Canadian Political Events

Federal Politics => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: MH on October 05, 2020, 07:04:07 am

Title: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: MH on October 05, 2020, 07:04:07 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annamie_Paul

Well, this is an interesting leader.  Interesting that this person interned with Conservatives and Liberals in Ontario.

A woman who checks off minority boxes is well positioned to bring in pragmatic and progressive climate and economic legislation.  She's certainly got the certification and the background.  Let's see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z8qcro_2_4

Well spoken, obviously. 

What policy is she putting forward ?

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/new-green-leader-annamie-paul-on-who-she-is-and-whats-next-for-her-party/

Vague.  Universal Income and Pharmacare, so... maybe they can add universal childcare and be Liberal ?
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Bubbermiley on October 05, 2020, 07:48:33 am
It's ridiculous that the party even exists. How many ways can you split the anti-CPC vote before they wind up getting a permanent majority?
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber on October 05, 2020, 11:52:29 am
It's ridiculous that the party even exists. How many ways can you split the anti-CPC vote before they wind up getting a permanent majority?

So are you in favour of a two party system, or a one party system?
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: MH on October 05, 2020, 11:58:49 am
The Green Party was known in Ontario as having a strong Conservative presence, since it's not anti-business it is pro-sustainability.  There's an element of taxation reform that was in there that some conservatives enjoyed.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery on October 05, 2020, 12:11:13 pm
The Green revolution is going to have to come from within the two major parties in Canada. By far the most likely will be the Liberals.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: MH on October 05, 2020, 12:38:27 pm
The Green revolution is going to have to come from within the two major parties in Canada. By far the most likely will be the Liberals.

Still, there's no reason why the CONSERVE-atives shouldn't take this on and own it.  It was George Bush Sr.'s administration that tackled the ozone hole using liberal principles.

But they are too enamoured of the prospect of getting the many unwashed to vote for them so they will make anti-UN statements.  I think the Liberals are our best hope and I have been incredibly cynical about them for decades.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: the_squid on October 05, 2020, 12:39:21 pm
The Green revolution is going to have to come from within the two major parties in Canada. By far the most likely will be the Liberals.

The Libs are only too happy with the status quo.  It will take pushing by other parties/provinces and citizens to force them into anything green.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: eyeball on October 05, 2020, 12:51:29 pm
It's ridiculous that the party even exists. How many ways can you split the anti-CPC vote before they wind up getting a permanent majority?
This suggests left wingers are perhaps more willing to put specific principles first and risk what might come from striking off on their own. It also suggests right wingers are more apt to ignore the stench of the more odious views expressed under the 'Big Tent' and follow its principles instead. The Greens aren't trying to split anything they're just trying to stick to their guns.

The Dark side of the force isn't more powerful it's just easier.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: waldo on October 05, 2020, 01:33:59 pm
The Libs are only too happy with the status quo.  It will take pushing by other parties/provinces and citizens to force them into anything green.

good on ya for recognizing the Green Party will never form government - good on ya!

by the by, just what is "your" plan - please... please bring forward that silly Green Party plan previously (so easily) dispatched in earlier threads - yes?


Canadian Liberal Governments Pan Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change:

- First Annual Synthesis Report on the Status of Implementation – December 2017 (https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pan-canadian-framework-reports/first-annual-report.html)

- Second Annual Synthesis Report on the Status of Implementation – December 2018 (https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pan-canadian-framework-reports/second-annual-report.html)

- Third Annual Synthesis Report on the Status of Implementation – July 2020 (https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pan-canadian-framework-reports/overview-third-annual-report.html)


Quote from: Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan
Affordable, safe nuclear power is key to reaching Canada's climate goals. I have not seen a credible plan for net zero without nuclear as part of the mix.

since early spring, O'Regan has been emphasizing the need for investments in clean technology... particularly hydrogen fuel cells and small modular reactors (SMRs) - and member squiggy, what about your Green Party, hey?
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: BC_cheque on October 06, 2020, 02:10:38 am
So are you in favour of a two party system, or a one party system?

I would've liked to see the People's Party gain some traction and we have a true multi-party system but our current number of parties only benefit the CPC.

There was a good (and effective) reason Alliance and PC merged together.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber on October 06, 2020, 05:54:20 am
I would've liked to see the People's Party gain some traction and we have a true multi-party system but our current number of parties only benefit the CPC.

There was a good (and effective) reason Alliance and PC merged together.

So multi party systems are only good if they give the result you want?
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery on October 06, 2020, 12:10:28 pm
So multi party systems are only good if they give the result you want?

It's a real shame but the NDP is getting in the way now. There's hope with Trudeau because he's more left than his party, but is slowly moving his party more left.

And there's always the possibility that the Liberals will be pulled back toward the right and socially irresponsible government.

I think a good sound defeat of Trump in the land of the gun will tend to be a heavy influence on Canada's political trend for the next decade or more. The opposite would be disaster for the world and will be a resurgence of fascism to have to deal with.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber on October 06, 2020, 07:09:45 pm
It's a real shame but the NDP is getting in the way now. There's hope with Trudeau because he's more left than his party, but is slowly moving his party more left.

And there's always the possibility that the Liberals will be pulled back toward the right and socially irresponsible government.

I think a good sound defeat of Trump in the land of the gun will tend to be a heavy influence on Canada's political trend for the next decade or more. The opposite would be disaster for the world and will be a resurgence of fascism to have to deal with.

I see you aren't a fan of PR either. You know, the reform JT promised in 2015.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery on October 07, 2020, 01:03:03 pm
I see you aren't a fan of PR either. You know, the reform JT promised in 2015.

Priorities and promises change with the weather. I'm more into looking for a Liberal party move to either the left or the right.
The Liberals and the Conservatives will usually do that which brings the most support from the people, and then revise their moves later to be in tune with their politics.

So for instance with the Conservatives: I can see them being all for upholding our universal health care system and then after winning an election, start bringing in a two-tier system.

Or you could probably think up some other scenario on how the Liberals would need to lie and  then backtrack?
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber on October 07, 2020, 03:08:31 pm
Priorities and promises change with the weather. I'm more into looking for a Liberal party move to either the left or the right.
The Liberals and the Conservatives will usually do that which brings the most support from the people, and then revise their moves later to be in tune with their politics.

So for instance with the Conservatives: I can see them being all for upholding our universal health care system and then after winning an election, start bringing in a two-tier system.

Or you could probably think up some other scenario on how the Liberals would need to lie and  then backtrack?

The bogey man card.

Harper had six years to do that, why didn't he?
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery on October 07, 2020, 03:19:17 pm
The bogey man card.

Harper had six years to do that, why didn't he?

There were lots of indications of Harper's Consdervatives covert attempts to mess with our health care system. One of them being their close cooperation with the stated goals of the Fraser Institute.

Our health care system is sacred to Canadians and so no overt moves by the Conservatives would ever be tolerated. It requires stealth by them to even make small incremental changes. But there's no denying that they're seeing  literally billions of dollars in the prospects! Even just the appearance of being close to the Fraser Institute is bringing the Cons hundreds of thousands already!
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber on October 07, 2020, 06:22:07 pm
There were lots of indications of Harper's Consdervatives covert attempts to mess with our health care system. One of them being their close cooperation with the stated goals of the Fraser Institute.

Our health care system is sacred to Canadians and so no overt moves by the Conservatives would ever be tolerated. It requires stealth by them to even make small incremental changes. But there's no denying that they're seeing  literally billions of dollars in the prospects! Even just the appearance of being close to the Fraser Institute is bringing the Cons hundreds of thousands already!




Whatever. Just another conspiracy rant with nothing to back it up.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: waldo on October 08, 2020, 03:46:50 am
So for instance with the Conservatives: I can see them being all for upholding our universal health care system and then after winning an election, start bringing in a two-tier system.
The bogey man card.

Harper had six years to do that, why didn't he?
There were lots of indications of Harper's Conservatives covert attempts to mess with our health care system.
Whatever. Just another conspiracy rant with nothing to back it up.

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?
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber on October 08, 2020, 09:09:11 am
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201845E
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: waldo on October 08, 2020, 10:21:57 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EesJgyfFZxY&feature=emb_logo ... and yes member wilber, a lower rate increase is a... cut
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber on October 08, 2020, 11:41:40 am
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/who-s-behind-the-anti-andrew-scheer-ad-airing-during-raptors-game-1.4460332
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: waldo on October 08, 2020, 11:55:15 am
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201845E
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/who-s-behind-the-anti-andrew-scheer-ad-airing-during-raptors-game-1.4460332

geezaz member wilber! 2 go-fetch links in a row; I indulged your first one... but won't bother with your latest. If only you could rise to actually quoting from your links and attempting to make some... any... points! If only.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber on October 08, 2020, 12:14:29 pm
geezaz member wilber! 2 go-fetch links in a row; I indulged your first one... but won't bother with your latest. If only you could rise to actually quoting from your links and attempting to make some... any... points! If only.

You are a lost cause waldo. Others can read the links and decide for themselves.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: waldo on October 08, 2020, 01:00:02 pm
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!

(https://i.imgur.com/dILZyDz.png)
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery on October 08, 2020, 01:12:34 pm
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!

(https://i.imgur.com/dILZyDz.png)

The Conservatives will always be saddled with their need to turn our health care system into a private insurance failure like America's. That will work for the right's politics in the US but it can never work in Canada. They won't give up their hope but they will pretend to give it up.

How delightfully satisfying to hear people like our wilbur struggle with it!
LOL
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber on October 08, 2020, 01:26:39 pm
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!

(https://i.imgur.com/dILZyDz.png)

Your links to political attack adds are even less conducive. Not conducive at all, they could have been written by yourself.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery on October 08, 2020, 01:28:31 pm
Your links to political attack adds are even less conducive. Not conducive at all, they could have been written by yourself.

And so how do 'you' want to 'improve' Canada's health care system wilbur?
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber on October 08, 2020, 02:08:45 pm
And so how do 'you' want to 'improve' Canada's health care system wilbur?
Right back atcha, you haven’t said anything about improving it.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery on October 08, 2020, 02:30:17 pm
Right back atcha, you haven’t said anything about improving it.

That's an easy one wilbur. The answer, as it always is, in increasing funding. Fighting against doing that is the Conservatives best talking point.

And that's also the main key to improving quality.

And so are you going to run away from the question? How do you want to improve it?
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber on October 08, 2020, 05:28:30 pm
That's an easy one wilbur. The answer, as it always is, in increasing funding. Fighting against doing that is the Conservatives best talking point.

And that's also the main key to improving quality.

And so are you going to run away from the question? How do you want to improve it?

That's it? More money? Wow, impressive.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: waldo 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?

Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery 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.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber 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.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: MH 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...
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery 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.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber 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.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: MH 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.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery 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.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery 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?
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber 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.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery 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.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber 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.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber 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.

Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery 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!
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber 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.

Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery on October 14, 2020, 12:50:06 pm
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.

Stop embarrassing yourself and go ask your dad what the top tier gets and the bottom tier has to go without? Or take a day or two to think about it because you're done without it!
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber on October 14, 2020, 12:53:22 pm
Stop embarrassing yourself and go ask your dad what the top tier gets and the bottom tier has to go without? Or take a day or two to think about it because you're done without it!

My dad died several years ago two weeks short of his 98'th birthday. You?
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: MH on October 14, 2020, 07:11:48 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?

To point out: this is the way it is today.

But if people have an aversion to this idea - and of course they would - then you could exclude life saving treatment from the queue and still improve quality of care. 
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery on October 15, 2020, 01:48:09 pm
To point out: this is the way it is today.

But if people have an aversion to this idea - and of course they would - then you could exclude life saving treatment from the queue and still improve quality of care.

I don't agree that this is the way it is today and that's because our system is rated to be quite a few places higher than the US system. If we want to have the best in the world then we need to strive for a system as good as the world's leader. That is far from the US example.

And so we can return to the question: What does a two-tier system provide to the very wealthy that can't be provided to the rest of the people?
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: MH on October 15, 2020, 01:57:40 pm
And so we can return to the question: What does a two-tier system provide to the very wealthy that can't be provided to the rest of the people?

Queue jumping for convenience, for example, nice-to-haves.  I guess it's theoretical, from my POV and may not be a great idea.  But France does do this, and it's pretty socialist there (I lived there) so it makes me wonder.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery on October 15, 2020, 02:36:34 pm
Queue jumping for convenience, for example, nice-to-haves.  I guess it's theoretical, from my POV and may not be a great idea.  But France does do this, and it's pretty socialist there (I lived there) so it makes me wonder.

It could be that Canada has the best in the world?
 https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/countries-with-the-most-well-developed-public-health-care-system

I wouldn't bet against it! As for a two-tier system? That would be a hugely destructive move against having one of the best. I think that to be the best in the world the country so named would be able to accept that it's perfectly good to allow it's very wealthy to jump the queue by travelling to some other country for quicker medical attention.

Somethinig worth mentioning is the fact that Americans per capita travel to some other country for healthcare nearly 2 1/2 times more than do Canadians!

France used to be #1 in the world but they may have slipped down the list on rankings?
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber on October 15, 2020, 03:25:27 pm
Health care rankings are all over the map. You can find studies that rank Canada all the way from 1st to 30th.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: waldo on October 16, 2020, 01:17:57 am
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.

how many of these 'exceptions to the rule' are legitimate cases of the unavailability of 'best treatment'. Queue triage management should ensure acute needs patients are at the top end of the queue... or skip the queue all together. Are you able to provide stats as to how many Canadians seek life-saving treatments outside of Canada (cancer or otherwise)?

more pointedly, can you point to countries that have 2-tier systems where the 'bottom tier' hasn't been compromised by the development/expansion of the 'top tier'?
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery on October 16, 2020, 12:12:29 pm
how many of these 'exceptions to the rule' are legitimate cases of the unavailability of 'best treatment'. Queue triage management should ensure acute needs patients are at the top end of the queue... or skip the queue all together. Are you able to provide stats as to how many Canadians seek life-saving treatments outside of Canada (cancer or otherwise)?

more pointedly, can you point to countries that have 2-tier systems where the 'bottom tier' hasn't been compromised by the development/expansion of the 'top tier'?

There are numbers available on the web for both Canadians and Americans travelling out of country for health care. I based my '2 1/2 times' more for Americans on those figures. I believe it's something like 1.2 M Americans and the equal would be roughly .12 Canadians. The stats say something like 40,000 Canadians travel.

Wilbur can't say just what he would refuse to the bottom tier in healthcare and so can't be taken seriously until he does come up with some satisfactory explanations.

It's correct to say that the rankings for Canada's healthcare are all over the board but it's also correct to say that we're always rated better than the US system.

I have a suspicioin that the next Conservative government will have another run at introducing some sort of private 'for profit' system into our healthcare system. The profits to be had are just too big for the Cons to ignore.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber on October 16, 2020, 01:49:06 pm


more pointedly, can you point to countries that have 2-tier systems where the 'bottom tier' hasn't been compromised by the development/expansion of the 'top tier'?

You automatically assume there will be a top and bottom tier. Why?
Why is denying people care outside of a public system a bad thing?

I am completely in favour of a public system and universal coverage but it is simply ideology that prevents anything outside such a system. If governments aren't prepared to raise the revenues or make changes to improve a public system and in fact, ration healthcare, why shouldn't people be able to get treatment outside of it?
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery on October 16, 2020, 02:48:33 pm
You automatically assume there will be a top and bottom tier. Why?
Why is denying people care outside of a public system a bad thing?

I am completely in favour of a public system and universal coverage but it is simply ideology that prevents anything outside such a system. If governments aren't prepared to raise the revenues or make changes to improve a public system and in fact, ration healthcare, why shouldn't people be able to get treatment outside of it?

You need to first stfu and then start to try to explain what you think you mean by your two-tier system in which there is no top and bottom. Or better still, stop wasting peoples' time with your silly nonsense.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: waldo on October 16, 2020, 04:30:32 pm
how many of these 'exceptions to the rule' are legitimate cases of the unavailability of 'best treatment'. Queue triage management should ensure acute needs patients are at the top end of the queue... or skip the queue all together. Are you able to provide stats as to how many Canadians seek life-saving treatments outside of Canada (cancer or otherwise)?
There are numbers available on the web for both Canadians and Americans traveling out of country for health care. I based my '2 1/2 times' more for Americans on those figures. I believe it's something like 1.2 M Americans and the equal would be roughly .12 Canadians. The stats say something like 40,000 Canadians travel.

I should have been more precise - I wasn't speaking to so-called 'medical tourism'. Rather, I was referencing (suspect) concerns raised by 2-tier advocates who presume to suggest/imply that wait times are forcing "some number" of Canadians to seek life-saving medical care outside of Canada. Certainly there are a very limited number of specialized care/surgery options only available in other countries... but these have nothing to do with wait times in respective Canadian provinces. Of course the underlying premise has 2-tier advocates implying private health care options would preclude the need to seek these most rare specialized care/surgery needs outside of Canada. Hence my challenge to member wilber to put up some numbers/stats in that regard.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: waldo on October 16, 2020, 04:36:07 pm
more pointedly, can you point to countries that have 2-tier systems where the 'bottom tier' hasn't been compromised by the development/expansion of the 'top tier'?
You automatically assume there will be a top and bottom tier. Why? Why is denying people care outside of a public system a bad thing?

clearly member Montgomery put your word-parsing nonsense in its place. But hey, I'll play; here's my do-over so you can't avoid the question intent:

can you point to countries that have 2-tier systems where the 'public tier' hasn't been compromised by the development/expansion of the 'private tier'?
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: the_squid on October 16, 2020, 05:12:35 pm

can you point to countries that have 2-tier systems where the 'public tier' hasn't been compromised by the development/expansion of the 'private tier'?

Sweden
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber on October 16, 2020, 05:30:18 pm
You need to first stfu and then start to try to explain what you think you mean by your two-tier system in which there is no top and bottom. Or better still, stop wasting peoples' time with your silly nonsense.


This is the second thread where you have resorted to personal insults. Piss off yourself.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber on October 16, 2020, 05:34:13 pm
One thing you could do is not allow tax deductions for medical expenses incurred outside the public system for procedures that are also provided by the public system.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: waldo on October 17, 2020, 01:42:01 am
can you point to countries that have 2-tier systems where the 'public tier' hasn't been compromised by the development/expansion of the 'private tier'?
Sweden

hey now members squiggy & wilber - as you both are fronting Sweden's healthcare system, I'm surprised you're offering nothing... nada... bupkis to validate your claim.

like, for instance, what's the penetration rate of private coverage. What's this about Sweden's private being principally an outlet for employer based groupings? Any thoughts on how you'd like to draw a parallel between the healthcare role/responsibility of municipalities in Sweden to that of, say, provinces in Canada? Any thoughts on how/why the national Swedish government actually sets policy (policy, not standards) for all the counties/municipalities... and how that is completely opposite to what exists in Canada? And, hey now, what's this I'm reading about the inequities of coverage between "Old Stock Swedes"  ;D and new immigrant types? And waddabout actual problems with the Swedish system - like wait times! Wait now - how can wait times still be a problem for a 2-tier system you're pimpin' out, hey!

c'mon, amateurs! Get in the game...
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: waldo on October 17, 2020, 03:59:24 pm
 ;D hey now members squiggy & wilber - after such long & hard work, I am continually heartened to watch your Pavlovian response that has you so conditioned to now regularly substitute the 'informative tag' in place of the... 'dumb tag'! Good boys... would you like your tummies rubbed?
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 17, 2020, 04:35:51 pm
You need to first stfu and then start to try to explain what you think you mean by your two-tier system in which there is no top and bottom. Or better still, stop wasting peoples' time with your silly nonsense.

This coming form someone who was disappointed in me using the word "retardos".  And then said you wanted to "build bridges with me".  Your above post is retardo.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber on October 17, 2020, 05:27:53 pm
;D hey now members squiggy & wilber - after such long & hard work, I am continually heartened to watch your Pavlovian response that has you so conditioned to now regularly substitute the 'informative tag' in place of the... 'dumb tag'! Good boys... would you like your tummies rubbed?

I'm just open to ideas that could make timely healthcare available to more people. Sorry if that interferes with your agenda.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on October 17, 2020, 07:26:50 pm
I'm just open to ideas that could make timely healthcare available to more people. Sorry if that interferes with your agenda.

If you have public healthcare and only public healthcare, the gov needs to fund it adequately.

My province doesn't give adequate funding to healthcare, and so people suffer needlessly and inhumanely.

Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: waldo on October 18, 2020, 11:40:52 am
I'm just open to ideas that could make timely healthcare available to more people. Sorry if that interferes with your agenda.

don't couch your position now! Be loud & proud about wanting 2-tier healthcare in Canada. And ya, if my, as you say, "agenda"... is to question/challenge your position/statements favouring 2-tier healthcare, guilty as charged!

I note you... and member squiggy still haven't replied with anything to support your claim concerning Sweden's health system - is there a problem for you guys, hey?
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery on October 18, 2020, 12:10:46 pm
This coming form someone who was disappointed in me using the word "retardos".  And then said you wanted to "build bridges with me".  Your above post is retardo.

I thought it was appropriate for wilber at the time.  Sometimes it's best to be stern with rightists. And as for you, once is o.k. but if you keep that sort of childish behaviour up then you'll also be treated the same way. Just remember who it was that started to burn bridges.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber on October 18, 2020, 03:22:15 pm
I thought it was appropriate for wilber at the time.  Sometimes it's best to be stern with rightists. And as for you, once is o.k. but if you keep that sort of childish behaviour up then you'll also be treated the same way. Just remember who it was that started to burn bridges.

If you can't discuss anything without using labels, you are just plain lazy.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery on October 19, 2020, 12:54:47 pm
One thing you could do is not allow tax deductions for medical expenses incurred outside the public system for procedures that are also provided by the public system.

Have you become a leftist wilbur, or are you just confused? If it's the former then welcome to the real world in Canada.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: wilber on October 19, 2020, 03:23:11 pm
Have you become a leftist wilbur, or are you just confused? If it's the former then welcome to the real world in Canada.

No Monty, I have an open mind when it comes to our health care system. I'm not a champion of two tier systems but there may be some advantages to parallel systems. If you have some other ideas, feel free to bring them up but if you are stuck at just throwing more money at the present system, there isn't much to discuss.

Try it without the labels and insults, you might get a better response. You just come across as a left wing Trump with your dismissive insulting attitude.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: the_squid on October 19, 2020, 05:02:51 pm
Try it without the labels and insults, you might get a better response. You just come across as a left wing Trump with your dismissive insulting attitude.

I thought Montgomery was a rightist, given his attitude towards indigenous fishing rights.  Rightists are often anti-indigenous rights.
Title: Re: Talking Green (ie. the party)
Post by: Montgomery on October 20, 2020, 12:46:55 pm
No Monty, I have an open mind when it comes to our health care system. I'm not a champion of two tier systems but there may be some advantages to parallel systems. If you have some other ideas, feel free to bring them up but if you are stuck at just throwing more money at the present system, there isn't much to discuss.

Try it without the labels and insults, you might get a better response. You just come across as a left wing Trump with your dismissive insulting attitude.

In a sense I agree that your mind has been opened wilbur, but now it's time to patch the hole.
You can rightly accuse me of wanting to throw more money at the present system, because I haven't heard any other solutions to what is lacking in our healthcare system.

So now if you've patched up the hole then how about a Conservative idea or two?

As to your non-specific suggestion that there could be some advantage to a 'parallel' (?) system, I'll provide something a bit more specific. Anyone who wants something different from what is provided to Canadians, are free to travel to some other country to get it.

So what are you on about wilbur, if not just blowing smoke up a dead dog's a-s?