[VioletlightHeron]

Ok, here's the flaw in your theory of government only charging you its costs; massive bureacracy. Corporations have an incentive to cut their overhead in order to make money. If they can find a better way to process paperwork, claims, et all with more efficiency, they will implement these cost savings.

Yet overhead costs in the United States' health system are something like three times what they are in Canada.

It's sad when the facts don't actually support the theory, ain't it?

If you'd spent more time working in large corporations, rather than in writing term papers, you wouldn't say this stuff. You'd know that large companies are filled with bureaucracy, rampant inefficiency, and empire building. You'd also understand that the pressure to keep costs down and profits up doesn't necessarily result in improved service or greater efficiency.

Actually, I have worked for two large corporations before I went back to school for my degree; my point was that governmental bureacracy, empire building and rampant inefficiency is harder to keep in check and crack down on than corporate shenanigans, etc because companies have to respond to the concerns of the market, the government and the customer if they do not respond satisfactorily. Capitalism isn't a perfect system, but compared to socialism it has better mechanisms to correct flaws in economic systems.

[Stephen Dame]

Canada, your options:

Neo-Cons: Balanced budgets and sales tax cuts

Blue Grits: Balanced budgets and income tax cuts

Dippers: Balanced budgets and no tax cuts

TO THE BARRICADES!!

In this election of medicore federal leaders, it's easy to forget how lucky we are. Most countries would kill to fight elections over this stuff. We've got it pretty good folks.

I'll be supporting the party that put us in such an enviable position. They're also the party that realizes Reaganomics and regressive sales tax cuts are as dead as Ronnie himself.

My personal campaign slogan for this election: "moving forward and then moving on." Paul's the best of the lot, but he's a caretaker for the next real leader: Iggy? Garneau? Cauchon? We'll see... I hope.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Actually, I have worked for two large corporations before I went back to school for my degree; my point was that governmental bureacracy, empire building and rampant inefficiency is harder to keep in check and crack down on than corporate shenanigans, etc because companies have to respond to the concerns of the market, the government and the customer if they do not respond satisfactorily.

Fact: administrative overhead in the US health care system is over three times administrative overhead in the Canadian health system.

What your theoretical model forgets is that in a three-legged race, nobody can cut their bonds and run to the finish line themselves. The rules forbid it. Similarly, human nature and corporate structure prevents companies from competing perfectly. Business competition is competition among cripples.

[arseface88]

Well put, skippy.

[VioletlightHeron]

Actually, I have worked for two large corporations before I went back to school for my degree; my point was that governmental bureacracy, empire building and rampant inefficiency is harder to keep in check and crack down on than corporate shenanigans, etc because companies have to respond to the concerns of the market, the government and the customer if they do not respond satisfactorily.

Fact: administrative overhead in the US health care system is over three times administrative overhead in the Canadian health system.

What your theoretical model forgets is that in a three-legged race, nobody can cut their bonds and run to the finish line themselves. The rules forbid it. Similarly, human nature and corporate structure prevents companies from competing perfectly. Business competition is competition among cripples.

Well, the U.S. has 9 times the population of Canada. That has something to do with the higher overhead for health care. More people, more demand for health care. I'm not familiar with the number of health care agencies in Canada, either provincial or federal, but on the federal level here, we have the Department of Human and Health Services, Medicare (for elderly) and Medicaid (for poor folks in need of health care). Not to mention the state programs and agencies that oversee services paid for by federal grants. It is human nature to expand services and programs in response to perceived needs, I'll agree with you there. Just look at the U.S. Social Security program. It was originally designed just to provide a pension for widows and their dependents but has morphed into a retirement system for all Americans. I think my original point still stands on solid ground; the free market system is better able to reduce inefficiences and burearcracy because of the profit motive while efforts to reduce waste and inefficiency in government are less likely to be successful due to two critical factors; lack of interest on Congress's part to seek out new ways of saving money and lack of interest in the mainstream media in investigating the amount of waste and inefficiency in the federal bureacracy.

[sherpahigh]

all of this discussion leads me to post one simple quote from Karl Marx:

profit = theft by another name

Profit = the incentive to provide better products and services = makes the world a better place

How can profit = theft? If I make a widget and sell it to you for zero profit, why would I continue to make widgets? Why would anyone do anything?

Do you have a job? Why do you go to that job if not to make money? Just for something to do?

[sherpahigh]

I think my original point still stands on solid ground; the free market system is better able to reduce inefficiences and burearcracy because of the profit motive while efforts to reduce waste and inefficiency in government are less likely to be successful due to two critical factors; lack of interest on Congress's part to seek out new ways of saving money and lack of interest in the mainstream media in investigating the amount of waste and inefficiency in the federal bureacracy.

I think this is a very solid point. I'm not so sure about the media asspect of it though, unless of course you're talking about the CBC.

[sherpahigh]

Canada, your options:

Neo-Cons: Balanced budgets and sales tax cuts

Blue Grits: Balanced budgets and income tax cuts

Dippers: Balanced budgets and no tax cuts

TO THE BARRICADES!!

In this election of medicore federal leaders, it's easy to forget how lucky we are. Most countries would kill to fight elections over this stuff. We've got it pretty good folks.

I'll be supporting the party that put us in such an enviable position. They're also the party that realizes Reaganomics and regressive sales tax cuts are as dead as Ronnie himself.

My personal campaign slogan for this election: "moving forward and then moving on." Paul's the best of the lot, but he's a caretaker for the next real leader: Iggy? Garneau? Cauchon? We'll see... I hope.

Harper's mearly taking a page out of Martin's vote buying book, though I believe Harper will actually follow through on his promise.

Income tax cuts are, in my opinion the best way to go, but cutting the GST is something all Canadians can easily see and relate to with every purchase they make.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Well, the U.S. has 9 times the population of Canada. That has something to do with the higher overhead for health care. More people, more demand for health care.

So the proportion of each health insurance dollar spent on administrative overhead should be higher?

Ah, no. The source for that information, by the way, is an article aimed at American HR professionals looking to reduce their companies' health care costs. Those people understand that there is a problem in the way their health insurance system works, and they're looking for solutions. The author of the article was not interested in grinding public-vs.-private axes; he was simply pointing out that administrative costs in American health insurance are far higher than they should be.

I think my original point still stands on solid ground; the free market system is better able to reduce inefficiences and burearcracy because of the profit motive while efforts to reduce waste and inefficiency in government are less likely to be successful .....

Your original point is a hypothesis, not a conclusion.

When we take a closer look, we see that although market pressures create an incentive to improve efficiency and reduce cost, they often fail to have that effect because of other factors, most notably the self-interest of managers at all levels. Simple human nature -- self-promotion, empire-building, petty squabbles, competition -- seriously interferes in any attempt to meaningfully change how a business runs.

The public sector has problems of its own, but it's wrong to assume that competition is some kind of magic lever that continually hones business efficiency. In fact, businesses change very little on an ongoing basis. They buy new software, they work with new products and services, and their payrolls shrink and swell, but they are remarkably resistant to real change.

This is especially true of larger companies, it seems. But smaller companies can have their own problems, like good old family nepotism in family-owned companies.

To assume that competition in the private sector will produce lower costs than you would see in the public sector is simply wrong. The rule does not always hold. You have to look at the individual case.

[j-monster]

Canada, your options:

Neo-Cons: Balanced budgets and sales tax cuts

Blue Grits: Balanced budgets and income tax cuts

Dippers: Balanced budgets and no tax cuts

TO THE BARRICADES!!

In this election of medicore federal leaders, it's easy to forget how lucky we are. Most countries would kill to fight elections over this stuff. We've got it pretty good folks.

I'll be supporting the party that put us in such an enviable position. They're also the party that realizes Reaganomics and regressive sales tax cuts are as dead as Ronnie himself.

My personal campaign slogan for this election: "moving forward and then moving on." Paul's the best of the lot, but he's a caretaker for the next real leader: Iggy? Garneau? Cauchon? We'll see... I hope.

Harper's mearly taking a page out of Martin's vote buying book, though I believe Harper will actually follow through on his promise.

Income tax cuts are, in my opinion the best way to go, but cutting the GST is something all Canadians can easily see and relate to with every purchase they make.

I think you hit on an essential point there, sherpa. I don't believe for a solitary second that Martin or the Liberals will do anything they have promised. They've rarely delivered in the 12 years they've been in power, why would they start now? Whatever Harper's faults are perceived to be (some of which are true, some aren't), I actually believe that he and the Conservatives will deliver on their promises. And I think that's the key... the announcements the Conservatives have made so far will have appeal to voters, and will take away from the "hidden agenda, scary Tories" fears. When they measure that against the Liberals failures, I believe enough people will change their mind and vote for the Tories. At least I hope so.

And I agree with you as well that income tax cuts are almost always better, but in some ways the cutting GST promise is a brilliant move. Besides the point you made, GST cuts have a real impact on lower and middle-class Canadians. Yes, rich people may enjoy greater dollar savings, but as a percentage of income the benefit to lower and middle-class Canadians is just as important. Even with the GST rebate, an immediate cut is better, due to the time value of money (money now > money later).

[blesser]

In my opinion, if Paul Martin is able to win another four years, he will go down in history of one of the greatest Canadian politicians ever. As finance minister, the things he did with NAFTA were amazing. As Prime Minister, the things he has done with the G8, FTAA and the UN are just as honorable. A quick read of his statements and speeches <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?category=2">http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?category=2</a><!-- m --> shows that he shows a great skill for diplomacy, a great understanding of what it means to be Canadian regardless of political belief, and a vision for what a democractic and secure world should look like. Regardless of the virtues of the Liberal Party, I have nothing but respect for this man and the things he says and believes.

I won't be ashamed when my kids look up and see him with all the rest in the museum after dark.


On the other hand, I'm starting to be less frightened by what Stephen Harper says in terms of his domestic policies. So far, I'm actually liking what he has to say. However, a key role of the Prime Minister is to represent Canada on the global stage. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I would feel embarassed to have him representing me at G8 meetings.

I'm not sure that he would have a whole lot to offer to the rest of the world at a CRUCIAL time when Canada is working to gain and maintain a leadership role. It may not be true, but my impression is that he would be timid in this role. Diplomacy is an art, and I don't think he has been around long enough, nor had the experience required, to learn it (just look at his record during this minority government). He looks like someone easily dominated - that is not something I like to see from my political leader.

If you read what other national leaders have to say about Paul Martin, there is nothing but respect and admiration. Thats something I like to hear.

The global balance of power is shifting, and if Canada wishes to secure an effective role, we must have a diplomatic leadership that is able to act on a global stage to achieve this.

[blesser]

Canada, your options:

Neo-Cons: Balanced budgets and sales tax cuts

Blue Grits: Balanced budgets and income tax cuts

Dippers: Balanced budgets and no tax cuts

TO THE BARRICADES!!

In this election of medicore federal leaders, it's easy to forget how lucky we are. Most countries would kill to fight elections over this stuff. We've got it pretty good folks.

I'll be supporting the party that put us in such an enviable position. They're also the party that realizes Reaganomics and regressive sales tax cuts are as dead as Ronnie himself.

My personal campaign slogan for this election: "moving forward and then moving on." Paul's the best of the lot, but he's a caretaker for the next real leader: Iggy? Garneau? Cauchon? We'll see... I hope.

Harper's mearly taking a page out of Martin's vote buying book, though I believe Harper will actually follow through on his promise.

Income tax cuts are, in my opinion the best way to go, but cutting the GST is something all Canadians can easily see and relate to with every purchase they make.

I think you hit on an essential point there, sherpa. I don't believe for a solitary second that Martin or the Liberals will do anything they have promised. They've rarely delivered in the 12 years they've been in power, why would they start now? Whatever Harper's faults are perceived to be (some of which are true, some aren't), I actually believe that he and the Conservatives will deliver on their promises. And I think that's the key... the announcements the Conservatives have made so far will have appeal to voters, and will take away from the "hidden agenda, scary Tories" fears. When they measure that against the Liberals failures, I believe enough people will change their mind and vote for the Tories. At least I hope so.

I'm just curious, can you give me a list of a few of the things the Liberals have failed to deliver over the past 12 years? That's your assignment for tomorrow. You can even look to the last election, analyze the promises made, and then report back about what they haven't accomplished.

hmm...... even in minority the Paul Martin government was still able to push its agenda. Interesting, eh?

Next, how have the Liberals failed? The past 12 years have seen Canada grow to an unprecedented position in the world. Our economy has never been stronger, nor better managed. The Liberal government (with Paul Martin as finance minister) was the first to pass continual surplus budgets. Quality of life in Canada is at its highest level in history..... so where exactly have they gone wrong?

Finally, while I agree that the announcements the Conservatives have made are very appealing, they do nothing to eliminate the fears of a hidden agenda. The key word there is: hidden. Also, I'm curious to hear how the Conservatives have persuaded you that they will be able to deliver on their promises any better than any of the other parties.


Dame:

I like Ignatieff a lot. I took a read through of some of his publications, and he has some very interesting ideas. I'm wondering what the word is about his apparent disrespect of Ukranian-Canadians. Does this hurt his politik?

[fingernailsonhull]

The one Liberal promise (and it was a big one) that leaps to mind immediately was the elimination of the GST - now they're defending it.

As for the whole hidden agenda thing, J-Monster is right. The Tories in 04 and the Alliance in 2000 spent almost the entire campaign pointing out Liberal errors and did next to nothing to point out their plans for the country. Hence, a "hidden" agenda, since they never really presented what their agenda was. That's a bad campaign if you ask me. Now, with some Liberal-bashing, they have spent the first two weeks of this campaign outlining their platform instead of just finger-wagging at the Liberals. That's a much better campaign if you ask me. The whole hidden agenda thing is off the table since they are presenting their policy ideas (ie. GST cut, child care family payments, etc.) You can still believe the whole hidden agenda thing if you want, blesser, but it's not well-founded.

As for your comment regarding Harper at the G8 meetings....What? You would honestly choose Martin over Harper for PR reasons? Martin is not well-spoken at all. Don't get me wrong, I thought he did a very admirable job as Finance Minister. Canada's balanced budgets over the last 12 years are nothing to sniff at. To categorize him as one of Canada's greatest politicians I think is a tremendous stretch. Back to PR, Harper seems to me to be calm, cool, and collected, and quite a good speaker - not charismatic by any means - but he is articulate. I'd rate him above Martin but below Duceppe as an impressive leader. It's too bad that guy is a separatist, he always impresses me come election time.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Now, with some Liberal-bashing, they have spent the first two weeks of this campaign outlining their platform instead of just finger-wagging at the Liberals. That's a much better campaign if you ask me.

It is, without a doubt, a much better campaign. But they actually started the 2004 campaign the same way, before it got derailed.

So far they face no real competition, as Martin is lying low and the conventional wisdom always sees a two-way race. Whether they'll be able to keep their momentum is an open question.

If I was a Conservative strategist, I'd be worrying about the length of the campaign and my party's ability to keep dominating the discussion by releasing new policies. The last thing I'd want would be for my campaign to falter, and then for Martin to turn it around and start setting the agenda around some of my less palatable ideas.

For example, a lot of people have theorized that the same sex marriage announcement was a means of getting it out of the way, and burying it behind other proposals (like the GST cut). But the instant you stop making announcements, pow, Martin can take the initiative and resurrect it. And I expect Martin to start running a negative campaign later on -- trying to stand with one foot on the economy and the other on Stephen Harper's unpopularity.

[arseface88]

all of this discussion leads me to post one simple quote from Karl Marx:

profit = theft by another name

Profit = the incentive to provide better products and services = makes the world a better place

How can profit = theft? If I make a widget and sell it to you for zero profit, why would I continue to make widgets? Why would anyone do anything?

Do you have a job? Why do you go to that job if not to make money? Just for something to do?

Do you really see the all-consuming quest for profit making our society a better place today, Sherpa? I don't. Wealth is divided rather unequally in our world.