I said as well I condemn both .
But I’m not putting trudeau at the same level of trump for destroying its own country ....

He said that about equality of outcomes ....
I told you already to make the distinction ...

Equality of opportunity is not the same of equality of outcome .

If Friedman would not be in favor of equality of opportunity, he wouldn’t agree to UBI or negative tax rates .....

So I’m asking you and with your respond seem you are against equality of opportunity right ?

Don't you think the question is a little vague? What exactly does being in favour or opposed to equality of opportunity mean? If you mean everyone should have the exact some opportunities then that is impossible. Some children will be born to rich families and others will not. Obviously the wealthier child is going to have more opportunities. A child born in the Philippines will also be much worse off than a child born to a welfare mother in Canada. The world is not an equal place.

I certainly do not support UBI or a negative income tax (although I would gladly cash the check).

Obviously we aren’t comparing citizens from different countries.

Well at least your coherent .

Personally I don’t think a child born in poverty should be condemn to stay poor all his life Just because he was born in a poor situation .
That’s what equality of opportunity is , giving people the chance to escape their unfortunate situation .
And you can’t attain that without a minimum of taxes since school cost money .

I should clarify I get why folks voted for both the first time. But a second time...... and a third

I think they have equally destroyed their countries


I think a child born in poverty has a better chance in Canada

What I would like to see is a market for primary and secondary education instead of the modern socialist public school system. That way different schools could teach different curriculums, some more academically advanced and challenging, some perhaps more geared towards those who are more mechanically inclined or want to work in the trades. Different teaching methods could be tried out, and parents could vote with their dollars where to send their students, ensuring accountability in both quality of education and value for education dollars.

I do agree that the children of poor parents should be able to attend school, even if the parents can't afford it. Perhaps we could have a system of bursaries or scholarships for indigent children, or a sliding scale of fees based upon parents income for expensive schools with a particular pedigree that have no trouble attracting students.

Well seem you are for equality of opportunity than ?
School was only an example so it woul be impossible to have a stable society without taxes .

About primary school and secondary school you realize private school already exist right ?

Regardless, seeing how poor the American higher education system work , I’m glad we have our public school at primary & secondary level and low cost of university here to have a good education ....

And our healthcare system as well . Basically any heath issue shouldn’t be abandon to the private sector .
Private sector first mission is to make money , than its to “try” to give a decent service as cheap as possible ......
Remember Walkerton in Ontario that water scandal that killed 6 and sickened 2000 citizen ...

Private sector are great in some field but clearly not all field because private sector mission isn’t for the greater good of the people but for their own good and balance sheet !

Both are a necessity , government and private sector , because simply they have different mission to accomplish.

Socialized medical insurance was a mistake, and one that should be undone. Instead of having the state arbitrary dictate the prices of medical treatment, we should have a free market in health care. Allow providers to charge whatever they want. The way that profits are obtained in the market place is by entrepreneurs forecasting and satisfying consumer demand. It's really quite elegant how the price system coordinates the activities of people not just around the country, but around the world. In the market economy, when you have a shortage of something, the price goes up. This ensures that the people who need the product the most (the ones who will pay the highest price) will be able to purchase it, and it also signals to entrepreneurs that resources need to be reallocated to the production of this good or service.

So in the market economy, if you had an issue like a wait time of two years to see a specialist, then the price would go up, and it would keep going up until you could see a specialist tomorrow, if you pay enough. And then, if the price was high enough, you could attract foreign specialists to cash in on the high prices. This in turn would bring prices back down.

You say it is immoral to profit in health care. Isn't it immoral to force people to wait years to see a doctor, for a treatment that might save their life? Take the case of Walid Khalfallah. Walid waited for three years for treatment, which he eventually got, in Spokane Washington. Unfortunately, by the time he was treated, it was too late. He had already became a parapalegic. He is just one of many victims of the Canadian health care system. The envy of the world indeed! But that is what happens when you set price controls on a market. You cause shortages or unsold surpluses. Canada is one of the few countries in the world that basically bans the private practice of medicine (it is not outright banned, but simply regulated into impotency, although it varies from province to province). You know what other countries do that? Cuba and North Korea.


No, socialized medicine is not the way. We need markets. Markets coordinate the allocation of scarce resources towards their most efficacious ends. Markets ensure that people don't wait years for surgery they need in weeks or months. By all means, let's have free clinics for the poor, but we desperately need to end the nonsense of socialized medical insurance.

The state and the market are not simply too competing means of organizing society. The market economy is peaceful social cooperation, where individuals work together, making mutually beneficial trades that improve their lives. The state is predation. The state is, and has always been, a means of subjugation, exploitation, and domination, a tool so that some can live at the expense of others.

See I disagree 100% socialized medicine can work the problem you have is accountability and cost.

It should be more like car insurance and drivers pay more. The system does not work at all on prevention. Today a doctor would never say to a parent your kids fat you need to do something about that. If you smoke, drink are obese you should pay more for insurance. Also let the rich leave the country for procedures that are backed up and give them a tax credit.
Also provinces should not run healthcare it should be done federally. Also organ donation should be an opt out not a opt in. If you opt out fine but than you can not receive an organ as well.

Also you should pay something for health Insurance. If your income falls below its free and if its really high you pay more. As well surcharges for only if your income meets the threshold

The problem with our system we spend so much trying to keep old folks alive and saving pre mature babies. I get the babies.

There is so much wrong and false claim I just don’t know where to begin .....

No one here in Canada dies because of a waiting list .
Private sector totally destroy the US health care system, it’s double the price not even covering the entire population ( by far).
here in Canada, we don’t give priority to money , everyone has a fair chance , that is why there is a waiting list . If you think people with more money has more right to live than others it’s your freedom to believe so but me I don’t agree...

Saying Canada is comparable to Cuba and North Korea is totally non sense , I just don’t see why I should continue with someone Claiming ridiculous thing like that ...
I mean check any freakn list in the world about best health care in the world ,
you will See Canada always end up way up in front of the US and often Canada is one of the best place for cost/effective health care in the world ...
seriously The amount of false claim in almost everything you claim are wrong whether it’s in economy , healthcare , education or w.e.
You just don’t care about date or facts , all you do is go on a premise with words that have absolutely no data to support your ideology , shrug ....

And btw if you knew just some basic game theory you would realize your believe in total free market , unregulated and No taxe wouldn’t work because to make it a fair game , like game theory explain at Basic level , you need a minimum of requirements which can never happens ...

Everyone would need to have the same Amount information
Same priority /goals to maximise profits
no cheaters /frauds /etc .

And that just can’t happened on large scales .

You know theories are great , but in the Real world , it isn’t working like in a class room .

And moreover, the economy isn’t a static game , it’s a moving evolving game with different rules with different country and different goals all interacting on the same playing board .
hence any claim that say there is only way good way/strategy and result to “win” or perform great is just not right .

Unfortunately those lists are made by bureaucrats with an agenda, they are not an objective measurement of how a health care system performs. If you look at survival rates for cancer, AIDS, heart disease, the chances of survival are higher in America than in other countries with "better" health care systems. Or if you look at infant mortality. Leftists love to attack high infant mortality in the USA, but the reality is that advanced medical technology allows more premature babies to be brought to term in the States, and yes tragically some of them die. But other countries do not count these high-risk infants when calculating infant mortality statistics. One out of every three Canadian physician refers a patient to the United States for treatment every year. Virtually all of the innovation and cutting edge research on health care comes from the states. Same with all the life saving drugs, developed by the American pharmaceutical industry. Do you know how hard it is to get an MRI in Canada? The Canadian system is basically the worst of all developed nations. It's a joke. There are massive waiting lists, almost a million Canadians languish waiting for medical care that some may never receive. Nobody dies while they are waiting? Who are you kidding?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12451076/

The above study showed how more than 50 people have died waiting for cardiac catheterization in Ontario. The government rations health care, criminalizes a private option, and people die waiting for treatment all the time. We have fewer physicians per person than the OECD average. Canadian health care is abjectly horrible.

Nice reference , almost 20 years ago for 1 province on 1 special case of medical service .
You had to search very deeply to fine a problem right ?

FWIW in 2020 :

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-cou...th-care-system

https://insiderpaper.com/top-10-coun...stems-in-2020/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worl...ystems_in_2000

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...rspective-2019

This is just a resume with last source focusing on your great free market concept with better health care for all .....in 2020

“The U.S. spends more on health care as a share of the economy — nearly twice as much as the average OECD country — yet has the lowest life expectancy and highest suicide rates among the 11 nations.
The U.S. has the highest chronic disease burden and an obesity rate that is two times higher than the OECD average.
Americans had fewer physician visits than peers in most countries, which may be related to a low supply of physicians in the U.S.”


Meanwhile The US just get crushed everywhere compare to develop countries....

But yeah , taking your example, it so specific , anyone could find a temporary problem at one point in any time in any country ..
You got anything more “general” or more sources and more recent to support your claim That Canada has one of the worst health care system of the world or even under average ?
Even average I would be surprise .

You realize Canada scored 30th on that ranking right? Wahoo, we are slightly ahead of Armenia!

So I always here how conservative politicians are corrupt

BC 's premier John Horgan callas a snap election even though he had negotiated and signed a deal not to call an election

https://vancouversun.com/news/politi...set-for-oct-24


Lets be clear if your Conservative, liberal or NDP you will always do what serves to keep you in power

You can nitpick all you want on any chart.
Here Canada is 30 on almost 191 country which place it around top 15% in the world and again the US is behind ,rejecting any of your arguments that free market is the best and Canada one of the worst ...

if because Canada might do worst than Armenia and you feel it’s a win for your economic concept ...shrug... I can’t do nothing there for you .

Ps: btw if the its link I send you , Armenia is after Canada overall ?
Armenia is at 104...
Btw you were laughing about Cuba and this link shows that the US is 2 places better than Cuba . What a great proof USA are great right ?

Even the august Supreme Court of Canada admits that people die waiting for health care in Canada, saying " As we noted above, there is unchallenged evidence that in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care."

How many people die waiting for treatment? one study found that the deaths of approximately 40,000 women were associated with increases in wait times during the 1993 to 2009 time period.


30 day in hospital mortality rates are 20% higher in Canada than in the US for heart attacks, and nearly 3x higher when it comes to strokes. Emergency rooms are packed, and many people wait hours for treatment, or simply give up and go home. Nearly 5% of Canadian ER visitors leave without being treated.

Well like trump says , maybe it’s because Canada have more test lol ...

Canada as to take care of everyone medically while the US for example let go around 10% of its citizens with no health care ...
Probably adding those 10% with no health care , so the rate of heath issues should probably higher but are not into the system because basically .... they don’t exist they don’t have health care ...so kinda normal Canada has higher ratio .
AND knowing the US pays double the ratio of cost of health care , imagine if you would double the cost as well in Canada ... pretty sure Canada would do much better after .
Again you don’t focus on generalities but when you take evrything into account , not just the results but he cost of having at that results , the US are not even close to be good ...

So maybe the system is not perfect but still , it’s better that than blatantly not treating at all 10% of its population like the US due to free market isn’t ?

Than again with all you trying to show Canada is doing a bad job , still no arguments I see the US does better ...

It’s funny strategy to try bring down opponent to show the US as A better strategy with free market health care .

If it’s so much better and more cost efficient , you should have to do that right ?

Ps: Fraser institut for reference , really ?

One word basically sums up how bad the US Health care system is

Medical Bankruptcy oh two words

You need to have markets to properly allocate scarce resources. Absent the price signals generated by the forces of supply and demand, there is simply no rational means of allocating scarce resources. Furthermore, the government should stop interfering with the free movement of foreign doctors coming to Canada (immigration levels in general need to go way up, to easily 1 million a year), and needs to eliminate the system of compulsory licensure that would prevent these doctors from working immediately. Eliminate socialized medical insurance, eliminate the price controls and other onerous regulations imposed on the health care market by the bureaucracy, and have an actual health care market not the market socialism which we have today. You'll see better results for patients, significantly more doctors per person as we bring all these Indian and other foreign doctors to Canada, and the revenue saved by eliminating health insurance can be used to eliminate the income tax. Everyone wins.

PPG , why Canadians would want to abandon their health care system with a very low cost for a good portion of the electorate ( progressive income tax does that ) to switch to one that will have a much larger cost ,
wouldn’t be sure to have all the care needed since it depends on what kind insurance you have ,
and on top of that , not benefiting any taxes reduction or very few ( since to pay high taxes you need high income so the poor and low middle class pay very little so they won’t benefit anything from private healthcare ) ?

Who crazy enough would want that ?
besides those of course that have a lot of money and so pay lot of taxes , it is far from the majority .

Free market is worthwhile for the fittest , not for the greater good of all Canadians ( and the US is a plain example of that ) and in a country rich like Canada, any Canadian deserve adequate care imo .

libertarian never seem to think that community wealth can exist .
Public health care , public education , etc does have VALUE for a lot of citizens , regardless what you may wish or think .....
I just don’t see that a fervent economist like yourself , that knows wealth can be represented under different form ( gold, real estate, currency, etc.) , can’t be represented as well with social public services ?
I think equality of opportunity as big value in a society for a lot of reason and social public services does help to get that advantage of equality of opportunity.

it’s true that value is relative for everyone and can be different .

How can you build a strong country anyway if no one care about each others but the free market ?

You asked earlier why libertarianism has not been adopted by any of the major governments in developed nations. Actually to a degree it has. To the degree that we have legal systems which recognize the right to own property, freedom of religion, speech, and the press, Western nations have implemented many liberal ideals. We take these things for granted, but these were hard won freedoms which were fought for in the 17th and 18th century. But to the degree that libertarianism is unpopular with people in general (and hence politicians), one of the central problems is that the arguments for voluntarism are quite intricate, whereas the case for government action is quite simple. You have a problem, the government should solve it. End of story. But to get the whole picture it is crucial to consider what Bastiat described as that which is seen and that which is unseen. Because every dollar the government spends necessarily comes from somewhere else. So you see the "free" hospitals and "free" schooling, but you don't see the factories that weren't built, the higher salaries people would have enjoyed, the businesses which had to shut down because of excessive taxes and regulations. Government spending impoverished society. Perhaps the first person to recognize this fact was Lao Tsu, speaking almost three thousand years ago. He said “When taxes are too high, people go hungry. When the government is too intrusive, people lose their spirit. Act for the people's benefit. Trust them; leave them alone.”

Why would Canadians want an unregulated health care market, instead of socialized medical insurance? Because it would deliver superior results. History has shown time and time again the supremacy of the free enterprise system over the command economy. And yet despite every experiment in socialism ending in disaster, still people clamor for more government control over the market. The central problem is that absent a price system derived from the activities of buyers and sellers, there is simply no way to adequately coordinate the allocation of scarce resources. That is why you have a million Canadians languishing, waiting for health care. The government keeps costs down by rationing care, the clearest possible example of false economy one could imagine. It's like saying that Maduro is doing great things for Venezuela because he is putting everyone on a diet.

Instead of having a system of socialized medicine, or worse, expanding to nationalized pharmacare, as is the next step on the agenda by the incremental socialists, it is critical that Canada de-socialize. End the system of public health insurance, abolish the Ministry of health, make dramatic cuts in government spending, eliminate the income tax, deregulate the markets and auction off state assets and land to settle the debt. That is how you ensure that Canada prospers in the 21st century.

ok so show me numbers from a country that does great with private healthcare

all i am seeing from the countries that has the closest economic ideology as u speak of is USA and they do the worst in inflation with education and health care , breaking records...

It is so great with the free market, the states had to come to Canada to buy prescription drugs...
I mean if you think that is better than us, so why they come here to buy what they could buy in their own free market country...
i just dont know what to tell you more.....

You speak that is so easy and all but i never see data of any kind and with out much effort i find plenty to tell u health care system free market in the states are the most garbage there is in develop countries...

https://globalnews.ca/news/5707046/t...anadian-drugs/

"‘Solve the problem at home’: U.S. plan to import cheaper drugs from Canada draws criticism"

"“I came up with the idea to import cheaper generic drugs where there had been these price-gouging behaviours in the United States. We have to be open-minded here; we could get something done that really would benefit the American people,” Azar said."

"Grootendorst said the U.S. system itself needs reform, which requires government action and possibly start regulating drug prices.
Story continues below advertisement

“They have to solve the problem at home. It’s not something Canada can do, we just can’t supply their market.”"

AND they cant even cover all ts population....go figure.
Same freakn thing in education.
i mean ..keep preaching brother, shrug.

I disagree that the American health care market is a free market. In fact, the United States government spends more per person on health care (almost 30% more) than Canada and France. The American system is single payer, for the poor and the elderly (medicare and Medicaid). If you want to see a more market based approach, look at Switzerland. There government expenditure on health care is only 2.7% of GDP, compared to 7.4% in the USA.

In the Swiss system, individuals buy their own health care insurance. There is no government insurance, but low income earners receive a subsidy. With a hundred different insurance companies, you have significant competition in terms of what is offered and how much the coverage costs. Most of the costs are born by consumers not the state (hence the low government spending). It's a significantly more market based system than either Canada or the USA, and produces superior results to the system of socialized medicine in Canada. An actual free market would perform even better.

Or look at Singapore. Again, not a perfect system, but significantly more market oriented than any other developed nation. Basically, in Singapore, workers have 10% of their paycheck directed towards health care savings accounts called Medisave. From there, people pay for inpatient expenses, and handle outpatient stuff out of pocket.

In both cases, the market based approach is radically superior to the system of socialized medical insurance we have in Canada. And both nations achieved universal coverage without resorting to socialized medicine.

As Mitlon Friedman said, nobody spends their own money as foolishly as they will spend somebody elses.

A subsidy based system is not a free market system, it is very far from one. It might have room for free enterprise and competition, but that in itself does not make it a free market. Of course, free market might be used as a general catch-all term more than a specific economic phenomena. But if used in that regard, it is important not to flip-flop between those two meanings in arguments.

Subsidy usually indicates a mixed economy.

Switzerland also has an exceedingly expensive healthcare system, so your criticism of the US system should apply there as well.