Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

MiniPhreek · Feb 14, 2004, 03:22 pm

i've only been here for about an hour, and i've all ready noticed the strong US influence on alot of topics, thus is why i created a thread for Canadian issues, or perhaps give an out side observation to some US problems.

Mathieu · Feb 14, 2004, 03:34 pm

Here is a canadian issue :)

Conan's plastic puppet has politicians snarling

By JEFF GRAY and JONATHAN FOWLIE
From Saturday's Globe and Mail

E-mail this Article
Print this Article
Advertisement

The antics of a plastic puppet dog ignited a national-unity uproar yesterday, as anti-Quebec remarks made on the Conan O'Brien show forced its Canadian broadcaster to apologize.

Some federal politicians reacted with outrage to a taped segment, aired Thursday night on Late Night With Conan O'Brien, in which a puppet called Triumph the Insult Comic Dog visited Quebec's Winter Carnival and, as his name suggests, insulted passersby, calling French Canadians "obnoxious and dull."

continued at :Globe and mail

What are your comments about this ?

foadi · Feb 14, 2004, 03:35 pm

I wouldn't vote.

MiniPhreek · Feb 14, 2004, 03:49 pm

I'm Surprised that Conon did not expect that kind of backlash, ya Canadians have a sense of humour abou our selves but you have to draw the line sumware, and personaly the insult comic dog is some of the most dull and unintelegent humour i have ever heard and in very poor taste not to mention is a total rip off of Ed the Sock, witch is very witty comedy if not a little valger to be fair.
I just think it was poor judgement on both Conon's people and CHUM

Mathieu · Feb 14, 2004, 04:04 pm

I think that the team of the Conan O'Brien show shown a lack of judgement. But this also show the gap there is between Quebec, Canada and USA. This was mainly an error due to the lack of knowledge they had of the political and social climate here in Canada. I saw a video of the insult dog that i found funny here : Star wars fans. This type of humor is certainly not the most intellectual, but here the public is aware of who they are facing, and are joking "with " him. Unlike the people at Carnaval. I think here they made a judgement based on stereotypes due to a lack of knowledge of where they were. This shall be a lesson we learn of how fragile is the social tissue in Canada.

Imagine if Mike bullard sent some pupet in NY to tell people 911 wastheir fault ? I think americans would not find it funny. I think the media reaction would be greater than here too :)

PS: sorry for my english, it is my second language, but at least I speak it :)

Disturbing_Clown · Feb 14, 2004, 05:44 pm

I love it when someone who seems to have a very good grasp of English apologizes for any mistakes they made. The next thing you know a native speaker like myself comes along and types something like: furners aent@ thut c00l &*gos beck 2' ch4na

terstorm · Feb 15, 2004, 05:56 pm

How about a breakdown of the various Canadian parties? I have to admit that I don't know a lot about Canadian politics...and I eventually want to settle there in the long term.

Colleptic · Feb 16, 2004, 01:08 am

I would have to say Liberals must be ousted for at least 1 term. But, even though Paul Martin (leader of the Liberals) is going through a scandalized, financial fiasco atm, I do like his ideas for the future Canada. That is the problem, I do not like his party what-so-ever, but I like his ideas. The [color=darkgreen]NDP[/color] are a little more socialistic than the Liberals, which I like, but I do not like any of their leaders, what-so-ever. I could not see one of them representing Canada on the world stage. Paul Martin, on the other hand, would be a good international figure. The Conservatives have good leaders, but the title conservative tells you what their policies are right there. Canada has too much multiculturalism and liberal ways of life; the Conservatives would have a tough time passing some of their policies without offending half the country.

Nevertheless, I theorize the Conservatives have the [color=red]best[/color] shot this year than ever before to push the Liberals out. The Liberals have basically owned the elections in the last decade and Chrétien was a huge part of that. Also, even though Martin (who was the former Financial Minister and who is now Prime Minister appointed by Chrétien when he retired) did a superb job with Canada’s deficit, he failed in Health Care big time. That may not be 100% his fault, because he was not in direct control of the government. Now, what he is proposing about fixing the Health Care system is great, but is it just cotton-candy-offerings to win favours with voters for the upcoming elections?

So that is my dilemma, I like Mr. Martin, but I do not like the Liberals. I want [color=darkgreen]NDP[/color], but I do not like their leaders. I do not want Conservatives what-so-ever, but I feel the country wants a change and unfortunately, the strongest party in the seat to dethrone the Liberals are the Conservatives.

Anarchist · Feb 16, 2004, 01:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (foadi,)
I wouldn't vote.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Ditto. I'd stay home and get drunk while misquoting Robert Heinlein.

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 17, 2004, 08:19 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Colleptic,)
Also, even though Martin (who was the former Financial Minister and who is now Prime Minister appointed by Chrétien when he retired) did a superb job with Canada’s deficit, he failed in Health Care big time. That may not be 100% his fault, because he was not in direct control of the government. Now, what he is proposing about fixing the Health Care system is great, but is it just cotton-candy-offerings to win favours with voters for the upcoming elections?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Fixing the health care system? What's wrong with it?

--Jackney Sneeb

AnonT · Feb 17, 2004, 10:23 am

The fact that it's socialized?
Seriously, Canadians who live near the American border are more likely to come here than go there, even though they have to pay for treatment here when it's free for them over there.

Mathieu · Feb 17, 2004, 10:29 am

Common, there is no way we will abbandon socialized health care. When we say we want to improve it, we will improve it so that those picky rich Canadian don't have to go in US when they can't wait a day or two to care of their IMPORTANT cold problem ...

Do you just throw phrase like that in the air ? What makes you say Canadian living near the border go in US? I live close to the border and I have a pretty good health care thank you. And it is accesible to anyone, for free, not like in US where you just go die in the woods if you don't have cash ...

Impenitent · Feb 17, 2004, 11:45 am

anybody who goes into any emergency room in america gets treated whether they can pay or not

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 17, 2004, 12:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
Common, there is no way we will abbandon socialized health care.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
No one answered when I asked, "Fixing the health care system? What's wrong with it?"

I've asked authoritarians this question several times, and never once got an answer: "If monopolies are bad in things like the steel industry, oil production, and food, why is there a major exception when it comes to something as important as health care?"

Why would it be wrong for one corporation to control an entire industry such as the news media, yet okay for the state to have a monopoly on health services?

--Jackney Sneeb

PS -- try switching the terms "one corporation" and "the state" in the second sentence, and ask yourself if it makes any difference?

Packratt · Feb 17, 2004, 12:19 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
anybody who goes into any emergency room in america gets treated whether they can pay or not<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That's not an entirely accurate statement. People without insurance or proof of ability to pay are only treated when their life or limb is in immediate jeapordy. and even when they are treated, the worst doctor on staff is usually the one who is assigned to the task, the one with the highest mortality rates.

I know this for a fact, my wife has been turned away from the emergency room countless times because her condition is not an immediate risk. Of course, treating her condition now would be much less expensive and less detrimental to her than waiting until she became critical, (which is also life threatening), but that's the inefficient and illogical system in which we find ourselves dealing with.

In human costs... She gets to suffer a painfull condition needlessly and be prevented from pursuing a career while we wait either for insurance that would provide us with a method to seek care, or until she gets so critically ill that the hospital could not turn her away... Which is putting her life at risk.

Colleptic · Feb 18, 2004, 12:25 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Jackney Sneeb
Fixing the health care system? What's wrong with it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Not enough funding for one. Over payment of doctors, mixed with under-funding and poor distribution of funding have closed smaller hospitals and shortened staff in many provinces. For instance BC doctors are asking for “another” raise of around 50,000 per physician…

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
AnonT
The fact that it's socialized?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
No that is the reason it is one of the best systems on the planet. It has ruff edges that can easily be fixed with the right sanding block.

terstorm · Feb 18, 2004, 03:32 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
anybody who goes into any emergency room in america gets treated whether they can pay or not<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That's not an entirely accurate statement. People without insurance or proof of ability to pay are only treated when their life or limb is in immediate jeapordy. and even when they are treated, the worst doctor on staff is usually the one who is assigned to the task, the one with the highest mortality rates.

I know this for a fact, my wife has been turned away from the emergency room countless times because her condition is not an immediate risk. Of course, treating her condition now would be much less expensive and less detrimental to her than waiting until she became critical, (which is also life threatening), but that's the inefficient and illogical system in which we find ourselves dealing with.

In human costs... She gets to suffer a painfull condition needlessly and be prevented from pursuing a career while we wait either for insurance that would provide us with a method to seek care, or until she gets so critically ill that the hospital could not turn her away... Which is putting her life at risk.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

It's true that you'll get treated, but if you can't pay they do give you shit for it. My sister sliced her thumb open and practically off and because my parents were between jobs (they're high tech...got outsourced to India ya know) they have no insurance for her. She was treated alright, after sitting for 9 hours in the emergency room.

Needless to say, I am very careful when doing pretty much anything. I can't afford to get sick so I've been known to lock myself away when my friends get the flu and all.

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 18, 2004, 06:22 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Colleptic,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Jackney Sneeb
Fixing the health care system? What's wrong with it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Not enough funding for one. Over payment of doctors, mixed with under-funding and poor distribution of funding have closed smaller hospitals and shortened staff in many provinces. For instance BC doctors are asking for “another” raise of around 50,000 per physician…<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Uh -- how can you say you are overpaying your doctors and then add that they're demanding more money?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Colleptic,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
AnonT
The fact that it's socialized?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
No that is the reason it is one of the best systems on the planet. It has ruff edges that can easily be fixed with the right sanding block.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Not enough funding? That's the reason it's one of the best systems on the planet? Not enough funding? Doctors want more money? In an altruistic, socialistic society?

Economics quiz:

1) What happens to quality of service when you pay less than the provider thinks is a reasonable price?

2) What happens to quality of workmanship when you pay workers less than what they think is a fair wage?

3) Why would a national health care provider suffer from the same problem of underfunded hospitals as a (relatively) free-market system next door?

4) Why would anyone think monopolies are bad in all areas of the economy, such as oil production and food distribution, yet make an exception when it comes to something as important as health care?

--Jackney Sneeb

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 18, 2004, 06:43 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (terstorm,)
It's true that you'll get treated, but if you can't pay they do give you shit for it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What would happen to the quality of your work if your boss said, "I'm afraid I can't afford to pay you. Now, get busy helping me"?

Would your attitide toward your customers be slightly different if they said "Sorry, I don't have any money to pay you with"?

Doctors have an industry-imposed obligation to treat people whether they can pay or not. This is a humanitarian gesture on their part. It's unreasonable to believe that they should not display the same human responses to freeloaders as the rest of us, however. They aren't gods (even if they think they are).

Contrary to poplular belief (and wishful thinking), health care is not a right. It is a combination of commodity and service. Even socialists (those in power, at least) know that such services cost money -- especially health care. Just as politicians won't rule you without pay, graft, and corruption, doctors won't be happy if they are compensated less than they think their services are worth. And an unhappy doctor is a crappy doctor.

When the skinflints of the world demand that every time they slip on a banana peel someone owes them something, it may be very good for business for lawyers and politicians. It is bad economics for everyone else.

--Jackney Sneeb

Mathieu · Feb 18, 2004, 10:03 am

It is not like Canada had no surplus in the budget to reinvest in the health care system. Cause you know, while the US try to deal with a deficit wich will gain a life of its own soon, we have ZERO deficit .

View Poll Results: how would you vote in the next Canadian Fed Election?
Liberal	4	18.18%
Conservative	4	18.18%
NDP	6	27.27%
Bloq	0	0%
Green	3	13.64%
other	5	22.73%
Voters: 22. You may not vote

Feb 14, 2004, 03:35 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
foadi Sedimentary Rock Posts: 15	I wouldn't vote. I'm a fed.

Feb 15, 2004, 05:56 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
terstorm Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 60	How about a breakdown of the various Canadian parties? I have to admit that I don't know a lot about Canadian politics...and I eventually want to settle there in the long term. <span style='color:blue'>Things Fall Apart---the centre cannot hold</span> Storm

Feb 16, 2004, 01:37 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Anarchist Your mom. Posts: 136	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (foadi,) I wouldn't vote.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Ditto. I'd stay home and get drunk while misquoting Robert Heinlein.

Feb 17, 2004, 08:19 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Colleptic,) Also, even though Martin (who was the former Financial Minister and who is now Prime Minister appointed by Chrétien when he retired) did a superb job with Canada’s deficit, he failed in Health Care big time. That may not be 100% his fault, because he was not in direct control of the government. Now, what he is proposing about fixing the Health Care system is great, but is it just cotton-candy-offerings to win favours with voters for the upcoming elections? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Fixing the health care system? What's wrong with it? --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 14, 2004, 03:22 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
MiniPhreek Sedimentary Rock Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 9	i've only been here for about an hour, and i've all ready noticed the strong US influence on alot of topics, thus is why i created a thread for Canadian issues, or perhaps give an out side observation to some US problems.

Feb 14, 2004, 03:34 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	Here is a canadian issue :) Conan's plastic puppet has politicians snarling By JEFF GRAY and JONATHAN FOWLIE From Saturday's Globe and Mail E-mail this Article Print this Article Advertisement The antics of a plastic puppet dog ignited a national-unity uproar yesterday, as anti-Quebec remarks made on the Conan O'Brien show forced its Canadian broadcaster to apologize. Some federal politicians reacted with outrage to a taped segment, aired Thursday night on Late Night With Conan O'Brien, in which a puppet called Triumph the Insult Comic Dog visited Quebec's Winter Carnival and, as his name suggests, insulted passersby, calling French Canadians "obnoxious and dull." continued at :Globe and mail What are your comments about this ?

Feb 14, 2004, 03:49 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
MiniPhreek Sedimentary Rock Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 9	I'm Surprised that Conon did not expect that kind of backlash, ya Canadians have a sense of humour abou our selves but you have to draw the line sumware, and personaly the insult comic dog is some of the most dull and unintelegent humour i have ever heard and in very poor taste not to mention is a total rip off of Ed the Sock, witch is very witty comedy if not a little valger to be fair. I just think it was poor judgement on both Conon's people and CHUM

Feb 14, 2004, 04:04 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	I think that the team of the Conan O'Brien show shown a lack of judgement. But this also show the gap there is between Quebec, Canada and USA. This was mainly an error due to the lack of knowledge they had of the political and social climate here in Canada. I saw a video of the insult dog that i found funny here : Star wars fans. This type of humor is certainly not the most intellectual, but here the public is aware of who they are facing, and are joking "with " him. Unlike the people at Carnaval. I think here they made a judgement based on stereotypes due to a lack of knowledge of where they were. This shall be a lesson we learn of how fragile is the social tissue in Canada. Imagine if Mike bullard sent some pupet in NY to tell people 911 wastheir fault ? I think americans would not find it funny. I think the media reaction would be greater than here too :) PS: sorry for my english, it is my second language, but at least I speak it :)

Feb 14, 2004, 05:44 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Disturbing_Clown Molten Ash Posts: 30	I love it when someone who seems to have a very good grasp of English apologizes for any mistakes they made. The next thing you know a native speaker like myself comes along and types something like: furners aent@ thut c00l &*gos beck 2' ch4na

Feb 16, 2004, 01:08 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Colleptic Charlatan Society Location: Kelowna BC Canada Posts: 59	I would have to say Liberals must be ousted for at least 1 term. But, even though Paul Martin (leader of the Liberals) is going through a scandalized, financial fiasco atm, I do like his ideas for the future Canada. That is the problem, I do not like his party what-so-ever, but I like his ideas. The [color=darkgreen]NDP[/color] are a little more socialistic than the Liberals, which I like, but I do not like any of their leaders, what-so-ever. I could not see one of them representing Canada on the world stage. Paul Martin, on the other hand, would be a good international figure. The Conservatives have good leaders, but the title conservative tells you what their policies are right there. Canada has too much multiculturalism and liberal ways of life; the Conservatives would have a tough time passing some of their policies without offending half the country. Nevertheless, I theorize the Conservatives have the [color=red]best[/color] shot this year than ever before to push the Liberals out. The Liberals have basically owned the elections in the last decade and Chrétien was a huge part of that. Also, even though Martin (who was the former Financial Minister and who is now Prime Minister appointed by Chrétien when he retired) did a superb job with Canada’s deficit, he failed in Health Care big time. That may not be 100% his fault, because he was not in direct control of the government. Now, what he is proposing about fixing the Health Care system is great, but is it just cotton-candy-offerings to win favours with voters for the upcoming elections? So that is my dilemma, I like Mr. Martin, but I do not like the Liberals. I want [color=darkgreen]NDP[/color], but I do not like their leaders. I do not want Conservatives what-so-ever, but I feel the country wants a change and unfortunately, the strongest party in the seat to dethrone the Liberals are the Conservatives.

Feb 17, 2004, 10:23 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
AnonT Molten Ash Location: Middle of nowhere, Nebraska Posts: 130	The fact that it's socialized? Seriously, Canadians who live near the American border are more likely to come here than go there, even though they have to pay for treatment here when it's free for them over there.

Feb 17, 2004, 10:29 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	Common, there is no way we will abbandon socialized health care. When we say we want to improve it, we will improve it so that those picky rich Canadian don't have to go in US when they can't wait a day or two to care of their IMPORTANT cold problem ... Do you just throw phrase like that in the air ? What makes you say Canadian living near the border go in US? I live close to the border and I have a pretty good health care thank you. And it is accesible to anyone, for free, not like in US where you just go die in the woods if you don't have cash ...

Feb 17, 2004, 11:45 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	anybody who goes into any emergency room in america gets treated whether they can pay or not "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 17, 2004, 12:09 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) Common, there is no way we will abbandon socialized health care.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No one answered when I asked, "Fixing the health care system? What's wrong with it?" I've asked authoritarians this question several times, and never once got an answer: "If monopolies are bad in things like the steel industry, oil production, and food, why is there a major exception when it comes to something as important as health care?" Why would it be wrong for one corporation to control an entire industry such as the news media, yet okay for the state to have a monopoly on health services? --Jackney Sneeb PS -- try switching the terms "one corporation" and "the state" in the second sentence, and ask yourself if it makes any difference?

Feb 17, 2004, 12:19 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
Packratt Molten Ash Location: Crimetown USA Posts: 130	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) anybody who goes into any emergency room in america gets treated whether they can pay or not<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's not an entirely accurate statement. People without insurance or proof of ability to pay are only treated when their life or limb is in immediate jeapordy. and even when they are treated, the worst doctor on staff is usually the one who is assigned to the task, the one with the highest mortality rates. I know this for a fact, my wife has been turned away from the emergency room countless times because her condition is not an immediate risk. Of course, treating her condition now would be much less expensive and less detrimental to her than waiting until she became critical, (which is also life threatening), but that's the inefficient and illogical system in which we find ourselves dealing with. In human costs... She gets to suffer a painfull condition needlessly and be prevented from pursuing a career while we wait either for insurance that would provide us with a method to seek care, or until she gets so critically ill that the hospital could not turn her away... Which is putting her life at risk. "...the worker's liberty... is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. -Bakunin

Feb 18, 2004, 12:25 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
Colleptic Charlatan Society Location: Kelowna BC Canada Posts: 59	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Jackney Sneeb Fixing the health care system? What's wrong with it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not enough funding for one. Over payment of doctors, mixed with under-funding and poor distribution of funding have closed smaller hospitals and shortened staff in many provinces. For instance BC doctors are asking for “another” raise of around 50,000 per physician… </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by AnonT The fact that it's socialized?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No that is the reason it is one of the best systems on the planet. It has ruff edges that can easily be fixed with the right sanding block.

Feb 18, 2004, 03:32 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
terstorm Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 60	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) anybody who goes into any emergency room in america gets treated whether they can pay or not<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's not an entirely accurate statement. People without insurance or proof of ability to pay are only treated when their life or limb is in immediate jeapordy. and even when they are treated, the worst doctor on staff is usually the one who is assigned to the task, the one with the highest mortality rates. I know this for a fact, my wife has been turned away from the emergency room countless times because her condition is not an immediate risk. Of course, treating her condition now would be much less expensive and less detrimental to her than waiting until she became critical, (which is also life threatening), but that's the inefficient and illogical system in which we find ourselves dealing with. In human costs... She gets to suffer a painfull condition needlessly and be prevented from pursuing a career while we wait either for insurance that would provide us with a method to seek care, or until she gets so critically ill that the hospital could not turn her away... Which is putting her life at risk.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It's true that you'll get treated, but if you can't pay they do give you shit for it. My sister sliced her thumb open and practically off and because my parents were between jobs (they're high tech...got outsourced to India ya know) they have no insurance for her. She was treated alright, after sitting for 9 hours in the emergency room. Needless to say, I am very careful when doing pretty much anything. I can't afford to get sick so I've been known to lock myself away when my friends get the flu and all. <span style='color:blue'>Things Fall Apart---the centre cannot hold</span> Storm

Feb 18, 2004, 06:22 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Colleptic,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Jackney Sneeb Fixing the health care system? What's wrong with it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not enough funding for one. Over payment of doctors, mixed with under-funding and poor distribution of funding have closed smaller hospitals and shortened staff in many provinces. For instance BC doctors are asking for “another” raise of around 50,000 per physician…<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Uh -- how can you say you are overpaying your doctors and then add that they're demanding more money? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Colleptic,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by AnonT The fact that it's socialized?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No that is the reason it is one of the best systems on the planet. It has ruff edges that can easily be fixed with the right sanding block.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not enough funding? That's the reason it's one of the best systems on the planet? Not enough funding? Doctors want more money? In an altruistic, socialistic society? Economics quiz: 1) What happens to quality of service when you pay less than the provider thinks is a reasonable price? 2) What happens to quality of workmanship when you pay workers less than what they think is a fair wage? 3) Why would a national health care provider suffer from the same problem of underfunded hospitals as a (relatively) free-market system next door? 4) Why would anyone think monopolies are bad in all areas of the economy, such as oil production and food distribution, yet make an exception when it comes to something as important as health care? --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 18, 2004, 06:43 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (terstorm,) It's true that you'll get treated, but if you can't pay they do give you shit for it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What would happen to the quality of your work if your boss said, "I'm afraid I can't afford to pay you. Now, get busy helping me"? Would your attitide toward your customers be slightly different if they said "Sorry, I don't have any money to pay you with"? Doctors have an industry-imposed obligation to treat people whether they can pay or not. This is a humanitarian gesture on their part. It's unreasonable to believe that they should not display the same human responses to freeloaders as the rest of us, however. They aren't gods (even if they think they are). Contrary to poplular belief (and wishful thinking), health care is not a right. It is a combination of commodity and service. Even socialists (those in power, at least) know that such services cost money -- especially health care. Just as politicians won't rule you without pay, graft, and corruption, doctors won't be happy if they are compensated less than they think their services are worth. And an unhappy doctor is a crappy doctor. When the skinflints of the world demand that every time they slip on a banana peel someone owes them something, it may be very good for business for lawyers and politicians. It is bad economics for everyone else. --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 18, 2004, 10:03 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	It is not like Canada had no surplus in the budget to reinvest in the health care system. Cause you know, while the US try to deal with a deficit wich will gain a life of its own soon, we have ZERO deficit .