Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Maude Barlow to invade London Ontario

Maude Barlow, the National Chairperson for Council of Canadians, is scheduled to appear in London on November 29th for a town hall meeting at the Royal Legion branch, located at 499 Hill Street, between the hours of 7-9pm.

The agenda: "Medicare Works! Keep it Public, keep it fair."

"We can't afford private health care".

Brush up on this song and plan to attend.

6 comments:

Thucydides said...

At least the people who can afford private health care can go to Michigan or Mumbai, the rest of us can shut up and die.

I am pretty sure that Maud will be first on the plane to the US if she ever has a serious health condition, just like her pals Jack Layton and Paul Martin, also users of private health care.......Oh, we wern't supposed to talk about that were we?

The Evil Apprentice said...

ah, the evil witch who defends the bourgeois two tier health care. The trotskyite devil! Would that I was a full fledged member of the Union, i could draw a days pay to attend this event.

Anonymous said...

"Jack Layton and Paul Martin, also users of private health care"

Ad hominem, circumstantial.

"The trotskyite devil!"

Ad hominem, absusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Mike said...

In fact, Anonymous, Thucydides would have produced an "ad hominem" if he had a) produced an argument in the first place and b) that argument had been something like:

1. Jack Layton favours using the police against people who arrange for their own personal medical care
2. Jack Layton is a hypocrite who arranges for his own personal medical care
3. Therefore it's wrong to use the police against people who arrange for their own personal medical care.

Ad hominem isn't synonymous with either invective or the identification of hypocrisy. So, a wise man may say "Jack Layton is a demagogic hypocrite who makes a living appealing to the envy of losers" without committing a fallacy.

It's clear that when it's his own neck at stake, Taliban Jack suddenly comes to understand the consequences of the ideas to which he would subject the rest of us. By the same principle, thieves don't want to be stolen from and fraud artists don't like to receive bad cheques. It's really no big deal, and pointing out instances of that very human behaviour doesn't constitute ad hominem.

Anonymous said...

If you agree that the implicit argument is something like, "MB will be a hypocrite because she is pals with two people who hypocritically used private clinics, therefore ignore her views" then you may want to more carefully reread the link posted on ad hominem. Even damning facts about the circumstances of the holder of a view don't invalidate that view.

Speaking of which, the claim:
"It's clear that when it's his own neck at stake, Taliban Jack suddenly comes to understand the consequences of the ideas to which he would subject the rest of us," seems a bit perilous without some backing up.

Without having had you cite any facts, I'll have to guess you're talking about JL's minor non-life threatening hernia treatment at Shouldice in the 90's?

Unless you have some secret stash of facts to contradict the public information on this subject, that clinic seems to be a pretty ordinary public clinic which predates the emergence of OHIP. Today it's funded publicly for hernia patients:
http://www.shouldice.com/faq.htm
http://www.shouldice.com/admin.htm

The use of the "private" designation is an equivocal term. Yes, it's "private". Private here has only do with the history of the founding of the clinic (means it was started privately). It was not the other meaning of private that references the the actual funding or the model of care.

Today Shouldice is as it always was: a not-for-profit surgical facility paid for by medicare and universally accessible.

The astute will note that this is the exact same sense of "private clinic" that any publicly funded private practice doctor or medical testing lab is private. "Privately started and operated, publicly funded."

That's the exact way that 75% of our public health care system here in Canada works.

As for the claim of hypocrisy, since JL used his OHIP card rather than paying, didn't "queue jump" and the matter has always been a matter of public record, and since it's not a contradiction with his values. . .well, it isn't hypocritical behavior.

To address another issue here, the Canadian 'public' system remains better than the US, by any metrics you care to use. Life span? Check. Costs? Check. ($5250 per capita USA vs. $2400 per capita Canada or 13.6% GDP vs 9.5%) Quality of care? Check. Malpractice? Check.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

It seems that the big issue right now is 'wait times'. I wonder why Canadians are still so much healthier than the USA population? I hate to break this news, but unless those numbers and facts change, that issue remains mostly politicking and not to do with the science of health.

One of the most interesting things is that in matters health care, our system hasn't elected to only deal with the most profitable health problems. It also deals equally readily with all the sure money losers, and quite amazingly, our system is still cheaper and better than the profit model.

The profit model works as well in health care as it does in electricity supply.

Anonymous said...

mumbai directory search

Here's some useful info on mumbai directory search
which you might be looking for. The url is: http://www.jaldisearch.com/