Government Falls! The 2006 election thread

[xFusilier]

The problem with personal medical savings accounts, is what happens when you deplete the funds in your account?  If the answer is you pay to make up the difference, people aren't going to go for it.

 

[Infanteer]

The problem with personal medical savings accounts, is what happens when you deplete the funds in your account?   If the answer is you pay to make up the difference, people aren't going to go for it.

Well, maybe it means you should quit going to the doctor every time you get the flu or feel like a chat (not you, X).  MSA's don't cover major stuff, so if one chooses to nickel and dime their account to death, then that is their problem and not mine.

RAND did a long term study using two groups - one group who had no health costs and one that had to pay a bit everytime they needed to use the system (I forget the exact parameters).  The two groups experienced no radical difference in overall health, but the one group that had to pay used the health care system far less (and/or found alternative means).

 

[xFusilier]

The problem is, that we have an aging population, which will require more and more health care, for whom preventative medicine is not an option.  I agree with the value of preventative medicine, however, there are any number of serious illnesses that bear no relation to healthy living, or critical injuries.  Depending on the funds, in the account one bout of serious illness or critical injury would wipe the funds out. 

 

[Infanteer]

One bout of serious illness or critical injury shouldn't affect an account - all injuries over a certain amount (Grazer used $2000 as a baseline) are covered by Universal Health Insurance provided by the government; get cancer, get hit buy a bus, or what not, and a deductible taken from the MSA should cover it.  For long-term illnesses, special MSA's would be provided (ones that get the extra funds they need but don't offer the same incentives such as withdrawl and banking of MSA dollars).

 

[xFusilier]

Fair enough, the only problem is that as a policy point in an election it doesn't really sing, plus it has a great potential for other parties to put out disinformation, as evidenced by this exchange.  The only other problem is that what your trying to promote is preventative health through paying people to live healthier, what you will get is people simply not going to the doctor when they are ill.

 

[Infanteer]

what you will get is people simply not going to the doctor when they are ill.

That is exactly what the RAND report looked at, and determined that it was an unfounded fear.   When people are hungry, they will eat; this doesn't mean that the government should be forced to provide all the food they could want at no cost.   I believe that Canadians are wise enough to manage their health care - if you're sick, you'll go to the doctor.   Positive incentives encourage you to use the doctor properly.

 

[Infanteer]

...and just so we are aware of how much of a "national" party the NDP is:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/04/ndp-vote051204.html

I've always chuckled at how the NDP can get away with being a political platform for a specific interest group whereas the Liberals and the Conservatives get flamed for appearing to do so.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Not sure that a labour union is actually considered a special interest group within the broader political culture- especially the NDP which is essentially a Labour party in the truest sense of the word. The CAW union is more like an organic element to the NDP, but one must take care to separate union interests from union political interests and unions (generally) from union members (generally). Most male, blue collar union members tend vote Conservative, when they bother to vote at all.

For example, I am 99% positive the CAW workforce at GDSL in London or the Ford plant in Talbotville are not in favour of gay marriage, the Kyoto protocol, higher taxes for social programs, open immigration and a number of other issues important to the NDP and the CAW.

What they do want is the right to keep most of their paycheck, the ability to be treated in the hospital when they are sick, see that their kids get a decent and realistic education that focuses on the necessary skills to do well in life, they want to see criminals go to jail under sentences that fit the crime, they want to work a decent work week for a decent living without fearing they will lose their job to a scab or low cost worker in another country - any country. In these respects, and many others, unions have failed their workers because unions back the wrong political horse.

 

[Infanteer]

I remember reading an interesting piece about the schism in the NDP between the Union element and the element that included everyone to the left of Che Guevara.  Pretty interesting; I think that was one reason that the last leader was chucked (don't quote me on it, I am not a careful follower of the NDP party politics)....

 

[xFusilier]

This has alway been the problem with union activism, and especially ties between Unions and the NDP.  The big unions in Canada, CUPE, PSAC, CAW have all been so successful that they've managed to move their members out of the Lower and into the Middle Class, with some "Blue Collar" workers making better salaries than "White Collar" workers.  As such many of the issues put forward in labour activism simply do not ressonate with their members, as a result most of the real "blue collar" communities especially in Southern Ontario return MP's that are other further to the right than the NDP.  Personally, the only thing worse than a politician is a union politician, especially seeing as most of them are anything but democratic (the delegate system is oligarchy at its best).  However, the majority of Union members are concerned with the issues Whiskey601 pointed out, but if the Liberals are successful at portraying the Conservatives as the party of big business, the blue-collar vote goes out the window.  People usually vote with their wallets before their conscience comes into play.

 

[xFusilier]

The reason Audrey McLaughlin was chucked had more to do with the NDP going from their best showing in Parliament (43 seats) to a paltry 9  seats in the 1993 General Election.  That and being from Whitehorse she really didn't have many friends within the unionist base.  Many people felt that Dave Barret should have been chosen as the leader, but alas he did not speak french.  In addition she went from being a rookie MP to being the leader of the Party which probably didn't help things either.  One of the problems in the NDP is the opposition of OMOV (one member one vote) during leadership races as Unions are guaranteed a certain percentage of ballots in the elections for Party officers.  Kinda funny that the New Democratic Party isn't really all that democratic.  FWIW they have the same problem in the prairies where people who religiously vote NDP in provincial elections turn around and vote Conservative in federal elections.  The grassroots upon which the CCF was founded (Farmers, Labourers, etc) have abandoned the Federal party due to its slide into radical left politics.

 

[UberCree]

Well the Conservatives just won back some of my support with the child care announcement they made today.  This policy makes much more sense than the Liberal child care policy... er promise I should say.
I think they've found the price of my support (well almost), I will still vote green.  It is $1,200.00 x 2.

 

[dutchie]

Obviously this is Harper's last attempt at forming a Government. If he and his party fail to win, I predict a leadership review with MacKay as the clear winner. I also believe that MacKay is WAY more electable than Harper, and should have been the leader from the start anyhow.

So I won't be jumping from my office window if the Lie-berals get another crack at the cookie jar. I am fairly confidant that if that were to happen, MacKay would form the next government, maybe even a majority, and probably by Jan 08.

The GST cut is genius. Really sexy and easy to understand. Plus, everyone buys stuff, even the poor. In fact, as the poorest Canadians don't even pay income tax, but they do pay GST, the Conservative tax relief proposal benefits our poorest more than the Liberals does. I'm not saying it is, or is not, the most fiscally prudent way to provide tax relief, but that's not the point - it will win votes.

My 0.02

 

[kcdist]

The child-care payment announcement reeks of common sense. I believe this one issue will cut across party lines like no other.

I'm sure that it is not only Conservative families that make the difficult financial decision to have one parent stay at home. Many families of all political stripes have, I believe, formed the conclusion that there is no one better suited to look after your single most valuable, precious and irreplaceable asset(your children of course), than the parents.

It has stuck in my craw for years that my tax dollars are used to subsidize some families, far wealthier than mine, who choose to warehouse their children in government subsidized facilities.

I think this one policy will click with many voters who have not traditionally voted Conservative. Well done.

 

[Infanteer]

In today's news:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/05/stronach051205.html

I see a big "waa-waa" from an MP who pulled a move of pure political oppurtunism.  I think she may lose her seat for this (I hope she does).

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/05/lapierre051205.html

Shame on the Liberal Party's Lapierre for trying to use the Nazi's to demonize his opponents.  There should be a Godwin's Law for politics.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/05/elxn-conservatives-child-care.html

"Choice-in-Child-Care" allowance.  Another simple and easy to understand plan that adds clarity to the platform.  Add another point to the Conservatives.  I wonder how many points they'll pick up from the Liberals who are too busy trading barbs with the Bloq to notice?

 

[RangerRay]

ONE MORE REASON NOT TO VOTE LIBERAL!  :rage: :threat: :akimbo:  :cam:  :rage:

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=28eeda45-a3d3-4892-be0e-cfbb397c5af8&k=59372

Liberals expected to announce handgun ban

Canadian Press
Published: Wednesday, December 07, 2005

OTTAWA (CP) - The Canadian Press has learned that Prime Minister Paul Martin will venture into a violence-plagued area of Toronto on Thursday to announce a sweeping ban on handguns.

Martin is scheduled to visit Toronto's troubled Jane-Finch area to make a "safer communities announcement.''

Liberal sources have confirmed the announcement includes a ban on handguns.

Handguns are already severely restricted in Canada and a handgun registry has been in force for more than 60 years.

But a rash of recent gun deaths in Toronto has prompted Martin to promise to crack down even more.

Gunfire was responsible for 50 of the 74 murders so far this year in the city.

The rash of shootings prompted city police to launch a gun amnesty program in November, during which they collected 261 guns and more than 1,500 rounds of ammunition.

A ban on handguns is likely to be popular in Toronto and other large urban centres, like Montreal and Vancouver, where residents have been disturbed by recent gun violence.

On Tuesday, Montreal residents marked the 16th anniversary of the massacre at Ecole Polytechnique, where 14 young women were gunned down.

© Canadian Press 2005

*************************************************************************************************************

I guess that they are trying to emulate the success the Brits had when they banned handguns.  Oh, wait a minute...handgun crime INCREASED there when the banned handguns!

 

[Infanteer]

HOLY SHIT!!!    

Get out and buy 'em now!

Unbelievable.   And how does Mr Martin suppose a handgun ban will prevent urban youth gang-bangers from getting their hands on illegal weapons coming from the States???

Continued infringment upon the property rights of Canadians to appease the anti-gun lobby.   Forget O'Connor, this made me lose any idea of voting Liberal....

 

[AoD71]

I guess that they are trying to emulate the success the Brits had when they banned handguns.  Oh, wait a minute...handgun crime INCREASED there when the banned handguns!

It probably increased because the people who were charged for using the gun in a crime were also charged with HAVING the gun in the first place. So basically you're making it slightly harder for people to get them, but all of a sudden people are being charged with twice as many accusations.  :-\

 

[McG]

Here is a quick selection of some of the Parties:

Liberal Party of Canada
Conservative Party of Canada
New Democratic Party
Green Party
Canadian Action Party
Freedom Party of Canada
Libertarian Party of Canada
Grey Party of Canada
Bloc Québécois
Progressive Canadian Party
Communist Party of Canada

If you are one of those people that does not want to vote for any of the big parties, then be sure to give the little ones a look.

 

[redleafjumper]

The liberals are now saying that they will announce a ban on private ownership of handguns.  Yet another reason to make a donation and work on the Conservative campaign.  :akimbo: