NDP wants to train more doctors

[xkittens]

anyone else excited? In a national opinion poll NDP had 31% support, 3% behind the conservatives!

[apache]

yup, volunteering for ndp on election day in the only ndp constituency in alberta. no mandate for you stevie: also, anyone thinking of voting for the cons might want to know about stevie and his ex social conservative party:

 

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

 

you're a woman, too bad,

 

you're gay, too bad

 

if you're aboriginal, too bad

 

if you prefer french, too bad

 

btw, these guy can't even be bigots correctly, after getting criticized for not having minorities they picked up rahim jaffer, who loves his coke and hookers!

 

anyone else excited? In a national opinion poll NDP had 31% support, 3% behind the conservatives!

[thehumanmacbook]

^+1. At least they wanted to disband Indian affairs which I can agree with. But everything else, no.

[GogoGadget]

anyone else excited? In a national opinion poll NDP had 31% support, 3% behind the conservatives!

 

lol not at all.

 

NDP and their populist adgenda will ruin the country, putting it heavily in debt to pay for the excessive social services and decreasing our international competitiveness by hiking corporate taxes. Remember, whatever debt they rack up, we will end up paying for in our lifetime. Any wise person knows we cannot live beyond our means through borrowing. Look at Quebec and our debt problems and now our failing infrastructure. It was all from excessive populist social programs funded through borrowing.

 

NDP should never become the government. We need one that can keep a balanced or low deficit budget. The healthcare system is already very strained. This year, the average age of doctors decreased for the first time since 1991 I believe. I rather that I not benefit from their medical school spots increase than to see our healthcare become privatized and docs competing versus one another for patients. Their policies are great and very idealistic, unfortunately money isn't unlimited and the NDP havn't seemed to realize that yet.

[apache]

sweden, norway and denmark(#1) are all in the top 10, according to forbes, which we can all agree has a neo-con bias.

 

btw, the us has the highest corporate tax in the world and they rank number 2.

 

nothing is as straightforwards as you put it, by putting more money into social services you are less likely to have crime, illiteracy, a more educated society, less social stratification, all of which which is good for productivity; national day care will allow parents to go back to the work world earlier, there are so many policies which play a part that Harper's yapping about corporate taxes is tiring.

 

one of the common fallacies everyone makes is thinking that 2 or 3 core factors determine outcomes, when in fact, the economic success and happiness of people are more complex than could ever be delineated in a few miltion friedman inspired sentences.

 

perhaps a greater measure of the success of a nation would be gross national happiness:

 

Economic Wellness: Indicated via direct survey and statistical measurement of economic metrics such as consumer debt, average income to consumer price index ratio and income distribution

 

Environmental Wellness: Indicated via direct survey and statistical measurement of environmental metrics such as pollution, noise and traffic

 

Physical Wellness: Indicated via statistical measurement of physical health metrics such as severe illnesses

 

Mental Wellness: Indicated via direct survey and statistical measurement of mental health metrics such as usage of antidepressants and rise or decline of psychotherapy patients

 

Workplace Wellness: Indicated via direct survey and statistical measurement of labor metrics such as jobless claims, job change, workplace complaints and lawsuits

 

Social Wellness: Indicated via direct survey and statistical measurement of social metrics such as discrimination, safety, divorce rates, complaints of domestic conflicts and family lawsuits, public lawsuits, crime rates

 

Political Wellness: Indicated via direct survey and statistical measurement of political metrics such as the quality of local democracy, individual freedom, and foreign conflicts

 

------------

 

i read another great essay in the economist about ecological economics, check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_economics

lol not at all.

 

NDP and their populist adgenda will ruin the country, putting it heavily in debt to pay for the excessive social services and decreasing our international competitiveness by hiking corporate taxes. Remember, whatever debt they rack up, we will end up paying for in our lifetime. Any wise person knows we cannot live beyond our means through borrowing. Look at Quebec and our debt problems and now our failing infrastructure. It was all from excessive populist social programs funded through borrowing.

 

NDP should never become the government. We need one that can keep a balanced or low deficit budget. The healthcare system is already very strained. This year, the average age of doctors decreased for the first time since 1991 I believe. I rather I not benifit from their medical school spots increase than to see our healthcare become privatized and docs competing versus one another for patients. Their policies are great and very idealistic, unfortunately money isn't unlimited and the NDP havn't seemed to realize that yet.

[GogoGadget]

Yes things arn't at all simple. Nations don't all have the same problems, resources or needs, trade partners or industries and thus you can't look towards particular countries for models. As you said, things are simple. You're implying that increasing corporate tax rates will attract more corporations by you're comparison (which isn't accurate itself).

 

I suggest taking a few economic courses. They're very important to understand the global economy. Fortunately, the NDP won't get in power. Perhaps after Iggy leaves Liberals we can get a more fiscally responsible yet socially liberal party. The NDP's existance is essentially keeping the conservatives in power and as long as we don't have a fiscially reponsible party other than the conservatives, my vote will be going to them. Night

[leviathan]

Muse gets it. Socialist countries rank at the top of development indices for a good reason. I think the important point is they have to be SMART socialist policies that support the ability of disadvantaged people to become contributors to our society, rather than policies that help some people but simply foster laziness in others.

[apache]

i'm not implying that strictly increasing corporate taxes will attract corporations, i'm saying things are multi-factorial, and no one really knows enough about the subtle social variables to comment on which single variable (there are no single variables btw) will work best in this political climate, population distribution, cultural variance, etc. which is why i showed that socialist countries can be in the top 10, its not because of their tax rate but a mixture of policies that contributes to attracting business.

 

i've taken lots of economic classes and i find most models are over-simplified and a priori suited to a particular preference in the social construction of a society, starting with the measures, does gdp really matter if a country makes most of their money from investing and making money from money (the investment banking industry in the us)... this "wealth" does not transfer to infrastructure or a better quality of life for people, as these companies do not actually produce anything, in fact, today, america produces nothing, the only thing they have going for them is being the worlds reserve currency, and the ability to manipulate the value of that currency, but soros and others are toying with the idea of new reserve currencies, which will send the neo-liberalist united states, which has written these textbooks with the presumption that because they got the results they wanted because the underlying theory theory was correct, unto bankruptcy. they forget to mention how they exploited south america for over 40 years with coup after coup in order to advantage their countries... there's also economic hitmen who destabilize countries from the inside by bribing the appropriate individuals, who will give the u.s. corporations generous prices and low wages to it's workers... then there's the shaw in iran and countless others, sounds like mobster style gangsterism behind the scenes with a good sell to the career oriented academics who know their career will go nowhere if they touch ecological economics.

 

our economic success is built on the brutality ins-trued upon others, not by the simple mathematical equations that always give you a formula but can never explain why a fiat currency, lack of gold standard, or private federal reserve should exist in the first place.... these are all constructivist institutions, but like religion, when something is around long enough, we begin to accept it as truth.

 

Yes things arn't at all simple. Nations don't all have the same problems, resources or needs, trade partners or industries and thus you can't look towards particular countries for models. As you said, things are simple. You're implying that increasing corporate tax rates will attract more corporations by you're comparison (which isn't accurate itself).

 

I suggest taking a few economic courses. They're very important to understand the global economy. Fortunately, the NDP won't get in power. Perhaps after Iggy leaves Liberals we can get a more fiscally responsible yet socially liberal party. The NDP's existance is essentially keeping the conservatives in power and as long as we don't have a fiscially reponsible party other than the conservatives, my vote will be going to them. Night

[sgt.pepper]

Muse gets it. Socialist countries rank at the top of development indices for a good reason. I think the important point is they have to be SMART socialist policies that support the ability of disadvantaged people to become contributors to our society, rather than policies that help some people but simply foster laziness in others.

 

Thank you very much for saying this. The problem with canadians, is they have a sense of entitlement, so it is very hard to change these things.

[apache]

agreed, i'm not about handouts. people criticize me for wanting to legalize heroin for multiple-times failed methadone addicts (peer review, work done in britain), but my point isn't that everyone should be a junkie, it's that for these people who have fallen into despair, they are able to stay on a stable dose and get a job at a coffee shop or something, rather than contracting aids, or antibiotic resistant infections, while living on the streets, which imo is a better, albeit, not perfect outcome.

 

some of the policies we have for refuges i think are ridiculous and far to generous, educational policies im fine with, but some of the handouts they get, while my mother is on aish for schizo (someone who really can't work) really bother me.

 

Muse gets it. Socialist countries rank at the top of development indices for a good reason. I think the important point is they have to be SMART socialist policies that support the ability of disadvantaged people to become contributors to our society, rather than policies that help some people but simply foster laziness in others.

[Wayward son]

NDP should never become the government. We need one that can keep a balanced or low deficit budget.

 

Perhaps you should compare the fiscal record of NDP governments against the other parties. Start with Tommy Douglas.

[Wayward son]

anyone else excited? In a national opinion poll NDP had 31% support, 3% behind the conservatives!

 

I would not say that am excited, but I have found the polling changes interesting to follow. I have already voted and I live in a riding where despite the NDP rising wave they still appear to be a very distant 3rd. I voted against the Conservatives. Personally I am not impressed by any of the parties, or the ideas that they put forth over the last couple years. I was expecting Layton to step down after this election with the NDP winding up with about the same number of seats that it had going into the election. So that definitely left me a little surprised to see the NDP wave continue as it has.

 

If this support continues there are two possibilities that I find really interesting (I am not saying that these are the only 2 possibilities).

 

The first is that the NDP wins a ton of new seats and the political landscape changes significantly, with the Bloc and Liberals becoming lessor powers. I believe it was pollster Frank Graves who mentioned the possibility of 100 seats for the NDP. Say Con 140, NDP 100, Libs 38 and Bloc 30. To me that kind of change would probably have long lasting effects.

 

The second is that the NDP does not win a ton of seats due to the distribution of votes (ie finishing second almost everywhere). Imagine for instance the Conservatives getting 155 seats (1 seat majority) with 35%. The NDP getting 40 seats with 30%. The Liberals getting 73 seats with 22% and the the Bloc getting 40 seats with 8% (that would be 30% of the vote between the Libs and bloc with 113 seats, compared to only 40 seats for the NDP with the same number of votes and the Cons getting 155 seats with not many more votes than the NDP).

 

That could happen. My question is would such a disparity between votes and seats finally spur Canadians to demand changes to our electoral system.

 

Maybe, maybe not. There was concern back in 1993 when the PCs only received 2 seats with about 17% of the vote, but that concern was trumped by most people being satisfied with Chretien and relief that the Mulroney years were over. However if Harper gets a majority with 35% of the vote and he governs like he has received a mandate despite only supported by the most right wing third of the population that could cause a lot of anger. Especially if that is combined with two parties receiving the same number of seats even though the one received almost 4 times as many votes as the other.

[SolitaireAddikt]

The NDP also wants to get rid of fee-for-service billing. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing- any thoughts from those of you who are more knowledgable about this?

[SolitaireAddikt]

I'm not educated on the subject but I would think that such a change would hurt the motivation for doctors to see and do more.

 

I suspect that's exactly what they have in mind. More family doctors + phasing out fee-for-service billing= less incentive to see many patients in one day and thus more time spent per patient.

[apache]

ndp can keep a balanced budget, in the end it's about choices, like layton said, the conservatives promise excessive tax breaks beyond what we need to be competitive, to the point where it's just pork-barreling, just like the g20... they offer everything you could want, and a balanced budget too, they sure take the conservative minimalist government out of conservative... he's yet to disclose what his 11 billion in cuts will be???

 

the ndp are very upfront about cutting costs in areas canadians are less enthusiastic about, including fighter jets, big banks, private jails etc.

 

don't get me wrong, im not even an ndp'er, i just think they're the least of all evils, with harper being the devil himself

 

Perhaps you should compare the fiscal record of NDP governments against the other parties. Start with Tommy Douglas.

[apache]

depends on your specialty, in psychiatry, its great (they already have time based billing in alberta anyways), in pathology, derm, or optho... maybe not so much so. we need a complex billing system tailored for each specialty that also addresses outcomes of your patients etc.

 

i've never been a fan of generalizations, and generalizing medical billing is as bad is it gets.

 

The NDP also wants to get rid of fee-for-service billing. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing- any thoughts from those of you who are more knowledgable about this?

[seeking1]

lol not at all.

 

NDP and their populist adgenda i) will ruin the country, putting it heavily in debt to pay for the excessive social services and ii) decreasing our international competitiveness by hiking corporate taxes. Remember, whatever debt they rack up, we will end up paying for in our lifetime. Any wise person knows we cannot live beyond our means through borrowing. Look at Quebec and our debt problems and now our failing infrastructure. It was all from excessive populist social programs funded through borrowing.

 

NDP should never become the government. iii) We need one that can keep a balanced or low deficit budget. iv) The healthcare system is already very strained. This year, the average age of doctors decreased for the first time since 1991 I believe. v) I rather that I not benefit from their medical school spots increase than to see our healthcare become privatized and docs competing versus one another for patients. Their policies are great and very idealistic, unfortunately money isn't unlimited and the NDP havn't seemed to realize that yet.

 

i) Please explain how the NDP (or the Libs, or any other party) will ruin the country and the Conservatives won't.

 

ii) Canada has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world, period. The only developed countries who have corporate tax rates lower than ours are Ireland and the United States, and we all know they're doing so well right now.

 

iii) The Conservatives cannot keep a balanced budget or a low deficit. That is a fact.

 

iv)The system can become surprisingly good again and unstrained in a very short time if we begin implementing certain protocols (i.e. changes in pay structure for doctors, implement family health teams, national pharma plan, prioritize primary care over specialists, etc.)

 

v) This argument makes little sense, please clarify.

[goleafsgochris]

Perhaps you should compare the fiscal record of NDP governments against the other parties. Start with Tommy Douglas.

 

...or start with Bob Rae.

 

Really all the NDP surge will do is lead to a conservative majority, so I guess its fine by me. Now that I am in residency, I will admit I find their taxation policies more appealing than I used to (its easier to be Socialist before you start working for money).

[Erk]

ndp can keep a balanced budget, in the end it's about choices, like layton said, the conservatives promise excessive tax breaks beyond what we need to be competitive, to the point where it's just pork-barreling, just like the g20... they offer everything you could want, and a balanced budget too, they sure take the conservative minimalist government out of conservative... he's yet to disclose what his 11 billion in cuts will be???

 

the ndp are very upfront about cutting costs in areas canadians are less enthusiastic about, including fighter jets, big banks, private jails etc.

 

don't get me wrong, im not even an ndp'er, i just think they're the least of all evils, with harper being the devil himself

 

Huh. I was going to write my opinions on the matter but you seem to have already done that for me.

[Erk]

...or start with Bob Rae.

Sure, that's a great plan. Let's look at Bob Rae, who destroyed Ontario. Or Ujjal Dosanjh, who did the same with B.C.... unquestionably incompetent politicians who burned their provinces in serious ways.

 

Of course, that's disregarding Tommy Douglas, Dave Barrett, Ed Schreyer, and Gary Doer, all NDP and all extremely well regarded provincial leaders who did well both economically and socially, but who wants to let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good partisan argument?

 

Anyone looking at this scientifically should be able to see that a politician can destroy or develop an economy very effectively regardless of his or her political leanings. Whether or not Layton proves good for Canada, it won't be because the letters "NDP" are affiliated with him. If he destroys it, it will be because of incompetence; if not, it will be because of skill.

 

And luck, of course, on both sides and in hearty quantities.

[mm88]

Muse gets it. Socialist countries rank at the top of development indices for a good reason. I think the important point is they have to be SMART socialist policies that support the ability of disadvantaged people to become contributors to our society, rather than policies that help some people but simply foster laziness in others.

 

 

The general public already has so much prejudice toward a lot of social services and programs, this picture says it all.

 

Socialist countries also have tax rates through the roof in order to rank at the top of those development indices. Everyone seems to want a lot out of a limited government budget. It's going to be very hard to cut tax rates and increase spending on health care, education etc. etc. There's just not enough to go around; and politicians really should stop making such unrealistic promises. But that would make them not politicians...

[Erk]

That picture isn't the general public, mm88, it's clearly someone far about the income level of an average Canadian. Giant house, hummer, 2-car garage... this is someone in the tiny grouping that has everything to gain from tax cuts to the wealthy. Practically nothing to lose from moderate taxation of the wealthy, too, but when has that stopped people like that from being greedy for more?

 

Maybe it's because I grew up in a poor family, with a father who worked so hard I never really saw him until I was old enough to work with him, but I also assume (somewhat unfairly) that person has no f*ing idea what it's like to "work hard", and feels entitled to his/her wealth under the assumption that he/she is somehow more fit to have it than someone who works 16 hours a day building the house she/he lives in; growing, selling, distributing the food he/she eats; operating the machinery that keeps his/her entitled life going.

 

I don't think becoming a doctor and making reasonable amounts of money for the first time in my life is going to make me forget that it's not how hard you work that defines your success. Most people work hard and do not achieve that kind of success. Those who achieve that success could not do so without those who work hard and do not achieve it.

 

 

Whew. All that and I'm not even NDP nor a strong supporter of them. Sorry. Rich people with entitlement issues make me angry.

[<abstract>]

That picture isn't the general public, mm88, it's clearly someone far about the income level of an average Canadian. Giant house, hummer, 2-car garage... this is someone in the tiny grouping that has everything to gain from tax cuts to the wealthy. Practically nothing to lose from moderate taxation of the wealthy, too, but when has that stopped people like that from being greedy for more?

 

Maybe it's because I grew up in a poor family, with a father who worked so hard I never really saw him until I was old enough to work with him, but I also assume (somewhat unfairly) that person has no f*ing idea what it's like to "work hard", and feels entitled to his/her wealth under the assumption that he/she is somehow more fit to have it than someone who works 16 hours a day building the house she/he lives in; growing, selling, distributing the food he/she eats; operating the machinery that keeps his/her entitled life going.

 

I don't think becoming a doctor and making reasonable amounts of money for the first time in my life is going to make me forget that it's not how hard you work that defines your success. Most people work hard and do not achieve that kind of success. Those who achieve that success could not do so without those who work hard and do not achieve it.

 

 

Whew. All that and I'm not even NDP nor a strong supporter of them. Sorry. Rich people with entitlement issues make me angry.

 

 

A person should not be penalized for working hard and for being wealthy. Any person who works hard for what ever salary should feel entitled to their income. People have all the opportunity in the world to earn a decent living and to at least live confortably. Now, I come from a relatively well off family, so I don't fully understand the situation of less well off people. However, my parents both came from poor blue collar immigrant families. Both my parents took out students loans to go to university and are now very successful. Most people have the opportunity to go to university or learn a skilled trade, even if it means going into debt to do it. In Canada, it is not where you come from which decides your fate in life, it is your drive and ambition. Sadly not everyone can be millionaires that is the problem with capitalism; there are always those who fall through the cracks. Social programs are necessary to keep the most vulnerable in our society from falling through the cracks, and are important. The major problem of the social programs offered by the NDP, and socialist governments are their cost. IMO people who work hard should not be adversely penalized for the salary they earn no matter how wealthy they are. Obviously taxation is on a sliding scale (and rightly so), however wealthy people feeling entitled to their income is not selfish, it is human nature and I can empathize with their sentiments.

 

 

Even at current tax rates, Canadians enjoy a very high standard of living and generous social programs to help those who are down on their luck. There is no need to raise taxes on anyone to improve the quality of life of Canadians. There is plenty of government waste that could be cut to improve social programs that actually work, and experiment with ideas from other countries. Do we really need all those new jets (maybe we can order half), do we need new prisons (maybe we can refurbish old ones and build additions on existing structures), did we need the HST?, What about the E-health scandal and those eco-fees? Reorganizing the tax code and closing loopholes to big corporations could also help bring in more money. The problem isn't the well off feeling entitled to their life style, it is government waste and poor funding schemes to don't address the problems in our society.

[lkthlttr]

Even at current tax rates' date=' Canadians enjoy a very high standard of living and generous social programs to help those who are down on their luck. There is no need to raise taxes on anyone to improve the quality of life of Canadians. There is plenty of government waste that could be cut to improve social programs that actually work, and experiment with ideas from other countries. [b']Do we really need all those new jets[/b] (maybe we can order half), do we need new prisons (maybe we can refurbish old ones and build additions on existing structures), did we need the HST?, What about the E-health scandal and those eco-fees? Reorganizing the tax code and closing loopholes to big corporations could also help bring in more money. The problem isn't the well off feeling entitled to their life style, it is government waste and poor funding schemes to don't address the problems in our society.

 

Add in the commitment to training more health care workers, and lowering the cost of higher education, and you basically just described the NDP platform!

[Wayward son]

...or start with Bob Rae.

 

True, Bob Rae's government turned a deficit into a larger deficit. Harper's government has turned the largest federal surplus into the largest deficit. Yet you still support the latter.

 

Really all the NDP surge will do is lead to a conservative majority, so I guess its fine by me.

 

That is a possibility and if it does then it should spur Canadians to demand electoral reform. If it doesn't then I guess we can't complain when it takes us decades to repair the damage that a Harper majority inflicts.

 

Now that I am in residency, I will admit I find their taxation policies more appealing than I used to (its easier to be Socialist before you start working for money).

 

1) I am a not a socialist.

2) I spent years making well over 100 grand a year.

Anyone who votes based on the narrow thinking of a tiny advantage in personal tax reductions, while ignoring that they are being bought to ignore the massive future expenses of the new prisions, longer sentences (both while crime falls year after year), completely inappropriate fighter jets, and the turning of a historic surplus into a massive deficit deserves nothing but contempt from anyone who can think beyond their own immediate selfish needs. These Conservatives are not fiscal conservatives.