Paul Martin and Health Care

NO! He (& Anne McLellan on tues) keeps saying that the government is committed to a publicly-FUNDED health system. They don't say anything about a publicly-OPERATED health system though!! & McLellan & others say repeatedly they are also going to implement some stuff from the Romanow report. But as Layton said WHAT PARTS of the Romanow report? The Liberals keep saying Romanow Report Romanow Report because that scores points with people but I think its ambiguous (like saying "strengthening trade") because they don't say exactly what they're planning. They're trying to sell us whatever they're planning without telling the whole truth. It's the same thing the Mulroney government did with the FTA in 1988 now that I think of it.

Amazing thing,the Lib Government has backed away from another one.Dosanj just announced the other day that there won't be much in the way of health system reforms.The gov basically told allthe premiers to $#$% off.

I beleive healthcare should stay public and continue to be a federal concern, but I can't see how people can still be complaining about not having enough healthcare. In Canada, you are offered first class facilities and modern medicine for FREE. We have so much more than others and yet we still complain about not having enough. Right now, there are more important uses for our tax payer's dollar than adding a little extra padding to our ass. People will always have to wait in line, and people will always die. No amount of increased funding for health care is going to change that.

[QUOTE BY= z_whalen] ...but I can't see how people can still be complaining about not having enough healthcare. [/QUOTE] Sure, if you are already healthy and don't need to use the health system very often, it seems like more than enough. You should realise that if one gets injured and then has to wait so many months for a surgery, for example, any length of time spent waiting could seem too long. It is the capacity and efficiency of the health system that determines the length of the waiting lists. [QUOTE] In Canada, you are offered first class facilities and modern medicine for FREE.[/QUOTE] The thing about public healthcare is that society has the will to dedicate a portion of the taxes we pay to provide healthcare universally. It is not free, but it is good because we WANT to provide it with the funding necessary for it to be good. [QUOTE] We have so much more than others and yet we still complain about not having enough. Right now, there are more important uses for our tax payer's dollar than adding a little extra padding to our ass[/QUOTE] Too bad neither of us are terminally ill. Otherwise, life would be easy with a health care system like our own.

My brother has Sarcoma (Cancer) and I know how the health care system works, he's been in and out of our hospitals since he was 7. Let's put it this way: if you break your leg here in Canada, you might have to wait in line to get corrective surgery. But let's say you live in Rwanda (you know, that country we failed completely because of our ignorance and underfunded military.) If you suffered the same injury there, what quality of healthcare could you expect. Usually sowing up bullet wounds and gashes from machetes takes precedence over correcting a broken leg, so expect to be waiting a lot longer than you would here. In Canada, waiting lists are a fact of life. It's a system that works by prioritizing treatment and operating on a first come first serve basis. If you view it in comparison to other nations, our healthcare works just fine. Quit bitching about not having enough and make do with what you have. Perhaps instead of spending extra money on health care here we could spend it in efforts to add stability to other countries that are not as privileged as we are.

I for one will not accept the "Give up local, think global" position. Healthcare has served our national interest for some time now. True, it is better than the systems of most other countries - it is much better. True, money can go alot further in third world nations. To say that we should give up on bettering things at home because of the two independent realities is to accept a huge falsehood. When it comes to funding, federal governments have dropped the ball time and time again - allowing services to slip, and prices to rise. National healthcare can and should be managed better, whether through an influx of new money or a rethinking of policy that would allow for the better use of existing capacities and resources.

[QUOTE BY= Tristan] I for one will not accept the "Give up local, think global" position. Healthcare has served our national interest for some time now. True, it is better than the systems of most other countries - it is much better. True, money can go alot further in third world nations. To say that we should give up on bettering things at home because of the two independent realities is to accept a huge falsehood. When it comes to funding, federal governments have dropped the ball time and time again - allowing services to slip, and prices to rise. National healthcare can and should be managed better, whether through an influx of new money or a rethinking of policy that would allow for the better use of existing capacities and resources.[/QUOTE] Anything can be managed better Tristan what our government needs to do is instead of throwing billions of dollars at the problem cutback on watse and streamline our system. We do have a priority system in Canada and it works. Maybe if people would stop going into the hospital for such thigns as colds we wouldn't have such a problem. Many times I have been in a hospital waiting room and have seen people sitting their with no apparent problem at all (I have a cold or i have the flu). Listen all the drugs in the world are not going to help you. Seeing a doctor is not going to make you feel any better the best thing for you would be to get off ur ass and stop looking for some miracle cure and go home and get some quality rest. People with actual serious injuries recieve first rate treatment when they goto a hospital. I ruptured my spleen playing Ice Hockey and recieved quality care right from the beginning. We need to streamline our system and improve efficiency 9these are the two things that challenge Canadian healthcare today).

stymiest, the idea that a person you believe has the cold or a flu, does in fact have one, may or may not be correct. There are many illnesses which present as such, but are not, and require a doctor to diagnose and prescribe treatment. House calls were great, then the person didn't have to bring the germs to the hospital. The fact that emergencies are seeing that type of case, is because we don't have enough family doctors. That is because of underfunding, not enough medical schools in Canada, not enough value placed on new immigrants qualifications etc. I give you an example, chicken pox starts out looking like a cold, secondary infections from chicken pox can be very serious. Whooping Cough is another serious situation which may look like a cold. Meningitis is another that may look like the flu, but without treatment has very serious consequences. The list goes on and I don't think the entire problem is people overusing the system, rather the system is designed improperly. IMO

[QUOTE BY= whelan costen] stymiest, the idea that a person you believe has the cold or a flu, does in fact have one, may or may not be correct. There are many illnesses which present as such, but are not, and require a doctor to diagnose and prescribe treatment. House calls were great, then the person didn't have to bring the germs to the hospital. The fact that emergencies are seeing that type of case, is because we don't have enough family doctors. That is because of underfunding, not enough medical schools in Canada, not enough value placed on new immigrants qualifications etc. I give you an example, chicken pox starts out looking like a cold, secondary infections from chicken pox can be very serious. Whooping Cough is another serious situation which may look like a cold. Meningitis is another that may look like the flu, but without treatment has very serious consequences. The list goes on and I don't think the entire problem is people overusing the system, rather the system is designed improperly. IMO[/QUOTE] You have a point Whelan but I believe it is a bit of both <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

I think you misinterpretted what I had to say. I don't think health care should be scaled back or any funding diverted from it, but should only be funded enough to keep it up to date and working. You can say there is room for improvement, but this is healthcare we're talking about and there will always be room for improvement. It doesn't necessarily mean it's a priority. In my opinion, there are things to be improved upon here at home, but healthcare should not be on the top of the list. If healthcare is working reasonably fine, like it is right now, then our money should be placed in other places where it is needed more. I also think that our system needs to be more efficient in reaching patients who need the care the most, but this requires organisation, not more money. With health care spending, the line has to be drawn somewhere. It's just greedy of us to keep asking for more and more.

[QUOTE]You can say there is room for improvement, but this is healthcare we're talking about and there will always be room for improvement. It doesn't necessarily mean it's a priority.[/QUOTE] Yes, healthcare is not only a priority, but it is also a continuing priority. The same can also be applied for for the military, because it is (or should be?) a continuing priority as well, but you can also allocate the entire budget for military spending and it may never be enough. [QUOTE](you know, that country we failed completely because of our ignorance and underfunded military.) [/QUOTE] Personally, I believe the limiting factor to the extent UN forces in Rwanda could operate stems directly from the Security Council. From what I understand, since the mess the US put itself in Somalia, the US didn't want to intervene in Rwanda in order to avoid further political humiliation. So any resolution which would have obliged these countries to intervene in the genocide was vetoed by the US. The amount of funding of the CF at the time didn't seem to prevent the Canadians from working to save as many people as they could.

What are you talking about Canuck? As I've said before, other then Dallaire and a few staff workers, there were no Canadian troops taking part in the mission in Rwanda. But this is beside the point. Yes, healthcare is a continuing priority, and so is the military. The way I see it, healthcare has enough and the military doesn't. That means the our military should really be brought up to par before we start thinking about spending more money on healthcare.

HA ,HA ,HA ,HA ! Did someone say health care and militayr along with PRIORITY in the same sentence!?HAHAHAHAHA!! You make me laugh!! Paul Martin and his band of Lib butt kisseres have no priority except to remain in power until the next election. Man,if that string that Canada is dangling on gets any longer,we could lassoo the moon.Hey,that was promised to someone too,the moon!?(Probably happen quicker than health care and military reform!)

[QUOTE BY= Crankster] HA ,HA ,HA ,HA ! Did someone say health care and militayr along with PRIORITY in the same sentence!?HAHAHAHAHA!! You make me laugh!! Paul Martin and his band of Lib butt kisseres have no priority except to remain in power until the next election. Man,if that string that Canada is dangling on gets any longer,we could lassoo the moon.Hey,that was promised to someone too,the moon!?(Probably happen quicker than health care and military reform!)[/QUOTE] Crankster I like your style. Indeed most of the lvies saved in Rwanda were saved by African Union troops (troops serving under Dallaires command) Ethiopian, Tunisia, Ghana (Dallaire said the Ghanian soldiers were some of the most capable he had ever seen) Think of this most of the lives saved were saved by poor little 3rd world countries from Africa the west played little part in aiding Rwanda. It was just not the United States who left Rwanda too rot do not let your bias cloud you. Eevery country on the security council played a part in it.