Toyota creates more problems for Conservatives

[cybercoma]

Hey cyber- What is MedicAid then ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

MedicAid is a half-assed attempt at something good.

[cybercoma]

I think we should ban private schools because all those teachers could be teaching in the public system, thus are ruining our public education by working for private companies.

[err]

I think we should ban private schools because all those teachers could be teaching in the public system, thus are ruining our public education by working for private companies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think they should ban private schools at all. If some wealthy person wants one of their children to be in a private system, they can pay the whole shot... and still pay for our public system on top. We shouldn't take a cent away from our public system to pay for or subsidize private schools. If the wealthy don't think that's fair, then they can send their kids to the public system....

[Renegade]

I don't think they should ban private schools at all.  If some wealthy person wants one of their children to be in a private system, they can pay the whole shot... and still pay for our public system on top.  We shouldn't take a cent away from our public system to pay for or subsidize private schools.  If the wealthy don't think that's fair, then they can send their kids to the public system....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So err, what is the moral distinction between allowing private schools in the scenario you describe above and allowing medical care that is FULLY paid for by the recepiant?

[cybercoma]

I think we should ban private schools because all those teachers could be teaching in the public system, thus are ruining our public education by working for private companies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think they should ban private schools at all. If some wealthy person wants one of their children to be in a private system, they can pay the whole shot... and still pay for our public system on top. We shouldn't take a cent away from our public system to pay for or subsidize private schools. If the wealthy don't think that's fair, then they can send their kids to the public system....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tell me again what the difference is with medical care? Other than the fact that it won't be limited strictly to the rich because your public insurance will still work in private facilities.

Besides, isn't private education more dangerous to our society? Doesn't that mean only the wealthy will get higher quality education which will perpetuate the old addage, "the rich get richer". Shouldn't everyone be afforded the same educational opportunities?

[Argus]

Just to throw this into the mix

International comparison by Fraser Institute

Canada spends more on health care than most European and Asian nations but has some of the longest waiting times and worst access to physicians in the world, concludes a report comparing 27 countries that all guarantee access to health care, regardless of ability to pay.

Spending High, Services Poor

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[err]

Tell me again what the difference is with medical care?  Other than the fact that it won't be limited strictly to the rich because your public insurance will still work in private facilities.

Besides, isn't private education more dangerous to our society?  Doesn't that mean only the wealthy will get higher quality education which will perpetuate the old addage, "the rich get richer".  Shouldn't everyone be afforded the same educational opportunities?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a big difference between medical care and education. One you go to a hospital for, and the other a school. However, if you go to a public hospital or a public school, it should be paid for through taxes. If you go to a private hospital or a private school, it should be paid for from your private pocket.

If the rich want to fly to Australia to have a kangaroo pouch put on their stomach, let them... but they should pay the entire cost... not one penny for public money should go towards it. Similarly, if they want to go to a private Hindu school in Sudbury, let's not stop them... but they have to pay the whole shot... we have a public system, and if they don't want to utilize it, they don't have to... nobody is forcing them to.... but the public should only pay for one universal system...

[Canuck E Stan]

Yea err, I hear where your coming from.And while we're at it, let's ban SUVs 'cause they use too much gas and let's ban fast foods 'cause they make people fat and that's no good for the health system, and let's ban TV 'cause there's too much American stuff on it and that's no good for our culture and let's ban polical parties because they are corrupt and don't use our money wisely and let's ban the press because it's all propaganda...and.... Yea err, let's do all that because what's good for you is always going to be good for me.

[cybercoma]

Tell me again what the difference is with medical care?  Other than the fact that it won't be limited strictly to the rich because your public insurance will still work in private facilities.

Besides, isn't private education more dangerous to our society?  Doesn't that mean only the wealthy will get higher quality education which will perpetuate the old addage, "the rich get richer".  Shouldn't everyone be afforded the same educational opportunities?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is a big difference between medical care and education. One you go to a hospital for, and the other a school. However, if you go to a public hospital or a public school, it should be paid for through taxes. If you go to a private hospital or a private school, it should be paid for from your private pocket.

If the rich want to fly to Australia to have a kangaroo pouch put on their stomach, let them... but they should pay the entire cost... not one penny for public money should go towards it. Similarly, if they want to go to a private Hindu school in Sudbury, let's not stop them... but they have to pay the whole shot... we have a public system, and if they don't want to utilize it, they don't have to... nobody is forcing them to.... but the public should only pay for one universal system...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do you want to deny the poor access to the most advanced technologies available? I can't believe you're against public insurance paying for someone going to a private clinic. That's just ridiculous.

[err]

Yea err, I hear where your coming from.And while we're at it, let's ban SUVs 'cause they use too much gas and let's ban fast foods 'cause they make people fat and that's no good for the health system, and let's ban TV 'cause there's too much American stuff on it and that's no good for our culture and let's ban polical parties because they are corrupt and don't use our money wisely and let's ban the press because it's all propaganda...and.... Yea err, let's do all that because what's good for you is always going to be good for me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where do you get this from ??? I just said that our public purse should pay for public services... If you want private services, pay yourself.

Is your rant (above) because you don't have an answer, and it makes you really mad that you can't think of one???? Because it (your rant) has nothing to do with anything that I said ???

[err]

Yea err, I hear where your coming from.And while we're at it, let's ban SUVs 'cause they use too much gas and let's ban fast foods 'cause they make people fat and that's no good for the health system, and let's ban TV 'cause there's too much American stuff on it and that's no good for our culture and let's ban polical parties because they are corrupt and don't use our money wisely and let's ban the press because it's all propaganda...and.... Yea err, let's do all that because what's good for you is always going to be good for me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where do you get this from ??? I just said that our public purse should pay for public services... If you want private services, pay yourself.

Is your rant (above) because you don't have an answer, and it makes you really mad that you don't have one???? Because it has nothing to do with anything that I said ???

[Renegade]

There is a big difference between medical care and education.

Obviously. But since YOU consider them both necessary public services, why distinguish how they are funded?

If you go to a private hospital or a private school, it should be paid for from your private pocket.

So, you are finally admitting you are in support of paying for going to a private hospital with private funds. Gee, doesn't that sounds like two-tier healthcare?

[err]

Why do you want to deny the poor access to the most advanced technologies available?  I can't believe you're against public insurance paying for someone going to a private clinic.  That's just ridiculous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you have a gift certificate that someone gave you for Canadian Tire , it is a bit ridiculous to rant about not being able to use it at "Source For Sports"....

There are a great many services available in our health-care store... If you want to shop in a different store, by all means shop there... but you'll have to pay that shopkeeper... yourself....

[mirror]

Part of the game being played here is how one define's one tier health care and two tier health care. How do you define it, and how does the party you support define it?

Here is one party's definition of two tier health care:

Bloc Quebecois

A two-tier health care system, like the one existing in the United States, is where a large part of the population can have access to health care services only through their own financial resources or private insurance. (20 November 2000)

[Renegade]

Here's how Wikipedia defines it: two-tier healthcare

Two-tier health care is a form of national health care system that is used in most developed countries. It is a system in which a guaranteed public health care system exists, but where a private system operates in parallel. The private system has the benefit of shorter waiting times and more luxurious treatment, but costs far more than the public one for patients. Thus there are two tiers of health care, one for the public at large and another for those who can afford to pay for better care.

Hmm...doesn't it sound just like this??:

If you go to a private hospital or a private school, it should be paid for from your private pocket.

[mirror]

The following are the 5 criteria for the Canada Health Act:

(a) public administration;

( comprehensiveness;

© universality;

(d) portability; and

(e) accessibility.

In order to satisfy the criterion respecting public administration,

(a) the health care insurance plan of a province must be administered and operated on a non-profit basis by a public authority appointed or designated by the government of the province;

[mirror]

Here are the Liberal definitions:

One-tier means that every Canadian can count on their publicly funded health care system for medically necessary services irrespective of where they live or whether they can afford to pay.

A two-tier system means that, as a policy, people are paying out of their pockets for services that should be provided publicly.

[Canuck E Stan]

If the rich want to fly to Australia to have a kangaroo pouch put on their stomach, let them... but they should pay the entire cost... not one penny for public money should go towards it.

Similarly, if they want to go to a private Hindu school in Sudbury, let's not stop them...

but they have to pay the whole shot... we have a public system, and if they don't want to utilize it, they don't have to... nobody is forcing them to.... but the public should only pay for one universal system...

Err,you seem to have a problem with the Public that are financially well off,aren't they still part of the public? Shouldn't members of the public regardless of financial status,religion,health needs ect.,who contribute to the public purse have some rights to that purse? Should Catholic schools be removed from the public purse because they are a religious school, don't Catholics pay taxes too. Why shouldn't a Hindu school in Sudbury not have a share of the taxes to run their school? If my child needs special attention for a health crisis isn't her health the most important issue and the urgency of her getting the best help immediately,and if it is not available in public health care but is available in the private,does it really matter where the tax money goes?

The public is made up of everybody and we all make our own choices as to how to run our life. You attitude appears to be my public,my way or the highway. Remember the Public is me you,rich,poor,Catholic,Hindu,whatever,all of us.Our public purse is there for all of us to share,because it is our public purse. Your'e too hung up on the word "private"

[mirror]

Private represents and/or breeds intolerance by greedy people.

Here are the Conservative definitions for health care:

Progressive Conservatives

Under a two-tier system, Canadians who were wealthy enough could purchase quick access to quality health care from profit-making providers, while less wealthy Canadians would have to wait _ for lower quality care.

The privately funded component of a two-tier system would siphon off resources from the public side, as more highly skilled professionals would be drawn by profit.

Canadian Alliance

Two-tier health care exists when there are two separate medical care systems providing essential services _ one system that is accessible and publicly funded and another system that is private and allows one to pay for faster and preferential treatment.

[mirror]

And hear is the New Democratic definition for two tier health care:

It's a system where you get service and or get to the front of the line if you can pay, and the other system for everybody who can't. So health service is not based on the needs you have, but the ability to pay.

[Renegade]

Private represents and/or breeds intolerance by greedy people.

Yet another statement thrown out without any proof or even any evidence.

[err]

Err,you seem to have a problem with the Public that are financially well off,aren't they still part of the public? Shouldn't members of the public regardless of financial status,religion,health needs ect.,who contribute to the public purse have some rights to that purse?

That's right. Like if you built a swimming pool with public funds, everybody should get to jump in and splash around. But making a separate pool for rich people, and a 'public pool' for the poorer people... doesn't seem right does it. If the rich people want their own swimming pool, they should pay for one. Their private clubs should be privately paid for. But the public one is there if they should choose to use it...

Should Catholic schools be removed from the public purse because they are a religious school, don't Catholics pay taxes too. Why shouldn't a Hindu school in Sudbury not have a share of the taxes to run their school?

It should be obvious, that if you pay for several (say 10 or 15 different language shcools, and 5 or 6 different religions) different systems, and administrative staff for each of them, that none of them will be adequately funded.

If my child needs special attention for a health crisis isn't her health the most important issue and the urgency of her getting the best help immediately,and if it is not available in public health care but is available in the private,does it really matter where the tax money goes?

I will agree that, concerning your own child's health, you should do whatever it takes. I certainly would for my children. However, this debate is about what our tax dollars should buy, and what kind of health care system we should be building or maintaining. I think that if there is something that should be fixed with our system, lets fix it, no go running elsewhere.

If there are services that you feel that should be available in our health care system that are not available, or underfunded, then I think you should contact your provincial government and let them know about the deficiency, and that you think it should be fixed.

The public is made up of everybody and we all make our own choices as to how to run our life. You attitude appears to be my public,my way or the highway. Remember the Public is me you,rich,poor,Catholic,Hindu,whatever,all of us.Our public purse is there for all of us to share,because it is our public purse. Your'e too hung up on the word "private"

In your house, do you let everybody take what they want out of your wallet.... Your wife, kids, in-laws, etc... You'd be in trouble if you did. If our provincial government let everybody do that to its purse, it would be in trouble too.... It (the purse) needs a strong central control, and our medical system needs to

"be administered and operated on a non-profit basis by a public authority appointed or designated by the government of the province;"

as per the terms of funding of our health-care system.

(thanx mirror)

[cybercoma]

Why do you want to deny the poor access to the most advanced technologies available?  I can't believe you're against public insurance paying for someone going to a private clinic.  That's just ridiculous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you have a gift certificate that someone gave you for Canadian Tire , it is a bit ridiculous to rant about not being able to use it at "Source For Sports"....

There are a great many services available in our health-care store... If you want to shop in a different store, by all means shop there... but you'll have to pay that shopkeeper... yourself....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're absolutely incorrect, just plain wrong. Public health insurance is there to allow people who can't afford it to have the most serious care paid. Public insurance already pays for private care in the United States for those who need it, as I've pointed out earlier. What's even worse is that it pays for procedures like having one's stomach stapled as well as some cosmetic surgery.

So, you're just flat out wrong about public funds not paying for private service.

Furthermore, should there be a two-tier healthcare system in Canada, it will go towards paying for care in those private clinics as well. Why? Because you're paying into PUBLIC INSURANCE as well as the public clinics. You'll probably enter into the private system through seeing a public doctor that will recommend you to a private specialist. In most cases you wouldn't even know the difference.

Where the extra above standard service comes in is things like having a private room at the hospital (which happens now, as some third party insurers provide this through company benefits packages) etc... Third party insurance through your benefits from work already cover some of the extras that OHIP doesn't cover (eye exams, prescriptions, dental work, medical supplies etc...) The only problem now is that you're not allowed to give your money to an institution that's not publicly funded.

There is no competition and no need for hospitals to have better technology or service. They just get what the government allows them to have.

Anyway, my Canadian Tire money already pays for new skates at "Source for Sports". In fact my Canadian Tire money is also paying for me to travel to the United States to go to "Source for Sports" when it's an emergency because we don't have the necessary care right here in Canada.

[cybercoma]

That's right.  Like if you built a swimming pool with public funds, everybody should get to jump in and splash around.  But making a separate pool for rich people, and a 'public pool' for the poorer people... doesn't seem right does it.  If the rich people want their own swimming pool, they should pay for one.  Their private clubs should be privately paid for.  But the public one is there if they should choose to use it...

The rich aren't allowed to build a pool.

I will agree that, concerning your own child's health, you should do whatever it takes.  I certainly would for my children.  However, this debate is about what our tax dollars should buy, and what kind of health care system we should be building or maintaining.  I think that if there is something that should be fixed with our system, lets fix it, no go running elsewhere.

If there are services that you feel that should be available in our health care system that are not available, or underfunded, then I think you should contact your provincial government and let them know about the deficiency, and that you think it should be fixed.

Yeah, see, it's not about using public funds to build private businesses......contrary to what the NDP believes.

In your house, do you let everybody take what they want out of your wallet.... Your wife, kids, in-laws, etc... You'd be in trouble if you did.  If our provincial government let everybody do that to its purse, it would be in trouble too.... It (the purse) needs a strong central control, and our medical system needs to

"be administered and operated on a non-profit basis by a public authority appointed or designated by the government of the province;"

as per the terms of funding of our health-care system.

(thanx mirror)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're absolutely right, our public health care system should be run that way....and the government should allow private hospitals to open up next door so you can have a choice of where to go. Your public insurance, which is a seperate entity, should still cover medical necessities and be valid at the public or private hospital so everyone has an equal ground for critical care.

[mirror]

This two tier crap has been spewing of the neocon discredited Fraser Institute for years.

Doctors and nurses are educated paid for mainly by the public tax system.

Why should the public train these people and then have them go and work in the private sector for the rich, when the middle class and the poor have paid for their training, through our taxes going to fund universities? All two tier will lead to is the draining of all the best staff from our publically funded system.