Thursday, April 27, 2006

Innovation means choice

Recently, Canada’s Health Minister Tony Clement said the federal government was open to “innovation” when it comes to Canada’s health care system. However, any innovation would have to be within the parameters of the Canada Health Act (CHA). Regrettably, the CHA prohibits the delivery of private health care services within Canada.

Stifling competition and re-enforcing the status quo that is clearly not working is anything but “innovation.” Allowing greater competition and a parallel, private system to co-exist along side the public system — as is done throughout the world — is key to improving Canada’s health care system.

To read the entire column click here.

14 comments:

Robert McClelland said...

$1.5 Billion. I don't recall this fraudulent organization ever once complaining about the outrageous government subsidies going to the oil sector.

Shawn said...

"The NDP estimates the federal government spends $1.5 billion a year on subsidies to oil and gas companies."

Forgive me if I am a bit hesitant to trust the speNDP's number crunching.

That said, corporate welfare is a joke. I expect the CPC to end this absurd practice of propping up fading sectors with money appropriated from those in good health. Good start would be to eliminate ACOA and Western Economic Slushfund (or whatever it is called).

Robert McClelland said...

Forgive me if I am a bit hesitant to trust the speNDP's number crunching.

That's only understandable since filling up your brain with propaganda makes you stupid.

Fact: The NDP has the best record of the three parties when it comes to balancing budgets. That is a fact.

Fact: The NDP had the best costed campaign platforms of the three parties in both the `04 and `06 election. That is a fact.

That said, corporate welfare is a joke.

But you'll never hear the CTF complain about it when it's directed at conservative supporters.

R.S. Porter said...

The NDP being fiscally responsible, now that’s rich.

Tanis Fiss said...

Robert;

The CTF has said plenty on Corporate Welfare. Here's a link to one of our studies.
http://www.taxpayer.com/pdf/CorporateWelfare-Quebec.pdf

Sask.Taxpayers Federation said...

If Dr's can deliver healthcare under a private system then it can be delivered under a public system. Me thinks Dr's want a private system to make more money. Here in Sask that's over 250,000.00 per year for a GP. How much money do we have to pay them? Until it hurts. Maybe Dr's have their own adgenda?

Shawn said...

Nice mix of ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated claims. The tools of the ignorant and ill-informed.

Ever heard of Bob Rae? in a year or so, SK people will be cursing Lorne Calvert in the same fashion. These two have used accounting dodges that would do Worldcom or Enron proud. Fiscal Stabilization Fund anyone? Saskies know what I'm talking about.

John Scraba said...

r.s.porter you probably subscribe to the Grant Devine Conservative Party spending practices which drove saw 9 consecutive deficit budgets with Billions of debt. A lot of former Saskatchewan Tory types now see the error of our ways (don't forget that 16 Conservative MLA's were covicted of fraud). That is not a great record for Conservatives to be proud of. AND... the full story has never come out...but will....soon....

Joe and Mary said...

"speNDP" interesting....Saskatchewan's New Democratic Government has received 9 consecutive annual credit upgrades from the Dominion Bond Rating Agency of Toronto and from Moody's Investors in New York City. You should curb your rightwing rhetoric somewhat.

R. S. Porter said...

Mr. Scraba, I do understand your jump in logic. Simply because I do not like the NDP's spending habits does not, regardless of what you think, mean that I support Grant Devine's style of government. My belief in fiscal (or economic) libertarianism allows me to criticize all parties, including Conservative governments.

Don’t get me wrong though, I do understand it’s much easier to dismiss me as a crazy extremist. All in all let us not forget: just because a budget is balanced, it does not mean it was a good budget.

Robert McClelland said...

The CTF has said plenty on Corporate Welfare.

Of course they have. When it comes to corporate welfare in the Atlantic province or Quebec, specifically Bombardier, the CTF doesn't hesitate to get up on its hind legs and dance for its conservative masters. But when it comes to Alberta and oil sector dole, the CTF turns into Sargeant Shultz--"I see nothink!"

But I can understand why that is. After all, Albertans wouldn't take too kindly to the idea of the CTF pointing out how their #1 industry is suckling at the government teat. So if the CTF were to draw attention to it, their funding might dry up forcing the people working there to get real jobs.

David MacLean said...

Robert, while I immensely enjoy your trolling, you really don't know what you are talking about.

I think, and correct my if I am wrong, the NDP is referring to the generic royalty regime -- which was a favourable royalty structure to allow oilsand development.

The basic principle was that oil sand operation are so capital intensive, that they would never be fully developed. So both levels of government cut a deal that allowed oil sand companies to recoup their capital investment costs before they started paying the full royalty rate.

What happened was nearly $60 billion in capital investment BEFORE the price boom.

So when it comes to preferential tax credits, we have spoken out against them. Particularly in British Columbia, but elsewhere too.

But lets be sure we're talking about the same thing. What we saw in the oil sands was a targeted tax cut -- and not a bombardier style subsidy.

I don't really expect an NDPer to understand this, as Fort McMurray has never had an NDP MP since its beginning.

I grew up there, and I never saw any of Jack Layton's predecessors spending much time in Fort McMurray.

Robert McClelland said...

Robert, while I immensely enjoy your trolling

The last bastion of the know-nothing. When confronted with a superior foe, call them a troll.

R. S. Porter said...

Robert, you perfectly fit the definition of a troll. You add nothing substantive to the discussion, besides consistently trying to get the first post, regardless of the validity of your content.

How you get the idea that you are somehow "superior" is beyond comprehension.

CTF You Tube Channel

Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Fan Box