Dion Courting Western Vote

[BC_chick]

I know. You have a pair of brains between your ears. That's not universal, apparently. Some people think the best way to solve the addiction problem is to encourage the use of the addicting substance. Like bringning fire water to an AA meeting.

Pair of brains? Well maybe that's the problem.

NY has not "solved the addiction problem," just moved it. Some of us are realists who know that drug problems are not going away and we're trying to find a way that does not involve putting our heads in the sand and pretending that sweeping things under the rug are a success.

[fellowtraveller]

BC Chick, you are threadjacking your own thread.

Read post 6, it's the evolution of the thread, I'm not hijacking it.

Back to the OP: the drug site has funding for the next year, though I remain baffled as to why BC doesn't take responsibility for their own health care issues.

It's a social-program, not a health-care issue.

Dion isn't courting the West, he is courting BC, and will say anything from Opposition since he has no requirement to back up his mouth with any actual action. In short- classic Liberalism.

Or maybe he's read the data, agrees with it, and like many other British Columbians and Canadians he agrees that the government should be funding such social-programs and projects.

Social program? I don't think so. Safe needle sites are about health, the health of the active users, and the health of people not yet infected with Hepatitis B and C, HIV....... Stop looking to Ottawa for the answers to your local problems. Health care is a provincial responsibility. Taking care of the health of your fellow citizens is shared between the individuals involved and their provincial government. Check the Constitution if you don't believe me.

Check a map, your own OP is about BC, not 'the West'.

[tml12]

I know. You have a pair of brains between your ears. That's not universal, apparently. Some people think the best way to solve the addiction problem is to encourage the use of the addicting substance. Like bringning fire water to an AA meeting.

Pair of brains? Well maybe that's the problem.

NY has not "solved the addiction problem," just moved it. Some of us are realists who know that drug problems are not going away and we're trying to find a way that does not involve putting our heads in the sand and pretending that sweeping things under the rug are a success.

I have done business in NY and down there all the time...I take the Greyhound Bus from here (it takes about 7 hours) and the bus station in NY is in Times Square. I have been there at all hours of the day and it is VERY safe. Of course NY has not "solved" its addicition problem but it has cleaned up its bad areas. If Giuliani had said "it can stay with safe injection sites so these people do not get AIDS" that would not have solved anything.

It is clear you have not travelled in NY before and after its gentrification.

[BC_chick]

I know. You have a pair of brains between your ears. That's not universal, apparently. Some people think the best way to solve the addiction problem is to encourage the use of the addicting substance. Like bringning fire water to an AA meeting.

Pair of brains? Well maybe that's the problem.

NY has not "solved the addiction problem," just moved it. Some of us are realists who know that drug problems are not going away and we're trying to find a way that does not involve putting our heads in the sand and pretending that sweeping things under the rug are a success.

I have done business in NY and down there all the time...I take the Greyhound Bus from here (it takes about 7 hours) and the bus station in NY is in Times Square. I have been there at all hours of the day and it is VERY safe. Of course NY has not "solved" its addicition problem but it has cleaned up its bad areas. If Giuliani had said "it can stay with safe injection sites so these people do not get AIDS" that would not have solved anything.

It is clear you have not travelled in NY before and after its gentrification.

This whole argument started by someone asking whether or not the price of running SIS (safe injection sites) is less than treating the HIV infections.

I responded by saying that the bottom line is not the ONLY factor given that a number of lives are saved which you can't put monetary value on. However, studies do indicate that intangible values aside, it is still in our interest to have the SIS even speaking strictly from a monetary perspective.

IOW.....

If you want to argue from an ethical point, SIS - which based on the European model are offered in conjunction with therapy - have been shown to be four-times more effective than the current system of simply providing treatment centres.

If you want to argue from a monetary perspective, we better stop right there with the comparison with NY city because in Canada healthcare IS provided by the government and we do end up paying for the HIV treatment of the addicts. We don't have the option of chucking them to the side and pretending that the problem no longer exists just because we got it out of view.

Both figures are available here....

http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/ubcreports.../injection.html

PS I've been to NY twice.

[BC_chick]

Social program? I don't think so. Safe needle sites are about health, the health of the active users, and the health of people not yet infected with Hepatitis B and C, HIV....... Stop looking to Ottawa for the answers to your local problems. Health care is a provincial responsibility. Taking care of the health of your fellow citizens is shared between the individuals involved and their provincial government. Check the Constitution if you don't believe me.

Check a map, your own OP is about BC, not 'the West'.

Fine, even from a health-care perspective, isn't it supposed to be a 50-50 issue between the federal and provincial government?

[geoffrey]

Fine, even from a health-care perspective, isn't it supposed to be a 50-50 issue between the federal and provincial government?

Actually not really. This is quite clearly, in my opinion, a provincial area of jurisdiction.

Not like that has stopped the Federal government from getting involved in numerous other issues.

[Keepitsimple]

Social program? I don't think so. Safe needle sites are about health, the health of the active users, and the health of people not yet infected with Hepatitis B and C, HIV....... Stop looking to Ottawa for the answers to your local problems. Health care is a provincial responsibility. Taking care of the health of your fellow citizens is shared between the individuals involved and their provincial government. Check the Constitution if you don't believe me.

Check a map, your own OP is about BC, not 'the West'.

Fine, even from a health-care perspective, isn't it supposed to be a 50-50 issue between the federal and provincial government?

A lot of people mistakenly think that's the case. It was 50-50 when Medicare started way back in ???? but was gradually reduced as the Provinces ability to deliver matured and the federal government shifted "tax points" to the provinces so they could collect enough revenue. The Federal government now contributes somewhere in the area of 15% (fifteen) of Healthcare funding and yes, our constitution indicates that the delivery of Healthcare services is a Provincial responsibility. That's why it was so galling to have Paul Martin running around saying he was "fixing Healthcare for a generation".

[BC_chick]

A lot of people mistakenly think that's the case. It was 50-50 when Medicare started way back in ???? but was gradually reduced as the Provinces ability to deliver matured and the federal government shifted "tax points" to the provinces so they could collect enough revenue. The Federal government now contributes somewhere in the area of 15% (fifteen) of Healthcare funding and yes, our constitution indicates that the delivery of Healthcare services is a Provincial responsibility. That's why it was so galling to have Paul Martin running around saying he was "fixing Healthcare for a generation".

Harper's did his fair share of tooting about health-care too (well, before he was elected anyway).

Funny how when the issue is something people morally agree with, the federal government should start fixing the healthcare problem. But when it's something with which you morally disagree, it's the province's responsibility.

yeah, okay.

[tml12]

A lot of people mistakenly think that's the case. It was 50-50 when Medicare started way back in ???? but was gradually reduced as the Provinces ability to deliver matured and the federal government shifted "tax points" to the provinces so they could collect enough revenue. The Federal government now contributes somewhere in the area of 15% (fifteen) of Healthcare funding and yes, our constitution indicates that the delivery of Healthcare services is a Provincial responsibility. That's why it was so galling to have Paul Martin running around saying he was "fixing Healthcare for a generation".

Harper's did his fair share of tooting about health-care too (well, before he was elected anyway).

Funny how when the issue is something people morally agree with, the federal government should start fixing the healthcare problem. But when it's something with which you morally disagree, it's the province's responsibility.

yeah, okay.

Yeah and I'm beginning to think this is a private sphere responsibility (wait, did I not pass several private clinics walking through downtown Montreal today...we already have two-tear healthcare here!!!)

[Keepitsimple]

A lot of people mistakenly think that's the case. It was 50-50 when Medicare started way back in ???? but was gradually reduced as the Provinces ability to deliver matured and the federal government shifted "tax points" to the provinces so they could collect enough revenue. The Federal government now contributes somewhere in the area of 15% (fifteen) of Healthcare funding and yes, our constitution indicates that the delivery of Healthcare services is a Provincial responsibility. That's why it was so galling to have Paul Martin running around saying he was "fixing Healthcare for a generation".

Harper's did his fair share of tooting about health-care too (well, before he was elected anyway).

Funny how when the issue is something people morally agree with, the federal government should start fixing the healthcare problem. But when it's something with which you morally disagree, it's the province's responsibility.

yeah, okay.

Harper didn't do any tooting - he recognizes that it's almost entirely a Provincial area. Harper has hitched his wagon to Wait Times because that's more a question of coordination and a bit of leadership.....but wait times can't really be solved by the Federal Government - all they can do is encourage the provinces to focus on key areas and provide some sort of national measuring criteria to see how provinces are doing. These criteria are not meant to be a way of bashing those provinces who lag behind...but to examine the successes of individual provinces and see if they can be duplicated elsewhere. Canada has a wonderful opportunity because with 10 provinces trying different things, it's almost like having a Healthcare R & D. Focusing on wait times is a good way for the federal government to be actively involved without "dictating" to the provinces how healthcare should be delivered. Let's be frank, our healthcare issues are not going to be resolved magically by the federal government - it will take innovation on behalf of the provinces and some behind-the-scenes coordination by the feds.

[jdobbin]

Harper didn't do any tooting - he recognizes that it's almost entirely a Provincial area. Harper has hitched his wagon to Wait Times because that's more a question of coordination and a bit of leadership.....but wait times can't really be solved by the Federal Government - all they can do is encourage the provinces to focus on key areas and provide some sort of national measuring criteria to see how provinces are doing. These criteria are not meant to be a way of bashing those provinces who lag behind...but to examine the successes of individual provinces and see if they can be duplicated elsewhere. Canada has a wonderful opportunity because with 10 provinces trying different things, it's almost like having a Healthcare R & D. Focusing on wait times is a good way for the federal government to be actively involved without "dictating" to the provinces how healthcare should be delivered. Let's be frank, our healthcare issues are not going to be resolved magically by the federal government - it will take innovation on behalf of the provinces and some behind-the-scenes coordination by the feds.

Why be involved at all if they think it is a provincial responsibility? Why make that promise it was a lie?

[Keepitsimple]

Harper didn't do any tooting - he recognizes that it's almost entirely a Provincial area. Harper has hitched his wagon to Wait Times because that's more a question of coordination and a bit of leadership.....but wait times can't really be solved by the Federal Government - all they can do is encourage the provinces to focus on key areas and provide some sort of national measuring criteria to see how provinces are doing. These criteria are not meant to be a way of bashing those provinces who lag behind...but to examine the successes of individual provinces and see if they can be duplicated elsewhere. Canada has a wonderful opportunity because with 10 provinces trying different things, it's almost like having a Healthcare R & D. Focusing on wait times is a good way for the federal government to be actively involved without "dictating" to the provinces how healthcare should be delivered. Let's be frank, our healthcare issues are not going to be resolved magically by the federal government - it will take innovation on behalf of the provinces and some behind-the-scenes coordination by the feds.

Why be involved at all if they think it is a provincial responsibility? Why make that promise it was a lie?

This is a good question to ask and goes to the heart of roles and responsibilities for Healthcare. The Provinces are responsible for delivering healthcare services - each province oversees it's own healthcare budget and the delivery of services through their doctors and hospitals - we have the honour of George Smitherman looking after us here in Ontario. The Federal government has responsibility for the Canada Health Act, regulations which guarantee essential basics in Healthcare and which the provinces are obligated to adhere to - so the Feds act as sort of a cop. For individuals across Canada, we all are in the hands of our Provincial systems. I suppose there are cases like SARS and HEPB where on a national scale, there would/should be some Federal coordination but in general, the Feds do not get involved in the delivery of Healthcare services, perhaps with the exception of Military Hospitals (if we have any). So....most of your Healthacre funding comes from your provincial taxes with about an additional 15% coming from the feds through "transfer payments". On top of that, the feds us the "Equalization Fund" to give additional funds to "hane not" provinces so that they can ensure that their Healthcare and Education are roughly equivalent to other provinces.

As for your comment on Wait Times "Why make that promise - it was a lie?".....I think that's a little dramatic but it's easy to be cynical in today's politics. I don't think it's unreasonable for the Feds (Liberal or Conservative) to earnestly try to work with the Provinces to try and get some common measurements so we can see how we can improve wait times. The problem is that each Province moves at a fdifferent pace and each has their own priorities in terms of, for example, the top 5 "treatments" that they want to focus on.......but I think it's important that we try to move forward and the feds can help by being a non-biased facilitator to the provinces share information with each other.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Why be involved at all if they think it is a provincial responsibility? Why make that promise it was a lie?

The Government has been involved in healthcare for a long time. The Canada Health Act was passed in 1984. Does it really make any sense to have National standards in an area of provincial responsibility?

Your second question doesn't make any sense. Please clarify?

[tml12]

Why be involved at all if they think it is a provincial responsibility? Why make that promise it was a lie?

The Government has been involved in healthcare for a long time. The Canada Health Act was passed in 1984. Does it really make any sense to have National standards in an area of provincial responsibility?

Your second question doesn't make any sense. Please clarify?

The Liberal (balance the budget at all costs) government with Finance Minister Martin passes the CHST in 1995 and, in my opinion, all but destroyed health care in this country. So we can go back to deficits or we can have better healthcare...I don't see it any other way (I prefer balanced budgets and private care by the way).

[jdobbin]

This is a good question to ask and goes to the heart of roles and responsibilities for Healthcare. The Provinces are responsible for delivering healthcare services - each province oversees it's own healthcare budget and the delivery of services through their doctors and hospitals - we have the honour of George Smitherman looking after us here in Ontario. The Federal government has responsibility for the Canada Health Act, regulations which guarantee essential basics in Healthcare and which the provinces are obligated to adhere to - so the Feds act as sort of a cop. For individuals across Canada, we all are in the hands of our Provincial systems. I suppose there are cases like SARS and HEPB where on a national scale, there would/should be some Federal coordination but in general, the Feds do not get involved in the delivery of Healthcare services, perhaps with the exception of Military Hospitals (if we have any). So....most of your Healthacre funding comes from your provincial taxes with about an additional 15% coming from the feds through "transfer payments". On top of that, the feds us the "Equalization Fund" to give additional funds to "hane not" provinces so that they can ensure that their Healthcare and Education are roughly equivalent to other provinces.

As for your comment on Wait Times "Why make that promise - it was a lie?".....I think that's a little dramatic but it's easy to be cynical in today's politics. I don't think it's unreasonable for the Feds (Liberal or Conservative) to earnestly try to work with the Provinces to try and get some common measurements so we can see how we can improve wait times. The problem is that each Province moves at a fdifferent pace and each has their own priorities in terms of, for example, the top 5 "treatments" that they want to focus on.......but I think it's important that we try to move forward and the feds can help by being a non-biased facilitator to the provinces share information with each other.

I've heard Conservatives make the assertion that healthcare is a provincial responsibility. Well, as you point out, transfer payments are a federal responsibility. The Canada Health Act tried to ensure five principles and the provinces agreed to this.

The promise to address wait times was something that appealed to Canadians in the election. Aside from small pilot programs, this promise is rarely mentioned by Tories anymore. To be fair, the Liberals don't raise it as issue either but then they didn't promise to end wait times.

[jdobbin]

The Liberal (balance the budget at all costs) government with Finance Minister Martin passes the CHST in 1995 and, in my opinion, all but destroyed health care in this country. So we can go back to deficits or we can have better healthcare...I don't see it any other way (I prefer balanced budgets and private care by the way).

The deficits were not solely as a result of healthcare costs.

And national healthcare has been cited as a cost advantage by North American auto manufacturers operating in Canada because in the U.S., the cost of health benefits adds to the cost of making cars.

What sort of private care do you want? The type that would raise the price of goods and services or the type that is raised by taxes?

[tml12]

The Liberal (balance the budget at all costs) government with Finance Minister Martin passes the CHST in 1995 and, in my opinion, all but destroyed health care in this country. So we can go back to deficits or we can have better healthcare...I don't see it any other way (I prefer balanced budgets and private care by the way).

The deficits were not solely as a result of healthcare costs.

And national healthcare has been cited as a cost advantage by North American auto manufacturers operating in Canada because in the U.S., the cost of health benefits adds to the cost of making cars.

What sort of private care do you want? The type that would raise the price of goods and services or the type that is raised by taxes?

No I did not say the deficits were solely a result of healthcare costs but that was a huge part.

I am not going to deny that national healthcare is a cost advantage but it has resulted in a system that is falling apart. More and more Canadians are opting for private care and many are beginning now to seriously question the system.

Socialism is admirable...there is no doubt about it. But for it to survive, there needs to be a national consensus. In Sweden, no one doubts that they want to live in the ideal welfare state (Sweden's population is also very small). Here in Canada, many of us claim we want to live in some Swedish welfare state but the reality is different. My view is that: if you smoke three packs a day and get lung cancer or if you have sex with everything in site and get a venereal disease, or if you use drugs, etc. you should pay for your own healthcare. Personal responsibility is utterly deficient in the system. Furthermore, I don't think there is much of a difference between access to care in Canada and the U.S. While the Canada Health Act is supposed to guarantee this and that, it really does nothing. The rich in Canada and the U.S. pay for the best care they can get. The middle-class in Canada and the U.S. probably get equal care: many middle-class Americans that I know have health care through their employer and while it may not be the best care, they know they'll never have to worry about WHEN they'll get care because the U.S. does not have unbelievably long waiting lists. The poor in Canada may have health insurance but more often than not they'll just be neglected on a waiting list. The poor in the U.S. may not have health insurance but they may be eligible for Medicaid and they will be guaranteed emergency care (unlike the Liberal myth in Canada that the poor in the U.S. are denied treatment if they don't have health insurance...a little research proves otherwise).

Ideally, I'd opt for a British two-tier system. I think Canada and the U.S. could both learn a lot from that system. As for the Canada Health Act and the current Medicare system, regardless of who wins the next election I'd give the status quo 20 years maximum. No way it lasts longer than that given current trends.