WAP Leadership race down to two...

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Gozer

The argument that is usually made is usually very emotional, where people don't want unfairness or inhumanity.

Similar to the equally shirll "government can't do anything right" argument argument that is also borne from emotion.

Fair enough. As it happens, I do think that it's immoral for a wealthy developed nation to not provide basic health care to all its citizens.

But I guess for me that's only one of about 90 reasons to not go the route that the U.S. has. Really, only one interest group benefits--and that's the health care industry that gets to suckle at the government teat while standing on the shoulders of the middle class. It's a nice deal for them, but horrible for just about everyone else. In all honesty, a 100% private system would probably be far better.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Universal, single-payer health care is more efficient. I await actual evidence to the contrary.

Wait, you're saying I have to provide evidence to prove what you said wrong?

Ball is in your court.

My evidence that the two-tiered system works BETTER is based on the findings by the WHO.

I give them the benefit of the doubt that they calculated certain aspects of efficiency as well. Because like I said, which you ignored, a health care system that isn't efficient would in the end be unsatisfactory to the people, and part of the way the WHO measured the results was in how satisfied the people were with their health care.

I also find it quite comical how you initially disputed the list, in fact you said you don't accept it, and then when you look pretty stupid for having done so, you start whining about efficiency because the WHO never mentions it specifically in their report.

If you actually want to say that just because France has the best health care system in the world it doesn't necessarily mean its an efficient system, well there is no further point in arguing with you.

My point, from the START has been that if 7 out of the top 10 countries are using a two-tiered system it would be STUPID of us to ignore that and continue whining that two-tiered health care sucks because I lived in the US for X amount of time and their health care sucks.

I don't think I need to tell you how stupid that argument is.

Two-tiered health care works BETTER. The WHO PROVES that. And if there is a problem with efficiency in a certain country, then you look somewhere else where they DO have an efficient system and try to incorporate parts of their system into ours.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Fair enough. As it happens, I do think that it's immoral for a wealthy developed nation to not provide basic health care to all its citizens.

But I guess for me that's only one of about 90 reasons to not go the route that the U.S. has. Really, only one interest group benefits--and that's the health care industry that gets to suckle at the government teat while standing on the shoulders of the middle class. It's a nice deal for them, but horrible for just about everyone else. In all honesty, a 100% private system would probably be far better.

Here you go again with 'the route that the US has gone.'

Nobody wants to go that route.

I find it hilarious that its the only defense that you have against a two-tiered system.

Lets all ignore all those other countries that have a two-tiered system that works great and focus on the US.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I would not consider those two terms interchange-able.

That came from the same site too.

Point is that efficiency is not defined by any single definition. And health care efficiency would be decided by a slew of different functions.

Cost, access, quality, satisfaction....they all lead to an efficient health care system.

And one thing most of those top countries have in common? They preform very well in all those areas.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Finally, we agree. Canada's health care system is imperfect. Others are better. The U.S. is far worse.

So why is it then "shrill" to say that we don't want to be like them? If you want a French-style universal system, then start drawing up the plans; I'm all ears.

Please show me one person on CP that has EVER said that they want a US style system?

You're the one who keeps trying to say that if we go to a two-tiered system, we'll turn into the US.

The rest of us are probably looking at European countries. Countries that use two-tiered systems that WORK a hell of a lot better than what the US has. And most of us probably want such a system.

[Gozer]

I want a US style system.

Azure convinced me.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I want a US style system.

Me too.

Death panels are the bomb!

[Resolute 14]

We're already in a two tier system. The question is not one of making something that doesn't exist, but of making it more efficient. And to bring this debate somewhat back on topic, that is one of the key points Danielle Smith made during the forum: That there were things the province could do within the confines of the Canada Health Act that would help. This isn't a case of dismantling what we have, but improving it within the framework the feds have created.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Seriously? Wow.

Well he spent 28+ days in Calgary Glenmore, so the name Diane came up a few times....

So long as he gets my name right when it matters....



First half of videos are up.....

http://www.wildrosealliance.ca/calgary-forum-video

Rest should follow soon.

[starseed]

After watching those videos, I have a really good idea why Willerton dropped out. Yeesh.

Dyrholm came off like your standard crudball politician, but Smith seemed really genuine, intelligent, and very well informed.

[Azure]

Dyrholm is a smart guy. But, he's too hardcore for me. And as an extension doesn't come across as overly intelligent.

I think I love Danielle Smith.

[Ford Prefect]

FWIW, if Smith wins I almost certainly will be voting WAP next election, If Dryholm wins I almost certainly won't be. That seems to be consistent sentiment among the people I talk politics with.

[Bownesian]

After reading this thread and following up on the candidates' websites, I might buy a membership just to vote for Smith. I think that under her leadership and with her at the debates now that Hinman won, there'll be a real chance at a breakthrough next election and a return to competetiveness in Alberta politics.

[First Lady]

Great to see some people considering the WAP as an option.

Remember our office is 100% staffed by CP'ers...
Just in case you need one more reason to motivate you to shell out $10.00.

403-769-0999
1-888-262-1888

Monday to Friday.... guaranteed you will reach a fellow CP'er on the phone.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Azure

Dyrholm is a smart guy. But, he's too hardcore for me. And as an extension doesn't come across as overly intelligent.

I think I love Danielle Smith.

Dyrholm seems like your typical small-town idiot. With his own strange views on Canadian federalism and social liberties, combined with his creepy connections to the ultra-creep Craig Chandler, if he wins the leadership, it would kill the party.

That said, if Danielle Smith wins, WAP will be my choice next election.

[Azure]

Smith talking about firearm policy.

http://www.daniellesmith.ca/?p=420

[peter12]

Nm

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Azure

Smith talking about firearm policy.

http://www.daniellesmith.ca/?p=420

I don't really understand her position. The firearms registry was a massive problem because it costed so much money. I don't think now that the database is set up, it's really costing anything anymore. There is nothing keeping people from legally acquiring and using firearms. You need a license to use one and if you buy one, it gets registered. The registry is not gun control, it's a registry.

You need a license to drive a car and if you own a car, the car needs to be registered. I don't see people up in arms when the have to pay every year to register a vehicle, why do people get so upset when a gun gets registered for ever for free? I have sold and registered hundreds of guns and people talk tough about the registry until they see it actually done. They don't have to do or pay anything and it only takes a few minutes.

The changes I would make is to grand father in guns that are owned by farmers and ranchers and as long as they are a tool to be used on the farm and not taken off the property for hunting or target shooting they are fine. Just like if you had an old truck for farm use.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Barnes

I don't really understand her position. The firearms registry was a massive problem because it costed so much money. I don't think now that the database is set up, it's really costing anything anymore. There is nothing keeping people from legally acquiring and using firearms. You need a license to use one and if you buy one, it gets registered. The registry is not gun control, it's a registry.

You need a license to drive a car and if you own a car, the car needs to be registered. I don't see people up in arms when the have to pay every year to register a vehicle, why do people get so upset when a gun gets registered for ever for free? I have sold and registered hundreds of guns and people talk tough about the registry until they see it actually done. They don't have to do or pay anything and it only takes a few minutes.

The changes I would make is to grand father in guns that are owned by farmers and ranchers and as long as they are a tool to be used on the farm and not taken off the property for hunting or target shooting they are fine. Just like if you had an old truck for farm use.

Its because one day the government might come in and take away everyones guns...just like they could do with cars. I have no real idea on how that would be accomplished since we already don't have enough of a police force, but that is a whole other discussion!

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its because one day the government might come in and take away everyones guns...just like they could do with cars. I have no real idea on how that would be accomplished since we already don't have enough of a police force, but that is a whole other discussion!

True, true. We registered for our wedding and now the government could come and take away my cappuccino machine.