A personal ancetode is always nice. Mine is about a friend of mine that played in the NHL in the US. His father had a blood clot in his leg. The Dr's and specialist in Canada wanted to and were ready to amputate his leg, he said **** that and had his team Dr check him out. He changed his blood pressure medication and was fine.

Crazy, not that often Dr's are willing to work for free.

Lol yes I was just so very mad!!about what a stranger on a message board said. I was just pointing out how childish and stupid it was to use a poll of 1000 people to judge an entire province on the subject of vaccine hesitancy. Alberta is ~15k bookings from reach their end of the month goal and have 100k booked by the end of the month. We should reach our goal, stop making it out to be some emergency to try and bash Alberta. And lol CBC.

Oh man, that is embarrassing for you.


Not as embarrassing as this though.

Well, you do seem agitated that your LOLbad interpretations of things to fit your little agendas get dismissed so easily.

Look at this latest hot take of yours, where you suggest that since he did not have a medical bill (due to it being a socialized service paid through taxes) that that implies the doctors did the work for free in Canada, and why would doctors do that when they could work for money elsewhere. How do you really expect anyone, even strangers on a message board to react to this level of thinking?

All the best.

Reality is we want more folks vaccinated . Here in Alberta yes we are 115,000 out and about 90,000 booked so were close. That gets us to 70 % . I think Alberta can get to 80%
I think governments may have to look at news ways to get those last folks in. Maybe in Toronto Blue Jays tickets or in Alberta a draw for season tickets to Oilers or Flames. Sounds crazy but it worked in the USA

As well our federal government has to set up compensation for those rare cases of someone dying or getting really sick from the vaccine as rare as they can be.
Another Item promised but no result

It appears you haven't read the article. It's about the Biden administration changing immigration laws making it easier for Canadians to move and immigrate. With cost of living and job prospects currently being better on the US we could see young professionals and skilled workers start making the move. With the language and culture the same it's not a big deal to move. Canadians are willing to move for a better life, it's happened in the past with Ontario and still happening with people moving to Alberta.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...?ocid=msedgntp

Good Ole Deputy PM So Fake

Write this right after this. O0 ..,.

For a proof how the US health care system is better ?

How can you be arguing with that « logic » ( or lack of) , shrug .

tickets to the jays may discourage more people than it encourages

I was going to put Tickets to a second round playoff game for the Leafs that way it will never cost the government a thing

Holy ****. Doug Ford just pulled a first in Ontario history and evoked the nonwithstanding clause. To bust free speech rights of unions. Absolutely disgusting.

And we just got the final 1.3 billion dollar bill that Alberta is paying out for keystone xl pipeline. One conservative province assaulting democracy while the other burning money pointlessly. Not a good day to be a conservative.

I am unaware of the first one buy I know many Unions silence their members like teachers Unions that if they go to the press they are fired. I do not agree with it but the Unions do it themselves. As for Kenney he is the lowest polled Premier at 31% approval and that seems high to even me. I am not sure even Shifty defends Kenney?

I am curious you are always pointing out Conservative provinces but fail to comment on policies like Bill 21 and 96 in Quebec that border on racism, discrimination and bigotry. Even Justin pretty much remains silent as he just cant risk those Quebec votes.

As well if were looking at legislating free speech lets look no further than bill C10

As well Kudos to the Manitoba Premier who is first with Vaccine Passports and coming up with new ways to get more folks vaccinated

Canadians often get wrongly defensive about our healthcare system and want to argue (or get defensive) all aspects are better than in the US. That simply is not true.

What is true is that for the vast, vast, vast, majority of citizens the Canadian system is far superior in terms of outcomes both health wise and financially. Canadians who are middleclass and lower are not limited like they are in the US to choosing between a better but more expensive procedure or a lesser but cheaper one. Or forced to take a fraction of required med's to not strain the family budget (ie penicillin for diabetes).

But at the top end (NHL, very wealthy) the US can and does get superior outcomes. That does not mean that Canada's top professionals or institutions are not world class (as they are) but it is about access. In the US the wealthy can buy priority access and jump the 'line'. In Canada that is much more difficult.

A big part of the problem in Canada is socialist mindset creep (egalitarian ideals) and union and 'system' protection.

How does that play out?

Across Canada, we have an illogical push back, if your goal is better HEALTH outcomes, against allowing any private sector solutions in our market even when service is scarce or non existent. Better we 'do without' then let the private sector fill a dire need. I can cite examples of clinics with niche focuses, offering services not available widely, if at all, in Canada, and where Canadians were flying to the US to get it, that tried to open and offer them instead in Canada who met instant gov't opposition and lawsuits to close.

Another recent example was a scarcity of MRI machines across many regions of Canada. Gov'ts struggled to find the budget and that resulted in people lined up, often for 2+ years to get a necessary scan. Countless knees (of aspiring NHL young people) and others were needless destroyed when they could not get a proper diagnoses and they decided to 'play thru the pain' when an MRI would have told this was the type of injury you need to stay off for X years or you will do irreparable damage.

And so Canada had these massive MRI lineups.

As a result entrepreneurial doctor's office with Staff willing to work over time decided that outside normal hours and the gov't paid for system, they would offer 'after hours scans' for those willing to pay for it out of pocket. Many veterinarians offices with MRI offered the same.

GOv't, under pressure, immediately fought these and shut them down.

The absurd argument (socialist argument) is that it is 'wrong' for wealthier people to be able to jump the line. And thus a person could get an MRI for their pet tomorrow while they, themselves, were being told '2 years before you get yours'. An argument that we too often see rationalized in more socialist leaning circles as fair that is so very wrong and destructive.

If there is a lineup of 10,000 people over two years for MRI, and 3,000 of them would opt out and pay out of pocket EVERYONE in that line benefits. Everyone moves up closer to service. And the taxpayers benefit as those 3,000 paid taxes for this service and they are refusing to use it. Instead paying out of pocket. That 'saved' money can then be used to improve care for the 7,000 people still in line and expedite outcomes even more. A double win.

But the egalitarian argument is that it is 'wrong' that person 9,999 in line can pay and get a service because they have money before person 150 in line can get the same service. It is a petty 'jealousy' based argument appealing to our worst natures.

that perception of 'money buying access as an inequality' is often anathema to those who tie a more socialist view to Canada's healthcare.


So silly because even person 150 benefits from people leaving the line even if it sucks that person 9,999 got service before them solely because they have more money.

So because Canada cannot create an 'equal access' outcome if they allow areas with private service they create that 'equal access' outcome in the only way they can which is by ensuring everyone suffers equally under this problem even it it means worse outcomes for EVERYONE. the comfort being 'at least it is worse for all equally', or better yet 'at least we did not let wealth buy better outcomes'.

And it gets worse as wealthy Canadians can and did still do jump the line and get that access by simply going to the US and paying for it there. In border States entire cottage industries of Diagnostic offices popped up cater to Canadians willing to drive or fly across the border. Clinic upon clinic lining the border welcoming Canadian money. All that income went in to the American system instead of benefitting the Canadian one (which again could have been re-invested to benefit the poorer) all in a misguided 'egalitarian' ideal.

(When i refer to 'socialist' ideals above i do not do so intending derision as I think it those ideals that created the much better overall system. But the worst of those ideals (petty jealousy based) that do push for egalitarian outcomes over pragmatic ones are a real danger that played out in real time in Canada and did a LOT of harm)

Its a very good take on it but you can get a MRI privately I thought if you pay for it. Though that was 5 years ago for me.

As well another issue which we have in Alberta is the Unions. Sadly Alberta is no longer a have province yet we have the highest paid doctors and nurses. So the option is to cut nurses and reduce services. When in reality all public sector wages should be reduced in line with the next province at a minimum.

Our health care systems as well are so back logged with Covid and financially burdened by opioid addiction and obesity.

Though I do think you should let the wealthy seek services outside the country for a tax credit equal to what the procedure cost here.

Doug Ford's actions are a startling assault on democracy. Canada has a very rarely used nuclear option in the notwithstanding clause that allows a government to overturn a decision of the courts. As you can imagine, actually doing this would be pretty shocking. Well in this case the conservatives passed a law trying to further muzzle the free speech of unions. The Ontario superior court ruled this violated their charter rights. And ford is for the first time in ontario history using the notwithstanding clause to overturn the courts. It is truly a shocking moment.

I've spoken to this before. I oppose both bills and indeed probably most of the culture wars coming out of Quebec. However, other than a brief sprint when my brother was at McGill and I would take the train up from Toronto semi-regularly, I've never had much of a connection to Quebec. I don't read quebec media, I don't know anyone from quebec, and this is relevant because there are just significant cultural differences that mean the kind of battles that occur in quebec have different cultural contexts than most of the rest of Canada. So I don't feel particularly informed or that I have anything special to say about Quebec. In contrast, the three Canadian provinces that I do have deep connections to between living/working/family/friends/travel etc are BC, Alberta and Ontario, and so for instance I have the CBC app set to show articles from those three provinces and pay attention to the day-to-day politics of them in ways that I don't even for say Saskatchewan which is fairly similar to alberta but I know less about. Finally, many western anglophones, I think you are probably in that group, "know" things about Quebec in the sense that they just use it as a random punching bag to attack, and I don't care to join in on this.

This is fairly silly. I think health care in todays society is a fundamental human right. Almost every developed country but for the US has a universal health care system, and most of those countries aren't socialist, and most advocates of universal health care like myself support a largely capitalist society, so it is pretty silly to refer to this as a "socialist argument".

The basic principle is that when I had my cancer, you couldn't have the same cancer and just buy your way to better care. We all deserve that life saving care. Whether you are rich or poor is fine for affecting whether you drive a ferrari or a ford, but we get the same medical system to support us. I'm more of a utilitarian than a deontologist, but if forced to adopt your phrasing then sure I think it is "wrong" to have a two tier system where the rich get better care than the poor as in the US.

Now, there are some technocratic argument that say ok, ok, when it comes to cancer absolutely everyone should get the same care but there are a couple particularly weak links in the Canadian system, specifically wait times for non-urgent joint care (hips and knees basically) which is the thing everyone talks about when criticizing the system. It is indeed a problem and needs a technocratic solution. One option here is maybe a two tier system for this specific place could relieve some of the pressure and inject some extra money and be better off for everyone in this specific place while still being largely universal health care. That is the type of argument I could support, but I don't think it quite works. Firstly, by definition, the very rich are a small portion of society so removing them from the waitlists doesn't do a tonne to help the majority. Secondly, even if it did and this was new money that got injected to buy new MRI, there is an alternate mechanism: just tax the rich that same amount more, and buy the MRIs, and now everyone gets them, not just the rich. Ok that is obviously just a back of the napkin argument, and proposals for a hyper focused two tier system in specific areas like MRIs needs quite a bit of study to demonstrate efficacy, but the general sense I have from past reading quite a long time ago is that the literature, despite some attempts, was not persuasive at all that this option can really make a big benefit.

I use "socialist" as a place keeper for this 'left' side, 'far left' side of the spectrum argument.

And this is where the argument gets convoluted and taken in 'far left' waters.

I agree that no one should be able to 'buy themselves to better care' for cancer or other. That is not the point.

But how do (others) define 'BETTER CARE".

Sadly and wrongly in Canada simply jumping the line and get faster care has been defined as 'better care' and thus wrong and then justified to try and keep the person in the line to the detriment of all.

If you define the person who can pay the veterinarian to get an MRI tomorrow because they have disposable income, as the type of 'better care' to block you hurt EVERYONE.

You get a more egalitarian outcome (which is conflated wrongly with 'better') but a worse outcome.

the line is longer for those who could not pay to leave so they wait longer and risk more injury. The line is longer for those who could pay to leave so they use up resources and the system is denied money that could be re-tasked to the poorer.

But still the 'ideal' of egalitarian outcomes prevails in Canada to the detriment of all.

That's pretty silly. Socialist means something pretty specific. Using it as a placeholder for the political left doesn't make much sense. It leads to these silly tensions where you are calling someone who supports capitalism in a capitalist country a socialist because the view is on the left end of the current political spectrum of the day. It would be a bit like if I called your view authortarianism just as a placeholder for being further to the right than me. There is just no explanatory value in using terms like socialist in this way, only more potential confusion.



You don't think faster care is better? I certainly do. I think when care is slowed down, it leaves to higher morbidity and tragically sometimes higher mortality. It isn't the only dimension of health care, but speed is definitely one dimension. In Canada we have one major spot where the healthcare system struggles: non-urgent knee and hip replacements. It seems like you agree with me that in basically all other places in the system there should NOT be a two tier system and that the rich should NOT be able to buy better cancer treatments and the like, but our disagreement is about wait tmes for hips and knees, right? So two options are
1) Create a two tiered system. The rich pay more (to private clinics) to get faster times just for them.
2) Improve the one tiered system. The rich pay more (in taxes) to get faster times for everyone.

Why should I support 1)?

The 'egalitarian' concept certain flows from or is a key part of socialist dogma.

I would argue 'foundational'.

You can say it exists outside that spectrum but when i say 'socialist side of the equation' i am saying if you created a scale from Libertarian on the right to Socialist on the left, with Liberal and Conservative in between, it would be contained in the proximity of the Social end of that spectrum.

If you believe 'egalitarianism' is not a concept or foundational to socialism please educate me. I am, in fact open.

If you are going to agree over 'egalitarian and nitpick the usage anyway, in a way that is far to literal we can just agree to disagree and move on past this point.

So I want to focus on this argument as I think it is the biggest flaw and the biggest impediment to better outcomes and success in the Canadian system.

It is used, imo, ignorantly by some who do not understand it and purposely as a weapon for those seeking to 'protect the status quo' even though they know it creates worse outcomes.

So to your question of 'do I think faster care is better". YES. Of course that is an absolute truth. It is also an irrelevant strawman to this discussion.

Again the situation is there is a lineup of 1000 people for MRI's with the last person being 2 years out.

You change the law such that 300 of them with disposable income can go to a Vet clinic and get it done.

Those 300 get faster care and thus 'a better outcome'.

But the 700 in line also get faster care and a 'better outcome'.

Additionally the system gets more money (the tax payer system is not paying for a service those 300 already paid for with their taxes and can redeploy it to speed up outcomes for the 700 even more).

It is win/win/win all the way around.

But the egalitarian argument says "SHAME, the guy who number 999 in line and PAID to leave ended up getting faster service than the guy who was 100 in line and could not pay to leave. That is wrong as they are buying 'better' outcomes than the 'others' who cannot afford to pay. That results in ' keep them all in line equally and make them all suffer equally'.

It is literally a loss/loss/loss situating with greater wait times for the poor, and wealthy and less money in the system. But it achieves an egalitarian goal that is seemed, by some as a more important ideal to protect. Many because they just can't stand the idea of wealthy getting any benefit, even if they too are benefited but to a lesser extent.

The last time i looked, and i will look again later, EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY that has a higher rated healthcare system than Canada's had a two tier system with a mix of private and public.

Canada is one of the only one's that chooses to both deliver all the services through gov't control and fund all the equipment needs, etc and it has created a massive bureaucracy that fights any change because it absorbs mass amount of GDP dollars.

It is an absolute mistake by Canada. We should have a two tiered system like most others while providing the 'public option' thru tax dollars and allowing the private sector to compete along side to fill gaps.

it is a complete lobbying fueled myth they cannot coexist and in fact they are strengthened by one another.

I never knew that Quebec invoked it in 2019 on bill 21 . I assume that is if the courts rule it illegal? I thought they would wait to do that .There new bill mandates how quickly immigrants must learn French as well?

As for Quebec I know what is offered in the news both CBC and CTV and Global. In high School in Grade 12 we did a trip to Ontario & Quebec to learn more about the culture and History. Quebec City I thought was the prettiest city I have seen in Canada and just night and day Montreal & Quebec City.
I am not partial to Quebec as it blocks Alberta's pipelines .

Doesn't really seem all that kudo-worthy, but maybe I'm missing something.

Meanwhile - WTF is going on in that province for the last few months? They couldn't bring cases down for the longest time, and now they've plateaued after a big drop - but at 3-5x the per capita rate of most other provinces.

They put it in the bill for limiting the abuse of legal disputes and making it effective right away , while the approving for that law was around 70-80% in the province.

Still some legal disputes are still in progress toward the supreme court.
They pass that law as a preemptive measure.

People outside of Quebec need to realize that religion in Quebec is a thing on a private level, being discard from public school in the 60s and other public functions while you are working..
So if you work for public services in a position of "power" (police,judge,etc.), representing the state ( and not the individual values), you have to show neutrality in the way you speak and represent the state physically as well (neutrality) while you can be all religious you want to be when your are the "costumer" of those public services.

i mean it would be kinda of strange that in Quebec they expelled their own religion while accepting foreign ones.
Some think religion is above the law while in Quebec we say the state is over religion, shrug.
It just a normal journey that started around the 1950 which keep evolving towards a full separation of state and church.

Probably one of the fundamentals difference between Quebec and the ROC.

So let me ask you this

Can a person in an authority position still wear a cross on a chain around their neck ? Tattoo of a cross that is visible?


I was always thinking that a vaccine passport would be difficult to do as its a provincial matter and privacy laws and I thought some of the conservative provinces might say no. As well I am fine in finding new ways to get folks to get the vaccine.