So former Minister of Foreign Affairs Maxime Bernier has some radical reform idea for the Canadian Health Care system. He wants the government to actually follow the constitution. Bernier is probably best known for leaving government documents at the house of his then girlfriend Julie Couillard who had past romantic relationships with members of the Hells Angels. He resigned from his cabinet position; however, he was easily re-elected and with all of the issues that the Federal Conservative Party is facing in La belle province Maxime Bernier's seat is one of the few, possibly only sure seats that the Conservatives will be able to count on in the next election.
A couple of weeks ago he was speaking at the Albany Club. Bernier suggested that the federal government leave Health Care completely up to the provinces. Ironically that is what the Canadian Constitution calls for. He believes that the Federal Government should not replace or extend the current agreement that currently exists with the provinces that sees $25-40 billion a year move from Ottawa to the provinces, with an extra $13 billion distributed to the provinces for other purposes.
If Bernier had his way the federal government would stop collecting the $25-40 billion in taxes. Leaving it up to the provinces to raise their taxes to pay for the health and social services that they provide.
The questions that he raised were valid ones " why do we have waiting lines for surgery, overcrowded emergency rooms and not enough family doctors? Is it because of bad provincial management or because of insufficient federal funding?" One of the problems right now is that we as the electorate do not know who is ultimately responsible for the ills of our health care system. If questions are raised the two levels of government just blame each other leaving the voters confused.
Interestingly enough Liberals are not enthralled with Bernier's ideas. Member of Parliament Ujjal Dosanjh told Postmedia that "In my view, the federal government is in a sense the guarantor of certain pan-Canadian standards in health care." So it is quite clear who the Liberals feel are at fault for the shortcomings of the Health Care system.
I cannot accept the premise that Health Care would not be provided for anyone if left up to the provinces. There are examples of the provinces putting together health and social service programs without the federal government looking over their shoulder. As discussed in the editorial piece where I first read about this story "the people of Quebec have developed a their own provincial daycare system, the people of Ontario have a drug plan for those who aren't covered by a work plan, not to mention the fact that it was the proince of Saskatchewan that pioneered public health care" in Canada. The close-minded view expressed by the likes of Dosanjh show that there are many people that would like to keep the nanny state that is in place in Canada, and will attempt to undermine any attempts to break that up. Even if it means going against the Constitution.
I for one am of the opinion that following the constitution in this instance is for the best; I am skeptical about believing that this would ever actually happen though. It seems that the feds and the provinces get too much out of this murky issue to ever clarify it. Even though Bernier's call for change could help some of the problems that are plaguing our Health Care system right now.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Questions and Skepticism
Before I get into this next post I have to thank Dr. Ross McKitrick for suggesting that I start this blog in the first place. It is the book that he co-authored Taken By Storm that first peaked my interest in the issue of Global Warming, and climate science.
For the foreward of this book Ross and fellow author Christopher Essex went to renowned scientist Sir Mortimer Long-Bore for a "denunciation" of their book which he was happy to do. He criticized the book having "independent thinking and [a] skeptical attitude." He questions the qualifications of the authors to speak on the issue since Ross is a professor of Economics who studies environmental policy; and Christopher a professor of Applied Mathematics. He instead calls on people to read "qualified experts" such as Al Gore. Al Gore? I see because a degree in Government, and Journalism does qualify one to be an expert? He finishes his comment by saying of the book and its authors "I have not read it, and you should not either; indeed, I threw my copy on the fire. I only regret that burning the book was my only remedy. In a better age I would have burned the authors as with it." It is this type of ignorant bullying that has controlled the "debate" on global warming. Skeptics, and deniers are called stupid; paid for by special interest, and in some cases are said to be worthy of burning like we are living in Salem.
Now it was the purchase of another book last night and reading the epigraph and preface that caused me to sit down and type this post. The book is Climate of Extremes. One of the authors, Patrick J. Michaels was the State Climatologist for the Commonwealth of Virginia, he left the University of Virginia and the State Department of Environmental Science after being told by the Governor of Virginia that he was not to speak as State Climatologist about Global Warming. As is pointed out his situation is not unique. The authors do not say that man-made global warming does not exist. They question its severity, and that there may be some positive effects.
The authors point to an example of alarmism perpetrated by one Al Gore. In 2007 while on Larry King Live when asked by a caller "what issues caused by climate change globally are likely to affect the United States security in the next 10 years," Gore responded by saying that "You know even a one-meter increase, even a three-foot increase in in sea level would cause tens of millions of climate refugees." Now this is a baseless claim. Nothing more. The authors of the book point out that the "best estimate published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007, for the next 10 years, ranges between 0.8 and 1.7 inches."
It is this rampant alarmism that has in my opinion undermined and bastardized the issue. One should be free to question opinions that are expressed, and call out those that make absurd claims without being pilloried by people that one might well assume are fearful of dissent.
For the foreward of this book Ross and fellow author Christopher Essex went to renowned scientist Sir Mortimer Long-Bore for a "denunciation" of their book which he was happy to do. He criticized the book having "independent thinking and [a] skeptical attitude." He questions the qualifications of the authors to speak on the issue since Ross is a professor of Economics who studies environmental policy; and Christopher a professor of Applied Mathematics. He instead calls on people to read "qualified experts" such as Al Gore. Al Gore? I see because a degree in Government, and Journalism does qualify one to be an expert? He finishes his comment by saying of the book and its authors "I have not read it, and you should not either; indeed, I threw my copy on the fire. I only regret that burning the book was my only remedy. In a better age I would have burned the authors as with it." It is this type of ignorant bullying that has controlled the "debate" on global warming. Skeptics, and deniers are called stupid; paid for by special interest, and in some cases are said to be worthy of burning like we are living in Salem.
Now it was the purchase of another book last night and reading the epigraph and preface that caused me to sit down and type this post. The book is Climate of Extremes. One of the authors, Patrick J. Michaels was the State Climatologist for the Commonwealth of Virginia, he left the University of Virginia and the State Department of Environmental Science after being told by the Governor of Virginia that he was not to speak as State Climatologist about Global Warming. As is pointed out his situation is not unique. The authors do not say that man-made global warming does not exist. They question its severity, and that there may be some positive effects.
The authors point to an example of alarmism perpetrated by one Al Gore. In 2007 while on Larry King Live when asked by a caller "what issues caused by climate change globally are likely to affect the United States security in the next 10 years," Gore responded by saying that "You know even a one-meter increase, even a three-foot increase in in sea level would cause tens of millions of climate refugees." Now this is a baseless claim. Nothing more. The authors of the book point out that the "best estimate published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007, for the next 10 years, ranges between 0.8 and 1.7 inches."
It is this rampant alarmism that has in my opinion undermined and bastardized the issue. One should be free to question opinions that are expressed, and call out those that make absurd claims without being pilloried by people that one might well assume are fearful of dissent.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Great Food and the Company of Friends
There is not much that compares to sharing a great meal with close friends, and, or family. I was fortunate enough to enjoy one of these occasions on Saturday night. As the group of 13 were out celebrating JC's birthday there was definitely some amazing food being had around the table; but I believe enhancing the food was the conversation. I can't remember the last time I laughed so much in a short period of time. The conversation was not overly philosophic in nature. It was just a group of friends going off on random tangents (at least in my case), or in other situations just catching up.
My one hope is that I do not have to wait long to experience another night like Saturday.
B.T.W.- Mrs. Craig you're awesome.
My one hope is that I do not have to wait long to experience another night like Saturday.
B.T.W.- Mrs. Craig you're awesome.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Consensus
What does consensus mean? Merriam-Webster defines the term in the following ways
1. a: a general agreement; unanimity
b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
2. group solidarity in sentiment and belief.
Now these definitions themselves give a range of possibility for one to use this term. It is this ambiguity in the definition of the term itself that has led me to believe that this term is often used to misrepresent, either intentionally or unintentionally, the true opinion on an issue.
I saw this term used a lot in my Religious Studies classes during my time at university. I will never forget my Pauline Literature class where my professor said that there was a consensus opinion among Religious Scholars that Paul did not actually write much of what the Bible attributes to him. Now I do not agree with that; however, I am under no delusions of grandeur and do not consider myself a scholar. I did go to other professors to gauge their opinion on the issue and found out that there was both agreement and opposition to that "consensus".
Another professor that is near and dear to my heart, and also apparently my new BFF was fond of saying that there are not a lot of issues in the world of Religious Studies where there is scholarly consensus. It seems as though everyone is very entrenched in their beliefs, and opinions on these various issues. And it is rare that anyone is able to put forth evidence that is able to convince anyone to change their opinion. We can think of the notable exception of the Tel Dan Stele; thank you Kenneth Kitchen.
It is quite clear that different people have different understandings of what qualifies as a consensus. I shudder every time I hear the word, and I always raise a skeptical eyebrow (or would if I could).
At what point does something become a consensus?
People need to come to the realization that there are differing opinions on most everything. And just because someone holds a different opinion on something than you do that does not make them a bad person ... well sometimes it does.
1. a: a general agreement; unanimity
b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
2. group solidarity in sentiment and belief.
Now these definitions themselves give a range of possibility for one to use this term. It is this ambiguity in the definition of the term itself that has led me to believe that this term is often used to misrepresent, either intentionally or unintentionally, the true opinion on an issue.
I saw this term used a lot in my Religious Studies classes during my time at university. I will never forget my Pauline Literature class where my professor said that there was a consensus opinion among Religious Scholars that Paul did not actually write much of what the Bible attributes to him. Now I do not agree with that; however, I am under no delusions of grandeur and do not consider myself a scholar. I did go to other professors to gauge their opinion on the issue and found out that there was both agreement and opposition to that "consensus".
Another professor that is near and dear to my heart, and also apparently my new BFF was fond of saying that there are not a lot of issues in the world of Religious Studies where there is scholarly consensus. It seems as though everyone is very entrenched in their beliefs, and opinions on these various issues. And it is rare that anyone is able to put forth evidence that is able to convince anyone to change their opinion. We can think of the notable exception of the Tel Dan Stele; thank you Kenneth Kitchen.
It is quite clear that different people have different understandings of what qualifies as a consensus. I shudder every time I hear the word, and I always raise a skeptical eyebrow (or would if I could).
At what point does something become a consensus?
People need to come to the realization that there are differing opinions on most everything. And just because someone holds a different opinion on something than you do that does not make them a bad person ... well sometimes it does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)