+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Canadian election (/thread-8455.html)
Canadian election - yangman - 06-12-2004
Refrigerator,Jun 10 2004, 11:10 PM Wrote:Actually, in B.C. I remember the N.D.P (I think) spent a LOT of money on the 'Fast Ferries'...It was not only the huge spending but also the enourmous cost miscalculation that doomed the so called 'Fast Ferries' project that also dragged the NDP under as it sank. IIRC, the final cost for the fleet was significantly higher than what our beloved former provincial government had promised, not to mention the project was delayed for a very long time due to funding problems. Even after their completion, the new ferries were riddled with problems, often taken out of service due to mechanical malfunctions, and to add insult to injury, these "Fast Ferries" did not improve travel times at all.
Needless to say, the people were not happy about the NDP spending millions of tax payer's money on these floating junks, and the attitude did not improve much when they were auctioned off at roughly tenth of the total cost. (IIRC, mostly for use as scrap metal)
On the issues of voting, after some deliberation, I am now leaning towards voting for the Green Party. As mentioned, the chances of them actually winning the election is abysmal, but the extra votes might help them to at least be taken seriously.
Canadian election - Skandranon - 06-12-2004
Well, this election is kind of odd, in that my eventual vote, whatever it will be, will be done with great reluctance. I'm in the twenty-two percent of Canada that the latest Ipsos-Reid poll calls Undecided, but I'm leaning towards the Liberals for the same reason Shadow is; devil you know.
I don't like how they consistently mishandle money. And this has gone on for longer than AdScam and Gun Registry - Jane Stewart anyone? I don't like their hemming and hawing or their current position as the Amoeba Party of Canada, absorbing whatever position will get them elected. I think the Liberal party will do a weakly mediocre job as Canada's government party, institutional complacency and Paul Martin's demonstrated lack of vision ensuring that whatever happens, it won't be anything spectacular. And yet I'm still strongly considering giving my vote to them.
Ideologically, I'm somewhat comfortable with the Liberals, but that's more because of their rightward slide as opposed to any movement on my part. Yes, I'm conservative, and for a while that was Conservative, when our country had a party that was socially moderate and fiscally conservative. If they were still around, I'd be voting PC this time around, just like I did in the last election. Problem is, they aren't.
There have always been Red Tories and Blue Tories, and some of the PC governments of the past were made with the same kind of support that lies behind the current CPC. But I, among others like me, am becoming more and more suspicious that the new CPC has gone further right than we're comfortable with. At the same time, the Liberals are turning an interesting blue shade that seems, if not good, at least possible to swallow without gagging.
Quite frankly, I can't shake the nagging feeling that what I call the Green Team, aka the Reform Alliance, is in control over at the CPC offices, and Stephen Harper's selection as leader is almost peripheral to this observation. I was never happy about the socially conservative elements of the PC party, but there was no confusion about whether their social conservatism was personal or party policy. This one...is different. I wanted to like the Green Team, really, but every time one of their MPs blurted out another interview about why homosexuality should be recriminalized or moving immigrants to the back of the store, among other things, I knew I couldn't possibly give them a vote. The two MPs that shot their mouths off this election didn't do anything on that scale, but it feels a lot like Harper's stamping on his Green Team caucus to keep silent so that Ontario doesn't get spooked. I don't like the Liberals in office, but I prefer that to having the demons the current CPC leadership has bottled.
As for the NDP, well, they love to propose all sorts of things that sound good and appealing, but they leave out the issue of, well, paying for them. Does anyone really believe Jack Layton when he says he'll run a balanced budget? The NDP is allergic to the words surplus and balance. Wouldn't touch 'em with an eleven-foot pole.
Sigh. So, yes, undecided, probably Liberal, just because the monster that has risen from the ashes of my PC party is too ugly to vote for. If the Liberals do something else to annoy me between now and Election Day, I'll probably protest vote. Marijuana Party, or something.
Canadian election - SwissMercenary - 06-12-2004
YZilla,Jun 12 2004, 12:51 AM Wrote:Needless to say, the people were not happy about the NDP spending millions of tax payer's money on these floating junks, and the attitude did not improve much when they were auctioned off at roughly tenth of the total cost. (IIRC, mostly for use as scrap metal)Not to mention that they got a much better offer (About 3x of the amount they managed to sell them for), but they instead decided to auction them.
Canadian election - DeeBye - 06-12-2004
I'm not too sure who I'm voting for, but I'm definitely leaning towards the Liberals. Their daycare plan sounds tasty to me. I dunno if they can really meet their target of $7/day for daycare, but anything's better than what I'm shelling out right now.
Canadian election - ShadowHM - 06-16-2004
I watched the English language debate last night. (I tried to watch the French one, but my unilingual husband couldn't handle it, and kept groaning and demanding translations. My French language skills were not up to simultaneous comprehension and translation without losing track of the topics, so I gave up.)
I am still disappointed by the lack of vision and leadership on Health Care displayed by all the leaders. They all just want to throw money into the black hole of response to heath problems without addressing any form of prevention.
What surprised and amused me was the remarkable performance of Gilles Duceppe. He was quite candid about the fact that his party will never lead a government of Canada. What this did, in effect, was free him to stay completely on topic when issues were being discussed. He asked good questions and broached policy issues that were deflected and/or avoided by the other leaders. Damn, but I wish he was not a Separatist. His poise, clarity, logic and leadership would make a fine Prime Minister.
A good example was the issue of Defence spending. He was clear that a Foreign Policy discussion has to precede any impulses at Defence spending to ensure that we spent our money on initiatives that matched our Policy initiatives. That was quite the contrast to the other three, particularly Mr. Harper, who just wants to throw money in that general direction.
On the subject of Charter rights, the leaders all reiterated the same thoughts they had broached before, leaving me with the same concerns I expressed earlier in this thread.
Unfortunately, the debate left me with the same dilemma I mentioned before. The devil I know or the devils I am not sure about?
What were your impressions?
Canadian election - Chaerophon - 06-16-2004
Quote:They all just want to throw money into the black hole of response to heath problems without addressing any form of prevention.
Leyton did make some comments about prevention, and he then went after Harper about his plans to step out of Kyoto.
As far as the rest of it goes... the media out here in BC have been claiming a Conservative victory (big surprise), but on the whole, I think that the Conservative position on health care is what will eventually kill them in Ontario, where they aren't blinded by the same old "Western alienation" theme. This comment (or something like it) sent a chill through my spine:
Harper: "Why does it matter where the Canadian people are getting their health care from, as long as they're getting it..." Thinly veiled by the mask of "innovation", I think we all know what that really means.
Anyways, on the whole, although Martin isn't the most poised man under pressure, I'd have to say that I thought that on the majority of the issues, he managed to defend himself and to turn the tables on Harper, despite the former's very calm demeanour. The Conservatives are just too far away from the Canadian socio-economic "ethos" to be able to resist repeated body shots from the Liberals.
Canadian election - ShadowHM - 06-16-2004
Chaerophon,Jun 16 2004, 10:10 AM Wrote:Layton did make some comments about prevention, and he then went after Harper about his plans to step out of Kyoto.I am afraid that 'prevention' in Layton's books seems to be more about environmental issues than public education and public spending on ways to keep folks healthy (and cognisant of the 'costs' of their lifestyle choices).
Preventative medicine, to me, means preventing the illness instead of spending more money on ambulances, hospitals, diagnostic tools and 'waiting lists'. There are many ways we could all keep healthier that we have little incentive to use and less knowledge about than we should.
To use an example that I do know much about: Everyone screws up their back occasionally. Few go to a chiropractor to fix them and get counselling before they become chronic problems. Most take a few pain-killers or a lot of pain-killers and continue their lifestyles. Eventually, they need very expensive surgery and hospital time.
Similarly, nurse practitioners as screening agents and 'health consultants' for those who seek medical help would be a cost-effective means of heath care delivery. However, that is unpalatable for most of us. We seem to desire quick fixes (just give me a prescription) than actual lifestyle changes.
Please don't get me wrong. I actively support public funding for health costs, especially for catastrophic injury. But I really do worry about the costs of a system that does not promote individual responsibility for health choices.
Canadian election - Chaerophon - 06-16-2004
Ah ha! I see. Thanks.
Canadian election - Jester - 06-16-2004
The whole thing, both in French and in English, was more or less an exercise in "nuh-uh".
Paul Martin was getting taken to task for the various "boondoggles". His response: "Nuh-uh, please ask about something else."
Stephen Harper got it for the "hidden agenda", and what he actually believed and would let his party act on if elected (gay rights, Iraq, etc...). His response "Nuh-uh, we don't believe that, except maybe kinda possibly." Equally disturbing as his unwillingness to come to a definitive position on Mr. Martin's question of "where is all this money coming from?"
All around the table, all night, dodge dodge dodge. I didn't sit through the whole thing, but I got the impression that nobody was really willing to stand up and take the hit for anything.
Jester
Canadian election - Skandranon - 06-16-2004
ShadowHM,Jun 16 2004, 12:05 PM Wrote:What surprised and amused me was the remarkable performance of Gilles Duceppe. He was quite candid about the fact that his party will never lead a government of Canada. What this did, in effect, was free him to stay completely on topic when issues were being discussed. He asked good questions and broached policy issues that were deflected and/or avoided by the other leaders. Damn, but I wish he was not a Separatist. His poise, clarity, logic and leadership would make a fine Prime Minister.I was impressed by Duceppe as well, but part of that is because he had a much easier job. He had essentially nothing at stake, and since he and everyone watching knows that all he's there to do is to stick up for Quebec, he can't be the target of many criticisms that the other leaders are. You can't nail Duceppe on "good for Canada" or "bad for Canada" because he really doesn't give a damn about the RoC.
I thought Jack Layton did quite well, but that's a common theme with the NDP. I'd never vote for them, but they always seem to have a good selection of intelligent, articulate leaders who support absurd crackpot policies. That said, he did well mainly through sniping at everyone else and not through doing anything positive of his own.
Martin did extraordinarily poorly, I thought, which will make my eventual vote for him even more painful. He seemed nervous, off-balance, and singularly uninterested in debate. For every leader he debated with, they tried to explain their policy in response to Martin's question and he just talked right over them, shouting them down like a five-year old in a playground. When Stephen Harper talked about carriers, for example. Martin accused Harper of wanting to buy aircraft carriers. When Harper tried to explain that what he was planning to buy were hybrid carriers (LHA or CVH type vessels) Martin just jabbered at the camera "See, he's going to buy aircraft carriers!" Again, it felt like a kid. "See! See! He said so he said so he said so waaaaaaahhh!"
Perhaps it's the fact that I actually know what hybrid carriers are that made the point so senseless for me, but Martin evaded a couple of Layton and Duceppe's questions the same way, like throwing up the Charter and faking outrage on their "attack" on it when asked for his personal opinion.
Anyway, the major impression I got was a total lack of leadership on Paul Martin's part. That said, no other leader really stepped up to look like a leader, either. Still leaning Liberal, still with great distaste.
EDITED TO ADD: One point that I thought Martin made very well, which did not get anywhere near enough airplay, was when Layton was trying to talk over him, criticizing him for debt reduction. He said something along the lines of, "Not paying for debt reduction is like saying, 'We aren't going to pay for it, let's get our children to pay it for us.'" Very true, and for some reason completely ignored.
Canadian election - Skandranon - 06-16-2004
Chaerophon,Jun 16 2004, 03:10 PM Wrote:Harper: "Why does it matter where the Canadian people are getting their health care from, as long as they're getting it..." Thinly veiled by the mask of "innovation", I think we all know what that really means.I think we all think we know what that really means, and are getting it all wrong. I'm tired of the knee-jerk response to whenever he talks about private delivery of public services and the suspicion that it's going to lead to two tier health care. That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about provincial governments, being physically unable to provide services in good time, contracting private health care providers to provide the services that they can't. That's not two tier health care - that's one tier. Two tier health care means that the private citizen can pay with his or her own money to get care, and that's not the case - these public contractors will be paid from public money and as accessible to everyone as public services, since they're both paid from the same source. You will be no more able to "pull out the credit card" for private providers than you will be to do so for public providers. They'll both be paid out of public insurance - so there will be no, none, absolutely no difference in accessibility. Yes, private services will probably cost more, but we're not looking for efficiency so much as being able to reduce waiting times, and increasing the available pool of services is a good way to do that.
The argument goes that the existence of private providers will eventually lead to a two-tier system. That's a logically fallacious slippery-slope argument. That said, there's already a "stealth" two-tier system in place, with numerous private clinics offering advanced services. Paul Martin likes to pretend it doesn't exist so he doesn't have to do anything about it. That's the real threat to one-tier health care. If you hate anything with the word "private" involved, go with Jack Layton, who wants to make any private delivery of health care illegal.
Canadian election - Chaerophon - 06-16-2004
Quote:The argument goes that the existence of private providers will eventually lead to a two-tier system. That's a logically fallacious slippery-slope argument.
'Fraid not. It's a legitimate fear, particularly given the fact that he would render us all but dependent on private services with his tax cuts and massive military spending. But that's not really the problem. The problem is this:
Quote:contracting private health care providers to provide the services that they can't.
The federal government could quite easily cover health care expenses if it was not for the large falls in corporate tax rates over the past decade. The models of Scandinavian countries and much of the rest of Western Europe demonstrate the feasibility of maintaining corporate tax rates at levels conducive to a more redistributive state, with greater equity among citizens, while maintaining competitive economies. I could tramp out a parade of statistics exposing this fact, but I don't think that it is necessary. The argument that we NEED to bend further to private enterprises in the interests of our economy is ridiculous. Scaring off a few corporations thanks to slightly higher corporate income tax rates that would earn government coffers billions would be more in the interest of the public good than is readjusting our socioeconomic infrastructure in order to accomodate global corporations who have little to no interest in the equitable distribution of public services. Because our major media outlets are all owned by massive corporate interest, the bad press to arise from the flight of a few corporations would be sure to result in the voting out of power of the incumbent government thanks to the loss of our "competitive edge" vis a vis the Americans; however, the results of opening ourselves to the whims of global capital are only beneficial to the Canadian citizenry up until a point, at which time those socio-economic values that differentiate and identify us as a social collectivity are erased and the slippery-slope is engaged.
Sorry. I don't agree with you.
Canadian election - Skandranon - 06-16-2004
Chaerophon,Jun 16 2004, 08:36 PM Wrote:'Fraid not. It's a legitimate fear, particularly given the fact that he would render us all but dependent on private services with his tax cuts and massive military spending.
Now there's an unsupported statement. I admit that Harper's economics bother me, since he'll have to slash spending in a number of other areas, but he has committed to health care, and there frankly isn't any reason to believe the Liberals over any other party. Calling it a fact is way out of line.
Quote:The argument that we NEED to bend further to private enterprises in the interests of our economy is ridiculous.
I think you're talking to the wrong voter here. I don't like Harper's steep tax cuts either, part of the reason I'm probably voting Liberal. But we weren't talking about that, so stop conflating the issue. It's private delivery of public services, and we do this not because we can't afford it but because we can and there's a certain short-term efficiency factor to private delivery.
Quote:Scaring off a few corporations thanks to slightly higher corporate income tax rates that would earn government coffers billions would be more in the interest of the public good than is readjusting our socioeconomic infrastructure in order to accomodate global corporations who have little to no interest in the equitable distribution of public services.
I call foul on your attempt to redirect the subject.
Quote:Because our major media outlets are all owned by massive corporate interest, the bad press to arise from the flight of a few corporations would be sure to result in the voting out of power of the incumbent government thanks to the loss of our "competitive edge" vis a vis the Americans; however, the results of opening ourselves to the whims of global capital are only beneficial to the Canadian citizenry up until a point, at which time those socio-economic values that differentiate and identify us as a social collectivity are erased and the slippery-slope is engaged.
Exactly what is this, Maude Barlow?
No one's talking about opening anything up to "massive corporate interest". And the meaning of slippery-slope is an argument that says this will happen, and then this, and then this, without justifying the "and then" steps, which is what you continue to do. Nor are the "whims of global capital" involved in this discussion at all. The problem is that we cannot provide timely health-care services. The solution is providing more health care services with equal accessibility to all. The choices to reach this solution are to either build new facilities with new equipment and hire new people, or hiring a private company that already has people and equipment and facilities to do it for us. In the long term this costs us, but in the short term we get more health care much earlier and as long as it's funded out of the public purse everyone will get equal access. I'm not saying that it's a superior method, but it's not clearly inferior and certainly not the beginning of a chain-reaction that will destroy Canadian values. It's an alternate option worth exploring.
Quote:Sorry. I don't agree with you.
I don't think you even know what I'm arguing about, so I can't see how you can make that statement. The number one issue regarding partial privatization is accessibility; a clear second issue is the idea that private clinics drain qualified medical professionals away from the public system by offering better wages. Both of these things are issues well worth taking with partially privatized medicine. Instead, you've offered a rant I could take out of the WTO Protester's Handbook or a Council of Canadians publication having only peripheral relevance to the issue. I've read the CoC's stuff and we are not talking about letting the American HMOs into Canada, we are not talking about allowing richer people to pay for better health care. We're talking about an alternate method to deliver public services to make sure that all Canadians get better health care.
Canadian election - ShadowHM - 06-16-2004
Skandranon,Jun 16 2004, 02:31 PM Wrote:When Stephen Harper talked about carriers, for example. Martin accused Harper of wanting to buy aircraft carriers. When Harper tried to explain that what he was planning to buy were hybrid carriers (LHA or CVH type vessels) Martin just jabbered at the camera "See, he's going to buy aircraft carriers!" That point had me confused. Could you explain a bit more about what a hybrid carrier actually is?
...
Perhaps it's the fact that I actually know what hybrid carriers are that made the point so senseless for me
I still think Duceppe's point that our foreign policy objectives (and where our military fits into those objectives) should be fleshed out a bit more clearly before we spend military money.
But perhaps it is because I don't really know what a hybrid carrier does and why it would be advantageous to have some.
And, point well taken on your edit comment. I do not understand why debt reduction is not a priority. I voted for that short-lived and well-meaning Conservative government under Joe Clark back in 1982 (?) because that was the stated objective. Instead, the majority of our fellow Canadians decided that they really would rather have our children pay for our lifestyles now.
Canadian election - Chaerophon - 06-16-2004
Nope. No misdirection here. My point is simple: these "alternatives" aren't necessary, and importing American businesses to do the job is quite clearly not what the Canadian people would prefer.
We aren't operating in an environment "necessitated" by the economy. Instead, we are operating in an environment that our government and the influence of the neoliberal media has created for us: one of fiscal inevitability, one in which the public sector is "inefficient" and one in which any alteration in the tax structure, it is argued, would be to the ruin of the Canadian economy. I would take issue with any one of those statements. P3 is not about a desire to go private, but a fiscal "necessity" on the basis of "efficiency".
The federal government CAN afford to pay for health costs and infrastructure adjustments, particularly given our increased dependence on pharmaceuticals and alternative medicines that remain uncovered by the CHA. The Liberal claim that "we simply don't have the money" and the Conservative argument for augmentation by private services are not necessary "pragmatic" realities, but determinist rhetoric that refuses to acknowledge the obvious: the Canadian state does not "have" to retrench its self. It chooses to do so. We CAN pay for public health care that is efficient and effective. Shrouding themselves in the mantle of necessity allows the Conservative turn to private services to appear pragmatic when in reality it reflects the rhetoric of "inevitability" that has robbed us of our effective public health care system in the first place. I realize that our health care WILL be reformed and that that reformation will be in the direction of increased fee-for-services and privatization. Neoliberal ideology has come to necessitate itself, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it, and it doesn't mean that I can't hold politicians, rather than "global forces" or "economics" responsible.
Note to you: we've been on the slope ever since NAFTA. If you can't see that, then you're blind. If we polled Canadians, asking them whether we would rather cut corporate income tax or health care, I think that the answer would be obvious. Canadians always side with health care. Unfortunately, the citizenry was never given such a choice, and now the rhetoric flies so thick that no party in power HAS a choice. THAT'S the point. You can mock me and this point to death, but it remains a fact. Canadians DID NOT WANT a retrenchment nor a privatization of their health care system, but they have consistently been told that they don't have a choice, when, in fact, this has not been the case, at all.
Canadian election - ShadowHM - 06-17-2004
There seems to be misunderstanding all over on the issues involved with publicly funded health care.
We Canadians like to vote with knee-jerk promptness every time certain spectres are raised.
We fear a two tier system, wherein the rich can get services while the poor cannot - where the rich can 'jump the queue'. But a two tier system is not the same thing as a system where there are services offered for profit. We (in general) seem to equate the two, and you certainly seem to do so.
Most of the front line health care we already get is via the private sector. There are very few salaried physicians in this country. Most are paid on a 'fee for service' basis, and they do indeed do so with the expectation of personal profit. In fact, that profit is their income. Those fees are, in Ontario, paid by the province. And that is the criteria that I think Skandranon is applying. Who pays?
Furthermore, there are all manner of other services that are offered by the private sector to private citizens or to hospitals and paid for by the province. This is not a bad thing. I am perplexed by the knee jerk responses I see to this topic. There is, to be blunt, a certain amount of bureaucratic cost involved in virtually all forms of publicly (government) administered services. There are all kinds of ways and means in which the private sector can and should be involved.
I also take exception to your phrasing here:
Quote:Shrouding themselves in the mantle of necessity allows the Conservative turn to private services to appear pragmatic when in reality it reflects the rhetoric of "inevitability" that has robbed us of our effective public health care system in the first place.
Shrouding themselves in the mantle of necessity? That necessity is, as I explained in an earlier post in this thread, a product of 'ambulance thinking' as opposed to 'preventative medicine' thinking. If we don't change our paradigms of heath care, it will be necessary to make hard choices.
Canadian election - Skandranon - 06-17-2004
Quote:That point had me confused. Could you explain a bit more about what a hybrid carrier actually is?
Certainly.
There's a few naval terms I have to introduce at this point. CV means carrier, and CVN means nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. These are the primary vessels of the American navy. Stephen Harper has not suggested we get these, as he as well as everyone else knows that they're well out of our price range; we don't even begin to have the aircraft to put on even one of these. For another, these ships mainly carry strike aircraft and support. We don't have a need to have air superiority fighters or strike aircraft, because our foreign policy is unlikely to get us into open conflict with an air-armed foreign power that we need to bomb.
What Harper was suggesting was to get a pair of LHDs. The letters stand for Landing ship, Helicopter, Dock. The US Navy calls them Amphibious Assault Ships, which is a bit of a misnomer.
These ships do look like small aircraft carriers, but their purpose is different. They don't carry planes. They could carry vertical take off and landing planes, but we don't have any of those. What they'd carry in our case would be helicopters, as well as a large detachment of troops. Paul Martin was correct when he said that the fastest way to get soldiers to an area is by aircraft, but the safest way of getting them into a dangerous area is to use one of these ships. Helicopters (our current helicopters are no good, but all parties have said that replacing them is a priority) provide support, lifting soldiers into critical areas as well as moving equipment from the ship to the shore. It's also much less expensive to move soldiers and vehicles in this manner.
It's notable that the US Navy's own page for this type of craft emphasizes the humanitarian capabilities of this type of ship. A helicopter carrier is just as good at delivering supplies and aid, and it does so, once again, much less expensively than many flights.
Finally, a hybrid carrier offers a mobile command post from which helicopters containing troops can exert influence and keep the peace. From Kabul we know that without such a capability we have to establish a base and sit on it, our influence limited by how far outside the city we can go. In nations with a significant coast, such as Haiti, a hybrid carrier lets the same number of troops project influence over a much larger area.
That said, clearly Harper's vision of foreign policy is a little more involved than Paul Martin's. Both are perfectly valid choices, and it's up to the voter to pick which one appeals more. Martin envisions going in after the US/UK/UN or whatever militaries have cleared away all opposition and engaging in "nation-building" by training police and building institutions. Harper, with a more dangerous view of security, envisions troops going in facing some kind of opposition. He also wants our peacekeepers to be more active.
In fairness to Martin's position, Haiti is a good example why we should follow his plan. The populace is quiet and it mostly needs training and institution building. On the other side, Afghanistan is a good example of how limited our influence can be (no more than a bit outside Kabul) without a mobile capability to extend it. I'm undecided on the issue myself; Harper hasn't completely convinced me that we do need this ability.
There are good reasons to pick either approach. What really annoyed me was how Martin targetted it in the debate. Instead of bringing up the perfectly sound reasons why we might not want one, he kept shouting "aircraft carrier", knowing that it would instantly make people imagine a giant American style nuclear carrier that we can't afford and can't use. There was a good and strong basis to argue against Harper, and I'm disappointed that he chose to, essentially, scare people off the position without giving them a chance.
Canadian election - Skandranon - 06-17-2004
Chaerophon,Jun 16 2004, 10:20 PM Wrote:My point is simple: these "alternatives" aren't necessary, and importing American businesses to do the job is quite clearly not what the Canadian people would prefer.My point is similarly simple. Importing American businesses to do the job doesn't necessarily follow from what Harper said. In fact, it doesn't follow at all from what he said unless you're predisposed to a certain mindset.
Please. Read Shadow's post about confusion. Please try to understand what the issue is.
Canadian election - Chaerophon - 06-17-2004
Quote:Importing American businesses to do the job doesn't necessarily follow from what Harper said.
I'm well aware of the issues involved, but thank you for your less derogative tone. As per the quote, I'm afraid that it eventually will. It's very simple. Open up medical services to the private sphere and, under NAFTA, it officially becomes illegal to place restrictions on who can deliver them. We won't get it back, and it is a final step. There's no going back if it doesn't work. The possibilities aren't outweighed by the potential benefits. It has nothing to do with mindset, but it sure does have everything to do with the realities of our free capital agreement with the United States, and I'm not sure that I want my services provided by American firms if they can be as well provided by a sovereign entity, entirely under Canadian control, which is, in fact, the case.
Canadian election - ShadowHM - 06-17-2004
Chaerophon,Jun 16 2004, 11:31 PM Wrote:I'm not sure that I want my services provided by American firms if they can be as well provided by a sovereign entity, entirely under Canadian control, which is, in fact, the case.I am sorry, Chaerophon. I just don't get the problem.
If we have private corporations delivering health care services, they will be subject to all manner of restrictions and rules about how they deliver it. (In point of fact, we already do have that already. Many, if not most nursing homes are privately owned.)
They would be staffed by Canadians, because we have rules about who can work here. They would have to hit the same standards of care and qualifications as any firm bidding to provide these services. They would be paid exactly the same fees for service as set by the relevant province they operate in. Further, we would still have the same right to choose our health care providers as we do now.
So why do we care who 'owns' the corporation? Please clarify.