# Trudeau is a liar! No change in voting system



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Trudeau abandons promise to change voting system
in time for 2019 election

As I expected


> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is abandoning his long-held promise to change the way Canadians vote in federal elections -- an about-face his opposition rivals angrily characterized Wednesday as a cynical betrayal of trust.


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trud...ng-system-in-time-for-2019-election-1.3266573


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Umm, a politician lying about promises isn't really news, it's more "business as usual", nothing to comment about. 

Unless it's trump of course, then it seems to be a shock.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

+1 ^^^
Trudeau is just like the rest of them. Not all of their election promises are carried out. Voting reform and senate reform
is a monumental hurdle and takes a lot of debate and agreement. 
Some of us may remember how long it took for everyone to agree on a choice of our National flag. Good thing the
simplified approach was final selected..otherwise, we may have ended up with a Beaver on the flag.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Good. Revising a political system that works to the one that doesn't is nuts. Although, obviously, he should never have promised to revise it in the first place.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I'm very disappointed. I think STV would have made just about everyone happy, and made election results much more (but not perfectly) proportional.


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

Re-post here if he breaks his promise on weed - NOW THAT WILL BE NEWS - and also the end of a liberal government.
No one really cares about the voting system,


----------



## SMK (Dec 10, 2015)

gibor365 said:


> Trudeau abandons promise to change voting system in time for 2019 election As I expected


As you and million other disbelievers from all parties, so what's the problem then? http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...electoral-reform-its-yours-for-believing-them

It was a promise that was only mentioned 1,813 times since elected or before elected or something like that, lol, thanks to Mulcair for counting. 

"Ah, uh, umm, there is no consensus, there's no clear path forwards, it will be irresponsible for us to do something to harm Canada's stability". Don't you want Little Castro to be focusing on the growth of the middle class and cyber-attacks from foreign interveners instead? 

It was fun to watch - from about minute 6. http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/question-period/episodes/49376481/


----------



## cheech10 (Dec 31, 2010)

What should he have proposed? STV or modified PR?

STV tends to result in majority governments led by centrist parties. Currently, the Liberals tend to be the second choice of most Conservatives and NDP voters, according to polls with rankings. One could foresee the Conservatives and NDP being very upset with this proposal.

Modified PR tends to result in minority governments with the balance of power often held by less mainstream parties. Also the local constituency representation is lessened relative to our current system (this may not be a detriment for everyone). Would this have been a better option? 

I'm actually not sure which of these is the best option. I think I'd prefer STV, but the opposition parties have already accused the Liberals of pursuing STV to guarantee perpetual Liberal governments. I'm not surprised at all that Trudeau abandoned this issue.


----------



## SMK (Dec 10, 2015)

Mortgage u/w said:


> Re-post here if he breaks his promise on weed - NOW THAT WILL BE NEWS - and also the end of a liberal government.


Without the pot smokers and environmental voters, the party would be toast for sure - then the Orange Crush would have a chance again at a new Orange Wave.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

It's simple really.... 

When the Liberals were the 3rd party in Parliament, election reform was critically important to correct this perceived wrong. 

Once they won 54% of the seats with 39.5% of the popular vote, it became apparent that the system worked just fine.

They promised transparent government, and have delivered on that... we can see right through them!


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

There is no surprise that politicians renege on promises that got them elected. I agree that if he doesn't legalize pot he will be out on his keis·ter if his supporters can remember what day the election is.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Dave's oops, Justin's not here man.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

cheech10 said:


> What should he have proposed? STV or modified PR?
> 
> STV tends to result in majority governments led by centrist parties. Currently, the Liberals tend to be the second choice of most Conservatives and NDP voters, according to polls with rankings. One could foresee the Conservatives and NDP being very upset with this proposal.


It is less likely to produce majorities than FPTP, and it does not induce people to vote for centrist parties. Depending on the number of seats in a electoral district, slices of 20%-25% can elect representatives. I don't see why there would not be right and left wing representatives in most electoral districts.

Coalitions would tend to be more centrist because we would be less likely to get artificial majorities with the left third of the vote or the right third of the vote.




> Modified PR tends to result in minority governments with the balance of power often held by less mainstream parties. Also the local constituency representation is lessened relative to our current system (this may not be a detriment for everyone). Would this have been a better option?
> 
> I'm actually not sure which of these is the best option. I think I'd prefer STV, but the opposition parties have already *accused the Liberals of pursuing STV to guarantee perpetual Liberal governments.* I'm not surprised at all that Trudeau abandoned this issue.


Trudeau was not thought to favour STV. He was suggested to favour ranked ballots, which is, I guess, the special case of STV where all the electoral districts have only 1 seat. I agree that this is not a good enough reform and the other parties would be right to oppose it.

STV with 3-5 seat districts would however be much more proportional. You should expect to see NDP and Conservatives elected in most districts. I do tend to like the fact that STV does penalize very small parties, since to get a seat, a party needs to clear 20-25% hurdle in a given geographical area. You would not likely end up with too many communist or *********** MPs.


----------



## hboy54 (Sep 16, 2016)

andrewf said:


> I'm very disappointed. I think STV would have made just about everyone happy, and made election results much more (but not perfectly) proportional.


I understand how hated Steven Harper was/is by many. The thing is, long term I think what we have is the best it gets. The Liberals have ruled federally something like 70% of the time since 1967. If we change the rules to be more "fair", it will likely change things to 80 or 90% going forward, or in other words approximate a monopoly. We all know how monopolies tend to work out ...

No, I think the pain of someone like Steven Harper in the short term keeps the Natural Governing Party folks honest in the long term, well honest for a politician anyhow.

hboy54


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eder said:


> There is no surprise that politicians renege on promises that got them elected. I agree that if he doesn't legalize pot he will be out on his keis·ter if his supporters can remember what day the election is.


This kind of cynicism is not helpful for the health of our democracy. Dismissing them all as liars and crooks forgives this kind of bad behaviour and demotivates people from participating in politics altogether (this furthers the interests of authoritarians who are trying to subvert democracy).


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Dave's oops, Justin's not here man.


lol...classic one


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

hboy54 said:


> I understand how hated Steven Harper was/is by many. The thing is, long term I think what we have is the best it gets. The Liberals have ruled federally something like 70% of the time since 1967. If we change the rules to be more "fair", it will likely change things to 80 or 90% going forward, or in other words approximate a monopoly. We all know how monopolies tend to work out ...
> 
> No, I think the pain of someone like Steven Harper in the short term keeps the Natural Governing Party folks honest in the long term, well honest for a politician anyhow.
> 
> hboy54


I think making the system more proportional reduces the need for a party like the LPC. FPTP requires big tent parties held together by hatred of others more than mutual affinity. It also leads to the worst of what you see from the LPC, the brokerage/transactional politics, because the LPC has to be ideologically amorphous.

So, I think what you would see is the LPC breaking into a few different parts. Maybe more a centre right/social liberal chunk and centre left chunk. And because majorities would become rarer, you would see decreased dominance by a centrist party.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

andrewf said:


> This kind of cynicism is not helpful for the health of our democracy. Dismissing them all as liars and crooks forgives this kind of bad behaviour and demotivates people from participating in politics altogether (this furthers the interests of authoritarians who are trying to subvert democracy).


There is no cynicism although Justin's dad was most likely the worst at breaking election promises...I have a long memory and extreme distaste for authoritarians diddling with our democracy....so fuddle duddle!


----------



## cheech10 (Dec 31, 2010)

Fair enough, andrewf. If there are multiple seats per district, STV would probably work, but I had only heard ranked ballots with one seat per district as the STV option put forth, which is obviously a poor option for the opposition parties.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

cheech10 said:


> Fair enough, andrewf. If there are multiple seats per district, STV would probably work, but I had only heard ranked ballots with one seat per district as the STV option put forth, which is obviously a poor option for the opposition parties.


I don't think it's really fair to call that STV, though (all they have in common is the ranked ballots). The UK referendum a few years ago was on ranked ballots.

BC's referendum was on multi-member district STV.


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

mordko said:


> Good. Revising a political system that works to the one that doesn't is nuts. Although, obviously, he should never have promised to revise it in the first place.


Personally, I don't think a system where a party "wins" with 40% of the vote as one that "works". I would like one where I can vote for the party I actually want rather than having to vote strategically to keep out the one I most don't want. Otherwise we will always have just a two party system - this is how Trump happened.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Joe Black said:


> Personally, I don't think a system where a party "wins" with 40% of the vote as one that "works". I would like one where I can vote for the party I actually want rather than having to vote strategically to keep out the one I most don't want. Otherwise we will always have just a two party system - this is how Trump happened.


I don't want a system when with 50% turnaround, one party beats other with slim margin like 50.1 vs 49.9 in all ridings and we have Parliament like in China  (100% One Party).
I alsowant to vote for party that represents my interests and for 1 of 2 unknown me candidates.... in any case I knpw that my vote goes directly to garbage as at my riding Liberals always win


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Joe Black said:


> Personally, I don't think a system where a party "wins" with 40% of the vote as one that "works". I would like one where I can vote for the party I actually want rather than having to vote strategically to keep out the one I most don't want. Otherwise we will always have just a two party system - this is how Trump happened.


1. Not sure we can blame Canadian electoral system for Trump (although it's majoritarian), but getting the result you don't like does not prove that the system is wrong. It was proportional representation that brought Hitler to power. 

2. Nobody is stopping you from voting for the party you want to. Strategic voting is widespread in all countries with PR but again - it's your choice. 

3. "First past the post" (plurality elections) is the oldest electoral system, which has proven itself since the 12th century. It is also the simplest system. Most democracies have majoritarian electoral system. 

PR invariably results in fringe parties playing the role of kingmaker and wielding decisive power. Not only that, electorate does not get the final say in who gets to lead the country - it's decided after the election by politicians making deals with each other.

In summary, I don't think that Canada's system is all that bad, although recent changes to the senate are bound to unbalance the whole thing. Countries with PR or elements of PR include Italy, Israel, Russia, Belgium, Austria, Honduras, Turkey, Venezuela... Not one of them is working all that well.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

We should be cautious about electoral reform because despite certain problems we probably have the best democracy in the world. I think I would rather see a government that I didn't vote for get elected with less than 50% of the votes than have an "Italian" type parliament consisting of multiple fringe parties. 

Some types of proportional representation could lead to the birth of such things as religious parties. While I tend to be for the status quo if pushed, I think I could agree with a ranked ballet where your first choice was worth one vote and your second choice was worth perhaps a half a vote.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Our system would be a lot more tolerable if the executive had not completed subsumed the legislative branch of government. We're basically at the point where we have a presidency with some meat puppets rubber-stamping the will of the executive in the HoC. The only real check on the executive right now is the Supreme Court.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

I just googled 'politicians lying' and my computer came back with 'buffer overflow'.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

That's true. Moreover Canadian system concentrates a lot of power in the hands of one man. MPs are heavily dependent on their party leader and don't tend to step out of line like they do in US Congress. One way of dealing with this problem is by strengthening the ties between MPs and accountability to their constituents and party members in the riding while limiting party leadership power to select members. This could be handled by individual parties changing their rules without touching the electoral system. Of course, this brings its own problems; fringes tend to get a lot of support in the primaries. As we have just seen south of the border.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> I think I would rather see a government that I didn't vote for get elected with less than 50% of the votes than have an "Italian" type parliament consisting of multiple fringe parties.


 I'd rather have Italian type. There are 13 parties in Parlament, small parties usually form coalition with big parties. To eliminate too many small parties, there is election threshold. In Italy is 3% ,in Israel 3.25% , in Sweden 4%


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

gibor365 said:


> I'd rather have Italian type. There are 13 parties in Parlament, small parties usually form coalition with big parties. To eliminate too many small parties, there is election threshold. In Italy is 3% ,in Israel 3.25% , in Sweden 4%


In all these countries fringe parties hold disproportionate amount of power. In Israel major parties have to buy off ultra orthodox nutters, which is why people get paid for sitting on their asses and reading Talmud while someone else's child has to serve in the army and pay taxes. Political shenanigans ultimately decide who will lead the country, like in 2009 Livni could have been the PM had she made a deal with religious nutters. 

Italian Parliament is full of communists and fascists. And given that you are an immigrant, I have to ask why are you in Canada if you prefer Italy?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> And given that you are an immigrant, I have to ask why are you in Canada if you prefer Italy?


 Where did I say that I prefer Italy?! I said that I prefer Italian election system, or Swedish or Israeli ones... and I support change on Canadian election system.



> In Israel major parties have to buy off ultra orthodox nutters


 I also don't like it, but this is a true democracy ... if many people vote for specific party , they should have representative in Parlament (Knesset).
btw, not only "In Israel major parties have to buy off ultra orthodox nutters", but if they need majority they were "buying" Russian Immigrants Party (Israel be Alia) or ultra right religious (Moledet) or ultra right secular (Tzomet).


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

IMO, democratic reform that does not address the (slap-in-the-face that is the) Canadian Senate is pointless. I am therefore pleased that the government has decided not to pursue electoral reform at this time.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

gibor365 said:


> Where did I say that I prefer Italy?! I said that I prefer Italian election system, or Swedish or Israeli ones... and I support change on Canadian election system.
> 
> I also don't like it, but this is a true democracy ... if many people vote for specific party , they should have representative in Parlament (Knesset).
> btw, not only "In Israel major parties have to buy off ultra orthodox nutters", but if they need majority they were "buying" Russian Immigrants Party (Israel be Alia) or ultra right religious (Moledet) or ultra right secular (Tzomet).


1. And if you don't want to live in Italy or Sweden, then ask yourself why countries with FPP and majoritarian systems are better places to live in. 

2. Nice list of other fringe parties which act as kingmakers in exchange for ridiculous benefits to special interest and extreme electorate who can hold the whole country hostage. And you think it's a good thing??? How?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

mordko said:


> 1. And if you don't want to live in Italy or Sweden, then ask yourself why countries with FPP and majoritarian systems are better places to live in.
> 
> 2. Nice list of other fringe parties which act as kingmakers in exchange for ridiculous benefits to special interest and extreme electorate who can hold the whole country hostage. And you think it's a good thing??? How?


1. Not I don't want to live in Italy or Sweden , just this is not feasible in our situation, and except those countries , many other democracies like Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands etc have same democratic system. btw, I'd like to retire or take long term vacations in Spain, maybe some day .
2. This is true democracy, or China system with one party is more appealing to you?!


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

olivaw said:


> IMO, democratic reform that does not address the (slap-in-the-face that is the) Canadian Senate is pointless. I am therefore pleased that the government has decided not to pursue electoral reform at this time.


Then maybe we need referendum?! That what Cons offered, Trudeau regime is scared of it?!


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

gibor365 said:


> 1. Not I don't want to live in Italy or Sweden , just this is not feasible in our situation, and except those countries , many other democracies like Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands etc have same democratic system. btw, I'd like to retire or take long term vacations in Spain, maybe some day .
> 2. This is true democracy, or China system with one party is more appealing to you?!


1. I've been to every one of these countries, I have family in Sweden and worked in Brussels, and of course had lots of holidays in Spain. All these countries have terrible politics and many of those who can, leave.

2. Saying that Canadian system or FPTP is like China = nonsense worthy of James and the like. Seriously, give your head a shake. One would expect someone like you to know the difference with a one party state. Then again, isn't that a good thing for someone who is a fan of Putins regime?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

mordko said:


> 1. I've been to every one of these countries, I have family in Sweden and worked in Brussels, and of course had lots of holidays in Spain. All these countries have terrible politics and many of those who can, leave.
> 
> 2. Saying that Canadian system or FPTP is like China = nonsense worthy of James and the like. Seriously, give your head a shake. One would expect someone like you to know the difference with a one party state. Then again, isn't that a good thing for someone who is a fan of Putins regime?


1. Oh, yeah?! Very interesting observation . Leaving?! Because of "terrible politics"?! You're funny! Tell me that I left Israel because of "terrible politics"  ... This is one of the few things that I really admired in Israel.
2. Russia's voting system is more democratic than Canadian one. I'm sorry for you  . 
What kind of democracy if 1 vote in different places in the country weight differently?!


> “The relative weight of a single vote … has never been more unequal among the provinces,” concluded Andrew Sancton, a political scientist who analyzed rep-by-pop historically for the Mowat Centre.
> 
> According to the study, if Ontario was properly represented in the House, it would have 117 seats, rather than the current 106. British Columbia would increase from 36 to 40, while Alberta would have 31 rather than 28.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Russian system more democratic than Canadian one? That's cool. Also, lay off hard drugs.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

mordko said:


> Russian system more democratic than Canadian one? That's cool. Also, lay off hard drugs.


Obviously ,as they use Party-list proportional representation. It's a very cool system .
Don;t use neither hard nor soft drugs.... maybe you are an expert in this :livid:


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

This is a non-winnable argument because it is a matter of opinion. The people who are most for electoral change likely do not support one of the two major parties and are frustrated. Understandable to a certain degree. I think regardless of how one feels on the issue, most would have to agree that we live in one of the best countries in the world and enjoy a level of freedom and democracy that citizens of many other countries can only dream about, so we must be doing something right.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

assuming that alternate voting systems will give minority parties more presence in ottawa, it would logically follow that the bloc quebecois would gain increased representation, along with the NDP & - they say - the PCs.

do the supporters of electoral reform really want to see the BQ wielding increased power in parliament? my impression is that No, they don't.

they always say be careful what you wish for

.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

mordko said:


> In all these countries fringe parties hold disproportionate amount of power. In Israel major parties have to buy off ultra orthodox nutters, which is why people get paid for sitting on their asses and reading Talmud while someone else's child has to serve in the army and pay taxes. Political shenanigans ultimately decide who will lead the country, like in 2009 Livni could have been the PM had she made a deal with religious nutters.
> 
> Italian Parliament is full of communists and fascists. And given that you are an immigrant, I have to ask why are you in Canada if you prefer Italy?


This is why I don't favour pure PR. I think a compromise system like STV continues to reward broad-ish parties and keeps representatives directly accountable to voters. It also does not require party affiliation, so someone with a strong enough personal brand could be elected as an independent.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> do the supporters of electoral reform really want to see the BQ wielding increased power in parliament? my impression is that No, they don't


 On the opposite, BQ gonna get much less seats as no one will vote for them except some QC nationalists ... imho one of the reasons why Trudeau afraid to change voting system , he doesn't want to annoy QC


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> I think regardless of how one feels on the issue, most would have to agree that we live in one of the best countries in the world and enjoy a level of freedom and democracy that citizens of many other countries can only dream about, so we must be doing something right.


 whatever many says, US is by far more desirable country then Canada ... it's doesn't mean US election system is perfect .


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> This is why I don't favour pure PR.


 Make threshold 5% and no "fringe" parties will get seats in Parliament 


> so someone with a strong enough personal brand could be elected as an independent.


 somebody like this can form is own list selecting candidates who fits his views and get elected


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

andrewf said:


> This is why I don't favour pure PR. I think a compromise system like STV continues to reward broad-ish parties and keeps representatives directly accountable to voters. It also does not require party affiliation, so someone with a strong enough personal brand could be elected as an independent.


"Continues"? Where? There are one and a half small countries which use something like STV and its not working all that well http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/ISSUE26/I26P1.pdf

The fundamental problem with STV isn't even that it will ensure the liberals stay in power 100 percent of the time instead of 70 percent. Not even the lack of legitimacy, like in Malta. STV ensures no change ever is part of the party platform because a change always upsets someone.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

mordko said:


> "Continues"? Where? There are one and a half small countries which use something like STV and its not working all that well http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/ISSUE26/I26P1.pdf
> 
> The fundamental problem with STV isn't even that it will ensure the liberals stay in power 100 percent of the time instead of 70 percent. Not even the lack of legitimacy, like in Malta. STV ensures no change ever is part of the party platform because a change always upsets someone.


*Would continue if you prefer that verb tense.

As noted in that paper, STV is susceptible to gerrymandering, a feature it shares with FPTP.

STV is used in Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, even in the US in a small number of cities.

The claim that STV would result in perpetual Liberal dominance is not credible. How would STV have resulted in LPC victory in the 2011 federal election?


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

gibor365 said:


> Then maybe we need referendum?! That what Cons offered, Trudeau regime is scared of it?!


The Cons had their shot. They failed to deliver senate reform, parliamentary electoral reform or a referendum.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

andrewf said:


> *Would continue if you prefer that verb tense.
> 
> As noted in that paper, STV is susceptible to gerrymandering, a feature it shares with FPTP.
> 
> ...


Right, it's used in some villages here and there but the only countries which apply a version of STV are Ireland and Malta. Very different from Canada and experiencing major problems (e.g. illegitimacy as the party that gets the most votes NEVER gets to govern).


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Australia uses it in national elections as well (for their Senate).

If we were to adopt a new system, I would suggest observing how it has worked in practice and avoid pitfalls. I don't think Malta's experience is necessarily representative of how the system would work in Canada. Again, the problem in Malta is gerrymandering, not STV. They would have the same problem with FPTP.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

The problem in Malta is that they form governments based on peoples' second preferences. The party who most people pick as their number one choice doesn't get to govern (ever). This is a conceptual problem with the system; it breeds perception of illegitimacy.

And Australian senate... Sure. Perhaps we can use this system to pick a quango to oversee arts or something.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

gibor365 said:


> whatever many says, US is by far more desirable country then Canada ... it's doesn't mean US election system is perfect .



What you say is an opinion and to that extent it is difficult to disagree with you. Everyone has different tastes. 

That being said, we rank higher on a number of scales. The OECD continually rates us as a better country to live in. We tend to live a fair amount longer than Americans on average - probably partly due to healthcare. And if the argument is for proportional representation, the US has even more concentration of power than we have.

But as I say you are entitled to your opinion. Have you ever thought of immigrating if you think it is so much better?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Spidey said:


> What you say is an opinion and to that extent it is difficult to disagree with you. Everyone has different tastes.
> 
> That being said, we rank higher on a number of scales. The OECD continually rates us as a better country to live in. We tend to live a fair amount longer than Americans on average - probably partly due to healthcare. And if the argument is for proportional representation, the US has even more concentration of power than we have.
> 
> But as I say you are entitled to your opinion. Have you ever thought of immigrating if you think it is so much better?


It depends who is rating , just did google search and 1st hit was https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp
Canada is #17 (even behind Estonia ) and US #7... 

Regarding immigration..... we had an excellent relocation offer from California or Oregon when company promiised green card after 3 years max... We were debating for a long time,even flew to potential relocation place... at the end decided to stay in Canada mostly because of the kids who were attending school this time and I just got big promotion (offer was from my wife's employer)... Still not sure that this was a good decision... If we didn't have kids, or kids were pre-school age , most likely we'd immigrate.
But I was talking not about ourselves .... As an immigrant who was leaving in 3 different countries, I can say that in majority of the cases, US is the first preferable place, who don't get there (in legal way) , going to Canada, Australia or NZ.

Just check how many Canadian "snowbirds" who leaving Canada for half year every year. 

btw, Canadian Immigrants Lead World In Illegal U.S. Visa Overstays, According To First-Ever DHS Estimates
http://www.latintimes.com/canadian-...isa-overstays-according-first-ever-dhs-367906

Also


> Canadian migration to the United States has historically ebbed and flowed with changes in the economic opportunities available in Canada and the United States. In 1960, Canadian immigrants comprised about 10 percent of the total U.S. foreign-born population. Since then, immigration inflow patterns in the United States have changed even as the foreign-born population from Canada has remained remarkably steady, *and as of 2012, about 800,000 Canadians accounted for 2 percent of the nation’s 40.8 million immigrants*....The vast majority of Canadian migrants settle in the United States, with others settling primarily in the United Kingdom (94,000), Australia (47,000), and Italy (27,000), according to mid-2013 estimates by the United Nations Population Division


http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/canadian-immigrants-united-states
check how many Americans immigrated to Canada  (yea, there were some who didn't want to serve in army in 60's lol)

P.S. you probably watch too much CBC ,who tells that "Oh Canada, the best country in the World" lmao

You may even sign song below replacing Kazahstan with Canada


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

I've never heard of Numbeo. Wikipedia states that it bases information on what people say with no 3rd party checking of data. I would trust OECD data more. That being said, the US is definitely, at least up to now, not a bad country to live in. Admittedly they have better weather than Canada. They don't have PR. However, I wouldn't want a health care system where your health-care is based on the whims of an insurance company. I was speaking to a fellow who had a very good job as an engineer in the States and one of the benefits was top of the line health care insurance. Despite that, after his wife got cancer they couldn't afford the expenses and had to return to Canada. I'm sure the US leads the world in illegal Canadian overstays as well and also make up a large portion of our immigrants. Has to do with marriages between our two countries. 

But like I say it is a matter of opinion. We could dispute which country was better until were blue in the face but it would be kind of like me arguing with you that blueberries taste better than bananas. 

One thing that is undeniable is that we are fortunate to live in a country with one of the best standards of life in the world. 

http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where-to-be-born_Index

And we live, on average, 3 years longer than our US cousins:

http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

I can tell a bunch of stories about Canadian healthcare system. It sucks big time. Anything but free, hospitals full of superbugs and dirt, incompetent doctors plus a postcode lottery for getting a timely treatment. Meanwhile NHL players enjoy best facilities and doctors minus queues on taxpayer dime. 

Our healthcare system is incredibly stupid. Harper has a lot to answer for; he was too scared to even try to sort it out. The drama teacher wouldn't even know there is a problem, he wouldn't have come across real Canadian healthcare in his cocooned life.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

With all due respect our experience with our health care system has been stellar. I too can tell you stories. Dissing our doctors is way out of line.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

With all due respect mordko's synopsis of our healthcare system is fairly accurate.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Eder said:


> With all due respect our experience with our health care system has been stellar. I too can tell you stories. Dissing our doctors is way out of line.


Congrats, you won a lottery ticket. Canadian healthcare is a lottery with a twist: 

1. A ticket is shoved down your throat whether you want it or not. 
2. You could win a million or even 10 million dollars.
3. If you lose, your get zilch. On top of it, you get f-cked (sometimes literally ). 

A few examples:

- Our family doctor is a great guy; we are very happy.

- When our kid had a hockey injury, we had to spend a whole night in an emergency room fool of drunken morons. Not the greatest experience for a 10-year old.

- Another injury = a couple of hours and he had his stitches; no problem. 

- Our neighbour had a breast cancer. There are different types; she needed a scan and an operation. They told her the waiting list was 5 months. She had to go to the US and pay. Effectively she payed twice; also it's not very pleasant having to be away for something that's quite stressful in the first place. 

- My friend had an operation in a major Toronto hospital. After that he got temperature and other problems. For a week doctors were giving a different diagnosis every single day, sometimes twice a day. It range from meningitis to allergenic reactions to drugs. Turned out they just gave him a superbug. 

- I had to spend a few weeks in Northern Ontario. For some reason got a large bump on my elbow, it was a bit painful and very ugly. Turns out local doctor has a "walk-in clinic" on Wednesday mornings. OK, i patiently wait till Wednesday, take time off work, turn up in his clinic. Apparently it's a "walk-in clinic" for his patients but nobody else. That's how I learnt that me paying taxes does not actually mean that I actually get health service, not even poor quality one.

The system when private healthcare is illegal = unadulterated idiocy.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I guess if you think you need a couple stitches ahead of someone with a real medical emergency then ya you might have your nose out of joint.My wife's life has been saved the system you are putting down. I wont waste my time.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

I think anyone who wants to pay for private healthcare should be able to do so, like in any other country. I also think you should be able to get healthcare even when you are not at home. And people who need a scan for cancer should be able to get it in a timely manner. And you need to check your reading skills if you think I want to get ahead of someone "with a real medical emergency for a couple of stitches". 

Your wife got saved - great; but of course Canadian system is also killing people every single day. Our friend may not have died but he is suffering a permanent health problem as a result of the great Canadian healthcare (and he didn't have this problem before he went to hospital).


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

While not perfect, when you look at outcomes, Canada's health care system works reasonably well, particularly compared to the US. They manage to have about as much public spending on health care as Canada, and not insure the vast majority of the population.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

^ Blindness. And US isn't the only country in the world.

Canada ranks second last in the civilized world (US is last): https://www.cma.ca/En/Pages/canada-ranks-second-last.aspx

I have seen how the system works in Britain and France; better systems by far.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

CMA has their own agenda. If you ask any union if they think they are underpaid, what answer will you expect?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> I think anyone who wants to pay for private healthcare should be able to do so, like in any other country.


 I agree that Canadian health system is a disaster .... it's all good when you are healthy, but if anything bad happened,you are in trouble.
When my wife needed MRI , she should've wait 3-6 months ... and she did it earlier only because my daughter friend father is a surgeon, he called someone and my wife got MRI several weeks later... The system works exactly like in Soviet Union...
She wasn't able to go to private MRI and pay her own money, it's NOT ALLOWED in Canada, it's only allowed if 3rd party is paying (like unions or other mafia)., suffer , but wait months... The only options were to drive to US or fly to ... Cuba! They would do it next day. Really?! Canadian have to go to Cuba to get fast medical service?! Now my wife need ACL surgery ,waiting half year and still doesn't even have appointment... she was told that hospital still doesn't have dates for next 6 months! So, in the best case she needs to wait another half year.
You cannot compare US health system , as they don't have an universal one... so , on average it maybe no so good (like average hospital patients temperature is 36.6), but for people who has insurance is excellent. 
Check how many Canadian driving to US to get treatment, because they don't want to die or suffer waiting for ages...
btw, NHL players getting MRIs and result during hockey games ...


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Our family doctor is a great guy; we are very happy.


 You're lucky. Our GP sucks and it's impossible to get a good one.... not only she's not knowledgeable, after 10 min she just tells me that she doesn't have time for me (only 10 min per person) and that I need to book another appointment.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

andrewf said:


> CMA has their own agenda. If you ask any union if they think they are underpaid, what answer will you expect?


as per WHO, Canada on 30th place
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadia...zations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

below countries like : Greece, Cyprus, Israel, Morocco ... Yeap, great success


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> But like I say it is a matter of opinion. We could dispute which country was better until were blue in the face but it would be kind of like me arguing with you that blueberries taste better than bananas.
> 
> One thing that is undeniable is that we are fortunate to live in a country with one of the best standards of life in the world.
> 
> ...


Everyone has his own likes and priorities, it's like to argue about favorite band....somebody will say Beatles, others Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple, and for somebody Slayer or ..... Justin Biber


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> And we live, on average, 3 years longer than our US cousins:


 and Israelis live longer than Canadians  ... the problem that in US number they include illegals (so called undocumented immigrants ) who doesn't have any insurance and very specific population groups (I thing you understand what I'm talking about)


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

For illegals to cause that difference they would have to be dying at 10 years old.

US is great if you're rich. Everyone else lives in terror of major illness that might ruin them financially, even if they have insurance.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

The system in the US is broken, no doubt about it. Worth noting that people who have no money do get medical care. Also, the vast majority medical discoveries that help to save people worldwide are financed by the US. 

The system in Canada is utterly dumb. Here they make it illegal for people willing to pay their own money to provide resources for the healthcare. It is also very unfair:

- someone provided an example how a couple who lived and worked in America returned to Canada for healthcare after one of them contracted cancer. So, they payed for health insurance elsewhere but went to Canada to get a multi-million freebee paid for by the Canadian taxpayer.

- I met a guy who was Canadian, a top-rate taxpayer, married to an English woman. They lived with her elderly father, who was a resident but not a citizen in Canada. The parent got kicked out back to England once he contracted cancer. Here we have a reverse situation of someone paying into the system but getting punished severely when he needed something out of it. 

- Also met a nice Ukrainian immigrant, getting minimum wage in Toronto. His parents still live in Ukraine. At one point his mum needed an operation; he brought her to Canada as a visitor, she received free healthcare and went back. Here we again have someone getting the service they didn't pay for. 

Our system is deranged.


----------



## SMK (Dec 10, 2015)

gibor365 said:


> after 10 min she just tells me that she doesn't have time for me (only 10 min per person) and that I need to book another appointment.


Many doctors have similar limits to protest government cuts, not just your GP, and can't really blame them. Their offices now have big signs telling patients one question per visit, so how much have these cuts actually saved the government? 

Haven't used the system much at all for any urgent care, lucky so far, but I've heard many stories from friends, colleages and others about having been sent to the US for cancer treatment due to shortage of specialists, for surgery, and then there is the unacceptable waiting times for just about every referral.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

The point is that Canadian Health system is completely corrupted. Even if funding will be increased by 100%, there will be no difference for patients.
Our health care should be rebuild completely. And I'm not fun of US health care system. However, Canadian officials can learn from "best practices" of other developed countries like France, Italy, Israel etc


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

gibor365 said:


> and Israelis live longer than Canadians  ... the problem that in US number they include illegals (so called undocumented immigrants ) who doesn't have any insurance and very specific population groups (I thing you understand what I'm talking about)


Those stats would be for citizens - you can't include an illegal immigrant as a citizen. Anyone who has had any dealings with the US knows that there are significant amounts of ordinary Americans without proper coverage. And the difference between Canada and Israel is basically equivalent to a rounding error. 

While it is good to continue to try to improve our system, the level of discontent among many in modern society is amazing. I've heard for example, that the average wage of Trump supports is $70,000. Yet to listen to many of them everything is going to hell in a hand basket. Most of us live a life many could only dream about - probably 2 cars, a couple of television sets, no worries whatsoever about food or shelter. But according to some, everything is terrible - not a very good way to go through life. I've had the misfortune to need the healthcare system and speaking from my own experience, it was top-notch. I couldn't imagine better treatment anywhere else in the world. That's not to say that we can't learn from other countries or improve things but let's not over-exaggerate our problems.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Most of us live a life many could only dream about - probably 2 cars, a couple of television sets, no worries whatsoever about food or shelter.


 All developed countries live similarly... and let's won't talk that Canada is the best country in the World , I've heard it a lot when was living in USSR


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

> there are significant amounts of ordinary Americans without proper coverage.


"Amounts"? 

FYI, All Americans have coverage. They may not have private insurance or cash; then they just get treated "for free" (aka taxpayer pays, like in Canada).


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> I've had the misfortune to need the healthcare system and speaking from my own experience, it was top-notch. I couldn't imagine better treatment anywhere else in the world.


 Maybe we live in 2 different provinces or ...Canadas?! .I know for sure that OHIP is disaster.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Eder said:


> I guess if you think you need a couple stitches ahead of someone with a real medical emergency then ya you might have your nose out of joint. My wife's life has been saved the system you are putting down. I wont waste my time.





Eder said:


> With all due respect our experience with our health care system has been stellar. I too can tell you stories. Dissing our doctors is way out of line.





Spidey said:


> I've had the misfortune to need the healthcare system and speaking from my own experience, it was top-notch. I couldn't imagine better treatment anywhere else in the world. That's not to say that we can't learn from other countries or improve things but let's not over-exaggerate our problems.



The above comments square with my experience. 

Like Eder, I too have a wife whose life was saved by the stellar performance of our health care system. Starting with the ambulance and Search & Rescue crew who extricated her from a difficult situation far off the beaten track in freezing weather. She was taken to a small town hospital where they did what they could, and recognized that her condition was too grave for her to receive adequate treatment there. In short order, an air ambulance arrived and took her to a larger facility, to receive an emergency CT scan. At 2 a.m. the neurologist who saw her took my call and explained his assessment in detail and explained why she would do better in a larger facility. So the air ambulance again was called in and within an hour or so she was in an ICU where she remained for 10 days. The round-the-clock care was impressive and administered by a group who really cared. The time covered the Christmas season. We were far from home and I stayed in a hotel near the hospital for 3 weeks until she was released. In that time, some of the hospital staff took time to see that I too was okay and they included me in their Christmas party.

I am sure that some can relate Canadian healthcare horror stories. There is certainly room for improvement. No doubt there are some dreadful cost inefficiencies, but I am not sure that can be laid at the feet of the front line health care workers. So we must strive to do better.

Some might read my story and say that had my wife's emergency occurred in a more civilized country there would have been a world-class facility within 500 yards and no air ambulance would have been required. But I know for certain that had my wife's emergency arisen almost anywhere in her home country (and a number of other countries I have visited) there would have been no ambulance in sight for many hours, if at all. She would not have survived the wait. And for sure there would have been no air ambulance, nor the kind of well-staffed ICU that saved her life.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Just for fun, we should post the life expectancies for various countries.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

OECD's 2016 Better LIfe Index.

1) Norway

2) Australia

3) Denmark

4) Switzerland

5) Canada

6) Sweden

7) New Zealand

8) Finland

9) US

10) Iceland

11) Netherlands


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

gibor365 said:


> Maybe we live in 2 different provinces or ...Canadas?! .I know for sure that OHIP is disaster.


Are you speaking form experience or conjecture? Have you ever experienced a life-threatening health problem?


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

1. Life expectancy and health care - not the same thing. Income, food, safety, alcoholism, lifestyle and a bunch of other factors play a role.

2. Our healthcare is a postcode lottery. Everyone pays the same tax, but how long you are going to wait for a hip replacement or appointment with a consultant or a vital diagnostic - pure luck of where you are. And these times are a lot longer than elsewhere. And getting a family doctor is really hard. And hospitals are dirty dissiminators of nasty bacteria.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

But the crucial question is this: if someone wants to pay for healthcare, what is the justification for banning him???

And why is it illegal to provide your labour for in exchange for private money if you are a doctor???


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

I have gone many times to a large downtown Toronto hospital for a 24 hour urine. They used to provide a plastic bottle to collect the urine in. Now they don't. Now the patient has to provide his/her own bottle. Soft drink bottle,water bottle, it doesn't matter.
Talk about a third world country.

On the front door of my family doctor's office was a sign in winter-----Take off your shoes. 
Fine nothing wrong with that. Someone had written under it ---This means you.
This sign was put up two winters in a row. 
This is a very insulting sign. The staff and doctors deliberately talked down to the patients.

This same doctor's office failed to tell me that they had received a referral for me for a colonoscopy.

I waited for 6 months for the referral from the specialist that my family doctor had already received.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

mordko said:


> 2.how long you are going to wait for a hip replacement or appointment with a consultant or a vital diagnostic - pure luck of where you are. And these times are a lot longer than elsewhere. And getting a family doctor is really hard. And hospitals are dirty dissiminators of nasty bacteria.


Hip replacement happens when the surgeon is not saving a person with life threatening problems...of course I suspect you think you need to be at the top of the que with mri's on demand...such a joke.
Im sure with your high maintenance viewpoint perhaps the family doctors are doing a bit of triage themselves.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

mordko said:


> But the crucial question is this: if someone wants to pay for healthcare, what is the justification for banning him???
> 
> And why is it illegal to provide your labour for in exchange for private money if you are a doctor???


You can...go to your beloved 3rd world what ever and buy your hip!


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

eder said:


> Hip replacement happens when the surgeon is not saving a person with life threatening problems...of course I suspect you think you need to be at the top of the que with mri's on demand...such a joke.


What you are describing is rationing.There is a scarcity of a valuable service. Hip replacement are done by doctors who are specialists in 
in hip replacements. They aren't busy doing other things.

The operating rooms are not bring used at full capacity because there is not enough money.

Waiting for dermatologist in his office is one hour. 
Waiting in lab to receive services--one hour.

The government of Canada runs a health care monopoly.
Health care is very important,it is the most important service you will receive.
These long wait times are a way the state manipulates and controls the population.
The state exerts power over the individual through controlling the access to vital services.

Dentists' offices treat their patients better than doctors'.
I have been to a dentist's office that offers free wi-fi.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

US also rations by killing poor people (can't pay, no care). Your call as to whether that is preferable to the situation here. No such thing as an economy without rationing because resources are always finite.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Eder said:


> You can...go to your beloved 3rd world what ever and buy your hip!


Lol. I don't need a hip. I am 46. I don't use doctors, except for kids. And, yeah, I am pissed they have just totally screwed my friends operation while giving him a nasty disease and partial loss of sight he hadn't had before while demonstrating a stunning level of incompetence in the process (different doctors gave him a different diagnostic every day for a week, sometimes two a day). 

And I also have something to compare with. Third world countries, like Britain.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

Laurie Hillier,dead at 18 because the Ontario healthcare system failed her.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens...-transplants-after-daughter-s-death-1.3568464



> 'Her dying wish.' Ontario parents want speedier stem cell transplants after daughter's death
> 
> She was part of her high school drama club and loved performing in musical theatre plays. She was described as a young woman with "poise" and "strength," whose "pure spirit shone through right until the end."
> 
> ...


When the cancer came back,she needed a stem cell transplant and she found a donor but there was no bed immediately available to do the transplant. They gave her chemo again to keep her alive but she died before she got the transplant.

I don't know why they didn't send her to the States.

When will Canadians wake up and realize they are being duped?


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

andrewf said:


> US also rations by killing poor people (can't pay, no care). Your call as to whether that is preferable to the situation here. No such thing as an economy without rationing because resources are always finite.


Every country in the world rations healthcare. They use different means, but they all do it.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

And two minutes of googling would have told Eder that:

1) less than half Ontario patients have access to family doctors when they are sick http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...tors-report-says/article27183406/?arc404=true
2) finding a family doctor is impossible. https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/li...le591331/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

That is quite a bit of rationing, when more than half can't get access to healthcare they need.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The concept of private healthcare is financially impossible, without the support of publicly funded and subsidized infrastructure and services.

Even wealthy people couldn't afford the "real" cost of providing healthcare on an individual basis.

The US is the worst health care system in the modern world. Insurance companies focus on profit.....not delivering quality healthcare.

As noted by the nurse in the Sanders/Cruz debate tonight.......her yearly premiums are $25,000 and her deductible is $13,000

She cannot afford to pay for a pap smear test, which isn't covered by the insurance she is paying for.

Prescription drugs in the US cost 3 to 4 times more than they do in Canada.

Obamacare has problems, but it is a better system than they had. The Republicans refuse to move to a single payer government system.

That is where Bernie Sanders says the US needs to go, like every other major country in the world.

The US spends twice as much per capita on health care and still has millions of people who can't afford the premiums or deductibles.

With all the complaints Canadians have about auto insurance companies, and travel insurance companies........the last thing they would want is for insurance companies to be in total control of the health care system.

US health insurance companies and pharma corporations are raking in billions of dollars while Americans go without treatment.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Is this some kind of slogan generating program? Still needs a bit of work A lot of great words but they don't hang together all that well.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

One of my friends is a doctor. He used to like our single payer healthcare system but he now leans towards a two-tier system. His view is that wealthy individuals should pay for extremely expensive treatments that the public system cannot afford.

The reality is that our public system denies treatment by reducing the availability of services. Too few MRI slots, too few staffed ORs and staff shortages mean that some medical needs remain unfulfilled. I'm not sure about other provinces but many of my friends in Alberta complain about how difficult it can be to obtain timely medical services.

We certainly don't want to go down the US path but perhaps the British or Australian system?


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

> His view is that wealthy individuals should pay for extremely expensive treatments that the public system cannot afford.


Sounds like your friend wants to stick it to the rich.
Why can't the government pay some and the patient pay some?
What you are advocating is discrimination against the wealthy it seems.

Everyone should receive government funding for procedures but physicians should be allowed to double bill. This was allowed in Ontario up until the sixties I believe. Or doctors should be allowed to have both a private practice where the full bill is paid by the patient and a
public practice where the government system pays 100%.

Right now if they receive money from the patient they can't be part of the government system.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The problem with a two tier system is that it doesn't expand medical services. 

All it does is replace the people on the list with someone who will pay more.

Doctors with a private practice still depend on the same publicly funded infrastructure (hospitals, doctors, equipment) as a public practice.

Paying more to go through doesn't increase the number of people who can fit through the entry door at one time.

Those who advocate private health care are calculating their cost based on subsidized public health care infrastructure. If they had to pay the full cost of private health care......hospitals, doctors, nurses, staff, equipment.......so few people could afford it that such a system would be financially impractical to maintain.

Piggybacking onto the public health care system by paying extra dollars to move to the front of the line isn't a private health care system.

If we wish to improve and expand our health care system, we need to commit to spend more on the system.

That means making choices on how much taxes we pay and where we spend the tax dollars.

Do we fund more MRI machines and technologists, or do we build navy frigates ?

Do we fund more operating theaters and surgeons, or do we lower corporate taxes ?

We need to decide our revenue and spending priorities before anything else.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

The wealthy or middle class don't have to go private. It's a choice. Unless you believe that every time someone buys a Ferrari rather than ford, they are being discriminated against, this isn't discrimination but freedom of choice.

And giving people choice as opposed to force them through even higher taxes (like they can go higher beyond these insane levels) is the best way to spend more on the system.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

sags said:


> The problem with a two tier system is that it doesn't expand medical services. All it does is replace the people on the list with someone who will pay more.
> 
> Doctors with a private practice still depend on the same publicly funded infrastructure (hospitals, doctors, equipment) as a public practice would.
> 
> ...


BS. This puts more resources into the system and means more doctors and equipment.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Another part of the problem is that there is no dedUctable. The system is overused by people with colds or nothing at all. 

You want to make it "free"? Fine. Give everyone 1000 bucks curtesy of the taxpayer. Then include a dedUctable for doctors visits.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You want to reduce health care costs...........reduce poverty and homelessness.

Studies in some US States revealed that 80% of their health care dollars are spent on homeless and poor people.

They reduced homelessness and their health care costs fell dramatically.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If a person is continually coming to the ER because they are sick from infection because of poor dental health, is it wiser to continue administering prescriptions to treat the infection or is it better to fix their teeth ?

These are the kinds of small problems that turn into big costs in the public health care system.

We are constantly spending millions of dollars to save spending thousands of dollars.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Yeah, get big nanny state to sort everything out for free, including poverty. Works awesome in Cuba and N Korea.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

If somebody is poor and homeless and has infections and bad teeth whose fault is it?

His own? No never. It's the government's fault. Everything is the government's fault.

Why should the health of someone who is not poor,not homeless and doesn't have bad teeth be contingent 
upon the behaviour of a stranger who is poor, is homeless and has bad teeth?

Who says government funding is the only funding allowed?

It is not an inviolate law of nature like the speed of light that only government funding may be used.

There is nothing sacrosanct about the Canada Health Act.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

mordko said:


> Yeah, get big nanny state to sort everything out for free, including poverty. Works awesome in Cuba and N Korea.


If you prefer to pay the healthcare costs that poverty creates, expect to continue to pay more for healthcare.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

wraphter said:


> If somebody is poor and homeless and has infections and bad teeth whose fault is it?
> 
> His own? No never. It's the government's fault. Everything is the government's fault.
> 
> ...


_It is not an inviolate law of nature like the speed of light that only government funding may be used._

Whose funding do you propose to use ?

Unless the plan is to continue to fund the current system at ever rising levels, it is wise to seek ways to lower the cost.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_If somebody is poor and homeless and has infections and bad teeth whose fault is it?_

Why is it necessary to assign fault and how does it provide a solution ?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

how about canada adopts something similar to australia's Manus island & Nauru island prison-like facilities for refugee claimants.

canada has all those barely-inhabited high arctic islands & meanwhile global warming is occurring. Or at least, many say the arctic is warming up. Certainly arctic ice is fast disappearing & soon we will have year-round navigation through the fabled north-west passage.

meanwhile the international laws of the sea are a bit vague on where continental shelf ends & also on whether or how much settlement of a remote island with a hostile climate is required before a mother country can incontestably claim it as part of her sovereign land mass.

it's canada's high arctic islands that are the most at risk. The ones closest to the north pole. The ones with nobody living on em except a handful of geologists, polar shelf scientists & department of defence radar operators.

luckily, global warming is going to turn those islands green. Bright green. How about canada sends all her questionable citizens & immigration claimants way up north? you know, the people with bad teeth or they can't afford to pay a doctor, let alone buy a house or even a condo. Or they wear things on their heads or they practice a religion other than judeo-christianity.

there's plenty of room on islands like ellesmere or cornwallis.

.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

sags said:


> _If somebody is poor and homeless and has infections and bad teeth whose fault is it?_
> 
> Why is it necessary to assign fault and how does it provide a solution ?


Because you are encouraging dependency. Why should somebody who looks after them self be penalized because of somebody 
who doesn't? What is the relationship between these two bodies? Are they two separate entities or one? Why should the good people 
suffer because of the actions of the irresponsible? Why should an individual be deprived of medical services because of what is happening in the body of another person?

If private money is allowed in the pie will get bigger. The poor will benefit also.

On an airplane there is economy class and business class which is more expensive. The money from the business class customers
subsidizes the economy class.

If there was only one cell phone provider the quality of that phone would deteriorate because the manufacturer would know the customers didn't have a choice. If there was only one telco to buy internet,wireless and cable the service would deteriorate because the provider would be in the driver's seat. Monopolies are bad because they give too much power to the one with the monopoly.

If doctors could double bill they could buy expensive equipment and open clinics. There would be more colonoscopy clinics,
more private imaging clinics, more day surgeries. 

Why should the budget of the government control the health services a good, responsible person receives?

In the sixties I believe OHIP stopped double billing. Nothing is written in stone.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

good idea humble. When are you leavlng? :friendly_wink:


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

wraphter said:


> good idea humble. When are you leavlng? :friendly_wink:



hey wraph you'd be the first candidate for the colony

they'd definitely need a warden up there

a vintage lubyanka jail type warden
updated guantanamo bay version

.


----------



## SMK (Dec 10, 2015)

wraphter said:


> On an airplane there is economy class and business class which is more expensive. The money from the business class customers
> subsidizes the economy class.


Depending on destination and other factors, the subsidy may not be as much. Totally made up numbers here based on economy seats making up roughly 70% of a plane. 200 seat jet with 140 economy seats to London at $900; 60 business class for $1,800 - with West Jet.  Who's subsidizing whom, especially when it's not the economy leisurely travellers that get the royal treatment.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> how about canada adopts something similar to australia's Manus island & Nauru island prison-like facilities for refugee claimants.


 Great idea


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

wraphter said:


> Sounds like your friend wants to stick it to the rich.
> Why can't the government pay some and the patient pay some?
> What you are advocating is discrimination against the wealthy it seems.


You misunderstood (or maybe I wasn't clear). He said that the public system cannot afford certain extraordinary treatments. Those who want such treatments should use a private plan or pay for it themselves. (That would be the rich and the heavily insured.) 

It's two-tier.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

gibor365 said:


> Great idea


You could be the CMF roving reporter. Go live in a northern "transitional camp" and write posts that blame the refugees for the deplorable conditions.


----------



## wraphter (Sep 21, 2016)

^

Yes.I understand what you said. You were talking about an extraordinary, heroic procedure ,which is very expensive and low probability of success.Your friend would permit the rich patient to pay for this type of procedure.

But you didn't mention ordinary everyday procedures that are also expensive --MRI's, colonoscopies, gastroscopies,cystoscopies ,
mammograms,etc. A two tier system would allow the patient to pay all or part of the cost of these.

A few years back there was talk of allowing medical tourism in Ontario to raise cash for other patients .It was not adopted.

Buying a kidney is not legal in Canada.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Charge $20 for each ER visit.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

steve41 said:


> Charge $20 for each ER visit.


 ... this might not be a bad idea for those who abuse (and repeatedly) the ER systems unnecessarily. But then what happens if the ER visitor can't or simply won't pay? Eg., addicts, drunks, homeless or the why should I?


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

wraphter said:


> ^
> 
> Yes.I understand what you said. You were talking about an extraordinary, heroic procedure ,which is very expensive and low probability of success.Your friend would permit the rich patient to pay for this type of procedure.
> 
> ...


Those tests aren't expensive. The cost for an MRI is about $4K. Many other tests are even cheaper. An efficient public system must be able to deliver routine tests in a timely fashion ... esp. when those tests are necessary to the diagnosis of a life threatening condition.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Those tests aren't expensive. The cost for an MRI is about $4K.


 AFAIR, when my wife had a serious knee injury, we inquired in US hospitals and Cuba.... The cpst were in $500-600 range


----------



## Koogie (Dec 15, 2014)

steve41 said:


> Charge $20 for each ER visit.


Agreed. Anything given away for "free" gets abused.

Although I have always said it should be tied to the minimum wage. 1 hospital visit = 1 hour minimum wage (say $11.40 in Ontario)
That way all the boo hoo babies on the left can't claim it isn't "affordable"

I'd also fire about 50% of the "administrators" and hire more nurses and paramedics.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

You have to be careful with user fees. Too high and you dissuade the poor from seeking preventive care and waiting until their illness leads to costly complications.


----------

