2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I blame the electorate for that. Everyone is looking for something to be wooed into voting a certain way. We have such spending sacred cows that any party proposing scaling back entitlements will get crucified.

We need an adult conversation about health care, CPP, EI and the like. We need to present fairly to Canadians that the next two to three decades our society is going to age dramatically and put excessive strain on everything. Even if a party proposed slashing the health budget, at least then maybe we as a country could get together and hash out exactly what we're willing to live with as far as delivery and funding goes.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1998242/

I totally agree, and specifically with the point about entitlement. Part of my disdain for the CPC is that while they claim to be fiscal conservatives though you have numerous comments about CPC MPs "delivering" for their constituents and the like....which is basically to do with pork barrel politics. Today there was a senator in Newfoundland giving cash away to ridings where the CPC thinks that they can win (repairing areas hit by a hurricane), while not repairing the damages done in Liberal ridings. The comment from him was "We can't control where it rains." True enough....and frankly that is the lowest of the low in politics.

I know, I know...the Liberals did that as well. Well before you chime in with that justification let me point out that its equally as wrong, and I hate it on either side!

We absolutely need an adult conversation about the topics above....and none of the parties are going to have it. I worry about the impact of the baby boomers on those of us younger; the CPC platform of commiting to tax breaks and increased spending well in advance is not helpful though.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

By increasing the number of training spaces in universities. Though since Health Care is largely a provincial responsibility they still have to persuade the provinces to actually hire the extra nurses.

I've got to hand it to the NDP - while I don't agree with their fiscal policies, their platform is actually very well laid out compared to the other parties, which may explain part of their current success. The Conservative and Liberal platforms are pretty vague on a lot of stuff. The Greens are actually the worst in my opinion - even on environment their platform is lacking in detail.

They propose to pay for their proposals through 3 main methods:

- Introduction of carbon cap and trade (which they have now backed off from as unfeasible in the near term due to constitutional problems)
- Increasing corporate tax rates (which just about every economist in the country has indicated will not increase tax revenues)
- Eliminating 'oil sands subsidies' (which are not subsidies at all just changes in accounting practises allowing longer amortization)

Even the CBC has shredded the NDP platform as poorly thought out. Basically the NDP platform is filled with promises for everyone with no explanation of how we will pay for them.

But we all know how we will pay for them... huge debts followed by huge taxes and decades of ######ed economic growth. That's the NDP platform in a nutshell.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...-platform.html

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

They propose to pay for their proposals through 3 main methods:

- Introduction of carbon cap and trade (which they have now backed off from as unfeasible in the near term due to )
- Increasing corporate tax rates (which just about every economist in the country has indicated will not increase tax revenues)
- Eliminating 'oil sands subsidies' (which are not subsidies at all just changes in accounting practises allowing longer amortization)

Even the CBC has shredded the NDP platform as poorly thought out. Basically the NDP platform is filled with promises for everyone with no explanation of how we will pay for them.

But we all know how we will pay for them... huge debts followed by huge taxes and decades of ######ed economic growth. That's the NDP platform in a nutshell.

That proposal is also advocated by the Liberals and your beloved CPC though. Its a bad deal for Alberta and the west....but because all of the parties are working to get votes in the East its totally ignored out here.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

By increasing the number of training spaces in universities.

And the proof that increasing training spaces creates more competent, qualified doctors interested in going in to family practice is where?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

And the proof that increasing training spaces creates more competent, qualified doctors interested in going in to family practice is where?

Not only that, but what's to say that they even stay in Canada once they graduate?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Yes, but making it easier for doctors and nurses from other countries re-qualify.

As long as the standard of care is not reduced, this is ok. There is a general feeling that the quality of health case is higher here than many of the places where these doctors are coming from. If they are of the same quality that we already have, then I agree that removing barriers to qualify them should be done. If not, then re-training needs to occur.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

They propose to pay for their proposals through 3 main methods:

- Introduction of carbon cap and trade (which they have now backed off from as unfeasible in the near term due to constitutional problems)
- Increasing corporate tax rates (which just about every economist in the country has indicated will not increase tax revenues)
- Eliminating 'oil sands subsidies' (which are not subsidies at all just changes in accounting practises allowing longer amortization)

Even the CBC has shredded the NDP platform as poorly thought out. Basically the NDP platform is filled with promises for everyone with no explanation of how we will pay for them.

But we all know how we will pay for them... huge debts followed by huge taxes and decades of ######ed economic growth. That's the NDP platform in a nutshell.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...-platform.html

By well laid out I meant it had more detail than the other parties and was better presented (in my opinion) - not that they were good ideas. The Conservative and Liberal platforms are full of buzzwords and really vague statements without really saying a whole lot. I agree the NDP platform would probably be a disaster economically, and I definitely have no intention of voting for them myself.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

And the proof that increasing training spaces creates more competent, qualified doctors interested in going in to family practice is where?

Really?

If we need more doctors, is not training more doctors a good idea? There are only so many specialist spots available, so the rest will either leave for work in those specialized areas that they are interested (and deal with competition for those spots there as well), or do something like family med here.

Maybe there is a peer reviewed paper on this process somewhere.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Cain

If we need more doctors, is not training more doctors a good idea? There are only so many specialist spots available, so the rest will either leave for work in those specialized areas that they are interested (and deal with competition for those spots there as well), or do something like family med here.

I'm sorry, did you just try to claim that there's limited job opportunities for doctors and you can force people in to family practice? Try not to limit your thinking to setup of the Canadian public medical system. For one thing, you've completely ignored the private sector, both within and external to Canada. Think r & d, pharmacology, private practice, etc., there's an huge list of possible fields to work in.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

I'm sorry, did you just try to claim that there's limited job opportunities for doctors and you can force people in to family practice? Try not to limit your thinking to setup of the Canadian public medical system. For one thing, you've completely ignored the private sector, both within and external to Canada. Think r & d, pharmacology, private practice, etc., there's an huge list of possible fields to work in.

No, I said that if they are interested in these areas that they will undoubtedly leave and face competition for those jobs as well.

So...I'm sorry, did you just try to claim that training more doctors results in all of the extra recruits leaving the canadian public medical system for greener pastures?

I'm still baffled by you wanting proof that training more doctors results in more doctors. Of course not all of the extra trainees will end up exactly where you want them to, but quite honestly we don't need to conduct a huge study on this.

And while a MD has a lot of work opportunities, I would guess that a large number of these MD's also might want to employ their skills as an actual doc.

[Kybosh]

[QUOTE=Cain;3092771]No, I said that if they are interested in these areas that they will undoubtedly leave and face competition for those jobs as well.

So...I'm sorry, did you just try to claim that training more doctors results in all of the extra recruits leaving the canadian public medical system for greener pastures?

I'm still baffled by you wanting proof that training more doctors results in more doctors. Of course not all of the extra trainees will end up exactly where you want them to, but quite honestly we don't need to conduct a huge study on this.

And while a MD has a lot of work opportunities, I would guess that a large number of these MD's also might want to employ their skills as an actual doc.[/QUOTE]

Just some anectodal evidence. The vast majority of MD's I know and have been associated with are practicing medicine (either as a specialist or a family doc) and generally have zero inclination to leave practicing. Also, the work opportunities in pharmaceutical research, pharmacology or medical sciences are extremely limited right now. Even leading up to the market crash, pharma was suffering. Now there is a huge surplus of pharma researchers all vying for very few jobs. For example, Merck Frost in Montreal completely cut their R&D department a little while back.

[Cowboy89]

Maybe if Jack Layton were to be PM, we would finally be able to use the Senate the way it was intended to be used; as a 'Sober second thought.'

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Maybe if Jack Layton were to be PM, we would finally be able to use the Senate the way it was intended to be used; as a 'Sober second thought.'

The NDP stance on the senate is abolition...something I think most posters on CP would agree on?

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Cain

No, I said that if they are interested in these areas that they will undoubtedly leave and face competition for those jobs as well.

So...I'm sorry, did you just try to claim that training more doctors results in all of the extra recruits leaving the canadian public medical system for greener pastures?

I'm still baffled by you wanting proof that training more doctors results in more doctors.

Because the reality of the situation right now is most new doctors do not want to go in to family practice. So when you see fools like Jack Layton making dubious claims of training thousands of doctors, its not hard to realize that it does not mean thousands of more doctors going in to general practice writing prescriptions for old people and looking children's snotty nose.

It would seem to me that you have to make it a job worth pursuing, and no politician seems to want to address that issue. Instead they just think throwing money at the problem makes it go away.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

The NDP stance on the senate is abolition...something I think most posters on CP would agree on?

Not me. I like the idea of a senate, especially when we have a majority government. That's why I am a strong advocate of senate reform. Give each province 3 senators, make it so they have to be elected and shorten their terms to 6 (or 4) years.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Because the reality of the situation right now is most new doctors do not want to go in to family practice. ....

You are 100% correct in this regard. Every medical student these days is shooting for a specialty. From people I know who've gone through the process, it's not that they're against family medicine. The problem is that the stress level is an entire level above specializing for less monetary gain.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Not me. I like the idea of a senate, especially when we have a majority government. That's why I am a strong advocate of senate reform. Give each province 3 senators, make it so they have to be elected and shorten their terms to 6 (or 4) years.

Yup yup...the Senate configured like that is both practical and LONG overdue.

[Slava]

I'm not in favour of abolition, just thought that a lot of posters here were as I thought that this was discussed somewhere before.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not in favour of abolition, just thought that a lot of posters here were as I thought that this was discussed somewhere before.

I would argue that those who are in favour of completely abolishing the Senate don't really understand how our parliamentary system actually works.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Not me. I like the idea of a senate, especially when we have a majority government. That's why I am a strong advocate of senate reform. Give each province 3 senators, make it so they have to be elected and shorten their terms to 6 (or 4) years.

It's totally weighted to the east right now, and wouldn't change much with your proposal but it would be improved. The amount of senators attributed to the maritimes is really absurd.

I'd like to see a more balanced senate, either through true pop by rep or dividing the country into more appropriate regions (IE: Quebec, Ontario, East, Prairies, West, and North.)