Federal Election Thread

[seeking1]

Well, some of us also have other issues that are important to us. I'm ex-military, so I appreciate that the Canadian Forces now have modern equipment that works, and our men and women aren't being sent to a desert with frickin' green combats. Yes, the men and women of the CF were sent to Afghanistan with bloody green uniforms by the liberals, instead of the desert camo that they should have had, and that the conservatives made sure our men and women had.

 

I appreciate that if someone loses a limb, they aren't automatically discharged, like they were under the liberals, but instead, jobs are found for them that they can perform even if they are missing a limb.

 

Now I will admit that the treatment of vets still isnt great, but it wasn't great under the libs either.

 

I deeply appreciate your service to our country, but I do not see how jets have anything to do with camo, jobs, or treatment of vets. I'm pretty sure the jets would actually detract from the camo, jobs, and treatment of vets.

[NLengr]

Who cares about health care funding when you can save a whole cent off the GST??

 

But don't forget to cancel the planned income tax cut so that you don't actually save any money.

 

A Conservative majority would be a DISASTER for the country. They've been bad enough as a minority.

[larva]

Well, some of us also have other issues that are important to us. I'm ex-military, so I appreciate that the Canadian Forces now have modern equipment that works, and our men and women aren't being sent to a desert with frickin' green combats. Yes, the men and women of the CF were sent to Afghanistan with bloody green uniforms by the liberals, instead of the desert camo that they should have had, and that the conservatives made sure our men and women had.

 

I appreciate that if someone loses a limb, they aren't automatically discharged, like they were under the liberals, but instead, jobs are found for them that they can perform even if they are missing a limb.

 

Now I will admit that the treatment of vets still isnt great, but it wasn't great under the libs either.

 

I would argue that the new combats were due to a positive change in Army leadership, rather than a political party.

 

Also, try asking someone in search and rescue if they know what it's like to have modern equipment that actually works...

[NLengr]

I deeply appreciate your service to our country, but I do not see how jets have anything to do with camo, jobs, or treatment of vets. I'm pretty sure the jets would actually detract from the camo, jobs, and treatment of vets.

 

As for the jets, the cost the US defence dept. is now quoting is $151 million a jet, not the old old old number of $75 million a copy the conservatives are using.

 

Add to that the fact that the program is STILL way behind (expect further cost overruns) and the aircraft is not performing at levels that were previously expected. To quote:

 

"Maj. Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Command’s advanced air dominance branch: “I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons.”

 

Now we did buy on as a level 3 partner in the 90's. Good move, gave us access to contracts, research and performance data. BUT, now that things aren't looking as rosey as we hoped, it's time to step back for a second. We should hold a fly off, at the cost of the manufactures. We invite the F-35, Eurofighter, Rafale, JAS 39 Grippen, F-15 silent eagle, F-18e/f super hornet. Then we sit down, re-evaluate and pick the jet. If it's still the F-35, great.

[MarathonRunner]

I deeply appreciate your service to our country, but I do not see how jets have anything to do with camo, jobs, or treatment of vets. I'm pretty sure the jets would actually detract from the camo, jobs, and treatment of vets.

 

My statement was in response to:

 

Also, I can't get over the number of votes in this thread for the Conservatives.

 

You understand that they have little interest in funding health care properly, right? And last I checked, this is a pre-med forum.

 

In other words, I have other issues that are of importance to me, besides health care. One of those is the military.

 

Ideally, I would love to have a political party that would support health care, education, AND the military, and that would cut funding to other areas that I personally feel are less important, or would look to save money in other ways (ie. eliminating a lot of the bureaucracy that is present in both the military and in health care - we don't need as many senior administrators making ridiculous salaries as we currently have, both in health care and in the civilian populace at NDHQ, and we probably don't need as many generals as we have on the military side, although that's debatable). I'd rather see more money going to the people on the front lines, delivering services, both in health care and in other areas.

 

Sadly, none of the political parties out there has a platform that covers all the issues that are important to me, personally. So I vote for what I consider to be the lesser of two evils, in my opinion. I realize that other people will have other priorities and other issues that are important to them.

[medisforme]

 

You understand that they have little interest in funding health care properly, right? And last I checked, this is a pre-med forum.

Article on what I'm talking about.

 

Funny quote, where do I start.

 

1) What is your definition of "funding health care properly?" There are other ways of providing health care besides the Canadian single payer model.

France, Japan, England, Germany all have different health care systems than us that provide just as high quality of care as Canada, if not higher.

 

Perhaps you are referring to the evils of instilling private entities into providing health care. Examine the health care systems of both Germany and Switzerland which both allow private insurance companies to participate in the health care sector. They both arguably provide higher quality care than we do in Canada with much lower wait times for emergency services and surgeries.

 

2) The slant of your quote seems to assume that good pre-meds should agree with the status quo of providing health care and not vote conservative. Problems with this statement

a) the conservatives have NEVER once stated they are thinking of dismantling medicare; I defy you to show me an incident where a respected conservative party member suggested this as a policy platform (anyone with half a brain understands that doing so would be political suicide, and implementing such a policy would be tantamount to destroying the party).

Not all people involved in medicine agree with our current health care system. For example, former president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Brian Day, has advocated for parallel public and private health care streams. This is a well educated man, who was the leader of one of the most respected professional associations in the country (for the record I don't agree with a lot of what he advocates, but at least he is providing some social debate on our health care system).

 

Please refrain from making such sweeping generalizations that are vague and misleading.

[seeking1]

Funny quote, where do I start.

 

1) What is your definition of "funding health care properly?" There are other ways of providing health care besides the Canadian single payer model.

France, Japan, England, Germany all have different health care systems than us that provide just as high quality of care as Canada, if not higher.

 

Perhaps you are referring to the evils of instilling private entities into providing health care. Examine the health care systems of both Germany and Switzerland which both allow private insurance companies to participate in the health care sector. They both arguably provide higher quality care than we do in Canada with much lower wait times for emergency services and surgeries.

 

2) The slant of your quote seems to assume that good pre-meds should agree with the status quo of providing health care and not vote conservative. Problems with this statement

a) the conservatives have NEVER once stated they are thinking of dismantling medicare; I defy you to show me an incident where a respected conservative party member suggested this as a policy platform (anyone with half a brain understands that doing so would be political suicide, and implementing such a policy would be tantamount to destroying the party).

Not all people involved in medicine agree with our current health care system. For example, former president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Brian Day, has advocated for parallel public and private health care streams. This is a well educated man, who was the leader of one of the most respected professional associations in the country (for the record I don't agree with a lot of what he advocates, but at least he is providing some social debate on our health care system).

 

Please refrain from making such sweeping generalizations that are vague and misleading.

 

All right, specifics then.

 

If you read the article, you would realize I was talking about how from 2014-2018 the Cons are going to have to pay $30 billion/year for health care to the provinces. They have not begun planning for that at all. Thats not evil, its just stupid.

 

With regards to 1), your examples are weak. Both Germany and Switzerland provide universal health care, around 90% public/10% private. In Switzerland, the private insurance companies are nonprofits, thus preventing them from politicking unnecessarily. I have little issue with private expenditure in health care, assuming it is restricted and planned carefully.

 

With regards to 2), I was not saying the Cons are out to kill medicare. What I was saying is that they are being complacent in fixing medicare. I agree with Dr. Day on some topics, and not on others. An internet forum is a poor place to provide details.

 

Please don't jump to conclusions about my political slant. I am a-ok with voting for a Con MP in my area, the problem is I don't have a good one in my area (see: Vaughan, Julian Fantino). Also, I really do not believe unrestricted private health systems will create strong population health.

[seeking1]

Ideally, I would love to have a political party that would support health care, education, AND the military

 

That is fiscally impossible without raising the tax rates.

[Wayward son]

That is fiscally impossible without raising the tax rates.

 

What if they combined the three? Had our military educate our children and provide health care for all. They could use those 65 new jets to transport kid to and from school. The camouflage uniforms could be used to sneak up on kids skipping school. As for health care...those Swiss army knives can do anything.

[bigfootspartan]

I hate to add to the attack ads, but here's my take on everything. I'm voting Green, although if I was in a riding where it was close between a conservative MP and a liberal or an NDP I would vote for the MP that's closest to beating the Conservative MP. Harper simply cannot be trusted, here's why.

 

1. He left Omar Khadr in Guantanamo Bay where he was tortured. Being a child soldier I feel this was a way Harper could score points with the States.

2. Harper initiated the in-and-out scandal, which allowed your beloved Conservative MP's to claim tax refunds on money that they shouldn't have. For you and me this is called fraud, and we get jailed for this.

3. Bev Oda finalized a government document and promised money to an NGO. Then she scribbled out the "we will give you funding" and wrote "we will not give you funding." If we did this in someones medical records we'd probably get at least a suspension, if not lose our licences.

4. Harper cancelled the mandatory long form census, even though the majority of the population didn't have any problem with it. Now we can't properly compare current data to past data.

5. Harper uses disinformation to sway the uninformed. He explains that coalitions are undemocratic and will ruin our democracy. He forgets to mention that the coalition will be run by elected MP's, and that he himself attempted the same thing back in 2004. The only reason it didn't go through was because the NDP jumped out.

6. Harper was the leader of the National Citizens Coalition who called (and still call) for the privatization of healthcare. Harper announced a month or two ago that he wants to revisit how our healthcare system works. I can honestly say that, as a future physician, I will move out of the country if we change to a private healthcare system, and I know many physicians who would also consider it.

 

We are seeing time and time again that Harper does what he wants, because he figures he can get away with it. He sings songs by John Lennon, yet he obviously has no understanding of what John Lennon or the Beatles actually stood for.

 

I urge you to at least look at the Green Party platform. It's so much more than a single issue party. People who tell you it is are obviously ignorant. The Green Party has had some pretty brilliant ideas in the past. Instead of simply pointing fingers (which I accidentally fall into all the time) they bring up sustainable plans.

 

To quote Jermaine from "Flight of the Choncords": We need Brunettes, not fighter jets.

[bigfootspartan]

Also, I can't get over the number of votes in this thread for the Conservatives.

 

It absolutely blows my mind. If people vote Conservative just so there "are less elections in the future" we are in a dangerous place. Let me remind you that Harper was once the leader of this "citizens group" and still supports their ideals. Notice the part where they say "privatization of healthcare would be the shizznit."

 

http://nationalcitizens.ca/

 

He openly commits fraud, spouts off hypocrisy (about coalitions) and then has the nerve to say he's "tough on crime."

 

Just to show how completely inept he is, look at how he describes marijuana. He mentions that current marijuana sales support crime organizations, and then describes that legalization would not be good, because he's "met a lot of people who have done drugs that regretted it, but not many that did drugs and didn't regret it."

 

 

The general opinion of the public health sector (in Alberta anyways, I'm not sure about other provinces) is that legalization would in fact decrease healthcare costs and mortality.

 

If you don't want to vote because you don't agree with any of the parties, that's great, all the power to you, but at least go out and spoil your ballot. If you don't vote you'll simply get lumped in with the people who are too lazy to make an effort to understand our government (and yet who complain about all the taxes they have to pay). At least with a spoiled ballot they'll know that you care about our politics, but just don't agree with any of the perspective MP's in your riding.

[seeking1]

A better wording of what it is I'm getting at: Globe and Mail article.

 

Turns out, Harper used to be part of the National Citizens' Coalition (lol coalition), where "he stated plainly that the Canada Health Act should be scrapped".

[MarathonRunner]

That is fiscally impossible without raising the tax rates.

 

*nod*. I personally would be fine with higher taxes. Having spent time in Europe, I know that many European countries have much higher tax rates than we do, and much better services.

[medisforme]

I will be voting green as well, though not because I think they have anything substantial to contribute to a potential government but strictly as a protest vote. I have voted conservative in the past, but will likely not vote for them this time because of some of the things that bigfoot mentioned above. I tend not to hold politicians to too high a standard (they are humans no different than you or I) so some of those points really don't surprise nor upset me too much, though the deal breaker for me was the conservative government insistence on fighting INSITE here in vancouver and attempting to shut it down despite research that has clearly stated it has had an impact on decreasing the spread of communicable diseases. The ridiculous thing is, is that they are continuing their fight to close it down after they have already lost a major court decision on the matter; it completely blows my mind. If somone would bother showing them the scientific date during a tv interview or something they would look like foolish clowns.

[medisforme]

All right, specifics then.

 

If you read the article, you would realize I was talking about how from 2014-2018 the Cons are going to have to pay $30 billion/year for health care to the provinces. They have not begun planning for that at all. Thats not evil, its just stupid.

 

With regards to 1), your examples are weak. Both Germany and Switzerland provide universal health care, around 90% public/10% private. In Switzerland, the private insurance companies are nonprofits, thus preventing them from politicking unnecessarily. I have little issue with private expenditure in health care, assuming it is restricted and planned carefully.

 

With regards to 2), I was not saying the Cons are out to kill medicare. What I was saying is that they are being complacent in fixing medicare. I agree with Dr. Day on some topics, and not on others. An internet forum is a poor place to provide details.

 

Please don't jump to conclusions about my political slant. I am a-ok with voting for a Con MP in my area, the problem is I don't have a good one in my area (see: Vaughan, Julian Fantino). Also, I really do not believe unrestricted private health systems will create strong population health.

 

 

Point taken, sorry for sounding so harsh. I definitely do not want to start a war of words.

[medisforme]

A better wording of what it is I'm getting at: Globe and Mail article.

 

Turns out, Harper used to be part of the National Citizens' Coalition (lol coalition), where "he stated plainly that the Canada Health Act should be scrapped".

 

 

The health care delivery issue is similar to the abortion issue. It is not going to change regardless of the personal views of those in government. Canadian citizens would never allow it (ie. it would be political suicide). That is one reason I think people have voted in a conservative government (minority one at that) in a liberal country; they understand that these type of issues will not be radically altered during the governments term in office.

[blind_synergy]

Well, it's more than a week in, what's everyone think now?

 

Iggy's surprised me with his amiable, unscripted campaigning approach. In my mind, he's definitely improved his image for the better. His platform is certainly interesting and the family focus is refreshing from the negativity we've been seeing from the Cons.

 

As for Harper, well... He's not doing himself any favours, at least from my perspective. It's like he's roided up his standard campaigning approach. Only allows five questions a day from reporters, a rule which he's refused to publicly rationalize. He only makes scripted appearances with vetted audiences. Stridently warning the public about an impending evil socialist coalition if he doesn't win his majority (on a side note, aren't the Cons basically a coalition of the more centrist PCs and the far right-wing Reform Alliance?). Challenging Ignatieff to a one-on-one debate and then backing down (what?). I guess this is the classic "front-runner" campaigning style, but still... Mr. T-850 (minus the badassness factor) probably wouldn't do well off-the-leash, so to speak; I guess that's one way to rationalize it.

 

[random-thoughts]

 

How come no one's talking about gutting the military? Save a lot of costs right, there, and then modernize it when the money's available (I bet the F-35s or whatever other replacement jets there are would be cheaper in a few years).

 

Legalizing and taxing marijuana would be great for the economy (American tourism!). It pulls in the something like the third most revenue of all native agricultural products in Canada, and that's on the black market!

 

[/random-thoughts]

[NLengr]

I like Ignatieff. He seems very very smart and genuine. Also, he's kept things relatively clean (unlike the cons). He also is trying to engage debate with the electorate (unlike Harper who will only take 5 questions a day from reporters). Iggy's starting to come out of his shell too.

 

On a side note, I'm not too sure why everyone complains he has no charisma. He's doing a pretty good job so far. And seriously, it's not like Harper is some kind of JFK returned to earth. He's dull as hell.

[Erk]

Debate aside, my prediction: we will spend another several million dollars on another election and wind up again with more or less the same balance of politicians we had going in. That would be.... 3 in a row, right? Or did I lose track?

 

That said, the liberals do seem to be pulling ahead in the polls a little. Maybe there will be a shift that way. I don't care for them at all, but I despise them slightly less than the USA-kowtowing neocons, so I suppose that is a good thing.

 

God I hate federal politics.

[repede]

The number of Conservative votes in this thread is worrisome. Harper needs to go.

[apache]

the problem with ignatieff is the perceived arrogance of his persona. i find that very appealing as i prefer my politicians to be intellectually a step above the average person, but from what people have told me his overly academic attitude and pretentiousness puts a lot of people off, just a thought.

 

I like Ignatieff. He seems very very smart and genuine. Also, he's kept things relatively clean (unlike the cons). He also is trying to engage debate with the electorate (unlike Harper who will only take 5 questions a day from reporters). Iggy's starting to come out of his shell too.

 

On a side note, I'm not too sure why everyone complains he has no charisma. He's doing a pretty good job so far. And seriously, it's not like Harper is some kind of JFK returned to earth. He's dull as hell.

[Alex2]

The number of Conservative votes in this thread is worrisome. Harper needs to go.

 

I also wonder why Harper is voted the most in a health forum?

[StringerBell]

On a side note, I'm not too sure why everyone complains he has no charisma. He's doing a pretty good job so far. And seriously, it's not like Harper is some kind of JFK returned to earth. He's dull as hell.

 

Why is charisma even important? If anything it gets in the way of the issues, politicians should ideally be as boring as possible so the main focus is the issues. Hitler was very charismatic but we all know what happened there.

[NLengr]

the problem with ignatieff is the perceived arrogance of his persona. i find that very appealing as i prefer my politicians to be intellectually a step above the average person, but from what people have told me his overly academic attitude and pretentiousness puts a lot of people off, just a thought.

 

That was how G. W. Bush managed to pull off two election wins (well one if you count the fact that 2000 was a complete mess), despite being one of, if not the worst president in US history. People voted for him because, despite the fact that they believed he didn't have the knowledge or skills to lead the country, they said he seemed like a guy who would be more fun to have a beer with.

 

Like the US president was gonna phone up Joe Bob in Idaho, and ask him over for a beer. Lord knows we wouldn't want him to have good knowledge of global and domestic issues. That's for egg heads.

 

Conservatives in the US have a HUGE anti-intellectual movement they encourage. The cons here are trying the same strategy.

[goleafsgochris]

I also wonder why Harper is voted the most in a health forum?

 

Im not saying this is ethical per se, but voting for Harper as a med student/reisdent:

 

- Your taxes will decrease (or not increase) assuming you are in a high income bracket

- The liberals/NDP want more doctors, = more competition. Also, I assume these extra doctors will be IMG getting an easier route, which almost no one around here whoo isnt an IMG wants