Jump to content
270soft Forum

What are your basic political belifs.


Recommended Posts

Mr.Appel posted this:

I am in favour of a large increase to public health-care funding, while allowing some private health-care to those who want it.

I am in favour of same-sex marriage.

I believe in mandatory counselling before an abortion is allowed, and restrictions except in cases of rape or if the pregnancy would be a risk to the mother's life.

I am in favour of an elected senate.

I am in favour of gradual tax cuts for businesses, with larger tax cuts for businesses that show themselves to be respectful of the environment.

I don't agree with Kyoto, but I do feel we need more environmental legislation.

I believe in scrapping the gun registry.

I am in favour of moderate income tax cuts for the lowest 25% of income earners in Canada and a small income tax increase for the highest 25% of income earners in Canada.

I am in favour of allowing Quebec to have their independance, if they desire.

I am in favour of less trade and a looser affliation with the United States, in order to pursue stronger trade relations and affliation with the EU and parts of Southeast Asia like Taiwan, Vietnam and Thailand.

I am in favour of a stronger military to be used in peacekeeping missions sanctioned and approved by the UN.

I believe that Canada should be at the forefront of defending human rights in the world. They should stand in opposition to human rights violations in China and Burma.

I believe in Electoral Reform, including a move to PR. I would like to see each riding go with a preferential ballot with instant runoff, and then party list PR to make up the difference.

and I thought I should respond - but did not want to hijack the thread

here are my issues, somewhat in order, most to least important.

Senate Reform

Fix the judicial system - base it more on intent

do a Mike Harris on the budget - cept do it with heart. I prefer the Sweden approach, low corporate taxes, higher relative individual income taxes. I thikn the rich should pay more then the poor do, in exchange, make it easier to register a small corporation as a company, hence, your personal income taxes are not affected. We need to readjust welfare, give money to those who are really trying and make it easier for them to get the money, while at the same time cutting off those who are not even trying. in short, we need to provide more help to those who need it, and less to those who dont, while not bankrupting the nation. grow the economy, that's important, but its also important to invest.

I'm a huge supporter of social libertarinaism. legalize all drugs - tax them too. let people marry thier hands and 4 cows if they want to.

2 teired healthcare. find out what the rate of healthcare, per person, and make it a law that the government must provide that much funding - there's your equal access. allow anyone who wnats to to go to the private system. tax it heavly, and make it law that the funds raised from it go into healthcare and only healthcare. what you'll end up with is shorter lines for one. Since there's a finite number of funds going into healthcare, the money spent on you increases (if people leave the line, then less of them are in the line). beyond that, what they pay out in taxes on private healthcare goes in beyond and over to public health, meaning even more money for you.

I hate the enviroment

our stance on trade should be that all free trade should come with minimum wage minimums. How can anyone not see that all the companies will eventually move to where ages are lowest. Do you want the world to stabilize out at $1 a day, or $10 an hour.

and more infrascture. build roads for what we will need, not what we needed so long ago that the people are crying out for more. Like the interestate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you on every, Pellaken, except that I do believe in environmental protection, although I feel Kyoto would go about it wrong, and I'm not a liberatarian.

I also believe in two-tiered healthcare, but the private level would be highly taxed(with the money, as you say, going strictly toward public healthcare funding). That way, people are encouraged to go to public health care for most things, but private healthcare is available if you want it enough and you have money to spend.

I do believe in the legalization of all drugs, however, as you say, they'd be highly taxed. I also believe they should come with warning labels and ways to stop using them, if desired, like cigarettes do.

And, while I do believe in free trade, I believe in the minimum wage law being imposed on it, as well as some standard for environmental protection during manufacturing. And, like I said, I believe we need to cut back trade with the US and focus more on trading with the UK, France, Spain and other EU countries, plus nations in Asia like Vietnam, Thailand and Taiwan. I believe we need to cut ties with China and impose sanctions on them until they start improving their human rights record.

And I definately feel Canada needs to press the UN for action against the military junta governing Burma. Canada should lead the way of the world on defending human rights.

And, before you ask, I'm a monarchist and believe we need to maintain all current ties with the British Crown. Heck, if I had my way, God Save the Queen would still be our national anthem!

So, it's interesting that both of us are Liberals, yet we both have different ideas about things.

Can't have that sort of thing in the NDP, can you? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, basic political beliefs.

Reform the election system to allow some form of proportionality, even if it's not perfect, to reduce distortions caused by the first-past-the-post system. Abolish the Senate, I have no stomach for useless secondary chambers.

Prevent the privatization of healthcare, because a private sector is only going to loot the limited resources of the public system, making it less efficient and of lower quality. Since the public system is, in every study, more efficient and costs less, if our goal is to assure every one has access to the best quality health-care as possible, then we should support the public system we have. The private sector is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem, we have to re-incorporate the resources that it has taken away into the public sector. Think about it, where is the private system going to take its doctors? From thin air? And I want to make sure that every dollar spent on health care is going towards treatment for the patients, if we accept for-profit services to be created, then it means a part of every dollar is going not toward making sure that people get treated well and fats, but toward making rich people even richer.

We need also the put the human back in the economy. For too long, economists and politicians have considered only un-personal and merely statistical data to judge how the economy is going, data that at best give a very skewed vision of how well people live. Our goal should be to make sure that the economy accomplishes its purpose: the greater good for the greatest number of people. That's why I think we should democratize the decision process of economic power, just as we did for political power, in short: socialism. Meaning we should encourage cooperatives, unions, credit unions, etc... All things that put human preoccupations in the things considered for economical decisions.

Fair trade, not free trade. We should not have free market deals with anyone who doesn't respect workers' or human rights, we should also make sure that our sovereignty is never put into question by the treaties we sign that would give companies the right to force our elected government to change policy. Tariffs are sometimes essential to give the time to our industries some time to adapt for competition from industries in other countries.

Get the government out of the bedrooms of folks. Make sure everyone is respected and is allowed to make the choices for their personal life that they want without society forcing choices on them, as long as they don't hurt others. Religion is a personal matter, not a social matter.

Make education accessible for all by lowering tuition and grants for poorer students, and consider social subjects as important as subjects that are more useful to find jobs. Our education system should not only exist to serve the Market, but to create critical and active citizens.

Give an army made for peacekeeping that will serve as a tool for a policy of propagating peace and human rights, not as a offensive tool to further our interests. Be active in the UN and favor its interventions.

Oh, and work toward accomplishing sovereignty for my nation, Québec.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What policy exactly?

Supporting cooperatives and unions? Go read about the region of Bologna, called "Bologna the Red" for constantly electing the left, and that has supported cooperatives, credit unions, and etc... It is one of the most prosperous regions of Italy. Or maybe about the Scandinavian countries, where taxes are very high, unionization at 80% and that are considered amongst the most competitive economies in the world.

Incoporating the private healthcare sector into the public one? Nope, it has about zero importance for the economy. Unless you want an economy that's over-inflated by a wasteful healthcare sector like in the US.

My position on Fair Trade? No, it's complete Free Trade that would ruin us, since there's no way in hell we could compete with countries where workers are paid 1$ a day, our industrial sector would collapse, and it'd go down hill from there.

The only reason one would consider my policies as dangerous for the economy would be if he bought into that BS of classical liberalism that was proven decades ago to be unsustainable and ruinous for people's lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the scandinavation economies are stagnating. and none of these places hold a candle to the econimic success of the US

now I'm not suggesting we go the route of the US, but there's a balance there between left and right when it comes to the economy, and I'm on the right in more wyas the one.

and I support fair trade

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a solid Conservative. I support:

A strong military

Strong police forces

Tough criminal laws and harsh penalties for offenders

Truth in sentencing of criminals

Tough drug laws

An unhindered freemarket economy

Personal responsibility as opposed to a nanny state

Welfare as a hand-up but never a hand out

Democratic reform, including a triple E senate and implementation of preferential ballots.

No same sex marriage, however, civil unions would be acceptable

Reasonable environmental protection that does NOT include the Kyoto wealth transfer sceme.

Low corporate and personal income taxes

Mandatory balanced budgets

A public healthcare system funded and operated by both the government and private interests.

Smaller, less invasive government

A strict schedule of debt repayment

Link to post
Share on other sites
the scandinavation economies are stagnating. and none of these places hold a candle to the econimic success of the US

Where have you been these last 4 years? The US economy is the one stagnating, they have lost a lot of jobs under a very right-wing government. What you don't want to hear about the US' "economic miracle" is that it has created untold poverty abroad, but also domestically. I suggest you to seek info on the phenomenon of the "working poor" in the US, which explains why they, despite a low unemployment rate and a high activity rate, are at the bottom of ladders of poverty indexes amongst the industrialized countries. Sure, their GDP is high, but many Americans live in poverty and misery, worse than what citizens of most other countries experience. That's a main example of where the economic indicators have supplanted the human reality.

Rather than simply say that my policies would be bad for the economy, tell me which one and why. Otherwise, I'll simply apply the motto "What is affirmed without proof can be refuted without proof" and say you're wrong, and that'll be the end of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the US economy is booming

its it's people that's being phucked over.

its rich is getting richer and richer every day.

Not so much. They manage to get the GDP up, but it doesn't represent anything really for millions of Americans. It's mostly virtual money creating even more virtual money, while the industrial sector has a lot of trouble, employment down and poverty up. But the GDP, as much as economists want to force it down our throat as the only indicator of wealth, isn't perfect, not by a long shot. The fact is, if people are getting screwed and most are getting poorer, then the economy is not faring that well, whatever economists say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basic political beliefs?

Progressive taxiation, with eliminated income tax for low income earners and higher income taxes for high income earners (i.e. $100,000 plus).

Income taxes and corporate taxes perferred over consumption taxes (i.e. sales taxes) since consumption taxes are generally regressive.

Increased corporate taxes with tax cut incentives based on environmental/worker standards.

An independent Canadian foreign policy, including NO participation in Iraq or Missile Defence. I'm still undecided about Canada being in NATO and NORAD.

Greater trade with other countries, especially in Latin America.

While I'm not against free trade in and of itself, I am against the particular manner in which "free trade" is being introduced. I want to see Chapter 11 from NAFTA removed, ensure that public services, environmental/workplace standards, etc. are protected in any other agreement (FTAA). I would remove Canada from the WTO, since it is about corporate takeover and NOT about trade.

I'm for same-sex marriage and marijuana decriminalization, namely because I don't think these issues are really worth getting so upset about. It's a personal choice issue.

Free or significantly reduced university tuition, on par with many European nations.

No censorship laws, no matter what.

A three-way mixed economy, with a combination of private, public, and co-operative enterprises. To clarify where certain services/industries would fall, they are...

PUBLIC: Health care, education, insurance, perhaps one bank and media outlet, postal service, perscription drugs, one airline, railway, and bus line.

CO-OP: Forestry on Crown Lands, Native Fisheries, etc.

PRIVATE: The rest.

A Middle East policy that recognizes that no peace can exist until Palestinians no longer live in an aparthied situation. Only when that is removed can meaningful discussions on a Palestinian state take place. Indeed, Israeli settlements make talk about a Palestinian state increasingly difficult. Perhaps a single state solution is best. I'm not sure, but Palestinians must be liberated from Israeli military rule.

Moreover, a Middle East policy that understands that stable democracy will only emerge in the region when the locals themselves decide to move in that direction.

Increased ties with the European Union.

A move towards renewable energy, for both environmental and economic reasons. The goal must be to be off of oil by the time oil runs out (circa 2050-2070).

Kyoto Protocol all the way!

Democratic reform in the form of a Mixed Member Proportional system, where half of the MPs are elected in single member ridings and half are elected by PR list, similar to the system in New Zealand. This system allows for a fusion of the best of both systems (local representation AND parliaments that are representative of vote distribution).

Laws against media ownership concentration, either by private or government entities.

Balanced Budgets are very important. Debt must NEVER be incurred (with minor exceptions for war or large capital projects that will boost economic activity, such as railways around 1870).

Fully public health care, including home care and drug plans.

Pro-choice.

I'm not really in favour of affirmative action, since it is merely another form of discrimination. Of course, it can become hazardous at times to suggest so, especially if you are a white male.

Maintain the wheat board, and favour family farms over corporate farms.

Lower the voting age to 16. Lower the drinking age to 16 as well.

That's about all I can think of now. Please ask if you want to know more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Free or significantly reduced university tuition, on par with many European nations.

No censorship laws, no matter what.

Balanced Budgets are very important. Debt must NEVER be incurred (with minor exceptions for war or large capital projects that will boost economic activity, such as railways around 1870).

I agree with these.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Standing for whats right

When I think of Canada, I think of a splendid country that is already the envy of many. I think of a country I greatly enjoy to live in and am thankful to be born in. I think of a country than I am generally happy with.

Unfortunately, I also think of a country that fails to realise its full potential. I think of pointless bickering in beetween our level of governements.

Our current governement have no big project we can dream on and no values other than staying in power. This needs to change. Canada deserve better. Canada needs to stands up for more than not being american - we should abandon this inferiority complex completely - and universal healthcare.

Canada needs to stand up for what is right. We needs to stand up for the values we all share deep down.

Democracy. Freedom. Responsibility. Accountability. Integrity. Honour.

We need to act accordingly to these values. We need to defend them, in Canada and abroad. This is what Canada should get recognised for internationally. Those values, if defended accordingly by the governement, would give us a true sense of national canadian unity. Canada, the country that stands at home and abroad for whats right.

The first job of a governement, the most important one, is to protect its people from outside and inside threats. With a big stick - read army -, alliances with the US and other democratic nations and diplomacy, Canada will be able to take back the place it belongs to, the place of a respected middle power that stands up for whats right. Like what Canada used to be right after the Second World War, where we helped the europeans to vanquish the evils of nazism.

Thus, improving our army, giving our soldiers the equipements they need to fight proudly for our values, should be our first economic priority until our army has grown back to a respectable level . We shouldnt give up the fight for democracy until humanity as a whole is under the liberating breeze of freedom.

Of course, Canada cannot do the work alone. We need alliances. No better place to start than with the USA, our powerful neighbour. We need to stand up with them against terror. We need to do our part in the war on terror as we did in Afghanistan. We need to cooperate with them and other nations facin the threat of terrorism.

But... we cannot be taken seriously when fighting for democracy if our own is deficient, right?

We need to bring back accountability and the highest level of ethics in our Parliament, in our governement. This is what Canada deserve and should ask for. Nothing less.

We have no time, nor patience for corruption , incompetence and personal agendas in our governement.

The Prime Minister of Canada is a human being like everyone else. Theyre is no reason why one single person should control so much in our country. Every voice needs to be heard. The power of the PMO needs to be SERIOUSLY toned down.

The Senate should be reformed, and activist judges should be stopped. Its the work of the Elected Parliament, not the unelected court, to make the law of the land.

Speaking of laws.. we should be much harsher on the scum of our society - pedophiles , murderers , rapists should all get jail for life. Nothing less is enough to atone for their crimes.

At the same time, we shouldnt waste our time and good people lifes for a rather benign mistake. Victimless crimes shouldnt be so harsly punished. Arresting someone for smoking a joint is plain silly.

The Governement needs to be at the time without mercy for its ennemies and give the fullest possible freedom to law abiding citizens.

Enough with this PC crap. Everyone have the rights to express their own opinions. Canada is a free country. No one should be judged for their beliefs , either religious or political , their skin colour, sexual orientation, gender, etc.. Only harmful actions should be punished.

We are all equal human beings who deserve the same rights under the law. Simple as that.

I have to make a nuance on this, however.. I am talking here of equality of oppurtunity, not of outcomes. Hard work should pay off and those who are lazy shouldnt get anything.

Welfare should be an unfortunate but temporary situation, unless one is retired or is geniuenly unable to work. These 2 situations should get our full support.

Talking of spending policies.. Corporate welfare, equalisation and other grants are plain unfair and should be cutted down.

The resulting economies should be given as tax cuts to the working poor, families with children and small bussiness. The wealthy tax rate and big bussiness tax rate is alright as it is.

Concerning children, we should encourage people to get more young ones with tax cuts. Children are our future.

And so is the environement.. To protect the environment is the one of the only reason why free markets should be pushed aside,IMO. Money wont mean anything if we destroy Mother Earth..

Also, we should trade freely with any nation that share our basic values and is no threat to us.

Economic responsibility also means to pay down the debt quickly, to lift this burden on our future generation. We need to give our children a safe and economically viable nation.

Voilà.. thats my vision for Canada :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The basic fact of the matter is that some private services need to exist, health-care especially.

The reason is that, if a separate, regulated private system is allowed to exist, it takes the strain off the public system and allows the public system to be that much more efficient. The more rich that take part in private health-care, the less waiting-time in hospitals and the less strained and overextended the public system would be.

The crucial fact is simply that the NDP won 19 seats not because "the Liberals stole their support" or "people feared the Conservatives." The NDP won 19 seats because that's what they deserved to win, given their campaign. From the ground-level, the NDP campaigns in many ridings were complete jokes.

Here in my home riding of Dartmouth-Cole Harbour, the NDP had a slam-dunk: A poor, working-class riding with every single MLA representing the riding provincially being NDP, with the leader of the Nova Scotia NDP living in the riding and helping out the candidate, plus the previous incumbent stepping-down was NDP.

But they lost it because:

1) The candidate spent more time smiling for the camera than knocking on doors.

2) The campaign manager was a politically-inexperienced dumbass who couldn't sell water to a thirsty man.

3) The candidate was a ditz.

This was probably one of the most poorly-run campaigns in the entire country, although I didn't study many other campaigns.

But they still should have won it. Against all odds, the NDP should have slammed dunked it.

But they didn't. And why?

Why did the NDP grossly over-estimate their final numbers?

Why does the NDP never come close to being a threat for government, despite projections?

The real answer is that their policies have been proven, but every reputable source not to work.

100% public-health care, high taxes and massively reworked trade agreements will destroy the Canadian economy and put us massively in debt.

Now, I'm not saying that I don't respect what the NDP wants to do. I am still, in my heart, a socialist and believe in what the NDP stands for. But I know, as the majority of Canadians know, that what they stand for is not, and never has been, realistic.

I joined the Liberal Party, as I've said over and over, because I want to be a leftist representative in a party with no clear standing and help shape its policy. The Liberal Party is a party that has policy dictated by all of its members, and its members stand on various parts of the political spectrum.

I watched Jack Layton talk on TV the other day, and he speaks as a protester would. He repeated over and over, "The Liberals won't call me! The Liberals won't work with me!"

Well, shut up, Jack! The Liberals won't work with you, because you whine constantly! If you want to have a say in policy, then you get your ass out there and make an impact. Don't sit on talk shows and whine, "The Liberals won't work with me!"

If you want to be taken seriously, then get your act together, stop living in pipe dreams and make a damn impact! You're the leader of a proud party! Start acting like a leader and less like a dreamer!

Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason is that, if a separate, regulated private system is allowed to exist, it takes the strain off the public system and allows the public system to be that much more efficient.

No it doesn't. For a very simple reason, the private sector takes its doctors from the public sector, so they reduce the number of patients going through the public system, but they reduce the number of doctors who can treat them also. At best, you can expect a situation where the end result is the same as the beginning. But normally, since private doctors are paid more, they will probably work less than public doctors and will spend more time with each patient to make sure their cabinet are "reputable". In short, they treat less people than the public doctors will.

That's why the private sector is a thorn in the side of the public sector, and not a solution at all, but part of the problem.

The Liberal Party is a party that has policy dictated by all of its members, and its members stand on various parts of the political spectrum.

Nope, it is a party whose policy is decided at the top, then passed down to its members. The NDP does the opposite.

The real answer is that their policies have been proven, but every reputable source not to work.

They work in Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and other social-democratic countries. And they have worked very well in Saskatchewan (no debt until Conservatives got power) and Manitoba.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No it doesn't. For a very simple reason, the private sector takes its doctors from the public sector, so they reduce the number of patients going through the public system, but they reduce the number of doctors who can treat them also. At best, you can expect a situation where the end result is the same as the beginning. But normally, since private doctors are paid more, they will probably work less than public doctors and will spend more time with each patient to make sure their cabinet are "reputable". In short, they treat less people than the public doctors will.

I'm not talking about a two-tier system, though. I'm talking about simply allowing a limited, controlled private healthcare system to exist in Canada, while still focusing mainly on the public system. It would definately take off some burden.

Nope, it is a party whose policy is decided at the top, then passed down to its members. The NDP does the opposite.

They work in Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and other social-democratic countries. And they have worked very well in Saskatchewan (no debt until Conservatives got power) and Manitoba.

Well, obviously Canadians feel much differently than you on this, because more people voted for the Conservative party than the NDP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not talking about a two-tier system, though. I'm talking about simply allowing a limited, controlled private healthcare system to exist in Canada, while still focusing mainly on the public system. It would definately take off some burden.

No, the problem stays the same because where is that sector going to get its doctors? From the public sector. You see, the problem isn't as much money as resources, new money we can find (there are billions that Ottawa has that it could spend in it). But if you lack doctors, nurses or equipment, then you may inject millions more, if there are no more resources to use, that money is wasted, you can't buy anything with it. So if we allow a private sector to prosper besides our public sector, it will only take resources off the main system. It will also take patients, but at best the patients per doctor ratio will keep the same, but the ratio will probably be smaller in the private sector.

The worst thing is that if we don't take steps to reduce that private sector, then doctors in the public system will have to take the extra burden their colleagues let go when they transferred to the private system. They will be even more overworked and they will have a greater tendency to leave off for the private sector also. That's why the private sector is part of the problem, it's an aggravating factor in the crisis of our public system.

Well, obviously Canadians feel much differently than you on this, because more people voted for the Conservative party than the NDP.

Yeah, I know. There will be need to bring out the facts even more, because a lot of it is based on misconceptions. For example, many believe that the NDP is fiscally irresponsible, while in fact it has been the most fiscally responsible in governments, balancing budgets more often than either the Libs or the Cons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, the problem stays the same because where is that sector going to get its doctors? From the public sector. You see, the problem isn't as much money as resources, new money we can find (there are billions that Ottawa has that it could spend in it). But if you lack doctors, nurses or equipment, then you may inject millions more, if there are no more resources to use, that money is wasted, you can't buy anything with it. So if we allow a private sector to prosper besides our public sector, it will only take resources off the main system. It will also take patients, but at best the patients per doctor ratio will keep the same, but the ratio will probably be smaller in the private sector.

The worst thing is that if we don't take steps to reduce that private sector, then doctors in the public system will have to take the extra burden their colleagues let go when they transferred to the private system. They will be even more overworked and they will have a greater tendency to leave off for the private sector also. That's why the private sector is part of the problem, it's an aggravating factor in the crisis of our public system.

Well, I see what you're saying, but the fact is that private healthcare is a reality in every province you live in, because, simply put, more people are being born everyday and the public system can't continue to grow and grow without limits, because the government just doesn't have the money to keep throwing at it. So, private healthcare develops, in various forms, to handle the overflow. Now, I agree that you can't let it get out of hand, but a limited, controlled private healthcare system is a neccesity in every province. What you can do to keep it in check is impose limitations on them in some way, or offer incentives and benefits to working in the public sector.

It's one of those things that Canadians need to live with as an inevitability, so it's up to us lefties to try and control it somehow and use it to our advantage. In Quebec things are different. Quebec ran a very efficient public health system for a long time through using the CLSC's.

But Alberta will have private healthcare for a few more decades, at least, because they have voted for a government, since the 1930's, that supports private healthcare and less government.

BC is in a constant struggle between the two, but public health still dominates. However, some of the population are two close to the Albertan mentality to allow complete provincial control and funding for the healthcare system.

And the maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador simply can't afford to have a completely public healthcare system. Some of the worst cases of privatization have occured where I'm living. It was a privately run power system that resulted in poor construction that led to the province of Nova Scotia being without power for over a week a little while back, but we just can't afford to make everything public. The federal government doesn't give us very much money, and we don't have the natural resources that would bring in all the money that Quebec, BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan gets. We're tiny provinces that rely on federal subsidy to fund our province and we have to be very creative with how we use our limited funds.

Just ask Nick in PEI about it. PEI has it worse than Nova Scotia does, because they are even smaller and have even less resources, so do you honestly think that it would be possible, and even a good idea, to use a good chunk of PEI's budget to put toward the complete provincial takeover of PEI's healthcare system, when they have a bunch of other issues to deal with...

...like cleaning up the huge snowstorm that is currently hitting the maritimes? :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
the public system can't continue to grow and grow without limits,

It grows only accordingly to the population it has to treat. It's a reasonable thing, the healthcare sector will grow by itself if it's needed and be reduced if it isn't. I prefer to see the public health care grow than the private sector grow by that much.

Frankly, if society can't pay for a public system, then it can't pay either for a private system, because it all comes from the same pockets anyway. It's a red herring, if we can afford health care for everyone, then we can do it with a completely public system or with a private system. If we can't afford a public system, then we can't afford a private system either. The private sector doesn't make money appear out of nowhere, people have to pay for it also, the same people who are taxed.

And since the private sector is less efficient and doesn't use resources to their fullest, it will only mean that we can more easily afford a completely public system than we can a mixed system.

because the government just doesn't have the money to keep throwing at it.

It would have if it wasn't for the irresponsible tax cuts of the 90s (100 billions only by the federal).

I don't think we can nationalize the entire private sector for the moment, but we can take steps to reintegrate it with regulations and programs that aim to use the private sector publicly and to do it efficiently. With incentives to encourage doctors to reintegrate fully the public sector.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It would have if it wasn't for the irresponsible tax cuts of the 90s (100 billions only by the federal).

Tax cuts generated at least that much in economic activity. Why do you think the Canadian economy has been the strongest in the G8? Tax cuts are absolutely necessary. We are being overtaxed by about 9 billion per year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...