Tory leadership debates on tv

[Reggie Dunlop]

Morton's got this creepy Village of the Damned vibe. You get the feeling that the minute he's elected, legions of evil alien spawn Mini-Mortons will appear out of the fields and start taking everything over. Of course, his whackbar ideas add to the uneasiness.

EDIT: Similar, but different movie title.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Morton's got this creepy Children of the Corn vibe. You get the feeling that the minute he's elected, legions of evil alien spawn Mini-Mortons will appear out of the fields and start taking everything over. Of course, his whackbar ideas add to the uneasiness.

I agree...there is something about Morton I don't like. Can't put my finger on it. I like some of his ideas...but his whole issue with gay marriage turns me off.

Get over it...it's a fact of life now so just stop talking about it.

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I agree...there is something about Morton I don't like. Can't put my finger on it. I like some of his ideas...but his whole issue with gay marriage turns me off.

Get over it...it's a fact of life now so just stop talking about it.

I know what you mean. However, this is one thing and it isn't likely to go anywhere anyways. I think that he is the only one who would be willing to stand up for Alberta. Oberg would be my next candidate but he just seems to have made a lot of mistakes in government and I just don't really trust him.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Nope, it was Dinning through the real cuts (92-97), then Day (97-2000), then Steve West, Pat Nelson, and now Shirley McLellan.

Budget surpluses = overtaxation in stable economies, not boom-bust commodity based economies. If you could realistically be seeing between 5 and 15 billion (not accurate numbers, just an example) in Oil Revenues, and you have no real way of determining this, you can't just go cutting taxes... you could realistically end up with a multi-billion deficit, rather than a multi-billion surplus, cause you really can't go yanking the taxes up and down every year either... people will go nuts. The best thing to do is to find a happy medium where people are paying low enough taxes, getting good return on what they do pay tax on, and ensuring there's no new taxes. As ridiculous as it sounds, maybe yearly tax refunds on good years... but you really can't just slash taxes when your revenue stream is so unstable.

No, but say, the 900 million they get from Health Premiums can be cut. I mean, he did also say that it needs to be saved for the future. Not that he's going to leave it with 0 room for error. How far would oil revenues realistically fall on a horrible year?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by FireFly

No, but say, the 900 million they get from Health Premiums can be cut. I mean, he did also say that it needs to be saved for the future. Not that he's going to leave it with 0 room for error. How far would oil revenues realistically fall on a horrible year?

I'd agree the health premiums could be cut, especially if hybrid models of delivery are being introduced. However, I'd be very careful about how deep I'd cut regular tax... even though I do think people are overtaxed.

Realistically, they could drop $10-20 on a "bad" year. With increasing expenditure... that dip could put Alberta in the red if mixed with slashed taxes, even if that doesn't mean hard times for the rest of us. I mean, you know that study as well as I do (I cited it back in Poli 521)... healthcare alone is gonna put Alberta in the red by 2010, and thats with assumed continuous high oil prices. Maybe if we switched to a more privatized health model you can cut taxes, but definitely not with status quo.

[Footscray]

My snap opinions and ill informed at that, I didn't really get a profound sense of all their policies in such a short forum,

I actually though Dinning seemed the most professional and organized presentation wise.

Oberg was a good speaker and intelligent but don't agree with the platform. Norris and Hancock seemed a bit blustery - Norris is carrying alot of baggage in my mind after that last loss. Didn't have strong opinions on Stelmach, Doerksen and McPherson.

I find Morton to be a social extremist and I think he would fit better in one of the christian conservative parties idealogically - he is by far the one I would least like to see win even though he was an old prof of mine. I think if it goes to further balloting he has zero chance of getting support from the other more moderate candidates.

[Cal-Gal]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I mean, you know that study as well as I do (I cited it back in Poli 521)... healthcare alone is gonna put Alberta in the red by 2010, and thats with assumed continuous high oil prices. Maybe if we switched to a more privatized health model you can cut taxes, but definitely not with status quo.

Politicians in this province find themselves in a pinch with regards to the the Health Care question. Medicare is the 'sacred cow' in this country - and unfortunately most people will chase that cow right off a cliff before they would concede that choice in medical insurance is a neccessary evil.

Way back last winter, Jim Dinning spoke at the U of C to a group of students. Now, granted, this was before the leadership race was officially on, and his policies were yet solidified - but he responded to a question about Health Care by stating very clearly that he felt there was room for the private sector in the delivery of certain health care services. Since then, he has done a 180 on the issue - now stating that the system must remain entirely within the public sphere. Some may call Dinning a panderer, some may claim he was simply responding to the publics' anger over the proposed Third Way reforms. Either way - a classic example of the ugly predicament politicians find themselves in: the government health care monopoly is just too expensive and far too inefficient - but the public sentiment remains firmly against optional private medical coverage. Sigh.

Thunderball...Poli 521 with Dr. Sayers?? Great class.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I'd agree the health premiums could be cut, especially if hybrid models of delivery are being introduced. However, I'd be very careful about how deep I'd cut regular tax... even though I do think people are overtaxed.

Realistically, they could drop $10-20 on a "bad" year. With increasing expenditure... that dip could put Alberta in the red if mixed with slashed taxes, even if that doesn't mean hard times for the rest of us. I mean, you know that study as well as I do (I cited it back in Poli 521)... healthcare alone is gonna put Alberta in the red by 2010, and thats with assumed continuous high oil prices. Maybe if we switched to a more privatized health model you can cut taxes, but definitely not with status quo.

10-20 billion? You think? I can't see it going that low again. and there's a 5 Billion surplus right now. that's huge.

We need to invest in the NWT.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cal-Gal

Politicians in this province find themselves in a pinch with regards to the the Health Care question. Medicare is the 'sacred cow' in this country - and unfortunately most people will chase that cow right off a cliff before they would concede that choice in medical insurance is a neccessary evil.

Way back last winter, Jim Dinning spoke at the U of C to a group of students. Now, granted, this was before the leadership race was officially on, and his policies were yet solidified - but he responded to a question about Health Care by stating very clearly that he felt there was room for the private sector in the delivery of certain health care services. Since then, he has done a 180 on the issue - now stating that the system must remain entirely within the public sphere. Some may call Dinning a panderer, some may claim he was simply responding to the publics' anger over the proposed Third Way reforms. Either way - a classic example of the ugly predicament politicians find themselves in: the government health care monopoly is just too expensive and far too inefficient - but the public sentiment remains firmly against optional private medical coverage. Sigh.

Thunderball...Poli 521 with Dr. Sayers?? Great class.

Yep... it was a lot of fun.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by FireFly

10-20 billion? You think? I can't see it going that low again. and there's a 5 Billion surplus right now. that's huge.

We need to invest in the NWT.

Oh, no... $10-20 a barrel... so between $40-50/bbl.

As for the NWT... they get enough.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cal-Gal

Politicians in this province find themselves in a pinch with regards to the the Health Care question. Medicare is the 'sacred cow' in this country - and unfortunately most people will chase that cow right off a cliff before they would concede that choice in medical insurance is a neccessary evil.

Way back last winter, Jim Dinning spoke at the U of C to a group of students. Now, granted, this was before the leadership race was officially on, and his policies were yet solidified - but he responded to a question about Health Care by stating very clearly that he felt there was room for the private sector in the delivery of certain health care services. Since then, he has done a 180 on the issue - now stating that the system must remain entirely within the public sphere. Some may call Dinning a panderer, some may claim he was simply responding to the publics' anger over the proposed Third Way reforms. Either way - a classic example of the ugly predicament politicians find themselves in: the government health care monopoly is just too expensive and far too inefficient - but the public sentiment remains firmly against optional private medical coverage. Sigh.

Thunderball...Poli 521 with Dr. Sayers?? Great class.

I think Albertans are concerned about the slippery slope that is a two tier system. I mean, you look at places like New Zealand who started out with a two tier system and ended up Americanizing their system and Canadians get scared, and rightfully so. We don't want that at all.

They haven't shown us it's fool-proof. If anyone can show us it's fool-proof, then we'd be all for it. I'm unconvinced that the 'third way' is foolproof.

And I know that comment wasn't directed at me, but I was in the class with Thunderball and it rocked.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I think Albertans are concerned about the slippery slope that is a two tier system. I mean, you look at places like New Zealand who started out with a two tier system and ended up Americanizing their system and Canadians get scared, and rightfully so. We don't want that at all.

They haven't shown us it's fool-proof. If anyone can show us it's fool-proof, then we'd be all for it. I'm unconvinced that the 'third way' is foolproof.

And I know that comment wasn't directed at me, but I was in the class with Thunderball and it rocked.

I think the paranoia stems from the fact that most people in Canada think there are only two systems... Canada's and the US, mid ground is considered moving to the US. The slippery slope argument is a bit of a logical fallacy, depending on how its implemented. We are conditioned to think the American system is inherently flawed (which is true), but that ours is not (which is false). Exploring European/Japanese models while maintaining tough government regulation would more than likely lead to an increased benefit for all Albertans.

Reality is, our system is becoming too expensive, and really, our system is designed to save 9 people at the expense of the tenth, whose treatment costs are better spent on the other 9. I know people are going to come up with stories of advanced medicine in Canada, which can be undoubtably true, but the facts say that what the Americans have is either the same or more advanced (for those who can afford it).

If one has a serious health condition, it is advised by many to go to the United States for treatment... particularly to the Mayo Clinic. Because of that, US health insurance is offered at a very steep price to many affluent Canadians who can afford the premiums and 10k deductible. Many of Calgary's corporate elite already possess this.

The question is, how do you solve this? There really is no answer, except that the status quo can't continue. I don't think they have to prove its foolproof, just better than what we have. Nearly anything will be an improvement on people dying or miscarrying in a waiting room, which is way too common. Hell, anything more than never is too much.

[Cal-Gal]

Originally Posted by FireFly

And I know that comment wasn't directed at me, but I was in the class with Thunderball and it rocked.

No - I don't know what the answer is either. Granted: Third way is problematic - but so is a government that has a ban on private health care insurance (Canadians can count themselves in a threesome with Cuba and North Korea on that one)

Anyways...at the risk of derailing the thread...Poli 521 - probably my favorite class in all my four years of University. I was trying to decipher who you were...I think the NWT comment might have given you away

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cal-Gal

No - I don't know what the answer is either. Granted: Third way is problematic - but so is a government that has a ban on private health care insurance (Canadians can count themselves in a threesome with Cuba and North Korea on that one)

Anyways...at the risk of derailing the thread...Poli 521 - probably my favorite class in all my four years of University. I was trying to decipher who you were...I think the NWT comment might have given you away

I agree, it was tons of fun... a little stressful and busy at times, but we pulled it all together in the end and got a lot done.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I think the paranoia stems from the fact that most people in Canada think there are only two systems... Canada's and the US, mid ground is considered moving to the US. The slippery slope argument is a bit of a logical fallacy, depending on how its implemented. We are conditioned to think the American system is inherently flawed (which is true), but that ours is not (which is false). Exploring European/Japanese models while maintaining tough government regulation would more than likely lead to an increased benefit for all Albertans.

Perhaps that's some of it, but there's also the 'slippery slope' issue that has happened to a number of states. (I used New Zealand as an example and it's a good one... they also tried to start with knees and hips and ended up with a US system whereby if you don't have private coverage, you end up waiting forever which is not fair and equitable.)

Reality is, our system is becoming too expensive, and really, our system is designed to save 9 people at the expense of the tenth, whose treatment costs are better spent on the other 9. I know people are going to come up with stories of advanced medicine in Canada, which can be undoubtably true, but the facts say that what the Americans have is either the same or more advanced (for those who can afford it).

If one has a serious health condition, it is advised by many to go to the United States for treatment... particularly to the Mayo Clinic. Because of that, US health insurance is offered at a very steep price to many affluent Canadians who can afford the premiums and 10k deductible. Many of Calgary's corporate elite already possess this.

You're right, it is too expensive. I disagree with your 9/10 theory because frankly, my father would be long gone if that were true. It's not designed that way it just happens. The 10th person dies because he/she waits too long, not because it's more cost effective to save the other 9.

I do not believe for a moment that having a third way will increase the level of treatment in Canada because there will still be too many restrictions. First off, again using cancer as an example, a cancer patient will not have private options in Canada.

The question is, how do you solve this? There really is no answer, except that the status quo can't continue. I don't think they have to prove its foolproof, just better than what we have. Nearly anything will be an improvement on people dying or miscarrying in a waiting room, which is way too common. Hell, anything more than never is too much.

It's obvious that the system doesn't work, but the third way doesn't address those with life threatening illnesses. IMO.