2011 Canadian Election Thread

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You can't leave stupid at home.

The Science Minister doesn't believe in evolution and is a chiropractor.

It's like having a Transportation Minister who believes airplanes are controlled by angels, and he is qualified for the job because he used to be a bus driver.

Which of his policies particulary upset you?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by transplant99

This should add some fuel to the campaign....

http://www.canada.com/health/Canada+...#ixzz1JuWteaz3

I dont really understand how you can make the system cheaper by using public funds to pay private insurance companies. One stat I saw coming out of the US pegged the profit and overhead at the insurance companies at 30%.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I don't think disqualifying people based upong their personal beliefs is appropriate, as long as they don't let those beliefs interfere in their work.

Jean Chretien was staunchly against same sex marriage for years and his party worked to normalize it over time.

The third world maternal health initiative is really quite a stretch to say it was influenced by far right religious beliefs.

What other beliefs do you think should preclude people from taking public office and who should decide which ones are appropriate?

Its not about exclusion at all, its about tolerance. I don't want barriers for people set up because of the beliefs of a few trying to promulgate their own.

I wouldn't disqualify anyone based on their religious beliefs, but as soon as those religious beliefs interfere with the beliefs of others then I would vote against them. Let me be clear on that: they should still have the right to run and be elected, I just wouldn't support them personally.

[Ford Prefect]

Snicker ... say jacklayton really fast a few times.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Which of his policies particulary upset you?

Ha. Touche!

Really though, their whole "ignore the science on climate change" policy upsets me.

I don't know if this guy has anything to do with it though. He should, considering it is science, after all.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I dont really understand how you can make the system cheaper by using public funds to pay private insurance companies. One stat I saw coming out of the US pegged the profit and overhead at the insurance companies at 30%.

You can make it more efficient and reduce backlogs by allowing more people to buy private insurance.

Sure they might get better care, but the public plan should only cover more or less basic health care anyways.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

You can make it more efficient and reduce backlogs by allowing more people to buy private insurance.

Sure they might get better care, but the public plan should only cover more or less basic health care anyways.

What is the difference between "health care" and "basic health care"?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What is the difference between "health care" and "basic health care"?

IMO, basic coverage should include your family doctor style health care, and beyond that, major surgeries. I'm not quite sure where you draw the line, but dental is private, and things like a massage therapist, chiropractor, etc, etc...are all private, and aided by public money.

I think people should be allowed to buy better coverage if they deem it necessary. Similar to how we can buy Blue Cross. Or, we can just choose to pay for our pills out of the pocket. Or risk paying for an ambulance ride outright.

The path we're on right now can't be sustained, so something needs to change.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

IMO, basic coverage should include your family doctor style health care, and beyond that, major surgeries. I'm not quite sure where you draw the line, but dental is private, and things like a massage therapist, chiropractor, etc, etc...are all private, and aided by public money.

I think people should be allowed to buy better coverage if they deem it necessary. Similar to how we can buy Blue Cross. Or, we can just choose to pay for our pills out of the pocket. Or risk paying for an ambulance ride outright.

The path we're on right now can't be sustained, so something needs to change.

I am against private health. I know that dental is private, and frankly I think that is a short-coming in the system. I would love to see that nationalized as well.

I'm not in favour of making it necessary for people to pay for more insurance for care. I don't see how that makes things more efficient, and it absolutely costs society more than it otherwise would.

If this becomes an election issue (where there is an open and frank discussion about healthcare, not just platitudes from the parties) I think that would be great. It might actually differentiate the parties a little bit (I actually think that policy-wise there are not major differences between the Liberals and Conservatives in their election platforms).

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

I am against private health. I know that dental is private, and frankly I think that is a short-coming in the system. I would love to see that nationalized as well.

I think as long as there is a basic standard in healthcare that is maintained, private health can be a good thing and should at least be explored. I guess this is an example of why there are no longer any ideas in politics, because people are afraid of ideas.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I think as long as there is a basic standard in healthcare that is maintained, private health can be a good thing and should at least be explored. I guess this is an example of why there are no longer any ideas in politics, because people are afraid of ideas.

I'm not afraid of ideas. I just don't think that paying a private corporation for a service is going to save any money, which would be the main point, right?

I love the afraid of ideas shot though.....you might be surprised to learn that although you're clearly voting for Harper and I'm probably not that we'd likely agree on a lot more than we disagree on.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Azure

IMO, basic coverage should include your family doctor style health care, and beyond that, major surgeries. I'm not quite sure where you draw the line, but dental is private, and things like a massage therapist, chiropractor, etc, etc...are all private, and aided by public money.

I think people should be allowed to buy better coverage if they deem it necessary. Similar to how we can buy Blue Cross. Or, we can just choose to pay for our pills out of the pocket. Or risk paying for an ambulance ride outright.

The path we're on right now can't be sustained, so something needs to change.

The problem with this is that while it decreases demand for the public system, it also decreases resources available to the public system (doctors, nurses etc.) and possibly also increases the per-unit costs of those resources.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by J pold

Fantastic article that sums up my feelings:

I am Albertan and I want to be electorally stroked

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1987515/

Simple solution: stop voting Conservative! (Need to give the parties an incentive to try.)

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not afraid of ideas. I just don't think that paying a private corporation for a service is going to save any money, which would be the main point, right?

I love the afraid of ideas shot though.....you might be surprised to learn that although you're clearly voting for Harper and I'm probably not that we'd likely agree on a lot more than we disagree on.

Believe it or not, my "afraid of ideas" shot wasn't directed towards you. What I meant is that someone suggests looking at private healthcare and suddenly it is spun as that person scrapping Canada's universal healthcare and basically murdering your family. I think the most successful candidate is the one that will come in and tell everybody that he isn't going to do anything different, because in Canada, we seem to prefer the devil we know.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I think the most successful candidate is the one that will come in and tell everybody that he isn't going to do anything different, because in Canada, we seem to prefer the devil we know.

Nope, the most successful candidate is the one that's going to cut taxes, raise spending, and pay down the debt.

[FlamesAddiction]

I used to be anti-private health care, but I am starting to change my tune.

I have moved around a lot in my adult life and because of that, I can never seem to get a family doctor. The waiting lists are just too long. I make enough money that I could afford to pay for it, but that option isn't readily available in most places. Waiting in a walk-in clinic for 5 hours during a work day isn't an option either. I've let a couple of health issue slide because of the logistics of our health care.

I'd love for the NDP to come in and solve it with more doctors and all that, but I don't understand how that happens. Do we invade Cuba and kidnap their doctors? My heart wants to support the NDP, but my head won't let me.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not afraid of ideas. I just don't think that paying a private corporation for a service is going to save any money, which would be the main point, right?

Not sure how many times you've been in hospitals, but any time I have there have been way too many employees/nurses/doctors just sitting around chatting instead of serving patients. The wait times could be decreased substantially if they would actually be doing something.

The last time my step-son broke his heel, we had to wait in the waiting room for easily 4 hours, then after going into the room had to wait yet another 30-40 minutes to even have someone come talk to us. In the meantime, nurses/etc were sitting at their desks outside the rooms chatting about their upcoming weekend. Once there was a break in the conversation, someone came in (no idea if it was one of the talkers) to get our information so we could wait some more for the doctor.

There needs to be a whole culture shift... and keeping the status quo isn't going to do that.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by SebC

The problem with this is that while it decreases demand for the public system, it also decreases resources available to the public system (doctors, nurses etc.) and possibly also increases the per-unit costs of those resources.

(1) I'd rather have privately run but publicly funded care. There is incentive to be efficient while still maintaining the current availability.

(2) If the efficiency and effectiveness of those 'units' increases, I would have no problem in paying more for it.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'd love for the NDP to come in and solve it with more doctors and all that, but I don't understand how that happens. Do we invade Cuba and kidnap their doctors? My heart wants to support the NDP, but my head won't let me.

I'm like you, but without the moving part (until recently). I haven't had a family doctor since mine retired probably 10 years ago.

I'd love to hear *how* the NDP is going to hire more doctors when it is up to the provinces to do the hiring, pay for them, and manage them. Are they going to tell the provinces that they have to maintain a count of 'x'? Not sure that would fly anywhere in this country, let alone in Quebec.

[FlamesAddiction]

It's too bad that our election ads can't be more like the ones in Spain.

http://www.odditycentral.com/funny/p...arguments.html