What is the most important issue in this election?
- Thread starter Timetrvlr
- Start date
RE: What is the most impo
Universal Health care, more funding for social programs, First Nations Issues, Decriminalizing Marijuana.
Universal Health care, more funding for social programs, First Nations Issues, Decriminalizing Marijuana.
redefining canada, redefining citizenship and what citizens can do with their citizenship, protection of public healthcare while creating more opportunities for private healthcare
RE: What is the most impo
I'd say the environment is the most important, followed closely by healthcare.
My thinking on that is two-fold.
#1. Our environmental actions are costing us billions in healthcare spending. The numbers are staggering.
#2. If we don't start doing something about the environment, we risk losing out economy to nations that are using Kyoto and other environmental initiaves as a way to gain a technological edge.
I'd say the environment is the most important, followed closely by healthcare.
My thinking on that is two-fold.
#1. Our environmental actions are costing us billions in healthcare spending. The numbers are staggering.
#2. If we don't start doing something about the environment, we risk losing out economy to nations that are using Kyoto and other environmental initiaves as a way to gain a technological edge.
:? I'd also go with environment also. We're at the point where if we don't start something to sustain it, it'll be an uphill battle to do anything about the problem later on.
RE: What is the most impo
Part of the problem is that the environment is usually presented as an isolated issue, Jo. You rarely hear about much environmental problems cost us every year, but the squawking from the anti-environmentalists about how any environmental advancements will hurt the economy is non-stop.
That's got a lot to do with corporate-owned media being lap-dogs and propagandists for big business.
Part of the problem is that the environment is usually presented as an isolated issue, Jo. You rarely hear about much environmental problems cost us every year, but the squawking from the anti-environmentalists about how any environmental advancements will hurt the economy is non-stop.
That's got a lot to do with corporate-owned media being lap-dogs and propagandists for big business.
Ironic isn't it? Considering that Canada is more well known for its environment than anything else.
As far as the Corporate thing goes, it's very unfortunate that selfishness overcomes sensibility. That's kind of why I posted the article above...dammit nothing's ever easy.
The short-sightedness of the corporations always amazes me. They could have turned Kyoto into a huge profit. Instead they fought it every step of the way and now they're behind the eight-ball.
the environmental issues go deeper than the corporate world. we are talking about a western history of viewing the world as its to do with as it pleases. Corporate mentality sprang from this.
Of course corporations are shortsighted. They answer to their shareholders on a quarterly basis.
Of course corporations are shortsighted. They answer to their shareholders on a quarterly basis.
That's true, but corporations have far more influence on government than they should and, through their control of the press, can exert huge influence over public opinion as well.
yes, corporations do yeild far too much influence. We need to find a way to change the underlying views of the people though, since corporations will not changes so long as the flocks keep mindlessly consuming whatever is served up.
I think proximity is a major issue with people's attitudes towards the environment. People that hear about the oildsands projects or clearcutting but have not seen first hand what is happening have no clear image of the scale of the destruction, but they do have a clear image of goods in the stores and a warm house. Apathy is easy when only one side is seen. I have seen first hand how fast people's opinions can change when they experience first hand the level of destruction and contamination that occurs outside of everyday sight.
I think proximity is a major issue with people's attitudes towards the environment. People that hear about the oildsands projects or clearcutting but have not seen first hand what is happening have no clear image of the scale of the destruction, but they do have a clear image of goods in the stores and a warm house. Apathy is easy when only one side is seen. I have seen first hand how fast people's opinions can change when they experience first hand the level of destruction and contamination that occurs outside of everyday sight.
"Liberal corruption issue"
I think this is the biggest issue facing us right now. If it wasn't for this factor, we would have a lot more stability in the government at the moment. It is also a huge issue in Quebec.
Daycare also.... I think this issue is defining how the two major parties look at governing in Canada.
I think this is the biggest issue facing us right now. If it wasn't for this factor, we would have a lot more stability in the government at the moment. It is also a huge issue in Quebec.
Daycare also.... I think this issue is defining how the two major parties look at governing in Canada.
That comes back to the media though. I have yet to see a news story on the environmental destruction that the oilsands are causing. It's not just Kyoto-wise either. Apparently you can see the huge scar from the space shuttle and huge amounts of water are being permanently lost. Outside of David Suzuki's show, you never hear about those things in the media though.
if you ever see what is happening in the oilsands and care even the tiniest bit about the earth you will be very very sick.
lets just say there is no real way to show this destruction other than to see it. All klien seems to care about is oil/gas royalies, and given he is retiring and will be either very old or dead by the time the royalies dry up, he just is like the corporations (very shortsighted).
lets just say there is no real way to show this destruction other than to see it. All klien seems to care about is oil/gas royalies, and given he is retiring and will be either very old or dead by the time the royalies dry up, he just is like the corporations (very shortsighted).
No doubt, but most Canadians are never going to go there and you won't see news stories on CTV or Global about it. If you see something on CBC, it will be on a program that appeals to environmentalists, not the average Canadian. Ask one of the Conservatives here what they think of David Suzuki.
The media has a responsibility to tell both sides of the story. They are using our airwaves. They certainly don't hesitate to give the small number of scientists in the pay of Exxon equal time to those who use real facts about global warming, so why aren't they reporting on what's going on in the oilsands?
The Caracal Kid posted:
Don't you see this as one or the other? It seems to me that if you are "creating more opportunities for private healthcare" then you aren't protecting public health care. It's been my experience that when you have a paralell system, that the public health care system looses it's best people to the better pay of the private system. This does indeed benefit the wealthier class that can afford the private care but the rest of us are left with poorer care. The main beneficiaries of course, are the insurance companies and corporate health-care providers. So how would this benefit the population as a whole?
I was impressed by some other issues that came out of this discussion too. I had no idea that anyone but me cared a fig about the environment! I'm glad to see that so many see it as an election issue. The other issue that slipped my mind was child day care. That is an important issue too.
While we are talking about the environment, this is why I'm concerned right now:
Study Shows Heat And Smog Are Killers
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/06/06/smog050606.html
Here is an excerpt from the posted article: The air pollution that causes smog was found to be the cause of 822 deaths a year in Toronto, 818 in Montreal, 368 in Ottawa and 258 in Windsor.
I added it up 822 + 818 + 368 + 258 = 2268
Not an abstract number but 2,268 Canadian people! That's almost as many as died in the attack on the World Trade Center.
No big headlines about this though, no war on terror declared, it just happens slowly and quietly in emergency rooms where young children, and old folks die because they can't breathe anymore.
How to fix the problem? We aren't the first to face air pollution problems; California cities had horrible smog long before it was fashionable in Toronto, so let's look at their solutions. Their big culprit was auto emissions, so they tightened up emission rules and the automakers listened!
I think another big culprit in Ontario is coal-burning power plants and high-sulpher diesel fuels. There are practical solutions to both of these problems too. We have to demand that policymakers make enviromental decisions in favor of our health.
That would mean utilizing proven wind turbine technology like the one on the Toronto waterfront instead of coal-burning power plants. The worst polluters in Ontario are the coal burning power plants.
Wind power isn't the only answer, sometimes the wind doesn't blow enough to provide the power we need, but it's a darn good supplement and excess power can be sold at a profit.
Another very promising source is all that water that flows everywhere in Canada. That's energy flowing right past us to the sea! We can tap into that by building giant hydro dams (proven) or invest in pilot plants to prove the feasibility of small in-the-stream turbines to generate electricity.
Doesn't it bother anyone that we are still practicing third-world policies and killing our people with pollution? The solutions are out there; we just have to demand that our politicians do their jobs and our business.
Don't you see this as one or the other? It seems to me that if you are "creating more opportunities for private healthcare" then you aren't protecting public health care. It's been my experience that when you have a paralell system, that the public health care system looses it's best people to the better pay of the private system. This does indeed benefit the wealthier class that can afford the private care but the rest of us are left with poorer care. The main beneficiaries of course, are the insurance companies and corporate health-care providers. So how would this benefit the population as a whole?
I was impressed by some other issues that came out of this discussion too. I had no idea that anyone but me cared a fig about the environment! I'm glad to see that so many see it as an election issue. The other issue that slipped my mind was child day care. That is an important issue too.
While we are talking about the environment, this is why I'm concerned right now:
Study Shows Heat And Smog Are Killers
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/06/06/smog050606.html
Here is an excerpt from the posted article: The air pollution that causes smog was found to be the cause of 822 deaths a year in Toronto, 818 in Montreal, 368 in Ottawa and 258 in Windsor.
I added it up 822 + 818 + 368 + 258 = 2268
Not an abstract number but 2,268 Canadian people! That's almost as many as died in the attack on the World Trade Center.
No big headlines about this though, no war on terror declared, it just happens slowly and quietly in emergency rooms where young children, and old folks die because they can't breathe anymore.
How to fix the problem? We aren't the first to face air pollution problems; California cities had horrible smog long before it was fashionable in Toronto, so let's look at their solutions. Their big culprit was auto emissions, so they tightened up emission rules and the automakers listened!
I think another big culprit in Ontario is coal-burning power plants and high-sulpher diesel fuels. There are practical solutions to both of these problems too. We have to demand that policymakers make enviromental decisions in favor of our health.
That would mean utilizing proven wind turbine technology like the one on the Toronto waterfront instead of coal-burning power plants. The worst polluters in Ontario are the coal burning power plants.
Wind power isn't the only answer, sometimes the wind doesn't blow enough to provide the power we need, but it's a darn good supplement and excess power can be sold at a profit.
Another very promising source is all that water that flows everywhere in Canada. That's energy flowing right past us to the sea! We can tap into that by building giant hydro dams (proven) or invest in pilot plants to prove the feasibility of small in-the-stream turbines to generate electricity.
Doesn't it bother anyone that we are still practicing third-world policies and killing our people with pollution? The solutions are out there; we just have to demand that our politicians do their jobs and our business.
how both work together:
one example is expensive testing equiptment which is not run 24 hours a day currently. Allow people to pay to use the equiptment and jump the cue. The money they pay is then put back into the public system.
I think basic and equal access to primary healthcare should be guarenteed to all, but that if people do not want aspects of what the public system provides then they should not have to fund it (but still be required to carry private equivilancies).
I agree with you completely on smog. The issue is changing people's attitudes. Governments have the power to do so with both rewards for being eco-friendly and fees for being eco-unfriendly. I look at the big cities and how they are run by the developers and it sickens me. We need to do everything to get people out of cars and physically active since doing this will reduce emissions, reduce sprawl, and improve health (through exercise and better air).
Unforunately, people have the "big house, 2 cars" mentality and we lack politicians at all levels with the leadership to do anything about it. I remember when the lower mainland talked about extra fees on vehicles based on size and so many people complained. Really sad in my view. I say make the car pay its own way. Put extra taxes on individual cars, curb sprawl, stop subsidizing gas.
one example is expensive testing equiptment which is not run 24 hours a day currently. Allow people to pay to use the equiptment and jump the cue. The money they pay is then put back into the public system.
I think basic and equal access to primary healthcare should be guarenteed to all, but that if people do not want aspects of what the public system provides then they should not have to fund it (but still be required to carry private equivilancies).
I agree with you completely on smog. The issue is changing people's attitudes. Governments have the power to do so with both rewards for being eco-friendly and fees for being eco-unfriendly. I look at the big cities and how they are run by the developers and it sickens me. We need to do everything to get people out of cars and physically active since doing this will reduce emissions, reduce sprawl, and improve health (through exercise and better air).
Unforunately, people have the "big house, 2 cars" mentality and we lack politicians at all levels with the leadership to do anything about it. I remember when the lower mainland talked about extra fees on vehicles based on size and so many people complained. Really sad in my view. I say make the car pay its own way. Put extra taxes on individual cars, curb sprawl, stop subsidizing gas.
i voted for the taxation issue, i just simply feel the government is pulling in way to much of our tax dollars. we have some of the highest income taxes if not the highest in the G8 which is not reasonable especially if we have a "good economy". what i want to see in canada going forward is a more powerful economy and to improve on related issues such as the decline in our productivity which is directaly related to quality of life.
Are the people paying willing to go in the middle of the night? Can they still be bumped for emergency cases? Why not run the equipment 24 hours a day in a universal system?
A two tiered system will inevitably take away from a public system, Caracal. The paid system would offer higher pay and more expensive facilities, attracting the best of the medical professionals.
There is also the matter of NAFTA. US insurers and providers would like nothing better than to gain access to a market of 30,000,000 well educated, fairly wealthy people. If we bring in a for-profit system, health care becomes a commodity and we are open to a Chapter 11 suit. That will force us into a clone of the US system.