Redford: Buyers Remorse?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I have tons of stories from nurses of people who were screwed by the system, sometimes they knew, sometimes they don't know what happened to them. I'm glad things worked out for your cousin, but it's a sample of one. No argument on this planet falls to pieces due to a sample size of one.

And somehow a sample size of "tons of stories from nurses of people" is any more persuasive?

EDIT: And I'm not even mentioning the vagueness of what "screwed by the system" might mean.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I have tons of stories from nurses of people who were screwed by the system, sometimes they knew, sometimes they don't know what happened to them. I'm glad things worked out for your cousin, but it's a sample of one. No argument on this planet falls to pieces due to a sample size of one.

Nor can an argument rest on your anecdotal evidence. Do you have any real evidence that the Canadian health care system is "useless"? Do you have evidence that suggests that the outcomes in Canada are markedly poorer than those in other countries. I mean, if the entire system is useless it shouldn't be hard to point to some indicators that back this up.

[Makarov]

Is Amazon.com having a fire sale on Ayn Rand novels or something? Yeesh.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Makarov

It is such an absurd statement that it hardly merits a response. But let's just run through part of the list anyway:

Education? Police? Firefighting? Defence? Immigration/Border control? Environmental regulation? Justice system?

It would almost be worth it to abandon our country to the Afghan-style warlordism that you and your cohort advocate just so that we wouldn't have to listen to you complain any more about paying taxes or living in the country with the highest standard of living in history.

You obviously don't understand. I didn't say anything about abolishing the government. Most of the things you listed only makes sense if they are run by the government.

Few Things:

Private School > Public School
- Most people would chose to put their children in the private school system if they could afford it. I'm sure people aren't paying all that money to give their children a lesser education.

A government run program has no motivation to look for ways to save money because they don't exist to make a profit. A government department will always spend up to their allotted budget because of the fear that their budget would be reduced next year. Pretty simple to understand. I thought...

[MarchHare]

I'm glad things worked out for your cousin, but it's a sample of one. No argument on this planet falls to pieces due to a sample size of one.

Survival rates in Canada are among the best in the world when compared to patients in other countries with the same type of cancer.

So no, this isn't an argument using a sample size of one. I was telling the story of my cousin to use an example that has affected my family on a personal level, but my experience is entirely consistent with statistics.

The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP)2, which looked at cancer survival across several international jurisdictions, is one important benchmarking effort accomplished through international collaboration, and requiring a high level of standardization of data, measures and analysis.
The six countries examined in the ICBP study include Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
The 5-year relative survival for people in Canada diagnosed with a first primary invasive cancer was highest for lung and ovarian cancers, second highest for colorectal cancer, and third highest for female breast cancer.
Canada has the highest survival rates for lung and ovarian cancers, Australia for colorectal cancer, and Sweden for female breast cancer.
Out of the six countries used in the international comparison of survival rates, Canada ranks first for having the highest 5-year relative survival rates for lung and ovarian cancers, second for colorectal cancer, and third for female breast cancer.
Among the Canadian survival data, provincial data was available for Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario.
Among the four provinces, Ontario has the best survival rates for colorectal cancer, ranks second highest for both lung and ovarian cancers, and third highest for female breast cancer.

Source: http://www.csqi.on.ca/comparisons/su...and_mortality/

Where you live plays a role in cancer survival, according to a new study that shows the U.S., Japan, and France recorded the highest survival rates among 31 nations for four types of cancer. Algeria had the lowest survival rates for all four cancers.

[...]

In Canada and Australia, survival was also high for most cancers.

Source: http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/200...ary-by-country

[MarchHare]

A government department will always spend up to their allotted budget because of the fear that their budget would be reduced next year. Pretty simple to understand. I thought...

I can absolutely assure you that this also occurs in the private sector. Having a profit motivation doesn't make an organization magically immune from this.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Fire

You obviously don't understand. I didn't say anything about abolishing the government. Most of the things you listed only makes sense if they are run by the government.

Few Things:

Private School > Public School
- Most people would chose to put their children in the private school system if they could afford it. I'm sure people aren't paying all that money to give their children a lesser education.

A government run program has no motivation to look for ways to save money because they don't exist to make a profit. A government department will always spend up to their allotted budget because of the fear that their budget would be reduced next year. Pretty simple to understand. I thought...

Your example for a more efficient system is a private school that most people can't afford due to the high cost? I am not saying that the education isn't better, it likely is, but the costs are also higher and making it less efficient.

[MarchHare]

Private School > Public School
- Most people would chose to put their children in the private school system if they could afford it. I'm sure people aren't paying all that money to give their children a lesser education.

People put their children in private school because their classmates will typically come from families with higher socio-economic standing. It shouldn't come as any surprise that schools whose students live in wealthy areas tend to perform better than schools from poorer jurisdictions (this is just as true for public schools in rich neighbourhoods as it is for private schools). If you eliminated the public education system and made everyone attend private schools, the advantages of having exclusively wealthy students would immediately disappear...

...except then poor families wouldn't be able to provide an education to their children, furthering the cycle of poverty. Unless, of course, the taxpayers subsidized the education of everyone who couldn't afford to attend private school. But how exactly is that any different from having a public education system?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Fire

You obviously don't understand. I didn't say anything about abolishing the government. Most of the things you listed only makes sense if they are run by the government.

I know. Its precisely why I listed them in response to this statement you made:

Originally Posted by Fire

A government run program has no motivation to look for ways to save money because they don't exist to make a profit. A government department will always spend up to their allotted budget because of the fear that their budget would be reduced next year. Pretty simple to understand. I thought...

As already noted, private businesses are in no way immune to these sorts of negative incentives. Further, governments have a tremendous incentive to save money or improve their results: they're called elections. Of course, thankfully, elections also provide governments with incentive to do more than just make/save money (i.e., provide access to education/healthcare to everyone, etc.)

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Fire

Private School > Public School
- Most people would chose to put their children in the private school system if they could afford it. I'm sure people aren't paying all that money to give their children a lesser education.

Having attended both private and public schools, I've gotta disagree. The biggest difference between private and public is how snooty the students and their parents are.

In my year graduating from high school, my classmates got five of the fifteen invitations to the national chem Olympiad. The public system is fine, and can deliver a very attractive range of services through economies of scale that the private system can't touch.

[Slava]

LOL! The example Fire brings back is private schooling?! Aside from the other points there are a few considerations:

- In Alberta these private schools are publicly funded. I think thats ridiculous, because if people want to put their kids in private schools and are willing to pay then they ought to pay the full amount. Regardless though, its hardly an argument for fiscal restraint.

- Because of the competition for students (and of course money that comes them) there are examples where teachers have been pressured to inflate grades. This calls into question whether the methods are effective, regardless of how much they cost.

- The recent questions in Calgary which allege fraud or questionable financing make me wonder where the idea that private business is somehow perfectly efficient and transparent.

It's just such a strange choice as an example. You could've gone with a private health business like Inliv and at least had a leg to stand on, but education doesn't seem like a prime example.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Fire

You obviously don't understand. I didn't say anything about abolishing the government. Most of the things you listed only makes sense if they are run by the government.

Few Things:

Private School > Public School
- Most people would chose to put their children in the private school system if they could afford it. I'm sure people aren't paying all that money to give their children a lesser education.

But why are private schools so expensive if they're so much more efficient? Shouldn't their efficiency allow them to provide a superior education at a similar price point as the per student allocation for public schools (about $8K in BC). Why do day students at most decent prep schools have to pay $15-20K in tuition?

As others have said the primary benefits of private school is the networking with rich families and placing your children in a more advanced environment which is allowed to exclude lower caliber students.

Having gone to public school, worked at a private school, and having friends who've gone to both I can assure you that the actual education is quite similar. I can also assure you that there is a lot of waste in private schools as well. They're usually flush with cash from both high tuition and millions of dollars in endowments from alumni. Some of them spend an inordinate amount of money on pageantry and schmoozing in order to maintain their image rather than sinking the money into educational tools.

Obviously there are exceptions, but in my opinion most public education in Canada provides exceptional value.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Slava

Four more years of this? Ugh. How much should this trip cost Dion? Are there dozens of suitable places to stay in London right now and plenty of cheap flights?

This is it though. No new ideas, no better ways of doing things, no grand vision for Alberta on the global scene. Instead we're looking at four years of we can do it cheaper, we would've spent less and we left our wallet in the car. It's four years of running to the washroom when the bill comes to the table essentially.

Maybe Danielle would've driven her bus to Toronto to save a few hundred bucks on a flight? Maybe they could've stayed at a dive of a hotel and eaten at McDonalds the whole trip, after all they're the official restaurant of the Olympics.

I'm no travel expert but the price quoted by the govt seems to be Bev Oda type dollars. I'm not against what she is doing, I just hope thier is a full accounting of the costs involved in this trip.The govt should not given a free pass when someone decides to question the travel costs.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I'd like to think that Redford wouldn't be stupid enough to have a Bev Oda type trip right after Bev Oda got canned...or resigned, or whatever. That'd be pretty embarassing. London is expensive enough as is, I'd imagine its relatively insane for the Olympics.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Dion

I'm no travel expert but the price quoted by the govt seems to be Bev Oda type dollars. I'm not against what she is doing, I just hope thier is a full accounting of the costs involved in this trip.The govt should not given a free pass when someone decides to question the travel costs.

I just think that you should have some idea of what it should cost though. Otherwise how can you tell that the costs are egregious?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I'd like to think that Redford wouldn't be stupid enough to have a Bev Oda type trip right after Bev Oda got canned...or resigned, or whatever. That'd be pretty embarassing. London is expensive enough as is, I'd imagine its relatively insane for the Olympics.

I would like to think that no politician would be stupid enough to do such thing, yet it happens. We think politicians will always do the right thing but sometimes power corrupts and they think they can get away with certain things. The pay for no comittee meetings is a great example.

Now i'm not saying she's guilty, I'd just like to see an accounting of the costs.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just think that you should have some idea of what it should cost though. Otherwise how can you tell that the costs are egregious?

Are you saying we should give Redford a pass without an accounting of the costs when the trip is done? If it was Smith I would expect her to do the same thing.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Dion

Are you saying we should give Redford a pass without an accounting of the costs when the trip is done? If it was Smith I would expect her to do the same thing.

I'm not sure how you interpreted Slava's post to say that? I believe he was only suggesting that any such accounting (which is a perfectly reasonable expectation) take into account things such as the following:

Some innkeepers will be charging Ritz rates for Fawlty Towers rooms — and they will get away with it.

A limited hotel supply and unprecedented demand from almost a million tourists, media and businesspeople tied to the London Games means that accommodation in the British capital — never a bargain to start with — is more expensive than ever this summer.

That guarantees a bumper year for London's hotel and rental sectors, but a nightmare for those who have been dragging their feet on making sleeping arrangements.

Already, many central London hotels are fully booked from mid-July to mid-August, and those that still have rooms available now charge anything from double to four times more than their normal rates.

SOURCE: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47335914.../#.UBdbyGGe41A

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I'm not sure how you interpreted Slava's post to say that? I believe he was only suggesting that any such accounting (which is a perfectly reasonable expectation) take into account things such as the following:



SOURCE: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47335914.../#.UBdbyGGe41A

I expect the hotel costs are going to be alot higher than usual. It's just that $83,300 for a trip like that seems a bit excessive IMO. Especially when you have the common folk coming and staying for these Olympics

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dion

I expect the hotel costs are going to be alot higher than usual. It's just that $83,300 for a trip like that seems a bit excessive IMO. Especially when you have the common folk coming and staying for these Olympics

Should government officials be bunking up in order to save costs? It is going to cost thousands of dollars for each hotel room for the course of the trip, that isn't including food or any other such as travel costs either. Unless there is obvious irregularities such as Bev Oda I can't help but think that I would give the premier the benefit of the doubt.