Relations via 9/11

[Isaac Brock]

Quality of care suffers. People must accept whatever the government gives them with no recourse. Free markets keep prices lower, and quality higher. This is econ 101. I believe the U.S. should let market forces into it's healthcare more by retraining individuals to not see health care as an entitlement and to pay for it on their own, like we're willing to do with new cars. I believe that healthcare alternatives for the poor WOULD spring up at lower price points. You're going in exactly the wrong direction.

Usually i would completely agree with you, but not in terms of health care apparently. My proof is on a previous thread:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9355
Post #17

How about despotic tyrannical governments who purposefully create jihadist armies to use as a wedge against the west? do you see these as a factor? Have you been reading the threads about the quaran and what it says about jews and christians? Just wondering.

I believe I specifically mentionned religious fundamentalism. You could topple a thousands governments, but if you do not show a populace the err in their ways by providing a viable alternative to fundamentalist belief, the next tyranical despot will be right around the corner.

 

[Isaac Brock]

The link for medicine is provided in my subsequent post.

Unfortunately, a simple link cannot describe the comparitive foreign policy for Canada and the US, though i will try to see if I can find something.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Usually i would completely agree with you, but not in terms of health care apparently. My proof is on a previous thread:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9355
Post #17

This is not PROOF. I don't buy it. The system will only degrade further, and comparing cost per capita to ours is not meaningful, as ours is a bit screwed up right now and is not market driven ENOUGH either. The LIBERAL lawyers are driving costs through the roof with needless litigation, not by accident I believe. It makes your percapita numbers look so nice. Can lawyers sue the government for botched medical care in canada. And like I said, U.S. citizens are do not shop for care, we should. MORE PRIVATIZATION IS THE ANSWER FOR US ALL. Your left wing study by medical professionals seeking to avoid having to compete by entrenching themselves into the government apparatus is not compelling proof.

I believe I specifically mentionned religious fundamentalism. You could topple a thousands governments, but if you do not show a populace the err in their ways by providing a viable alternative to fundamentalist belief, the next tyranical despot will be right around the corner.

It's the leadership style of the leaders in islam. Tyrannical, they do not value the lives of their own citizens, and use them as weapons. And economic potentials there are stunted for the average person as the tyant and his friends control all markets through force, kind of like in socialism. I believe there is a place for moderated islam in the world. DO you think religion in general needs to be eliminated from the world? All religions or just islam?

 

[Isaac Brock]

1995 Canada Foreign Policy Review. (Notes on projection of Canadian values through peacekeeping, basis for foreign policy decisions)
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/foreign_policy/cnd-world/menu-en.asp

Canada - US Relations a study (Notes on historical evolution of multiculturalism in both countries, a general comparative study)
http://www.ola.bc.ca/online/cf/module-4/usrel.html#RTFToC11

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your own words only Isaac. Tell me where my model of things is wrong.

We can post links all day long. Try thinking for yourself.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Projection of canadian values through peacekeeping? Does that mean a steadfast refusal to make decisions? Compromise at all times only leads nowhere. Some worldviews are incompatible.

 

[Isaac Brock]

This is not PROOF. I don't buy it. The system will only degrade further, and comparing cost per capita to ours is not meaningful, as ours is a bit screwed up right now and is not market driven ENOUGH either. The LIBERAL lawyers are driving costs through the roof with needless litigation, not by accident I believe. It makes your percapita numbers look so nice. Can lawyers sue the government for botched medical care in canada. And like I said, U.S. citizens are do not shop for care, we should. MORE PRIVATIZATION IS THE ANSWER FOR US ALL. Your left wing study by medical professionals seeking to avoid having to compete by entrenching themselves into the government apparatus is not compelling proof.

It is proof and it is independent, done by a professional agency not under any governmental jurisdiction. Lawyers can sue the government for botched medical care. Medical care as a service has a much greater overhead than most services, this is why centrilization for this particular service made economic sense. When seperate insurance boards, hospitals, review agencies, technical advisory boards, etc are necessary for each company, it makes in very difficult to be competitive with a centrilizaed system. It would venture a guess it would be very similar with education, police, and fire services.

It's the leadership style of the leaders in islam. Tyrannical, they do not value the lives of their own citizens, and use them as weapons. And economic potentials there are stunted for the average person as the tyant and his friends control all markets through force, kind of like in socialism. I believe there is a place for moderated islam in the world. DO you think religion in general needs to be eliminated from the world? All religions or just islam?

I think any religion has the possibility to be manipulated any way one pleases. Religion is not inherintly bad, but the way people interpret it, can certainly be. Tyrants exploit this fact. How can solely removing the tyrant or the terrorist alone acheive this goal? Fear? Perhaps, but in their ethos they have nothing to lose. If you have nothign to lose, you have nothing to fear. How do you deal with zealots that have no fear?

 

[Isaac Brock]

Your own words only Isaac. Tell me where my model of things is wrong.

We can post links all day long. Try thinking for yourself.

Kathianne asked me for links, I obliged.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Kathianne asked me for links, I obliged.

That's fine. They do not satisfy me. Nor must they. I would like you to tell me where I am wrong.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It is proof and it is independent, done by a professional agency not under any governmental jurisdiction. Lawyers can sue the government for botched medical care. Medical care as a service has a much greater overhead than most services, this is why centrilization for this particular service made economic sense. When seperate insurance boards, hospitals, review agencies, technical advisory boards, etc are necessary for each company, it makes in very difficult to be competitive with a centrilizaed system. It would venture a guess it would be very similar with education, police, and fire services.

It is not proof. For the reasons I cited, the study is bogus.

I think any religion has the possibility to be manipulated any way one pleases. Religion is not inherintly bad, but the way people interpret it, can certainly be. Tyrants exploit this fact. How can solely removing the tyrant or the terrorist alone acheive this goal? Fear? Perhaps, but in their ethos they have nothing to lose. If you have nothign to lose, you have nothing to fear. How do you deal with zealots that have no fear?

Kill them.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Why are people coming to america when things are really serious? And what will happen when our system is as bad as yours? And when there is no profit to be had in healthcare, where will innovation come from?

 

[Isaac Brock]

Projection of canadian values through peacekeeping? Does that mean a steadfast refusal to make decisions? Compromise at all times only leads nowhere. Some worldviews are incompatible.

Correct. Projecting Canadian values through peacekeeping was the policy. As I stated before, the results were decidely mixed. On one hand there is generally positive view of Canada worldwise as a result of multilateralism and peacekeeping.

Where Canada failed in its policy was assuming it had the military capacity to undertake the number of missions it had set forth to accomplish. Successes did occur in the former Yugoslavia, Cyprus, East Timor, Cambodia, Paupa New Guinea and other missions. Where your point has merit is that Canada did fail in deciding how many endeavours it had a capacity for. As such, failures such as Rwanda happened. In addition, the spreading out of the troops often meant that Canada's role was in support or in co-command of other nations which reduced the influence it was able to provide abroad.

The foreign policy shift after 1995 when the last major review occurred saw the switch between many small missions to a few large missions. Point and case, in the 1970's Canada undertook 24 UN peacekeeping missions. Currently Canada is involved in 3 missions: Kosovo, Afghanistan and Golan Heights.

Given the anemic nature of the Canadian Military and given the future instabilities likely abraod, I suspect in next year's foreign policy review, the military will be revamped to reduce its conventional capacity and increase its peacekeeping and special-op capacity.

 

[Isaac Brock]

It is not proof. For the reasons I cited, the study is bogus.

Your reasons to do not dispel the proof despite your insistance of liberal bias, which is not the case.

Kill them.

...and the cat came back the very next day.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Correct. Projecting Canadian values through peacekeeping was the policy. As I stated before, the results were decidely mixed. On one hand there is generally positive view of Canada worldwise as a result of multilateralism and peacekeeping.

Yes. Well illogical liberalism is spreading. Did you see the horrid states of france and germany from the other day?

Where Canada failed in its policy was assuming it had the military capacity to undertake the number of missions it had set forth to accomplish. Successes did occur in the former Yugoslavia, Cyprus, East Timor, Cambodia, Paupa New Guinea and other missions. Where your point has merit is that Canada did fail in deciding how many endeavours it had a capacity for. As such, failures such as Rwanda happened. In addition, the spreading out of the troops often meant that Canada's role was in support or in co-command of other nations which reduced the influence it was able to provide abroad.

The foreign policy shift after 1995 when the last major review occurred saw the switch between many small missions to a few large missions. Point and case, in the 1970's Canada undertook 24 UN peacekeeping missions. Currently Canada is involved in 3 missions: Kosovo, Afghanistan and Golan Heights.

Given the anemic nature of the Canadian Military and given the future instabilities likely abraod, I suspect in next year's foreign policy review, the military will be revamped to reduce its conventional capacity and increase its peacekeeping and special-op capacity.

You need to abadon extreme collectivism and get a set of values. Capitalist values. Get on board with America. Project capitalism around the globe with us. A rising tide raises all ships. Wealth creation is NOT A zero sum game. The fear of expanding humanity is environmentalist wacko propaganda, or else it's old world powers fearing the future and what it will bring.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your reasons to do not dispel the proof despite your insistance of liberal bias, which is not the case.

You're comparing it to a system being gamed by lawyers and which is also not dependant on free choice to the extent it should be. Both systems are screwed up in their own unique ways. The solution to both is privatization and deregulation and putting choice back into the consumers hand and not the insurance companies. And tort reform.

...and the cat came back the very next day.

cat?

 

[Isaac Brock]

Why are people coming to america when things are really serious? And what will happen when our system is as bad as yours? And when there is no profit to be had in healthcare, where will innovation come from?

I didn't say your system was bad, it most likely quite good compared other nations. Universal healthcare most likely won't suit the United States for reasons I stated before, but it does work up here. Canada's system is very good too and that's why people are coming to Canada as well. As long as the demand for doctors is high the price to students will become doctors. Drug and medical supply are still private in Canada, innovation will still occur in Canada's medical private sector which is seperate from our public Medicare sector.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I didn't say your system was bad, it most likely quite good compared other nations. Universal healthcare most likely won't suit the United States for reasons I stated before, but it does work up here. Canada's system is very good too and that's why people are coming to Canada as well. As long as the demand for doctors is high the price to students will become doctors. Drug and medical supply are still private in Canada, innovation will still occur in Canada's medical private sector which is seperate from our public Medicare sector.

Ours IS a little screwed up from lawyers, and people feeling entitled, locking themselves into a huge corporate monstrousity and losing choice.


WHY DO MANY CANADIANS COME HERE FOR HEALTH CARE THEN!

 

[Isaac Brock]

You're comparing it to a system being gamed by lawyers and which is also not dependant on free choice to the extent it should be. Both systems are screwed up in their own unique ways. The solution to both is privatization and deregulation and putting choice back into the consumers hand and not the insurance companies. And tort reform.

Our system is played by lawyers as well much to the chagrin of taxpayers. We have large private and class action against hospitals as well. I cannot comment to a perfectly private system, because it doesn't exist. Why do you believe that it does not exist as such? I can only compare current US and Canadian systems, which I believe was the point of my answer to your question.

cat?

The Cat Came Back, a popular folk-kids song by Harry Miller. The jist of the poem/song is that the owner does all he can to rid himself of a cat, be in spite of his actions, the cat always comes back. My point is that if you only solve terrorism and removing tyrants by killing alone, that it is akin to fixing a leaking faucet by continually mopping up the spill.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Our system is played by lawyers as well much to the chagrin of taxpayers. We have large private and class action against hospitals as well. I cannot comment to a perfectly private system, because it doesn't exist. Why do you believe that it does not exist as such? I can only compare current US and Canadian systems, which I believe was the point of my answer to your question.



The Cat Came Back, a popular folk-kids song by Harry Miller. The jist of the poem/song is that the owner does all he can to rid himself of a cat, be in spite of his actions, the cat always comes back. My point is that if you only solve terrorism and removing tyrants by killing alone, that it is akin to fixing a leaking faucet by continually mopping up the spill.

So why does anyone come here Isaac, when your system is superior?

Over time it will get worse and worse. The government will give you less and less, and you will have to accept. THIS IS WHAT ALWAYS HAPPENS IN A MONOPOLY, AND STATE MONOPOLIES ARE THE WORST. econ 101.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Also Isaac, people have a right to their beliefs, fundamentalist or otherwise. That should always be permissible. IT's when they start ACTING murederous that they need to be dealt with. What you're discussing sounds like suppression of free thought. One way to deal with fundamentalism is to relieve them of their oppressive tyrants who do not allow moderate points of view in the media THEY CONTROL. Freedom solves all problems.