Good Question

[JerrySeinfeld]

So? Let's hear what people have to say on this.

[Technocrat]

equality for all... except the rich of course... they will go where they please always have always will.

[JerrySeinfeld]

equality for all... except the rich of course... they will go where they please always have always will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So which way di dyou vote?

[Sir Chauncy]

Nope!!!!

Like any small step Government takes with the peoples blessing, that step eventually becomes a stairway, step by step/

Private care would eventually get "some" funding , which would take bucks from medicare. Eventually the funding would be fifty fifty and medicare would be left in the dust.

Look at education. Catholic full funding now which took funds from Public education so that it is no longer sustainible, yet Catholics are still allowed in public schools while we cannot attend theirs.

Catholic Schools are a , or should be, concidered private/sectorial, and funded by Catholics.

Any system other then the Public system should be self supporting or die out.

Private Health Care should be self supporting by law, with insurances put in place that makes any public funding illegal forever, then and only then should it be allowed.

Medicare is tough enough to maintain without trying , down the road, to cut funds to pay private care.

Sir Chauncy

[The Terrible Sweal]

The 'if' in this question is so unrealistic it makes the whole exercise almost pointless.

IF giving away your car would make it easier for you to drive around, would you? IF spending all your money in video-gambling would make your family more well-off, would you? IF voting for the BQ would make Canada more cohesive, would you?

[stubblejumper]

How about the fact that Australia's health care system,public, does not have any specaialists in a number of fields. Therefore you either have to pay for private care or suffer. I think the example I read was orthos.

This is what happens to public care when private is allowed at the same time.

[Riverwind]

Private care would eventually get "some" funding , which would take bucks from medicare. Eventually the funding would be fifty fifty and medicare would be left in the dust.

This statement makes no sense. Doctors are private for profit business people who are funded by the public system. Does paying doctors today take money away from the system?

[Bakunin]

lets bring in the private. we are the only country with cuba and north korea to have such an irrealistic system. If we could bring in the private sector like evry other progressive european country did it would be a good thing.

[kimmy]

The 'if' in this question is so unrealistic it makes the whole exercise almost pointless.

Oh yah. But a poll based on the idea that everybody gets treated like billionaires is super-realistic, right?

Are you the only guy allowed to post hypotheticals around here? You said that if people didn't like your crappy poll, they should go post their own, but Jerry does so and you have a hissy-fit.

-k

[Leader Circle]

Well, I'm rich so I will do what Technocrat says!!!

[JerrySeinfeld]

The 'if' in this question is so unrealistic it makes the whole exercise almost pointless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh yah. But a poll based on the idea that everybody gets treated like billionaires is super-realistic, right?

Are you the only guy allowed to post hypotheticals around here? You said that if people didn't like your crappy poll, they should go post their own, but Jerry does so and you have a hissy-fit.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kimmy does it again!

Sweal rarely has a point other than trying to quash debate by saying anything other than HIS ideas are ridiculous.

Let me explain with a simple analogy so Sweal can get in on this debate with the rest of us.

There is a line up to buy groceries. there are 10 people waiting. Now, another check-out person opens up a till and says: "I can help someone over here but there is a 10% surcharge". Three people jump over to that line because they don't mind paying the extra 10%. Now the old line only has 7 people in it.

THAT is what we're talking about here, Sweal.

[JerrySeinfeld]

The 'if' in this question is so unrealistic it makes the whole exercise almost pointless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh yah. But a poll based on the idea that everybody gets treated like billionaires is super-realistic, right?

Are you the only guy allowed to post hypotheticals around here? You said that if people didn't like your crappy poll, they should go post their own, but Jerry does so and you have a hissy-fit.

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We need more votes here. SO far there is a clear winner.

Kimmy does it again!

Sweal rarely has a point other than trying to quash debate by saying anything other than HIS ideas are ridiculous.

Let me explain with a simple analogy so Sweal can get in on this debate with the rest of us.

There is a line up to buy groceries. there are 10 people waiting. Now, another check-out person opens up a till and says: "I can help someone over here but there is a 10% surcharge". Three people jump over to that line because they don't mind paying the extra 10%. Now the old line only has 7 people in it.

THAT is what we're talking about here, Sweal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[cybercoma]

There is a line up to buy groceries. there are 10 people waiting. Now, another check-out person opens up a till and says: "I can help someone over here but there is a 10% surcharge". Three people jump over to that line because they don't mind paying the extra 10%. Now the old line only has 7 people in it.

Careful now, the Liberal fearmongers would have you believe that the cashier from the first line is going to close his/her checkout and all we're going to be left with is two registers charging a 10% surcharge.

[cybercoma]

You know, when I think about it, that analogy is flawed.

You have to look at it this way.

There are 5 cashiers.

Cash 1 has 10 people in line

Cash 2 has 4 people in line

Cash 3 has 8 people in line

Cash 4 has 5 people in line

Cash 5 has 9 people in line

The supermarket decides it's going to allow cashiers to charge their customers a 10% surcharge for service.

The even numbered cashiers decide to create surcharge lines. The new system would look like this:

Surcharge Lines

Cash 2 has 2 people in line

Cash 4 has 3 people in line

Free Lines

Cash 1 has 11 people in line

Cash 3 has 10 people in line

Cash 5 has 10 people in line

You see, the store isn't necessarily going to hire more cashiers, simply because the cashiers are allowed to charge a 10% surcharge to make their wages.

Of course, now that the store doesn't have to pay cashiers, any entrepreneuring person could come in and open up their own register free from what the store dictates. So, maybe you're right...maybe there would be more cashiers.

I'm so confused.

[JerrySeinfeld]

There is a line up to buy groceries. there are 10 people waiting. Now, another check-out person opens up a till and says: "I can help someone over here but there is a 10% surcharge". Three people jump over to that line because they don't mind paying the extra 10%. Now the old line only has 7 people in it.

Careful now, the Liberal fearmongers would have you believe that the cashier from the first line is going to close his/her checkout and all we're going to be left with is two registers charging a 10% surcharge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually even in that scenario there would still be way more registers open (more than one private provider and insurer) and they would be competing against eachother squeezing that 10% charge down.

But there is no way the government is going to abandon the public system.

That's a "slippery slope" logical fallacy. Think about it: if the people of Canada today are in fear that even a small amount of private is evil, what makes you think we're all gonna wake up one day and say "to hell with it, let's cancel the public system"

[cybercoma]

Actually even in that scenario there would still be way more registers open (more than one private provider and insurer) and they would be competing against eachother squeezing that 10% charge down.

But there is no way the government is going to abandon the public system.

That's a "slippery slope" logical fallacy.  Think about it:  if the people of Canada today are in fear that even a small amount of private is evil, what makes you think we're all gonna wake up one day and say "to hell with it, let's cancel the public system"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For no reason should the public system ever be cancelled, let's make that perfectly clear right now. As a moral and responsible nation critical care for citizens should be provided for us.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Actually even in that scenario there would still be way more registers open (more than one private provider and insurer) and they would be competing against eachother squeezing that 10% charge down.

But there is no way the government is going to abandon the public system.

That's a "slippery slope" logical fallacy.  Think about it:  if the people of Canada today are in fear that even a small amount of private is evil, what makes you think we're all gonna wake up one day and say "to hell with it, let's cancel the public system"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For no reason should the public system ever be cancelled, let's make that perfectly clear right now. As a moral and responsible nation critical care for citizens should be provided for us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Oh yah. But a poll based on the idea that everybody gets treated like billionaires is super-realistic, right?

Have you been drinkingn kimmy?

Are you the only guy allowed to post hypotheticals around here? 

No. Am I the only person not allowed to comment on someone's question?

You said that if people didn't like your crappy poll, they should go post their own, but Jerry does so and you have a hissy-fit.

??

A hissy fit? You want an example of a hissy fit, reread your post above.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Sweal rarely has a point other than trying to quash debate by saying anything other than HIS ideas are ridiculous.

Rarely have a point? What pathetic bullshit. Grow up and stop lying to bolster your ego in the face of your lack of reasoning ability.

There is a line up to buy groceries.  there are 10 people waiting.  Now, another check-out person opens up a till and says:  "I can help someone over here but there is a 10% surcharge". 

Your simple example is stupid. Either you lack the education and intelligence to see that it is a reductionist farce, or you know it is, but see fit to excrete it anyway.

[stubblejumper]

Grocery store analogy.

What would happen is that pretty soon, no cashier in there right mind will work for a non surcharge till. So they either get a till or move to another store where they can and pretty soon you run out of cashiers(since they have to go to school for 8-10 years) and there is a finite amount. Even if you get immigrants from SA or India.

Now the single mom making minimum wage has to buy 10% less groceries to feed her kids with.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Sweal rarely has a point other than trying to quash debate by saying anything other than HIS ideas are ridiculous.

Rarely have a point? What pathetic bullshit. Grow up and stop lying to bolster your ego in the face of your lack of reasoning ability.

There is a line up to buy groceries.  there are 10 people waiting.  Now, another check-out person opens up a till and says:  "I can help someone over here but there is a 10% surcharge". 

Your simple example is stupid. Either you lack the education and intelligence to see that it is a reductionist farce, or you know it is, but see fit to excrete it anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am sure there is a POINT related to this discussion somewhere in there. Stick to the issues Sweal. Emotion might work in a Liberal negative campaign tactic but doesn't carry any weight in a political discussion forum.

[cybercoma]

Grocery store analogy.

What would happen is that pretty soon, no cashier in there right mind will work for a non surcharge till. So they either get a till or move to another store where they can and pretty soon you run out of cashiers(since they have to go to school for 8-10 years) and there is a finite amount. Even if you get immigrants from SA or India.

Now the single mom making minimum wage has to buy 10% less groceries to feed her kids with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're forgetting that hte single mom making minimum wage is getting a welfare cheque from the government, not to mention publicly funded foodstamps (health insurance) to help her buy groceries.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I am sure there is a POINT related to this discussion somewhere in there.

Missed the point again, did you? Typical.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Grocery store analogy.

What would happen is that pretty soon, no cashier in there right mind will work for a non surcharge till. So they either get a till or move to another store where they can and pretty soon you run out of cashiers(since they have to go to school for 8-10 years) and there is a finite amount. Even if you get immigrants from SA or India.

Now the single mom making minimum wage has to buy 10% less groceries to feed her kids with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope. You missed it. First of all, there is nothing to say that doctor's fees would be any higher in a private hospital. The 10% surcharge is meant to represnt someone paying the fee out of their own (or through the use of private insurance). It doesn't mean the fee is actually higher. So tell me, where is the benefit in a doctor going to work for a private clinic if his fee is the same at a public one?

Also, your example doesn't hold water as it has not been the experience in the many european countries that have parallel private systems.

Never mind the fact that it is completely baseless and relying on massive assumptions. Which is exactly why theSupreme Court refuse to accept those very same scare tactics as valid arguments.

[Melanie_]

Grocery store analogy.

What would happen is that pretty soon, no cashier in there right mind will work for a non surcharge till. So they either get a till or move to another store where they can and pretty soon you run out of cashiers(since they have to go to school for 8-10 years) and there is a finite amount. Even if you get immigrants from SA or India.

Now the single mom making minimum wage has to buy 10% less groceries to feed her kids with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're forgetting that hte single mom making minimum wage is getting a welfare cheque from the government, not to mention publicly funded foodstamps (health insurance) to help her buy groceries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which is still not enough for her to afford the surcharge all the cashiers are now charging (although I'd like to know how she can have a job and get a welfare cheque at the same time?)