Re: Equal access to health care is fine for communists but not Canadians.
I couldn't agree more. Where else in Canadian society is every single person forced to wait in bread lines that only the poorest and most vulnerable can afford in the name of "Equity"? I didn't think equity was the goal. I've always (naiively??) imagined it was excellence for all.
While there is certainly a handful who would champion this ideal (about 17 - 20% routinely vote NDP), the rest of us perennially reject the socialist view of society in everything but (so the politicians claim) health care.
I don't believe the politicians. I believe the public have had it with this health care model. It has resulted in the Soviet-style mess we currently endure ... ONLY in health care. I think the public is far ahead of the politicians in this matter.
I thought that Tommy Douglas's ideal was to ensure that the poorest and most disadvantaged in society were not left behind. He envisioned an "insurance" model where many young, healthy (low cost) workers in a simple 50's prairie economy financed the health care for a small number of sick (high cost) patients through a relatively small contribution from everyone. This insurance model worked well in the 50's, 60's & 70's.
That model is no longer valid. We now have a large, and growing, aging population, with a subsequently large number of "sick" people with very high costs due to the conditions of aging, high - tech treatments, high-cost facilities and high expectations from a well-educated and highly-demanding clientele, all supported by a shrinking number of young, highly-taxed and increasingly resentful workers, in a globally competitive environment.
In Ontario, the proportion of tax revenues going to health care has risen from 17% in the 60's and 70's to 46% of the entire budget in 2005. The Fraser Institute projects that this proportion will rise to 50% by 2011, to 66% by 2017 and by 2026, just 21 years from now, it will consume 100% of the Ontario provincial budget unless something changes. We are incresingly foregoing needed improvements in infrastructure, education, law and security, defense, agriculture, energy and natural resources in the name of propping up a failing health care model.
No matter what your political leanings, or no matter what your personal stake in maintaining the status quo, this simply cannot continue. The system will collapse on itself. It is unsustainable.
Canada is the only country remaining in the world, besides Cuba and North Korea, that demands a tax -funded, government - provided health care monopoly. Every other country has allowed some form of private health care in a parallel system to the government-funded model. Raising taxes to provide the levels of improvement required, and demanded by our citizens is not an option. Employers will leave for greener pastures, and taxpayers will toss out any government that attempts to levy tax increases on this scale.
I am personally not willing to give one cent more to governments, because they have shown time and time again that they can't be trusted to spend the money in the manner they have promised. If I need a doctor, I would rather pay the doctor directly, and pay him or her what they truly deserve, not what some bureaucrat says they can get, in order to save enough for political kickbacks and pork in some other department, or in hidden rewards to their own parties.
Further rationing of services, longer waiting times and increasing shortages in futile attempts to contain real costs are unacceptable and repugnant in a free society.
If improving the health care system demands that my family pay another $3,000 - $6,000 a year, then I'm paying directly for services or personal insurance to obtain excellence. "Medicare" should have to pay only for catastrophic illness and end-of-life treatment that is too expensive to insure, as well as greatly improved care for the truly indigent who are unable to pay for themselves for even the basic necessities. Paying taxes for people who can pay for themselves in a system that is chronically and increasingly short of resources is both wrong-headed and foolish.
The "Equity" model is no longer sustainable, and the tenets upon which it is based are no longer valid. The time has come to move on, and join the rest of the world in a parallel private-public model. It's time for dogma to step aside for pragmatism.
You can write all the letters you want to criticize me, discredit my views, or call me names, but sometime before 2026, you will be forced to accept the realities of the market. The buggy whip makers of 1900 dug in their heels to oppose the automobile. There are very few buggy whip makers today.
Excellence is achieved only by the constant pursuit of perfection. Treading water simply to keep our heads above water is NOT acceptable to this Canadian. Kudos to Stephanie Ross and the Centre for Preventative Medicine for taking the lead and bravely stating the obvious.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Harper's Cabinet
Re: "Harper starts a run on the trust bank"
There has been exaggerated outrage this week from pundits over some of Stephen Harper's cabinet choices. It's a safe bet most of those sources don't like the idea of "Prime Minister Harper" to start.
So far, he hasn't yet plundered the public treasury to funnel millions to his party, he hasn't promised us nineteen "number one priorities", he hasn't allegedly leaked any stock tips, he hasn't misspent billions in unaccounted "job creation" or gun registration, he hasn't allegedly funnelled money to his own family's hotel, and he hasn't choked anyone.
Despite the whining from pundits, Ipsos-Reid says 54% of Canadians approved of his first week in office, even though only 36% voted for him.
So far, not bad at all.
There has been exaggerated outrage this week from pundits over some of Stephen Harper's cabinet choices. It's a safe bet most of those sources don't like the idea of "Prime Minister Harper" to start.
So far, he hasn't yet plundered the public treasury to funnel millions to his party, he hasn't promised us nineteen "number one priorities", he hasn't allegedly leaked any stock tips, he hasn't misspent billions in unaccounted "job creation" or gun registration, he hasn't allegedly funnelled money to his own family's hotel, and he hasn't choked anyone.
Despite the whining from pundits, Ipsos-Reid says 54% of Canadians approved of his first week in office, even though only 36% voted for him.
So far, not bad at all.
Cartoons - to publish or not to publish?
CBC Editor in Chief of CBC News, Tony Burman asks rhetorically, ""What if those cartoons had instead focused on Christianity? And on Jesus Christ or the Virgin Mary engaged in unspeakably offensive acts?"
Answer: It's been going on for years on Saturday Night Live, in Mad Magazine, etc. as openly sacreligious skits and cartoons. Nobody has burned down NBC Studios or beheaded Lorne Michaels. If we don't like it, Tony, we change the channel, boycott the advertisers, write an indignant letter to the editor, or turn the page and move on.
The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Third Reich and the War on Terrorism were/are all the result of fanatical adherence to personal beliefs by one group or another AND (the key) THEIR insistence that the rest of the world fall into line. INTOLERANCE is the key in all of this.
Our North American (Canadian) belief in tolerance and personal freedom is just as strong (we've sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives) as any fanatical insistence on rigid comformity, and when those two ideals clash, the result has historically been tragic.
When I see a group, ANY group, burning buildings, killing innocent people and proudly flaunting posters stating "Freedom Go To Hell", you'll have to excuse me for reacting in an extremely negative fashion. Whatever sympathy I might have held for their cause before has pretty much evaporated as a result of this week.
While I support the state-funded CBC for not publishing the cartoons (for what purpose?), I just as strongly support the right of that Danish newspaper, any privately-owned newspaper in the world, or any individual in the world to publish cartoons, editorials or anything they wish on any subject they wish as their right to express their personal beliefs.
As offensive as it might be to any group, or even to society as a whole, if you don't like what you are reading, TURN THE FRICKIN' PAGE and enjoy the rest of the day.
Those who are simply unable to accept any level of tolerance for any dissenting point of view to their own due to personal philosophy, anger management problems or religious faith, should not be surprised when those targets of their intolerance eventually strike back with everything they've got. Cartoons pose no physical threat to anyone. "Sticks and stones ..."
By contrast, burning private property, mob intimidation, murder and suicide bombings are not acceptable behaviour, and cannot be condoned by the CBC or any other group, no matter what their political leanings.
All this over a cartoon.
Incredible.
Answer: It's been going on for years on Saturday Night Live, in Mad Magazine, etc. as openly sacreligious skits and cartoons. Nobody has burned down NBC Studios or beheaded Lorne Michaels. If we don't like it, Tony, we change the channel, boycott the advertisers, write an indignant letter to the editor, or turn the page and move on.
The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Third Reich and the War on Terrorism were/are all the result of fanatical adherence to personal beliefs by one group or another AND (the key) THEIR insistence that the rest of the world fall into line. INTOLERANCE is the key in all of this.
Our North American (Canadian) belief in tolerance and personal freedom is just as strong (we've sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives) as any fanatical insistence on rigid comformity, and when those two ideals clash, the result has historically been tragic.
When I see a group, ANY group, burning buildings, killing innocent people and proudly flaunting posters stating "Freedom Go To Hell", you'll have to excuse me for reacting in an extremely negative fashion. Whatever sympathy I might have held for their cause before has pretty much evaporated as a result of this week.
While I support the state-funded CBC for not publishing the cartoons (for what purpose?), I just as strongly support the right of that Danish newspaper, any privately-owned newspaper in the world, or any individual in the world to publish cartoons, editorials or anything they wish on any subject they wish as their right to express their personal beliefs.
As offensive as it might be to any group, or even to society as a whole, if you don't like what you are reading, TURN THE FRICKIN' PAGE and enjoy the rest of the day.
Those who are simply unable to accept any level of tolerance for any dissenting point of view to their own due to personal philosophy, anger management problems or religious faith, should not be surprised when those targets of their intolerance eventually strike back with everything they've got. Cartoons pose no physical threat to anyone. "Sticks and stones ..."
By contrast, burning private property, mob intimidation, murder and suicide bombings are not acceptable behaviour, and cannot be condoned by the CBC or any other group, no matter what their political leanings.
All this over a cartoon.
Incredible.
TORONTO'S "Gun" Problem
Toronto Mayor David Miller, Ontario Justice Minister Michael Bryant, and now Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty all want to solve Toronto's "gun problem" by banning handguns. How liberal.
David Miller, Michael Bryant and now Dalton McGuinty will never solve gun violence.
Gun collectors and hobbyists have been around forever. Yet brazen gang shootings in Toronto have reached a new peak on their watch. This is not a problem in Dryden, Cornwall, or Chatham Ontario. This is a Toronto problem.
Rather than focusing on the real problem ... a certain segment of society that has chosen to completely disregard all conventions of human decency and respect for human life, these "leaders" have chosen to blame inanimate objects (guns), responsible licensed hobbyists and the U.S. constitution. Now they want to change our constitution to give them the right to ban handguns. Hopefully Prime Minister Harper will wisely give them a flat NO.
Rather than making work for an army of bureaucrats chasing down responsible and respectful hobbyists whose legal pastime happens to offend the urbane sensibilities of these hopeless social engineers, they need look no further than Mayor Giuliani’s solution in New York City which worked.
Hire an army of police officers, and get them on the street to find, arrest and put away for a long, long time the thugs, the drugs and the criminals for whom no law or regulation will make one iota of difference.
Until this trio can get beyond their Toronto-centric leftist dogma to make the right diagnosis, they will never in a million years effect a cure. They just don't get it.
David Miller, Michael Bryant and now Dalton McGuinty will never solve gun violence.
Gun collectors and hobbyists have been around forever. Yet brazen gang shootings in Toronto have reached a new peak on their watch. This is not a problem in Dryden, Cornwall, or Chatham Ontario. This is a Toronto problem.
Rather than focusing on the real problem ... a certain segment of society that has chosen to completely disregard all conventions of human decency and respect for human life, these "leaders" have chosen to blame inanimate objects (guns), responsible licensed hobbyists and the U.S. constitution. Now they want to change our constitution to give them the right to ban handguns. Hopefully Prime Minister Harper will wisely give them a flat NO.
Rather than making work for an army of bureaucrats chasing down responsible and respectful hobbyists whose legal pastime happens to offend the urbane sensibilities of these hopeless social engineers, they need look no further than Mayor Giuliani’s solution in New York City which worked.
Hire an army of police officers, and get them on the street to find, arrest and put away for a long, long time the thugs, the drugs and the criminals for whom no law or regulation will make one iota of difference.
Until this trio can get beyond their Toronto-centric leftist dogma to make the right diagnosis, they will never in a million years effect a cure. They just don't get it.
Gun Deaths and Liberal "Logic"
In his rebuttal to a National Post editorial "Ditch the Gun Registry" (Feb. 3, 2006), Emile - J. Therien misuses statistics to inflame public opinion to his personal view that we need to further regulate, and indeed ban guns to save us from ourselves, if not each other. How patronizing.
If he wants to custom-tailor statistics to support his anti-gun bias, let's similarly use them to carry some other examples to equally ridiculous conclusions.
There are approximately 2,800 automobile-related deaths each year in Canada, about 3.5 times the current (not "30 year average") annual gun death rate of approximately 800, (in a country of 31 million people!), with 4/5 of those deaths being suicides (ie. no danger to anyone else). So why don't we enforce "the public interest" by lowering the speed limit on all roads to 10 kph and eliminate virtually all auto deaths. In fact why don't we ban automobiles altogether since they also account for an additional 25,000 hospital admissions per year, and far more when we consider the pollution they cause, clearly a far more lethal and dangerous indulgence than guns, with which the public should not be trusted
There are also about 1,700 drunk driving deaths per year, and if we include all of the homicides, assaults, rapes and marriage break-ups caused by alcohol, we should ban that too. Clearly the all-knowing elites like Mr. Therian have a duty to protect us from ourselves.
I am not aware that any of us has a right to an absolutely risk-free life. I'd like to think that I am entitled to some degree of personal happiness, and the pursuit of any sport, indulgence or activity that allows me that happiness. I could care less whether you approve or not. As long as I am responsible, and my activity doesn't harm others, we don't need more and bigger government to waste money making ineffective rules that are far past any reasonable point of diminishing returns when it comes to the so-called "public interest".
Instead of feeding make-work armies of bureaucrats to go after responsible gun hobbiests, we need armies of new police officers on our streets like Guiliani did in New York to clean up the gangs and the thugs and the drugs, and get illegal guns off the streets. THAT, Mr. Therien (and Misters Miller, Bryant and McGuinty) would be acting SMARTLY in "the public interest".
If he wants to custom-tailor statistics to support his anti-gun bias, let's similarly use them to carry some other examples to equally ridiculous conclusions.
There are approximately 2,800 automobile-related deaths each year in Canada, about 3.5 times the current (not "30 year average") annual gun death rate of approximately 800, (in a country of 31 million people!), with 4/5 of those deaths being suicides (ie. no danger to anyone else). So why don't we enforce "the public interest" by lowering the speed limit on all roads to 10 kph and eliminate virtually all auto deaths. In fact why don't we ban automobiles altogether since they also account for an additional 25,000 hospital admissions per year, and far more when we consider the pollution they cause, clearly a far more lethal and dangerous indulgence than guns, with which the public should not be trusted
There are also about 1,700 drunk driving deaths per year, and if we include all of the homicides, assaults, rapes and marriage break-ups caused by alcohol, we should ban that too. Clearly the all-knowing elites like Mr. Therian have a duty to protect us from ourselves.
I am not aware that any of us has a right to an absolutely risk-free life. I'd like to think that I am entitled to some degree of personal happiness, and the pursuit of any sport, indulgence or activity that allows me that happiness. I could care less whether you approve or not. As long as I am responsible, and my activity doesn't harm others, we don't need more and bigger government to waste money making ineffective rules that are far past any reasonable point of diminishing returns when it comes to the so-called "public interest".
Instead of feeding make-work armies of bureaucrats to go after responsible gun hobbiests, we need armies of new police officers on our streets like Guiliani did in New York to clean up the gangs and the thugs and the drugs, and get illegal guns off the streets. THAT, Mr. Therien (and Misters Miller, Bryant and McGuinty) would be acting SMARTLY in "the public interest".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
