The Gomery Report Findings

[Vong]

Looks like Chretien is going to get fourty lashings for this one (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051101/gomeryreport_releasepreview_20051101/20051101?hub=TopStories).
Gomery puts the responsibility on Chretien and his "Liberal cronies", and also shuns the Quebec Liberal Representatives for their part in the scandal.
Paul Martin is exonerated and cleared from any blame, even though he was the finance minister at the time...kind'of surprising to me...
Though he is in the clear, he is the leader of the current Liberal party, and will have to clean up after his predecessor...he has pledged to give $550,000 to the government, and will be referring the Gomery Report to the RCMP for criminal investigation.

As I'm writing this, NDP leader Jack Layton is standing on his soap-box attacking the Liberal party for their misdeads. But he believes that the Liberal party cannot fix this problem on its own, which I totally agree; referring to Ed Broadbent's "Ethics" plan.

Later Stephen Harper, and possibly his cronie McKay, will be attacking the Liberal party about the scandal (again) and no doubt be wanting to call an election over the findings.

I'm going to wait for Question Period before making any guesses on an election.

[outsyder]

And now Chretien's lawyers are making a big stink about this.

I think it's clear that the Liberals will keep on passing the buck until no one is held responsible. Unbelievable how a Finance Minister could have this going on without his knowledge, or even so that he would not be responsible for what happened.

And it seems like you're criticizing the Conservatives for again attacking the Liberals for this scandal. It's kind of theirjob as the Official Opposition Party.

[Vong]

And it seems like you're criticizing the Conservatives for again attacking the Liberals for this scandal. It's kind of their job as the Official Opposition Party.

Well, I do have a natural bitterness towards the Conservative party, and the old PC party. As well as a disliking for Stephen Harper. Yes, he is the Official Opposition Leader, and I do have an "opposing" stand against the Liberal government, but that doesn't mean I have to like what he has to say. I'd rather have Jack Layton or Gilles Duceppe as the voice of the Opposition. They have way better things to say than Harper.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Vong
They have way better things to say than Harper.


Like what, exactly?

[Vong]

Well, for one; rather than merely attacking the Liberal party continuously like the Conservative party, Jack Layton and the NDP have proposed to help the Liberal party out of this mess.

And as for Gilles Duceppe....well....right now he is only talking about forcing an election as soon as possible. But normally him and his party ask the apropriate questions during Question Period, like the NDP. Though his desires and loyalties are only to Quebec, he is an awesome politician and public speaker. Which can't be said for Harper.

[horrorfreak13]

Originally posted by outsyder
I think it's clear that the Liberals will keep on passing the buck until no one is held responsible. Unbelievable how a Finance Minister could have this going on without his knowledge, or even so that he would not be responsible for what happened.


Or when this stupid brain dead province quits voting Liberal. I keep reading comments in newspapers and all over saying people are sick of this government but don't do a damn thing about it and continue to vote thiese idiots in over and over. If we have an election come Christmas time which looks like a possibility and Liberals get goted in again you people who voted them in will have nothing to blame but yourselves.

[Draccoca]

It's funny when i was readin the Toronto Sun right after the report was released. Shelia Copps was saying Martin should have known blah blah blah. Well my question to her is "WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T YOU KNOW? YOU WHERE THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER FOR FUCKS SAKE"

I'm hoping we go to the polls soon so that the Liberial's can't dupe the ontario and quebec voters again and we can actually have a party in there that won't rape us six ways from sunday.

[Vong]

...and we can actually have a party in there that won't rape us six ways from sunday.

Well that just leaves the Green party...

[Draccoca]

and the pot party

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Vong
Well that just leaves the Green party...


You know that besides the obvious environmental front, they have alot of right-wing financial policies?

Looks like the Federal Election will be in mid-February. I'll be freezing my ass off, waiting to vote the Conservatives into office.

[Vong]

I'll be freezing my ass off, waiting to vote the Conservatives into office.

*hears a baby begin to cry*

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Vong
*hears a baby begin to cry*

What? He doesn't like responsible government?

[MacReady]

Originally posted by outsyder
What? He doesn't like responsible government?

What does telling two men that it's not up to them whether they can get married have to do with responsibility?

Anyway I got a letter from X-Elections this summer (I turned 18 this year) and I sent it back. I don't know if it's reached them but I'll go ask if I'm a registered voter. I think I'll go with NPD.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by MacReady
What does telling two men that it's not up to them whether they can get married have to do with responsibility?


What does the concept of marriage have anything to do with government? It serves as a certificate to award people tax benefits and legal rights in disputes. The Conservatives tried to put forward a bill stating that any two people can apply to be co-dependants, just as marriage or in other situations. Guess a lot of people missed this.

And don't think that if they are elected that the Conservatives will go back to that issue. They aren't going to 'un-marry' people.:rolleyes:

BTW, should the election be held after the 15th of January (chances look pretty good), I will also be able to vote. Should be fun waiting in the cold, but it will be worth it.

Just wondering, what's your riding?

[Vong]

What? He doesn't like responsible government?

And you think the Conservative party will bring this?
The only thing I see the Conservative party bringing is the end of public health care and allowing us to become the US's bitch. I'll refer you to Mulroney and the shameful NAFTA we have to endure because of the Conservatives.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Vong
And you think the Conservative party will bring this?
The only thing I see the Conservative party bringing is the end of public health care and allowing us to become the US's bitch. I'll refer you to Mulroney and the shameful NAFTA we have to endure because of the Conservatives.


1. Yes.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051104/conservatives_accountabilityplatform_20051104/20051104?hub=TopStories

2. Wrong again. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the European format?

Here's their policy declaration on health:


51. Health Care
i) The Conservative Party believes all Canadians should have reasonable access to timely, quality health care services, regardless of their ability to pay.

ii) The provinces and territories should have maximum flexibility to ensure the delivery of medically necessary health services within a universal, public health care system. The Conservative Party supports adding a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act to provide stable and transparent federal funding. We will work with the provinces in a co-operative and constructive manner.

iii) Flexibility for the provinces and territories in the implementation of health services should include a balance of public and private delivery options. This approach would ensure that health services remain publicly funded, while services are provided through the most appropriate public or private provider based on quality and cost.

iv) We will work with the provinces and territories in the development of national quality indicators and objectives.

52. Medicare Audit
A Conservative Government will conduct a social audit, under the existing office of the Chief Actuary, to help Canadians and their governments determine how well their medicare is working. The audit would include actuarial advice on program design and health care financing issues.

53. Public Health
The Conservative Party supports the creation of a Canada Public Health Agency and the appointment of a Chief Public Health Officer of Canada. We recognize the importance of wellness promotion and disease prevention in enhancing the health of Canadians and contributing to the sustainability of our health care system.

54. Health Sciences Research, Development and Innovation
i) The Conservative Party recognizes the importance of health sciences research in enhancing the health of Canadians and as a dynamic economic sector in its own right. A Conservative Government will foster an environment that encourages health sciences research and development of new health care technologies in part through the provision of an adequate level of federal funding.

ii) A Conservative Government will be open to innovations which would reduce waiting lists, improve the quality of care, and ensure better coordination and information sharing in the delivery of health. A Conservative Government will not be afraid to implement new advances so that all Canadians can benefit from a modern effective health system tailored to meet their needs.

55. Pharmaceuticals
i) The Conservative Party believes that Canada’s pharmaceuticals legislation must strike a balance between encouraging the development of new drugs and ensuring that those drugs are available to Canadians at affordable prices. We believe that part of this balance is achieved through adhering to the international standard of 20 years patent protection for pharmaceuticals.

ii) We believe no one should lose their life savings because of unexpected health problems or the costs of prescription drugs. Accordingly, we support the commitment made in the February 2003 Health Accord to provide all Canadians with reasonable access to catastrophic drug coverage by the end of 2005-2006.

iii) We support faster processing of drug approvals without compromising patient safety.

56. Natural Health Products
The Conservative Party supports enhanced freedom for Canadians in their choice of natural health products and complementary treatments, with proper safeguards for public safety.

57. Assisted Human Reproduction and Related Research
The Conservative Party recognizes the need for federal regulation in assisted human reproduction and related research. This field should be governed by principles that respect human individuality, integrity, dignity and life. In recognition of the ethical and scientific concerns around research using human embryos, we support an initial three-year prohibition on embryonic research, and call on the federal government to encourage its granting agencies to focus on more promising adult (post-natal) stem cell research.

58. Abortion Legislation
A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.

3. Bitch? In what way? All I can see is how Canadians are consistantly defining their values as "Not American." The Americans are our neighbours and the majority of our economy relies on trade with THEM. Hey, how's Paul Martin handling the softwood lumber issue? We get our money back yet?

4. So I guess our currently massive trade surplus would be a result of this 'shameful' treaty? Considering how the Liberals really followed up on their promise to break the treaty, you might want to rethink whether they really represent your values.

[The Postmaster General]

What's an X-Election? It sounds like something Mountain Dew would sponsor.

http://www.coffs.tv/coffs/attractions/ExtremeSports/extreme.jpg

[MacReady]

Originally posted by outsyder
What does the concept of marriage have anything to do with government? It serves as a certificate to award people tax benefits and legal rights in disputes. The Conservatives tried to put forward a bill stating that any two people can apply to be co-dependants, just as marriage or in other situations. Guess a lot of people missed this.

And don't think that if they are elected that the Conservatives will go back to that issue. They aren't going to 'un-marry' people.:rolleyes:

BTW, should the election be held after the 15th of January (chances look pretty good), I will also be able to vote. Should be fun waiting in the cold, but it will be worth it.

Just wondering, what's your riding?

IT does have something to do with it. People want to change something that has no effect on the unwilling (no negative effect on anybody period as far as I can tell). Essentially the gays are coming to government asking for improvements, so they are involved. It's nice that the conservatives are trying to get civil unions and shows some good judgement, however, for gays, this isn't a matter of money or benefits, it's a matter of their feelings for each other. To me it says that they're better than the republicans but still backwards.

The cold here in Ottawa is absolutely hell. I thought my old place was bad but this is worse due to it being really windy and the fact that it's still raining in November.

Who am I riding on? I don't know if you mean who I think will win (my guess) or who I'll vote for, so I'll mention both:

I think that the election will be a dead heat (is that even the right word?) between the liberals and conservatives. I think it's had to call, but I think the liberals will win as people simply don't seem to care about their crimes and they might pull off a similar win like the one the U.S. the other year (a controling party screws up big time, but still wins because the opposition is simply too unpopular with the public).

As for my vote, I'll gow with NDP. I'm not crazy about Harper, but he's not involved in a scandal that's cost the counry a ton of money.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
What's an X-Election? It sounds like something Mountain Dew would sponsor.

http://www.coffs.tv/coffs/attractions/ExtremeSports/extreme.jpg

Basically, it involves an 18 extreme sports competition followed by the major party leaders taking on . . .THAT'S RIGHT . . .

http://www.amazingben.com/aggrocrag.jpg

THE AGGRO CRAG!! For a chance to win it all!

[outsyder]

Originally posted by MacReady
Who am I riding on? I don't know if you mean who I think will win (my guess) or who I'll vote for, so I'll mention both:


Riding, constituency, federal political territory.

For example: Ottawa South, Ottawa West-Nepean, Orleans, etc.


I'd most likely be voting from Ottawa West-Nepean, for Conservative candidate John Baird, who's gay, if you can belive it or not. Good guy. I've met him a few times.

[Vong]

You know, it's said that the Liberals campaign from the left and rule from the right. Well, the same can be said about the Conservative party, except reversed.

The Conservatives can put all they want in their party platforms on how they want to preserve public health. But I do recall Stephen Harper himself say he is a proponent for private health care. Maybe not total privatization, but it would soon lead to it.

If the Conservative party were brought to power, they would surely introduce a bill permitting private health care. This wouldn't remove public health care, it would just permit both systems. If (and depending on if they have a majority or not) they succeed, private health care would be put in place, and a two-tiered health care system would exist. And this causes many problems.

While there would be a two-tiered health care service, public health would be crushed by the gigantic shift to private health care, and public health would be removed. Stephen Harper would have no direct link to its collapse, just an indirect one.

Bitch? In what way? All I can see is how Canadians are consistantly defining their values as "Not American." The Americans are our neighbours and the majority of our economy relies on trade with THEM. Hey, how's Paul Martin handling the softwood lumber issue? We get our money back yet?

That's EXACTLY my point in Canada being America's bitch. The majority of our trade is directed to the US because of NAFTA, and hardly any trade is permissable to other nations because of it. And because of NAFTA, we get the shit ends of the stick each time a dispute comes up.

So I guess our currently massive trade surplus would be a result of this 'shameful' treaty?

You should see the facts before you begin to praise this agreement.
Because of NAFTA, in the first 3 years of, Canada lost a quarter of its manufacturing base. Hundreds of industrial plants shut down or relocated to the US. And because of this, Canada's unemployment rate shot up to its record high in 1992.

The treaty propsed "secured access" to the US market. Instead, we have had trade harassment on steel, wheat, beef, hogs, fish, lobster, blueberries and the infamous lumber.

Because of NAFTA, only 12 widely held Canadian companies are left listed on the TSX. More than 10,000 Canadian companies have been taken over by US owners, including our beloved Molson.

According to NAFTA provisions, we can't make our own Canadian cars. We can't build our own military equipment. And our environmental policies have continually been attacked by US companies from it hindering on their buisness. Canada is losing it's sovereignty because of NAFTA.

And trust me, there are plenty of other nasty tidbits about how bad NAFTA is to us.

Seems to be this treaty has made us America's pounded-in-the-ass........what's that word?....oh yeah....bitch....

Considering how the Liberals really followed up on their promise to break the treaty...

But don't you see? We rely on the US so much for it's trade that we cannot break off NAFTA. We have dug ourselves too deep in it that we cannot back off without losing billions of dollars worth of income. The Conservative party royally screwed us over with it's implementation in 1989.

This is why I will never back the Conservative party. Well....that and Mike Harris destroying Ontario schools...

And by the way, I'm not backing the Liberal party at all. I'm not a fan of Paul Martin, nor did I vote for him the last election.

But I am ABC (Anything But Conservative).

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Vong
You know, it's said that the Liberals campaign from the left and rule from the right. Well, the same can be said about the Conservative party, except reversed.

The Conservatives can put all they want in their party platforms on how they want to preserve public health. But I do recall Stephen Harper himself say he is a proponent for private health care. Maybe not total privatization, but it would soon lead to it.

If the Conservative party were brought to power, they would surely introduce a bill permitting private health care. This wouldn't remove public health care, it would just permit both systems. If (and depending on if they have a majority or not) they succeed, private health care would be put in place, and a two-tiered health care system would exist. And this causes many problems.

While there would be a two-tiered health care service, public health would be crushed by the gigantic shift to private health care, and public health would be removed. Stephen Harper would have no direct link to its collapse, just an indirect one.

I'm quite aware the system would be a two tier hybrid. I fully support it. The fact that we can't even keep doctors in this country because of the rules outlined by the health system should be reason enough to support a move towards at least SOME form of privatization. Like I said, the system would be reminiscient of the one currently in practice in European countries. And the comment that this will undoubedtly lead to a fully privatized system is hysteria. I could say that a move towards more public health care will lead us to communism, under the same suspicions.



That's EXACTLY my point in Canada being America's bitch. The majority of our trade is directed to the US because of NAFTA, and hardly any trade is permissable to other nations because of it. And because of NAFTA, we get the shit ends of the stick each time a dispute comes up.

How is hardly any trade permissable to other nations? We can trade with whomever we please. The rules of NAFTA simply aren't in place. It's not a quota system. And the shit end of the stick? That's unfortunate that the US does not want to play by the rules, but they know damn well that there are other markets out there we can trade to and it will be their own problem in the end.


You should see the facts before you begin to praise this agreement.
Because of NAFTA, in the first 3 years of, Canada lost a quarter of its manufacturing base. Hundreds of industrial plants shut down or relocated to the US. And because of this, Canada's unemployment rate shot up to its record high in 1992.

The treaty propsed "secured access" to the US market. Instead, we have had trade harassment on steel, wheat, beef, hogs, fish, lobster, blueberries and the infamous lumber.

What do you mean 'instead'? Our merchandise exports to the US have expanded by 250% since 1989. As expected with any major economic shifts, unemployment rates were affected, but the rate since then has balanced off at a near optimum 6-7%. Not to mention the fact that Canada WAS going through a recession coming off of the end of the 80's and into the early 90's, an aftershock of the one that the US suffered, except it was regarded as more severe. So naturally, unemployment rates would be higher. Since then however, Canadian employment growth was more successful than the US during the end of the 90's leading into 2000.


Because of NAFTA, only 12 widely held Canadian companies are left listed on the TSX. More than 10,000 Canadian companies have been taken over by US owners, including our beloved Molson.

According to NAFTA provisions, we can't make our own Canadian cars. We can't build our own military equipment. And our environmental policies have continually been attacked by US companies from it hindering on their buisness. Canada is losing it's sovereignty because of NAFTA.

And trust me, there are plenty of other nasty tidbits about how bad NAFTA is to us.

Seems to be this treaty has made us America's pounded-in-the-ass........what's that word?....oh yeah....bitch....

And yet somehow, in the end we are the ones with a much better trade surplus as compared to the growing trade deficit that the States has. The idea is to export more than you import, and it seems as though the States is not faring as well. Besides, NAFTA has opened up a wider product market making cheaper prices for consumers and a wider variety, due to less tariffs on imports.
And as for the companies being bought up by American investors, it is the price of success. I really don't think Molson lost very much market share in Canada because suddenly American beer was cheaper in Canada. You say we are losing sovereignty over other international business opportunities? Then you should have no reason to complain about what the US is doing considering softwood lumber, since such a practice of instating tariffs favors manufacturers over consumers.


But don't you see? We rely on the US so much for it's trade that we cannot break off NAFTA. We have dug ourselves too deep in it that we cannot back off without losing billions of dollars worth of income. The Conservative party royally screwed us over with it's implementation in 1989.

There are many international markets available to buy and who are willing to buy. Should the US try to deny the rules of NAFTA, There are readily waiting trade partners lin Europe and in quickly expanding markets like China. They seem to be interested in softwood lumber, and could provide quite a boost to our economy. If it is no longer worth our while to trade with the US (who, considering the location, would be a majority trade partner anyway), then there will be less investment into it. That's the way the market goes.


This is why I will never back the Conservative party. Well....that and Mike Harris destroying Ontario schools...

Because he cut grade 13 and updated the curriculum? Cutting spending and tax cuts are part of conservative philosophy. Ontario's economy did quite well during those years, if I remember correctly.

Better than Bob Rae anyway.


And by the way, I'm not backing the Liberal party at all. I'm not a fan of Paul Martin, nor did I vote for him the last election.

But I am ABC (Anything But Conservative).


Good for you. I'm anything but socialist.

[Vong]

Because he cut grade 13 and updated the curriculum? Cutting spending and tax cuts are part of conservative philosophy. Ontario's economy did quite well during those years, if I remember correctly.

He not only cut OAC from the curriculum, he compressed the school curriculums to compensate for the lost year of study. Fortunately I was the lucky one, and was the last year to take the OAC year. But the kids before me had it rougher then ever.

Between Grade 8 and 9, there was a humungous jump in work loads. Kids were forced to do more work and expected to learn difficult courses, like math, way before their time. In the first years of implementation of the new currciculum, the Grade 10 students had to take literacy and math tests, where over 50% of the students failed. (that number has dropped slightly, but it is still up there) Because of these failings, students were more inclined to drop out and not even continue their education. Even today the drop-out rate for students is higher then it ever was because kids couldn't take the difficulty of what they were expected to do.

I remember back when I was in Grade 9, the teachers went on strike against Mike Harris to prevent them from implementing this new curriculum. They never succeeded because they were forced back to work a week later. The teachers hated Mike Harris, and I couldn't blame them.

There may have been economic prosperity because of Harris, but he did so by cutting much needed programs and departments, such as education.

But like he needed to. Ontario is one of the largest "have" provinces in the country. Our industrial development is second to none. We would have gotten ourselves out of the hole soon enough without the cuts.

Better than Bob Rae anyway

Now that's a cheap shot against Bob Rae. The NDP won in 1990 because the Ontario population were upset with both the Liberals and the Conservatives. The NDP were caught off guard in their win, and had to put together their government quickly. While their deficit was around $9 billion, they did implement new reforms, such as better welfare rates, employment equity, labour law reform, and an increase of corporate tax rates. Which, after their loss, were all cut down by the Harris government, along with education.

Good for you. I'm anything but socialist.

Yeah, fuck the poor, eh? :p

[MacReady]

Originally posted by outsyder
Riding, constituency, federal political territory.

For example: Ottawa South, Ottawa West-Nepean, Orleans, etc.


I'd most likely be voting from Ottawa West-Nepean, for Conservative candidate John Baird, who's gay, if you can belive it or not. Good guy. I've met him a few times.

Gloucester.

Not really that much into Canadian poiltics, so I won't be voting until the federal election. I think I'll have to learn more on my candidates and how everything works so I shouldn't participate in most elections.

[someguy]

Honestly, the choices right now in the parties is like trying to pick which piece of shit doesn't stink the most.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Vong
Now that's a cheap shot against Bob Rae.

Kind of like the one on Harris?

BTW, the Literacy test is mind numbingly easy. If you can't pass it, at least after the second time you try it, then the problems don't lie with the school system.

And a note on the OAC program, it's still unofficially in effect. If students need an extra year, and want to take courses, either to finish their high school education or add on to it, then they may do so with little protest.



Yeah, fuck the poor, eh? :p [/B]

Yeah, who the fuck am I to try and keep what I earn?:rolleyes:

[MacReady]

Originally posted by outsyder
Yeah, who the fuck am I to try and keep what I earn?:rolleyes:

I saw a man today who had to sleep in a doorway outside in freezing temperatures with nothing but a little blanket and his dog to keep him company at night, and you tell me you can't spare a few measily dollars at the end of the month?

God,capitalists are like those little kids who gets mulitple ice creams cones and won't share with anybody else.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by MacReady
I saw a man today who had to sleep in a doorway outside in freezing temperatures with nothing but a little blanket and his dog to keep him company at night, and you tell me you can't spare a few measily dollars at the end of the month?

God,capitalists are like those little kids who gets mulitple ice creams cones and won't share with anybody else.

I think you're confusing "Gets" with "Earns."

Since when do I get 'multiple ice creams'? I'm not swimming in wealth by any means. I just want what I've worked hard to earn fair and square. And if I have the available funds, I'm never a stranger to donate to charities if they're on the level.

[Vong]

BTW, the Literacy test is mind numbingly easy.

Wow, it's so easy for you to say and speak for hundreds of kids who couldn't pass it. I don't know if you took it or not, but either way, it doens't matter. You might have been able to pass the test, and consider it so easy, but not alot of kids have it easy like you. And yes, you can blame the school system.

And a note on the OAC program, it's still unofficially in effect. If students need an extra year, and want to take courses, either to finish their high school education or add on to it, then they may do so with little protest.

OAC isn't just a year to do more courses, it was a year for many that decided their fates on whether or not they would go to University or not. Like me.

It also offered more advanced courses then the previous years, so you had to pick up your socks and work harder then you ever had before.

This "extra year" now isn't the OAC program. It's the leg-up year for students who may need more courses/credits.

Sorry, you can't compare the two.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Vong
Wow, it's so easy for you to say and speak for hundreds of kids who couldn't pass it. I don't know if you took it or not, but either way, it doens't matter. You might have been able to pass the test, and consider it so easy, but not alot of kids have it easy like you. And yes, you can blame the school system.

Unless the kid has a learning disability, it's pretty much impossible for kids to reach grade 10 without the literary skills needed to pass the test. Oh, but if they fail, it's always the school's fault, right?

OAC isn't just a year to do more courses, it was a year for many that decided their fates on whether or not they would go to University or not. Like me.

It also offered more advanced courses then the previous years, so you had to pick up your socks and work harder then you ever had before.

This "extra year" now isn't the OAC program. It's the leg-up year for students who may need more courses/credits.

Sorry, you can't compare the two.

It's not just a leg up year. Although there are no specified OAC courses, students (even ones who have graduated) are allowed to continue their high school education if they want to. That way, teachers do not need to take on any extra classes in order to help student who wish to return for an extra year (or need to).

[someguy]

Here's last year's results of the literacy test

http://www.eqao.com/NR/01nr.aspx?Lang=E&release=1

[Zebra 3]

Originally posted by outsyder
I'd most likely be voting from Ottawa West-Nepean, for Conservative candidate John Baird, who's gay, if you can belive it or not. Good guy. I've met him a few times. John Baird's an assclown.

[MacReady]

Girl with massive facial tumour needs surgery. (http://www.local6.com/health/5302544/detail.html)

A team of doctors in Miami are ready to help the 14-year-old girl but they have to wait until enough money is raised to pay for her hospital stay. The operation is expected to cost about $95,000.

Ain't capitalism grand?

EDIT: Damn, I'm dragging this thread off topic again, aren't I?:(

[outsyder]

Originally posted by MacReady
Ain't capitalism grand?

Indeed. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/31/gates_malaria_research_grant/)

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Zebra 3
John Baird's an assclown.


How so? Because he's a Conservative?


He's better than the hospital-hating biatch Marlene Cattral.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Capitalism is pretty awesome.

[MacReady]

No, it isn't.

[JohnTheHenchman]

It's better than everything else.

[MacReady]

Capitalism is just like socialism, except it's the equal re-distribution of society's wealth amongst the rich. (didn't come up with that one)

[JohnTheHenchman]

lol ok:rolleyes:

[MacReady]

Just to clear things up: I don't think capitalism is pure evil. In fact, I'd be lying if I said it didn't have advantages that I enjoy. However I think it's inferior to socialism and I think we should try and combine both to get the best of both worlds. That is all.

Now can we put economics behind us and continue talking about crooked politicians up north?

[someguy]

do any of you think that having both health systems available (universal and private) in Canada is a good idea? A two tiered health system.

[Zebra 3]

Originally posted by someguy
do any of you think that having both health systems available (universal and private) in Canada is a good idea? A two tiered health system. Bad idea.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by someguy
do any of you think that having both health systems available (universal and private) in Canada is a good idea? A two tiered health system.

Yes. People should be able to get the quality of health care they want to. As it is we're already running out of doctors.

[someguy]

Originally posted by Zebra 3
Bad idea.

I'd like an explanation why, since I'd like to see why people oppose it.

[EVILxxx]

Many differant states in the US has something that resembles a "two tier" health system. In Massachussetts it's called 'MassHealth', which for all intents, and purposes is free health care. While the system p[rovides alot of benefits for low income families it is hardly perfect. It is incredibly easy to take advantage of, which attributes to why Massachussetts is the highest taxed state in the country.

[Vong]

I'd like an explanation why, since I'd like to see why people oppose it.

One of Canada's heritage is public health care, which we have had since Thomas Douglas proposed the idea (but it was later the Liberals who made it happen). Our health care system has lasted over 50 years now, and it would be devastating to bring in private health care.

A two-tier system would create an imbalance.

If a private health care system were introduced, most doctors will shift their allegiance to private since there is more money in it. This shift (which is expected to be very large), would decrease federal spending on public health care, and lower health coverage to needy families. Eventually, if the Steven Harper has his way, private health care will crush public health with the massive shift.

I am opposed to private health care. I think it's sick (no pun intended) that people have to empty their pockets each time they get injured or have to go for surgery, or whatever. Public health is for everyone, while private health is only for the rich. In a liberal democracy, such as Canada, who values in helping everyone out and making sure no one is left behind, public health care is a must.

If we do bring in a two-tier health care system, it is one more step to Canada becoming America.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
. It is incredibly easy to take advantage of

How do people take advantage of it? I sincerely don't know, since to my knowledge people only visit hospitals when they are either sick or hurt.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Vong
One of Canada's heritage is public health care, which we have had since Thomas Douglas proposed the idea (but it was later the Liberals who made it happen). Our health care system has lasted over 50 years now, and it would be devastating to bring in private health care.

A two-tier system would create an imbalance.

If a private health care system were introduced, most doctors will shift their allegiance to private since there is more money in it. This shift (which is expected to be very large), would decrease federal spending on public health care, and lower health coverage to needy families. Eventually, if the Steven Harper has his way, private health care will crush public health with the massive shift.

I am opposed to private health care. I think it's sick (no pun intended) that people have to empty their pockets each time they get injured or have to go for surgery, or whatever. Public health is for everyone, while private health is only for the rich. In a liberal democracy, such as Canada, who values in helping everyone out and making sure no one is left behind, public health care is a must.

If we do bring in a two-tier health care system, it is one more step to Canada becoming America.

How dare doctors try to earn a living outside of the government. It's unconstitutional!!! :rolleyes:

PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE FREEDOM TO FIND HEALTH CARE WHEREVER THEY PLEASE. And for that reason I support a dual system. At least then if we institute a system as such, we will actually have some fucking doctors.

The system as it stands is inefficient and wasteful. And BTW, please explain how instituting a two-tier health care system takes away from public health care? It's not as if taxes towards the public system will be removed. Reduced I can understand, considering there would be less of a burden on it. And if all the doctors switch to the private system, then they will probably earn less money, considering that more competition would lead to more diverse support from buyers and therefore less money earned by doctors. A lot of them will switch, but there comes a point when it's simply not economically feasable due to competition, and some people's inability to pay, in which case doctors would remain with the public system. Thus, there is an equilibrium. Cities would attract the most doctors, and thus because of added competition, there would be a lot of support in those areas for public health care (as there is now). Rural areas would then be able to attract doctors, as they will be spread out among various communities across the country.

And so that way, rural places will be able to actually have doctors of their own.

I really like that line at the end, just goes to help prove my point that the Canadian Identity is increasingly just becoming "Not American." What a lovely way to express national pride.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Tuukka
How do people take advantage of it? I sincerely don't know, since to my knowledge people only visit hospitals when they are either sick or hurt.

I'll tell you a story my best fried told me.
When he was working as an EMT my buddy Rob, went to a man's house who was complaining of back trouble. They asked him if he wanted a ride to the hospital even though it was determined that it was unnecessary. He said he wanted to(Normally a ride in an ambulance costs a person $1000 but with Mass Health it is free). In route to the hospital my buddy asked the man to show him his Mass-Health card In pulling out his card he also pulled out a "High Rollers Card" for the Mohegan Sun Casino.
Obviously this is an extreme case but he told me that people took advantage of the free ambulance drive on a daily basis.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
I'll tell you a story my best fried told me.
When he was working as an EMT my buddy Rob, went to a man's house who was complaining of back trouble. They asked him if he wanted a ride to the hospital even though it was determined that it was unnecessary. He said he wanted to(Normally a ride in an ambulance costs a person $1000 but with Mass Health it is free). In route to the hospital my buddy asked the man to show him his Mass-Health card In pulling out his card he also pulled out a "High Rollers Card" for the Mohegan Sun Casino.
Obviously this is an extreme case but he told me that people took advantage of the free ambulance drive on a daily basis.

In Flnland we have had a free healt care system for decades. And yet people don't take free ambulance drives just for the fun of it. In fact it's impossible to do so, because an ambulance will drive you ONLY WHEN IT'S ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. This means EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. If your back is hurting, then you drive your own car, take a taxi, or a bus.

If you include a rule like that to go with the system, then the problem you mentioned goes away.

Come on, that's a ridicilous reason to be against public healthcare. Healthcare doesn't automatically mean that everyone has to become fucking idiots and ambulances have to work like free taxis. You could never pull off a stunt like that in here.

You already mentioned that "it was determined that it was unnecessary". That's the whole point. If it's unnecessary, you don't get a free ride. As simple as that.

Any other examples?

[Vong]

The system as it stands is inefficient and wasteful. And BTW, please explain how instituting a two-tier health care system takes away from public health care? It's not as if taxes towards the public system will be removed. Reduced I can understand, considering there would be less of a burden on it. And if all the doctors switch to the private system, then they will probably earn less money, considering that more competition would lead to more diverse support from buyers and therefore less money earned by doctors. A lot of them will switch, but there comes a point when it's simply not economically feasable due to competition, and some people's inability to pay, in which case doctors would remain with the public system. Thus, there is an equilibrium. Cities would attract the most doctors, and thus because of added competition, there would be a lot of support in those areas for public health care (as there is now). Rural areas would then be able to attract doctors, as they will be spread out among various communities across the country.

This is what my professor told me last year. A two-tiered health care system will only crush public health, through the reasons I stated earlier. (I'm looking through my notes now, but can't find the lecture where he told us this...I will keep looking though) I also heard the same report on CTV during the 2004 campaigning. It is more likely the public health care system will be crushed, then the two working together equally.

The obvious thing is, that anything might happen when a two-tier health system is put in place. It can go either my way, your way, or some other way. Unfortunately something so drastic cannot be predicted so easily, it all depends on how well the government in power handles the situation. I believe that the public system will crumble, and so do many political and health analysts predict. Although that might not be the case.

You might believe that the two-tiered system will be beneficial to Canada, but that is your opinion.

However, I will keep my convictions and assume the worst if the health care is changed.

I really like that line at the end, just goes to help prove my point that the Canadian Identity is increasingly just becoming "Not American." What a lovely way to express national pride.

What you said here doesn't make any sense to my statement your responding to...

If your saying that what I said is only proving the Canadian identity is becoming "Not American", you are mistaken. I said Canada will become just like America, not the other way around.

Can you elaborate on what you said...

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Tuukka
In Flnland we have had a free healt care system for decades. And yet people don't take free ambulance drives just for the fun of it. In fact it's impossible to do so, because an ambulance will drive you ONLY WHEN IT'S ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. This means EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. If your back is hurting, then you drive your own car, take a taxi, or a bus.

If you include a rule like that to go with the system, then the problem you mentioned goes away.

Come on, that's a ridicilous reason to be against public healthcare. Healthcare doesn't automatically mean that everyone has to become fucking idiots and ambulances have to work like free taxis. You could never pull off a stunt like that in here.

You already mentioned that "it was determined that it was unnecessary". That's the whole point. If it's unnecessary, you don't get a free ride. As simple as that.



Good for Finland(no sarcam intended). My point was that we have a resemblance to public health-care in America and it isn't going swimingly. There are many factors that go into this issue, not just "well we do it this way, and if you did it the same it would work for your too."

Any more examples?

Plenty, but they are all fairly similar.


America has some of the best doctors in the world. These doctors are a product of the fact that our medical preffesions are so competetive. When you start to socialize health care, doctors lose much of that insentive.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by Vong
Can you elaborate on what you said...


At least the way I interpreted it was that you equate becoming more like America in a completely negative light and are using it as a point in favour of keeping our health care system completely public. I just don't thing using a negative identity (defining yourself in relation to something else) is a healthy attitude. Or you could have just said it as conversation filler. I don't know.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Plenty, but they are all fairly similar.

Ah, so you don't have any sensible arguments, then? Because the one you gave me was ridicilous, and easy to shoot down. I have to assume that the rest are equally ridicilous, and equally easy to shoot down.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
America has some of the best doctors in the world. These doctors are a product of the fact that our medical preffesions are so competetive. When you start to socialize health care, doctors lose much of that insentive.

Factually incorrect.

Countries like Finland, which have public health care, ALSO have a private health care. Which means that if you visit a private hospital, you have pay more more money, but you also get better treatment.

This is because private hospitals and doctors get more money. Therefore they have more resources - Customer pays everything.

By default private health care is faster, and more effective. Which is why I personally use it. However, not everyone in Finland makes as much money as I do, and for them public healtcare is a better option.

We have plenty of top doctors here, nearly all of whom work on private sector, and all of whom make a lot of money in their work. But the quality of public hospitals and doctors is high as well, when compared to just about any other county.

So that argument doesn't hold any water either.

[EVILxxx]

Ah, so you don't have any sensible arguments, then? Because the one you gave me was ridicilous, and easy to shoot down. I have to assume that the rest are equally ridicilous, and equally easy to shoot down.

Hardly. You asked for examples of people taking adavantage of a form of public health care in the US not an argument. All of them involve people abusing the system in similar fashions, I won't get into the specifics but rest assured there are numkerous, you assume too much.

Factually incorrect.

Countries like Finland, which have public health care, ALSO have a private health care. Which means that if you visit a private hospital, you have pay more more money, but you also get better treatment.

This is because private hospitals and doctors get more money. Therefore they have more resources - Customer pays everything.
.
We have plenty of top doctors here, nearly all of whom work on private sector, and all of whom make a lot of money in their work. But the quality of public hospitals and doctors is high as well, when compared to just about any other county.


I think that was kind of my point. The private sector whether the country be private only or two tier, stimulates medical progress.
Like4 you said nearly all of your top-notch doctors reside in the private sector.

[Vong]

Wow. :confused:
I can't believe how totally hijacked this post has gotten.
It went from the release of the Gomery Report to discussing which country has the best health care.

I'm not bashing it, I just think it's cool how it came to this :cool:

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
I think that was kind of my point. The private sector whether the country be private only or two tier, stimulates medical progress.
Like4 you said nearly all of your top-notch doctors reside in the private sector.


But you are subscribing to the ideaology that people only work harder when it equals more pay, and I've found that this isn't always the case.

In my experience, I've found just as many bad doctors who take medical assistance as I have bad doctors who only take private insurance. It all depends on the person.

And I would go a step further and point out that universal health care would open the door to a larger cache of people who are working to become doctors. This would mean more people training and learning. This would mean a higher chance of discovering cures, or procedures.


This sentiment is only reinforced by the fact that many of the major medical breakthoughs in the last *cough* years have come from countries with universal health care, or from university systems. It's not too often you hear of a private doctor doing something like that, and actually I can't think of any examples of it actually happening.