Actually you are correct and I was remiss in not suggesting we'd be better off with a two tiered system. The benefit is, it takes the wealthier people out of the line up for necessary and urgent procedures and everyone moves ahead faster.
How will the media try and take down Andrew Scheer?
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Actually you are correct and I was remiss in not suggesting we'd be better off with a two tiered system. The benefit is, it takes the wealthier people out of the line up for necessary and urgent procedures and everyone moves ahead faster.
I don't really see how, since Canada already has two-tiered health. We just don't call it one.
Going to the US for timely care is not considered part of the Canadian system.
I would prefer to ditch the GST and go back to the Manufacturer's Sale Tax which the GST replaced.
As for deficits and debt it, while we have had a few years of balanced budgets overall Canada has always been in the negative.
And any Politician suggesting that will ever change is kidding themselves and may be being either dishonest or they don't understand how entrenched the system is.
Don't get me wrong, I would like to see Canada with no debts but I know that would never be feasible.......
Deficits and debt built Canada. The objective of building a national economy swept aside doubts about the wisdom of borrowing because the transportation infrastructure (originally canals, then railways) needed to exploit Canada’s natural resources was expensive and could not be privately funded. From before Baldwin and Lafontaine’s responsible government in 1848 to Confederation in 1867 to Sir John A. Macdonald’s National Policy in 1879 and beyond, Canadian governments ran nation-building deficits. By 1866, in fact, debt interest payments amounted to 29 percent of colonial spending, with more borrowing needed to finish the job.
Confederation was in no small measure about deficit finance and the need to create a more creditworthy borrower—Canada.
During both world wars, the federal government used borrowing as a key method for financing Canada’s participation. In part as a reaction to the World War One approach of borrowing now and paying later, World War Two was funded on a so-called pay-as-you-go basis. Nonetheless, by the end of that war, the national debt exceeded the annual gross national product, a level not seen before or since in Canada. The scale of the Second World War required significantly more planning, coordination and central direction than had previously been asked of capitalist liberal democracies. As a result, the modern Canadian state was built.
Anyone for Deficits? | Literary Review of Canada
With extreme restriction on private Healthcare in any serious ice that the public system austensibly provides. Compared to the Canadian system, the European ones are much freer.
How about private health insurance for eye care, dental, prescriptions etc? Not all Canadians can afford these private plans or have them included in their job benefits, and so far as I am concerned that is a two-tier system.
I certainly agree that many European nations have superior health care to Canada.
Yes, but private clinics are not allowed to provide services that the public system provides. they can provide only what the public system does not. If you look at the stats, the European systems (which are two-tiered in the truest sense) rank higher on most if not all fronts than the Canadian one which, for what it covers, is mostly one-tiered.
That still does not contradict the fact that those with more money or who have health care packages through their employment get better health care in Canada than those who have neither. So far as I can see that is a two-tier system.
Then let's use clearer terms. In the services it covers, the Canadian system is a one-tiered. In the services they cover, European systems are two-tiered systems. Consequently, with wealthy Europeans bowing out of the public system, the public system saves money that it can then redirect towards improving the services it provides to those who choose to remain in the public system.
In the Canadian system, yes it's true that the rich can still bow out by leaving the country, but since that imposes additional transportation costs on top of the medical costs, whereas the upper middle class in Europe can afford to bow out, only the upper class in Canada can for the most part,. Consequently, everyone else faces stretched resources.
So is the goal to improve services for all even if the rich might get better services, or is the goal to ensure equal service to all even if we overall quality must suffer?
Any wonder? Their leader was supposedly a nice guy!
And probably good in many ways but definitely not political material!
What I am saying is that the Canadian system is one-tier in name only When citizens with more money or better health care packages through their jobs can gain access to higher levels of health care within the country. then a two-tier system exists whether you want to call it one or not.
Okay, but in relative terms, the European systems are more two-tiered than the Canadian one, and they tend to show better results. So, what are they doing right that the Canadian system is doing wrong?
A number of them, Britain and France for example, have put most of their medical personnel on salary. This goes a long way to lowering medical costs. As well, many European models include all aspects of health care including hearing, eye care, prescription medicines and dental care as part of their system. This would seem to make it more expensive but in fact it does not as it results in an over all improvement in the health of citizens. After all, you are not really healthy if you have a mouthful of rotting teeth, but can't afford a dentist.
A statement from the Conservative Party distancing itself from the controversial alt-right Rebel Media has been shown to Andrew Scheer, the party’s leader, but has yet to be released.
It’s not clear whether Scheer, who has been interviewed by the controversial opinion site on four different occasions, is uncomfortable with the move, or whether the announcement is merely delayed.
One spokesperson, in Scheer’s office, said on Monday that a statement had been drafted that would make the party’s position clear, and was merely awaiting sign-off from Scheer himself.
But 24 hours later, after a raft of defections from The Rebel and amid growing calls for political leaders to name and shame the growing influence of alt-right and white supremacist figures, no statement has been released.
A spokesperson in Scheer’s office would not comment or provide detail about when the party would release a statement, the cause for the delay, or where Scheer stood on the issue.
Update — August 17, 12:55pm:
CBC released a video on Thursday, recorded Wednesday evening (after VICE News published its story), where Scheer offered a couched statement regarding the Rebel without referencing it by name. “I think there is a fine line between reporting the facts and giving some of those groups a platform or any kind of legitimacy,” Scheer told reporters. He continued: “So as long as the editorial direction of that particular institution remains as it is … I won’t be granting those types of interviews.”
Scheer, as well as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, all tweeted condemnation for the racism and violence that was on display in Charlottesville.
But Scheer is the only leader to appear on The Rebel — if he were to distance himself from The Rebel, it would likely cut his ties to an outlet that has given him ample airtime.
Last November, Scheer sat down with Ezra Levant to talk immigration; then again with host Faith Goldy in February to talk about his opposition to a motion condemning Islamophobia; with Alberta correspondent Sheila Gunn Reid in August; and finally with former correspondent Brian Lilley immediately after winning his bid for the leadership in May.
During his bid for party leader, Scheer’s campaign manager, Hamish Marshall — who has since gone back into private practise — sits on the board of directors for The Rebel, primarily working on digital strategy for the alt-right site.
Recently, however, The Rebel has gone after Scheer for supporting the Paris climate accord and for calling himself a feminist.
Other parts of Scheer’s policies, however — opposing a House of Commons motion condemning Islamophobia, pulling government funding for universities that do not do enough to foster free speech, repealing the federal carbon pricing system — all proved popular with the network.
On Monday, Conservative Party moderate and former leadership candidate Michael Chong announced he would boycott the channel, as its “editorial direction includes the promotion of anti-Semitism, white supremacy, and calling for a democratically-elected premier to be locked up,” according to a statement sent to Press Progress, a left-wing blog.
https://news.vice.com/story/the-conservative-party-wrings-its-hands-on-condemning-the-rebel
It’s not clear whether Scheer, who has been interviewed by the controversial opinion site on four different occasions, is uncomfortable with the move, or whether the announcement is merely delayed.
One spokesperson, in Scheer’s office, said on Monday that a statement had been drafted that would make the party’s position clear, and was merely awaiting sign-off from Scheer himself.
But 24 hours later, after a raft of defections from The Rebel and amid growing calls for political leaders to name and shame the growing influence of alt-right and white supremacist figures, no statement has been released.
A spokesperson in Scheer’s office would not comment or provide detail about when the party would release a statement, the cause for the delay, or where Scheer stood on the issue.
Update — August 17, 12:55pm:
CBC released a video on Thursday, recorded Wednesday evening (after VICE News published its story), where Scheer offered a couched statement regarding the Rebel without referencing it by name. “I think there is a fine line between reporting the facts and giving some of those groups a platform or any kind of legitimacy,” Scheer told reporters. He continued: “So as long as the editorial direction of that particular institution remains as it is … I won’t be granting those types of interviews.”
Scheer, as well as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, all tweeted condemnation for the racism and violence that was on display in Charlottesville.
But Scheer is the only leader to appear on The Rebel — if he were to distance himself from The Rebel, it would likely cut his ties to an outlet that has given him ample airtime.
Last November, Scheer sat down with Ezra Levant to talk immigration; then again with host Faith Goldy in February to talk about his opposition to a motion condemning Islamophobia; with Alberta correspondent Sheila Gunn Reid in August; and finally with former correspondent Brian Lilley immediately after winning his bid for the leadership in May.
During his bid for party leader, Scheer’s campaign manager, Hamish Marshall — who has since gone back into private practise — sits on the board of directors for The Rebel, primarily working on digital strategy for the alt-right site.
Recently, however, The Rebel has gone after Scheer for supporting the Paris climate accord and for calling himself a feminist.
Other parts of Scheer’s policies, however — opposing a House of Commons motion condemning Islamophobia, pulling government funding for universities that do not do enough to foster free speech, repealing the federal carbon pricing system — all proved popular with the network.
On Monday, Conservative Party moderate and former leadership candidate Michael Chong announced he would boycott the channel, as its “editorial direction includes the promotion of anti-Semitism, white supremacy, and calling for a democratically-elected premier to be locked up,” according to a statement sent to Press Progress, a left-wing blog.
https://news.vice.com/story/the-conservative-party-wrings-its-hands-on-condemning-the-rebel
Allowing a private option helps too. If we were to expand our coverage in Canada, it would be more expensive since the private sector would legally be prohibited from providing services the public system offers. They can afford it in Europe because the rich can bow out more easily without needing a plane ticket.
A society that is not tempered by a constitution will inevitably fail. Clearly you slept your way through political science.