Who is the bigot?

[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}>

Your entire pots is left wing rhetoric propaganda. You haven't cited any evidence which is why the Supreme Court of Canada shot down those very same claims.

Are you aware the government with all of it's resources, legal power couldn't convince the Supreme Court that a parallel private system would harm the public system in any way?

ONE man with a hip problem was able to topple the entire facade of public care and the government couldn't stop it. This to me is telling about how ridiculous your argument is.

[Guest eureka]

Jerry, the government with all the resources in the world could not make the SCC rule in any particulay way. Nor whould it be able to. That independence of the judiciary is the most important feature of a democracy. It is what is most lacking in the US.

But the Court can be wrong.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Jerry, the government with all the resources in the world could not make the SCC rule in any particulay way. Nor whould it be able to. That independence of the judiciary is the most important feature of a democracy. It is what is most lacking in the US.

But the Court can be wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Huh? you think that's what I am suggesting?

Let me be clearer: The government of Quebec has the resources to make a STELLAR case in defending the public system and still couldn't convince the court.

Again I say it: ONE man with a hip problem single handedly brought down the myth that private care is evil and there isn't a darn thing the lefties can do about it.

Just get used to it, folks: The health care system in the country is about to get alot better no matter how hard you try to keep it in it's miserable state.

[Guest eureka]

Argus, you are right about prescription drugs and it probably escaped your attention that I did talk of this cost as the prime factor in the increasing cost of healthcare.

I can't think of anything else you got right, though, and I suggest that you do a little reading about healthcare. You will find much information put out by the WHO; one major souce.

What budget deficits and gigh unemployment in France have to do with the moves they have made in healthcare that ARE causing social problems there just now, escapes me.

The rest of your post simply tries to follow your old pattern of ascribing motives to others without justification and "putting words in their mouths." It does not work and needs no response.

I did tell when Britain had the best system in the world and how it was destroyed by what so many seem to want for Canada now. Pure ignorance of the nature of the so called "Globalization" of Capitalism.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Argus, you are right about prescription drugs and it probably escaped your attention that I did talk of this cost as the prime factor in the increasing cost of healthcare.

I can't think of anything else you got right, though, and I suggest that you do a little reading about healthcare. You will find much information put out by the WHO; one major souce.

What budget deficits and gigh unemployment in France have to do with the moves they have made in healthcare that ARE causing social problems there just now, escapes me.

The rest of your post simply tries to follow your old pattern of ascribing motives to others without justification and "putting words in their mouths." It does not work and needs no response.

I did tell when Britain had the best system in the world and how it was destroyed by what so many seem to want for Canada now. Pure ignorance of the nature of the so called "Globalization" of Capitalism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Citing a WHO report is like refrring to Romanow and expecting objectivity. Ain't gonna happen. They're both lefty groups.

Now if you'd stop rewriting your diploma exam on ideology and the evils of capitalism and snap back to reality you'd see that our system is in serious disrepair at the hands of the sitting prime minister and we need some non-ideological minds to fix it for good.

[Guest eureka]

You are right about needing non-ideological minds. Unfortunately for you, you thus disqualify yourself from commentary. Do you ever realise what you are saying.

To make such an absurf atatement about the WHO, weel, what is there to say.

The only thing you say that makes sense is that the system needs fixing. The best way to do that would be to remove the ideological spokes from the wheels and get back to where it was when it WAS a superb system.

[JerrySeinfeld]

You are right about needing non-ideological minds. Unfortunately for you, you thus disqualify yourself from commentary. Do you ever realise what you are saying.

To make such an absurf atatement about the WHO, weel, what is there to say.

The only thing you say that makes sense is that the system needs fixing. The best way to do that would be to remove the ideological spokes from the wheels and get back to where it was when it WAS a superb system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's quite common knowledge that the WHO is left leaning when it comes to policy. Where you been?

As far as Ideology: you just can't handle the idea that someone as non-ideological as myself might actually see some merit in (OH MY GOD) some privatization. The fact that you loathe the word so much is telling, whereas I am simply open minded to the concept without shutting my eyes (YOU).

And the Supreme Court agrees with me. The court clearly states in its ruling that there is no empirical evidence that suggests a paralell private system would hurt the public system in ANY WAY.

[Guest eureka]

Can the nonsense, Jerry, if you want discussion. You lectured someone about "strawmen" and then say it is common knowledge that an absurdity is correct.

You are not in the least open minded. I don't think that there was ever a steel trap constructed that could so firmly close. Your repetition of the same sentence about the SCC is evidence of that when you have been given all the evidence to the contrary.

The SCC does not even agree with your contention about private healthcare. It merely said, in a very flawed ruling, that the Quebec Charter did not prevent someone from seeking private care. That is not a support for the need for a private system.

Let me try you with something else about the ruling. The Quebec Charter is not based on a theory of individual rights as we understand them. It is a reflection of the idea of personality rights and it places community rights above individual. That has been the deciding factor in decisions about language in Quebec. Those decisions were also wrong but they reflected the philosophy that underlies thinking amongst Quebec intellectuals.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Can the nonsense, Jerry, if you want discussion. You lectured someone about "strawmen" and then say it is common knowledge that an absurdity is correct.

You are not in the least open minded. I don't think that there was ever a steel trap constructed that could so firmly close. Your repetition of the same sentence about the SCC is evidence of that when you have been given all the evidence to the contrary.

The SCC does not even agree with your contention about private healthcare. It merely said, in a very flawed ruling, that the Quebec Charter did not prevent someone from seeking private care. That is not a support for the need for a private system.

Let me try you with something else about the ruling. The Quebec Charter is not based on a theory of individual rights as we understand them. It is a reflection of the idea of personality rights and it places community rights above individual. That has been the deciding factor in decisions about language in Quebec. Those decisions were also wrong but they reflected the philosophy that underlies thinking amongst Quebec intellectuals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I keep asking for evidence and you guys come back with rhetoric, suppositions and anecdotes.

And yes, the SCC clearly ....I repeat: CLEARLy states in it's ruling that, despite attempt after attempt, witness after witness brought forth by the government there was no evidence to suggest that the private system would harm the public system. DO I HAVE to cut and paste it for you again?

BTW the ruling is "flawed" in your opinion- unfortunately for the lefties, you are not a supreme court justice.

[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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sweal I have a newsflash for you. Courts tend to pass judgement on the EVIDENCE BEFORE THEM.

Yeah... if you were literate it would be clear to you that I just said that very thing.

The entire government of Quebec and all of their witnesses couldn't come up with satisfactory emprirical evidence to prove their ideological claims.

Which judge(s) wrote the passage you rely upon? How many of them does that make? What percentage of the bench do they make up?

[The Terrible Sweal]

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

Look! Ignorance and ideology marching lockstep in folly.

What is more imprtant to YOU:  timely delivery of care of equality? 

Reciting the same fale dichotomy falls far short of constitutng a convincing argument.

When people ignore (rather than meeting) the submissions of their interlocutors, and simlpy repeat the callenged claims , I always wonder: did they fail to notice the gaping hole in their position, or do they think we don't notice it?

[Argus]

I did tell when Britain had the best system in the world and how it was destroyed by what so many seem to want for Canada now. Pure ignorance of the nature of the so called "Globalization" of Capitalism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know any time when Britain's system was the best. I do know it was a mess long before Thatcher got in.

[canuckcat]

All this is silly... why would Canada give up a public system for the horrors of the American system where 35% of people have no coverage at all... Americans spend more than us per capita just to help the uninsured... and 30% of all healthcare dollars there are spent on insurance administration. It would be American companies who would rush in to give us all the comforts of an HMO... (i know an American woman who could be cured with a simple operation, but has to remain on drugs for the rest of her life because her HMO says so)... (they calculate a shorter life in their HMO number crunch, so it's cheaper to have her die early)... Americans have NOTHING to teach us about healthcare... we need to fix our system, reduce the waiting lists that exist now (blame penny-pinching Paul Martin)... but in the long term, we need better public education about personal responsibility for health such as diet & exercise... should fat people who smoke and drink to excess get transplants for organs they have abused?... or would it be better to spend that million dollars on health education in local communities that would benefit thousands of people... look at Ralph Klein... he's a fat drunkard who will probably cost the system several millions of dollars before he expires... in his own province, that money could be better spent in general community.

[cybercoma]

All this is silly... why would Canada give up a public system for the horrors of the American system where 35% of people have no coverage at all... Americans spend more than us per capita just to help the uninsured... and 30% of all healthcare dollars there are spent on insurance administration.  It would be American companies who would rush in to give us all the comforts of an HMO... (i know an American woman who could be cured with a simple operation, but has to remain on drugs for the rest of her life because her HMO says so)... (they calculate a shorter life in their HMO number crunch, so it's cheaper to have her die early)... Americans have NOTHING to teach us about healthcare... we need to fix our system, reduce the waiting lists that exist now (blame penny-pinching Paul Martin)... but in the long term, we need better public education about personal responsibility for health such as diet &  exercise... should fat people who smoke and drink to excess get transplants for organs they have abused?...  or would it be better to spend that million dollars on health education in local communities that would benefit thousands of people... look at Ralph Klein... he's a fat drunkard who will probably cost the system several millions of dollars before he expires... in his own province, that money could be better spent in general community.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At no point does anyone suggest that we adopt an American style system. Not once, ever has any politician suggested an American style system. Never has anyone said we should have private care only.

[Hawk]

All this is silly... why would Canada give up a public system for the horrors of the American system where 35% of people have no coverage at all... Americans spend more than us per capita just to help the uninsured... and 30% of all healthcare dollars there are spent on insurance administration.  It would be American companies who would rush in to give us all the comforts of an HMO... (i know an American woman who could be cured with a simple operation, but has to remain on drugs for the rest of her life because her HMO says so)... (they calculate a shorter life in their HMO number crunch, so it's cheaper to have her die early)... Americans have NOTHING to teach us about healthcare... we need to fix our system, reduce the waiting lists that exist now (blame penny-pinching Paul Martin)... but in the long term, we need better public education about personal responsibility for health such as diet &  exercise... should fat people who smoke and drink to excess get transplants for organs they have abused?...  or would it be better to spend that million dollars on health education in local communities that would benefit thousands of people... look at Ralph Klein... he's a fat drunkard who will probably cost the system several millions of dollars before he expires... in his own province, that money could be better spent in general community.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In case you haven't been keeping up on Canadian Healthcare, we aren't the best anymore =p

As for costs for healthcare, we have to pay for it. Premiums are a cost, not only that but we have to pay partially for everything they do, plus they dont cover prescriptions. So if we have to pay premiums constantly, plus pay partially for a regulated service, and also pay for our own prescription drugs how exactly is the public system so much better than the private?

Oh yeah, and lets not forget the brain drain to the south (where they pay more for good doctors) and 6-12 month waiting lists, yeah your really convincing me Canada has a better healthcare system.

As for Ralph Klein, he and the Tories already have reduced their own benefits and pay rates to below the national average so s.t.f.u.

Thanks =)

[Guest eureka]

Once private care gains a footing in Canada, we may not be able to avoid sliding into an American style system. Private participation in actual delivery will open the door to American insurers and, under the terms of our "Free" trade agreements, we will not be able to prevent a massive influx of private vendors of healthcare.

This is unlike the European Union where the treaties do not force such obligations on the members.

The good (4) judges know not what they have wrought when they voted to allow the Trojan Horse to cross the border.

And, the "good" doctor responsible for the betrayal has now visited the US giving speeches to American insurers and providers inviting them into Canada.

[cybercoma]

Once private care gains a footing in Canada, we may not be able to avoid sliding into an American style system. Private participation in actual delivery will open the door to American insurers and, under the terms of our "Free" trade agreements, we will not be able to prevent a massive influx of private vendors of healthcare.

This is unlike the European Union where the treaties do not force such obligations on the members.

The good (4) judges know not what they have wrought when they voted to allow the Trojan Horse to cross the border.

And, the "good" doctor responsible for the betrayal has now visited the US giving speeches to American insurers and providers inviting them into Canada.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

These accusations are completely unfounded in any other nation that has two-tiered healthcare. The only way we would fall prey to an "American style system" is if the government scraps the public system altogether. Canadians Blue and Red alike would never allow such a thing. The European Union isn't the only other nation with a two-tier system, one of the best two-tiered systems in the world is from Japan.

[Argus]

Jerry, the government with all the resources in the world could not make the SCC rule in any particulay way. Nor whould it be able to. That independence of the judiciary is the most important feature of a democracy. It is what is most lacking in the US.

Yes, in the evil US you often need to be elected to be a judge. Or if you're appointed to a very senior judgeship all parties have to be able to examine your abilities and history to see if you are too radical, or too obedient a slave to the party line of one or the other.

Thankfully, in Canada we give judgeships as patronage rewards to failed politicians and party bagmen, and as rewards to lawyers who give free services to the Liberal Party. The Prime Minister chooses senior judges with no appeal and no argument asked for or accepted. That allows him to stack the court much more easily than the US government can.

And somehow, that makes our judiciary free. Uhmm.... You really haven't a clue how many judges owe their allegience to the Liberal Party, do you?

[I Miss Trudeau]

And somehow, that makes our judiciary free. Uhmm.... You really haven't a clue how many judges owe their allegience to the Liberal Party, do you?

187.36?

Please, oh wise one, enlighten us as to the magic number.

[Canuck E Stan]

With the new book out about Harper

Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada by William Johnson

So Harper is very much like Trudeau. I guess "I Miss Trudeau" can now add to his identity "And Harper's Like Him"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...rtainment/Books

"Harper rates better than any other leader on the federal scene since Pierre Trudeau."

For Johnson, a writer who likes to be intentionally provocative, Trudeau is the colossus against whom all other politicians need be measured. The Conservative Party Leader best meets the test because, like him, he is a public intellectual with "a clear sense of the non-negotiable underlying conditions for a civil society, including above all the rule of law."

What entranced Johnson about Trudeau was his bristling, uncompromising stance against sovereigntists and special status for Quebec. He sees Harper as following in those footsteps because he was the first to set forth the intellectual framework for a legal challenge to secession. It was later manifest in the form of the Chrétien government's Clarity Act.

[cybercoma]

With the new book out about Harper

Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada by William Johnson

So Harper is very much like Trudeau. I guess "I Miss Trudeau" can now add to his identity  "And Harper's Like Him"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...rtainment/Books

"Harper rates better than any other leader on the federal scene since Pierre Trudeau."

For Johnson, a writer who likes to be intentionally provocative, Trudeau is the colossus against whom all other politicians need be measured. The Conservative Party Leader best meets the test because, like him, he is a public intellectual with "a clear sense of the non-negotiable underlying conditions for a civil society, including above all the rule of law."

What entranced Johnson about Trudeau was his bristling, uncompromising stance against sovereigntists and special status for Quebec. He sees Harper as following in those footsteps because he was the first to set forth the intellectual framework for a legal challenge to secession. It was later manifest in the form of the Chrétien government's Clarity Act.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I like Harper because he's so damn controversial. Love him or hate him, everyone has an opinion of him...he must be doing something right.

[Shakeyhands]

With the new book out about Harper

Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada by William Johnson

So Harper is very much like Trudeau. I guess "I Miss Trudeau" can now add to his identity  "And Harper's Like Him"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...rtainment/Books

"Harper rates better than any other leader on the federal scene since Pierre Trudeau."

For Johnson, a writer who likes to be intentionally provocative, Trudeau is the colossus against whom all other politicians need be measured. The Conservative Party Leader best meets the test because, like him, he is a public intellectual with "a clear sense of the non-negotiable underlying conditions for a civil society, including above all the rule of law."

What entranced Johnson about Trudeau was his bristling, uncompromising stance against sovereigntists and special status for Quebec. He sees Harper as following in those footsteps because he was the first to set forth the intellectual framework for a legal challenge to secession. It was later manifest in the form of the Chrétien government's Clarity Act.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL! Yeah, Harper is just like Trudeau...