fascist regime in British Columbia

civiltech Working in the public sector can be a frustrating experience for those who seek more from their work than picking up a paycheque every couple of weeks. However, I'd venture a guess this may be true within the bureaucracy of some large private sector entities, the only difference being that if those in private sector entity become too 'spoiled' that entity will at some point cease to exist. I think Nsay's original point had to do with government using its power to bully into submission any who didn't fall into line. We now seem to be moving towards the pros/cons of a two tier health system, which has been covered in detail elsewhere. As I've mentioned elsewhere, before seeking solutions to a problem, you need to know what the problem actually is. In terms of health care, and some other issues, we've become accustomed to accepting the validity of government pronoucements that the system costs too much, is unsustainable, etc. because of aging populations, etc., without being provided with details as to where the money is actually going. Accompanying these pronouncements is much mainsteam media 'in-depth' analysis, generally based on an acceptance of the pronoucement's basic validity. However, if you aren't provided with the basic facts, i.e., where's the money going, e.g., extravagant large bureaucracy, pharmaceutical company profits, physician's pockets, I don't see how it's even possible to consider what the appropriate solution(s) may be. Experience has shown both us and other nations that throwing money at a problem just doesn't work, given that financial resources are finite and problems tend to expand, rather han contract, if not addressed at the root. In terms of the medical system, part of the cause of any any real problem that does exist could be an archaic, partially unnecessary structure in the medical community however, oddly enough we never hear much about changes there, i.e., new, less costly, categories of medical worker to assume duties traditionally held by physicians. Overall, I don't have a problem with public non-safety related services being performed by the private sector if an overall benefit is achieved (similarly, I don't have a problem with private sector services moving to the public if an overall benefit to the nation can be demonstrated.). However, I need to know all the facts associated with a a problem prior to determining potential solutions, so as not to go off half-cocked to devise solutions that may only further exacerbate the problem. Canadians aren't privy to all the facts. There would appear to be a conscious trans-national effort to move public services to the private sector based on a dubious, and often untrue, logic that this somehow benefits the overall public. The promoters of this concept make use of the myths that the public sector is composed of lazy deadbeats sucking at the public teat without returning much of value and that the private sector is by its very nature more competent, efficient and cost-effective. I can assure you the former is not wholly accurate and the validity of the latter can be judged through scanning news stories concerning corporate fraud, bankruptcy, recall of products, etc. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

[QUOTE BY= Calumny] civiltech 1)Working in the public sector can be a frustrating experience for those who seek more from their work than picking up a paycheque every couple of weeks. However, I'd venture a guess this may be true within the bureaucracy of some large private sector entities, the only difference being that if those in private sector entity become too 'spoiled' that entity will at some point cease to exist. 2)I think Nsay's original point had to do with government using its power to bully into submission any who didn't fall into line. We now seem to be moving towards the pros/cons of a two tier health system, which has been covered in detail elsewhere. 3)As I've mentioned elsewhere, before seeking solutions to a problem, you need to know what the problem actually is. 4)In terms of health care, and some other issues, we've become accustomed to accepting the validity of government pronoucements that the system costs too much, is unsustainable, etc. because of aging populations, etc., without being provided with details as to where the money is actually going. 5)Accompanying these pronouncements is much mainsteam media 'in-depth' analysis, generally based on an acceptance of the pronoucement's basic validity. 6)However, if you aren't provided with the basic facts, i.e., where's the money going, e.g., extravagant large bureaucracy, pharmaceutical company profits, physician's pockets, I don't see how it's even possible to consider what the appropriate solution(s) may be. 7)Experience has shown both us and other nations that throwing money at a problem just doesn't work, given that financial resources are finite and problems tend to expand, rather han contract, if not addressed at the root. 8)In terms of the medical system, part of the cause of any any real problem that does exist could be an archaic, partially unnecessary structure in the medical community however, oddly enough we never hear much about changes there, i.e., new, less costly, categories of medical worker to assume duties traditionally held by physicians. 9)Overall, I don't have a problem with public non-safety related services being performed by the private sector if an overall benefit is achieved (similarly, I don't have a problem with private sector services moving to the public if an overall benefit to the nation can be demonstrated.). 10)However, I need to know all the facts associated with a a problem prior to determining potential solutions, so as not to go off half-cocked to devise solutions that may only further exacerbate the problem. Canadians aren't privy to all the facts. 11)There would appear to be a conscious trans-national effort to move public services to the private sector based on a dubious, and often untrue, logic that this somehow benefits the overall public. The promoters of this concept make use of the myths that the public sector is composed of lazy deadbeats sucking at the public teat without returning much of value and that the private sector is by its very nature more competent, efficient and cost-effective. 12)I can assure you the former is not wholly accurate and the validity of the latter can be judged through scanning news stories concerning corporate fraud, bankruptcy, recall of products, etc. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'> [/QUOTE] mmmmmmmmmmmmmm....I think I agree with you for about 79% of this post!!! (boy, are my fellow board members in the local constituency gonna sigh a breath of relief when I explain to them that NDPr's may not be the socialist crackpots we unfairly stereotype them as!! Of course I'm sure you don't stereotype us gun toting tax slashers as well, eh? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> ) 1) The beauty of large corporations that end up becoming beauracracies is that they are not a drain on our friendly neighbourhood taxpayer. At least not to the extent that a purely public sector body is. When they cease to maintain a basic standard, they end.... A poorly run Public sector continues to drain. Cooking the books in the public sector is quite easy when budgets are more guidelines than dependant on the survival of the instituation such as in a private company! 2) I agree that government bullies it's ways in many facets of Canadians lives. It has been getting worse over the years. This includes there privy rights to money when a lien, or a bankrupcy occurs, killing the "little guy." who is also looking for compensation. Everything from paper pushing planners (and there are so many of these "self manufatured proffessionals now in building standard offices)....to the wonderful gun registry!!!! 3) I agree with your statement that to solve a problem, you have to know what the problem is. I don't disagree that Canadians never know the whole issue....what's more scary is I really don't think most politicians see the whole picture either. From left to right,...they all tow the party line. Take a look at our NDP candidate here on the board. Do her statements above look surprising close enough to what is on the ndp website, but sufficiently vague enough that if you hid the party name, it could easily be used by any political faction!!! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> 4) Please read my note re: Planners. Again, I have to agree with you on this point. 5) YOu've lost me here.....care to word this a bit different? 6) Sort of....Physicians are a highly skilled trade. To pick on them because of there trade seems a little unfair. We are so quick to stand up for the custodian, but the guy who starved in schoool for 6 years doesn't deserve his money? Where I may depart from my Conservative counterparts is I think there should be a HECK of a lot more legislation, and acts governing pharmacuetical companies, the process in which new drugs are approved, and how they are used. As for profits.....well, where I come from "profit" isn't a dirty word. If a company makes good profits, it doesn't make them a bad company. It makes them smart and versatile (at least for that fiscal quarter.) 7) Agreed. Throwing money at a problem does not solve an issue. However, there are several examples where money SHOULD be thrown back into the respective ministry/department because it requires it. Health Care may/may not be solved totally by throwing more money at it...or like countries like U.K., Denmark, let the private sector help out. 8) Not so.....Nurse Practitioners were touted as a tory success here in Ontario. My only complaint is that there are not more of them! In the face of soaring costs for equipment, infrastructure, and professionals in the health industry, there are more need for these new professions than ever! 9) Agreed. I don't ever think I want to see Police services, national defense, or health care ever moved to the private sector. However the private sectors role to some extent has always been required in all of these categories. 11)I find the opposite true. I have hear the CBC (communist broadcasting service <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> ) tear Mike Harris and Ernie Eves apart for even mentioning privitization. It seems each part of the political spectrum believes the media is treating them unfairly. I think they treat everyone unfairly! But to think that the common though of Canadians today is for privatization is simply not so. Give Canadian voters more benefit of the doubt. 12) I think I will have another glass of wine to understand this paragraph! Look forward to a little elaboration1 <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'>

[QUOTE BY= whelan costen] Well civiltech, you bring up some interesting points. Saying that running for the NDP in Alberta doesn't make sense is one that stands out for me. Do you think Albertan's deserve any less democracy than the rest of Canada? Choice is always the democratic way. Presently we have a huge democratic deficit, we have the majority of seats Conservative, with no accountability, no disclosure, the people aren't told where their money goes, but because we are considered to be a rich province we shouldn't care? Well we won't be rich for long if the government continues to spend money on their corporate agendas, there is always a bottom to the trough! The liberals hold 7 seats and are a very weak opposition, the NDP hold 2 and they hold the conservatives feet to the fire as much as they can with only 10 sitting days last time the Legislature sat, and Klein showed up for 4. How much work gets done in 10 days? I wonder how much would get done if we paid them by the day? Saying the NDP are not fiscally responsible is b.s., Saskatchewan has been running a very responsible government, balancing it's budget before Alberta, and they had very few resources to work with; now that they are experiencing a diamond boom, I believe they will prosper and good for them. Romanow is a true Canadian, I have read much of his work and am impressed with his values and ability to get to the point. Throwing more money at a situation is a simplification of the issue, they underfunded for so long, that yes they need to reinvest. Throwing money at health care is not the only answer, the system wasn't broke, so they made sure that it became broke, so that they could bring in the consultants and the corporate agenda to research how it could be fixed. The consultants and research costs money, were we consulting to see how to break it,and then here is the magic recipe for a fix? When they decided to farm out the laundry services, they cut jobs with benefits for the workers, consolidated the laundry in a corporate machine, now when we have a health epidemic we can't contain it in the hospital because we ship the germs out witht he laundry! The workers are now working for the corporation, earning less money, how did that help the situation? That is just one example. Blowing up a hospital when you have a bed shortage, selling a couple and then declare, 'oh my, what shall we do...oh wait here is a great company that can build us another!' Would you call that fiscally responsible? As for Gordo, well Klein says he is more conserative than liberal and he should know, cause he was liberal before he saw the opportunities in the con party! There is very little difference between the liberals and the cons these days, they both serve one master, the corporation! The NDP has never waivered, they serve the people, first and foremost in every way, and they are so secure in their own sexuality that they aren't afraid to give equal rights to those that don't share their sexual persuasion. They aren't afraid to be pioneers, just as they weren't when they brought in Universal Healthcare in the first place the liberals and conseratives have been trying to crush it ever since, because they serve the middle man. From what I see, federally and provincially the liberals and conseratives are following an agenda which serve corporate greed, lines the pockets of the few, denies workers basic fair working conditions and wages, promotes programs which further create poverty and health issues. Denying education funding and funding for youth programs has contributed to youth obesity in this country which will further impact the health system and our workforce for years to come. No they don't work for the people! Our health care system is going to be overworked as these corporate greedies continue to make policy that overlooks the basics of society, including their disregard for our environment. The old saying, you don't shit where you live, hasn't reach them yet, but when we are all wallowing in it, they will declare, 'whatever will we do, we had no idea, should we throw money at it, no wait lets increase our military'?? So out of touch with reality and the real lives of the people their policies affect, only real people can make the changes.[/QUOTE] Ahhhhh....spoken like a true NDP candidate. 1) Never noble in the eyes of defeat. Have to blame it on the government "duping" the voters into electing them. (Cause millions of Albertans can't make an informed vote can they?) 2)If a government has to much of a majority in the house, then it is not democratic even if the PEOPLE voted them in! Maybe it's the lack of alternatives why the other parties don't have a great showing? 3)Always with the "Liberals are the same as Conservatives....." Gimme a break. How would you like it if I said all Green Party members are the same as NDP? Sound like an unjust statement? 4)Ontario was near bankrupcy when the NDP left office. B.C. was near bankrucy whent he NDP left office. 5) Corporate greed? Have you looked at your local member of parliament? He was a teacher and principal...and went overseas to Africa to teach to help out in developing countries.....is he part of the conspiracy? Granted he has no experience as a receptionist in touch with the huddled masses, but I think he does pretty good nonetheless..... 6) Out of touch with reality.....good luck with the next election..."I ....I think you may have it in the bag!!".....Now thats out of touch with reality! As for who the population elected...try and give them more respect. You may be looking for there vote next election, and not trying to rub your "REALITY" in their face. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'>

Your first comment seems to assume all Vive posters are NDP supporters (okay, leftist.). As gaulois has recently indicated, this isn't the case. Questioning whose pulling the Liberal/Conservative party strings doesn't in itself make the person asking the question a leftist or socialist. I don't totally disagree with 1) because it's true the public sector can't go out of business and could be more efficient/smaller. At the same time, if there is overt or unspoken collusion between large corporations, e.g. unionized automobile companies awaiting the outcome of the first to enter contract negotiations then falling into line in the contract negotiations that follow with their own workers, and pass along the additional costs along to the consumer, it amounts to much the same thing. If a corporation offers a good or service that most consumers 'require' and that good or service has similar costs across 'competitors' the consumer has a brand choice, but not a cost choice, available to them. If corporations agree, in action or in fact, to share a market, no one goes out of business. For 5), my view is that most mainstream media accepts pronouncements from the government as fact, then provides a helpful analysis as to what needs to be done to deal with that fact, without investigating whether the fact is in fact a fact. Discussing, for example, whether some level of privatization would or would not be of value in solving a health care crisis is pointless prior to determining whether a crisis in fact exists and, if so, all factors involved. 6) It wasn't my intent to pick on physicians. However, as the discussion seemed to be veering into health care, they are a factor. And the medical profession is, as gaulois would say, a sacred cow that doesn't really seem to get much scrutiny. Relistically speaking, why should six or more years of university be required to obtain a medical degree? Assuming this is required for some specialties, is it required for all? Do we need doctors to deal with all medical situations? Why aren't more physicians being graduated to meet a need that has been obvious to most for years? Why does someone who has chosen to enter the medical profession believe they should be entitled to a certain income level for life, and why does society support them in this? To expand on one of your earlier comments 'the world does not owe you a (certain standard of) living'. 11) Guess it depends on the news cast you're listening to. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'>

Civiltech, From your 11)... While media coverage may well be equally unfavourable to all across the political spectrum (I don't believe it, but it MAY be true), the fact is that the media has more of a responsibility than merely telling us which of three choices is the best (or worst). It is also the media's duty to keep the government in check. We all scream for accountability, and the media's self-appointed role in this is to merely convey which parties claim to support it. But in reality, it is the media's responsibility to hold the government accountable. That is why we have 'independent' (ie: not government-run) media. Unfortunately, a few rich families (is it Asper or Thompson?? or both?) run the majority of the media in our country. And when you have two parties that govern and one or two groups that own all the media, it becomes very easy for corruption to grow in unspoken understandings between these ruling elites. So yes, the media may be unfavourable to a variety of parties, but only as a distraction from their real breach of trust - their purposeful ignorance to our government's inner workings.

[QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita] Civiltech, From your 11)... While media coverage may well be equally unfavourable to all across the political spectrum (I don't believe it, but it MAY be true), the fact is that the media has more of a responsibility than merely telling us which of three choices is the best (or worst). It is also the media's duty to keep the government in check. We all scream for accountability, and the media's self-appointed role in this is to merely convey which parties claim to support it. But in reality, it is the media's responsibility to hold the government accountable. That is why we have 'independent' (ie: not government-run) media. Unfortunately, a few rich families (is it Asper or Thompson?? or both?) run the majority of the media in our country. And when you have two parties that govern and one or two groups that own all the media, it becomes very easy for corruption to grow in unspoken understandings between these ruling elites. So yes, the media may be unfavourable to a variety of parties, but only as a distraction from their real breach of trust - their purposeful ignorance to our government's inner workings. [/QUOTE] The media's job isn't to hold people accountable. I think the tendency of media today is to try and do that, and end up getting there "bias" name! Meida is a business. Like anything else. They have to find a story, or nobody reads/watches them. Sensationalism is ripe all over the media. Whether it's private or public. And you can easily read a paper and get the flavour of them. The Toronto Star (also know as the Toronto Czar <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> ) CBC (Communist Broadcasting Corp.) The National Post(How may we serve you today Lord Black? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> ) The Western Report (Hmmm...I wonder which way they lean? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> A little to the right? ) To think that our media today is this pure and noble profession that digs into the depths where no one else wants to go to bring out the truth is simply not true. They get what they are told. Usually (NOT ALWAYS) it's a simplified, dumbed down version of events molded by the people who give it to them. More and more often reporters are using terms "allegedly" and "common opinion" etc. which lead us to believe, but sufficiently protect the media from being accused of reporting falsely. Civil's 3 steps to dealing with media: 1) Media is a business. They have deadlines and need an interesting story to keep there job too! 2) There is no such thing as "off the record" no matter how much someone tells you this. Everything is fair game. 3) Never say "no comment." It has been so overused, the sound of it makes you guilty whether you are or not!!

Civiltech, just because all other professions have bowed down at the feet of economists doesn't mean that they SHOULD. What you are describing is the present reality. What I'm suggesting is that, while our government is certainly corrupt and disfunctional, so too is our media. And that is a problem that we need to deal with. The corroboration (implied or explicit) between media and government officials for their own interests is as much a problem as poor healthcare services, the waste of money called "the gun registry", rising tuition fees, military underfuding, the gradual migration from resource-extraction-based rural areas to urban areas, etc etc. When the BC Liberal government made a law that hid the CN deal from the media, and consequently the people of BC, why wasn't the media they out screaming about it? Journalists are professionals who have a duty to society to report corruption, questionable deals, illegitimate spending, etc; just as you (and soon I) have a duty to society to use safe engineering practices. I understand that engineers have a self-governing body and a code of ethics and all that, but I don't think that defines your responsibilities to society. Rather, it is just a legal manifestation of those responsibilities. Journalists can and would investigate questionable government activities if they didn't work for a rich media corporation that's in bed with the government. So why do we allow corporations, the children of the economists, to run everything? Economists don't know anything about engineering. They don't know anything about forestry, environmentalism, or sustainable building designs. They don't know how to mine copper or catch fish. They can't raise cattle or harvest wheat. And on the flip side, they don't know how to sanitize a kitchen, set concrete, build an airport, write music, etc etc... So why is it that these people (economists) are entrusted with designing every detail I just mentioned above. Maybe a huge corporation isn't the best way to deliver useful news to people. Just as a big fishing boat doesnt' necessarily catch more fish. All these other professions - engineers notably among them - have for some reason handed over all power to economists (and lawyers, to some degree). You may make a sound engineering decision, but it must fit into the framework designed by economists. Why? Why is it that suddenly Canada can't afford decent healthcare and education as well as a properly attired military? Why do people keep suggesting big tax cuts to corporations to fuel the economy? What is this "economy" and why are we enslaved to it? Perhaps it doesn't serve us as well as it claims to. Why is it that with the most abundant of resources in the world, we are unable to balance a budget AND feed and clothe all Canadians? Why can't we afford to send students to school without paying tuition (or paying a very small tuition)? Why have the educators and the engineers (and soon the doctors) allowed the economists to dictate the terms of any agreement? And why is it that we can't get quality journalism because "Media is a business. Like anything else.", as you so nicely put it. So just because media is a business, we should forget about the responsibility of journalists to hold the government accountable? What I am saying here is that yes, media is business. THAT is a problem. As long as there is money to be made off of reporting, newspapers will be nothing more than tabloids. We need change. As long as we are enslaved by the economic system designed by Milton Friedman (who later admitted that every country that adopted his ideas was worse off than before), we will never live in a juste society. There is simply too much room for corruption due to the big numbers in his economics.

[QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita] Civiltech, just because all other professions have bowed down at the feet of economists doesn't mean that they SHOULD. What you are describing is the present reality. What I'm suggesting is that, while our government is certainly corrupt and disfunctional, so too is our media. And that is a problem that we need to deal with. The corroboration (implied or explicit) between media and government officials for their own interests is as much a problem as poor healthcare services, the waste of money called "the gun registry", rising tuition fees, military underfuding, the gradual migration from resource-extraction-based rural areas to urban areas, etc etc. When the BC Liberal government made a law that hid the CN deal from the media, and consequently the people of BC, why wasn't the media they out screaming about it? Journalists are professionals who have a duty to society to report corruption, questionable deals, illegitimate spending, etc; just as you (and soon I) have a duty to society to use safe engineering practices. I understand that engineers have a self-governing body and a code of ethics and all that, but I don't think that defines your responsibilities to society. Rather, it is just a legal manifestation of those responsibilities. Journalists can and would investigate questionable government activities if they didn't work for a rich media corporation that's in bed with the government. So why do we allow corporations, the children of the economists, to run everything? Economists don't know anything about engineering. They don't know anything about forestry, environmentalism, or sustainable building designs. They don't know how to mine copper or catch fish. They can't raise cattle or harvest wheat. And on the flip side, they don't know how to sanitize a kitchen, set concrete, build an airport, write music, etc etc... So why is it that these people (economists) are entrusted with designing every detail I just mentioned above. Maybe a huge corporation isn't the best way to deliver useful news to people. Just as a big fishing boat doesnt' necessarily catch more fish. All these other professions - engineers notably among them - have for some reason handed over all power to economists (and lawyers, to some degree). You may make a sound engineering decision, but it must fit into the framework designed by economists. Why? Why is it that suddenly Canada can't afford decent healthcare and education as well as a properly attired military? Why do people keep suggesting big tax cuts to corporations to fuel the economy? What is this "economy" and why are we enslaved to it? Perhaps it doesn't serve us as well as it claims to. Why is it that with the most abundant of resources in the world, we are unable to balance a budget AND feed and clothe all Canadians? Why can't we afford to send students to school without paying tuition (or paying a very small tuition)? Why have the educators and the engineers (and soon the doctors) allowed the economists to dictate the terms of any agreement? And why is it that we can't get quality journalism because "Media is a business. Like anything else.", as you so nicely put it. So just because media is a business, we should forget about the responsibility of journalists to hold the government accountable? What I am saying here is that yes, media is business. THAT is a problem. As long as there is money to be made off of reporting, newspapers will be nothing more than tabloids. We need change. As long as we are enslaved by the economic system designed by Milton Friedman (who later admitted that every country that adopted his ideas was worse off than before), we will never live in a juste society. There is simply too much room for corruption due to the big numbers in his economics.[/QUOTE] I think you should spend at least 5 years in industry and reread what you posted. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> As an engineer you will most asuredly climb the ranks, and you can then see what you are attempting to talk about. It is not as you describe it. You still have the "preconventional thought." (I'm not insulting you, I am just saying your outlook will be more thorough in a little while.) No one can describe it to you. You will be in a unique position to be able to talk with some authority in 5 to 10 years. With my initial response to a query on working 2 tier systems which benefitted the people: Denmark, UK, and Australia were my responses. Was anybody going to refute that, or does everyone agree 2 tier is the way to go? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> (Come on, if that aint' an invitation...what is?) <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'>

Civiltech: 'With my initial response to a query on working 2 tier systems which benefitted the people: Denmark, UK, and Australia were my responses. Was anybody going to refute that, or does everyone agree 2 tier is the way to go? Smile (Come on, if that aint' an invitation...what is?)' No everyone does not agree that 2 tier is the way to go! Two tier only adds a middle man to the equation which opens the door to more expense for the average person. It does not improve quality. When the people own the business, the people are the beneficiaries of the profits of that ownership. In Alberta we the tax payer paid for our power plants a long time ago, now we have privatized and sold out for cheap, but we have to buy back the power at inflated prices. That is one example. Healthcare is another, where there are plenty of examples to say having a public system and private, only serves the wealthiest of people, private systems are not more efficient, and the level of care is not better. Since you asked, no two tier is not the way to go. Two tier is just as the saying states, a program for the rich and separate program for the poor. Same goes for education; Rich kids get a better education, poor kids get what's left over. Basic services such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, utilities,environmental issues should always be under public control. Two tier may work in some situations, but I can't think of any. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/frown.gif' alt='Frown'>

[QUOTE BY= whelan costen] Civiltech: 'With my initial response to a query on working 2 tier systems which benefitted the people: Denmark, UK, and Australia were my responses. Was anybody going to refute that, or does everyone agree 2 tier is the way to go? Smile (Come on, if that aint' an invitation...what is?)' No everyone does not agree that 2 tier is the way to go! Two tier only adds a middle man to the equation which opens the door to more expense for the average person. It does not improve quality. When the people own the business, the people are the beneficiaries of the profits of that ownership. In Alberta we the tax payer paid for our power plants a long time ago, now we have privatized and sold out for cheap, but we have to buy back the power at inflated prices. That is one example. Healthcare is another, where there are plenty of examples to say having a public system and private, only serves the wealthiest of people, private systems are not more efficient, and the level of care is not better. Since you asked, no two tier is not the way to go. Two tier is just as the saying states, a program for the rich and separate program for the poor. Same goes for education; Rich kids get a better education, poor kids get what's left over. Basic services such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, utilities,environmental issues should always be under public control. Two tier may work in some situations, but I can't think of any. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/frown.gif' alt='Frown'> [/QUOTE] I can: Health care in Denamrk, UK, and Australia. They work great there. How come virtually every country in the world (from European socialist democracies,etc.) can have it, and we can't? Cause we "think" it may be wrong? We don't have to model a system after anyone else. We can make is distinctly Canadian. A system that fits the needs and requirements of Canada. To merely dismiss it cause it doesn't sound like what we've had for teh past 50 years doesn't seem very open minded.

[QUOTE BY= whelan costen] Since you asked, no two tier is not the way to go. Two tier is just as the saying states, a program for the rich and separate program for the poor. Same goes for education; Rich kids get a better education, poor kids get what's left over. Basic services such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, utilities,environmental issues should always be under public control. [/QUOTE] I quite agree with the latter statement about public control but do not agree that this cannot be done in a two tier system. The state shall ultimately remain the regulator and regulations can be smart and enforceable if the state does not at as a puppet of the special interest/lobby groups. I highly welcome civiltech insights but I still see a lot of "ideologies" in this thread. The bottlenech that I see (as you have heard from me before) is the lack of political hardnose leadership to make this work (whether from the left or from the right). Perhaps that is my ideology bent. Would civiltech be suggesting that the state has no regulator role in the delivery of these public services?

[QUOTE BY= gaulois] [QUOTE BY= whelan costen] Since you asked, no two tier is not the way to go. Two tier is just as the saying states, a program for the rich and separate program for the poor. Same goes for education; Rich kids get a better education, poor kids get what's left over. Basic services such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, utilities,environmental issues should always be under public control. [/QUOTE] I quite agree with the latter statement about public control but do not agree that this cannot be done in a two tier system. The state shall ultimately remain the regulator and regulations can be smart and enforceable if the state does not at as a puppet of the special interest/lobby groups. I highly welcome civiltech insights but I still see a lot of "ideologies" in this thread. The bottlenech that I see (as you have heard from me before) is the lack of political hardnose leadership to make this work (whether from the left or from the right). Perhaps that is my ideology bent. Would civiltech be suggesting that the state has no regulator role in the delivery of these public services? [/QUOTE] Absolutely not!!! There MUST be regulation. We have to get around the notion that a 2 tier system means an American system. No one wants that! Not me especially! Giving the private sector free reign is shooting every Cnanadian in the foot! The reason why Denmark works so well is that everyone, rich and poor must put into the pot accordingly for Public service. Limits on the scope and role of private funded services are clear cut. Though they recieve some public funding, it is only like a "subsidy" when it is in the best interest of the Government.(And when I say this I mean the taxpayer!) Subsidies can change, or be removed from time to time, depending on the need, and demand, and the ability of the government to provide that particular service. I strongly enourage you to read the report as posted on the site I mentioned above. Though it is meant to describe the inadequacies of UK's 2 tier and make recommendations from Denmark's, I think it is a good starting place for us. Our system should be uniquely Canadian, and not a copy of Denmark. Maybe it shouldn't even go so far as what Denmark has...I don't know. I'm not even sure if 2 tier IS the way to go for Canada. But avoiding the conept like the plague because the status quo seems confortable, and pumping more money into the existing just isn't cutting it with me, and many Canadians. We are tired of paying more and more for less. It just isn't working. My experience in Health Care has been in Capital construction and infrastructure,...and the money wasted there is unbelievable! I would welcome ideas on a 2 tier that would/could be tried in Ontario, or any province. Like anything else, we don't just jump into it! We move carefully, and do all those feasability reports our Gov't is famous for! If we find it doesn't work, forget it. But to ignore it cause it has the name "Private..." attached to it... well, that doesn't sound Canadian either.. The stigma of wearing the term private just seems to have a negative connotation these days. We should drop that, and look to see if there are viable options in the private sector. It doesn't mean jump into the deep end, (The U.S. have there own problems <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> )

'My experience in Health Care has been in Capital construction and infrastructure,...and the money wasted there is unbelievable!' I think the above statement is probably a symptom of a bigger problem which is that government contracts are not open to transparent tenders, they are often done in secret without proper documentation, bidding is fixed or favoured , and contracts end up in the hands of a friend of a friend. A good book to read on this is 'On The Take' by Stevie Cameron. We can no longer accept government contracts, using our money to fund their friends, often at inflated costs. I don't believe the system itself is the problem, but the process is deeply flawed, with hidden agendas and the procurement process is not open and fair, if it was Canadians would get the best deal, both cost and service, for their tax dollars.

Civiltech --> It's wonderful that your wisdom so obviously surpasses my own. However, to disregard my arguments based on my youth IS offensive, however inoffensive it was meant to be. I'd really appreciate it if you explained to me exactly why it is that you disagree with my above statements. And I'd appreciate it if you did so while acknowledging that I'm talking about a social movement rather than a bureaucratic change. Essentially what I'm describing is to allow trained experts to control things within their field of expertise. An example of this would be to repeal the "Significant Projects Act" passed recently by the BC Liberals, which is designed to circumvent proper channels of discussion so as to fast-track large scale projects. This means that environmental and community concerns aren't just disregarded; rather, they aren't even heard in the first place. It's really tough to make something environmentally sustainable if you forget to do an environmental study before you start. If you want to read more on these ideas from a completely different perspective and in a completely different context, take a look at DARK AGES AHEAD by JANE JACOBS. In this book she looks at much longer-termed trends and relates our current situation to other great empires of the past. She makes a pretty damn good argument for stronger professional groups. The argument that financially-related professionals have taken all the power away from other professionals is my own. ----------------------- On to the subject of health care: As long as NAFTA exists, any privatisation of any health care services leaves those services open to foreign investors. If a Canadian subsidiary of an American company is providing medical services, the Pentagon can seize patient information under the Patriot Act, as we just saw in the seizure of several Independent News servers in Europe. As long as NAFTA exists, any laws passed by our government that cost a foreign company money will result in our government being sued. This includes projected earnings. So effectively that means that if we try private delivery of services and decide that it doesn't work, we are unable to re-nationalize our healthcare. We could end up paying companies to not provide any services. Until we address the issue of NAFTA and its undermining of our sovereignty, we cannot afford to even begin to look at two-tier health care. It's just not practical. And that's in addition to all the ideological and theoretical arguments such as those brought forward by Whelan. We shouldn't even think about having this debate until we are in control of our own country. THEN we can decide whether or not we will be able to deliver services better through some sort of profit-based structure.

As for actual alternatives to two-tiered health, I think we need to look more at preventative health. The way our system works now is to respond to health problems. Instead, we should identify the roots of those problems and address THEM. So, if we happen to notice that there are a lot more children that have asthma now than, say, 50 years ago, maybe that has to do with the types of cars we drive and the quality of our transit systems. If we notice that obesity is costing our system a lot of money, maybe we should stop catering to fast-food restaurants. For example, we could raise minimum wage, which means that the lowest-income people will have more money to spend. On the flip side, it means that fast food will be more expensive. However, this means that quality food (which is less labour-intensive) is cheaper in comparison. We need to start addressing problems at their roots rather than responding to the symptoms.