apache Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 he pm'ed me and asked if i had better things to do, ahole, hopefully he gets into med so some freshman can give him a hand job and he can chill out Great contribution Only a few days of mitotic experience will do that to a person i guess.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward son Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 i think the biggest thing people don't think about is its not completely privatized.. People who can't afford healthcare will still get healthcare. Anyone who thinks that the range of services provided to those who can't pay in a two-tiered system will not dwindle to only the most basic ones (and still be continually cash starved at that) is completely deluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLengr Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 Sure doctors will flock towards the privatized system, why wouldn't they? Is the person who can afford to pay for their healthcare any less deserving than the person who can't? . Except nothing about the current health care system makes a well off person less likely to get care. In fact, it is a great equalizer. Two tier health care will mean less access to care if you are poor. People who praise private healthcare need to remember one thing. Private companies do not give a **** about you. Period. You are simply a line on the balance sheet. As soon as you start to cost them cash (i.e. get truely sick), they are gonna be looking for ways to cut your benefits/cancel your policy. They don't care if you die on the street. There only mandate is to maximize shareholder profit (yes, that's legally how corporations work). We've seen it happen time and time again in the United States. And once those people are kicked out of private care, guess who is taking care of them? The public system (or we let them die). So now the public system is stuck with very expensive patients, further draining it's resources and pushing people into buying more private care. Over and over again. Guess what? Up go taxes, except now you get crappy healthcare AND increased spending. The only winner is the private insurance companies. Healthcare should NEVER be a consumer item. It is not subject to market forces. People who advocate policy that provides poorer services to those who are less well off need to remember the phrase "There but for the grace of God go I". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLengr Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 Its deja vu all over again with these F-35s. Except for numerous countries who bought into the program in the 1990's are taking sober second looks at the jets now that the program is a decade behind, the costs have skyrocketed (remember this fighter was supposed to be the first built with the goal of keeping costs under control) and the performance of the airplane as a weapons system is being called into question. Many people who are questioning the decision aren't saying we don't need to replace the CF-18's. They are questioning the rational of purchasing this specific weapon system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obi Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 Except nothing about the current health care system makes a well off person less likely to get care Sure they still get the care, but they get the care at the cost of waitlist times. And i do understand that to insurance companies people are lines on balance sheets. Maybe, its a bit robotic of me, or maybe i just haven't myself been so terminally ill that i could appreciate public healthcare (i know some people who have so im not completely unexposed) but thats the way the cookie crumbles. Hard work comes with perks.. everyone deserves healthcare, but those with the ability to do so, should be allowed to choose when they receive it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colbert2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 The election results were jarring. The demise of the Bloc (even if transient) should boost nationalist fortunes. Also saddened to witness the Liberal collapse, more out of nostalgia/history I suppose It will be interesting to see what Harper does with a majority now that he is unrestrained. At the very least, more of the same: a more secretive government, some budget cuts/lower taxes, the typical financial/ethics/privacy scandal endemic to Ottawa life/ clonal proliferation of US policy prerogatives as Cdn foreign policy. The slow lurch towards two-tiered health care will continue, although the CPC can advance the pace now that they are firmly in control. I imagine Harper will try to get rid of voter-political party subsidy program, helping along the continued implosion of the Liberal party. Our political system only accommodates a two-party solution, anything further only results in painful vote-splitting. In the end, we'll likely emerge with a unified centre-left alternative for the next election-cycle---two large acolytes on the centre right/left to vote for at the expense of diversity (much like the Republicans/Democrats in the States). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obi Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 I just want to add that i think its fricking hilarious that the whole point of the election was to overthrow Harper yet the Libs basically crashed out, and Harper got a majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLengr Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 Sure they still get the care, but they get the care at the cost of waitlist times. [/Quote] No. They do not receive an added cost compared to any other member of the general public. Don't try to pretend the well off are getting screwed any more than anyone else. Hard work comes with perks.. everyone deserves healthcare, but those with the ability to do so, should be allowed to choose when they receive it. You can't seriously believe that hard work = wealth. There are many many lazy rich people and many many hard working poor people. What I assume you meant to write was: "Wealth comes with perks" Quality of healthcare should not be dictated on the ability to pay. Period. Healthcare should be distributed on the basis of need. It's not like people are buying a TV or something. That's what I believe anyway. Maybe you don't, and that's the reason we don't see eye to eye on this. Again, if you are advocating a two tier system, be aware that there is a danger of a decline in the public system that is available the less well off. And once again, remember the phrase "There but for the grace of God go I". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward son Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 Quality of healthcare should not be dictated on the ability to pay. Period. Healthcare should be distributed on the basis of need. It's not like people are buying a TV or something. Couldn't have been said better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward son Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 The election results were jarring. The demise of the Bloc (even if transient) should boost nationalist fortunes. I think that it will have the opposite effect. A whole lot of Quebeckers with separatist desires or sympathies woke up this morning to see that the values they have are not shared by those to the west of them. The provincial government in Quebec is polling at historic lows. In two years the PQ will sweep into power with a massive majority and will be pushing for a referendum at the same time as those in Quebec are the most sick, angry and disgusted at Harper. That most pundits dismissed seperatism as finished yesterday did nothing to help matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehumanmacbook Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 I just want to add that i think its fricking hilarious that the whole point of the election was to overthrow Harper yet the Libs basically crashed out, and Harper got a majority. +1 Good to see that fate has a sense of irony to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colbert2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 I just want to add that i think its fricking hilarious that the whole point of the election was to overthrow Harper yet the Libs basically crashed out, and Harper got a majority. I think that even surprised Harper:p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colbert2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 I think that it will have the opposite effect. A whole lot of Quebeckers with separatist desires or sympathies woke up this morning to see that the values they have are not shared by those to the west of them. The provincial government in Quebec is polling at historic lows. In two years the PQ will sweep into power with a massive majority and will be pushing for a referendum at the same time as those in Quebec are the most sick, angry and disgusted at Harper. That most pundits dismissed seperatism as finished yesterday did nothing to help matters. Yep, that's to be expected. Charest is not very popular at the moment and has been in power for what seems like an eternity. However, there is no indication that sovereignty remains the number 1 priority for most Quebecois. It is certainly nowhere near the level of popularity seen in the 1993-95 heyday. However, it's going to take time for the BQ to recover and the NDP can always parrot soft talking points re: Quebecois nation since they're in opposition and merely have to "talk the talk" and not "walk the walk." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obi Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 You can't seriously believe that hard work = wealth. There are many many lazy rich people and many many hard working poor people. What I assume you meant to write was:"Wealth comes with perks" Yes, that was definitely poor phrasing on my part. It was hard to find a way to word it though, as there are many people who can afford privatized health care not due to a super high paying job or family wealth, but due to their own hard work. And i didn't say that they are "penalized" more so than anyone else by the long wait times. I said the cost of wait times arises due to their ability to pay to bypass the waits. Without the opportunity to do that, the cost is not lost (as in the case of those who can't afford private healthcare). I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on the topic but i do understand and respect your views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkthlttr Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 When 40% of the population get to decide policy for the rest, there is something wrong. If you go through riding by riding and combine the votes of just the liberals and ndp, the results are dramatically different: Lib/NDP 187 Cons 122. If you only look at races in which the Libs/NDP win by double digits, they still win a majority: Libs/NDP 158 Cons 147. Several years ago the Canadian right made the decision to unify their parties in an attempt to stop splitting their vote which allowed Jean Chretien three consecutive majority governments. The Liberals and NDP need to decide if they're comfortable watching Stephen Harper lead the country for the next 12 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind_synergy Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 Hahahahaha. This aaron guy's a complete dweeb. Smoke a joint and chill out, bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obi Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 When 40% of the population get to decide policy for the rest, there is something wrong. If you go through riding by riding and combine the votes of just the liberals and ndp, the results are dramatically different: Lib/NDP 187 Cons 122. If you only look at races in which the Libs/NDP win by double digits, they still win a majority: Libs/NDP 158 Cons 147. Several years ago the Canadian right made the decision to unify their parties in an attempt to stop splitting their vote which allowed Jean Chretien three consecutive majority governments. The Liberals and NDP need to decide if they're comfortable watching Stephen Harper lead the country for the next 12 years. The libs and ndp are 2 parties... until they merge nobody can say "harper didnt win fairly" People voted for either/or knowing fully well that it would split and thus weaken their votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 yeah, true enough, some drug dealers come from good backgrounds and are just lazy asses, i know one in particular that's ruining his life, despite what 20 people have told him, it all depends on the situation. i think it depends on the nature of the crime, for non violent distribution where there are extenuating factors i think strict probation and forced labor/education/rehab is fair. i would prefer this to be through community programming though rather than through the prison system unless there are other extenuating factors (weapons charges, violence, large large quantities etc.). i feel it's better to keep people integrated in the community rather than ostracizing them if they're not already serious offenders so they feel a sense of belonging in the community rather than in the prison system. Muse you always bring up great points. But what would you think about legislation to require petty criminals (not child molesters, and serial killer type of people) from getting a job in the prison. There are some people in this world that just dont want to work. Instead of working for 10$ an hr or for more doing physical labour it is far easeir to stand on the corner and sell crack. I think we make far too many excuses for people that get into a life of crime. There are tonnes of opportunities in this country to get skilled and work. Would it be against our human rights to set up a system where you must work off your prison time. Ie. a drug offense is 5years with a certain amount of hrs of work vs a 10 year sentence if the prisoner does not want to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 well actually dealers can be delineated into numerous different categories as well, there's small time runners who work the street, non-violent dealers who hold day jobs, the scary kind you imply who want you hooked so they can game you for a buck, and they all have different backgrounds and motivations. i've experienced and seen everything in your second paragraph times 10, so don't worry, i feel ya. the difference between me an you is that you're arguing ethics, i'm arguing for effective policy that minimizes spending and improves quality of life for everyone, without having to play the blame game. im inferring that your premise that because you accept the accident happened for a particular reason, that you accept responsibility for it, and that therefore others should as well... the problem with this argument relies on the assumption that others share your internal locus on control and self blame for their actions, which is presumptuous. i would feel apologetic, but wouldn't go through my whole life killing myself over the past when i can focus on the future, so by your logic i can state why shouldn't all others feel the same way (you could also be stating that you accept that the accident simply happened, and that my inference is wrong, but then your statement becomes meaningless and becomes an argument on the basis of self-evidential truth, transcending modern relativism and becoming unarguable) either way, there is no substance behind your statements, they're just true because you'd prefer them to be true, and in that context my argument is equally as relevant. i didn't pass personal valuative judgement on you, i hope your not offended. rather, i made a judgement of your ability to comprehend complex situations based on the breadth of your response, which was shallow at best, for all i know you may be highly intelligent, but it certainly doesn't seem so from your black and white answers. I'm sorry but users and dealers are two VERY different things. I have a bigger distaste towards dealers than I do users (although that's somewhat on the high side as well but I can appreciate circumstances to those issues) which is why I specifically said dealers. Next up, how about we not look at the socio-economic, educational, and psychological factors of people who enter the drug trade? I grew up dirt poor. Any education I have is because I paid for it and found ways to pursue it despite not really having been exposed to higher educated people while growing up. I was abused mentally all my life by my mother to the point where it still affects me to this day even with years of counseling. Add to this, I was associated with people involved in gangs and saw more bad stuff than most people will ever see in their life. I never resorted to drugs and a lot of the people I grew up with in similar situations didn't either. I am not saying I am special or anything of the sort but I am sick and tired of people pulling out the blame card for the issues surrounding people who do/did or are doing bad things in their lives. I can understand HOW people do the things they do in life but that does not mean I have to accept it nor want my tax money to go towards it either. Do the crime, do the time. I have to accept that if I crash my car and kill sometime because I wasn't paying attention due to my fiance breaking up with me. Why shouldn't others? Next up, who are you to pass judgment on me with your comments about "the simplistic nature or my posts and my intellectual ability (or rather inability as you seem to have suggested)"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronjw Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 well actually dealers can be delineated into numerous different categories as well, there's small time runners who work the street, non-violent dealers who hold day jobs, the scary kind you imply who want you hooked so they can game you for a buck, and they all have different backgrounds and motivations. i've experienced and seen everything in your second paragraph times 10, so don't worry, i feel ya. the difference between me an you is that you're arguing ethics, i'm arguing for effective policy that minimizes spending and improves quality of life for everyone, without having to play the blame game. im inferring that your premise that because you accept the accident happened for a particular reason, that you accept responsibility for it, and that therefore others should as well... the problem with this argument relies on the assumption that others share your internal locus on control and self blame for their actions, which is presumptuous. i would feel apologetic, but wouldn't go through my whole life killing myself over the past when i can focus on the future, so by your logic i can state why shouldn't all others feel the same way (you could also be stating that you accept that the accident simply happened, and that my inference is wrong, but then your statement becomes meaningless and becomes an argument on the basis of self-evidential truth, transcending modern relativism and becoming unarguable) either way, there is no substance behind your statements, they're just true because you'd prefer them to be true, and in that context my argument is equally as relevant. i didn't pass personal valuative judgement on you, i hope your not offended. rather, i made a judgement of your ability to comprehend complex situations based on the breadth of your response, which was shallow at best, for all i know you may be highly intelligent, but it certainly doesn't seem so from your black and white answers. LOL No offense taken. I'm going to bow out of this conversation with you. Not because I lack the intellectual brain power to play battle of the brain with you but because quite frankly you come across as an "angry at the world", know-it-all malcontent whose views appear just as black and white as mine and I know better to engage someone like you just so that you can feel better about your own life by trying to belittle others. Good day to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 i just like philosophy, writing, language and rhetoric dude, i framed my views as black and white in order to show that neither of us was really right, we just prefer different consequences because we've had different experiences im not very smart, nor do i really know anything, i just structure my statements in a self coherent, nebulous, nuanced manner that doesn't take an absolute stance, and hence, can't be refuted, most of the time, it's not about being right to me, but seeming right, so i can get what i want (which may be completely wrong, who knows)... in fact, you could argue that there's a humility in using that style of engagement because i lack the talent to take significant risks and expose myself to scrutiny im prob the most chill a guy you'll ever meet and am content with whatever happens in life, whether i finnish medicine, end up homeless, or win the lottery, life, to me, is about being happy no matter where you are sorry if i came across that way cheers LOL No offense taken. I'm going to bow out of this conversation with you. Not because I lack the intellectual brain power to play battle of the brain with you but because quite frankly you come across as an "angry at the world", know-it-all malcontent whose views appear just as black and white as mine and I know better to engage someone like you just so that you can feel better about your own life by trying to belittle others. Good day to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanMaverick Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 im not very smart, nor do i really know anything As noted by your bet with me against my Canucks. i just structure my statements in a self coherent, nebulous, nuanced manner that doesn't take an absolute stance, and hence, can't be refuted There was nothing nebulous about that bet son, GO CANUCKS GO. (I get a little one-track minded on game nights). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted May 4, 2011 Report Share Posted May 4, 2011 Vancouver's going to need to score more than 2 goals in the series to win Ryan As noted by your bet with me against my Canucks. There was nothing nebulous about that bet son, GO CANUCKS GO. (I get a little one-track minded on game nights). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lkthlttr Posted May 4, 2011 Report Share Posted May 4, 2011 The libs and ndp are 2 parties... until they merge nobody can say "harper didnt win fairly" People voted for either/or knowing fully well that it would split and thus weaken their votes. Where did I imply that Harper didn't win fairly? I'm simply pointing that until the left unites their two main parties, the conservatives are going to have a huge advantage in the general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Hood Posted May 4, 2011 Report Share Posted May 4, 2011 Can someone tell me what happened yesterday? The Libs got less than 30 seats and the BQ was sent directly to Hell! Canada in 2015: * The party that corporations chose will win (Conservatives), which means corporatist dictatorship. * Less spending on services such as healthcare and more spending on war and prisons. * Mass privatization, including of healthcare services. If your not rich, we don't care. * Abolition of gun control. * More environment pollution. In other terms, it will be the same sh1t as the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.