"Grow up!"

[jdobbin]

And the fact is that they WOULD be achievable...or at least might be implimentable...if the Cons had a majority. When it all shakes out in the end, the only way to reduce wait times is to embrace some form of the dreaded "two-tier American-style" system. Otherwise medicare will simply consume the entire budget and then begin to mount into debt. The current system is completely unworkable. But that's not on with the NDP and Liberals yowling in opposition, without bringing down the government and going no-where, so the Cons HAVE to have a majority in order to be able to work toward achieving that promise.

You can call it a broken promise if you want, but it's not. If they go through an entire majority term without achieving it or tryiong to achieve it, THEN it's a broken promise. The Libs went through lot's of majority governments, kept almost no promises, and raped the treasury in the bargain.

I don't see how the Liberals, NDP or Bloq are impeding the healthcare wait times legislation. There is no legislation. There is no new money. The government barely mentions the promise anymore.

[ScottSA]

Except that I'm sure plenty of MP's will register dissaproval with a move towards American style health care. I doubt the Conservative's would bring it about, unless they want to be decimated in the next election.

Well, American style healthcare actually works. That's the funny thing about it. And there are no lineups, and everyone gets the medical care they need. It used to be a rite of political passage in Canada to pay lip service to the inefficient, wasteful and unworkable system we have in Canada, and pat ourselves on the back because everyone suffers equally here, but I'm not sure that's going to fly anymore, as the babyboomers begin to find out exactly what waiting 6 months for an MRI or CT scan really means when it's YOUR lump you want to have looked at.

[ScottSA]

I don't see how the Liberals, NDP or Bloq are impeding the healthcare wait times legislation.

They're not. They is no legislation. No one can just go around making laws in the face of opposing reality. In order to eliminate wait times, the government has to actually DO something. Making a law doesn't cut it.

The something they'll have to do is start privatizing portions of the system so that it becomes more productive. I'm no expert on medicare, but I have certainly talked to experts and not one of them...not one...thinks the current system can be tweaked to work. It has to be scrapped and rebuilt in some form that is sustainable while the pig trots through the python.

[Canadian Blue]

Why don't we look at what the European's have done with health care, instead of looking at the American system which doesn't even insure children because they live in poverty.

[Remiel]

And there are no lineups, and everyone gets the medical care they need.

Hahaha, hahahaha, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, ahahahahahaha, HAHAHAH, AHAHAHA, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

...

...

...

HAHAHAHAHAH, hahahahaha, ahahaha, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, hahahahahahahaha, ahahahahahaha, HAHAHA, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, AHAHAHAHAHAHA, hahahahahahahahaha!

...

...

...

*wipes away a tear*

Can anyone possibly be so ignorant as to believe that? Oh, wait! You can!

*choke*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[guyser]

Well, American style healthcare actually works.

They spend far more than we do. So should we throw money at it? Nope, we should streamline and get people out of the ER's and back into a reg Docs office . And not enough Dr's?, then we should open up the Colleges and streamline Dr's into working instead of driving cabs.There are options

but I'm not sure that's going to fly anymore, as the babyboomers begin to find out exactly what waiting 6 months for an MRI or CT scan really means when it's YOUR lump you want to have looked at.

The wait times have come down. MRI's can be done any time of the day or night, but lots of people dont want an appt at midnite. We do need more MRI machines.

But plenty of the healthcare crisis is manufactured. The ones that cry the loudest are the same people who complain about everything. They think they are sick and want to feel better right NOW . They are the same people who go into an ER with a stomach ache or flu, and bitch and moan that they have not been looked at in four hours, meanwhile the hospital is dealing with more urgent matters. If they understood triage, they might shut up. But I doubt it.

[ScottSA]

Well, American style healthcare actually works.

They spend far more than we do. So should we throw money at it? Nope, we should streamline and get people out of the ER's and back into a reg Docs office . And not enough Dr's?, then we should open up the Colleges and streamline Dr's into working instead of driving cabs.There are options

but I'm not sure that's going to fly anymore, as the babyboomers begin to find out exactly what waiting 6 months for an MRI or CT scan really means when it's YOUR lump you want to have looked at.

The wait times have come down. MRI's can be done any time of the day or night, but lots of people dont want an appt at midnite. We do need more MRI machines.

But plenty of the healthcare crisis is manufactured. The ones that cry the loudest are the same people who complain about everything. They think they are sick and want to feel better right NOW . They are the same people who go into an ER with a stomach ache or flu, and bitch and moan that they have not been looked at in four hours, meanwhile the hospital is dealing with more urgent matters. If they understood triage, they might shut up. But I doubt it.

Like I said, I'm not an expert. My experience with the healthcare system is the fact that my wife is a nurse and my previous experience in the world of Canadian politics...and that experience didn't have a lot to do with medicare. What I do know is that this system is not workable and that the American system works, silly guffahs from the peanut gallery notwithstanding. I don't know much about the European healthcare system either, except that most of Europe is on the edge of bancrupcy vis a vis public expenditure, so it's probably not that great either.

But to return to the original point, the Cons can't really just make a law banning wait times. That's an unrealistic expectation.

[jdobbin]

Like I said, I'm not an expert. My experience with the healthcare system is the fact that my wife is a nurse and my previous experience in the world of Canadian politics...and that experience didn't have a lot to do with medicare. What I do know is that this system is not workable and that the American system works, silly guffahs from the peanut gallery notwithstanding. I don't know much about the European healthcare system either, except that most of Europe is on the edge of bancrupcy vis a vis public expenditure, so it's probably not that great either.

But to return to the original point, the Cons can't really just make a law banning wait times. That's an unrealistic expectation.

The U.S. system is not ideal for the uninsured. It also has the fastest rising costs for healthcare in the industrialized world.

I don't know that the Euroeans are going bankrupt.

And if the promise was unrealistic, why did they make it one of their top five priorities?

[ScottSA]

Like I said, I'm not an expert. My experience with the healthcare system is the fact that my wife is a nurse and my previous experience in the world of Canadian politics...and that experience didn't have a lot to do with medicare. What I do know is that this system is not workable and that the American system works, silly guffahs from the peanut gallery notwithstanding. I don't know much about the European healthcare system either, except that most of Europe is on the edge of bancrupcy vis a vis public expenditure, so it's probably not that great either.

But to return to the original point, the Cons can't really just make a law banning wait times. That's an unrealistic expectation.

The U.S. system is not ideal for the uninsured. It also has the fastest rising costs for healthcare in the industrialized world.

I don't know that the Euroeans are going bankrupt.

And if the promise was unrealistic, why did they make it one of their top five priorities?

Election promises are things that can only be made with the assumption of a majority government. Whe a candidate says "i'm going to do X", it is assumed that s/he is making the promise under the assumption that s/he will lead a majority government and be able to do X. It's not fair to hold a government to a promise that will require a majority vote that will clearly not be forthcoming.

[Michael Bluth]

Election promises are things that can only be made with the assumption of a majority government. Whe a candidate says "i'm going to do X", it is assumed that s/he is making the promise under the assumption that s/he will lead a majority government and be able to do X. It's not fair to hold a government to a promise that will require a majority vote that will clearly not be forthcoming.

Liberal supporters are so busy attacking that they can't really get the point of treating the Government and its actions fairly.

[hiti]

Harper's conservatives are not C©onservatives. Underneath they are still Reform/Republican.

They have lost or are covering up the social conservative side and by that I mean -caring about low income earners, First Nations, equality of women, court challenges accessible for all, literacy, early childhood development, secondary education high debt, affordable housing, etc. ( not abortions, gay marriages, etc. which are moral issues)

These Harper conservatives are not fiscal conservatives. Steve is the biggest spender in history. They have spent the huge surplus in potential vote buying and they have spent the surplus for the next three years. Tax cuts and another GST cut is not affordable in the future without doing some drastic cutting....... like Paul Martin had to do after Mulroney got turfed.

So no, this "new" government is definitely not like a Liberal government. Not even close. The best comparison is with Bush's budgets and his performance. We can say our government is Republican with a monarchy.

[blueblood]

Harper's conservatives are not C©onservatives. Underneath they are still Reform/Republican.

They have lost or are covering up the social conservative side and by that I mean -caring about low income earners, First Nations, equality of women, court challenges accessible for all, literacy, early childhood development, secondary education high debt, affordable housing, etc. ( not abortions, gay marriages, etc. which are moral issues)

These Harper conservatives are not fiscal conservatives. Steve is the biggest spender in history. They have spent the huge surplus in potential vote buying and they have spent the surplus for the next three years. Tax cuts and another GST cut is not affordable in the future without doing some drastic cutting....... like Paul Martin had to do after Mulroney got turfed.

So no, this "new" government is definitely not like a Liberal government. Not even close. The best comparison is with Bush's budgets and his performance. We can say our government is Republican with a monarchy.

Wait until a majority until we see the true fiscal conservatism come out.

[hiti]

Harper's conservatives are not C©onservatives. Underneath they are still Reform/Republican.

They have lost or are covering up the social conservative side and by that I mean -caring about low income earners, First Nations, equality of women, court challenges accessible for all, literacy, early childhood development, secondary education high debt, affordable housing, etc. ( not abortions, gay marriages, etc. which are moral issues)

These Harper conservatives are not fiscal conservatives. Steve is the biggest spender in history. They have spent the huge surplus in potential vote buying and they have spent the surplus for the next three years. Tax cuts and another GST cut is not affordable in the future without doing some drastic cutting....... like Paul Martin had to do after Mulroney got turfed.

So no, this "new" government is definitely not like a Liberal government. Not even close. The best comparison is with Bush's budgets and his performance. We can say our government is Republican with a monarchy.

Wait until a majority until we see the true fiscal conservatism come out.

Was that a joke? Paul Martin and Jean Chretien were fiscal conservatives... Mulroney, Steve and Flim Flam are big republican spenders just like Dubya Bush.

[blueblood]

It's like survivor, Harper has to plot and scheme to get voters on his side, that's what he's doing now (and doing a bang on job on top of it). If there isn't some form of major fiscal conservatism reform in a Harper Majority mandate, I will concede my point.

[ScottSA]

Tax cuts and another GST cut is not affordable in the future without doing some drastic cutting....... like Paul Martin had to do after Mulroney got turfed.

Why, that's exactly what the Liberals said before the last election. That and the idiot notion that troops would be "in the streets" if the Cons were elected. Guess what? No troops in the streets, and Harper cut the GST and tax revenue increased 10%, at least in part due to increased liquidity...just like the Cons said. Exactly the opposite of dire Liberal predictions. Forgive me if I take your dire predictions of "drastic cutting" as a good sign of things to come.

And by the way, producing long sobbing lists of special interest groups who are finally getting cut off the national teat by the Cons is hardly the way to convince sane voters not to vote for them.

[betsy]

"Grow Up" is a perfect response to the typical self-righteous, indignant, bluster that comes from the Liberals. Here's an example of some of the nasty things that Liberals have said about Harper over the past year - and yet we have not heard Harper screaming for apologies:

Since last fall, the Liberals have labelled Mr. Harper a Neanderthal over his government's cuts to the Status of Women Canada budget; implied he is racist for axing the $5-billion Kelowna agreement on native funding; claimed he is anti-democratic for "stacking" the committees that advise on judicial nominees; accused him of "undermining our Canadian values system" by eliminating funding to the left-leaning Court Challenges Program; and suggested he was homophobic for reviving the debate on same-sex marriage. They have called him a "control freak," "Bush-lite," "deceitful" and a practitioner of "Republican voodoo economics."

Two weeks ago in Halifax, during his cross-country tour aimed at saving his sagging leadership, Mr. Dion accused the Prime Minister of hard-heartedly abandoning the poor by cutting social programs and of attempting "to change our culture to a rightwing republican state."

Whatever one thinks of the truth of these puffed up accusations -- and we don't think much of them -- they are perfectly above-board. Indeed, they are the lifeblood of a parliamentary system based on a government held to account by a zealous opposition. So why can't Mr. Dion and the Liberals stand it when they are the subject of return vitriol?

Link: http://www.canada.com/components/print.asp...f6-f349b416d5c3

Oh don't forget too that for the past few months, the Liberals had tagged him as "mean-spirited"....calling him as such in every opportunity they have....like some kind of subliminal suggestion....hoping that that's how the people will eventually perceive him.

The Liberals ought to look in the mirror if they want to see an example of what a mean-spirited looks like. For years they've painted, nurtured and fanned the scary image of Harper as a rightwing looney extremists....like some mythological evil god!

Well, the myth's been busted. You shoulda hear all the phone calls at CPAC last sunday night with Goldhawk. His guest was Elizabeth May and it's about the environment. All callers were for Harper (mostly from Vancouver and Ontario), except two...

One caller, in his anger told Goldhawk that his guest is "full of hot air!"