Alfndrate wrote:
If I'm not mistaken... don't you have to pay for emergency room services?

You do. Many hospitals have various schemes for debt forgiveness or amelioration if you can't afford it, though.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So then why is it acceptable to have a health care system that doesn't provide treatment regardless of profit and leaves people to die if they can't afford it?

If you're about to die, please, call 911 or walk into any emergency room in the country. You'll get treated.

If I'm not mistaken... don't you have to pay for emergency room services?

Edit: apparently it's just for the ambulance... >_>

Yeah... if you can. But, they still have to treat/stabilize you even if you don't have any way to pay them back.

 whembly wrote:

I have bunch more...

I've been on record that I'd actually favor the Canadian model...

But, when you trade one system for another... you're essentially also trading one set of problems for another.

See what I mean?

But, this is the common mistake, you're not trading one 'system' for another, you're adding state healthcare to the choices.

Both these countries have private medical insurance, that's what I keep seeing being left off the right wing articles and news, you can have your cake and eat it (and receive care for cake addiction).

Also, nice articles, hows about 45000 people, per year, dying in American due to lack of healthcare? One every 12 mins.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I have bunch more...

I've been on record that I'd actually favor the Canadian model...

But, when you trade one system for another... you're essentially also trading one set of problems for another.

See what I mean?

But, this is the common mistake, you're not trading one 'system' for another, you're adding state healthcare to the choices.

You talking about the ACA act? The mandate? Trust me... it's a bad law. I'm not sure why opponents are fighting so hard, unless something changes, it'll fall flat on it's face.

Both these countries have private medical insurance, that's what I keep seeing being left off the right wing articles and news, you can have your cake and eat it (and receive care for cake addiction).

Sure, they have nice things too (so does US healthcare). Both system have problems and will always have problems... in a different way.

Also, nice articles, hows about 45000 people, per year, dying in American due to lack of healthcare? One every 12 mins.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917

I know that article... I have to find that counter point. Seb asked for it and I still can't find it. Maybe it was a speech on campus(?).

The Washington School of Medicine here in St. Louis disagreed with Harvard's findings...it was an awesome "tit-for-tat" academic bruhah that was awesome.

The point being... There is NO perfect system. Someone will get screwed.

 whembly wrote:

Yeah... if you can. But, they still have to treat/stabilize you even if you don't have any way to pay them back.

Stabilize >< Fix/cure. It's patch up and send back out to die.

From moving here, I earned more or less the same amount of money and was around $100 worse off a month due to insurance instead of the NHS, not factoring in copay charges and prescriptions as and when I was charged for them.

In the UK, shortly before I moved, my grandmother suffered terrible bloodpressure and heart issues, being in and out of HDU with each bout over the course of about 6 months, with tests, Drs appointments and homecare, all done on the NHS, it was amazing, the level of care, the synchronicity and shared information.

After moving here, my mother in law fell ill with returned cancer, she had amazing insurance coverage as the widow of a firechief. The healthcare was shocking, she was shunted from hospital to eldercare and back, noone told us, we'd go to the hospital and they couldn't find her. Different private medical businesses were prescribing drugs that reacted badly to each other, noone shared records, she was a commodity and I watched how profit can utterly override the principles of medical treatment. It was appalling.

 whembly wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I have bunch more...

I've been on record that I'd actually favor the Canadian model...

But, when you trade one system for another... you're essentially also trading one set of problems for another.

See what I mean?

But, this is the common mistake, you're not trading one 'system' for another, you're adding state healthcare to the choices.

You talking about the ACA act? The mandate? Trust me... it's a bad law. I'm not sure why opponents are fighting so hard, unless something changes, it'll fall flat on it's face.

No I think he is refering to the two speed system. In Canada, and I imagine in the UK, you can pay for faster health care. You have both universal and private healthcare. The issue is that the system is relatively new, and they use the same facilities for many of the operations, meaning that you don't can't cut down on the waiting time in many cases. Probably going to change/has already changed...

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I have bunch more...

I've been on record that I'd actually favor the Canadian model...

But, when you trade one system for another... you're essentially also trading one set of problems for another.

See what I mean?

But, this is the common mistake, you're not trading one 'system' for another, you're adding state healthcare to the choices.

You talking about the ACA act? The mandate? Trust me... it's a bad law. I'm not sure why opponents are fighting so hard, unless something changes, it'll fall flat on it's face.

No I think he is refering to the two speed system. In Canada, and I imagine in the UK, you can pay for faster health care. You have both universal and private healthcare. The issue is that the system is relatively new, and they use the same facilities for many of the operations, meaning that you don't can't cut down on the waiting time in many cases. Probably going to change/has already changed...

REALLY?

Now that's interesting... do you have a good source, I'd like to read up on it. (I'll do some google-fu too).

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
But, this is the common mistake, you're not trading one 'system' for another, you're adding state healthcare to the choices.

Exactly. I don't think anyone is arguing for making private health care illegal. If private businesses can provide better and/or cheaper health care than the government then they're free to do so. But TBH I think what conservatives/libertarians are terrified of is finding out that when you have a head to head competition between the two the government option will win.

 Peregrine wrote:
Exactly. I don't think anyone is arguing for making private health care illegal. If private businesses can provide better and/or cheaper health care than the government then they're free to do so. But TBH I think what conservatives/libertarians are terrified of is finding out that when you have a head to head competition between the two the government option will win.

In some respects, not in others.

Tough to compete with an entity that can just keep sucking more money out of everyone through more taxes whenever it likes, though.

 whembly wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I have bunch more...

I've been on record that I'd actually favor the Canadian model...

But, when you trade one system for another... you're essentially also trading one set of problems for another.

See what I mean?

But, this is the common mistake, you're not trading one 'system' for another, you're adding state healthcare to the choices.

You talking about the ACA act? The mandate? Trust me... it's a bad law. I'm not sure why opponents are fighting so hard, unless something changes, it'll fall flat on it's face.

No I think he is refering to the two speed system. In Canada, and I imagine in the UK, you can pay for faster health care. You have both universal and private healthcare. The issue is that the system is relatively new, and they use the same facilities for many of the operations, meaning that you don't can't cut down on the waiting time in many cases. Probably going to change/has already changed...

REALLY?

Now that's interesting... do you have a good source, I'd like to read up on it. (I'll do some google-fu too).

Yes, of course the UK has universal state healthcare and, if you don't want that, you can fast track with private options. We don't make you use the public services, your taxes contribute to them.

I'd likely be using private healthcare in the UK right now for cosmetic things or minor bumps and bashes. I had very excellent medical insurance when I worked for a private medical insurance company... in the UK.

 Peregrine wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
But, this is the common mistake, you're not trading one 'system' for another, you're adding state healthcare to the choices.

Exactly. I don't think anyone is arguing for making private health care illegal. If private businesses can provide better and/or cheaper health care than the government then they're free to do so. But TBH I think what conservatives/libertarians are terrified of is finding out that when you have a head to head competition between the two the government option will win.

But the government influences the Heathcare heavily already guys.

Especially on the Medicare reimbursement rates... guess what? The insurance industries uses the GOVERNMENT REIMBURSEMENT rates as a baseline for their own rates to the providers.

US Healthcare isn't a "true capitalistic" model.

 whembly wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I have bunch more...

I've been on record that I'd actually favor the Canadian model...

But, when you trade one system for another... you're essentially also trading one set of problems for another.

See what I mean?

But, this is the common mistake, you're not trading one 'system' for another, you're adding state healthcare to the choices.

You talking about the ACA act? The mandate? Trust me... it's a bad law. I'm not sure why opponents are fighting so hard, unless something changes, it'll fall flat on it's face.

No I think he is refering to the two speed system. In Canada, and I imagine in the UK, you can pay for faster health care. You have both universal and private healthcare. The issue is that the system is relatively new, and they use the same facilities for many of the operations, meaning that you don't can't cut down on the waiting time in many cases. Probably going to change/has already changed...

REALLY?

Now that's interesting... do you have a good source, I'd like to read up on it. (I'll do some google-fu too).

Not really. It's not so much of a policy as a state of affairs, and in Quebec at least it's seen as a bad thing, the result of the deficiencies of the public system. The only things that comes up are article in french, like this one ; http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/363355/la-medecine-a-deux-vitesses-inquiete-quebec, and they focuses primarily on it's problems. I guess you could try google translating it.

Mind you, healthcare is administrated provincially in Canada, so it's possibly different for Azazel or Poda-t.

This is another one you might want to try translating. http://voir.ca/societe/2002/01/17/privatisation-des-soins-de-sante-vers-un-systeme-a-deux-vitesses-encore/

 Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Exactly. I don't think anyone is arguing for making private health care illegal. If private businesses can provide better and/or cheaper health care than the government then they're free to do so. But TBH I think what conservatives/libertarians are terrified of is finding out that when you have a head to head competition between the two the government option will win.

In some respects, not in others.

Tough to compete with an entity that can just keep sucking more money out of everyone through more taxes whenever it likes, though.

Where do you pull this from?

The healthcare service has to be allocated a portion of the taxes of the country, this is tempered by other things also requiring the tax and the party in power wishing to remain in power by not taxing the nation into trouble.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Yes, of course the UK has universal state healthcare and, if you don't want that, you can fast track with private options. We don't make you use the public services, your taxes contribute to them.

I'd likely be using private healthcare in the UK right now for cosmetic things or minor bumps and bashes. I had very excellent medical insurance when I worked for a private medical insurance company... in the UK.

Yeah...to me, that's the ideal model.

*shrugs*

Here in the US it's too fething political to have an adult conversation now...

 Peregrine wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
But, this is the common mistake, you're not trading one 'system' for another, you're adding state healthcare to the choices.

Exactly. I don't think anyone is arguing for making private health care illegal. If private businesses can provide better and/or cheaper health care than the government then they're free to do so. But TBH I think what conservatives/libertarians are terrified of is finding out that when you have a head to head competition between the two the government option will win.

Lots of people here do argue against the legality of private health care, the main reason being that you'd see a major exode of public health specialist toward the private sector, when the education of those specialists is incredibly subsidized by the rest of the population.

 whembly wrote:
REALLY?

Now that's interesting... do you have a good source, I'd like to read up on it. (I'll do some google-fu too).

I don't know about anywhere else, but here you can certainly pay for private health care. For example, I needed a scan and had the option of getting a public one in about six weeks. I thought that was too long to wait for it, so instead I contacted a private hospital and it was done in under 24 hours at my expense.

 whembly wrote:

Especially on the Medicare reimbursement rates... guess what? The insurance industries uses the GOVERNMENT REIMBURSEMENT rates as a baseline for their own rates to the providers.

US Healthcare isn't a "true capitalistic" model.

Which is why you should move to an entirely public universal healthcare system for the nation, for all the nation, funded by income tax, and allow private sector alternatives that can set their own prices and compete with each other on their prices, whilst remaining mindful that they have to provide a better service than the public sector.

 Seaward wrote:


Tough to compete with an entity that can just keep sucking more money out of everyone through more taxes whenever it likes, though.

Private practicians makes a hell of a lot more money than public ones. And they have more sensible workloads. Its the State that can't compete, really. But the ressource it competes for isn't profits, it's specialists.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Where do you pull this from?

The healthcare service has to be allocated a portion of the taxes of the country, this is tempered by other things also requiring the tax and the party in power wishing to remain in power by not taxing the nation into trouble.

Yeah, that's an insurmountable problem.

If only there were a portion of society who weren't going to vote for us anyway who we could keep raising taxes on in order to continue handing out goodies to the lower strata to keep them fat and happy and, of course, voting for us.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Especially on the Medicare reimbursement rates... guess what? The insurance industries uses the GOVERNMENT REIMBURSEMENT rates as a baseline for their own rates to the providers.

US Healthcare isn't a "true capitalistic" model.

Which is why you should move to an entirely public universal healthcare system for the nation, for all the nation, funded by income tax, and allow private sector alternatives that can set their own prices and compete with each other on their prices, whilst remaining mindful that they have to provide a better service than the public sector.

You're preaching to the choir here buddy.

FYI: I work in the healthcare field (in IT).

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Lots of people here do argue against the legality of private health care, the main reason being that you'd see a major exode of public health specialist toward the private sector, when the education of those specialists is incredibly subsidized by the rest of the population.

We've seen that also, the NHS and state dentists especially, train up young medical professionals on the taxpayer's money to have them slither off to play golf and charge a fortune.

Make them sign a contract, binding them to a period of time in the public sector if the public sector trains them, or let them repay the training...

NHS doctors are still extremely well paid and if they really need to go live the life of Riley, let them repay their debt to the people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Where do you pull this from?

The healthcare service has to be allocated a portion of the taxes of the country, this is tempered by other things also requiring the tax and the party in power wishing to remain in power by not taxing the nation into trouble.

Yeah, that's an insurmountable problem.

If only there were a portion of society who weren't going to vote for us anyway who we could keep raising taxes on in order to continue handing out goodies to the lower strata to keep them fat and happy and, of course, voting for us.

However did you climb from the very pages of a Dickensian novel workhouse, Mr Beadle?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Lots of people here do argue against the legality of private health care, the main reason being that you'd see a major exode of public health specialist toward the private sector, when the education of those specialists is incredibly subsidized by the rest of the population.

We've seen that also, the NHS and state dentists especially, train up young medical professionals on the taxpayer's money to have them slither off to play golf and charge a fortune.

Make them sign a contract, binding them to a period of time in the public sector if the public sector trains them, or let them repay the training...

NHS doctors are still extremely well paid and if they really need to go live the life of Riley, let them repay their debt to the people.

A very brief bit of Google-fu shows that in 2008, NHS specialists made between £36,807 and £70,126.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
However did you climb from the very pages of a Dickensian novel workhouse, Mr Beadle?

I sat around pumping out kids until someone decided I deserved a McMansion.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Lots of people here do argue against the legality of private health care, the main reason being that you'd see a major exode of public health specialist toward the private sector, when the education of those specialists is incredibly subsidized by the rest of the population.

We've seen that also, the NHS and state dentists especially, train up young medical professionals on the taxpayer's money to have them slither off to play golf and charge a fortune.

Make them sign a contract, binding them to a period of time in the public sector if the public sector trains them, or let them repay the training...

NHS doctors are still extremely well paid and if they really need to go live the life of Riley, let them repay their debt to the people.

A very brief bit of Google-fu shows that in 2008, NHS specialists made between £36,807 and £70,126.

Funny you ignored the link right under that one which stated that

New figures showed that at least 410 took home hundreds of thousands in pay before tax and after expenses — up eight per cent on the 380 who earned more than £300,000 in 2007/08.

The report from the NHS Information Centre for 2008/09 revealed that average pay for an NHS dentist had reached £131,000 a year, up from £126,800 despite a spending squeeze elsewhere in the NHS. A total of 150 dentists earned between £275,000 and £300,000, while 130 earned between £250,000 and £275,000.

Overall, 5,540 dentists earned more than £100,000 a year.

Pay packets have grown since new contracts were brought in for dentists four years ago. About one in five dentists makes more than £100,000 thanks to the new deal, according to the NHS IC report.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/nhs-dentists-earning-over-300000-a-year-6504340.html

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Funny you ignored the link right under that one which stated that

New figures showed that at least 410 took home hundreds of thousands in pay before tax and after expenses — up eight per cent on the 380 who earned more than £300,000 in 2007/08.

The report from the NHS Information Centre for 2008/09 revealed that average pay for an NHS dentist had reached £131,000 a year, up from £126,800 despite a spending squeeze elsewhere in the NHS. A total of 150 dentists earned between £275,000 and £300,000, while 130 earned between £250,000 and £275,000.

Overall, 5,540 dentists earned more than £100,000 a year.

Pay packets have grown since new contracts were brought in for dentists four years ago. About one in five dentists makes more than £100,000 thanks to the new deal, according to the NHS IC report.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/nhs-dentists-earning-over-300000-a-year-6504340.html

I'll admit that's an absolutely criminal salary for British dentistry, but I wouldn't call it extremely well paid.

 Seaward wrote:

I'll admit that's an absolutely criminal salary for British dentistry, but I wouldn't call it extremely well paid.

450k isn't extremely well paid? For dentistry? For anything? In what world?!?!?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

I'll admit that's an absolutely criminal salary for British dentistry, but I wouldn't call it extremely well paid.

450k isn't extremely well paid? For dentistry? For anything? In what world?!?!?

I was referring to the average.

 Seaward wrote:

I'll admit that's an absolutely criminal salary for British dentistry, but I wouldn't call it extremely well paid.

The average wage in the UK is about 24k. You think 200-400k isn't very good?

Yeah, according to my google-fu, the average salary for a dentist in the US in 2010 was $159,510.00.

Source: http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/dentist/salary

An average of 131,000 GBP is, according to google, about $200,665.80.

200 grand isn't well paid?

 RatBot wrote:
Yeah, according to my google-fu, the average salary for a dentist in the US in 2010 was $159,510.00.

Source: http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/dentist/salary

An average of 131,000 GBP is, according to google, about $200,665.80.

200 grand isn't well paid?

And these are 'state money' dentists, private well to do practices are making far in excess of that.

Seriously, guys, never move to northern Virginia and get into consulting.

Well, there is really nothing else to do in this thread.

The people who are actually living under these evil useless socialist systems of health care and governments don't know what they are talking about. Maybe at some point the "government is evil" party will get the government it wants, and then we will see how great things work out. Glad I got a plan B that I can fall back on at any point.

Alfndrate wrote:Azazel, I went back to your post, and didn't see a semi-colon... It seems someone was sleeping in Language Arts as well

Then look harder. It's right there.

The US did not "win" WWII; at least not in Europe.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Why would you think that I've never heard of lend-lease? Canada also had a similar program (though only about a tenth the size). I'm well aware that about 20% of the USSR planes were american made, and I think most trucks came from the US, along with food.

However, that is a small minority of services that were sent, and comprised a miniscule amount of the USSR's efforts. The vast majority of the US lend-lease program went to Britain. Please do not try to obscure the fact that the USSR broke Germany by way of contributing an insurmountable number of soldiers, wherein the USSR lost almost as many soldiers as the US had in its entire military at the time.

Pretty much the entire logistics train for the USSR was provided by the US. Now, I know I don't have your military acumen, but I'm still fairly sure logistics is an important part of a sustained campaign. Soldiers ain't good for much if they're stuck in Chelyabinsk the whole time.

And I'm fairly sure you're desperately trying to overstate the USA's importance to the USSR during WWII out of some weird sense of pride. There's no shame in admitting that you were incorrect about a historical point that is not likely taught in American schools and were then corrected by someone with a history degree.

d-usa wrote:Well, there is really nothing else to do in this thread.

The people who are actually living under these evil useless socialist systems of health care and governments don't know what they are talking about. Maybe at some point the "government is evil" party will get the government it wants, and then we will see how great things work out. Glad I got a plan B that I can fall back on at any point.

Is "plan B " moving to Canada? Because it's pretty good up here and you should try it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:Seriously, guys, never move to northern Virginia and get into consulting.

This would still be true even without the bit about getting into consulting.


Yeah, I think things have run their course here.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Is "plan B " moving to Canada? Because it's pretty good up here and you should try it.

Well... It looks like we're either going to have to endure another round of Harper, or venture in the dark unknown that is Trudeau Jr.

It could be... better.

azazel the cat wrote:And I'm fairly sure you're desperately trying to overstate the USA's importance to the USSR during WWII out of some weird sense of pride. There's no shame in admitting that you were incorrect about a historical point that is not likely taught in American schools and were then corrected by someone with a history degree.

Now that you've called attention to it, there will be shame in admitting that he's wrong. Seaward can't compromise now; he has no choice but to disagree with you, and follow through to the bitter end.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Is "plan B " moving to Canada? Because it's pretty good up here and you should try it.

Well... It looks like we're either going to have to endure another round of Harper, or venture in the dark unknown that is Trudeau Jr.

It could be... better.

Actually Trudeau Jr. has gotten me excited for the liberal party again, even if it's just name recognition for me at this point.

 azazel the cat wrote:

d-usa wrote:Well, there is really nothing else to do in this thread.

The people who are actually living under these evil useless socialist systems of health care and governments don't know what they are talking about. Maybe at some point the "government is evil" party will get the government it wants, and then we will see how great things work out. Glad I got a plan B that I can fall back on at any point.

Is "plan B " moving to Canada? Because it's pretty good up here and you should try it.

It's not Canada .

But dual citizenship has benefits.

Cheesecat wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Is "plan B " moving to Canada? Because it's pretty good up here and you should try it.

Well... It looks like we're either going to have to endure another round of Harper, or venture in the dark unknown that is Trudeau Jr.

It could be... better.

Actually Trudeau Jr. has gotten me excited for the liberal party again, even if it's just name recognition for me at this point.

I'm really disappointed that Trudeau Jr is out there now. He represents a shift to the left for the Liberals, which I feel will split votes between them and the NDP, thus allowing Harper to get another run. Which irritates me, because Harper has fethed with our food, and that is unacceptable.

also: please keep in mind that the the BC Liberal Party is very different from the federal one.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Actually Trudeau Jr. has gotten me excited for the liberal party again, even if it's just name recognition for me at this point.

Please don't. The guy has about as much substance as... well... void, really. His rethoric is entirely predicated by which province he is in. We've (me and my friend who knows him) actually caught him having completely opposite discourse one week in Alberta, from the next week in Montreal. I understand that it's a common complaint about politicians, but usually it's better camouflaged, which speaks lenght of him not even being intelligent enough to be a good crook.

The best way to sum him up is something my friend said, and it stuck with me ; "Well, he sure like being photographed''. He doesn't have a platform, he will simply say what is necessary to get elected, then will cook up gak as he goes.

I'm really sad because it doesn't seem like Mulcair is going to be able to capitalize on the 'orange wave'. I find myself wanting the Bloc to disappear, so that the NDP can scoop up those votes, and well, that's a strange position for me. to say the least.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

The best way to sum him up is something my friend said, and it stuck with me ; "Well, he sure like being photographed''. He doesn't have a platform, he will simply say what is necessary to get elected, then will cook up gak as he goes.

Wait, Canada has a Romney

d-usa wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

The best way to sum him up is something my friend said, and it stuck with me ; "Well, he sure like being photographed''. He doesn't have a platform, he will simply say what is necessary to get elected, then will cook up gak as he goes.

Wait, Canada has a Romney

We actually have several.

 d-usa wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

The best way to sum him up is something my friend said, and it stuck with me ; "Well, he sure like being photographed''. He doesn't have a platform, he will simply say what is necessary to get elected, then will cook up gak as he goes.

Wait, Canada has a Romney

I dunno I'd say this is an excellent description of any politician with a pulse.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

The best way to sum him up is something my friend said, and it stuck with me ; "Well, he sure like being photographed''. He doesn't have a platform, he will simply say what is necessary to get elected, then will cook up gak as he goes.

Wait, Canada has a Romney

I dunno I'd say this is an excellent description of any politician with a pulse.

I can't say about down the border (well, I actually think I can) but up here we have many politicians who are honest and willing to stick to their position despite knowing that they cannot possibly be elected.

You're so young and innocent....

If they can't get elected, they aren't really politicians are they? They're just donkey caves with an opinion. The first key to being a politician is being elected.

It's a simple fact of our species that applies to leaders past and present. Politicians. Are. Scum.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:If they can't get elected, they aren't really politicians are they? They're just donkey caves with an opinion. The first key to being a politician is being elected.

It's a simple fact of our species that applies to leaders past and present. Politicians. Are. Scum.

"Can't get elected" is something if a stretch... unlikely to get elected is more apt. We actually do have a lot of politicians who stick to their guns, and sometimes do get elected. The higher up you get, the less likely this is, but it has happened before. In BC, we had a provincial government in the early 1970s that is more or less responsible for a lot (most of?) the really socially valuable things we currently enjoy out here. In their three years in office they drastically changed the province for the better. Then that government fell into some Aqe of Aquarius garbage or something and lost all sense that they still had to play politics to win elections, and lost the next very next one to a government that was basically Thatcher-esque.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
If they can't get elected, they aren't really politicians are they? They're just donkey caves with an opinion. The first key to being a politician is being elected.

It's a simple fact of our species that applies to leaders past and present. Politicians. Are. Scum.

And 'can't get elected' has a specific meaning in our parlimentary system. In Québec, for exemple, there's 3 parties that simply cannot hope to get either a majority or a minority government. All thogheter, they wring in about 8-12% of the votes each elections. Québec Solidaire, for exemple, is a left-wing socialist formation in a province where the political spectrum requires a party to be center-left or center-right to get elected. Because the QS leaders have a great reputation tho, they get elected in their own circumscription and obtain 1 to 4 seats. These people could easily be recruited by the PQ and each get a ministry. They don't, because PQ is center-left and their convictions put them at odds with many PQ positions.

Usually having less than 4 seats, they can't get commission grants nor question time during the parlimentary debates. Very often tho, other parties (mostly PQ) will give them some of their allocution time, because they at least respect them.

Hell, the Bloc couldn't possibly, mathematically get elected. They exists solely to represent Québec's interest at the Federal parliement.

 Frazzled wrote:
You're so young and innocent....

It's yours and Kalashnikov's view that is innocent and childish, if anything. Many politicians are honest about their goals and ideals. You'd find no less amount of corruption in the private sector.

Hell, even Trudeau isn't really a crook, or at least doesn't seem to be. He's just a kid dreaming about filling his dad's shoes without realizing that he lack his father's political clout.

So I'm naive because I accept that the "honest" goals and ideals of most politicians is screwing their constituents? I'm not saying the corporations are any better either. Our species sucks. Especially when you give any of us power. It's just how it goes.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I'm naive because I accept that the "honest" goals and ideals of most politicians is screwing their constituents? I'm not saying the corporations are any better either. Our species sucks. Especially when you give any of us power. It's just how it goes.

Well there you went from all to most, which is already an amelioration. But I would still think that most politicians I can think of aren't out there to screw us up.

Well, maybe not at the municipal level. My dad was an advisor o ou town's mayor, and the gak he saw...

Anyway, this is getting far OT.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So I'm naive because I accept that the "honest" goals and ideals of most politicians is screwing their constituents? I'm not saying the corporations are any better either. Our species sucks. Especially when you give any of us power. It's just how it goes.

There are easier ways to get money than politics, particularly for people who are competent enough to be successful in politics. People go in with good intentions (from their perspective) and either become jaded and join the corrupt system, giving up their own ideals, or join in in order to stay afloat, while still pushing for their ideals. Genuine crooks go the corporate-ladder-climber route.