How will a Conservative government be better?

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

The real conservative health care agenda is the piece of crap that Manning and Harris, with the full support Ralph Klein, puked up for the Fraser Institute. The plan is to privatize us into a US-style system where the rich get better care than the poor.

If you think that the US system works, even as they desperately try to get away from it themselves, then go ahead and support Harper. Then you can pay more for less.

The only crap is in that quote. Do some research on the US system before you say things like that. The US system is not totally private, any more than ours is totally public. As far as paying more, yes, but as far as being taxed much less, also yes. Net results for most is more dollars in your jeans to pay for more health coverage. As far as less services, I know if I could be taxed much less and pay slightly more for better service (ie: reduced wait times), I would hardly call it less. As I mentioned in an earlier post which kind of started this health care thing, I have relatives in the US and we often compare. Overall, for the same kind of income, their taxes are much less, their health costs somewhat higher and their wait times and access times much less. This is bad how?

Do you compare service to?

How about this? A fellow I work with had to stop in northern Utah last year for an emergency with his daughter, Friday night, about 10:00 - 11:00 pm. No waiting at the emergency, the MRA guy and the X-ray guy were both there, no having to call them in, the child had both an MRI and Xray, full diagnosis, full explanation of what the results were, including a written report, and instructions for follow up, even though the doctors know they were coming back to Canada. All of this in around 3 hours, back on the road again. So, yes, let's compare services if you want, this is one I know about for a fact, but I suspect both of us could find all sorts of examples to make our points if we wanted to. In this case, the fellow I work with was very impressed, and you will not ever convince him that the US system is as bad as the left makes it out to be, and know, I don't really know his politics, but we both work in a unionized workplace. There is room in our system to consider private health care services, just as there is room in the US to consider expansion of the public system. To lock yourself into one or the other is ingeneous and shows no imagination to fix the problem.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: How will a Conservati

But in the current circumstances the only real options we have is to fix the system we have, which we know how to do, or to adopt a US-style system. That's the reality of Mr. Mulroney's trade deal. Don't think for a minute that he and his negotiators didn't grasp the implications.

It is highly doubtful that the political will exists in the US to change their system, which would make it possible for us to change ours without adopting the failed system they have there. It is unlikely that we will be pulling out of NAFTA anytime soon.

You and your coworker may be impressed that an MRI and an X-ray were available so quickly. Are you as impressed that 40 million Americans have no coverage at all? Are you impressed with the US having an infant mortality rate that compares to that of some third world countries? How about a life expectancy several years shorter than the life expectancy of that in Canada? Those are results of the American medical system.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

It is highly doubtful that the political will exists in the US to change their system, which would make it possible for us to change ours without adopting the failed system they have there. It is unlikely that we will be pulling out of NAFTA anytime soon.

You and your coworker may be impressed that an MRI and an X-ray were available so quickly. Are you as impressed that 40 million Americans have no coverage at all? Are you impressed with the US having an infant mortality rate that compares to that of some third world countries? How about a life expectancy several years shorter than the life expectancy of that in Canada? Those are results of the American medical system.

First of all, I don't accept the premise that their system has failed, but if it has, it has failed to the same degree as ours has. I sincerely hope we don't pull out of NAFTA given the trade benefits it provides. We are not a big enough country to be trade isolationists. Are there problems with the US system? Of course, have never denied it, but there are obviously very good parts too, so let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Are you impressed that our system makes you wait over a year and a half for a knee replacement? Are you impressed that people die "waiting in line" under our system? Those are some of the results of the Canadian publicly funded system.

Look, there are obvious problems in Canada, and in the US, as both countries freely admit. I have stated many times that I would not support a fully private system, any more than I support a fully public system, as both have faults. There is, in my opinion, a potential for a mix that would work, and I think it is incumbent upon the public to demand that this be investigated and discussed, without all the extreme talk from both sides getting in the way. Every time the right wants to talk about private health options, the extreme left howls about wrecking the public system. Hell, it' s partially wrecked now. But I never hear the left provide other options other than pouring more money into the system, which inevitably goes to increased wages, not more beds, doctors, nurses, technology, etc., and we simply cannot afford to pay for this system under the current situations. Until we reach this consensus, nothing will change, and we can both come back to this forum in 10 years, and the discussions will be the same. Surely that is not what either you or I or anyone wants.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

It is highly doubtful that the political will exists in the US to change their system, which would make it possible for us to change ours without adopting the failed system they have there. It is unlikely that we will be pulling out of NAFTA anytime soon.

You and your coworker may be impressed that an MRI and an X-ray were available so quickly. Are you as impressed that 40 million Americans have no coverage at all? Are you impressed with the US having an infant mortality rate that compares to that of some third world countries? How about a life expectancy several years shorter than the life expectancy of that in Canada? Those are results of the American medical system.

First of all, I don't accept the premise that their system has failed, but if it has, it has failed to the same degree as ours has. I sincerely hope we don't pull out of NAFTA given the trade benefits it provides. We are not a big enough country to be trade isolationists. Are there problems with the US system? Of course, have never denied it, but there are obviously very good parts too, so let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Are you impressed that our system makes you wait over a year and a half for a knee replacement? Are you impressed that people die "waiting in line" under our system? Those are some of the results of the Canadian publicly funded system.

Look, there are obvious problems in Canada, and in the US, as both countries freely admit. I have stated many times that I would not support a fully private system, any more than I support a fully public system, as both have faults. There is, in my opinion, a potential for a mix that would work, and I think it is incumbent upon the public to demand that this be investigated and discussed, without all the extreme talk from both sides getting in the way. Every time the right wants to talk about private health options, the extreme left howls about wrecking the public system. Hell, it' s partially wrecked now. But I never hear the left provide other options other than pouring more money into the system, which inevitably goes to increased wages, not more beds, doctors, nurses, technology, etc., and we simply cannot afford to pay for this system under the current situations. Until we reach this consensus, nothing will change, and we can both come back to this forum in 10 years, and the discussions will be the same. Surely that is not what either you or I or anyone wants.

I think not , bluealberta. You are approaching this topic on a false premise. Your conversation with Rev isn't about health care, it's about ideology. You wouldn't be opposed to overhauling the health care system if it means getting better because you are flexible, Rev on the other hand goes under the ideology that government should intervene in people's lives. He will carefully and systematically point out any flaws in the system to the south, but dismiss any good points. Most ordinary people do not fit very neatly into any political category and may hold to a mix of views that include what would usually be seen as both Leftist and Rightist ideas. When your views conform with being on the right (not far right) or center, you are more flexible to change that promotes individualism. Leftists, on the other hand, always RESENT the status quo, no matter what. Whatever else the Leftist may be, the bedrock of Leftism is a strong dislike or even a hatred of the way the world is and in your particular cases, your belligerent neighbor to the south.
One point I would like to make here, is that most people in Canada will compare the UNINSURED Amercians with your health care system, pretty interesting isn't it?
Back on topic, infant mortality has nothing to do with health care, the leading cause of infant mortality in the US has been congenital anomalies (birth defects) and has been such for the past 20 years, followed by heart defects and sudden infant death syndrome. None of these issues have anything to do with access to health care. And I will also add that all these ailments depends on ones race, these statistics are particurlaly high among african americans which presently constitute 20% of the US population (much higher than in Canada).
The critical breakthroughs that have made possible the worldwide revolution in life expectancy are public health and medicine, however, another major factor is the way we live in the US, many people do not have a healthy diet, running at ever faster paces through fast food lanes with an added level of stress all contribute to lower life expectancy. It is in fact the way we live and not for lack of any health care access.
Are there 40 million uninsured Americans? Of course there are. I will add however there are 1871 community hospitals in the US that offer free health care to those who cannot afford health care coverage. Is the US system flawed? Of course it is. No system is perfect and we are certainly far from it.
Lets talk a little bit about the INSURED Americans why don't we. Let's take a family of four as an example. This family of four will be required to pay anywhere between $450 and $870 per month (also depends on the geographic region), depending on the plan they choose( and when I say plan, I mean the level of access they wish to have to hospitals and doctors, HMO, PPO etc..). Keep in mind here, that most health care plans are shared by employers, and those levels of sharing differ, from 100% picked up by the employer to as low as 50%, the difference in participation if not covered at 100% is then deducted of the employees GROSS income (before taxes) therefore not reducing your net income. A PPO plan is regarded as the best health care you can have, you have access to ANY hospital, ANY specialist ANYWHERE in the US and yes, no wait times.
Co-pays, deductibles, pre-existing conditions. If you are insured, the avergae co-pay doctor visit ranges from $5 for an intern to $25 for a specialist. Your deductible will depend upon the plan you are currently in, usually $500 annually (the deductibles apply for hospital and inpatient surgeries). Pre-existing conditions mean what exactly? if you have been uninsured for a period of 6 months or more, and have an ailment, health insurance companies will not cover that ailment for up to a period of ONE year, at which point after that year, they are required by law to cover you. In the meantime feel free to have access to the 1871 community health care centers.
Of course I'm not attempting to desribe the US health care as perfect, I made that pretty clear before. Bottom line however both US and Canadian systems need and overhaul.

 

[Reverend Blair]

First of all, I don't accept the premise that their system has failed, but if it has, it has failed to the same degree as ours has.

Still, why would we adopt a failed system?

I sincerely hope we don't pull out of NAFTA given the trade benefits it provides. We are not a big enough country to be trade isolationists.

Pulling out of NAFTA does not make one a trade isolationist, that's a falsehood and, since most arguments for pulling out of NAFTA include increasing trade, shows a lack of understanding of the position.

Are you impressed that our system makes you wait over a year and a half for a knee replacement? Are you impressed that people die "waiting in line" under our system? Those are some of the results of the Canadian publicly funded system.

No. Those are the results of a system that's been underfunded and left to fail.

But I never hear the left provide other options other than pouring more money into the system, which inevitably goes to increased wages, not more beds, doctors, nurses, technology, etc., and we simply cannot afford to pay for this system under the current situations.

You've once again shown that you remain ignorant of the Romanow Report. It offers far more than "throwing money at the system." In fact, studies have shown that it would be cheaper per capita than a two-tier system because all of the beauracracy in a two-tier system, combined with the need for private companies to turn a profit, pushes prices up. You, my friend, are the one trying to solve the problem by throwing more money at it.

You are approaching this topic on a false premise. Your conversation with Rev isn't about health care, it's about ideology

Just what we need, another person who has never even looked at the Romanow Report, or read any of the cost analysis studies, telling me that those things are based strictly on ideology.

Romanow travelled the entire country talking to citizens, health care providers, insurance providers, special interest groups, traditional and alternative health care associations, think tanks and politicians and came up with a comprehensive report. That report is based on what Canadians want, keeping costs low, and getting our system working properly.

Every cost analysis ever done has shown that private care, because of the extra administrative cost and the profit motive, costs more.
For example, a joint replacement in Canada costs $7000-$8000. In the US it costs $25,000 on average.

So don't yark at me from your little haven south of the border how my position is based on ideology, I think not. My views are based on fact, not the rhetoric of people who think everything should make somebody else rich.

 

[I think not]

Just what we need, another person who has never even looked at the Romanow Report, or read any of the cost analysis studies, telling me that those things are based strictly on ideology.

Romanow travelled the entire country talking to citizens, health care providers, insurance providers, special interest groups, traditional and alternative health care associations, think tanks and politicians and came up with a comprehensive report. That report is based on what Canadians want, keeping costs low, and getting our system working properly.

Actually Rev, Vanni was kind enough to provide a link to the Romanow report a few days back, its just under 400 pages, I have not gone through it entirely as of yet, but I am. I have also found a link (since I am no expert on the Romanow report) from a Canadian in Nova Scotia, would you care to read it? Interesting link

Every cost analysis ever done has shown that private care, because of the extra administrative cost and the profit motive, costs more.
For example, a joint replacement in Canada costs $7000-$8000. In the US it costs $25,000 on average.

Nobody disputes that.

So don't yark at me from your little haven south of the border how my position is based on ideology, I think not. My views are based on fact, not the rhetoric of people who think everything should make somebody else rich.

You just made my point right there on leftist views, Thank you.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: How will a Conservati

A link to the Heritage Foundation? You might as well post a link to The Waltons Eat Their Young.

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a New Right public policy research institute. Its stated mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of "free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."

These are the guys who would privatise water and make us pay for air if they could.

sausage

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: How will a Conservati

A link to the Heritage Foundation? You might as well post a link to The Waltons Eat Their Young.

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a New Right public policy research institute. Its stated mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of "free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."

These are the guys who would privatise water and make us pay for air if they could.

sausage

How about reading the article and commenting on that instead?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: How will a Conservati

I read it the first time. Whaddya want me to do, offer the opposite spin and bafflegab? It's a political hack-job by a very partisan US-based think tank who would like nothing more than to see Canada dismantle its public health care system so American for-profit providers and insurance companies can come into Canada. It's full of half-truths taken out of context to push their political agenda. It has as much veracity as the garbage coming out of the anti-environmental camp or the Creationists.

It's garbage.

I did comment on it before btw.

You might as well post a link to The Waltons Eat Their Young.

 

[I think not]

Ok then. How can I argue with that :roll:

 

[chrisfer]

It's time to get rid of a social agenda that drains taxpayers money into whatever special interest group yells the loudest and try a pro-prosperity agenda that generates profit which in turn increases the tax base that in turn provides more money for the important people The tax payers. Politicians look after themselves first and a forced change of gov't will make them pause and give thought of what they are about to do before they do it next time. They cannot be allowed to think they are without repurcussions for thier actions. Kick the Bums out.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: How will a Conservati

The "social agenda" provides services for taxpayers even while it creates jobs and wealth, thus increasing the tax base, Chrisfer.

Think about what the social agenda is. Health care, education, environment (that's really a long-term economic one, but the neo-cons have defined as "social", so what the hell), foreign aid (strong economic component there too) and, arguably, the military. We also provide for those who, for one reason or another, cannot provide for themselves.

So what is the social agenda really about? It creates wealth and helps people in the meantime.

Now lets look at the economic agenda. What does it do? It creates jobs, the lower paying the better. It resists technological change to avoid capital costs (consider the energy industry, or the blackout a couple of years ago), it puts short term profits ahead of long-term profits (look what it's done to the environment), and it ships the real wealth elsewhere (since Mulroney killed regulation of foreign ownership, we've become nothing but low-wage branch plants).

So in terms of building long-term wealth (measured in quality of life, not just dollars) for Canadians, which is better?

The answer is a mix of the two, which is what the NDP (and the Liberals to an ever-shrinking extent) have proposed.

 

[bluealberta]

You've once again shown that you remain ignorant of the Romanow Report. It offers far more than "throwing money at the system." In fact, studies have shown that it would be cheaper per capita than a two-tier system because all of the beauracracy in a two-tier system, combined with the need for private companies to turn a profit, pushes prices up. You, my friend, are the one trying to solve the problem by throwing more money at it.

We have to get rid of about three tiers to just get to a two tier system! We already have private health care inurance in this country which provides services above regular health care. How many athletes in the past have had MRI's done within 24 hours of an injury? They don't wait in line. How about the private health care facilities in Quebec (no, not slamming Quebed, just envious)? How about the special clinics for our parlimentarians? There are numerous tiers already. Another tier involves dentists, eye doctors, physiotherapists, radiation clinics, cancer clinics, etc. And no, I believe that having some competition has the potential to reduce costs, not increase them. Under your scenario, we should have one auto maker in this country, and I can just imagine the cost of a new car with that kind of process. And what does the Romanow report say about wait times? And why do you automatically dismiss and ridicule every report from the right but fully endorse and promote every report from the left?

 

[I think not]

You've once again shown that you remain ignorant of the Romanow Report. It offers far more than "throwing money at the system." In fact, studies have shown that it would be cheaper per capita than a two-tier system because all of the beauracracy in a two-tier system, combined with the need for private companies to turn a profit, pushes prices up. You, my friend, are the one trying to solve the problem by throwing more money at it.

We have to get rid of about three tiers to just get to a two tier system! We already have private health care inurance in this country which provides services above regular health care. How many athletes in the past have had MRI's done within 24 hours of an injury? They don't wait in line. How about the private health care facilities in Quebec (no, not slamming Quebed, just envious)? How about the special clinics for our parlimentarians? There are numerous tiers already. Another tier involves dentists, eye doctors, physiotherapists, radiation clinics, cancer clinics, etc. And no, I believe that having some competition has the potential to reduce costs, not increase them. Under your scenario, we should have one auto maker in this country, and I can just imagine the cost of a new car with that kind of process. And what does the Romanow report say about wait times? And why do you automatically dismiss and ridicule every report from the right but fully endorse and promote every report from the left?

Can I answer that? :hello1: Oh, nevermind I already have.

 

[Reverend Blair]

And why do you automatically dismiss and ridicule every report from the right but fully endorse and promote every report from the left?

There hasn't been a report from the right. All that they've given us is position papers from insular think tanks funded with corporate dollars. Romanow actually went out out and talked to the people involved.

Under your scenario, we should have one auto maker in this country, and I can just imagine the cost of a new car with that kind of process.

Show me, anywhere on the entire internet, where I have ever suggested making the auto industry into a public enterprise. You can't because I haven't. It's the kind of ridiculous strawman argument that hardcore right-wingers always toss up when they are losing an argument because they haven't ever taken the time and effort to learn the difference between social democracy and their weird McCarthyesque nightmares.

 

[bluealberta]

Show me, anywhere on the entire internet, where I have ever suggested making the auto industry into a public enterprise. You can't because I haven't. It's the kind of ridiculous strawman argument that hardcore right-wingers always toss up when they are losing an argument because they haven't ever taken the time and effort to learn the difference between social democracy and their weird McCarthyesque nightmares.[/quote]

Sorry, Rev, I was trying to make an analogy, and I think you are smart enough to recognise it, but if you wanted to use this as an excuse for another cheap shot, glad to help you out. But if you think that private health care options are bad, why don't you think that anything else private is a bad thing? My point was that competition in the auto industry, just as an example, keeps the costs lower,and that a single provider would have no incentive at all to keep costs low, especially if the cost was being paid for by the government, which uses our money to pay for it. Competition provides the incentive to keep costs lower. Is it always that way? No, but without competition, there is no lower cost option, or incentive, or potential, at all.

 

[bluealberta]

And why do you automatically dismiss and ridicule every report from the right but fully endorse and promote every report from the left?

There hasn't been a report from the right. All that they've given us is position papers from insular think tanks funded with corporate dollars. Romanow actually went out out and talked to the people involved.

Under your scenario, we should have one auto maker in this country, and I can just imagine the cost of a new car with that kind of process.

Show me, anywhere on the entire internet, where I have ever suggested making the auto industry into a public enterprise. You can't because I haven't. It's the kind of ridiculous strawman argument that hardcore right-wingers always toss up when they are losing an argument because they haven't ever taken the time and effort to learn the difference between social democracy and their weird McCarthyesque nightmares.

 

[Reverend Blair]

It isn't a valid analogy. I notice you didn't use the analogy of public auto insurance, where the four provinces that have it also have the lowest rates. That would be a more valid analogy, since you would be replacing public funding with private insurance. You also didn't use the way that rates shot up when electricity was privatized in Ontario, or natural gas deregulated in Alberta. Again, those would be more valid because you would be taking something under public control, arguably basic services essential to people's well-being, from the public sphere into the private sphere.

Those things are still completely different than health care, but at least there are some similarities that you could draw an analogy from.

 

[bluealberta]

However, the provinces with the public insurance also have higher income tax rates to pay for it. Alberta has the lowest provincial tax with no sales tax, and insurance rates are not substantially different from Saskatchewan. I did some comparison the last time my insurance came up for renewal, and found that my rates under private insurance were lower than comparable in Saskatchewan, so whether what you say is correct is open to debate. I guess there could be analogies made for any situation. I still maintain that letting the individual keep more of his or her money will allow them to make their own decisions. By the way, given that Quebec has the highest private health care useage in the country, what is your opinion on that, and why when Alberta even mentions wanting to take the same type of approach that Quebec does is there such howling out of Ottawa? Why don't the Liberals and the NDP go after Quebec for their private clinics? Oh yeah, forgot, both those parties want to suck up to Quebec and Ontario in order to justify their existence, while taking potshots at Alberta does so much for national unity. How hypocritical.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: How will a Conservati

Public insurance in Saskatchewan is handled through SGI, not through taxes. The rates are substantially lower. I'm not talking on a one-off, you got lucky, deal...I'm talking about in comprehensive studies that compared rates in every province in the country.

You can maintain whatever you want. You should keep in mind that opinions informed by fact and studies of the entire situation are more valid than opinions formed by reading op-eds in the Calgary Sun though.