GoMontreal

C'est pour ça que les américains bénéficient d'un des niveau de vie les plus élevés au monde et que la France fonce droit dans un mur avec une dette qui croit plus rapidement que son économie depuis quelques décennies... mais évidemment ils ont un TGV et l'éducation gratuite alors ils sont pardonnés.

Quoiqu'avec Obama, les choses sont en train de changer à un rythme épeurant...

Update: Van Jones, the marxist/communist, has resigned this morning. Can you believe he was not fired? Obviously he wasn't because Obama probably holds the same beliefs and doesn't see anything wrong with it.

This editorial was written on friday, therefore before he quit.

The 'Green' Trojan Horse

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, September 04, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Domestic Policy: Among the many controversies swirling around the White House's "green czar," none is more disturbing than his plan to use the green movement to socialize the economy.

Read More: General Politics

Van Jones, a special adviser to the president, revealed his Trojan-horse strategy during a 2008 interview on leftist Uprising Radio in Los Angeles.

"The green economy will start off as a small subset" of a "complete revolution" away from "gray capitalism" and toward "redistribution of all the wealth," he said. "And we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society."

A self-described "communist," Jones caught heat recently for calling Republicans "a**holes." He's also a 9/11 "truther" as it turns out, one of many red flags in a radical past that, remarkably, didn't disqualify him from shaping domestic policy in this White House.

Jones apologized for his "inappropriate" remarks concerning Republicans while distancing himself from the nutty people calling for an investigation of the Bush administration for bombing the Twin Towers on 9/11. Jones signed a petition pushing for such a witch hunt, even though the Ivy League lawyer claims he didn't know what he was signing.

But he hasn't been made to answer for his communist beliefs, which are even deeper than first thought.

Trying to change the subject, Jones insisted his work at the White House is "entirely focused on one goal: building clean-energy incentives which create 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and use renewable resources."

That doesn't tell the full story.

As the president's "green-jobs czar," it's clear Jones has a hidden agenda. Judging from his own words, his environmental concerns appear to be a front for creating a massive new welfare program — complete with paid job training and counseling — for criminals.

Jones has a shockingly soft spot for felons. Before joining the White House, he agitated against "the punishment industry," which he claims profits from a "racist war" against people of color. He has called U.S. prisons "slave ships on dry land" and has served on panels calling for an end to prisons and the freeing of all inmates.

The former Oakland, Calif., community organizer has said he wants to "build a pipeline from the prison economy to the green economy," including hiring parolees to weatherize homes and offices. He secured grants to start a Green Job Corps in Oakland.

In his 2006 memoir, President Obama proposed government-subsidized green jobs "to hire and train ex-felons on projects" such as "insulating homes and offices to make them energy-efficient." Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, who worked with Jones in California as a congresswoman, has already put such plans in motion.

Jones' "green jobs, not jails" program is but a "radical kernel" of what Jones says he wants to reap. He intends to use the green movement as a Trojan horse to socialize the entire economy.

"Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to 'eco-capitalism' where at least we're not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet," Jones said. "Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether."

Beyond our system of capitalism to communism, is what he means.

Though Obama's father was a Marxist, there's no indication the president subscribes to Jones' vision.

But Obama and Jones share a common background in the same Marxism-steeped faith: Black Liberation Theology, which we first warned voters about years ago. The father of the movement — James Cone — believes that by merging Marxism with the Gospel, African-Americans will be liberated.

"Together," Cone said, "black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us a way to build a completely new society."

Cone mentored Obama's longtime preacher, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a big fan of Marxist regimes. Wright has made a number of comments over the years that have been described as anti-capitalist and anti-American, and that suggest he believes deep conspiracies drive American politics.

We also warned that it's dangerous for a presidential aspirant to surround himself throughout his career with a coterie of radicals. They could wind up in the White House making policy.

Van Jones is Exhibit A.

Bonne idée. Bonne idée sauf qu'il devrait commencer à parler à son propre causus, la députation de son équipe et l'ensemble des ministres du gouvernement.

 

On va oublier ca, ce n'est pas dans la tradition Libérale d'etre productif pour l'ensemble du Québec.

 

Mais productif pour leurs propres intérets, Oh que oui !!!

Wishful thinking! Ce n'est pas dans la tradition de fonctionnaire d'être productif, c'est contre nature pour un fonctionnaire typique.

Le protectionisme est vraiment stupide et va contre toute les lois de marché, d'offre et de demande, et évidement du vrai capitalisme. D'après moi, il a raison de dire ça. Par contre, de dire qu'il doivent agir vu de l'incertitude politique du Québec est un peu ridicule...

All I'm saying is that GWB, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et compagnie should be held accountable for what happened in the past 8 years. Let the courts decide their fate. I understand that their far-reach would make a fair trial all but impossible, but still, I would like to see what a jury of their peers would say. If they are not war criminals, then they are certainly guilty of being very bad people. How are their ties to companies like Haliburton not putting them behind bars for white-collar crimes. How are people like Karl Rove and Scooter Libby able to walk around like nothing happened while people are being arrested for the pettiest of crimes?

Ya, it's kind of like Ted Kennedy and his crimes, how was he able to get away with it? And then there's Harry Reid with his preferential treatment for his home mortgage from friends in the biz. There's also Charles Rangel who on the finance committee (or something like that) who has 'forgotten' millions of dollars in income when declaring for income taxes. Nancy Pelosi with her millions in stimulus going to her husband's business.

Ya, I totally understand what you mean.

Again, i see nothing that suggests that at all. Got any examples or factual evidence that might support your arguments?

Conservatives outnumber liberals in nearly every state

Right. By that logic, damn the government for also offering roads, street lights, clean water and sidewalks! Oh, but those are necessary for having a functional economy, you say... right. So it's justifiable to build roads, but it isn't justifiable to save human lives.

Well ya, business does it better, why should government have the monopoly over these things?

You know, why not just abolish all services! Abolish all government! All these socialist services.. roads.. sidewalks.. what's the point? No taxes! Then we can revert to anarchy because that's obviously a superior strategy!

Well, there would still be taxes, don't get too excited. Crime prevention and defense are not things I would put companies in charge of, but what's the problem with developers building roads and sidewalks in neighbourhoods, owning them and maintaining them, kind of like a privately owned city? There are plenty of large neighbourhoods in the US that operate this way and they are among the best places to live.

With all due respect, i think your logic is fundamentally flawed and your opinion is based on misconstrued political rhetoric.

Well, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Just like the U.S. Postal Service has effectively destroyed all competition, right? Excuse me while i mail a package with FedEx or UPS... empirical data suggests the notions you suggest are simply not true.

What a great example! USPS sucks and the only reason FedEx and UPS can survive is because USPS completely sucks. If USPS didn't exist, believe me that FedEx and UPS or others would get into the business of daily mail. The only reason USPS still exists is because it offers services at unreasonable prices, for no profit, kills it's potential competition, and operates under large deficits and gets bailed out by the federal government every year. It's ridiculous, how is this sustainable?

Please do!

More later... back to work for me.

You can be absolutely convinced that socialism is bad, but you ought to still hope the president succeeds in pushing for a socialist agenda if that agenda yields results. The rationale? Simple : "I hope i'm proven wrong."

 

Example : If i strongly believe conservative policy X is bad, very very bad, and if President Y was trying to push for it, i would disagree with the policy, but still hope it worked. I would hope that President Y succeeded in making that policy achieve its objectives. Then i could happily say i was proven wrong.

 

It's called having an open mind and changing your views when new information challenges your previously held opinions critically.

No problem, I can agree with that.

I simply disagree. Obama has implemented a tremendous amount of reform in his short term in office. Some sources point to figures suggesting he's actually done more in the last 9 months than Bush in his entire second term. I personally believe a lot of that is genuine change. Increased gay rights. Increased separation between church and state. Closing of Gitmo. Pulling out of Iraq and stepping up the game in Afghanistan. Going after ambitious health care reform. Etc.

 

I think it is change, not more of the same. In fact i think there is a factually undeniable amount of genuine change going on. Whether or not that change will all turn out to be good change... remains to be seen. I think it will, for the most part. That's just where you and I don't see eye to eye.

I agree that Obama has done a lot of reform. Yet the reform that I wish for would be that he would get out of toying with the economy, get out of stimulus/subsidies, get out of health care, get out of social security, get out of defining marriage (churches and other groups can do that and then we wouldn't have any gay marriage problems), etc. That would be real change. Conservative politicians don't even have the balls to do that. Besides, once government gets into something, it's virtually impossible to take it out of, which is why government shouldn't get into anything because it does everything badly.

You know, psychologists say the most rational people are the ones that are able to change their minds whenever new information is presented. I'm not saying i'm the most rational person in the world, but i will say this. I know my stance on issues. I'm also extremely open minded.

I know that and I am also open minded. However, my core beliefs of freedom will never change. It took me a while to get to this belief and I would never choose a social safety net over pure freedom, because with my freedom and my hard work, I believe I can do better than the life the government offers me. Yet when the government gets into health care, like here in Canada, if I'm a millionaire (which I'm definitely not) and want better health care, I am not allowed to have. Right now, people have the choice to go to the states for care, but not for long. Government will kill insurance companies, kill innovation and competition in the US and the whole world will suffer for it.

"If Bush's policies turn out to be good, then fantastic". Yes, indeed. Why on earth wouldn't i find it fantastic? I'd love to be wrong if it meant the betterment of society. If policies i thought were incorrect turn out to be correct, then good for the people! It would challenges my ideas, force me to think, analyze... but what's wrong with that? I would ultimately grow as a rational individual.

That's good. As for me, I base my opinions on this fundamental principle: does this take someone's freedom of choice away? If yes, it's bad. For example, government run health care (monopoly) in Canada doesn't give you the choice to take your money and go elsewhere therefore it's bad. Government also has a monopoly on highways and bridges, if I want to drive on a 4 lane no-pothole highway with less traffic to go to Quebec city and am willing to pay for it, too bad, the government has the same low standard for everybody.

See, here's the thing about ideals and convictions... a strong conviction isn't about believing what you want to believe no matter what, always standing by your ideas. No. A strong conviction and strong ideals is about believing something and being able to rationalize and justify very thoroughly why you believe what you do. If you're able to do that, and new information is presented that challenges your convictions, then those convictions should logically change, lest you ignore the hard facts and go on thinking what you thought was correct.

 

This is a fundamental principle of liberalism : rationalization, logical critical thinking, open mindedness and the capacity to change and evolve your ideas, concepts, convictions and beliefs according to the ever changing world around us.

Right, yet people's need for freedom won't ever change and that is the foundation of my beliefs. Things can evolve etc, but freedom will always be guiding my stance on something (does it or does it lead to taking away freedom).

I see no factual evidence that suggests Obama or his staff is far-left and socialist. Bring me proof to the contrary and i'll be happy to reconsider my position.

Well first, here is the definition of socialism (first two paragraphs) as found on wikipedia:

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, worker or public ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation. Contrary to popular belief, Socialism is not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximize their potentialities and does not utilize technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalize economic activity by eliminating the anarchy in production of capitalism, allowing for wealth and power to be distributed based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved.

Now explain to me how GM, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and soon, the health care system do not fit into this.

To start, look at Van Jones background (green jobs czars), he's an admitted marxist.

I'm sorry but will have to continue answering the rest later as I need to go to work now. :-)

Two things i take issue with.

 

1. Rush Limbaugh's desire for Obama to fail

2. Throwing around the word "socialism" and the idea that "socialism" goes against freedom and liberty.

 

Firstly, it's true that Limbaugh didn't explicitly say he wants Obama to fail. He said he wants to fail in his push for socialism. Now what if, just what if, and warning : this requires an open mind... what if Obama's "socialist" agenda turns out to be a smashing success. What if it puts people to work, saves health care and fixes the country, unicorns and rainbows included. In such an outcome, wanting Obama's socialism to fail would be directly linked to wanting policies that were successful in improving the lives of people to fail as well. There's no rewording of Limbaugh's statements that can possibly make it alright. The fact is, he is unpatriotic in the extreme. His vision of patriotism is extremely narrow and diluted.

Ok but Limbaugh's opinion is that socialism is bad and therefore, he wants socialist policies to fail along with whoever is pushing them. Socialism has never succeeded anywhere for a very long period because its counter to human nature and unsustainable. Human nature also dictates that those with power always want more which is why the general public always gets deceived by both left and right no matter what change they promise or what they promise to not do. Socialism, in my opinion, can never succeed because government is not effective in creating wealth, jobs, or taking care of health care system, etc. So how can you ask a guy like me (who is absolutely convinced that socialism will make the country fail) to hope that Obama succeeds in pushing his socialist policies? It doesn't make sense. I hope that Obama succeeds in fixing health care, the economy, the world, etc, but I disagree with the way he's going about it and think that his fixes will be temporary and make it worse in the long run, therefore, I prefer that his attempts fail right now so that we can move on to fixing things the right way.

Everyone should want the president to succeed, since the president's goals are to improve the country. You can disagree with his policies, but if the policies turn out to be successful, you should be man enough to admit it. A lot of people trash Bush for many things, but i think he succeeded in keeping the country safe since 9/11 and i thank him and admire him for that.

I agree, I want the US to succeed and to continue to be the example they have been in the past to the rest of the world. I also thank Bush for keeping the country and others safe, but that's about all he did right. And what he did wrong, Obama is doing the same or ten times worse. That's not change, that's more of the same.

That being said, overall, I strongly disliked Bush during his presidency, but something my friends could never understand was why i still wanted him to succeed despite everything. I would tell them : "of course i want him to succeed. I don't like the guy, but that doesn't mean i think the country should suffer. If Bush's policies turn out good, then fantastic! I may even change my opinion of him."

 

Wanting someone to fail is the most close-minded thing possible. What if socialism turned out to be amazing? Would you still want it to fail out of principle? I'm a liberal, but if a conservative president were to do an outstanding job and push for conservative legislation that really made a difference, hell, i might change my political stance on some issues! That, to me, is patriotism.

I don't mean to accuse you of not knowing your stance on your issues but it's hard for me to understand how you can say "If Bush's policies turn out good, then fantastic!" It tells me that you don't believe in your liberal ideology if you think that he can succeed when doing the opposite of what you think he should do. And don't get me wrong, it's perfectly ok to not have a stance on everything yet, I surely don't. However, when it comes to capitalism vs socialism, government stimulus vs no stimulus, I sure as hell know what I stand for and I'm convinced of it. I'm open-minded on subjects in which I haven't yet decided where I stand but on things that I know where I stand, I'm closed-minded if you will. I don't think it makes me unpatriotic to stand for what I believe in is right.

Now... about socialism. First, let's be real. The word is used so freely but nothing Obama proposes is true socialism. Ask any actual real-world socialist. He'll tell you that Obama's agenda isn't far-left at all, in fact it's pretty centrist compared to Canada, Europe and most of the world.

I disagree, just look at the background of all his czars to see what kind of people he chooses to advise him. Look at judge Sotomayor who he just appointed. There is plenty of evidence that Obama is a socialist. His ideology is far left, and his voting record as a senator, according to statistics, made him the most left wing senator of all of them.

The fact is, in America the "right" is the "right-right" as it would be in most other countries. And the "left" in America isn't really that left at all, it's more centre or centre-left than anything else. The whole American political spectrum is slanted to the right.

It's true that the general population is way more to the right then most countries, however, it's false to say that Obama and most democrats are not as far left as many other countries. You need to differentiate between the people and the politicians, they are two different species.

So to call Obama a socialist is truly absurd. If you think Obama is socialist, you don't know what true socialism is. Secondly, i've been following Obama closely since the beginning and nothing he's proposed is truly socialist. Take health care... socialism takes away freedom, but Obama's plan gives you the full freedom to choose your doctor, choose your plan, choose pretty much everything. You have an enormous amount of liberty under the current health care plan and under Obama's reforms as well.

 

All this use of "socialism" is just hogwash.

I don't think so. Just having the government offer health care is a socialist idea so I don't know how you come to that conclusion. Obama is a socialist and I know what true socialism is. He is pushing socialism but that doesn't mean that it's all implemented or that he's succeeding at it yet either.

As for Obama's health care plan giving full freedom, that's ridiculous. They are going to crush the competition by making it uninteresting for people to go with none other than the government's plan and soon enough, there will be no private sector left. There's plenty of evidence in their bill and I can prove it.

On one had ou say you do not love him because of his policies, etc (which could be true of any Republican, and many Democrats). On the other hand you say you "hate" him because "he pushed his luck way too far". I'm not sure what that means, I think he tried to make the best of a very bad situation (The 9/11 terrorist attacks defined the way he governed, and most of us were willing to do whatever it takes to prevent another attack from occuring.) Hate is such a strong word though. I think that it should be reserved for only our true enemies: Osama Bin Laden, Qaeda, etc) George W. Bush is not an enemy.

 

An American who hates Bush is not anti-American but unpatriotic. I would also say that Americans who hate Obama are unpatriotic as the Presidency is an important historical and political institution. That's why I believe Rush Limbaugh is unpatriotic to want Barrack Obama to fail.

Actually, if you listen to the whole clip, Rush Limbaugh (whom I also am not a fan of, but feel the need to set facts straight anyways) said that if Obama keeps pushing socialist ideas, that he wanted him to fail. I think there's a distinction here. He didn't say he wanted Obama to fail, he wants Obama to fail in his socialist push. I don't think that makes Limbaugh unpatriotic. Quite the contrary actually. The US was founded on the ideas of freedom, liberty, prosperity and personal responsibility. Socialism goes against freedom and liberty, it definitely goes against prosperity and takes away personal responsibility. Whether Limbaugh says this or anyone else, the person saying it is a true patriot in my mind, standing for the constitution and what the country was founded on.

il*le mérite pour la torture qu'il a fais subir dans ces prisons secrète et je crois que c'est totalement justifié

Et les terroristes méritent quoi eux? Je suis pas un grand fan de Bush mais au moins, de ce côté là, il a fait sa job. À parler comme tu le fais, tu ne mérites pas le luxe et la liberté dans lequel tu vis. We need to fight for freedom to keep it.

Quote from who knows who (?!): Evil reigns when good men stand still and do nothing.

Nouvelles du jour:

source: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1905981

Canadian doctors open to private health care

Janet French, Canwest News Service

Published: Tuesday, August 18, 2009

SASKATOON -- After heated debate about the slippery slope of pursuing private health care, Canadian doctors voted Tuesday to push governments to look more closely at allowing competition for public health dollars.

As part of a plan to create a "blueprint" to transform this country's health-care system, the Canadian Medical Association approved a resolution to implore governments and health authorities to "examine internal market mechanisms, which could include a role for the private sector, in the delivery of publicly funded health care in Canada."

"The vast majority of Canadian doctors believe there is an urgent need to fix Canada's health care system," outgoing association president Robert Ouellet said later at a news conference at the organization's annual convention, which is being held in Saskatoon this year.

"The physicians of Canada are serving notice that we are tired of the dogmatic, ineffective and faux public/private debate continually derailing any and all attempts to build a health-care system that serves patients."

Doctors speaking in favour of the resolution Tuesday said "competition" should be invited into health care.

"Competition is not a negative thing," said Dr. Tim Nicholas of Aurora, Ont., speaking in favour of the motion. "Competition is good."

"Competition" is already happening in Ontario, where hospitals are rated based on how their patients fare, he said.

He said more competition will help create more access in a system that often leaves patients waiting.

Dr. Ouellet said "competition" doesn't just mean providers battling for dollars -- it could also mean publishing information such as hospital infection rates to see how institutions measure up.

B.C doctor Victor Dirnfeld told delegates they shouldn't confuse the idea of competition for public health dollars with the introduction of private care.

"What I see is the fear of the dirty word, ‘private,' " he said. "We already have extensive private involvement in the publicly funded system.

"Let's not confuse, and let's not contaminate the discussion on this proposal with the fear and anger of the private system."

Doctors should be "at the forefront" of setting direction for what kind of competition is appropriate in health care, since it's happening anyways, Dr. Bill Anderson of Alberta said.

Canadian Doctors for Medicare, however, are concerned decisions may be made without debate by association members.

"This isn't, as far as we can see, going to be done in a transparent way," said Dr. Robert Wollard, vice-chair of Canadian Doctors for Medicare, a group dedicated to advocating for the public health-care system.

While the motion passed with 85% approval, several doctors at the annual convention also spoke against it, saying competition could jeopardize the quality of care patients receive.

Several doctors cited Britain's experience with the introduction of some private health-care providers, which has prompted the British Medical Association to mount a campaign against such competition for public health dollars.

Another doctor argued competition could pit one hospital against the next, eliminating chances for the kind collaboration that has been shown to improve patient care, such as the life-saving Cardiac Care Network of Ontario.

An additional concern was that patients would begin to be seen as "commodities," not humans, in a competitive system.

Dr. Claudette Chase of Thunder Bay, Ont., said patients are becoming suspicious of doctors and the medical association for considering private care as an option.

"I know from the public they already question our values as we move closer and closer to private care," she said.

The discussion among delegates is the organization's attempt to create what it calls a "blueprint for health transformation."

In a background document, the association says many other countries have undergone meaningful health-care reform, but that Canada -- despite repeated promises from federal and provincial politicians -- has yet to budge after nearly a decade of talk.

The blueprint won't be the first document the association has produced to prompt health-care reform -- since 2002, it has authored five other reports prescribing change.

When asked what it is about the blueprint that will finally prod politicians into action, Dr. Ouellet said that change has already begun. He pointed to Alberta Health Services CEO Stephen Duckett, who recently said the province would move from a model of block funding to paying hospitals according to the number of patients served and procedures performed.

Dr. Ouellet said the medical association will take resolutions passed at this and last year's general council meetings to develop a policy, which the organization's board will review come the fall.

Delegates also voted for the association to develop a discussion paper on other countries' experiences with "pay-for-performance" family medicine -- when governments provide doctors or clinics bonuses for patients' positive outcomes.

Other health-care reform motions passed Tuesday included a move to lobby governments to develop stringent requirements within the year to protect patients' privacy and personal health information. Doctors are also asking governments to consider their teaching duties when allotting time in operating rooms.

Many of the ideas up for discussion came from an association study of health-care models in England, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and France.

Un autre éditorial intéressant sur notre système de santé par Nathalie Elgrably.

Un traitement de chien

Le Journal de Montréal, p. 29 / Nathalie Elgrably-Lévy, 13 août 2009

Dans ma chronique de la semaine dernière, j'attirais l'attention sur le système de santé britannique, car il nous renseigne sur l'ampleur du rationnement des soins que nous pourrions subir si, à l'instar du Royaume-Uni, nous préservons notre médecine étatisée. Or, même si les pronostics sont terrifiants, certains affirment que nous n'avons rien à craindre, que le système britannique est un cas extrême auquel nous n'arriverons jamais.

Or, rien n'est moins sûr. Cette semaine encore, on nous annonce que les hôpitaux fermeront 800 lits de soins de longue durée. Combien de mauvaises nouvelles nous faudra-t-il avant d'admettre que nous nous enfonçons chaque jour davantage dans les sables mouvants du rationnement des soins? Quel martyre les patients devront-ils subir, et combien de vies devront être sacrifiées pour que l'on comprenne que notre modèle est insoutenable?

Malgré tout, on nous dit que le monopole public doit être préservé, car la santé n'étant pas un bien comme les autres, on ne peut s'en remettre au marché. Mais cette affirmation est-elle fondée?

N'est-ce pas au marché que nous devons les médicaments, les pansements, les chaises roulantes, les lits d'hôpitaux, les prothèses auditives, les lunettes, etc? Les pharmacies ouvertes 24 heures par jour ne sont-elles pas le produit du secteur privé? Et n'est-ce pas lui qui conçoit et fabrique tout l'équipement médical, du stéthoscope le plus rudimentaire jusqu'à l'appareil de radiothérapie ultrasophistiqué? Or, s'il repousse chaque fois les limites de la technologie pour nous offrir des équipements toujours plus performants, pourquoi serait-il incapable de dispenser efficacement des soins médicaux? N'est-ce pas également ce même secteur qui nous fournit la nourriture de manière tout à fait convenable? Pourtant, ne constitue-t-elle pas une forme de soin de santé dans la mesure où elle est indispensable à notre survie?

Certes, l'appât du gain motive l'entrepreneur. Et après? Qu'importe qu'une clinique fasse des profits, l'important n'est-il pas d'être soigné vite et bien, et de sauver des vies? Il suffit de quelques jours pour subir une chirurgie de la cataracte en clinique privée alors qu'un hôpital impose plusieurs mois d'attente. Aujourd'hui, les traitements de correction de l'œil et les chirurgies esthétiques sont plus abordables et plus accessibles qu'elles ne l'ont jamais été. Nous pouvons choisir notre dentiste et la date de notre rendez-vous. Pourquoi n'en serait-il pas ainsi pour les soins médicaux?

Alors qu'un hôpital impose des délais d'attente de 10, 20 et 50 semaines pour passer un test de résonnance magnétique, subir une chirurgie de la hanche, ou encore une neurochirurgie, la revue Maclean's nous apprenait récemment qu'on peut obtenir ce type de soins en quelques heures à peine à condition d'être … un chien, et de se présenter chez le vétérinaire! Est-il donc justifié de diaboliser la médecine privée alors qu'elle réussit à donner un nouveau sens à l'expression «un traitement de chien»!

Le marché n'est pas parfait, c'est indéniable, mais rien ne justifie la hantise que nous éprouvons à son égard. En revanche, l'État est responsable de l'entretien des routes et des réseaux d'aqueducs, et nous voyons les résultats. Il perd nos épargnes, gère l'argent de nos impôts de manière plus que douteuse, s'endette de manière compulsive, et peine à offrir des places en garderies et des logements sociaux. Et il faudrait lui faire aveuglement confiance en matière de soins de santé uniquement parce que le profit est un concept tabou!?!

Notre système de santé est malade. Tristement, rien ne changera tant que notre haine du profit l'emportera sur notre amour de la vie!

Nathalie Elgrably-Lévy est économiste senior à l'Institut économique de Montréal.

Ce sont deux bons points. Un déductible réduirait les visites inutiles à l'urgence. Pour le deuxième point, d'après moi, ce n'est pas tant les employés que les directions des hôpitaux qui auraient besoin d'être motivées. L'absence de compétition (qui empêche les clients d'aller voir ailleurs) fait en sorte que les directions d'hôpitaux n'on pas réellement intérêts à améliorer leur service et à devenir plus efficace. Un commerce inefficace risque de fermer, un hôpital inefficace demande plus d'argent au gouvernement.

En plein dans le mille! Et comme on voit dans les statistiques de l'article, les dernières années ont voit que des cadres sont engagé presque 2 fois plus que des nouveaux docteurs. Ridicule! L'ajout de cadre augmente la lourdeur de la bureaucratie au lieu d'engagé les vrais producteurs (les docteurs.

Ayant déjà travaillé pour un gouvernement, j'ai vu les patrons multipliés les effectifs sans arrêt. Il parlait constamment de comment ils avaient doublé la taille du département comme si c'était une bonne chose. Et ce, sans vraiment avoir plus de projets. Et avec tout ce beau monde qui sont nouvellement dans le département et qui font de bons pions, et bien, il faut les garder, donc on leur donne permanence à vie, ce qui biensur va à l'encontre de toute forme de motivation professionnelle. Une fois la permanence reçu, en autant que tu violes pas la voisine, t'es correcte pour la vie, pas besoin de travailler fort pour garder ta job, ta job est assuré et ton syndicat est là pour défendre ta lâcheté.

Dans le privé, il y a toujours une certaine menace de perdre son emploi donc c'est un incitatif de performer, innover, arriver en temps, être respectueux, etc. Quand la business fait pas d'argent, tu arranges le problème sinon tu meurs (ou, dans le cas des amis du gouvernement, tel que AIG, GM, Bombardier, tu recois des bailouts/subventions). Ça me semble tellement logique mais il y en a plein de monde qui semble pas comprendre.

Où s'en va votre argent? La santé et les services sociaux

Année après année, la part du budget provincial réservée à la Santé au Québec est toujours la plus importante. Et elle augmente. Elle était de 20,9 milliards de dollars en 2005, elle est rendue à 26,8 milliards $ cette année. Elle approchera le 30 milliards $ l'année prochaine. Malgré tout cet argent, les files d'attente sont longues, les pénuries ne sont pas résorbées, des milliers de Québécois n'ont toujours pas accès à un médecin de famille, etc., etc.

L'année dernière, dans un éditorial sur la question, André Pratte nous apprenait qu'«au cours de la dernière décennie, le budget du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux a été augmenté de 11 milliards. Onze milliards! Quiconque prétend qu'il manque d'argent aujourd'hui dans le réseau de la santé devra d'abord expliquer où sont allés ces milliards supplémentaires!» Il ajoutait qu'on compte aujourd'hui presque 2000 médecins de plus au Québec qu'il y a une décennie et qu'il y aurait 1700 infirmières de plus qu'il y a cinq ans. («L'urgence: sortir la politique des hôpitaux!», La Presse, 20 novembre 2008.)

Et selon des chiffres obtenus par La Presse Affaires, «le réseau québécois de la santé a engagé plus de 1500 cadres au cours des cinq dernières années. Ces embauches équivalent à un nouveau cadre par jour de travail entre 2003 et 2008 et à une progression de 16,2% du nombre de gestionnaires. [...] À 78 167$ comme salaire moyen, les cadres supplémentaires ont engendré des débours additionnels de près de 120 millions l'an dernier.» («Embauches à la Santé: un cadre de plus par jour», La Presse, 15 août 2009)

Comment expliquer qu'avec tous ces milliards dépensés et qu'avec toutes ces ressources ajoutées, la situation ne se soit pas drastiquement améliorée? Où va tout cet argent? La réponse tient en grande partie dans la gestion de la structure. Comme une image vaut mille mots, voici l'organigramme du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux. (Cliquez le lien pour mieux apprécier l'ampleur de la situation. Merci à Sébas pour avoir porté la chose à notre attention.)

Source: http://www.leblogueduql.org/2009/08/où-sen-va-votre-argent-la-santé-et-les-services-sociaux.html

I was talking about the video link you provided about the guy who came to Montreal!

 

Jeez, some people are touchy!

Touchy, touchy?!?!?!%?%*)*@ Ha ha...

I did think that you were commenting on my posts as opposed to the video... Oh well.

Ben c'est ça que je dis aussi, si ta vie est en danger immédiat, ils trouvent le moyen de te diagnostiquer aussi vite que possible.

 

Mais tu est d'accord avec moi que la grande majorité des gens qui se rendent à l'hopital ne sont pas en danger de mort, reste qu'ils méritent quand même d'être soignés.

D'après moi, il y a deux problème. Premièrement, vu qu'on a pas de déductible à payer (style assurance d'auto lors d'un accident), les gens ne se gênes pas de remplir les urgences parce que c'est gratuit. Deuxièmement, vu qu'il n'y a pas d'intérêt à plaire sa clientèle pour qu'elle reviennent comme dans une business, les employés de l'hopital sont moins motivés et servent moins bien leur clients.

Par contre, je pense pas que l'attente dans les urgences est la seule partie de l'histoire, il y a une très longue attente pour les opérations, ce qui rends la vie difficile pour beaucoup et en plus, certains meurent sur la liste d'attente. C'est innaceptable.

Articles intéressant:

'Canadian Health Care imploding' (President of the Canadian Medical association)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw

'Thousands of surgeries may be cut'

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor

'Need to see a specialist fast? Too bad you're not a dog.'

http://www.macleans.ca/science/health/article.jsp?content=20080501_103008_103008&page=1

[#1] You think compromise and cooperation is stupid. I think it's what the United States was founded upon. You're free to believe the former, but i'll believe the latter.

Actually, I believe in cooperation, I don't think it's stupid. However, I don't believe in compromising on your beliefs because what does that say about your beliefs. The United States was based on the ideas of freedom and prosperity, personal responsibility and limited government. Today, republicans and democrats have both shred the constitution in their own ways and they are both guilty of it and it's sad to see the country being destroyed in such a small amount. The US used to stand for freedom, freedom applies to gay marriage as much as choice in health care. Having the gov't run health care is taking a person free choice away.

[#2] You're close-minded and you try to force your opinions on others. Insisting i read the CRA article and "Report back to you" was just another casual way of doing that. You want to be correct and you want others to acknowledge it. When you're proven wrong or when people point out the logical fallacies in your claims, you roll out the ubiquitous "wow lol immature" or "wow you're over reacting dude lol a/sl/???".

Look, nobody forced you to read that article. I said that you should because it highlights a lot of what happened with the subprime crisis and how it was caused. I'm not closed minded. If I was, I wouldn't have the views and ideology that I have. I'm a libertarian and that is the most open political ideology you can have. Of course I believe I'm correct, but so do you and so those everyone else. Everyone realizes that they were wrong on something many times in their life and that's normal. I'm not trying to make you acknowledge anything, I'm just pointing out what I saw and read. If you don't want to discuss anything, why do you even bother writing on this board? Finally, when I said 'immature' it was not in reference to you proving me wrong, it was in reference to your overreaction. Besides, with which facts and figures did you prove me (in your opinion) wrong on?

When i debate, i do it to share my thoughts and gain insight on what other people think. Open my eyes to new ways of thinking, new perspectives, all in the goal of ultimately refining my views and bettering my comprehension of the issues. As a result, my opinions are constantly evolving and changing whenever new information is acquired.

 

When you debate, you want to win and have others acknowledge it.

 

And that is why this debate is over. I have nothing more to say. Go back to your sandbox.

I have evolved in my thinking as well and that happened because I was open to other ways of thinking as opposed to what you're saying about me. At first, as a teenager, I was a lefty. When I saw all the hypocrisy and lies of the left, I became a conservative. After being disappointed by conservatives as well and on many levels, I became libertarian. As a libertarian, I embrace the left wing ideals of free speech, and the right wing ideal of free markets and fiscal conservatism.

I stand for freedom and prosperity and with which inevitably comes personal responsibility. Government constantly works to take away freedom, prosperity (taxes) and personal responsibility disappears by default.

I'm not going to get into the debate, but GoMontreal sure loves to stir shit on this board.

 

And I'm out of here again. Have fun, guys.

Yes I do, it's fun! I like to piss people off. No but seriously, it bugs me to hell when people misunderstand problems, the economy, politics, and so yes, if I am a shit stirrer, than so be it.

I saw this quote recently and I find it pretty funny and quite accurate: “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and then misapplying the wrong remedies.”

If your objective was to disgust me to the point of dissuasion from this debate by spewing some of the most absurd comments i've ever read... then congratulations, you've succeeded!

Wow, you're seriously over reacting. It's kind of immature. It's my opinion, it doesn't have to be yours. Get over it.

Oh by the way, for the record, i did read the article on the CRA, here's what it said: "The Federal Reserve and the FDIC holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis."

Of course, the guilty always claim innocence. Did you read the rest at least? The whole thing screams guilty except for that sentence pretty much.

I'm not going to have a debate with someone who thinks only neutral idiots are bipartisan because they don't know what they stand for. Find someone else to play with in your sandbox; i've got grown-up things to do. Cya.

LOL Too easy...

Just because the United States has the ability to offer the best possible care for someone who is extremely wealthy doesn't mean the system as a whole is the best possible system. Don't get it confused - their system CAN provide great care if you have a LOT of money. If you're 90% of the population, you'll have to rely on insurance (if you're even lucky enough to get it) which will screw you from behind on any given occasion, in the interest of making profit. But don't take my word for it, the World Health Organization's last results for the United States is 37th. Unfortunately, the United States' status as the lone Superpower does not automatically bestow upon it "the best of everything in every possible category".

 

 

 

I was reading your post up until i got to that part, at which point i laughed out loud. I didn't read the rest of your post, i hope i didn't miss anything exciting, but anyone who says something as stupid as Bipartisan? Give me a break! Only neutral idiots are bipartisan because they don't know what they stand for. has zero credibility.

 

Let me get this straight: You believe only neutral idiots are bipartisan... i had to re-read that... only neutral idiots are bipartisan... if you don't pick a side then you don't know what you stand for... only neutral idiots are bipartisan because they don't know what they stand for... only neutral idiots are bipartisan because they don't know what they stand for... it's still not sinking in. I kid you not, that right there is the most asinine fallacy i've ever read on mtlurb. Congratulations!

 

I'm not even going to bother explaining why, because if you're downright ridiculous enough to make such an outrageous statement, then no explanation will make sense to you as it will likely fly 10 miles over your heard.

Oh come on, easy exit to not answer the rest of the post. That's just lazy. Real bipartisanship doesn't really exist and that's my opinion, not a fact. I think that people that give in to concessions in politics don't believe that much in their cause or else they would never concede to compromises. If you believe that the country needs universal health care, your going to fight for it and if you compromise, it's only in the hopes of going further with it later on. The person that is against universal health care and then gives in to a compromise is an idiot that goes against his own beliefs. Your either for it or against it, you can't be neutral unless you don't understand your own position, which, in politics makes you an idiot. Sorry, but people vote for reps that have positions, if you don't have a position, what are you in politics for, the benefits? Come on!

Now, please don't be lazy and go read the wikipedia article on CRA and make sure to concentrate on it and then come back and comment on it.

Allow me to clarify, if you don't understand my views:

 

1. The American health care system is in bad shape. Far from being the "Best in the world", it is dominated by insurance companies that are allowed to run rampant. Costs are ridiculously high, service isn't available to everyone, and coverage can be denied at a whim. That being said, I do believe in American innovation. I strongly believe they'll implement reforms and regulations, introduce bipartisan cost saving measures and improve the lives of millions.

So if the american health care system is not the best in the world, why do a whole bunch of stars, presidents, kings, queens, etc all flock to the US when in need of care... they sure don't come here. I'm not saying that it's perfect, it's got faults, but it definitely is a much better system than anywhere else in the world. To make it perfect, what they need to do is get government completely out of health care. That will reduce costs, create more competition and more innovation in better medical devices and drugs. Bipartisan? Give me a break! Only neutral idiots are bipartisan because they don't know what they stand for.

2. The socialized health care systems of the world, while still not perfect (far from it) are all superior to America's current system. That could change, but for the moment, that's the reality of the situation. The raw numbers all indicate this (spending vs quality of care vs insured and uninsured vs life expectancy, etc etc)

Show me some numbers, show me statistics.

3. Blaming Democrats for the housing bubble is shallow and false. The housing bubble was a complex problem with multiple factors leading to its inception.

It was definitely a complex problem with multiple factors leading to its inception. Republicans (and everyone else in power for that matter) is guilty of not doing enough to stop the ridiculous and economy damaging Community Reinvestment Act. Did you read the wikipedia page? By the CRA, the government forced banks to lend to people that shouldn't be able to borrow for many reasons (low credit score, no job, etc.). They actually got banks to not force the customers to provide employment info. That's insane. How can you expect anything but a market crash when loads of people are borrowing for houses when they either don't have enough revenue or don't even have a job. Insane! The reason the bubble got bigger and bigger is because it was so easy for all these people to get mortgage loans, the demand for houses grew and therefore prices were inflated. People started to default on their loans because after the first 3 years, people had to start paying capital whereas during the first 3 years of the loan, they only had to pay interest. All of a sudden, all these low income people that bought bigger houses than they could afford were unable to make the payments. The Community Reinvestment Act was first instated by Carter and then strengthened a lot during Clinton's administration. I know lefties don't like facts, but facts are still facts. Although the media doesn't want to blame democrats because they are in bed with them, it doesn't mean that it's not their fault. You can very easily put all the pieces together and figure it out quite quickly. It's simple math and simple understanding. Blaming Democrats for the housing bubble is simply stating facts, it's not shallow and it's not false. Open your eyes and look for yourself

4. Cheering for the right and lampooning the left just makes you sound like another wharrgarbling partisan hack.

Whatever! I'm not cheering for the right. I'm just stating the facts. The facts don't lie. The left-wing media though does quite a poor job putting the pieces together, on purpose, because they know that it's their friends in government that are responsible. I just wish that they would stick to the news instead of giving us biased news all the time and not giving us the news that is inconvenient.

That is some heavy duty wharrgarbl, GoMontreal.

 

Have you been pallin' around with Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck?

 

By the way, just because you claim something is a fact, doesn't actually mean it's a fact. Too bad, eh?

Haha! That's funny! Aren't you the one that said the following (earlier in this thread):

All the raw numbers show the US system is in dire shape. All the socialized systems are way better off. This isn't an opinion this time, it's a fact.

So are you questioning anything that I said or are you just go have a light ridiculizing comment like Habsfan? Please, question me and I will show you the facts... what of what I said do you think is untrue? I'm anxious to post links...

Funny stuff!!

I'm glad I could provide this entertainment for you.

Amen to that!