Half of B.C. voters chose quasi Socialism and can expect continuing problems with everything

[blackbird]

BC NDP and BC Conservatives are neck and neck and as of 3AM Sunday the election is not finalized.  Several ridings have to be re-counted because they are so close.

Greens won two seats and they are quasi Socialist as well as environmental radicals.

This means there is a good chance the Green party will form an alliance with the NDP in order to form government although this is not definite until the votes counting is finalized.

This does not look good for the people of B.C. because the NDP are quasi Socialists and are dead against allowing any private health care with private insurance to help fix the failing health care system.  The NDP are opposed to the oil and gas industry to some degree and the Greens are outright against the oil and LNG industry.  The NDP have failed in every department.  The health care system is failing, there are mills shut down, the cost of living is out of sight, housing is unavailable to many, crime and the justice system is a revolving door and is failing, etc.   If the Greens hold the balance of power they will try to force the NDP to follow their agenda in exchange for allowing the NDP to form the government.  A majority of the 93 seat legislature is required to form a normal majority government and no party appears to have achieved that.  But NDP has about 46 and with the 2 Green seats, could form a majority government.  The two Green MLAs will likely make an agreement with the NDP in exchange for following the Green party agenda to some degree.  That is a major problem.  The Green Party is a fringe party but will have far more power than their number warrants.

It will be a very divisive and fractious government.   

Edited October 20, 2024 by blackbird

[cannuck]

Gee: a mirror image of Ottawa in the Land of Looney Tunes.  Who'd uh thunk it?

[WestCanMan]

I was extremely disappointed to see the NDP come away with the win. It's like our province just scored 12 on an IQ test.

I can't imagine a scenario where our elections committee here allows the conservatives to come away with 47 seats, regardless of what the actual vote totals are. The NDP will end up with their current projected total of 46 and the Greens will hold the deciding votes on everything. It's like Greta Thunberg planned it all. 

In BC we just lost our own election.

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, cannuck said:

Gee: a mirror image of Ottawa in the Land of Looney Tunes.  Who'd uh thunk it?

This polarization phenomenon is pretty much global now.  It's just too bad we don't look like these bitter enemies.  It would make  getting on with burying our hatchets in one another's heads a whole lot easier.

[blackbird]

The fact that half the population seems to support the evil Socialism is just a sign that many people don't really understand what Socialism means and how it is evil.  Part of the reason might be the cost of living crisis for many people, the inability to buy a home and seeing no hope of ever being able to own one, or the failing health care system.  This is a serious problem for the older people who depend on a proper health care system.  Many people die on waiting lists because they don't get the care they should have received a lot sooner.  Many of these people vote for a Socialist party like the Green party or NDP thinking they will solve the problems.  Sadly these parties have only created the problems and continue making them worse.  The solutions of parties is increasing taxation and increasing social programs and spending.  All this inevitably results in increasing government debt.  Debt is a serious issue because it must be paid down and interest must be paid for it.  All this means less money available for all these social programs that the government promises.  Government does not provide anything free.  The debt must be born by every person one way or another.

The solutions to the economic problems are not easy or simple.  But we won't find the solutions in Socialist governments.

[cannuck]

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

The fact that half the population seems to support the evil Socialism is just a sign that many people don't really understand what Socialism means and how it is evil.  Part of the reason might be the cost of living crisis for many people, the inability to buy a home and seeing no hope of ever being able to own one, or the failing health care system.  This is a serious problem for the older people who depend on a proper health care system.  Many people die on waiting lists because they don't get the care they should have received a lot sooner.  Many of these people vote for a Socialist party like the Green party or NDP thinking they will solve the problems.  Sadly these parties have only created the problems and continue making them worse.  The solutions of parties is increasing taxation and increasing social programs and spending.  All this inevitably results in increasing government debt.  Debt is a serious issue because it must be paid down and interest must be paid for it.  All this means less money available for all these social programs that the government promises.  Government does not provide anything free.  The debt must be born by every person one way or another.

The solutions to the economic problems are not easy or simple.  But we won't find the solutions in Socialist governments.

And here you have an example of what is wrong and why it is not working.  You have been told socialism is "evil" but you need to recognize that many things can be and ARE done socialistically far, far better than in a "free market" way.   Read about sick care and you should realize it ONLY works well on a national scale when provided as a government service and insurance.   Doesn't mean government has to or even should deliver that service, but EVERY so-called "capitalist" country has found that they really need socialized medicine to even come close to have good national stats.  I no longer have the numbers handy, but even in the USA the majority of the population depends upon Medicare, Medicaid, vet benefits or government supplied medical coverage from public sector employment.  Wouldn't you call Trump a "free market capitalist" (he actually is anything but...but....) in his term in and term out he only proposes to cut federally funded abortion, not all of the socialized medicine.

Why is socialized medicine more effective?   In the West we practice "sick care" as there is little money flowing until you become ill or injured.  The old saying "you get what you paid for" applies.  So, free market medicine HAS to concentrate its efforts on where the money is.  HEALTH care is preferable to socialized medicine as it can minimize the cost to the tax payer of providing medical care, whereas successful Health care would deprive the "free market" of revenue it requires to generate maximum profitability.

Where the Americans screw up horribly is not being able to separate essential services from business.   They are diametrically opposite things. 

[blackbird]

34 minutes ago, cannuck said:

You have been told socialism is "evil" but you need to recognize that many things can be and ARE done socialistically far, far better than in a "free market" way.   Read about sick care and you should realize it ONLY works well on a national scale when provided as a government service and insurance. 

I don't think you really understand.  I know it is complicated in some ways but the basic principle of thinking Socialism is the solution and only government can provide health care for everyone is seriously flawed thinking.

There are several reasons why it doesn't work and hasn't worked in Canada.  Do you not understand the public health care system is failing seriously.  It is in a crisis whether you see it or not. Millions of Canadians do not have their own family doctor.  That is serious business when you start having serious health problems as you age.  No family doctor when you need ongoing care and medications and possibly treatments.  You may not be taken care of as you should be.  That is a disaster for thousands of Canadians.  Thousands are dying on waiting lists and because of lack of care.

There are many other health care models that Canada should be looking at as in Europe for example.  Many or most are not strictly government health care systems.  Government does things inefficiently and is bureaucratic with countless administrators at various levels for everything.  It is very costly and wasteful.  If you take private enterprise out of it there and say we must not have any profit motive, you destroy any incentive to do things efficiently.  That is what happened in Canada.  The ideology of Socialism took over and we now have a total disaster with half the population brainwashed into believing Socialism is a kind of god that will save them, while it is doing the opposite.

We need to get away from ideology of thinking only government can do things for everyone because it is the biggest lie around.  It is a complete disaster.  Forget about the U.S.  They have their own problems and complex issues.  Just because they are a big country right next door doesn't mean we have to have either a Socialist government run disaster or an American disaster.  We can look to other countries like Germany or Scandinavian countries and see how they do it.  Take the best examples and kick out the Socialist ideology that is also controlled by big unions in health care who want to keep controlling everything for themselves.  We don't need big unions dictating everything as it is now for their own benefit.  Health care is necessary for the patients first, not unions.  

If private industry does it better they should be involved.  There has to be a motive for doing things efficiently and effectively for the patients.  The people come first, not unions, not politicians, not ideology.

[cannuck]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

I don't think you really understand.  I know it is complicated in some ways but the basic principle of thinking Socialism is the solution and only government can provide health care for everyone is seriously flawed thinking.There are several reasons why it doesn't work and hasn't worked in Canada.  Do you not understand the public health care system is failing seriously.  It is in a crisis whether you see it or not. Millions of Canadians do not have their own family doctor. 

You seem to be missing the fine points I raised.  I do NOT believe government has a good handle on DELIVERING sick care, but they are the correct source for single payer "insurance" (as I understand it a lot closer to the continental EU model).  The UK version is a disaster (see where they place on the scale I posted earlier).   If Can/Australia versions was so bad, why do they rate so high in both outcome and cost effectiveness?   The "market" model of USA is even worse than UK - for those who don't have solid gold insurance coverage.

You are hung up on ideology.  I am merely observing actual results.

Of course, another HUGE factor is 9 years of leader and cabinet all of whom could barely qualify as a WalMart greeter.

Edited October 22, 2024 by cannuck

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

I do NOT believe government has a good handle on DELIVERING sick care, but they are the correct source for single payer "insurance" (as I understand it a lot closer to the continental EU model). 

The health care system in Germany is reportedly quite good.  

"Germany has a universal multi-payer health care system¹²that covers everyone living in Germany³⁴. The system is divided into two sectors: the statutory health insurance (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) for people who earn less than a certain salary, and the private health insurance (Private Krankenversicherung) for those who earn more and choose to purchase their own¹⁵². The system dates back to the 1880s and is based on a legal obligation for everyone to have health insurance³"

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

 If Can/Australia versions was so bad, why do they rate so high in both outcome and cost effectiveness?   

So are you saying we should keep the failing system we have?   If so, that is a terrible mistake.  Thousands are dying on waiting list and millions are not getting the care they need.

The public health care system is basically run by provincial governments who just do not have the money to put into it and it is also run inefficiently.  I don't know what else to say.  Governments are under countless demands for money and services.  Health care is just one thing on their list.  They are not going to put significantly more money into it.  It is impossible for government to fix.   It requires a different system which NDP /Liberal lefties are not willing to allow.  They are ideologically blind and say any profit health care is wrong.  That means no real change.

The only place the money could come from to really improve the system would be to have a mixed public/private system.

But you are probably one of those union left radicals who believe profit is evil and oppose any kind of system with private care taking a major role.  If enough people believe that lie the system will continue to deteriorate and thousands will continue to die on waiting lists. 

The system in Germany should be looked at.  They guarantee everyone receives health care regardless of their financial position.  But there is still private insurance that could bring billions of dollars more into the system to help improve it.

[eyeball]

37 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The system in Germany should be looked at.  They guarantee everyone receives health care regardless of their financial position.  But there is still private insurance that could bring billions of dollars more into the system to help improve it.

Every universal public health system has the same guarantee. Does Germany guarantee that private insurance holders will be placed in line ahead of people who only have public insurance? Who gets to decide who wins or loses this race for treatment by the way?

[blackbird]

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Every universal public health system has the same guarantee. Does Germany guarantee that private insurance holders will be placed in line ahead of people who only have public insurance? Who gets to decide who wins or loses this race for treatment by the way?

The information on Wikipedia about the system in Germany doesn't say anything about private insurance holders being placed ahead of people who only have public insurance.

That is just you trying to smear their system because you prefer only government systems, that have proven a total disaster.

"According to the Euro health consumer index, which placed it in seventh position in its 2015 survey, Germany has long had the most restriction-free and consumer-oriented healthcare system in Europe. Patients are allowed to seek almost any type of care they wish whenever they want it.[12] In 2017, the government health system in Germany kept a record reserve of more than €18 billion which made it one of the healthiest healthcare systems in the world at the time.[13]"

-- Wikipedia

Did you see that?  People are allowed to seek almost any type of care they wish whenever they want it.

In Canada you don't have that choice because millions of Canadians don't even have their own doctor.

Germany has about 4.5 physicians per 1000 people.  Canada has about 2.4 physicians per 1000 people.  That is a huge difference.

"

242 physicians per 100,000 population

• Supply: In 2020, there were 92,173 physicians in Canada, representing a 0.9% increase over 2019. There were 242 physicians per 100,000 population; 8% of physicians were located in rural areas and 92% were concentrated in urban areas."
• www.cihi.ca/en/a-profile-of-physicians-in-canada-2020

 

[blackbird]

51 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Every universal public health system has the same guarantee.

There is no guarantee of satisfactory health care in Canada.

Millions don't even have a family doctor.

Thousands died on waiting lists.

Canada only has about 2.4 doctors per thousand citizens.

This website has a list of countries with the number of doctors per 1,000 people.

Germany and the Scandinavian countries have far more doctors.

Germany has about 5 doctors per 1,000 people.

Sweden is listed as having 7.1 doctors per 1,000 people which is almost three times the number of Canada.

Certainly the number of doctors a country has is of major importance to health care.

Many cannot even find a doctor in Canada and must depend on walk-in clinics if there even is one in their area.

Some doctors have so many patients that it takes more than a month to get an appointment.  And then they will only deal with one problem.  If you have more than one problem, they might not attend to it.

Physicians (per 1,000 people) - Canada | Data

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The information on Wikipedia about the system in Germany doesn't say anything about private insurance holders being placed ahead of people who only have public insurance.

That is just you trying to smear their system because you prefer only government systems, that have proven a total disaster.

Nothing you quoted from your source says anything about private insurance. So what's your point?

Its not them In trying to smear. My understanding is that people who talk about private health care here often do so in the hopes they can avoid a slow public system by paying more for faster service This flies in the face of universality or as you know it, Marxist socialist communism.

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Did you see that?  People are allowed to seek almost any type of care they wish whenever they want it.

Ok so what if that means first, or today as opposed to the average waiting time people who can only afford public insurance have to wait?

 

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Certainly the number of doctors a country has is of major importance to health care.

Duh, but what does private insurance have to do with the numbers of doctors that are available? Post your link so we can get a better idea of what you're trying to say with it.

[ExFlyer]

BC has been socialist from waaaay back in WAC Bennett days (1952 to 1972) and carried on by his son (1975 to 1986) and then BC became NDP.

Why is anyone surprised?? LOL

[Aristides]

 

The Bennetts were not socialists, Social Credit and its BC Liberal Party successor were not socialist parties. The Bennett family was made up of successful businessmen and the party was more of a free enterprise coalition. Their feuds with organized labour are part of BC's political history.

I don't think polarization was a big factor in the BC election. More like general dissatisfaction with the NDP combined with uncertainty about the new Conservatives and their lack of people with parliamentary experience. If the Conservatives and BC United had got their act together six months ago, they would have likely had a majority. People obviously want change but enough of them were nervous about the Conservative's ability to form a competent government. 

Edited October 22, 2024 by Aristides

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

My understanding is that people who talk about private health care here often do so in the hopes they can avoid a slow public system by paying more for faster service This flies in the face of universality or as you know it, Marxist socialist communism.

I have not found anything that says people that pay for private insurance in Germany get faster service.   There are some extra services one can pay extra insurance for.  The fact is health care in Canada is not equal for everyone.  There are many inequalities.  The lengths of waiting lists would vary depending on where one lives and other factors.  Millions don't have a family doctor and do not receive the same care as those who have their own doctor.  Some can get an appointment in a few days to see their doctor;  others must wait over a month to see family doctor.   Some small places people see a doctor in a couple days.  I know this for a fact because I phoned a small place to enquire about that.  

"

Germany has a universal^[1] multi-payer health care system paid for by a combination of statutory health insurance (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) and private health insurance (Private Krankenversicherung).^{[2][3][4][5][6]}

The turnover of the national health sector was about US$368.78 billion (€287.3 billion) in 2010, equivalent to 11.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and about US$4,505 (€3,510) per capita.^[7] According to the World Health Organization, Germany's health care system was 77% government-funded and 23% privately funded as of 2004.^[8] In 2004 Germany ranked thirtieth in the world in life expectancy (78 years for men). Physician density in Germany is 4.5 physicians per 1000 inhabitants as of 2021. It was 4.4 physicians per 1000 inhabitants in 2019. ^[9] It also had very low infant mortality rate (4.7 per 1,000 live births).^{[note 1][10]} In 2001 total spending on health amounted to 10.8 percent of gross domestic product.^[11]

According to the Euro health consumer index, which placed it in seventh position in its 2015 survey, Germany has long had the most restriction-free and consumer-oriented healthcare system in Europe. Patients are allowed to seek almost any type of care they wish whenever they want it.^[12] In 2017, the government health system in Germany kept a record reserve of more than €18 billion which made it one of the healthiest healthcare systems in the world at the time.^{[13]  "}

Healthcare in Germany - Wikipedia

For more info about Germany's system:

Healthcare in Germany: A guide to the German healthcare system - Wise

Edited October 22, 2024 by blackbird

[eyeball]

31 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I have not found anything that says people that pay for private insurance in Germany get faster service.   There are some extra services one can pay extra insurance for.

Exactly the same as here.

I mean you've identified the advantage of their system readily enough, they have twice as many doctors and commit more public funds. No wonder it's faster and more effective.

The Commonwealth Funds 2021 report comparing the healthcare systems of the 11 most developed countries ranked Canada second-to-last.[16] Identified weaknesses of Canada's system were comparatively higher infant mortality rate, the prevalence of chronic conditions, long wait times, poor availability of after-hours care, and a lack of prescription drugs coverage.[17] An increasing problem in Canada's health system is a shortage of healthcare professionals and hospital capacity.[18][19

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Canada

Canadian Medicare provides coverage for approximately 70 percent of Canadians' healthcare needs, and the remaining 30 percent is paid for through the private sector.

Germany spends more than us it's that simple.  A lot more on dental-care than us I bet - they have been for years and years after all.

Getting Canadians to spend more on private insurance won't change a thing. Canadians need get their governments to spend more on the health system.

 

 

[CdnFox]

On 10/21/2024 at 12:49 PM, WestCanMan said:

I was extremely disappointed to see the NDP come away with the win. It's like our province just scored 12 on an IQ test.

 

I'm not so sure I would call that a win.

Even if they are given the opportunity to form government, they have to give up a speaker. So I'm assuming the recount doesn't change anything, but then it's 45 to 45 with the greens holding the balance of power

That means he's still going to need the greens to vote with them on any vote. The last time the greens did a ways and means agreement with them similar to the NDP and the liberals non-coalition coalition and the NDP brutally stabbed them in the back.

So if they've learned anything they're going to tell the NDP that sure, you can form government but we're going to address things on a vote per vote basis and if we don't like what we see and you'll be going back to the polls.

In the meantime the conservatives will take the opportunity to actually get organized and become a real political party. What happened was crazy and the fact that they did okay at all was amazing. There's an excellent chance we won't get to the next election date before the government falls and now it could be ready to put in a serious effort.

In the meantime the NDP is going to be severely hampered by the greens. There's a lot of policies the end if you have that the greens don't agree with and that the NDP will probably not be able to deliver on if they don't want to go to the polls

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Canadians need get their governments to spend more on the health system.

Canadian government just won't spend more on the health system because they are politicians under demands for many other services.  That's the reason it won't get better in Canada.  It is ideology that prevents trying a different approach such as more private services and allowing people with the money to purchase private insurance.  That would be one way to get the large amounts of money needed to try to improve the system.  Otherwise don't expect things to improve much if at all.

The BC government has even sent cancer patients to the U.S. for cancer treatments rather than allow any private care to be added in Canada.  They have no choice.  Cancer treatments should not be delayed as the cancer spreads.

However, the long waiting lists are often where people die and it is not something that is obvious or reported by the media.

The big health care unions run campaigns against any private care or any profit motive.  They are in it strictly to keep their monopoly over health care workers.  The NDP is scared stiff of the unions because that is where they get a lot of support.

Edited October 23, 2024 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Getting Canadians to spend more on private insurance won't change a thing. Canadians need get their governments to spend more on the health system.

 

As I said provincial government won't spend more because of all the other demands.  Housing is now a major issue too.  BC has spent between 2 and 3 billion dollars fighting the drug crisis and it has been a failure.  These are decisions made by politicians and health care is not their only priority.  It is the people who need health care that will suffer, not the fat cat politicians and unions.

[herbie]

Oh FFS it's over. Give up with starting multiple threads of the same shit to vent your frustration.

[cannuck]

17 hours ago, blackbird said:

But you are probably one of those union left radicals who believe profit is evil and oppose any kind of system with private care taking a major role.  If enough people believe that lie the system will continue to deteriorate and thousands will continue to die on waiting lists. 

Just for the record:   I have only been a salaried employee for a few years in my youth - leaving one extremely good seasonal position when I was told I would have to join the union to go full time.   I have been and am still an officer or director of several companies in several countries ranging from private to public ownership.  My political background is as a Conservative Party exec and campaign manager to a cabinet minister.   Also part of a political shit disturbing group that brought down the Canadian Wheat Board - and fought several other socialist institutions with some success.  One of my former companies had offices within a foreign military medical hospital.

I am as far from being a "socialist" or union hack as one could possibly be.  What IS important is to realize I have been deeply involved in the processes of actually having to make things work when working with government.   You might bother to recall that socialized medicine came to SK with Tommy-the-Commie, but was adopted federally by Diefenbaker's Conservatives.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

You might bother to recall that socialized medicine came to SK with Tommy-the-Commie, but was adopted federally by Diefenbaker's Conservatives.

That's fine to know, and thanks for the information.   But whoever brought it in, never understood the consequences which would develop over time and which have been a tragic disaster.

The health care system is getting worse in B.C. and the government can't fix it because they don't have the money and the problems in the system appear to be insurmountable.  The Socialists just don't seem to understand that.  Their only interest is in seeing a system that everyone can use without paying even though it is not providing health care equally to everyone.  The Socialists ignore that part of it.  They also ignore the huge failings and deaths on waiting lists.  As long as they can claim there is a public health care system with no private care involved they are satisfied even though it is in a crisis and failing.  Any time a province wants to allow some private care to try to alleviate the crisis, the unions and Socialists cry foul.

The BC NDP and previous Liberal governments have been fiddling with the health care system for years now and it is not getting better.  The population is growing by a significant number every year.  I understand many politicians have good intentions and are sincere in wanting to make it work, but good intentions and sincerity is not going to fix it.  The whole concept is flawed.

Socialism is just spreading the pain and suffering with a failing health care system around to the population at large.

I feel ill when I go into the building where the walk-in clinic operates and see the people lined up in the hallway on chairs for two hours to get in to see the doctor.  The clinic is only open for a couple hours at a time and the one doctor can only see about a dozen patients in that two hour window.  That means you have to arrive two hours before it opens to be one of the twelve that get to see the doctor.  If you can't get in there and it is urgent, you have to go to the ER in the hospital and sit there for hours.  This is not acceptable.

Edited October 23, 2024 by blackbird

[ExFlyer]

18 hours ago, Aristides said:

 

The Bennetts were not socialists, Social Credit and its BC Liberal Party successor were not socialist parties. The Bennett family was made up of successful businessmen and the party was more of a free enterprise coalition. Their feuds with organized labour are part of BC's political history.

I don't think polarization was a big factor in the BC election. More like general dissatisfaction with the NDP combined with uncertainty about the new Conservatives and their lack of people with parliamentary experience. If the Conservatives and BC United had got their act together six months ago, they would have likely had a majority. People obviously want change but enough of them were nervous about the Conservative's ability to form a competent government. 

The Scoial Credit party was certainly socialists.

"Social credit is a distributive philosophy of political economy developed in the 1920s and 1930s by C. H. Douglas. Douglas attributed economic downturns to discrepancies between the cost of goods and the compensation of the workers who made them."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit

The Bennetts were a hardware store owners in Kelowna BC.

Social Credit  basically collapsed in about 1996 when NDP came into the picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Social_Credit_Party

 

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

The Scoial Credit party was certainly socialists.

"Social credit is a distributive philosophy of political economy developed in the 1920s and 1930s by C. H. Douglas. Douglas attributed economic downturns to discrepancies between the cost of goods and the compensation of the workers who made them."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit

The Bennetts were a hardware store owners in Kelowna BC.

Social Credit  basically collapsed in about 1996 when NDP came into the picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Social_Credit_Party

 

Social credit traditionally is definitely socialist you are absolutely right. However in British Columbia is weird habit of having governments named for something that they absolutely are not our social credit party was actually pretty  right wing. Just as our liberal party was not really liberals