Some of the other horrible things include allowing the Minister unilaterally to decide which countries are "safe" and which aren't. Currently, he has to convene a panel including human rights experts to advise on which countries are safe. When this goes into effect in a week, he will be able to make those choices based on trade relations and other international political motivations rather than which countries are actually safe.

*promote for all of our "freedoms" disappearing

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, June 25th, 2012 1:03pm PDT - promote requested by Fusionaut.

Fucking Harper. I am glad they have spent the time and money to change the name of the gov't to "The Harper Government" so once this horrible aberration of politics is voted out we can easily identify and kill this kind of evil bullshit.

Steve~0 strikes again !

Chop cut chop cut.

BUT

I agree with this statement, be it true or not in this case.

Equalizing health care, they don't deserve anything more than I. What I get for "free" is pretty good, I can get a scope up my ass if I need, had one down my throat already. Good things to know. Wonder what they mean by equalizing, what would they get more than I ? a free heart ? what more is there.

Government health care sucks since they make the rules.

Can you please explain yourself?

From how your comment reads, you're suggesting that free health to all people in a nation thanks to a good government health system is somehow worse than privatised medicine?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to explain yourself, as surely no one is this naive.

>> ^bobknight33:

Government health care sucks since they make the rules.

You must be new here.

>> ^DrNoodles:

Can you please explain yourself?
From how your comment reads, you're suggesting that free health to all people in a nation thanks to a good government health system is somehow worse than privatised medicine?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to explain yourself, as surely no one is this naive.
>> ^bobknight33:
Government health care sucks since they make the rules.

Oh, I just checked bobknight33's profile. He's a troll, I see now.

>> ^berticus:

You must be new here.
>> ^DrNoodles:
Can you please explain yourself?
From how your comment reads, you're suggesting that free health to all people in a nation thanks to a good government health system is somehow worse than privatised medicine?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to explain yourself, as surely no one is this naive.
>> ^bobknight33:
Government health care sucks since they make the rules.

Bravo!

If it's true what the minister said then yes I agree things should be equal, but somehow I think that isn't what the bill does considering the reaction it has generated.

I would hate to think that all of the sudden immigrants are being given less rights than 'born in Canada' Canadians especially considering almost everyone in this country was an immigrant at one point, either 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th generation etc... I look like a typical white Canadian guy but it wasn't that many generations go that none of my family members lived in this country.

damn Canada... you used to be so cool.... These harper boys... they're fucking you into horrible land.

"I don't believe this minister deserves my courtesy."

A.k.a. The Canadian Burn.

I guess I'm too used to seeing American political presentations, but I was waiting for security to tackle him at any moment.

Government controlled anything is worse than its equivalent in the private sector.
Only through capitalism can you drive down costs and increase services.


>> ^DrNoodles:

Can you please explain yourself?
From how your comment reads, you're suggesting that free health to all people in a nation thanks to a good government health system is somehow worse than privatised medicine?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt to explain yourself, as surely no one is this naive.
>> ^bobknight33:
Government health care sucks since they make the rules.

@bobknight33

The U.S. is the center of capitalism. We have mostly privately run health care.

And 16% of all the money we spend, more than all those eviiiilsocialist! country, goes to healthcare.

You don't know what you're talking about.
You're just stringing together words you hear on Foxnews.

Of course, most people would agree that refugee claimants should receive no better health coverage than Canadians, but pregnant women, diabetics and people having heart attacks get free care. Why shouldn't refugee claimants get it too? This doesn't make it equal. I can't believe that's the best rationale they came up with. I'm curious what the real intent was. Save a few bucks? Pander to the racists? Didn't think there were enough of them. We're not America yet, are we?>> ^BoneRemake:

Steve~0 strikes again !
Chop cut chop cut.
BUT
I agree with this statement, be it true or not in this case.
Equalizing health care, they don't deserve anything more than I. What I get for "free" is pretty good, I can get a scope up my ass if I need, had one down my throat already. Good things to know. Wonder what they mean by equalizing, what would they get more than I ? a free heart ? what more is there.

when civil discourse is abused to spread misinformation and divide opinion, than civil disobedience is the first answer. a lot of people skip the civil discourse part and go right to killing off and suppressing people.

Government is the last group you want to run healthcare or anything else.

They can't even make a hammer for less that $700 bucks and you believe that government controlled healthcare is a good idea. Stop watching MSNBC and the rest of that lean forward ilk. Only fools believe that socialized government programs are good.

Our healthcare system, thought not perfect, is better than any other Country.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@bobknight33
The U.S. is the center of capitalism. We have mostly privately run health care.
And 16% of all the money we spend, more than all those eviiiilsocialist! country, goes to healthcare.
You don't know what you're talking about.
You're just stringing together words you hear on Foxnews.

I'm surprised there were no security guards to chase these people away.

>> ^messenger:

Of course, most people would agree that refugee claimants should receive no better health coverage than Canadians, but pregnant women, diabetics and people having heart attacks get free care. Why shouldn't refugee claimants get it too? This doesn't make it equal. I can't believe that's the best rationale they came up with. I'm curious what the real intent was. Save a few bucks? Pander to the racists? Didn't think there were enough of them. We're not America yet, are we?>> ^BoneRemake:
Steve~0 strikes again !



If it is life threatening why not ? I am for it. When I have a heart attack or get hit by a bus or a sifter finds me, I like to think a rod in my bone and machines and Doctors galore are provided. I do not understand how they are getting anything other than that which is available to me. What do they get that I do not have access to if I needed it. Other than wait times. Maybe I can assume they are going to the front of the line ?

I've heard some unsubstantiated but plausible conjecture that currently, refugees get free prescription medication. Other Canadian residents don't.

Dear all,

Stop feeding the troll please. bobknight33 is a troll, and his claims in this thread are wrong or cannot be substantiated. We all know that. I understand that "Someone's wrong on the Internet" is considered an emergency that requires your intervention, but really, it's not. bk33 has no influence here other than to disrupt threads, and it's you who give him that power by responding.

Ignoring is having the last word.

Thank you.

Sometimes there is such intolerance of opposition in opinion here at the Sift. When your typical liberal Sifter decries the greed of the private sector, vilifies "big business" and slams Fox News, it is hailed throughout the ranks as a battle cry, but when bobknight33 suggests the inefficiency of government-controlled industry and criticizes MSNBC, he is bombarded by the mob with accusations of naivety, not substantiating his remarks and being a "troll." For instance, take a post like CrushBug's -- "Fucking Harper. I am glad they have spent the time and money to change the name of the gov't to "The Harper Government" so once this horrible aberration of politics is voted out we can easily identify and kill this kind of evil bullshit." This is the quintessence of unsubstantiated, ad hominem attack. Yet it is met with resounding approval and hardy back slaps aplenty, buoyed up by the inertia of the throng.

"You didn't want to come. The average man don't like trouble and danger. YOU don't like trouble and danger. But if only HALF a man—like Buck Harkness, there—shouts 'Lynch him! lynch him!' you're afraid to back down—afraid you'll be found out to be what you are—COWARDS—and so you raise a yell, and hang yourselves on to that half-a-man's coat-tail, and come raging up here, swearing what big things you're going to do. The pitifulest thing out is a mob; that's what an army is—a mob; they don't fight with courage that's born in them, but with courage that's borrowed from their mass, and from their officers. But a mob without any MAN at the head of it is BENEATH pitifulness. Now the thing for YOU to do is to droop your tails and go home and crawl in a hole. If any real lynching's going to be done it will be done in the dark, Southern fashion; and when they come they'll bring their masks, and fetch a MAN along."
-Mark Twain

>> ^messenger:

Dear all,
Stop feeding the troll please. bobknight33 is a troll, and his claims in this thread are wrong or cannot be substantiated. We all know that. I understand that "Someone's wrong on the Internet" is considered an emergency that requires your intervention, but really, it's not. bk33 has no influence here other than to disrupt threads, and it's you who give him that power by responding.
Ignoring is having the last word.
Thank you.

You're either an idiot or a troll. Or both.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

find the United States on this list. [hint: it's not near the top]

>> ^bobknight33:


Our healthcare system, thought not perfect, is better than any other Country.

By what measure? Ease of access? Scope of care? Wealth of available specialists? If I were sick I would rather be in the USA than any other country.



>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

You're either an idiot or a troll. Or both.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
find the United States on this list. [hint: it's not near the top]
>> ^bobknight33:

Our healthcare system, thought not perfect, is better than any other Country.

>> ^bobknight33:

By what measure? Ease of access? Scope of care? Wealth of available specialists? If I were sick I would rather be in the USA than any other country.


You mean if you were sick, and with good enough insurance, and that insurance company didn't decide it was a pre-existing condition or some other reason not to treat you.

No-one would argue that the US doesn't have some of the best hospitals, surgeons and so on. The argument is about how much it costs and whether people can access it. It's not much use having the best care in the world if it's only available to a few people.

So the real question is what makes healthcare sooooo expensive.
I once had to see a specialist some 30 years ago. 1 visit cost 800 bucks. I said basically WTF and the reply was that most was cost due to the paperwork required by insurance and government.

Things have only gotten worse. WE would be far better off and costs would come down when the government gets out of the way and 2) get rid of employer provided insurance. Let each person shop for their own HC insurance plan. For the poor and such sure let there be a government net but give the people the power not the government. There little competition in the current system.


>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^bobknight33:
By what measure? Ease of access? Scope of care? Wealth of available specialists? If I were sick I would rather be in the USA than any other country.

You mean if you were sick, and with good enough insurance, and that insurance company didn't decide it was a pre-existing condition or some other reason not to treat you.
No-one would argue that the US doesn't have some of the best hospitals, surgeons and so on. The argument is about how much it costs and whether people can access it. It's not much use having the best care in the world if it's only available to a few people.

>> ^bobknight33:

So the real question is what makes healthcare sooooo expensive.
I once had to see a specialist some 30 years ago. 1 visit cost 800 bucks. I said basically WTF and the reply was that most was cost due to the paperwork required by insurance and government.
Things have only gotten worse. WE would be far better off and costs would come down when the government gets out of the way and 2) get rid of employer provided insurance. Let each person shop for their own HC insurance plan. For the poor and such sure let there be a government net but give the people the power not the government. There little competition in the current system.

I don't have the figures to hand, but I've read before that one of the reasons healthcare (in the US in particular) is so expensive is due to the cost of malpractice suits. Why it's less of a problem in other countries, I don't know.

@bobknight33

Do research. From peer reviewed primary sources.

You'll find that governments run lower administrative costs, 1%. As opposed to 3 up to 10% for private insurance companies.

Places like Japan have a mix of private and public doctors and hospitals so there's tons of competition.

The Japanese government focuses on primary care. Like some crazy socialist assholes, they make everyone go to the doctor regularly. You know, before they become too sick. Which cuts down on cost.

Not to mention, they have fixed prices for procedures. So say you need to see a specialist. Instead of 800 bucks, the price is fixed at 350. A price everyone can afford. So many people don't NEED insurance to cover the cost.

So let's review:
1] Public insurance has lower Admin cost. Around 1%. i.e. tax dollars aren't wasted.
2] Some government make primary care mandatory. This lowers the burden on insurance holders even further.
3] Governments set the cost of health care at an affordable price. Meaning more people can pay out of pocket. Meaning the insurance pools pay out less, which means premiums are lower.

The result: Japan's health care system is in the top 10.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Japan's HCS = 10th
U.S.'s HCS = 37th

So, instead of repeating talking points you got from Fox & friends. Why don't you do some research and look for solutions.

From your recap:

1] Public insurance has lower Admin cost. Around 1%. i.e. tax dollars aren't wasted. FALSE No one can run a company at 3% overhead cost let alone at 1%. Name another program, private sector or government, that runs at 1% admin costs? Think about that % you stated.


2] Some government make primary care mandatory. This lowers the burden on insurance holders even further. Would be a good idea to have annual checkups to prevent sickness at early stages. This should be an agreement with you insurance provider, not mandatory via government decree.

3] Governments set the cost of health care at an affordable price. Meaning more people can pay out of pocket. Meaning the insurance pools pay out less, which means premiums are lower. --- False That's a grandiose leap of faith. Healthcare costs will rise-- The affordability rates will go higher once this program gets up and running. Obama care is already projected to cost double of its original 1 Trillion.

The Government does not know how to save money, only wastefully spend it.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@bobknight33
Do research. From peer reviewed primary sources.
You'll find that governments run lower administrative costs, 1%. As opposed to 3 up to 10% for private insurance companies.
Places like Japan have a mix of private and public doctors and hospitals so there's tons of competition.
The Japanese government focuses on primary care. Like some crazy socialist assholes, they make everyone go to the doctor regularly. You know, before they become too sick. Which cuts down on cost.
Not to mention, they have fixed prices for procedures. So say you need to see a So let's review

The only way to cut down a 800$ cost to #50% is to know how its calculated. That is what is involved in calculating that cost.
specialist. Instead of 800 bucks, the price is fixed at 350. A price everyone can afford. So many people don't NEED insurance to cover the cost.
So let's review:
1] Public insurance has lower Admin cost. Around 1%. i.e. tax dollars aren't wasted.
2] Some government make primary care mandatory. This lowers the burden on insurance holders even further.
3] Governments set the cost of health care at an affordable price. Meaning more people can pay out of pocket. Meaning the insurance pools pay out less, which means premiums are lower.
The result: Japan's health care system is in the top 10.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Japan's HCS = 10th
U.S.'s HCS = 37th
So, instead of repeating talking points you got from Fox & friends. Why don't you do some research and look for solutions.

i think its amazing that the people who did the disruption were given a chance to voice their side and not just cop tossed and the meeting continued. yay for actual journalist, just one more thing canada is better at.

@bobknight33

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/

"However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage."

This shows you don't know or care what the fuck you're talking about.

I've seen you be reasonable about stuff. This one of things you should be reasonable about.

You trollin' motherfucker.

Your using Paul Krugman. Really you might as well a tee shirt saying

" I'm dumber that a bag of hammers."


2% administration cost? How is that calculated? Does that include the lovable 16 thousand IRS agents, Like we need more IRS thugs. And if you need 16,000 IRS police to make sure that you pay how many other administration jobs are needed for all the other parts of OBAMA CARE? It just doesn't add up.

Dude take off the rose colored glasses.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@bobknight33
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/
"However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage."
This shows you don't know or care what the fuck you're talking about.
I've seen you be reasonable about stuff. This one of things you should be reasonable about.
You trollin' motherfucker.

@bobknight33

So you're conceding? You're admitting that health insurance provided by the Government CAN BE and IS less costly that Private firms?

Because you haven't made a valid argument, just Ad Homs and Red Herrings.

So what if Krugman wrote the article. The CBO's report still shows facts. That Admin cost are less than 2%.

To measure the administrative costs for Medicare, we first turned to the 2011 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds -- the document prepared by Medicare’s fiscal overseers.

The trustees’ summary listed total Medicare expenditures of $522.8 billion for 2010, of which $7 billion was characterized as "administrative expenses." That works out to 1.3 percent

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/30/barbara-boxer/barbara-boxer-says-medicare-overhead-far-lower-pri/


Dude, take off your FoxNews glasses.