Author Topic: Talking Green (ie. the party)  (Read 408 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3865
Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
« Reply #30 on: October 09, 2020, 09:54:58 am »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EesJgyfFZxY&feature=emb_logo ... and yes member wilber, a lower rate increase is a... cut
your go-fetch links aren't conducive to discussion. Of course you've done this many times in the past - for whatever reason you have the time/motivation to research, to find the articles, to post links to the articles... but say diddly about the content of your linked articles. You want others to spend their time peeling through your linked articles trying to infer some point they think you might be trying to make!
Your links to political attack adds are even less conducive. Not conducive at all, they could have been written by yourself.

the ad message was factual - that Harper Conservatives amended the health-spending formula to realize a lower increase rate is factual... that the resulting impact to provincial health transfers was estimated to be a $36 billion dollar cut in transfer monies is factual.

you couldn't counter the ad so you simply dismissed it as "political". You couldn't counter the following so you went fullwilber by dropping 2 go-fetch links while not quoting from them or adding your own personal comment/interpretations of said links.

you mean the same Stephen Harper who labeled Canada a, "northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term"... that guy, right? Wily Harper learned his lesson after seeing the public/media reaction to the Reform Party openly stating its goal to privatize healthcare. Of course one of the more visible strategy moves was to refuse to meet/participate in 1st minister meetings... cause that whole purpose of Provincial Premiers looking to work more collaboratively with each other just got in the way of his want to incrementally reduce the activity of the federal government with provinces. As that applied directly to healthcare, Harper Conservatives were all about manipulating the health-spending formula to ensure provinces received less monies under the amended formula... less monies than what the provinces determined they needed. Of course as public medicare struggled and public complaints grew, for profit private companies were primed to position as alternatives to appease public frustrations. Following the Harper Conservative playbook, tax cuts were key to reducing available federal revenue for public services outright! Really member wilber - as this board's most vocal c/Conservative apologist, its a part of the/your brand to couch the want towards health privatization in terms of, "a bogeyman & baseless conspiracy filled ranting" - yes?


Offline Montgomery

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
« Reply #31 on: October 09, 2020, 10:40:39 am »
That's it? More money? Wow, impressive.

Adequate funding is attacking all the othershortfalls at the roots. We then take a hard look at the world's best systems and make adjustments. Wait times are the biggest talking point for the Conservatives who condemn our system. Would you advise spending more money to eliminate or reduce some wait times? Or do you have other rightist ideas to make our system better.

One thing though. We can't accept a two-tier system in which the very wealthy receive better care. That would be a sociallly irresponsible cure.

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5626
Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
« Reply #32 on: October 14, 2020, 09:37:34 am »
Adequate funding is attacking all the othershortfalls at the roots. We then take a hard look at the world's best systems and make adjustments. Wait times are the biggest talking point for the Conservatives who condemn our system. Would you advise spending more money to eliminate or reduce some wait times? Or do you have other rightist ideas to make our system better.

One thing though. We can't accept a two-tier system in which the very wealthy receive better care. That would be a sociallly irresponsible cure.

So our system is perfect, no improvements can be made other than throwing more money at it. There is nothing wrong with a two tier system as long as it doesn’t take resources from a public system.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7816
Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
« Reply #33 on: October 14, 2020, 11:35:48 am »
So our system is perfect, no improvements can be made other than throwing more money at it. There is nothing wrong with a two tier system as long as it doesn’t take resources from a public system.

I think the problem with a 2-tier system is that there is no proper public to govern the government on how they provide services.  Right now, it's a top-down system and any calls for reform are met with comparisons to the terrible US system.  If we were to radically change our system as you are describing, we would need to form some public sphere that would understand such concepts as service levels, tradeoffs etc.  We don't have that now.

If we did, I would say that not only would a 2-tier system be possible but it could be used to fund improvements across the board.  If Joe Richguy wants to spend money to go to the front of the line, why should I care as long as my line gets shorter ?  I understand the concept is abhorrent but if we framed it differently we could accept service differences and fund service improvements.

Part of socialism is actually making the rich pay, not resenting their existence.  Two cents...
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Montgomery

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
« Reply #34 on: October 14, 2020, 11:54:32 am »
I think the problem with a 2-tier system is that there is no proper public to govern the government on how they provide services.  Right now, it's a top-down system and any calls for reform are met with comparisons to the terrible US system.  If we were to radically change our system as you are describing, we would need to form some public sphere that would understand such concepts as service levels, tradeoffs etc.  We don't have that now.

If we did, I would say that not only would a 2-tier system be possible but it could be used to fund improvements across the board.  If Joe Richguy wants to spend money to go to the front of the line, why should I care as long as my line gets shorter ?  I understand the concept is abhorrent but if we framed it differently we could accept service differences and fund service improvements.

Part of socialism is actually making the rich pay, not resenting their existence.  Two cents...

You don't understand the dangers in a two-tier system but I don't have time to spend explaining it. You should read up on it completely because the Conservatives depend on uninformed people to fulfill their agenda.

As for interfering with the rights of the very wealthy? There's nothing stopping them for flying to some other country and getting quality health care immediately and on demand if they're willing to pay. That fact alone betrays the Conservatives' dishonesty in their quest for a two-tiered system.

There's no resentment of the rich in this question. There's resentment of the fact that a two-tier system would quickly allow the top tier to enjoy the luxuries of the latest and most costly cures or fixes, while the bottom tier will be limited by cost considerations. That fact is in the very definition!

There! I've set you off in the right direction. Now make it your business to learn the whole story.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5626
Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
« Reply #35 on: October 14, 2020, 11:56:43 am »
I think the problem with a 2-tier system is that there is no proper public to govern the government on how they provide services.  Right now, it's a top-down system and any calls for reform are met with comparisons to the terrible US system.  If we were to radically change our system as you are describing, we would need to form some public sphere that would understand such concepts as service levels, tradeoffs etc.  We don't have that now.

If we did, I would say that not only would a 2-tier system be possible but it could be used to fund improvements across the board.  If Joe Richguy wants to spend money to go to the front of the line, why should I care as long as my line gets shorter ?  I understand the concept is abhorrent but if we framed it differently we could accept service differences and fund service improvements.

Part of socialism is actually making the rich pay, not resenting their existence.  Two cents...

I agree. You build the public system you want and then let a private system work around that if it can.

I don't know why the concept should be abhorrent. Policy built solely around ideology is invariably bad policy, whether it is left or right idiology.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7816
Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
« Reply #36 on: October 14, 2020, 12:03:20 pm »
I agree. You build the public system you want and then let a private system work around that if it can.

I don't know why the concept should be abhorrent. Policy built solely around ideology is invariably bad policy, whether it is left or right idiology.

I think we just don't see the value in setting up strong public collaboration ... yet.

Offline Montgomery

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
« Reply #37 on: October 14, 2020, 12:04:22 pm »
I agree. You build the public system you want and then let a private system work around that if it can.

I don't know why the concept should be abhorrent. Policy built solely around ideology is invariably bad policy, whether it is left or right idiology.

My question for you wilbur is whether you are ignorant of the dangers of a two-tier system or you are callous and greedy enough to want to see our universal health care system destroyed?

No candidate will dare campaign on a two-tier system because it would be political hari-kari. But the danger is in a rightist party beginning to promote the idea after being elected, based on appealing to the people on taxation issues.

Offline Montgomery

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
« Reply #38 on: October 14, 2020, 12:07:32 pm »
My question for you wilbur is whether you are ignorant of the dangers of a two-tier system or you are callous and greedy enough to want to see our universal health care system destroyed?

No candidate will dare campaign on a two-tier system because it would be political hari-kari. But the danger is in a rightist party beginning to promote the idea after being elected, based on appealing to the people on taxation issues.

Do you see the value in not allowing a loved one be excluded from the best treatements for Cancer because he/she doesn't have a couple of hundred thousand dollars to pay for it?

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5626
Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
« Reply #39 on: October 14, 2020, 12:19:06 pm »
My question for you wilbur is whether you are ignorant of the dangers of a two-tier system or you are callous and greedy enough to want to see our universal health care system destroyed?

No candidate will dare campaign on a two-tier system because it would be political hari-kari. But the danger is in a rightist party beginning to promote the idea after being elected, based on appealing to the people on taxation issues.

Who wants to see universal health care destroyed? Many countries have some sort of two tier systems which include universal coverage and don't have near the wait lists we have in Canada. There are almost as many different systems as there are countries

The problem with Canada is that any time you want to discuss any meaningful health care reform, people start screaming about Americanization to shut down the discussion.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Montgomery

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
« Reply #40 on: October 14, 2020, 12:30:48 pm »
Who wants to see universal health care destroyed?

The Conservatives want to see inroads made against our system because the profits to be made out of a two-tier system causes them to see huge profits coming out of health care.

Two-tier by definition means just that! Two tiers of quality medicine with the bottom tier being inferior in quality. Can you invent another explanation?

Quote
Many countries have some sort of two tier systems which include universal coverage and don't have near the wait lists we have in Canada. There are almost as many different systems as there are countries

So you think you want to talk about their two-tier systems? Tell us something about what it means? Tell us what the top tier gets that the bottom tier does without?

Quote
The problem with Canada is that any time you want to discuss any meaningful health care reform, people start screaming about Americanization to shut down the discussion.

I'll won't start screaming that after you've had an opportunity to hold up your argument for a two-tier system. First I'll debate you on the merits of you position. And then I'll start screaming that after you've had your chance.

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5626
Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
« Reply #41 on: October 14, 2020, 12:33:50 pm »
Do you see the value in not allowing a loved one be excluded from the best treatements for Cancer because he/she doesn't have a couple of hundred thousand dollars to pay for it?

This assumes your public system is actually providing the best treatments for Cancer and your loved one will have speedy access to it. People shouldn't have to leave the country in order to access that level of care, particularly in a country as wealthy as Canada.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5626
Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
« Reply #42 on: October 14, 2020, 12:39:08 pm »
The Conservatives want to see inroads made against our system because the profits to be made out of a two-tier system causes them to see huge profits coming out of health care.

Two-tier by definition means just that! Two tiers of quality medicine with the bottom tier being inferior in quality. Can you invent another explanation?

So you think you want to talk about their two-tier systems? Tell us something about what it means? Tell us what the top tier gets that the bottom tier does without?

I'll won't start screaming that after you've had an opportunity to hold up your argument for a two-tier system. First I'll debate you on the merits of you position. And then I'll start screaming that after you've had your chance.

Why don't you look at them. You haven't given me an argument against them other than your ideology. I'm a fiscal conservative and a social pragmatist which simply means don't start programs you can't afford without borrowing to maintain them. I try not to let ideology get in the way of making good decisions. Sometimes I think I'm more of a liberal than you are.

"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Montgomery

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
« Reply #43 on: October 14, 2020, 12:43:35 pm »
Why don't you look at them. You haven't given me an argument against them other than your ideology. I'm a fiscal conservative and a social pragmatist which simply means don't start programs you can't afford without borrowing to maintain them. I try not to let ideology get in the way of making good decisions. Sometimes I think I'm more of a liberal than you are.

And so you have nothing wilbur! Except a little bit of crying an a lameassed attempt to change the subject so you don't have to deliver.

That didn't take long to find out what you're made of!

Offline wilber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5626
Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
« Reply #44 on: October 14, 2020, 12:47:15 pm »
And so you have nothing wilbur! Except a little bit of crying an a lameassed attempt to change the subject so you don't have to deliver.

That didn't take long to find out what you're made of!

Pretty transparent yourself.

All you have is throw more money at the present system because it is perfect and anything else is a conservative plot to benefit the rich.

"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC