# Jan 9 - Leader's Debate



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

It's on now. Will this change the minds of Canadians? How will we vote in 2 weeks?

This poll will close after one day.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Half hour into the debates and Martin is circling the wagons and looking nervous. He keeps stuttering and attempting to defend himself on all sides by falling back on his old catch lines. Not working very well, from what I can see.:lmao:


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

yeah, and check out Slithering Stephen... totally failed to justify (as if he could) his insufferable a**-licking to U.S. Republicans....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

One hour in and Martin's stuttering is getting worse. He looks very frustrated and the sweat is beginning to flow. He's constantly on the defensive and his voice seems strained. The other three (particularly Layton) seem to look very relaxed.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacNutt said:


> The other three (particularly Layton) seem to look very relaxed.


Jack had to have smoked something, because his view of Canada sounds like he is on a trip. All blue skies and butterflies, get real Jack.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Wow Harper is really stiff - and yet can't look into the camera....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> Jack had to have smoked something, because his view of Canada sounds like he is on a trip. All blue skies and butterflies, get real Jack.


Reality isn't an option for Jack. he's NDP, remember.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Wow Harper is really stiff - and yet can't look into the camera....


Not sure which debate you're watching, artistseries. Because in the one I'm watching Harper looks fairly relaxed (for him) and is looking directly into the camera. Giles Douceppe is the only one who can't seem to look straight at the camera.

Of course Martin is looking almost everywhere at the same time while stuttering and fidgeting. That's what happens when a guy is under siege from all sides. And is losing.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Wow Harper is really stiff - and yet can't look into the camera....


Must be your TV or your reception. He has looked directly at me every time he speaks on my TV set.
:-(


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I guess that some people see only what they want to see, SINC. Or perhaps....only what they've been programmed to see.

That probably explains the resiliency of the discredited Liberals in certain areas of this country.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The Bloc leader just stumbled a bit at the question posed by the moderator...it went something like "if Canada is divisible, does that mean that Quebec is divisible?"

Too cool.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Must be your TV or your reception. He has looked directly at me every time he speaks on my TV set.
> :-(


It must be that Alberta Firewall that distorts it all...

I'm not the only one noticing something wrong


> A colleague has e-mailed, wondering what’s different about Stephen Harper’s eyes. Are they smaller tonight? Are they a different colour? In fact, there’s something weird about the lighting on the debate set. I’ve quickly checked several nearby TV sets, and all four leaders appear to have brown or hazel eyes, when in person they all have strongly blue peepers. A result of the reflections from the faux taupe marble set, perhaps? In any event, it makes them all look even more monochromatic than usual. Unfortunate. —CR


CBC web site

Martin is right on when it comes to putting Duceppe into place on Quebec.
And poor Harper can't even address the question....bad form....


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

They all sound like used car salesmen.

What can I do to put you in this car today?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'd bet that there might be some peachy orange gels used over the room lights in order to reduce the pallor on some of the leaders. It could also be done in the video mixer.

They all look a bit orange to me. Especially Martin.

Nevertheless...Harper IS staring directly into the camera. And that was the question, was it not?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I love how Martin trys to draw off his number of years of experience as finance misiter to say how he knows what funds it takes to run this country. Yet he couldn't even see the biggest scandel in Canadian history unfold under his nose, if in fact he didn't play a part in it…right!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> It must be that Alberta Firewall that distorts it all...
> 
> I'm not the only one noticing something wrong
> 
> ...


CBC's budget is paid for by the current Liberal government and they have been responsible for appointing the top officials to their fat cat CBC jobs for the last decade. Harper would likely cut a lot of the excess bulk out of that particular organisation once elected.

Geee....I wonder who's side the CBC is on? DUH.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> I love how Martin trys to draw off his number of years of experience as finance misiter to say how he knows what funds it takes to run this country. Yet he couldn't even see the biggest scandel in Canadian history unfold under his nose, if in fact he didn't play a part in it…right!


He was the only recent minister that has balanced the budget.
and as the Gomery report stated, he had nothing to do with the scandal.
BTW, it was not the biggest political scandal in Canada - that honour falls to the Cons.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Haper has no clue about daycare in Quebec....


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Hey Jack I work hard for my money, if I can choose what restaurant I eat at, what clothing store I shop at, why can't I choose where I go for health care if I can afford it?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> It must be that Alberta Firewall that distorts it all...
> 
> I'm not the only one noticing something wrong
> 
> CBC web site


Ah, there's your problem. I'm watching it on CTV, not CBC. Switch channels and breathe the fresh air.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> He was the only recent minister that has balanced the budget.
> and as the Gomery report stated, he had nothing to do with the scandal.
> BTW, it was not the biggest political scandal in Canada - that honour falls to the Cons.


The budget was "balanced" by cutting transfer payments to the provinces. This only shifted the problem onto the shoulders of the provinces...it didn't solve a thing.

All of the other leaders have mentioned this during the debate already. And it's widely known. More Liberal hot air and emptiness.

As for Martin being "exhonerated" from the sponsorship scandal....don't make me laugh.
:lmao: 

He simply didn't need the cash and didn't want to be a part of the skim. The fact that he claims he "didn't notice" all of that cash being swiped while he was running the FINANCE MINISTRY means he needs to be fired from his job.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> The Bloc leader just stumbled a bit at the question posed by the moderator...it went something like "if Canada is divisible, does that mean that Quebec is divisible?"
> 
> Too cool.


I think you're only seeing what you want to see. Looked to me as though his tongue may have tripped but his answer was very firm. "No." 

Stephen does look slithery and creepy. Jack is dreamy-eyed but at least he's dreaming. Gilles Duceppe seems to be a good leader. His ideals seem good and strong. I would trust him before the Tories and Libs.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> He was the only recent minister that has balanced the budget.
> and as the Gomery report stated, he had nothing to do with the scandal.


Right, and as I stated in another post, how were they able to have a balanced budget? It was a result of the Conservatives GST, a tax that that they promised to axe and the reason they originally got elected in the first place? Maybe the Conservatives were on the right track in the first place and Fiberals just took the ball and ran with it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Hey Jack I work hard for my money, if I can choose what restaurant I eat at, what clothing store I shop at, why can't I choose where I go for health care if I can afford it?


Because it might challenge the monopoly Unions hold in our Health Care system.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

darkscot said:


> I think you're only seeing what you want to see. Looked to me as though his tongue may have tripped but his answer was very firm. "No."


Perhaps his tongue tripped up...he is working in a second language, after all.

But I'm betting that the question of parts of Quebec NOT going along with seperation and la belle province being broken up the same way that he wants Canada to be broken up, is obviously a touchy subject with him.

As well it should be... 
:heybaby:


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

It's nice to hear all these fairy tales before bedtime.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

darkscot said:


> Gilles Duceppe seems to be a good leader. His ideals seem good and strong. I would trust him before the Tories and Libs.


How very unCanadian of you sir. Trusting a man and his party who are hell bent on breaking up this great country. :yikes:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> He simply didn't need the cash and didn't want to be a part of the skim. The fact that he claims he "didn't notice" all of that cash being swiped while he was running the FINANCE MINISTRY means he needs to be fired from his job.


Proof (again) or to you again prefer to be full of hot air?
Hot about that video card BTW? 
:baby:


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Martin just made a gaffe by saying, "We have kept ALL our promises."

That's going to bite him in the next couple weeks.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Maybe the Conservatives were on the right track in the first place and Fiberals just took the ball and ran with it.


Too bad their record has only been record deficits....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Proof (again) or to you again prefer to be full of hot air?
> Hot about that video card BTW?
> :baby:


None of your business AS. A disagreement or whatever between two people, neither of them you.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Hey Jack I work hard for my money, if I can choose what restaurant I eat at, what clothing store I shop at, why can't I choose where I go for health care if I can afford it?


You can choose to go to another country. What you propose would further the class alienation. Doctors and nurses will only want to work at the higher paying private health clinics and the regular hospitals and clinics will suffer. And why are you choosing where to go for health care? So you can get a higher level of care, comfier rooms, faster service. Because your body is that much more important than anyone else's? Elitism at its finest. Screw the peasants.

And health is a little different than duds and pizza.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Some more unfortunate body language has shown up. Harper is answering a question on whether it’s wise for him to be speculating on which party might support a minority Conservative government, given many pundits’ conclusion that this kind of talk is what put the kibosh on a possible Conservative win in the 2004 election. And boy, does he look uncomfortable. There’s a fixed grin on his face that doesn’t meet his eyes as he says he will accept “whatever wisdom voters deliver at the polls” and will work with whatever party agrees with the Conservatives on individual issues. His words are passionate, but he’s using his right index finger as a pointer in a way that suggests he’s only barely keeping it from wagging in a scolding manner. —CR
CBC


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

JumboJones said:


> Jack had to have smoked something, because his view of Canada sounds like he is on a trip. All blue skies and butterflies, get real Jack.


I'd like to join him on that trip.  When he does speak, its like a breath of fresh air. Based on this debate, Jack has my vote.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Every time Martin mentions their plan for national child care ($5 billion over 5 year), I get a feeling that it will become a sink-hole like the gun-registry. Lots of money spent, almost no results.

P.S. This must be the fastest growing thread in ehMac history.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Martin just made a gaffe by saying, "We have kept ALL our promises."
> 
> That's going to bite him in the next couple weeks.


No kidding!
:clap: :lmao:

The fact that he said it with a straight face should tell us a lot. :heybaby:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> None of your business AS. A disagreement or whatever between two people, neither of them you.


SINC, I'm quite sure that if I pulled out of a legitimate Ehmac auction you would be ragging on me at this moment.
Now, I also happened to be on the Ehmac chat at the time that JFP brought up the subject with MacNutt. Would you like to see some of the transcript (or all of it). not too flattering....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Every time Martin mentions their plan for national child care ($5 billion over 5 year), I get a feeling that it will become a sink-hole like the gun-registry. Lots of money spent, almost no results.
> 
> P.S. This must be the fastest growing thread in ehMac history.


Don't worry...he has been talking about that for almost twelve years now and he hasn't done anything about it yet. Lots of hot air and not much forward motion with that group on anything real.

But we already knew that, didn't we.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Private health care CAN be managed properly in this country. It is only because of short sighted people that we don't have it. Private health care does not mean the end of public health care. It doesn't mean less money for public health care.

Why are we letting the wealthy take their money out of country to buy medical procedures? If they spent that money here, it could only improve our health care resources.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Too bad their record has only been record deficits....


Who knows what would have happened if Conservatives had the 13 years the Liberals have had. Maybe a lot less scandels and fewer broken promises.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Crap! That's it. I'm no better off. I know I'd never vote Liberal. That's for sure. Not too many options.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ehMax said:


> I'd like to join him on that trip.  When he does speak, its like a breath of fresh air. Based on this debate, Jack has my vote.


I think Jack looks pretty calm and collected too. He hasn't really got as much to lose as the other ones...and stands to benefit from anything he could get by being a real smoothie here.

But he really does remind me of a used Lada salesman.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Private health care CAN be managed properly in this country. It is only because of short sighted people that we don't have it. Private health care does not mean the end of public health care. It doesn't mean less money for public health care.
> 
> Why are we letting the wealthy take their money out of country to buy medical procedures? If they spent that money here, it could only improve our health care resources.


In Montreal, where we almost have a two tier system, health care is at it's worst. Poor people have unacceptable wait times and resources from the public system are being diverted to the rich  
If this is any indication of what the future holds, I don't want any part of it. I would be open to some European style healthcare but we seem to be moving towards the American style.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Perhaps his tongue tripped up...he is working in a second language, after all.
> 
> But I'm betting that the question of parts of Quebec NOT going along with seperation and la belle province being broken up the same way that he wants Canada to be broken up, is obviously a touchy subject with him.
> 
> ...


Indeed. Hard to say what would happen if...
Seems only fair to say "what's good for the goose..."


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> Who knows what would have happened if Conservatives had the 13 years the Liberals have had. Maybe a lot less scandels and fewer broken promises.


We might also note here that much (most?) of the current Canadian prosperity can be directly linked to the Free Trade Agreement which has gioven us so much prosperity and that our debt sitaution would be far worse right now without the GST.

These were, of course, Liberal policies....ummm...hang on....

No, WAIT! Those things all came from a previous CONSERVATIVE government! 
:clap:

Want to bet that, if we hadn't been sooo pissed off at the PC's about these policies...which the Libs KEPT in place...and hadn't dumped their party a dozen years ago because of these "hated" policies....that they'd have used the ensuing prosperity to ACTUALLY balance the budget in a real way, instead of just shifting the problem onto the Provinces?

I'm betting that they would have.


----------



## Strimkind (Mar 31, 2005)

From watching this whole thing I know 2 things: 
1. Martin is on the defensive and is using strike tactics
2. Harper is an idiot

I did like duceppe and he seemed to be the most sane of the 4 (I do not share his views on seperation) and I had to vote for a leader it would be him. However the NDP I believe is more important as both the liberals and the conservatives do not deserve to be the majority (this is my opinion remember). Also, I hate the smile on Harpers face...there is something evil or something about it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Something big may be happening...odd, considering the debate itself.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

SINC said:


> How very unCanadian of you sir. Trusting a man and his party who are hell bent on breaking up this great country. :yikes:


A great country can be as tiny as an island, Sinc. It is the values of the peoples within the country that show how great it is. The Quebec people would be no less being a separate country, neither would Canada. Canada's geography has changed more than once. I think we've only lost ground once - Alaska. But does keeping Canada whole mean only keeping it as it is? If it's so great why not expand?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Something big may be happening...odd, considering the debate itself.


What do you mean?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

darkscot said:


> Doctors and nurses will only want to work at the higher paying private health clinics and the regular hospitals and clinics will suffer.


Boo hoo. Why should my wife work in a hospital for $10 less an hour instead of working in a privately owned retirement home? God knows why she doesn't, instead she chooses to clean **** off of anything and everything you could possibly imagine, where as in nursing homes they have orderlies, and rpns allowing nurses to do their jobs. Let me open your eyes to why people don't want to work in our hospitals, because half of their time is spent doing things other than patient care and for a lot less money.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> What do you mean?


Watch the news. Time will tell but, if nothing else, revising the Charter is at least gutsy. Smart? Who knows.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

darkscot said:


> Indeed. Hard to say what would happen if...
> Seems only fair to say "what's good for the goose..."


Precisely!
 

That's why I think he tripped a bit on that one. He knows he's vulnerable there. As is the whole seperatist movement.

They might just end up with a smallish strip of land as their "new" country. That would completely screw up all of their plans to finance the new entity. Especially if the north and far east doesn't want to go along with a newly seperated Quebec (many of the natives who dominate some of these areas have indicated that they are NOT interested in seperating) and the power generation facilities that bring in so much cash, and that are located in those regions, ended up NOT being a part of a seperated Quebec.

This is getting interesting.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> SINC, I'm quite sure that if I pulled out of a legitimate Ehmac auction you would be ragging on me at this moment.
> Now, I also happened to be on the Ehmac chat at the time that JFP brought up the subject with MacNutt. Would you like to see some of the transcript (or all of it). not too flattering....


Absolutely not. None of my business, nor anyone else's business. Forget it and leave it to the two participants to solve it themselves.

Airing their dirty laundry in public supporting one side or the other is simply gossip. Gee whiz, that kind of stuff is for kids, not grown men online.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Boo hoo. Why should my wife work in a hospital for $10 less an hour instead of working in a privately owned retirement home? God knows why she doesn't, instead she chooses to clean **** off of anything and everything you could possibly imagine, where as in nursing homes they have orderlies, and rpns allowing nurses to do their jobs. Let me open your eyes to why people don't want to work in our hospitals, because half of their time is spent doing things other than patient care and for a lot less money.


Wow, you're wife must be pissed....
Now my ex much preferred being a nurse for the public sector than the private. She has less patients, much better working conditions, benefits, less working hours. She also tells me that they don't cut corners as much and can be more human with her patients. Yes the cutbacks have hurt and there is stress and she does have paperwork to do. Now that paperwork is a pain but at least she gets paid for the time that is filling it out. Of course she would prefer doing nothing and getting paid for it but at least it's not the private system...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Absolutely not. None of my business, nor anyone else's business. Forget it and leave it to the two participants to solve it themselves.
> 
> Airing their dirty laundry in public supporting one side or the other is simply gossip. Gee whiz, that kind of stuff is for kids, not grown men online.


Then why are you bringing this up again instead of letting it die a few post back?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I must say that the only health care workers I've EVER heard say that they "preferred the Public system" over employment in the private sector are generally Union shop steward types.

Pretty much everyone else says that conditions and pay are far better in the private clinics. This is also the case in Europe where they have discovered that the only way to preserve the public health care system is to allow a private system to run parallel to it and feed money into it.

Most of these European countries now have ZERO waiting time. NONE! And they have higher quality health care than we Canadians currently enjoy. And, overall, they spend the same or LESS than we do on public health care.

It's certainly worth a look. Don't you think?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

My wife is an RN in the public system and I hear things that make me nauseous. Nurses today do most of the grunt work, unlike years ago when they were truly professionals. Cutbacks have eroded the public system to the point that I have seen nurses buy and carry to work simple supplies like Q-Tips and tongue depressors because the administrators no longer consider them a necessity.

The private sector on the other hand has everything they need.

Sad, but true.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> In Montreal, where we almost have a two tier system, health care is at it's worst. Poor people have unacceptable wait times and resources from the public system are being diverted to the rich
> If this is any indication of what the future holds, I don't want any part of it. I would be open to some European style healthcare but we seem to be moving towards the American style.


Blame your provincial government. They are the ones who regulate the health care. Here's a real simple way to keep things in check. Charge private health clinics the actual cost of any procedure covered under public health care. That way, the clinic would have to charge double or more, and part of it would go to public health. Win win situation.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto - yes the blame is at the provincial level here.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> I have seen nurses buy and carry to work simple supplies like Q-Tips and tongue depressors because the administrators no longer consider them a necessity.
> 
> The private sector on the other hand has everything they need.


There is the one of the biggest problems with the current system. These public hospital administrators don't run their hospitals like a business. The government needs to strip the red tape out of the hospitals, and centralize it. Kinda like a big company with a head office.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

One thing is for certain here....

Our current Canadian public health care system is almost the last of it's kind on the whole planet. Cuba and North Korea are the only other countries still whipping this dead horse. Most of Europe has publicly funded universal health care like ours...but they've found a way to deliver it in a timely fashion and they spend quite a bit less than we do, in most cases, while doing it.

It's worth a look see. Orrr...you can just listen to the handlers and focus on the scary "American system", while recoiling in horror....

I say follow Paul Martin's lead, and use only private clinics if you are as filthy rich as he is. Or, let private clinics operate in parallel and take the pressure off of the public system...as is done in so many parts of Canada these days. And this is what's working so well all across Europe too.

Our present system is completely unsustainable in the long run. Everyone who has eyes can see that. We need to make some positive changes. We need to make them now. 

BEFORE the aging baby boomers begin to hit the health care system with the force of a hurricane.

It'll be too late to make the necessary changes by then.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

What most people don't realize is that if Mr. Rich is number 6 in line for a procedure, and he has a private option, he leaves the line, and Mr. Poor moves from No.7 to No. 6 in line.

Makes perfect sense.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> What most people don't realize is that if Mr. Rich is number 6 in line for a procedure, and he has a private option, he leaves the line, and Mr. Poor moves from No.7 to No. 6 in line.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.


This is how it works in much of Europe these days. And some of the money from Mr. Rich's expensive "for-profit" procedure is funnelled into the public system in order to improve it.

Seems like a win-win to me. The Europeans seem to like it as well. Especially the fact that they only have to wait a few days for important medical procedures under this system.

Instead of a year or two.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Except that doctor and nurse while operating on Mr. Rich #1, #2, #3, #4 (and all) forget about Mr. Poor who has to wait longer....
We have a shortage of staff (doctors, nurses, support)....


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Except that doctor and nurse while operating on Mr. Rich #1, #2, #3, #4 (and all) forget about Mr. Poor who has to wait longer....
> We have a shortage of staff (doctors, nurses, support)....


That's not how it works. Now you are making stuff up to support your viewpoint.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Except that doctor and nurse while operating on Mr. Rich #1, #2, #3, #4 (and all) forget about Mr. Poor who has to wait longer....
> We have a shortage of staff (doctors, nurses, support)....


No, under this system the doctor and nurse that treat Mr. Rich are not the same Dr. and nurse who treat the rest of the patients. They are in two seperate medical facilities...neither of which has any sort of a waiting list. Procedures are done within a few days in both places.

That's probably why the BC Workmen's Compensation Board uses ONLY private clinics these days. They don't have to wait months or years to get treatment for injured workers and costs are actually lower.

This is what they've found in places like France and Germany, as well.

Time to break away from the old myths and take a good hard look at this. It seems to be working very well.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> That's not how it works. Now you are making stuff up to support your viewpoint.


Gosh...that would be a first for artistseries!
 

Tell me it isn't so!  :lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Let's have a look at Sweden, Germany and the UK.



> (On Sweden) Unlike in Canada, where most doctors operate their practices privately, about 90% of Swedish doctors are salaried employees of county councils.The rest run private practices, but must sign an agreement with a county council to be reimbursed by the public system. These agreements effectively allow county councils to regulate the private health care market





> Public health coverage is much broader in Germany than in Canada, covering physician services, hospitals, prescription drugs, dental care, diagnostic services, rehabilitative care, medical devices, home nursing, treatment by therapists and income support during sick leave.
> 
> Despite the presence of private insurers, the public share of overall health care spending is slightly higher in Germany than in Canada





> (UK) About 84% of health care spending is financed by the public sector, mainly through general taxation and national insurance contributions made by employees and employers. By contrast, the public system accounts for about 70% of health care spending in Canada. The National Health Service is still the most centrally managed health care system in the world.


http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...er.pdf+European+two+tier+medical+system&hl=en

I wonder how the above situations would be accepted in Canada? 



> In some cases, doctors are sufficiently well paid in both systems that prestige is often more important to them than remuneration. This is very much the case in the United Kingdom where private medicine is seen as less prestigious than public medicine by much of the population. The British in particular tend to use private healthcare to avoid waiting lists rather than because they believe that they will receive better care from it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_funded_medicine

So, by all means to have a hard look at other systems but don't "cherry pick" features that you want. You can't just take one element of healthcare in Europe (or other regions) without looking at the global picture and implementation for each.


----------



## shoe (Apr 6, 2005)

Is it just me or does harpers smile look more like a nasty grin?

Every time he smiled he made me think in the back of that mans head hes watching Mrs martins head get shaved, evil smile evil smile evil smile, boy do I have trouble trusting that face.

shoe


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Take a deep breath shoe, and try to imagine a world that is not dominated by the highly organised criminal element of our society that is popularly known as the Federal Liberal Party.

Try to toss off the long-term conditioning and wrap your mind around the bizarre idea of a new leader of Canada who ISN'T a Liberal.

Tell you what...step outside and take a giant breath of fresh air and then...

Wait a minute. You're from TO, right?

Cancel that deep breath. Get an oxygen tank instead.

Then proceed to clear your mind and consider the possibilities. Instead of simply trying to demonise Harper by the way he looks. (that's progressive, eh?) 

(I'm beginning to think it's something in the air out there...or the water. YIKES!)


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Instead of simply trying to demonise Harper by the way he looks. (that's progressive, eh?))


And I ask you, what have you been saying with regards to Martin?


----------



## shoe (Apr 6, 2005)

Dont ya worry about me and what Im breathing or drinkin, who said I was voting Liberal anyway? Just said harpers smile is basically creepy.

Your really into this whole minority government election thing eh macnutt? Imagine if our votes were going to count towards a Majority Im wondering if you would get sleep tonight.

shoe 


innnnnnnnnnnnn - oooooooooooooooooooout - innnnnnnnnnnnnnnn - oooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut ( breathing)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> And I ask you, what have you been saying with regards to Martin?


Fair enough. I may have been a bit harsh in my observations of Paul Martin during tonight's public debates.

But I don't think I actually attempted to demonise him. Nor did I say he looked "creepy" or "slithery" or "snake-like" they way some people here have chosen to describe Stephen Harper.

Instead, I was pointing out how desperate he looked. I made several references to his repeated nervous stuttering. I also pointed out that his normal pallid complexion seemed to have been spray painted orange for this debate.

This is all the truth. The reporters who were watching the debates are already saying much the same thing on TV. It will likely be reported in the newspapers this way tomorrow morning. 

None of these observations demonised him. I did NOT say he looked "creepy". Nor did I claim (falsely) that "he didn't look directly into the camera" as one person here claimed about Stephen Harper.

There IS a difference between actively demonising someone you have been conditioned to hate on sight...and in making real observations regarding how comfortable or how desperate a certain debater looks on TV. 

Figure it out.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Interesting....

This has been, as one person here noted, one of the fastest growing threads ever on ehmac. And tonight's leader's debates have been the subject of some very close scrutiny by a whole BUNCH of very politically aware people around here. We have sliced and diced the performances of the leaders and dissected just what they said. And how they LOOKED while saying it.

Needless to say, this board seems to be dominated by Canadians who are somewhat sympathetic to the federal Liberals. (That's putting it rather mildly)

And yet.....

As I type this, at just after 1 AM Toronto time, which is likely long after everyone has checked in and already cast their vote on the above poll as to "who won the debates"...

Oddly enough, on the above poll of interested ehmaclanders, the Conservatives are STILL in the LEAD!  :clap:

This could change by morning. Probably will change, truth be told.

But at this point, when the debates are long over and everyone who wanted to comment was posting their thoughts in a great flurry, we have to note that the Conservatives are still in the lead on the ehmac leader's debate poll. The right wing guy seems to be in the lead in leftyville. Who'd have thunk it?

Like I said....interesting, eh?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I don't see winning a debate and necessary winning over people to vote for you. Some of the lefties on here could say that Harper won, but they still wouldn't vote that way.

I had this same conversation with people during the Bush-Kerry debate. Kerry clearly out debated Bush, but I still gave the win to Bush because I doubted Kerry would gain much support. I can't recall what happened in the polls afterwards, but I think they were pretty flat.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Agreed Vandave. And public "debates", as they are currently structured, are hardly able to sway many people. At least not the way they used to do, a few years ago.

I would suggest that most of the poeple who were interested enough to take time out and watch these debates were already solidly in one political camp or the other.

What we were truly there for during tonight's debate was pure voyeurism and bragging rights. We were mostly there just to see "how well OUR guy was doing". Or not.

And we were also looking for any percieved weakness that might be shown by the other side, under the hot lights of the publicly televised debate. 

We wanted to be able to crow about our particular favorite and rip the other leader to shreds, if we could.

And I'm as guilty of this as anyone here, BTW. 

Honest.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I should also note that the momentum seems to be all in one direction these days. And I don't think that these debates will affect that momentum one little bit.

But it was fun to watch.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okayyy....

It's now after 3AM Ontario time and, on the post-leader's debate thread (at this forum at least) the NDP has taken a sudden surge. They have now pulled up to dead even with the Conservatives in this unofficial ehmac poll.

This is very illuminating. Especially given the fact that the NDP hasn't moved up a single point in the real world polls during this whole election. Despite all of the frantic jockeying for position amongst the big parties.

It would seem to me, at least, that the Liberals are completely dead in the water for the leftish amongst us. A totally lost cause. Stalled or dying...depending on where you look. Even after tonight's public leader's debates. Perhaps especially after tonight's debates. (YIKES!!)

And...in the face of the inevitable, some of the disgruntled near left or far-leftoids who normally support the Liberals, are now casting whatever strength that might remain into the NDP camp. At least here at ehmac.  :lmao:

Either way, it certainly doesn't seem like the discredited Liberals have any sort of real traction right now. With anyone. Anywhere. Even here!

Big surprise.  :lmao:


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> It would seem to me, at least, that the Liberals are completely dead in the water for the leftish amongst us. A totally lost cause. Stalled or dying...depending on where you look. Even after tonight's public leader's debates. Perhaps especially after tonight's debates. (YIKES!!)
> 
> And...in the face of the inevitable, some of the disgruntled near left or far-leftoids who normally support the Liberals, are now casting whatever strength that might remain into the NDP camp. At least here at ehmac.  :lmao:
> 
> Either way, it certainly doesn't seem like the discredited Liberals have any sort of real traction right now. With anyone. Anywhere. Even here!


Anyone else find that this is the same-old saw that we heard 18 months ago? Albeit with less of the more explicit predictions that can turn around and bite oneself on one's proverbial butt. It's soooo tiresome and predictable.  :lmao:


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I fell asleep in the last half hour...Harper has that affect on me.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

IronMac said:


> Anyone else find that this is the same-old saw that we heard 18 months ago? Albeit with less of the more explicit predictions that can turn around and bite oneself on one's proverbial butt. It's soooo tiresome and predictable.  :lmao:


Yep it's pretty similar to my rants from last year. I have to admit that.

Now the question is THIS.....

Am I just sawing away at the same old dead stump...or was I somehow prophetically early in my predictions of an imminent Liberal wipeout with an unexpected Conservative victory?

Scary accurate...but off by one year? Or am I just a tiresome idiot who doesn't deserve to be listened to?

Two weeks from now, you'll all be able to decide for yourselves.

And I plan to dredge up all sorts of past predictions and quotes from all sorts of people around here in the last week of this very pivotal month. I may even go back as much as four years or so, for some of this stuff. Just for everyone's enjoyment.

It'll be a hoot! And very illuminating.
  

Trust me on this.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Will Paull Martin be the Liberal's Brian Mulroney, effectively wiping out the party in one devistating blow?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Yep it's pretty similar to my rants from last year. I have to admit that.
> 
> Now the question is THIS.....
> 
> Am I just sawing away at the same old dead stump...or was I somehow prophetically early in my predictions of an imminent Liberal wipeout with an unexpected Conservative victory?


Given that such an event is bound to happen some time (why else would we have elections?) it doesn't mean anythng.



MacNutt said:


> And I plan to dredge up all sorts of past predictions and quotes from all sorts of people around here in the last week of this very pivotal month. I may even go back as much as four years or so, for some of this stuff. Just for everyone's enjoyment.
> 
> It'll be a hoot! And very illuminating.
> 
> ...


I hope that, for your sake, it goes a lot better than the last time you tried to dredge up "past predictions" about what people posted.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Will Paull Martin be the Liberal's Brian Mulroney, effectively wiping out the party in one devistating blow?


No no...will Paul Martin be the Liberal's Kim Campbell?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Looking at the latest polls.
http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2006/static/interactives/poll_trkr/index.html
http://www.canada.com/national/features/decisioncanada/polls_05.html

The Conservatives are pulling ahead. I would say that the ehMac is defintiely not an accurate representation of the general public. A lot more Lefties here.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

IronMac said:


> No no...will Paul Martin be the Liberal's Kim Campbell?


True. Campbell could have won, if she hadn't waited so long to have an election, and if her campaign wasn't so poorly run.

A lot of people chalk up the demise of the Federal Tories to Brian Mulroney, even though it was Kim Campbell that obliterated them.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Will Paull Martin be the Liberal's Brian Mulroney, effectively wiping out the party in one devistating blow?


I somehow doubt it, The Liberals will survive,
The Liberals will just have to accept the fact that all that hard work to rebuild the
economy after the Mulrony years is about to come to naught.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> A lot of people chalk up the demise of the Federal Tories to Brian Mulroney, even though it was Kim Campbell that obliterated them.


ROTFLOL
Sorry...That's funny, 
Do you really believe that a summer Prime Minister could have done that much damage to the Conservative Party?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

dolawren said:


> Do you really believe that a summer Prime Minister could have done that much damage to the Conservative Party?





www.wikipedia.org said:


> However, Campbell's initial popularity soon wore off due to public relations blunders committed during the campaign. She appeared to have troubles relating to "regular" Canadians, and many felt that she had an overly condescending and pretentious tone. During the election campaign, she stated that discussing a complete overhaul of Canada's social policies in all their complexities could not be done in just 47 days (the time allotted to an election campaign), although her comment is widely remembered as suggesting that "an election is no time to discuss serious issues". In addition, she was criticized as carrying much the same attitudes and positions of her widely detested predecessor epitomised in the activist chant, "Kim, Kim, you're just like him." Mulroney considerably hampered Campbell by staging a very lavish international farewell tour at taxpayer expense. He also stayed office until almost the end of Parliament's mandate, leaving Campbell with almost no time to make up ground once her initial popularity wore off.
> 
> A Conservative election commercial in which Liberal leader Jean Chrétien's facial paralysis was mocked was largely regarded as the final nail in her campaign's coffin. Although Campbell was not directly responsible for the ad and later ordered it to be pulled, she didn't apologize, thus ending any chances of containing the fallout from the ad.


I guess I'm not the only one.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Kim Campbell was just scapegoat that was supposed to fail,
She was a smokescreen to hide the real source of the damage to the Conservative Party.

Just as Chrétien was the real damage to the Liberal Party,
But as we have all noticed the blame is always placed on the person that is in power.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

Although I'd rather see Quebec stay as part of Canada, an interesting part of the debate last night was hearing Gilles Duceppe. The guy is entertaining.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

The only leaders last night that stood out were Layton and Duceppe and since I can't vote for Duceppe I guess I will be voting NDP this time around. Martin and Harper spoke nothing of policy but traded insults during the whole debate the only time that Harper said anything of worth was when he owned up to raising taxes for lower and middle income Canadians, as for Martin he looked tired and I'm pretty sure that he will quit from politics if he looses the election.

Laterz


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Eukaryotic said:


> Although I'd rather see Quebec stay as part of Canada, an interesting part of the debate last night was hearing Gilles Duceppe. The guy is entertaining.


That man is spooky!
He acts like he's bi polar.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

The great thing about Gilles Duceppe is that the people who vote for him expect him to have a bit of sophistication. 
Loved his rant about EI. 

Layton Gets My vote, though.

James


----------



## moonsocket (Apr 1, 2002)

There was a debate? Ah well, I would've watched Wife Swap anyhow.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> A lot of people chalk up the demise of the Federal Tories to Brian Mulroney, even though it was Kim Campbell that obliterated them.


Maybe it was Mulroney waiting so long to resign from the party and his unpopularity that nailed it....


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Interesting....
> 
> This has been, as one person here noted, one of the fastest growing threads ever on ehmac. And tonight's leader's debates have been the subject of some very close scrutiny by a whole BUNCH of very politically aware people around here. We have sliced and diced the performances of the leaders and dissected just what they said. And how they LOOKED while saying it.
> 
> ...



The poll question might have something to do with it: _based on the debate..._

I haven't decided who's getting my vote, and the debate hasn't changed that. Therefore I have not voted in the ehMac poll, and I doubt I will before it closes.

So either people were swayed by Harper's and Layton's performance in the debate (based on what you've said about the results further down), or some simply voted for their favourite regardless of the actual question. A "still undecided" option would have been my choice.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Maybe it was Mulroney waiting so long to resign from the party and his unpopularity that nailed it....


I think it was a combination of a badly run campaign on Campbell's part, and the deep, lingering unpopularity of Mulroney and the PC government (together with Mulroney's waiting, as you say). I don't know why people feel the need to say it's one or the other -- perhaps because they want to defend either Campbell or Mulroney. 

Playing "what-if" for a second, if Charest (a very strong campaigner) had won the leadership instead of Campbell, I'd speculate that the Tories would have been reduced to a rump anyway, but with at least 20 seats instead of two.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

and to just add to that, If it wasn't for Joe Clark the Tories would probably still have 2 seats.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

iMatt said:


> The poll question might have something to do with it: _based on the debate..._


The results are still odd. Martin seemed like he was grasping for anything to keep from sinking.

Jack! Jack! (with apologies to Titanic fans)


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

If I lived in Quebec, I really would consider voting for the Bloc, Duceppe kinda looks like a Vulcan, Put some Pointy ears on 'im! and I like Vulcans! Hey, Where's the "Translate to English Button on the Bloc Quebecois web site! I love their slogan "ici c'est, le Bloc", well, it kinda sounds like a warning or is that just cause i'ma damn englishmen and translating it in my head?? Jack was great last night, but very salesmen, yes I will buy that Yugo!


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> The results are still odd. Martin seemed like he was grasping for anything to keep from sinking.
> 
> Jack! Jack! (with apologies to Titanic fans)


Damn. Reply lost to a glitch.

Basically, I don't find the results of the ehMac poll very surprising. IMO Layton did give the best performance, and I say that as a not-very-likely NDP voter. The other three seemed to me to do nothing much to earn any new supporters. I would speculate that most people are selecting the poll option that corresponds to the vote they are already determined to cast in the election.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I thought Jack stuck to his talking points a little too much and didn't answer the questions as directly as he could have.

A minority government is a good thing in that it ensures only the most agreed on bills get passed. It's a give in take. Everyone has to cooperate.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

It beats me how supposedly intelligent people can claim that having two-tier health care will benefit all. It benefits those who can pay. We have a limited pool of professionals. Moreover, the private services that are provided are not universal but cherry-picked based on the likelihood of turning a profit. These facts will actually reduce the services available to those who cannot afford to pay premiums.

Our healthcare care system is leaking like a sieve but adding a profit margin to it is not going to turn it around! Moreover, those who say a 2-tier system will be based on the european model rather than the dismal failure in the US (where per capita healthcare spending is significantly higher than here yet more than 40 million Americans are uninsured) are in denial. NAFTA guarantees access to American healthcare and insurance companies. We will not know what hit us.

Yes, there needs to be improvement. The status quo is not an option given the aging demographic. But we have already shown that waiting lists can be enormously reduced. It is a question of reform not of revolution.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, good point. We have a limited number of eye specialists here in NL. In one case, there is only one person who is trained to perform delicate surgery on detached retinas, just like the surgery I had to fly to Halifax to have performed 8 years ago because there was no one here to undertake this form of operation. If this doctor goes into private practice for eye surgery, we are left with no one, unless one is able to pay his fee. Granted, it is his right to go into private practice, but it would be absurd to have me sent to Halifax for this sort of operation when his office is only a few hundred meters from my house, and the hospital is only a 15 minute walk from my house.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> It beats me how supposedly intelligent people can claim that having two-tier health care will benefit all.


They don't agree with your analysis and see flaws in it. I'm amazed at how some people keep rehashing the same empty U.S. threat (to avoid discussing the actual opportunities demonstrated in some other systems) and assuming there are a fixed number of healthcare provider-hours (to enforce that only their view is even possible). 

Much of this was explored in a thread not too long ago, but the same views remain.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I'm amazed at how some people keep rehashing the same empty U.S. threat (to avoid discussing the actual opportunities demonstrated in some other systems) and assuming there are a fixed number of healthcare provider-hours (to enforce that only their view is even possible).


Well Beej, I did bring that up. 
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=336726&postcount=68

Some of the opportunities you speak of would require a very different mindset starting with Doctors themselves...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Some of the opportunities you speak of would require a very different mindset starting with Doctors themselves...


A lot of changes could be made, or at least openly discussed by politicians, but that requires public support for discussion and political leadership on the issue...not focus groups and selective interpretation.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

used to be jwoodget said:


> It beats me how supposedly intelligent people can claim that having two-tier health care will benefit all. It benefits those who can pay. We have a limited pool of professionals. Moreover, the private services that are provided are not universal but cherry-picked based on the likelihood of turning a profit. These facts will actually reduce the services available to those who cannot afford to pay premiums.


Well in case you didn't notice it already exists to certain citizens in this country. When Mats got hit with that puck, did you see him getting treated at the local hospital? Why is it ok for professional athleates to have access to private health care and not normal citizens? Because they can afford to have a doctor on payroll? Is that where you draw the line? Come on, why should private medical facilities at the US boarder rake in the cash from the people who can afford it? Don't you think that money would be better off back here in Canada?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Exactly. And we should also point out that tens of thousands of Canadians already take their health care business south of the border each year. They are voting with their feet. And the money they spend down there is lost to our sytem.

Why not keep that cash here? Use it to improve OUR stystem?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> And the money they spend down there is lost to our sytem.


Let them go down to the US (or Cuba), may actually help health our system by taking themselves out of it...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Let them go down to the US (or Cuba), may actually health our system by taking themselves out of it...


Wouldn't that mentality work for having a private system here too? They go private care in Canada, public spot in Canada opens up. Or is that too hard to grasp?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Let them go down to the US (or Cuba), may actually health our system by taking themselves out of it...


The money goes with them (including plane fare and hotels) instead of say, towards keeping a Canadian doctor from opening up shop in the U.S. or enticing a U.S. doctor into Canada, or etc. The assumption that healthcare worker-hours are fixed is wrong or, at the least, a very shorterm outlook.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Beej said:


> The money goes with them (including plane fare and hotels) instead of say, towards keeping a Canadian doctor from opening up shop in the U.S. or enticing a U.S. doctor into Canada, or etc. The assumption that healthcare worker-hours are fixed is wrong or, at the least, a very shorterm outlook.


I think it may be based on the old socialist viewpoint that most things are like a pizza...if one guy gets two slices then someone else goes hungry. The creation of wealth seems to be a foreign concept to some of the people who still cling to this discredited bit of ideology.

As is the idea of anyone but "the government" providing services.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Wouldn't that mentality work for having a private system here too? They go private care in Canada, public spot in Canada opens up. Or is that too hard to grasp?


No problems with debating the best way but should be done on a even or at least logical field.
Seems MacNutt likes to compare how it is in Europe.

We can start here
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=336726&postcount=68

I wonder how some of those examples would translate here in Canada?

I'm ready to debate with Beej and I'm open to his suggestions. But blanket statements such should be backed up with examples or an explanation of the thinking.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It is so obvious that our present system of delivering health care needs an overhaul. If a combination of public and private health car clinics would better serve Canadians, they I say go for it. No one should wait months for simple procedures like knee replacement and if a private clinic can deliver the service they certainly should. BUT they should be paid for the service by the government of the province in which they conduct the service thereby protecting Canadians interests and allowing only reasonable profits.


----------



## Bolor (Sep 14, 2003)

I agree with Sinc 110%


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

This is what most proponents of a modified public health care system are saying right now. And I believe that this is also what's being done in those European countries that have recently adapted their public health care systems to allow for a combination of public and private delivery of services.

You know...those countries that actually spend the same or LESS than we do here in Canada....and have NO waiting lists at all.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> This is what most proponents of a modified public health care system are saying right now. And I believe that this is also what's being done in those European countries that have recently adapted their public health care systems to allow for a combination of public and private delivery of services.
> 
> You know...those countries that actually spend the same or LESS than we do here in Canada....and have NO waiting lists at all.


MacNutt, care to elaborate on some of those countries and how they go about it?
This is the point after all.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Some interesting info here:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/353/17/1810/F1

Any assumption that, beyond the short-term, total healtcare worker-hours are somehow fixed and independent of healthcare policy defies the reality of there being more than Canada out there. Identifying what difference this could make, however, is up for debate. Maybe not enough, maybe more than enough.

I've linked to some info to help out. Although Canada has a physician gain worldwide (or close to it), we lose a lot to the U.S.: untapped investment in students that we educated/employed. With good opportunities, we could even draw U.S. doctors in: less likely, but also untapped and enormous.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Some more info:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/164/1/84-a

Highly uncertain information, but adds some perspective.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, you also realize that:


> The United States must become more informed about global health in order to navigate domestic policies in the midst of rapidly changing international developments. The case for U.S. leadership is based not simply on humanitarianism but also enlightened self-interest. As demonstrated by international medical graduates, the United States is inextricably linked to global health. It has a vital stake in controlling the spread of infectious diseases such as the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and looming avian influenza pandemics. Protecting Americans requires viral detection and interdiction at points of origin, which are undermined by the depletion abroad of qualified professionals.
> 
> The United States can better harmonize its domestic and global health policies by moving toward self-sufficiency in preservice training. In the 1990s, fears of a physician surplus drove federal workforce policies. Now, dire predictions of massive shortages of 200,000 physicians and 800,000 nurses by 2020 — driven by the escalating demands of an aging society, new technologies, management of chronic diseases, changing family structures, and consumer and provider preferences — are prompting major American organizations to endorse targeted increases in the size of U.S. medical schools and the number of residency training slots.9 A serious engagement of key stakeholders in the United States is needed to develop effective policies for the health care workforce that prepare for the future without raiding the limited human resources of poorer societies.
> 
> Managing international medical migration ultimately will require global political consensus.


http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/353/17/1850


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The WHO report referred to:
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

A U.S. shortage won't improve our situation for a government monopoly, it will enforce the need to offer more opportunities for physicians in Canada so they don't go after ever-inflating U.S. opportunities...good luck to us.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Hahahaha...
Just watching the French debate with English dubbing on CTV NewsNet,
Harper looks twice as funny dubbed with an English translator, 
He looks just like a Thunderbird puppet.

http://www.thunderbirdsonline.com/site/


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

He does have that weird thing where he tilts left to emphasize each of his points. Hmmm....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Is it just me, or is the current moderator more interesting than last night's?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Harper is trying his best but man, he's not winning about points in PQ....
Layton is doing well.
Duceppe, well it's he's like the anglo version with much more charisma.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

AS, I was under the impresssion that Harper was doing well in PQ. Interesting. You are at ground zero, so you should have a sense of this possible groundswell of non-Liberal, non Bloc support that is there.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Harper is doing very well in Quebec, Dr.G.

I think artistseries is referring to the french language debate that is going on as we speak. And it's only his opinion on this.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Listening to the post debate discussions here and it doesn't look very good for Paul Martin. They're all talking about how many "major hits " Martin took. And how badly he did, overall.

And several of the reporters are commenting about how he was "not well prepared for this debate". His handlers on this particular campaign are certainly not doing a very good job. And that's putting it kindly.

The news just isn't getting any better for these guys.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> AS, I was under the impresssion that Harper was doing well in PQ. Interesting. You are at ground zero, so you should have a sense of this possible groundswell of non-Liberal, non Bloc support that is there.


Harper did not do well in the French debate. That was to be expected as it's not his native language. Duceppe did well. Some have noted his presence in the English debates and does even better in French. Martin was fine but not spectacular like he needed to be. Layton came off as someone who tried to answer the questions with practical solutions.

In PQ, the Bloc is really the only party at the moment. There is a disgust with the Liberals at the Federal and Provincial level. This will be reflected at the Polls. 
Yes, the Cons have been doing better - there are starting to be seen as an alternative to the Liberals. The upturn in the Cons can be seen different ways; some say it's because they are using players from the ADQ team, not all Quebeckers are separatist, and some believe that the Cons will help accelerate Quebec sovereignty. 

Where I live, the Bloc is deeply entrenched. This is a party that share volunteers and personnel with the PQ. Where I work, the Liberals are doing a little better - but only in enclaves. So you have tired of the Liberals, not willing to vote for the Bloc: this usually translates for a vote for the Cons. That said, when there is talk of what some of Harpers plans are (what will happen to 7$/day daycare and early education for example), some just don't understand the Cons.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> ... not all Quebeckers are separatist, and some believe that the Cons will help accelerate Quebec sovereignty..


Interesting assumption. Based on WHAT? Rumours? Assumptions??

And it's even more interesting given the fact that sympathy for Quebec separation has grown to it's highest level ever, under the discredited Liberals.

Despite all of the canadian tax dollars they've thrown at the problem. And all of the time and effort they claim to have spent on this project.

Hmmmm...you don't suppose that all of the money they've stolen, and all of their dirty backroom deals, have somehow UNDERMINED and DISCREDITED all of their efforts to keep Quebec in Confederation...do you??

Just a thought.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

This is TOOO easy. Way too easy. I'm headed for bed. 

Good night everyone.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Listening to the post debate discussions here and it doesn't look very good for Paul Martin. They're all talking about how many "major hits " Martin took. And how badly he did, overall.
> 
> And several of the reporters are commenting about how he was "not well prepared for this debate". His handlers on this particular campaign are certainly not doing a very good job. And that's putting it kindly.
> 
> The news just isn't getting any better for these guys.


Interesting assumption. Based on WHAT? Rumours? Assumptions?? 
:yawn: :yawn: :yawn: 

This is WAY too easy now....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Based on what I'm hearing from all of the many political reporters who were watching this thing like a bunch of hungry hawks. And who are dissecting the performances of the party leaders with a sharp knife. As we speak.

You know...all of the polls and ALL of the political pundits could be totally wrong here. The Liberals could actually be on a serious ROLL right now. They might actually be holding their own...or even on the RISE!! The Harper Conservatives could be dropping like a rock, at the very same time!

And maybe ALL of the media types and ALL of the pollsters have gotten together to hide this simple fact from the rest of us. (because they've all been bought off by George Bush?)

HEY! It could be a GIANT conspiracy! One that includes THOUSANDS of people!! Who are ALL staying totally silent about the REAL truth right now! One evil leader surrounded by a bazillion evil henchmen...all working to make their evil leader into the King of the WORLD!! 

Just like in a Marvel Comic book!

Or not.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I take back what I said about Gilles Duceppe, This guy is brilliant!!!
If Gilles ran his election for all of Canada then I'd vote for him for sure.

Maybe he could help Canada separate from the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Duceppe


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The debates have not swayed my opinion one bit, other than to reinforce the fact that the country needs political change before it chokes itself.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

Looks like there are more unCanadians in Canada than just me, Sinc  Duceppe is getting a lot of non-Separatist kudos


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Anyone see the "Duffy vs Duffy" dustup that happened just after last night's debate?

It concerned the now-pulled attack ad that's causing the Liberals so much grief right now. (The one that was so way over the top that it's being shown on practically every Canadian news program today.

Here's a link. http://money.canoe.ca/News/Other/2006/01/10/1388112-cp.html


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://209.91.125.129/images/ProudToBeCanadian.ca_CTVs_Mike_Duffy_Stands_up.wmv

They could have just stuck to quoting Harper's actual and in context extermist views but, no, that wasn't enough. They also weren't prepared to weasel out of it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Cool. But it started to break up and quit just when Mike Duffy began to raise his voice. Maybe I should attempt it again.

We should note here that the one ad that the Liberals DON'T want anyone to see is getting huge airplay right now. It's on CBC again as I type this.

This one is gonna sink em, I bet.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Same poop Harper was rightfully nailed for in 2004 (Martin for childporn?). Bad idea from a poorly led communications team that never should have got beyond the 'What if we said...' stage.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

*Tab for NDP promises: $71B over 5 years*

from Toronto Star...

HAMILTON (CP) — New Democrats are proposing to spend $71.5 billion over five years on social programs and tax breaks for the poor.
On the spending side, the biggest item is $11.2 billion for the environment, including $2.2 billion next year on greenhouse-gas reduction programs.
The platform, to be released Wednesday afternoon by NDP Leader Jack Layton, contains few new proposals, but puts dollar figures to NDP commitments.
The party says its spending would produce a small surplus.
Other items on the NDP wish list: $20.1 billion over five years on tax breaks for low-income earners, $1 billion a year for a prescription drug plan starting in 2007 and $16 billion over four years for child care and child tax benefits.
The party also promises legislation to stop the growth of private health care and a new voting system to include some proportional representation.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Just now at the Subway on Bank St. I was buying my lunch and there... in line... standing in front of me... was a soldier.

In our cities. 

In Canada.

A soldier.

He seemed to be ordering the six-inch ham and turkey.

With chipotle sauce.

In Canada.

We're not making this stuff up.

http://weblogs.macleans.ca/paulwells/


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Just now at the Subway on Bank St. I was buying my lunch and there... in line... standing in front of me... was a soldier.
> 
> In our cities.
> 
> ...


Could you hear Terminator music playing in the background?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> http://209.91.125.129/images/ProudToBeCanadian.ca_CTVs_Mike_Duffy_Stands_up.wmv
> 
> They could have just stuck to quoting Harper's actual and in context extermist views but, no, that wasn't enough. They also weren't prepared to weasel out of it.


I still get a kick that the snip above is taped from a VHS.
It violates Canadian copyright rules. 
Yes ProudToBeCanadian.ca, a clearinghouse of Canadian right-wing "information", that clearly states "the Conservatives seem to always take the higher road, and do it honestly." is so ready to breach laws when it suits them. 

I also wonder why they have so many American flags there? The name of the site is great but seems a little diluted, no? 

Now, that same website is so proud of it's columnist (Ann Coulter anyone?). How she became Canadian, I will never know...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Nice. It was video from CTV that I saw live at the time (note I actually posted about it at the time too). 

Feel free to attack the obviously questionable source, but are you questioning the actual footage or just redirecting? Are we now to debate the site that recorded the video because, clearly, the video is 'as is' and in context? 

Really, let's set aside partisan squash. The Liberals screwed up, and they are being taken to task for it, starting immediately, but continuing into today. The same happened to Harper in 2004, and Campbell in 1993. 

Many of the other Liberal ads quote relevant Harper speeches. Even if those videos were played by moveon.org, if they're complete then the issue is what Harper said, not which site someone happened to spot the video at.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Nice. It was video from CTV that I saw live at the time (note I actually posted about it at the time too).
> 
> Feel free to attack the obviously questionable source, but are you questioning the actual footage or just redirecting? Are we now to debate the site that recorded the video because, clearly, the video is 'as is' and in context?


I find it ironic that the side that preaches the moral high ground is incapable of honesty. If I were to lecture about the ills and how illegal it is to use a P2P program to get files and used "special private versions" of software what would it make me?


The "army" ad has offended sensibilities. I find it effective as many are speaking about them. Am I offended by it, no. It's on the same level as the Cons ad attacking PM for using private clinics or "his" ships being registered elsewhere.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I find it ironic that the side that preaches the moral high ground is incapable of honesty. If I were to lecture about the ills and how illegal it is to use a P2P program to get files and used "special private versions" of software what would it make me?
> 
> 
> The "army" ad has offended sensibilities. I find it effective as many are speaking about them. Am I offended by it, no. It's on the same level as the Cons ad attacking PM for using private clinics or "his" ships being registered elsewhere.


No, there is a difference between fact, fiction and fearmongering.

Martin uses private clinics and registered his ships elsewhere... FACT

The Conservatives are not planning to put troops into our cities, nor are they trying to create a police state....FICTION and FEARMONGERING

Big difference.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> No, there is a difference between fact, fiction and fearmongering.
> 
> The Conservatives are not planning to put troops into our cities, nor are they trying to create a police state....FICTION and FEARMONGERING
> 
> Big difference.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060111/ELXNADS11/TPNational/Canada


> In late December during a campaign tour on Vancouver Island, Mr. Harper said major cities across the country should be given a regular army presence by the creation of territorial defence units. The units would have 100 regular troops and 400 more reservists, he said at the time.


FACT

You inferred that there would be a police state - hence the ads have been effective.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

Mrs. Furley said:


> from Toronto Star...
> 
> HAMILTON (CP) — New Democrats are proposing to spend $71.5 billion over five years on social programs and tax breaks for the poor.
> On the spending side, the biggest item is $11.2 billion for the environment, including $2.2 billion next year on greenhouse-gas reduction programs.
> ...


Go Jack! :clap:


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Just now at the Subway on Bank St. I was buying my lunch and there... in line... standing in front of me... was a soldier.
> 
> In our cities.
> 
> ...


*THE END IS NIGH!!*

(Please tell me he wasn't ordering Freedom Fries too....)


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

As AS pointed out, some people will infer that the ads are trying to tell us Harper wants a police state. 

I inferred that the Liberal's are full of ****. 

The fact that the ads say 'We're not making this stuff up' just makes me feel that they did.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Mugatu said:


> As AS pointed out, some people will infer that the ads are trying to tell us Harper wants a police state.
> 
> I inferred that the Liberal's are full of ****.
> 
> The fact that the ads say 'We're not making this stuff up' just makes me feel that they did.


As Ali G would say: Respect.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

I'm sorry. I should have said 'The Liberal Party of Canada', not all liberals. I was not trying to paint liberals that way (since I'd be painting myself in the process  ), just the guys and gals currently running the country.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Mugatu, I was praising you for telling it the way you saw it....


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Mugatu, I was praising you for telling it the way you saw it....


Oh... thanks AS.


----------

