Why We should Say "No NDP".

[Jay]

U.K. curbs care for fat people


http://tinyurl.com/au8dx

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Why We should Say "No

We should limit care for those who support anti-environmental initiatives.

 

[Jay]

We wouldn't expect anything less from socialists.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Why We should Say "No

How come conservatives hate conservation so much?

 

[Colpy]

It's Interesting that this project has been conceived in Alberta an it actually is not part any private type system, this should make things a little interesting:Surgery wait times drop dramatically under Alberta pilot project

Hey, if you can make the public system work better by re-organization, I'm all for it.

My problem with the Canada Health Act is that it is an area of provincial responsibility taken over by Ottawa by bribery, and they ain't even paying the grease anymore, at least no where close to the 50% they paid originally.

And, after the gun registry, HRDC, adscam, etc etc, I simply don't trust the feds to spend my money. I find it hard to believe any government could do ANYTHINg cheaper, or even at twice the cost private enterprise could.

 

[Jay]

My problem with the Canada Health Act is that it is an area of provincial responsibility taken over by Ottawa by bribery, and they ain't even paying the grease anymore, at least no where close to the 50% they paid originally.

Hmmm, wonder what they are doing with that bribery money they aren't paying out?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Why We should Say "No

Ah, more baseless smears showing a lack of integrity fueled by a lack of knowledge.

 

[neocon-hunter]

Re: RE: Why We should Say "No

How come conservatives hate conservation so much?

Because they are backed by big oil, big auto and other large corperations that donate to their cause. They are afraid they lose money as money not the environment or people is all they care about. They have too much power and influence and should not be allowed to donate to political parties.

 

[Colpy]

U.K. curbs care for fat people


http://tinyurl.com/au8dx

Now this is outrageous.

And, of course, these people probably have no recourse but the public system.

Socialized medicine as a form of societal control. Great!

I have been in arguments with people dozens of times about bicycle helmet laws, motorcycle helmet laws, gun laws, seat belt laws, anti-smoking laws, anti-Trans fats laws only to have them play the trump card: "WEll, as long as we pay for their health care, we have the right ........"

Bullshit.

If we are to have socialized medicine, then it must treat all, no matter what the lifestyle.

If socialized medicine is to be used as a club to control us, I say DUMP IT. I'll get along without.

I notice they weren't refusing knee surgery to joggers were they? Joggers are, of course, politically correct while they wreck their knees.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Because they are backed by big oil, big auto and other large corperations that donate to their cause. They are afraid they lose money as money not the environment or people is all they care about. They have too much power and influence and should not be allowed to donate to political parties.

That's bad enough in Conservative Party, but why is conservative Jim Harris, a former Mulroney aide, running the Green Party?

 

[no1important]

RE: Why We should Say "No

Thats the million dollar question. Maybe he is an an opportunist? But yet he never chose a party that could get him elected. I dunno, maybe he had a falling out with the Conservatives and they never wanted him to run? I dunno, maybe he likes the attention and bragging rights of being a party leader?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Why We should Say "No

Considering the direction he's been taking the party in and his ties to corporations, I wonder if his purpose isn't more nerfarious than that.

As leader of the Greens he has a lot of influence. By moving the Green Party away from their roots and making them corporate-friendly, he protects the same corporations that he depends on for his income. It's a huge conflict of interest.

 

[Jay]

U.K. curbs care for fat people


http://tinyurl.com/au8dx

Now this is outrageous.

And, of course, these people probably have no recourse but the public system.

Socialized medicine as a form of societal control. Great!

I have been in arguments with people dozens of times about bicycle helmet laws, motorcycle helmet laws, gun laws, seat belt laws, anti-smoking laws, anti-Trans fats laws only to have them play the trump card: "WEll, as long as we pay for their health care, we have the right ........"

Bullshit.

If we are to have socialized medicine, then it must treat all, no matter what the lifestyle.

If socialized medicine is to be used as a club to control us, I say DUMP IT. I'll get along without.

I notice they weren't refusing knee surgery to joggers were they? Joggers are, of course, politically correct while they wreck their knees.

Welcome to the machine.

 

[Jay]

You might appreciate this too.

http://www.ndp.ca/ndp-drupal/files/E-41-RS-PR-BG-Romanow-article.pdf

 

[Reverend Blair]

This gathering of evidence also closely examined those schemes that sought to graft the
private onto the public. Today, this is described as the so-called “Third-Way,” neither
public nor private, but a mixture of both. It has arisen because we are told that no one
wants the American model. However, the proposed ‘Third Way’ model has been tried
and found wanting.
Don’t simply take my word for it. Commenting on this particular type of health system,
Ted Marmor explains that:
…the experience of private supplementary insurance in Europe is that parallel financing
persistently raises questions of fairness. They are a never ending source of complaint as
illustrated by the controversies over pay beds in British NHS hospitals, private insurance
coverage of co-payments in France, and the exiting from the public insurance “pool” of
those in Germany’s top 10 percent of income earners.15[15]
Still, proponents of private delivery advocate more of it, citing European — often nonexistent
hybrid ― examples.
The evidence that mixing and matching private and public with respect to the payment
and delivery of health care services leads to the conclusion that, based on economics,
health outcomes, and fundamental values, this type of system is very unlikely to succeed.
As Marmor, who has studied these models, cautions: “evaluating Canada’s ban involves
matters of judgement about what is fair and less costly, not what is simply possible to
do.”16[16]