Birdy

Thanks, me too! I think our health care system SHOULD be judged on how it works in both rural/urban areas... there's the major inconsistency right there. There shouldn't be compromise in this regard, it's healthcare and oh oh so important. I don't think it's quite fair to ask for a 'little balance' when peoples lives depend on it. Our system has MAJOR flaws, and whereas I don't support privatized healthcare, I do support significant attempts to clean this shit up - whether that comes by way of a two-tier system (i think Hamilton posted an article a long while back about Singapore's(??) system which I thought sounded pretty great), increased funding, guarantee legislation, or getting immigrants with medical licenses in say Russia able to practice here... whatever. Something needs to be done. It's by no means great, and the argument that it's free isn't an argument. I'm sure if people's own health and life were on the line, they wouldn't accept the 'meh, but it's free' line. I'd be inclined to kick that person in the teeth! haha Not really... but you know what I mean. It's life on the line. That's pretty huge.

I dunno... it's a lot different when you don't live in Toronto or Ottawa and live in one of the places they talk about when they mention doctor shortages. Even if I'd like to spend time with my doctor, she doesn't have time to spend with me. I haven't gotten into the doctor after two hours since my initial call in my entire life. Around these parts, you're looking at weeks. Otherwise you can take the day off, go to the one and only walk-in clinic and wait for six hours in a waiting room full of sick kids (the same kinda place that 'sounds like assembly line medecine', except the difference is, they're overloaded)... or to emergency room, which I've already outlined. My friend who just had a baby found out a week before she had breast cancer... had to be induced to have the baby, kicked out of the hospital four hours later because of bed shortages and then had to come back three days later for a lumpectomy. Then came the chemo, and then the radiation... the most brutal part of the radiation for her was the hour drive to and hour drive back from London every single day because Chatham can't afford to offer this service. Imagine? A new born baby, cancer, having to drive two hours every single day for six months straight to get radiation. Thank god she came out of it AOK and has a clean bill of health, but it's just another reason for me to say our system sucks. Don't think the entire country's healthcare system runs like it does in the city, it surely does not.

I guess we have different experiences then Chameleon... i travel in the states all year round, north/south/east/west and have US health insurance provided to me by my company. In my five and half years of working here, I've been to clinics numerous times. The last was in August in Monterey, CA when I broke out in hives... went to a clinic to get a shot of histimine. Walked in, wrote my information down on a sheet, was told to go into a room and wait for a doctor. Two minutes later, he came in. Five minutes later, I left. Back here, in lovely Canada, if I were to say, go to emerg here in Chatham I'd wait for 6-7 hours, as did my friend this summer when he broke his leg in four different places on a bad slide in baseball. Or as my mom who's a nurse says, don't go to Chatham's hospital, drive to Newbury... the little old town in the middle of nowhere as the wait time there is only a couple of hours. Only thing is, it takes a good solid 40 minutes to get there. Or how 'bout (this is going to get personal) the time I found a lump in my breast, called my doctor to make an appointment to get it checked... was scheduled three weeks later. I cried literally every morning and every night for three weeks straight. Went to my doctor who told me I needed to go for an ultra sound... was scheduled three weeks after that for this procedure. Another three weeks of crying every single morning and every single night. Got the ultrasound done and then waited two weeks to hear back from my doctor who had the results mailed to her three days after the ultrasound. Luckily for me, it's nothing and pretty standard for women who are in their child-bearing years. But still. My mom's friend, another nurse for a GP has a different doctor than the one she works for. But when she gets her yearly mammograms done, she has a copy sent to the doctor she works for (cuz it will come to her) and to her actual doctor. She says she doesn't want to wait for them to actually get around to calling her back. Good times with Canadian health care... indeed.

Easy! Critical of him because he's becoming a centrist and not some whacked out religious fluffhead who thinks along the lines of Sarah Palin's god's plan for the world and government... or who believe women belong at home with the kids and have no right in the workplace, or who are anti-abortion, even when it concerns rape, or think the christian god is the one and only. YAY free-dominioners! F'in crazies. I think i've shown that I'm not all on board of Harper's plan in this forum... I absolutely hate his stance on marijuana as a 'gateway drug', and hate the whole 'war on drugs' philosophy as a whole. I've said how I'd want the opposition to be the opposition and ensure certain laws don't get passed. I'm sorry if i'm not going to jump on the bandwagon of speculation and subscribe to the theories of all of this evilness noone can back up without using quotes from 1997 when he was a Reform'er and talk of a western alliance was the cool thing to do. I won't. Maybe i'll learn four years down the road, maybe you will... only time will tell. In the meantime, I'll vote for what speaks to me, without falling prey to all of the election time bullshit. The quality of healthcare in Canada absolutely SUCKS in comparison to the US. SUCKS. Maybe you need to live a little closer to the border to realize, but i'm 45 minutes away from Detroit, and know too many people who cross border shop for health care even when it costs them money, for the sure and simple fact that it's better. Maybe you're talking from a purely social aspect of it's free, but i'm talking the actual care itself. The ability to get an appointment, to have a doctor, to not have to be put on a waitlist for three months for a cat scan when you're dying from bone cancer as my friend's dad is. There's something that can be said about piece of mind when it comes to health care, and frankly, our system provides noone with piece of mind, unless you're lucky enough to be in cahoots with a specialist. Other than that, you're just a number amongst a lot of numbers.

Thank you Hamilton and Phishtaper... i wasn't quitting, just giving up on the discussion of what i meant when i said 'majority'. But you get it now, so all's good. Libertarianism, in theory, works pretty well. Communism, in theory, works pretty well. That's all!

I think there's a few steps: - don't make rash generalizations such as 2/3 of Canadians associate the word 'risk' with the Conservatives. Perhaps some just like the Liberals better? - try to avoid presuming those who vote Conservative aren't thinking of what the country's going to need in 30 years, or even 5 years. It's a little condescending and pretty much false. - stop saying Conservative agenda is invented/hidden/secret? There's absolutely nothing 'invented' by what's happening in the US right now, on Wall Street, in Washington. Considering Canada is America's largest trading partner and vice versa, there's absolutely nothing invented about the growing concern, and the possibility for a very deep recession, should US efforts fail on finding a solution. Just a few thoughts.

I quit!

Partisan politics has it's problems, but I pretty much disagree with everything you just said here other than: Exactly. Let me break this down in the simplest terms I can cuz I think i've failed in all other terms to explain it. Hypothetical population model of a town with 100 people: Caucasian - 37 Chinese - 21 Italian 19 Amerindian - 17 African - 16 Who is the majority here? If the Conservative government is elected as a minority government, Canadians are indicating they support the Conservatives enough, but not enough for them to govern with a majority. Based on our political model, they are hoping the Opposition party and other MPs will do their job and act as the Opposition to hold them accountable. That is the result of this vote. Coalitions - bad news, for many reasons. Most of which you can find through google.

hahaha... I'm sorry. But I consider the left-wing voters think that they're voting for a solution to be better. I also can't fathom how any of those voters could possibly look at it using the word "opportunity". I too think the word 'consequence' resonates with a typical left wing voter in voting for anything that would be any kind of risk and 'risk' has been removed from the status quo. It is plain to see that 2/3 of Canadians have found the word 'risk' resonate with them when thinking of the Conservatives, the Green Party, the Liberals and the NDP (depending on who they vote for). I don't think it's fair to presume that lefty voters are stupid or shallow... but I don't think it's unfair to presume that most of these voters aren't thinking of what the country's going to need in 30 years, or even 5 years. It's a 'right now' mentality that comes across to me. Most families are pre-occupied with findinga daycare spot for their children that they fail to see what kind of harm universal daycare promises to deliver, as can be seen in pretty much every example of it. How could it possibly be an opportunity to 'be better' - both on its own and better than the rest. I've never had it spelled out to me as a voter - or a listener.

Please see above post.

I'm not talking about a majority government, i'm talking about a majority of the votes and a majority of the seats, in contrast to other parties. Edit to add: better yet, I think you were taking the context of my majority to mean the popular vote, majority government. But i'm just talking the simple definition of majority here.

Phishtaper, back to the less smarterer version of what you wrote: Since when did a majority only apply in context of 2s?

I'd suggest reading the comments following this post on the Globe and Mail and those in the Toronto Star. NDP'ers may want to join forces with the Liberals (legitimization/credibility/support), but as Stephane Dion said as noted above, Liberals don't want anything to do with the NDP. And I'd have to agree with them. Such a coalition could stand to subtract from their historically large voter base of centrally ground ideologues, and could in turn drive those votes over to the CPC. I think it's in the interest of the NDP to paint the Liberals with the same brush as themselves to align itself as one of the many options on the left. The result of which would be saying to voters they are a credible option as an alternative to the Liberal party, because we're all lefties. This couldn't be further from the truth. I understand the warm and fuzziness of working together and compromise, but i think if such a coalition were formed you'd find the Liberals remaining the dominants sitting in government (much to Jack Layton's dislike as I agree with those who think Jack thought he'd be man in charge) and the NDP vote be compromised and/or intimidated. Simply sitting down and comparing policy between these two parties will show you that they disagree on quite a bit. I also think such a coalition would stifle important and potentially great smaller parties - like the Green Party, from ever developing their platform to be a major contender. Check out how much progress the Greens have made in this campaign alone. If other parties started talking coalitions, they would be ruined. And that just sucks.

I'm not being stupid at all. 36% of the votes IS the majority of the votes based on our political model. 1/3 wanted Harper, but 2/3 did not vote in favour for one single other party. How 'bout we give the electorate credit for understanding how party politics works?

PS, i think should the Liberals be elected, they'd find the sheer millions slipping out of federal coffers as more and more corporations throw their money into income tax trusts to be as troubling as the CPC does. That promise is a little weak and has one of the biggest potentials to be broken.

Do you ever consider Canadians might actually view a vote for the CPC as an opportunity to be better?

I am and I think it's bullshit. If Canadian voters elect Stephen Harper, that's what they want. Is it fair to voters for other parties to form a coalition, or to promote strategic voting because THEY don't want him in? Not at all. Let the vote speak for itself without our politicians joining forces to defeat him. The vote should speak for something, so should our political parties.

Yep! I don't mind the Libs or the Greens. I don't like the NDP... they'd be the only national party that I would question. I think the Greens would have a serious wake up call should they be elected and we'd see a bunch of broken promises, but all in all, I don't think we'd fall apart. The Liberals, of course they're viable. Doesn't mean I would vote for them.

Amen!

Not so. Hux had an excellent post.

You lost me at "well". All I am saying is that when someone calls for the electorate to strategically vote, they have a reason. I'm saying Elizabeth May (based on whoever said she said ) is presupposing that Canadians will care enough, urging them to care enough on this particular plight, to forgo some of their other ideologies in order to make sure Harper doesn't get elected (because of this plight).

I don't see how calling for strategic voting on the grounds of her environmental ideology, isn't presupposing voters might actually listen.

I'd say so. She's calling on Canadians to do what they can to oust Stephen Harper because I think just coming out with all this, she's assuming people are going to listen. No?

I think it's a little presumptuous of May to assume carbon emmissions are at the top of the electorate's causes and that they and ghg trump everything else that follows - economy, healthcare, education, crime, welfare, etc. Simply calling on Canadians to forgo their ideals in all of these other areas of HUUUUGE importance really, really, really, lessens my opinion of her. Undemocratic? Amen!

I think that's a little unfair to say based on the big ticket policy I'm talking about (ie, crime, daycare, healthcare, carbon emmissions, taxation, etc.). The kind where voter ideology aligns itself with a particular party.