare was your foremost concern, you'd choose option A even if the quality of care isn't as good as Belinda.ca's kids get.

All this stuff about systems is all part of the importation of exraneous assumtios. My quesion was blindigly smple -- who would you want to get better health care: the rich or your kids. Its not even a false dichotomy ... it's a hypothetical.

[cybercoma]

Actually, I would think that text is akin to the spin that is trying to be put on the "new look" for Harper.

Why, oh why are we Conservatives so misunderstood. Why oh why when we mean so well and we only want to destroy public health care for the good of - er the common good,do all those nasty Commie - er leftists call us names.

It is really no more than a veiled attack on rationality. An attempt to vilify non Conservatives with the other hand. It categorizes all those who hold "moral" positions as Conservatives and the rest as devils.

I have some news for you, Jerry. There are many of us who opposed SSM who would not be caught dead in the same room as a Conservative. And there is no bigotry in us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's nothing left of the Liberal's "fixed healthcare" to destroy.

[takeanumber]

I think these unions should be afforded the same rights (spousal RSP contributions, family allowances, estate planning etc.) as all other couples. I just don't think it should be called marriage.

...as though 'just' is justification.

Your positions arn't fascist per se, but I do believe that Alberta's conservative academia has definite characteristics of fascism.

The underlining belief that there are 'natural slaves' is what is most offensive. The general lack of empathy displayed by your cohorts is equally disturbing.

Enjoy being in the official opposition now: you guys are at your peak in this country. Ontario will never vote for Harris, or a Pseudo-Harris again. Get used to it.

[mcqueen625]

RE::Yeah, it should be called marriage because that's what it is. Persecuting gays, whether it be curtailing actual rights or in name only is still persecution, it perpetuates discrimination. If we deny gays the right to call their unions marriage the discrimination will be continued and given an oppurtunity to grow rather than being eliminated. All people are of equal importance, and should have equality, true EQUALITY, not some half-assed Conservative placating tactic.

I sure hope that you are not naive enough to believe that the passage of Bill C-38 is going to magically make the concept of SSM acceptable to it's opponents, especially those of us who oppose it for reasons of Faith teachings. I can assure you that it will not be any more palitable then it was before the passage of the Bill. Call that homophobic and hateful if you like, but that's called not having people's beliefs trampled on by an appointed, unaccountable judiciary, who were appointed by the very people who introduced the Bill, the Liberals.

[kimmy]

I make no conclusions about 'love'.

Sure you did. "...people who love their ideology more than they love their children," remember?

You're right. I guess I do make conclusions about love too.

Ok, and how can you make that conclusion without having made assumptions about the quality of care provided in each instance?

All this stuff about systems is all part of the importation of exraneous assumtios.  My quesion was blindigly smple -- who would you want to get better health care: the rich or your kids.  Its not even a false dichotomy ... it's a hypothetical.

Who would win a fight between Batman and Spiderman is a hypothetical. This was just an effort to frame discussion of a real issue in terms that are favorable to your viewpoint.

While you contend it was merely a what-if exercise, your effort was clearly to retrieve results applicable to discussions of real-world healthcare service in this country. The poll was obviously constructed to encourage support for option B, ("all polling is push-polling," you said, "at least I'm honest about it") which you no doubt would have called to the attention of private-care supporters had people cooperated. With people having not cooperated with the poll's intention, you can at least vilify those who didn't endorse your viewpoint. "Obviously, some people love their ideology more than they love their children!" But making that judgment requires an assumption, which not all of the respondents may have shared.

-k

[Argus]

Some bigots are the last to realize the fact they are bigots.

Truer words were never spoken by a more obvious bigot.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Ok, and how can you make that conclusion without having made assumptions about the quality of care provided in each instance?

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.

Who would win a fight between Batman and Spiderman

Spiderman, unless Batman found a way to outfox him.

[mona]

My issue:

I am a right of centre conservative from Alberta.  I am also an academic. 

I am also pro choice, but anti abortion.  In other words I wouldn't mind seeing all parties agree on some initiatives that would attempt to reduce the number of abortions demanded by women.  Maybe education about birth control etc.  I can't think of anyone on this board who is in favor of MORE abortions.

I have no issue with Gay persons as I agree with Trudeau that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.  One of my closest friends is a Gay woman.  She and I have discussed this issue and she does not consider me a bigot for drawing the line at marriage.  I am in favor of civil unions, not same sex marriage.  I think these unions should be afforded the same rights (spousal RSP contributions, family allowances, estate planning etc.) as all other couples.  I just don't think it should be called marriage.

I favor exploring new ways to improve our health care system.  I'd like to see if we can reduce wait times without breaking the bank.  Perhaps some incorporation of private provision or insurance can help improve the efficiency of the current system so that we can continue to have great health care into the future.  I am aware that socialist nations such as sweden have private care, so am dumbfounded as to why it's such a bad word here in Canada.  I don't want to dismantle the current system, I just want to repair it, and my mind is open to all suggestions -- even private ones.

These (above) are some key issues which have, in the past, been used to paint conservatives in this country as fascists or bigots.  In fact, I'd argue that Stephen Harper's views on these issues are very similar to the ones I have expressed here. 

I don't see these views as draconian.  Certainly they are different from the status quo.  This scares many people.  The masses hate change.  But there is nothing hateful or mean spirited in the above views.

What IS hateful and mean spirited is when people who disagree with the above instantly brand people who espouse these views as "fascists and bigots".  It's not fair and it's not condusive to communication in this country.

We are supposed to be a country that believes in free speech.  We are supposed to be a tolerant society which allows all viewpoints to be heard.  Why does it seem to me as a conservative in this country that if I express these views, I will be breated, name called and brandished as a fascist.  In a strange way, the very people calling me a fascist or a bigot and squashing my views are behaving like fascists themselves.

Am I off base here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hmmm, never saw it that way, to be pro choice but anti abortion. hmm eye opening thank you. Disagree on the other points made but you have a good one there. We should promote more on birthcontrol and the use of condoms etc.

however, this is really hard if a young adult comes from a conservative (or catholic ) family because they don't like to talk about sex and the things that come with it.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Excellent post Argus.  Except you should have left out the "idiot" part, because I guarantee you that is the only part that the lefties will latch onto in their retort.

It's sooooo true, though.  I was raised in a marxist household and whenever I have a (healthy) debate with my father I always ask him:  "do you SERIOUSLY think that Harper, Klein et al are sitting in some smoke filled room plotting the demise of health care?"  I can just picture it

Harper "god-DAMN this UNIVERSAL health care.  I hate it when average citizens get coverage.  We need to do something about this.  We need to GAIN POWER and DESTROY the system so that only our rich friends can get care and EVRYONE ELSE WILL SUFFER HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA........."

  It sounds absurd, but that seems to be what lefties really believe, or WANT voters to believe so they can cling to power and the staus quo.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Other than your fraternity-lampoon elaborations, can you offer any reason for voters not to think that the Conservatives are the party least favourable to universal public health care?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suppose I could go down that road and show you how our current PM slashed federal health transfers in HALF during his term as finance minister then campaigned in last years election on the premise that he would FIX health care-- the very mess he himself created. "A fix for a generation" turned out to be a one time $40 Billion handout.

Very sly you Libs: automatically trying to put the Cons on the defensive. YOU are the one making the accusation, so the question is: other than Liberal attack ads, can you offer me any evidence that the Cons would be the least favorable to public health care? Especially in light of the Liberals obvious mismanagement.

Personally I can't speak for the Cons because I am not a member of that party, but I CAN offer you a supreme court ruling clearly stating that a parallel private system would not be harmful to the public system. That is the real issue here.

[The Terrible Sweal]

YOU are the one making the accusation, so the question is:  ... can you offer me any evidence that the Cons would be the least favorable to public health care? 

I don't see it as making an accusation. I see it as drawing the obvious inference. Liberals (mismanagement notwitstanding) express and act upon a clear commitment to universal public care. The NDP position is equally clear. Only the tories have supporters and related think tanks and policy debates around changing those aspects of our system.

I CAN offer you a supreme court ruling clearly stating that a parallel private system would not be harmful to the public system.  That is the real issue here.

No, you certainly cannot.

[JerrySeinfeld]

YOU are the one making the accusation, so the question is:  ... can you offer me any evidence that the Cons would be the least favorable to public health care? 

I don't see it as making an accusation. I see it as drawing the obvious inference. Liberals (mismanagement notwitstanding) express and act upon a clear commitment to universal public care. The NDP position is equally clear. Only the tories have supporters and related think tanks and policy debates around changing those aspects of our system.

I CAN offer you a supreme court ruling clearly stating that a parallel private system would not be harmful to the public system.  That is the real issue here.

No, you certainly cannot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Read it and weep. Below is a direct exerpt from the supreme court ruling. These lines state clearly that NO witness produced by the Quebec government was able to convince the court in ANY WAY that a parallel private system would in ANY way harm the public system. Lines 64-66 state this very clearly. Got a complaint? Take it up with the highest court in the land.

62 As can be seen from the evidence, the arguments made in support of the position that the integrity of the public system could be jeopardized by abolishing the prohibition can be divided into two groups. The first group of arguments relates to human reactions of the various people affected by the public plan, while the second group relates to the consequences for the plan itself.

63 (i) Human reactions

1. Some witnesses asserted that the emergence of the private sector would lead to a reduction in popular support in the long term because the people who had private insurance would no longer see any utility for the public plan. Dr. Howard Bergman cited an article in his expert report. Dr. Theodore Marmor supported this argument but conceded that he had no way to verify it.

2. Some witnesses were of the opinion that the quality of care in the public plan would decline because the most influential people would no longer have any incentive to bring pressure for improvements to the plan. Dr. Bergman cited a study by the World Bank in support of his expert report. Dr. Marmor relied on this argument but confirmed that there is no direct evidence to support this view.

3. There would be a reduction in human resources in the public plan because many physicians and other health care professionals would leave the plan out of a motive for profit: Dr. Charles D. Wright cited a study done in the United Kingdom, but admitted that he had read only a summary and not the study itself. Although Dr. Marmor supported the assertion, he testified that there is really no way to confirm it empirically. In his opinion, it is simply a matter of common sense.

4. An increase in the use of private health care would contribute to an increase in the supply of care for profit and lead to a decline in the professionalism and ethics of physicians working in hospitals. No study was cited in support of this opinion that seems to be based only on the witnesses’ common sense.

64 It is apparent from this summary that for each threat mentioned, no study was produced or discussed in the Superior Court. While it is true that scientific or empirical evidence is not always necessary, witnesses in a case in which the arguments are supposedly based on logic or common sense should be able to cite specific facts in support of their conclusions. The human reactions described by the experts, many of whom came from outside Quebec, do not appear to me to be very convincing, particularly in the context of Quebec legislation. Participation in the public plan is mandatory and there is no risk that the Quebec public will abandon the public plan. The state’s role is not being called into question. As well, the HEIA contains a clear provision authorizing the Minister of Health to ensure that the public plan is not jeopardized by having too many physicians opt for the private system (s. 30 HEIA). The evidence that the existence of the health care system would be jeopardized by human reactions to the emergence of a private system carries little weight.

65 (ii) Impact on the public plan

1. There would be an increase in overall health expenditures: the alleged increase would come primarily from the additional expenditures incurred by individuals who decide to take out private insurance; the rest of the increase in costs would be attributable to the cost of management of the private system by the state.

2. Insurers would reject the most acute patients, leaving the most serious cases to be covered by the public plan.

3. In a private system, physicians would tend to lengthen waiting times in the public sector in order to direct patients to the private sector from which they would derive a profit.

66 Once again, I am of the opinion that the reaction some witnesses described is highly unlikely in the Quebec context. First, if the increase in overall costs is primarily attributable to the individual cost of insurance, it would be difficult for the state to prevent individuals who wished to pay such costs from choosing how to manage their own finances. Furthermore, because the public plan already handles all the serious cases, I do not see how the situation could be exacerbated if that plan were relieved of the clientele with less serious health problems. Finally, because of s. 1(e), non‑participating physicians may not practise as participants; they will not therefore be faced with the conflict of interest described by certain witnesses. As for physicians who have withdrawn (s. 1(d) HEIA), the state controls their conditions of practice by way of the agreements (s. 1(f) HEIA) they are required to sign. Thus, the state can establish a framework of practice for physicians who offer private services.

[Guest eureka]

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.

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.

Those studies were referred to but the Court chose to say they could be ignored because they were not presented in their entirety.

The Court should be told that if it wishes to replicate the studies that have been done and then form its own conclusions, then it should recess for a few months to study only those - it would take that long not the few days of hearings they gave the question.

This decision appears more politically motivated with every airing of defenses of the decision.

[JerrySeinfeld]

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.

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.

Those studies were referred to but the Court chose to say they could be ignored because they were not presented in their entirety.

The Court should be told that if it wishes to replicate the studies that have been done and then form its own conclusions, then it should recess for a few months to study only those - it would take that long not the few days of hearings they gave the question.

This decision appears more politically motivated with every airing of defenses of the decision.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

which studies?

[JerrySeinfeld]

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.

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.

Those studies were referred to but the Court chose to say they could be ignored because they were not presented in their entirety.

The Court should be told that if it wishes to replicate the studies that have been done and then form its own conclusions, then it should recess for a few months to study only those - it would take that long not the few days of hearings they gave the question.

This decision appears more politically motivated with every airing of defenses of the decision.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could you please refer me to the studies which have proven with emprical evidence that a parallel private system would harm the public system? I'd like to see that.

Also: this is a human rights issue. People have the right to timely delivery of service, or, more succinctly..."Life liberty and security of person" in the charter. It's unconstitutional for a government to force people to wait in pain in long lineups for healthcare. We all have the basic human right to seek care elsewhere.

Lineups...rationing...sounds alot like communist russia.

[The Terrible Sweal]

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.