G
ganjavih
Guest
The healthcare system is not a bottomless pit... I'm sure we would notice a difference in waiting times if we add 10 more MRI machines to Ontario.
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A
Are Be
Guest
And this can be done through a willing private sector. 100% OHIP paid for CAT scans and MRIs.
Heck, we have private, for profit, not at all OHIP paid for abortion clinics, and I'm OK with that. But suggest OHIP pay for private CAT scans, and people go loopy
Heck, we have private, for profit, not at all OHIP paid for abortion clinics, and I'm OK with that. But suggest OHIP pay for private CAT scans, and people go loopy
G
GeekyBoyTO
Guest
I am not suggesting that European policies are not discriminatory, but you haven't demonstrated how it is linked to innonvation.
Exactly how does massive tariff walls actually encourages the development of innovative companies? There are plenty more countries where this situation exist, and yet they aren't innovative.
And just how does AIDS testing has anything to do with innovation. Last time I checked, Canada may not check for AIDS, but certainly physical exam is a part of the immigration process.
And again, just what does refugee policies has to do with innovation? I don't recall the big 3 Scandivian countries putting refugee in camps, do you?
GB
Exactly how does massive tariff walls actually encourages the development of innovative companies? There are plenty more countries where this situation exist, and yet they aren't innovative.
And just how does AIDS testing has anything to do with innovation. Last time I checked, Canada may not check for AIDS, but certainly physical exam is a part of the immigration process.
And again, just what does refugee policies has to do with innovation? I don't recall the big 3 Scandivian countries putting refugee in camps, do you?
GB
G
ganjavih
Guest
"And this can be done through a willing private sector. 100% OHIP paid for CAT scans and MRIs.
Heck, we have private, for profit, not at all OHIP paid for abortion clinics, and I'm OK with that. But suggest OHIP pay for private CAT scans, and people go loopy"
Yes, people suggest this because private interests are willing to put in the upfront capital to establish these clinics while governments are not. However, it seems to me that maintaining these clinics would cost more in the long run since OHIP would also have to cover the extra 10-15% profit. It just seems like a short-sighted solution to me.
Heck, we have private, for profit, not at all OHIP paid for abortion clinics, and I'm OK with that. But suggest OHIP pay for private CAT scans, and people go loopy"
Yes, people suggest this because private interests are willing to put in the upfront capital to establish these clinics while governments are not. However, it seems to me that maintaining these clinics would cost more in the long run since OHIP would also have to cover the extra 10-15% profit. It just seems like a short-sighted solution to me.
G
GeekyBoyTO
Guest
ganja:
Of course, you didn't mention the much vaulted and ephermal "private sector efficiencies".:b
GB
Of course, you didn't mention the much vaulted and ephermal "private sector efficiencies".:b
GB
A
afransen TO
Guest
GB:
The USA is the only innovative, prosperous nation on earth, and the only way we can become innovative and prosperous is to become more American than the Americans. Unfortunately, this is completely unattainable. This is also the main thrust of right-wing arguments for lower taxes as the only way to a stronger economy.
Education, and high productivity, are the key to prosperous economies. Reducing taxes does not automatically increase investment spending and thus productivity. We need targetted
tax cuts or low-cost loans for companies to increase productivity. We need higher post-secondary education rates. We need to stop spending billions propping up primary industries like timber, cattle, cash-cropping and fishing. These industries need to be able to operate without massive government subsidy. Spend the billions that we spend on these industries on developing high value-added industries like biotechnology, telecommunications, electronics manufacture, aerospace, etc. through research and providing loans where appropriate (MaRS is a good example).
We should be reducing our dependence on trade with the USA, not increasing it. The US is spending itself into oblivion, and when they suddenly can't afford Canadian goods anymore, the 42% of our economy that depends on American exports will be in very serious trouble.
This is why its unfortunate that Canada never retained its own domestic automaker. In this regard, we're inextricably linked with the US economy.
The USA is the only innovative, prosperous nation on earth, and the only way we can become innovative and prosperous is to become more American than the Americans. Unfortunately, this is completely unattainable. This is also the main thrust of right-wing arguments for lower taxes as the only way to a stronger economy.
Education, and high productivity, are the key to prosperous economies. Reducing taxes does not automatically increase investment spending and thus productivity. We need targetted
tax cuts or low-cost loans for companies to increase productivity. We need higher post-secondary education rates. We need to stop spending billions propping up primary industries like timber, cattle, cash-cropping and fishing. These industries need to be able to operate without massive government subsidy. Spend the billions that we spend on these industries on developing high value-added industries like biotechnology, telecommunications, electronics manufacture, aerospace, etc. through research and providing loans where appropriate (MaRS is a good example).
We should be reducing our dependence on trade with the USA, not increasing it. The US is spending itself into oblivion, and when they suddenly can't afford Canadian goods anymore, the 42% of our economy that depends on American exports will be in very serious trouble.
This is why its unfortunate that Canada never retained its own domestic automaker. In this regard, we're inextricably linked with the US economy.
A
Are Be
Guest
Mar. 10, 2004. 01:00 AM
Diversity's drawbacks
Levels of trust and co-operation are highest in ethnically homogeneous communities and lowest in open ones
RICHARD GWYN
The more different people become, the less alike they are. That is a statement of the obvious; a banality, a tautology. It is also entirely true.
And it has political and cultural consequences that are only now beginning to be looked at.
Because of immigration, the population of Canada, and of the United States and Australia, and, less so, of most European countries, is undergoing radical change.
Differences in cultures, ethnic origins, customs, and languages, are making the people in them ever more "diverse," in the favoured phrase of multiculturalists.
All these countries are also welfare states. They became welfare states about a half-century ago, at a time when their populations were much more homogeneous.
The political challenge that's now beginning to be looked at — cautiously, gingerly — is whether, as people change, the welfare state is also going to change. The specific issue is whether the majority of people are going to prove to be less willing to spend money on (or to have their tax money spent on) fellow citizens who are less and less like them.
In the current issue of the British policy magazine Prospects, editor David Goodhart raises what he calls "the progressives dilemma."
Progressives, or liberals, believe in redistribution, from the well-off to the poor. They believe, as strongly, in immigration and multiculturalism.
They may not be able to have both, Goodhart believes.
"A generous welfare state is not compatible with open borders," he writes. "Too often, the language of liberal universalism that dominates public debate ignores the real affinities of people and place ... People will always favour their own families and communities ... In a world of stranger citizens, taxpayers need reassurance that their money is being spent on people for whose circumstances they have some sympathy."
Goodhart isn't alone. The British government has just invited Robert Putman, author of Bowling Alone — about peoples' withdrawal from community institutions, from churches to service clubs — to tell it about his most recent study. This reveals, disturbingly, that levels of trust and co-operation are highest in ethnically homogeneous communities and lowest in diverse ones.
But increasing ethnic diversity doesn't equate to increasing social mistrust; the phenomenon is not that easily explained away.
For one thing, mistrust existed in homogeneous societies, too. In Britain, the principal social division was class; in Canada it was region, or province. Once, religion was a major source of social division. And such societies were intolerant of different sexual orientations and life-styles.
For another, mistrust is rising within even homogeneous communities. Surveys done at Harvard University to follow up Putman's original research have found that charitable giving is down one-third since the 1960s, that inviting friends to the house is down 45 per cent in the past 25 years, and that even family dinners are down by one-third.
Goodhart, though, makes a worrying point by his phrase "stranger citizens."
Citizenship, he points out, isn't just a piece of paper. It's shared history, shared values, shared assumptions. Without these commonalities, mere official citizenship may not be enough.
Goodhart makes a couple of glancing references to Canada in his article — enough to show that he recognizes that circumstances here are significantly different from those in Britain or elsewhere in Europe where "stranger citizens" are much more difficult to accommodate because these countries are so overcrowded and so old, historically speaking.
We haven't been an "ethnic" society for a long time. We're a political society. Our binding social glue is values — like the belief in single-tier medicare.
There always has been, though, a fundamental contradiction in our multiculturalism policy. It proclaims that all cultures in Canada are different, and must be accepted and cherished. But it also proclaims that all Canadians have the same values.
This reduces multiculturalism to trivial differences, like tastes in food and songs.
In fact, peoples' cultural differences have a greater effect on their behaviour than we care to admit. And these differences can make some of our fellow-citizens seem like "strangers" to other Canadians.
The key question here — unique to Canada because it doesn't really apply to other "open" societies like the U.S. and Australia, let alone to Europe — is whether our differences are us.
Whether, this is to say, all the ever-multiplying differences among Canadians — cultural and ethnic and linguistic — are now what defines us as a people.
If so, difference, rather than threatening our homogeneity, is our common denominator, our homogeneity. In this case, difference doesn't threaten our liberalism, or our welfare state, even though these do face many challenges, such as the ever-rising cost of our health-care system.
Nevertheless, I must admit that I ended Goodhart's article with that phrase of his —"stranger citizens" — blinking in the back of my mind like a warning signal.
Richard Gwyn's column appears Wednesday and Sunday. gwynR@sympatico.ca.
Additional articles by Richard Gwyn
› Get 50% off home delivery of the Toronto Star.
FAQs| Site Map| Privacy Policy| Webmaster| Subscribe| My Subscription
Home| GTA| Business| Waymoresports| A&E| Life
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.
Diversity's drawbacks
Levels of trust and co-operation are highest in ethnically homogeneous communities and lowest in open ones
RICHARD GWYN
The more different people become, the less alike they are. That is a statement of the obvious; a banality, a tautology. It is also entirely true.
And it has political and cultural consequences that are only now beginning to be looked at.
Because of immigration, the population of Canada, and of the United States and Australia, and, less so, of most European countries, is undergoing radical change.
Differences in cultures, ethnic origins, customs, and languages, are making the people in them ever more "diverse," in the favoured phrase of multiculturalists.
All these countries are also welfare states. They became welfare states about a half-century ago, at a time when their populations were much more homogeneous.
The political challenge that's now beginning to be looked at — cautiously, gingerly — is whether, as people change, the welfare state is also going to change. The specific issue is whether the majority of people are going to prove to be less willing to spend money on (or to have their tax money spent on) fellow citizens who are less and less like them.
In the current issue of the British policy magazine Prospects, editor David Goodhart raises what he calls "the progressives dilemma."
Progressives, or liberals, believe in redistribution, from the well-off to the poor. They believe, as strongly, in immigration and multiculturalism.
They may not be able to have both, Goodhart believes.
"A generous welfare state is not compatible with open borders," he writes. "Too often, the language of liberal universalism that dominates public debate ignores the real affinities of people and place ... People will always favour their own families and communities ... In a world of stranger citizens, taxpayers need reassurance that their money is being spent on people for whose circumstances they have some sympathy."
Goodhart isn't alone. The British government has just invited Robert Putman, author of Bowling Alone — about peoples' withdrawal from community institutions, from churches to service clubs — to tell it about his most recent study. This reveals, disturbingly, that levels of trust and co-operation are highest in ethnically homogeneous communities and lowest in diverse ones.
But increasing ethnic diversity doesn't equate to increasing social mistrust; the phenomenon is not that easily explained away.
For one thing, mistrust existed in homogeneous societies, too. In Britain, the principal social division was class; in Canada it was region, or province. Once, religion was a major source of social division. And such societies were intolerant of different sexual orientations and life-styles.
For another, mistrust is rising within even homogeneous communities. Surveys done at Harvard University to follow up Putman's original research have found that charitable giving is down one-third since the 1960s, that inviting friends to the house is down 45 per cent in the past 25 years, and that even family dinners are down by one-third.
Goodhart, though, makes a worrying point by his phrase "stranger citizens."
Citizenship, he points out, isn't just a piece of paper. It's shared history, shared values, shared assumptions. Without these commonalities, mere official citizenship may not be enough.
Goodhart makes a couple of glancing references to Canada in his article — enough to show that he recognizes that circumstances here are significantly different from those in Britain or elsewhere in Europe where "stranger citizens" are much more difficult to accommodate because these countries are so overcrowded and so old, historically speaking.
We haven't been an "ethnic" society for a long time. We're a political society. Our binding social glue is values — like the belief in single-tier medicare.
There always has been, though, a fundamental contradiction in our multiculturalism policy. It proclaims that all cultures in Canada are different, and must be accepted and cherished. But it also proclaims that all Canadians have the same values.
This reduces multiculturalism to trivial differences, like tastes in food and songs.
In fact, peoples' cultural differences have a greater effect on their behaviour than we care to admit. And these differences can make some of our fellow-citizens seem like "strangers" to other Canadians.
The key question here — unique to Canada because it doesn't really apply to other "open" societies like the U.S. and Australia, let alone to Europe — is whether our differences are us.
Whether, this is to say, all the ever-multiplying differences among Canadians — cultural and ethnic and linguistic — are now what defines us as a people.
If so, difference, rather than threatening our homogeneity, is our common denominator, our homogeneity. In this case, difference doesn't threaten our liberalism, or our welfare state, even though these do face many challenges, such as the ever-rising cost of our health-care system.
Nevertheless, I must admit that I ended Goodhart's article with that phrase of his —"stranger citizens" — blinking in the back of my mind like a warning signal.
Richard Gwyn's column appears Wednesday and Sunday. gwynR@sympatico.ca.
Additional articles by Richard Gwyn
› Get 50% off home delivery of the Toronto Star.
FAQs| Site Map| Privacy Policy| Webmaster| Subscribe| My Subscription
Home| GTA| Business| Waymoresports| A&E| Life
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Distribution, transmission or republication of any material from www.thestar.com is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.
G
GeekyBoyTO
Guest
"There always has been, though, a fundamental contradiction in our multiculturalism policy. It proclaims that all cultures in Canada are different, and must be accepted and cherished. But it also proclaims that all Canadians have the same values"
That is quite an oversimplification. No Canadians, multicultural or otherwise, ever had the same values. If that is so, we'd have no political parties, no differences of opinions, etc - EVER - in our history. That is clearly not true. And it ignores a "hierachy of values" - not all values are on the same playing field - there are ones that are almost universal in nature, and there are those that aren't. The same is true in every society.
GB
That is quite an oversimplification. No Canadians, multicultural or otherwise, ever had the same values. If that is so, we'd have no political parties, no differences of opinions, etc - EVER - in our history. That is clearly not true. And it ignores a "hierachy of values" - not all values are on the same playing field - there are ones that are almost universal in nature, and there are those that aren't. The same is true in every society.
GB
A
Are Be
Guest
Agreed, GB
Still an interesting idea.
The "stranger citizens" concept may be very applicable to Canada's regionalism: Quebecers don't mind at all if they get their share of the booty and Ottawa forces Albertans to subsidize festivals in Montreal. But Quebecers are "stranger citizens" in the eyes of Albertans, who are seething with anger over the arrangement.
The "Enough is not Enough" campaign may further push this ""stranger citizens" thinking in Toronto and in Ontario, where electors may be on the verge of being hard pressed to see the funny side of having to constantly support farmers and fisherman, (arguably also "stranger citizens") yet have their urban issues treated with hostility. (See also John Ibbitson's "Ontario: Loyal no More.") Of course, a Western based Conservative government may also be even more friendly to farmers and even more hostile to Toronto ("Stranger citizens" in the eyes of all but those within the GTA) than the Liberals are
Still an interesting idea.
The "stranger citizens" concept may be very applicable to Canada's regionalism: Quebecers don't mind at all if they get their share of the booty and Ottawa forces Albertans to subsidize festivals in Montreal. But Quebecers are "stranger citizens" in the eyes of Albertans, who are seething with anger over the arrangement.
The "Enough is not Enough" campaign may further push this ""stranger citizens" thinking in Toronto and in Ontario, where electors may be on the verge of being hard pressed to see the funny side of having to constantly support farmers and fisherman, (arguably also "stranger citizens") yet have their urban issues treated with hostility. (See also John Ibbitson's "Ontario: Loyal no More.") Of course, a Western based Conservative government may also be even more friendly to farmers and even more hostile to Toronto ("Stranger citizens" in the eyes of all but those within the GTA) than the Liberals are
A
afransen TO
Guest
That problem stems from the politics of division practiced in this country. For instance, the people of rural and semi-rural Ontario were intentionally and consciously pitted against the people of urban Ontario (especially Toronto) by the Harris-Eves government. It is a great strategy, to create an us-against-them mentality. That's why wars are so popular for US presidents. Nationalism forces dissenters to support a president during wartime.
This fails to consider what is it the best interests of everyone. I don't think even Are Be will argue that it is in the interests of everyone in Ontario, rural or urban, for Toronto to do well economically, and have a high quality of life. Ontario depends on Toronto's large tax base to support its welfare state, and Toronto is a large consumer market for rural Ontario goods and services. So, Ontarians aren't bitter about Toronto receiving funds because it will help Toronto, but because they've been fed lies by political parties suggesting that Toronto is actually being supported on rural tax dollars, rather than vice versa.
Once we make the electorate realise that the cities are what support our nations, and are not a drain on them, will they realise that investing in our cities' continued prosperity is in their own interests.
This fails to consider what is it the best interests of everyone. I don't think even Are Be will argue that it is in the interests of everyone in Ontario, rural or urban, for Toronto to do well economically, and have a high quality of life. Ontario depends on Toronto's large tax base to support its welfare state, and Toronto is a large consumer market for rural Ontario goods and services. So, Ontarians aren't bitter about Toronto receiving funds because it will help Toronto, but because they've been fed lies by political parties suggesting that Toronto is actually being supported on rural tax dollars, rather than vice versa.
Once we make the electorate realise that the cities are what support our nations, and are not a drain on them, will they realise that investing in our cities' continued prosperity is in their own interests.
A
Are Be
Guest
There not big at all. They have refugee camps, nonetheless. And perhaps that's why people don't loose passports on their way to Norway. And that's why they don't need big refugee camps. Typical customs discussion: "Yes sir! Here's my passport.... That's right, just visiting. ... Yes, here's my return ticket..."
Perhaps because they discriminate they can afford to have higher taxes.
Perhaps because, as the Toronto Star indicates today, people don't mind paying taxes when they know the money is going to someone with similar cultural views (other Swedes with Swedish viewpoints on a large number of matters)
The Swedes come up with clever ways of avoiding taxes. "Floating Floors" hard wood floors that aren't nailed down, do not form part of 'real property' and thus are not taxed in Scandinavia. But a hardwood floor that is nailed down, is taxed. It's not as if all of the people of Sweden jump around dancing with massive taxation and see this money getting spent on festivals and the arts, etc. Swedes are happy to pay taxes to make sure Erickson, SAAB and Volvo get big, fat government subsidies. (And the workers get paid and the plant stays open, etc) There's quite the corporate welfare gravy train in Scandinavia, you know.
Canada strictly forbids AIDS testing for immigration purposes. You can be tossed out for a hang nail, but not AIDS. Soviet Cunuckistan.
Perhaps because they discriminate they can afford to have higher taxes.
Perhaps because, as the Toronto Star indicates today, people don't mind paying taxes when they know the money is going to someone with similar cultural views (other Swedes with Swedish viewpoints on a large number of matters)
The Swedes come up with clever ways of avoiding taxes. "Floating Floors" hard wood floors that aren't nailed down, do not form part of 'real property' and thus are not taxed in Scandinavia. But a hardwood floor that is nailed down, is taxed. It's not as if all of the people of Sweden jump around dancing with massive taxation and see this money getting spent on festivals and the arts, etc. Swedes are happy to pay taxes to make sure Erickson, SAAB and Volvo get big, fat government subsidies. (And the workers get paid and the plant stays open, etc) There's quite the corporate welfare gravy train in Scandinavia, you know.
Canada strictly forbids AIDS testing for immigration purposes. You can be tossed out for a hang nail, but not AIDS. Soviet Cunuckistan.