WAP Leadership race down to two...

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

All three candidates took aim at the size of the bureaucracy, commenting that half the costs right now are administrative. All pointed to the top eight rated countries in the world for health care, and argued that all use a mixture of public and private systems that offer better service to more people at lower costs. They also all proposed a direct funding system where medical facilities get paid per activity rather than just getting a block of money with no accountability around how they earn it.

AKA 2 tiered healthcare.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

If Danielle Smith is truly a social libertarian and a fiscal conservative she is definitely the candidate for me.

Can someone link me to anything she's written on social issues?

Some quick articles I could find.

Her socially conservative opponents call her a “social liberal” with laissez-faire attitudes toward abortion, gay marriage and drugs. “The other two candidates have continued to make those issues central to their campaigns,” says Smith. “I don’t think those are the issues people are talking about.”

http://www.daniellesmith.ca/?p=391

From Link Byfield....a self-labeled social conservative.

Danielle Smith is not a “social conservative,” she is a “libertarian.” She has been friendly to, and worked alongside, “social conservatives,” but has never been one.

Third, in the 12 years I have known her, Danielle has fought hard for basic civil rights – freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of assembly and association, and security of property from government confiscation and devaluation. In various student and professional capacities she has spent her whole adult life advocating these things.


If we can restore these fundamental rights, all of which have been badly eroded by governments over time, we “social conservatives” will be politically far ahead of where we are today, and so will everyone else. So the question we must answer is not “which candidate has the right values” – they all do – but “which one can best connect with Albertans?”

http://www.westernstandard.ca/websit...d=3009&start=2

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

AKA 2 tiered healthcare.

If it is proven in the real world to work better for both the people and government, then what is your issue?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Slava

AKA 2 tiered healthcare.

Empty buzzword alert!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

If it is proven in the real world to work better for both the people and government, then what is your issue?

It is?!? That's news to me.

What's "proven in the real world to work for both people and government" is single-payer public health care. Of course, we don't really have that either, really--but moving in the other direction to some hybrid two-tier system seems very goofy to me, given the very bad example set by the U.S..

Mark my words: a true two-tier system will result in higher costs and less access. There's a rule of thumb to keep in mind when it comes to any kind of entitlement program or government service: simpler is cheaper. Making our health care system more complex will do nothing for the main challenge that the health care industry faces right now, which is rising costs.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It is?!? That's news to me.

What's "proven in the real world to work for both people and government" is single-payer public health care. Of course, we don't really have that either, really--but moving in the other direction to some hybrid two-tier system seems very goofy to me, given the very bad example set by the U.S..

Mark my words: a true two-tier system will result in higher costs and less access. There's a rule of thumb to keep in mind when it comes to any kind of entitlement program or government service: simpler is cheaper. Making our health care system more complex will do nothing for the main challenge that the health care industry faces right now, which is rising costs.

A true two-tier system exists.

Wait in Canada or go to the States.

All minor privatization would do is keep the latter customer in Canada.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Gozer

A true two-tier system exists.

Wait in Canada or go to the States.

All minor privatization would do is keep the latter customer in Canada.

We already have privatization. Quebec, the most left wing province is leading the country in private healthcare.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

If it is proven in the real world to work better for both the people and government, then what is your issue?

Nevermind the fact that it doesn't work better as others have already pointed out. I am of the opinion that no one should be denied care or be given sub-standard care because someone else has more money or better financial standing.

In decades gone by fire departments used to operate for profit. This meant that if your house was on fire and couldn't pay then you lost it (or at the very least suffered the consequences). This is the same moral argument as it is for healthcare.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by Barnes

We already have privatization. Quebec, the most left wing province is leading the country in private healthcare.

Technically, BC and Alberta have been quietly increased the number of "private" facilities.
I can't remember the name off hand, but that Calgary clinic, where they charge members $3000 member's fee for guaranteed access to a full medical team, has announced that it is expanding. The clinic company originated in BC

Also a point to clarify. Our Health Care system is provided majority by PRIVATE providers, but billed to Province instead of the individual. Most doctor you see works for themselves but rather give you the bill, theysend that to the Province to get paid through Fee for Servic. The Public pays in terms of taxes (and formerly health premiums)
This mainly applies to doctors, as nurses and other health care providers usually work for an employer and paid a salary

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

Nevermind the fact that it doesn't work better as others have already pointed out. I am of the opinion that no one should be denied care or be given sub-standard care because someone else has more money or better financial standing.

In decades gone by fire departments used to operate for profit. This meant that if your house was on fire and couldn't pay then you lost it (or at the very least suffered the consequences). This is the same moral argument as it is for healthcare.

Maybe this is a side track, but when you brought this up it just reminds me of that scene in Gangs of New York where the building burned down while two competing fire fighting outfits were beating each other up in front of it to determine who got the business.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Slava

Nevermind the fact that it doesn't work better as others have already pointed out. I am of the opinion that no one should be denied care or be given sub-standard care because someone else has more money or better financial standing.

So you refuse any health care that a child in Africa doesn't have access to?

Or do you just spout empty ideals on message boards to make yourself feel better?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Gozer

So you refuse any health care that a child in Africa doesn't have access to?

Or do you just spout empty ideals on message boards to make yourself feel better?

How is wanting truly universal healthcare an empty ideal? I am just stating that I think that healthcare ought to be available to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. Wasn't it you who had the heart surgery as a child (discussed in another thread)? You of all people should understand my position here I would think?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Slava

How is wanting truly universal healthcare an empty ideal? I am just stating that I think that healthcare ought to be available to everyone regardless of their ability to pay.

I understand your position, and I share the ideal, but its not practical.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I understand your position, and I share the ideal, but its not practical.

If its practical that a business can deliver the service at a profit then its definitely practical that the public system can deliver the service efficiently.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Slava

If its practical that a business can deliver the service at a profit then its definitely practical that the public system can deliver the service efficiently.

What are your opinions on private schools?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Gozer

What are your opinions on private schools?

I'm a guy who went to school with the "great unwashed masses" and think that I turned out fine. I guess I just don't really see the need for them. I definitely don't think that they should receive funding from the government though.

[troutman]

What is the WAP position on the cap on minor injuries?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

If its practical that a business can deliver the service at a profit then its definitely practical that the public system can deliver the service efficiently.

Funny how history rarely bears that out.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm a guy who went to school with the "great unwashed masses" and think that I turned out fine. I guess I just don't really see the need for them. I definitely don't think that they should receive funding from the government though.

I am of the opinion that no one should be given sub-standard schooling because someone else has more money or better financial standing.

Would you consider the above statement true?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I am of the opinion that no one should be given sub-standard schooling because someone else has more money or better financial standing.

Would you consider the above statement true?

I absolutely agree with that. In the same breath though I believe that the best way to accomplish this is through a strong and funded public system.