Alberta PC's way out front

[Azure]

I think you should. No point is driving this one further off topic.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

1. OK, you win. I really don't care, but you (and any other Wildrose supporter that cares) were clearly just as upset with the federal Tories doing this as you are today with the provincial Tories.

From what I can tell I'm the only one who has been bitching about the PC's pre-campaiging on public money. I am not affiliated with the Wildrose party and in fact have never even voted for them (yet).

I also found the feds doing the same thing offensive and even had a nasty email exchange with my MP over those ridiculous 10%ers.

As Resolute said, you seem to be trying to paint Wildrose supporters as hypocrites which was deflecting the issue anyway.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that they're both ridiculous. I do find it striking though that the Wildrose supporters are up in arms about this provincial example, and basically couldn't care less about the same situation dragging on federally. That situation went so far that the government ministers were even giving out cheques with CPC logos on them!

Anyway, as you were. We agree on this point so it would seem.

This. "Wild conjecture" is a nice term, because it is accurate. Thanks for noticing. Maybe "drive-by smear" would be better. "Fictitious BS" could work.

You're the first to jump up and down about burden of proof, but when you're called on it yourself, you say that you're "engaged in a ridiculous discussion about things that are *nearly* meaningless and continually replying." Things that you brought up.

If you just replied with proof, the topic would be dropped. Otherwise, wild conjecture.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by zuluking

This. "Wild conjecture" is a nice term, because it is accurate. Thanks for noticing. Maybe "drive-by smear" would be better. "Fictitious BS" could work.

You're the first to jump up and down about burden of proof, but when you're called on it yourself, you say that you're "engaged in a ridiculous discussion about things that are *nearly* meaningless and continually replying." Things that you brought up.

If you just replied with proof, the topic would be dropped. Otherwise, wild conjecture.

I know I should let this drop....but can you just tell me where I've jumped up and down about the burden of proof? We might not agree on politics, but I like to think that I usually have somewhat well thought out positions. I'm not delusional here; I know that you and some others are unlikely to agree with my positions, but I don't think that means I engage in "drive-by smears" or just plain make stuff up.

Like I say, we obviously disagree but I do question that aspect of your post.

[crazy_eoj]

More news on the state of health care under the PC regime.

Bullying ,intimidation and threats to keep doctors from speaking out about the problems with our system.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/02/22...ls-health-care

It's really time for a Wildrose Government.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

It's really time for a Wildrose Government.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

More news on the state of health care under the PC regime.

Bullying ,intimidation and threats to keep doctors from speaking out about the problems with our system.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/02/22...ls-health-care

It's really time for a Wildrose Government.

How would the Wildrose propose to fix this?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by troutman

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Yeah but a different wrong might correct some of the abuses of the civil service. The big problem in Alberta isn't actually about the electoral policies, it's the fact that the civil service after 41 years of rule by one party is really just a machine for the political uses of one party. Ministers have civil service employees perform tasks that 100% suit them politically and it's really entrenched because pretty much no one in the civil service was hired under a different regime. The level of intimidation at the doctor level is enabled by one-party rule for so long.

That's why I'm prepared to vote for any party that's running second to the PC's. I don't even care what the PC's have to say policy-wise even if it's agreeable to me, they have to be turfed for the simple sake of them getting turfed. If that means a term of Danielle Smith and a Social Creditesk amature hour party then I'll take it. I'm also willing to put my money where my mouth is and vote NDP or Liberal if they have a greater chance of beating the PC's than the Wildrose too.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

How would the Wildrose propose to fix this?

Their specific policies are all on their website.

But in reality they are the only viable alternative to the PC's in Alberta.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Their specific policies are all on their website.

But in reality they are the only viable alternative to the PC's in Alberta.

I just can't get on board with a health policy that uses private health providers as its main fix. I can't see how that saves money or provides better service than what we already have really.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

It's really time for a Wildrose Government.

It's baffling to me how otherwise intelligent people are so eager to throw their support behind our province's version of the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party. Gingrich and Santorum would feel at home in the WRA.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

It's baffling to me how otherwise intelligent people are so eager to throw their support behind our province's version of the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party. Gingrich and Santorum would feel at home in the WRA.

Maybe someone here don't like to pay more taxes for social programs which is all Redford had done in the last few months.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just can't get on board with a health policy that uses private health providers as its main fix. I can't see how that saves money or provides better service than what we already have really.

I guess ignoring the fact that copying the more successful models in Europe and continuing down the road of North Korea and Cuba makes more sense somehow?

It's not like the Wildrose is proposing anything drastic, just copying those systems offering much better outcomes than our own (ie: Not the US or Cuba).

[Azure]

Someone please tell me again how the two-tier program is bad when it has clearly worked very well in certain European countries?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

It's baffling to me how otherwise intelligent people are so eager to throw their support behind our province's version of the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party. Gingrich and Santorum would feel at home in the WRA.

You forgot to mention Bush .... and Rove .... and a few other boogeyman names.

I get a laugh out of all this "hard right wing" "ultra Conservative" "neo con" garbage. The most Conservative politicians in the country are more comparable to the US Democrats than the Republicans. Oh well, at least you didn't say fascists, police state or make any Hitler references.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

It's baffling to me how otherwise intelligent people are so eager to throw their support behind our province's version of the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party. Gingrich and Santorum would feel at home in the WRA.

Probably because we aren't nearly as ignorant as you evidently are?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

Someone please tell me again how the two-tier program is bad when it has clearly worked very well in certain European countries?

I read the Wildrose policy write up on healthcare and there are a lot of questions I have after reading it. The general idea seems to be one where they would spend money to use private providers instead of public providers today. How are private providers going to provide these services cheaper than the public system does today? Private corporations do so to earn a profit, so clearly the government has to be paying a mark-up for these services that are otherwise provided.

I also question the efficacy of using some of these other countries and per capita spending as a model here. Most of those countries deliver services to a larger population in a small area. There are economies of scale at play there and certain challenges we face here that are simply not a concern in some of these countries.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

How are private providers going to provide these services cheaper than the public system does today? Private corporations do so to earn a profit, so clearly the government has to be paying a mark-up for these services that are otherwise provided.

You're assuming that government provides service as efficiently as the private sector. In my experience they aren't even close.

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by Jacks

You're assuming that government provides service as efficiently as the private sector. In my experience they aren't even close.

The problem being that the increased efficiency does not automatically result in better health care. It results in profits, which inevitably increases the chances of greed taking over.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by psicodude

The problem being that the increased efficiency does not automatically result in better health care. It results in profits, which inevitably increases the chances of greed taking over.

Considering that Build, Transfer and Operate (BTO) is all the rage nowadays, it stands to reason that most government, even the Canadian one, really sucks in being an efficient service provider.