Another Rant on Politicians & Parties: Split from Address by the Prime Minister

[a_majoor]

NOT a government-run child registry, as I've said. Give parents incentives and the means to do the job themselves. This may be a shock to the left, but most parents can, actually, raise children competently without government help. It's worked throughout human history, after all.

We all know how well the Gun Registry has worked.........

 

[aesop081]

We all know how well the Gun Registry has worked.........

I know what you mean by that but imagine a world where you need a liscence to have a child !  To get that liscence you would have to pass tests to prove you could do it properly.........that might help cut down on deadbeat parents who neglect their kids and may cut down on the number of welfare bums who get pregnant in order to get a bigger check.  Sounds harsh but maybe not all that far fetched.......

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Healthcare in the States is still under backlogs. Especially for those who do not have the money to go to elite private care. Ie. You pay more money, the less time you wait.

So don't get the idea that backlogs are just a Canadian thing. Its everywhere in every system.

You've said this on two threads (that I've seen) and refused to provide any support for it.

I checked: the OECD says that you are making it up: specifically, that "no significant wait times" exist for elective surgery in the United States.  If you skip to Annex 4, it even explains why.  I'm sure this won't change your argument, though.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/10/17256025.pdf

 

[Zipper]

That's why I said given them them means. If parents received something like a $3000-$5000 tax credit for every child under the age of 13, then chances are a lot of them would. Regardless, a national daycare system will do nothing whatsoever to give parents this option - in fact, with tax rates rising to cover the cost of the boondoggle, chances are it'll get harder.

Agreed. Question is, can we afford to even give parents this much? There is also the problem of lower income parents having more babies in order to get government money available now. You can imagine the amount of lower income kids if we raised that amount?

Again, giving parents little choice but to send their kids off to be raised by some government commissar won't address this problem either. If anything it'll aggravate this trend; as parents are forced to spend less time with their children, and as the government takes over more and more of that responsibility, parents will eventually look at kids as being society's responsibility rather than their own. Less personal responsibility for kids = less personal interest in kids. All at taxpayer's expense, of course.

commissar's? LOL! Your starting to sound like some of the others around here. The thing is about daycare and their "intentions" (however misguided) is that it gives those parents who NEED it in order to go to work the choice. There is often little choice out there right now because of lousy standards endangering children, perceived psycho Aunt Mable's private daycare center, or way to expensive for them to afford (tax credit not withstanding).

There's no "however" where it comes to waste. We elect these guys to manage our money, not waste it. It doesn't matter what it's wasted on; the definition of waste is "throwing something away with no benefit gained for it." Given the choice between doing nothing and waste, the only logical option is to do nothing.

Which would of course explain the last 30 or so years of our military. Oh wait...    ...wasn't that waste?

I am in no way against government standards for daycares. It is in society's interest to ensure that these places have a standard to be held to. This can be accomplished through education, legislation and inspection. What I am opposed to is a government-run and funded public daycare system, as it will duplicate a product already provided by the private sector and at far greater cost, while increasing government interference in the way families raise their children. Furthermore, this system will wind up pushing most smaller daycares out of business; the only ones that will survive will be either those that can beat subsidized government rates by cutting corners and hiding the results from the inspectors, or high-heeled "spare nothing" daycares that appeal to the rich by offering a premium, expensive product that the average Canadian can't access. In short, two-tier daycare!!

I agree. Standardizing and ENFORCMENT would be the best bet. There are many well run programs out there already, the "lowend" scam ones just need to either shape up or ship out.

And what's wrong with profit-taking? Profit is a reward for performance and maximizing profit is an incentive to efficiency.

There are a whole slew of laws that I could go into. But endangerment and fraud would be two key ones. There are alot of high profit companies out there that are not in any way efficient.

NOT a government-run child registry, as I've said. Give parents incentives and the means to do the job themselves. This may be a shock to the left, but most parents can, actually, raise children competently without government help. It's worked throughout human history, after all.

Agreed for the most part. But please stay away from history examples, as you will find the child death rates out of neglect and other nastier things rather high. You could blame government intravention on the zero tolerance in today's society for even one child getting hurt. But then you'd have to be a parent to understand that one.

 

[Zipper]

I checked: the OECD says that you are making it up: specifically, that "no significant wait times" exist for elective surgery in the United States.   If you skip to Annex 4, it even explains why.   I'm sure this won't change your argument, though.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/31/10/17256025.pdf

Good source Gault. But no it doesn't.

The problem as I have said before is in the numbers. They can be used and twisted by anyone. No, I don't think the OECD would have done so. But what numbers did they get?

The problem I have in believing all those numbers you are throwing about is the fact that on another subject, that of mad cow, the US according to their "numbers" has never had one case of it. Interesting that a country with some of the largest herds in the world would never have a case?

There are other examples of their "uses" of numbers. But this could drag on far to long. Lets just agree to disagree with this issue and move on to other discussions. ;D

Kind of like Tom (the fascist) and I.

 

[TCBF]

"Kind of like Tom (the fascist) and I."

Ha! Commie Rat! I caught you Red (no pun intended) handed!

"The problem as I have said before is in the numbers. They can be used and twisted by anyone."

Only by Pinko Gun Control Commisars!

;D

Tom

 

[2 Cdo]

Andyboy, my mistake. Feeling a little dopey that day, hey sometimes it happens!

 

[Guardian]

Agreed. Question is, can we afford to even give parents this much?

Absolutely! The government has proven, again and again, that it has plenty of money to throw around. $2 billion for the gun registry, $5 billion on this daycare program, $4.5 billion for NDP support - that's $11.5 billion right there, and I'm not even trying. That would cover $10 000 for each of 1 million kids. But we'd have to have a sea change in government here in Canada to have that happen - we'd need a smaller government with the attitude that we can actually [gasp!!] TRUST citizens to look after themselves. I've got no problems with a social safety net, but when the government starts trying to raise our kids for us, then it's too activist.

There is also the problem of lower income parents having more babies in order to get government money available now. You can imagine the amount of lower income kids if we raised that amount?

As opposed to our declining birthrate lessening demand for this new daycare system?

commissar's? LOL! Your starting to sound like some of the others around here. The thing is about daycare and their "intentions" (however misguided) is that it gives those parents who NEED it in order to go to work the choice. There is often little choice out there right now because of lousy standards endangering children, perceived psycho Aunt Mable's private daycare center, or way to expensive for them to afford (tax credit not withstanding).

My choice of words was not flippant - it was intentional. I see a rather disturbing trend in social work and education to inculcate children with "values" that their parents may not share, and I think that the daycare system is going to turn into an excuse to buy children away from their parents so they don't wind up having their values shaped by gun-lovin' baccy-chewin' racist homophobic rednecks. If we don't show them the right path, they might even grow up and vote Conservative!! We must act now!!! Instead, the Government's enlightened educational committees will craft a suitably fuzzy and warm curriculum for these kids. Given this government's ethical standards, darn right I'm scared of this idea.

As for abuse in private-run daycares, that's what standards and enforcement is for. The problem is that socially activist governments, because they focus overwhelmingly on individual rights and freedoms, lose sight of the values of personal responsibility, social duty, and the right of society to be protected from crime. That's why socialists are soft on crime, while it's conservatives who call for tougher enforcement and punishment (and support cops, armies, and so on). Until Canada as a whole gets tougher on criminals, and prison is again a thing to be avoided, we can't talk about standards and enforcement. Again, we need a change in governmental philosophy.

There are a whole slew of laws that I could go into. But endangerment and fraud would be two key ones. There are alot of high profit companies out there that are not in any way efficient.

I give you HRDC, the gun registry, NDHQ / DND, Public Works.... Government's record is, if anything, worse.

There are a whole
Agreed for the most part. But please stay away from history examples, as you will find the child death rates out of neglect and other nastier things rather high. You could blame government intravention on the zero tolerance in today's society for even one child getting hurt. But then you'd have to be a parent to understand that one.

Well, I may not be a parent yet, but I have five younger siblings, the youngest of whom is still in elementary school. I think I do understand about keeping kids safe, thank you very much. And when I'm a parent, I'd like to ensure their safety myself, thank you very much, by choosing for myself how they will be raised - instead of trusting a government that puts killers and pedophiles back on the street after only a few years in prison, that has dragged its heels on a sexual assaulter registry for years...

My whole point is this. Give parents the means to raise their kids themselves, and ensure they have choices - isn't that what democracy's all about? We're starting down the road to a Canada Health Act-type monopoly for child care - that's not giving choices! And your points about lower income families carry very little weight with me, when I consider the tax burden they're under and how those taxes are spent. Stop wasting those families' money and give it back to them, I say.

 

[Andyboy]

Andyboy, my mistake. Feeling a little dopey that day, hey sometimes it happens!

No sweat, it happened on two different threads so it was probably me.

Zipper,

I believe that Horse Guards (former and current) are communist sympathisers and should be investigated by the NIS.

Pretty crazy right? WEll except for politicians we as a society generally rely on evidence other than anecdotal as proof of something being true. Other than your posts I have nothing to back that statement up and there is a good chance that very few people are going to believe me.

For the record I do not believe that Horse Guards are any more or less likely to be communist sympathisers than anyone else, St.Zipper not withstanding.

 

[Zipper]

HA! Good comeback Tom.

Actually I think both sides are to blame for way to much use of "twisted" numbers.

Absolutely! The government has proven, again and again, that it has plenty of money to throw around. $2 billion for the gun registry, $5 billion on this daycare program, $4.5 billion for NDP support - that's $11.5 billion right there, and I'm not even trying. That would cover $10 000 for each of 1 million kids. But we'd have to have a sea change in government here in Canada to have that happen - we'd need a smaller government with the attitude that we can actually [gasp!!] TRUST citizens to look after themselves. I've got no problems with a social safety net, but when the government starts trying to raise our kids for us, then it's too activist.

Ok agreed for the most part on that. However, why do you keep seeing these possable daycares as "government" education centers instead of just places where daycare professionals can take care of kids on a level playing field as far as earning, standards and care are concerned? If you where so worried about what is being taught in school, then you wouldn't even have your kids IN school, considering those are (provincial) government run.

As opposed to our declining birthrate lessening demand for this new daycare system?

Ok have to fall into this one. Whats wrong with our declining birth rate? Its actually starting to happen worldwide as more and more countries become "westernized" and people start making the decisions to use birth control and/or choosing not to have kids. I would consider it more of the pendulum swinging back the other way after hundreds of years of unchecked procreation.

My choice of words was not flippant - it was intentional. I see a rather disturbing trend in social work and education to inculcate children with "values" that their parents may not share, and I think that the daycare system is going to turn into an excuse to buy children away from their parents so they don't wind up having their values shaped by gun-lovin' baccy-chewin' racist homophobic rednecks. If we don't show them the right path, they might even grow up and vote Conservative!! We must act now!!! Instead, the Government's enlightened educational committees will craft a suitably fuzzy and warm curriculum for these kids. Given this government's ethical standards, darn right I'm scared of this idea.

I realized that, and I think your looking at things from a rather paranoid point. I know, as I have done so myself a few times on this board. As for being scared of something, I would say the "gun-lovin' baccy-chewin' racist homophobic rednecks" scare the crap out of me. But then if it was proven to me that the government was going into "child re-education" for the purposes of turning out little left wing nuts, I too would be afraid of that as well. Think for themselves, and question everything is what I say.

As for abuse in private-run daycares, that's what standards and enforcement is for. The problem is that socially activist governments, because they focus overwhelmingly on individual rights and freedoms, lose sight of the values of personal responsibility, social duty, and the right of society to be protected from crime. That's why socialists are soft on crime, while it's conservatives who call for tougher enforcement and punishment (and support cops, armies, and so on). Until Canada as a whole gets tougher on criminals, and prison is again a thing to be avoided, we can't talk about standards and enforcement. Again, we need a change in governmental philosophy.

Wait a second? If they are focusing overwhelmingly on individual rights and freedoms, losing sight of the values of personal responsibility, social duty, and the right of society to be protected from crime, and you (generalize as right wingers) guys are spouting the same thing, how in hell are you so far apart? I agree that each focuses more on one thing as opposed to another, but thats crazy. More social thinking people are not necessarily soft on crime as opposed to soft (naive) on people who have either got a bum rap, or they see hope in rehabilitation. They realize (most do) that these things are not always right and you have to be tough sometimes. As for prison being a place to be avoided, even with a death sentence, hard labour, and whippings every night, you will not get rid of crime. Their will always be people, for one reason or another, who chose that path.

I give you HRDC, the gun registry, NDHQ / DND, Public Works.... Government's record is, if anything, worse.

In many cases I agree. It doesn't happen in all cases however. (Public works) Deregulation of power, water, etc has proven to be far more costly to the consumer then when regulated by government.

Well, I may not be a parent yet, but I have five younger siblings, the youngest of whom is still in elementary school. I think I do understand about keeping kids safe, thank you very much. And when I'm a parent, I'd like to ensure their safety myself, thank you very much, by choosing for myself how they will be raised - instead of trusting a government that puts killers and pedophiles back on the street after only a few years in prison, that has dragged its heels on a sexual assaulter registry for years...

Couldn't agree more. It pisses me off that a child cannot go outside without having to wear a helmet (exaggerated I know), or be under the watchful eye of a paranoid parent. I don't believe that it is governments fault on crime that makes people feel this way as opposed to the news media pumping up everyones fears over a few isolated incidents. Give kids proper boundaries, and they'll do fine. Push on them to cause you to go grey sometimes, but for the more part they do alright. The idea of a grade 1 student walking two blocks to school nowadays is just unheard of. Its a shame.

My whole point is this. Give parents the means to raise their kids themselves, and ensure they have choices - isn't that what democracy's all about? We're starting down the road to a Canada Health Act-type monopoly for child care - that's not giving choices! And your points about lower income families carry very little weight with me, when I consider the tax burden they're under and how those taxes are spent. Stop wasting those families' money and give it back to them, I say.

Actually most low income earners are not taxed at all in many fields. In fact they get quite a bit of money. My family (Single mom) would never been able to survive if it wasn't that way.

Also, I don't know yet. But is this idea of daycare the same as medicare where you cannot have privately run daycares? Or is it a two tied system right off the bat?

As for Democracy. I wish Kirkhill were around more. He's the poli-sci boy. But I believe that democracy (as we know it) is what you would call "mob" rule.

Pretty crazy right? Well except for politicians we as a society generally rely on evidence other than anecdotal as proof of something being true. Other than your posts I have nothing to back that statement up and there is a good chance that very few people are going to believe me.

You rely on evidence? The problem is, what evidence? If I may even scratch the topic of global warming, which I don't even want to go there, then it would seem that evidence is the last thing that you want. People with ideas want the evidence to prove THEIR ideas correct. When it doesn't, they either make up the numbers, or come up with "evidence" that refutes the accepted ideas. So it comes down to whichever side can throw the most "evidence" out there to make people believe one side or the other. Occasionally some evidence comes along that is so clear that everyone (except the hardline fringe) actually has to accept it. And that happens rarely.

 

[TCBF]

The May 16 2005 copy of "The Western Standard" has a cover of "The Libranos."  It is a classic.  So is the four-page size pull out "Libranos" poster.  No doubt a collectors item.  Asuming the supreme court does not in future ban it as 'Hate' literature.

 

[Zipper]

Tom Tom Tom. You really need to read other things. its no wonder you think the way you do. ;D

Oh, and good quote you chose there. It speaks volumes about our military these days.

 

[TCBF]

I read the Saurday "National Post" every week!

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Good source Gault. But no it doesn't.

The problem as I have said before is in the numbers. They can be used and twisted by anyone. No, I don't think the OECD would have done so. But what numbers did they get?

The problem I have in believing all those numbers you are throwing about is the fact that on another subject, that of mad cow, the US according to their "numbers" has never had one case of it. Interesting that a country with some of the largest herds in the world would never have a case?

There are other examples of their "uses" of numbers. But this could drag on far to long. Lets just agree to disagree with this issue and move on to other discussions. ;D

Kind of like Tom (the fascist) and I.

We're not talking about Mad Cow, a difference of opinion, manipulating statistics, or anything else but your claim that the US has medical wait times that are comparable to Canada's.

Your claim, pardon my french, is complete horsesh*t.  That statistics say so.  Every shred of anecdotal evidence I have ever heard, including the experiences of people very close to me, say so.  Even the free (black?) market says so: have you ever heard of "Timely Medical Alternatives"?  Here's a little from their website:

... the founders of Timely Medical Alternatives Inc. also recognize that there are some 875,000 Canadians currently on the waiting list for referrals to specialists or for medical procedures.

Timely Medical Alternatives Inc. is a privately held company in Canada. We provide Canadians with medically sound options to spending months - or longer - waiting for access to care within the public system.

Depending on the procedure needed, these options can include access to comparable professional treatment in one of the private clinics in Canada (where permitted by law) or receiving it in an accredited hospital in a close-to-the-border U.S. Hospital.

It is our belief that by providing alternatives to waiting for treatment within the public system in Canada, overall waitlists will be shortened and those Canadians who want to - and can afford to - purchase treatment, will receive it in a timely manner.

http://www.timelymedical.ca/

Apparently, through some kind of magical ability to transcend time and space, they are not encountering the waiting lists that you claim exist.  Of course, Occam might suggest an alternative hypothesis, which is that you are full of, um, dogma.

It's not a question of "agreeing to disagree": there is no subjective analysis here.  You are denying objective reality and instead burying your head in the sand.  THIS is what is wrong ...

 

[Zipper]

Well after reading that, and your source. I will bow to defeat on this matter. 

However (and I always have a however ;D), it still does not quiet my original argument that there are entire segements of US society that do not have access to that system because of cost. They may have no waiting lists down there, but it is not because of efficencies. It is because there are whole droves of people who do not go because they simply cannot afford to do so. As well as many middle Americans who do not have any insurance at all.

http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/yourhealth/Articles/a2003-07-02-bruised.html

The next one I would take with a grain of salt, although it is from the WHO. But passed through the Democrats who may/may not have changed anything.

http://home.earthlink.net/~acisney2/id30.html

 

[old medic]

Your claim, pardon my french, is complete horsesh*t.  That statistics say so.  Every shred of anecdotal evidence I have ever heard, including the experiences of people very close to me, say so.  Even the free (black?) market says so: have you ever heard of "Timely Medical Alternatives"?  Here's a little from their website:http://www.timelymedical.ca/

What statistics are these ?

OK, I have to call you on that.  Your quoting a for profit company
who's existence is tied to claiming there is a big wait list. Then collecting referral fees from other
for profit companies.

Here are some credible quotes and points from a proper study on waiting times:

# Two provinces (BC and Nova Scotia) have published waiting time studies, while four have completed focused internal studies. These studies are largely descriptive in that they compile and report on existing non-standardized data.
# Most jurisdictions complained of a lack of adequate data and benchmarks for appropriate waiting times.

There was no agreement as to the single best method to define appropriate waiting times, though clinical evidence and public opinion were both considered important.

waiting list data reported that systematic means of assessing appropriateness are used in only 13% of service areas

Summary of Key Findings

    * In Canada at the present time it is impossible either to understand the true magnitude of wait lists or genuinely and rationally manage the patients on those lists. Few current wait lists in Canada, or elsewhere, are sufficiently defined and standardized to provide inter-temporally consistent and geographically comparable databases. In the absence of such information, provincial/territorial activity has been largely limited to addressing specific wait list 'problems' (often revealed by specific episodes of media attention) by short term increases in funding.

Final Observations

We simply have no reliable systems in place with which to assess what are, at the moment, still largely self-reported claims. There is a critical need for the systematic development of information systems populated with consistent and reliable data, that can form the basis for more appropriate management strategies, and that can provide a reliable 'early warning' system for clinical and policy decision-makers. With few exceptions, our current understanding of the 'wait list situation' in Canada is so totally dependent on data of suspect quality, drawn from a variety of ad hoc sources, based on inconsistent definitions, used for a variety of purposes, and overseen by no one, that it is little wonder that we find so much confusion


Full report is 350 pages.

Waiting Lists and Waiting Times for Health Care in Canada
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/media/releases/waiting_list.html#preface

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

old medic,

I think you missed the first part of this: Zipper was claiming that the US has wait times just like Canada's (in the context of weighing the relative merits of privatized vs. Stalinist healthcare).  I called him on it and said that the OECD data says otherwise (i.e., that there are wait lists in Canada but not in the US).

I provided the information on that company as further evidence of the difference: the mere existence of a copmany that charges Canadians on waiting lists to immediately receive treatment at private facilities in the US (and Canada, to some extent) is pretty strong evidence that the public system has a problem with waiting lists that the privte system doesn't.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Well after reading that, and your source. I will bow to defeat on this matter. 

However (and I always have a however ;D), it still does not quiet my original argument that there are entire segements of US society that do not have access to that system because of cost. They may have no waiting lists down there, but it is not because of efficencies. It is because there are whole droves of people who do not go because they simply cannot afford to do so. As well as many middle Americans who do not have any insurance at all.

There is a lot of scare-mongering about the American medical care system.  The vast majority of the middle and upper classes are covered by private healthcare through employers ... the poorest and the aged/diabled are covered by Medicare and Medicaid.  Moreover, anyone can show up in any emergency room in the US and it is illegal for them not to provide treatment.  The only people that aren't covered by insurance are those that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, do not have healthcare in their benefits package, and have made the decision not to buy private individual healthcare, as they (obviously) feel there are better uses of their money.

 

[Zipper]

Good post Old medic.

There is a lot of scare mongering on both side of the border. While I agree with you for the most part. Isn't it a shame that there are those who fall between the cracks at all, just because they do not have insurance? You saying that many "choose" not to take it. But what happens when something happens suddenly because of their poor choice at the time? We at least cover that.

Now I won't go bashing them on this because we have our own problems up here in that dentist are not covered under our system, and thus we have droves of people here that do not get the care they need because they do not have benefits to cover the costs. So on that, we are equal with the States.

Since we have a two tied system already in many proviences (even though those more "left" then me refuse to see that), why don't we see how it works for awhile and whether or not it actually can be made to work? Also instead of scrapping the entire system, why is it that many things covered under health care are in many cases unnecassary or just plain silly? Are there things we can decide not to cover (like dentists, plastic surgery for non-life threatening cases) so as to put money towards other things? And most of all, get rid of the numerous layers of burocracy that sap much of the money before it gets down to the bed level. Just some ideas. My idea here is, like the military...        ..."this is what we have, lets make it work and get on with the job.".

Its interesting how we have people here who wish to move to a non-medicare system, and the States there is increasingly a demand to move towards one. I guess the larger the population, the harder it is to make work.

 

[Infanteer]

As I've argued time and time again, the States suffer from the same problem that we do - Your health care is managed by a big bureaucracy.  In the States, it happens to be Private (HMOs) while in Canada, it is Public (the Province).  Either way, they both suck and they are making health decision for you.

In my opinion we need a public funded system that is universal and managed by the individual (and includes incentives for good management of health dollars).  I could care less who delivers the service, as long as it is timely and of high quality.