Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 16, 2006 Report Share Posted July 16, 2006 I never mentioned the cost because it is difficult to put a cost on the value of human life. I know that some companies and industries use a cost benefit analysis to come up with a number, but that just doesn't sit well with me at all. Some people could suggest that rich people are worth more than poor people or something equally as flash fornicated. I think that society creates the standards of living and justice that it can afford. If it can afford more the citizens benefit more. Capitalism is not the only way to go, it is merely the most profitable. But when talking about society is not the individual and their libertyand freedom more relevant than the profit motive? Would an individual citizen not prefer democracy to affluence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 16, 2006 Report Share Posted July 16, 2006 I never mentioned the cost because it is difficult to put a cost on the value of human life. I know that some companies and industries use a cost benefit analysis to come up with a number, but that just doesn't sit well with me at all. Some people could suggest that rich people are worth more than poor people or something equally as flash fornicated.I think that society creates the standards of living and justice that it can afford. If it can afford more the citizens benefit more. Capitalism is not the only way to go, it is merely the most profitable. But when talking about society is not the individual and their libertyand freedom more relevant than the profit motive? Would an individual citizen not prefer democracy to affluence? Some people think that the way to end waiting lists is to make sure the poor never to get to a doctor in the first place because of the cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 16, 2006 Report Share Posted July 16, 2006 I hear HArper is practicing what the Cons in the US do. keep telling the country how bad the opposition parties are and how good you are. Use the radio and TV programs to keep sending the message over and over again, and if the people keep hearing it, maybe then they will believe it..NOT! NOT this country! At this point, I don't think ANY party should have a majority government, especially this one! Maybe we should keep tabs on how much money this guy is spending and for what. Yeah, but it's mostly true as far as it concerns the defunct democrats, liberals and ndp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted July 17, 2006 Report Share Posted July 17, 2006 Privatisation European style (read up on Sweden or France), user access fees and more doctor positions in schools would be a start. Anything within the current system is just a temporary waste of our time. So, why doesn't he do that? Political suicide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 17, 2006 Report Share Posted July 17, 2006 The thing for Harper to do is tell everybody straight up that the responsibility for healthcare is with the provinces. Call the provinces together and rewrite the Canada Health Act to reflect changes necessary for them to undertake reforms within their own jurisdictions. Fund the endeavor on a per capita basis with fed funds. Allow the provinces to design a model of their own creation, whatever that may be. I would recommend the inclusion of public opinion to make it stick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 17, 2006 Report Share Posted July 17, 2006 Political suicide. Is it though? Tommy Douglas for one had some ideas that would have been comparable to a European system. Certainly he didn't believe healthcare should be static. As long as the five principles of healthcare are met, what difference does it make it you can get an MRI at a private clinic? In fact, insurance from companies and other health plans would probably work well with the system because the bulk of the costs would still be in the public system (private healthcare doesn't like $250,000 heart operations). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MightyAC Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 The military should be a priority. It was left to rot so badly, something had to be done. Maybe it should have been one of the five priorities, but it wasn't. I understand why they changed the big 5 to include it though... they poured a boatload (or 3 boatloads) of money into it. At the same time they use the excuse that "It's not one of our 5 priorities" when explaining their cuts or lack of attention in other areas. If a non-priority gets a multi-billion dollar infusion then that excuse is a little weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 The military should be a priority. It was left to rot so badly, something had to be done. Maybe it should have been one of the five priorities, but it wasn't. I understand why they changed the big 5 to include it though... they poured a boatload (or 3 boatloads) of money into it. At the same time they use the excuse that "It's not one of our 5 priorities" when explaining their cuts or lack of attention in other areas. If a non-priority gets a multi-billion dollar infusion then that excuse is a little weak. A country's safety and security is always the first priority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.