Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The end of Canada
Author Message
Tom in Lazybrook Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,296
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #21
RE: The end of Canada
(11-15-2018 09:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 08:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  That guy from the video really is out there. I think if you mentioned your predictions to a non-political Albertan or Quebecer, they'd probably laugh at the predictions. Sorry to be a bit dismissive, but you appear to reduce the concerns of Quebecois to simply a money grub. The situation is far, far, FAR more complicated than that.




https://zeihan.com/trade-talk-part-i-of-...-going-on/

This guy is all over the map.

He touts the election victory of the CAQ in Quebec, a profoundly pro-Canada party, then in the other video talks about Quebec walking away if they don't get everything they want. BTW, the CAQ got a whopping 37 percent of the vote. Exactly ZERO Quebecois parties, including the PQ want an independence referendum for the forseeable future. The PQ, not least because they fear it would get crushed. I know some pretty damn racist Quebecois who have irrational fears of Muslims. I'll bet they voted CAQ. But they'd vote for the love child of Trudeau and Rachel Notley and sign up for multicultural training if needed to remain in Canada.

----

Its also quite easy to overstate the level of REAL autonomy Canadian provinces really have under the "Not Withstanding" autonomy provisions in the Canadian Confederation Agreements. From a practical perspective, the Federal Courts and the Federal Government have a lot of say on exactly what a Province can say no to. And they use it.

----

In Ontario, the right wing parties got 40 percent of the votes combined. Also, the Liberals have been in power for 15 years in Ontario.

----

Provincial politics is frequently quite different than Federal politics. And Canadians do vote strategically, knowing that first past the post can create unfortunate results.

Its certainly possible that Trudeau can be beaten. But probably only by another Atlanticist/Globalist. By the way, Trudeau's poll rating are pretty good. But, Federal opinion ratings sometimes don't carry through to Provincial elections. First rule of Canadian politics....Canadians are, on the whole, not nearly as partisan as Americans. They don't look at parties the same way Americans do. Like just about everything else in Canada, it looks really familiar until you get below 1,000 feet, then BAM....nope it doesn't work like that.

Sure, Canada has parties on the center-right and the center-left and left. But where you run off the rails is when you assume that just because Americans don't split tickets and party flip in large numbers, to assume that Canadians don't. They do. Part of it, is structural. First past the post requires Canadians to actually THINK about their vote and to vote strategically. For example, one might be a died in the wool, dues paying Liberal Party member, but if they need to vote for a NDPer or even a Tory in order to prevent an overall result they don't want, they might (will) do it. Also, Canadians don't have the stomach for some of the bare knuckled hyperbole in American political discourse. Go too hard, and the voters will punish you for doing so.

Canadian politics tends also to be rather policy orientated too.

----

The real problem is that the 'predictor' appears to try to place a Trumpian worldview of politics onto Canadian politics. To truly understand it, which even I don't (and I have years of experience living up there and was even a consultant for a Canadian political party in a National election), you have to NOT look at it like Americans look at politics.
(This post was last modified: 11-16-2018 12:09 AM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
11-15-2018 10:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,296
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #22
RE: The end of Canada
By the way, the presenter makes a sadly common (among Americans), and wildly inaccurate, postulation about Canada. He assumes that Canadians wish to be, or are even open to becoming, Americans. I think many Canadians would be open to discussing a 'freedom of movement' agreement, but that's about it (that's currently hard to do because of health care issues).

Sure, in an absolute collapse, Canadians would make a rational decision. But having some fiscal issues related to an aging workforce isn't going to get there. Canada can raise taxes (they're higher than the USA, but far lower than the rest of their peers). Canada also has the ability to accept migrants too. Collapses happen when there isn't a readily available solution or if there's some sort of structural issue in their society or political system that prevents an otherwise workable solution to be implemented. I think Canada's problems aren't going to get to that level.

----

GTS, I think that Canada's geopolitical and fiscal concerns, and its relationship with the USA is a fun topic.
(This post was last modified: 11-16-2018 11:37 AM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
11-16-2018 11:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 45,453
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 1264
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #23
RE: The end of Canada
(11-16-2018 11:32 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  By the way, the presenter makes a sadly common (among Americans), and wildly inaccurate, postulation about Canada. He assumes that Canadians wish to be, or are even open to becoming, Americans. I think many Canadians would be open to discussing a 'freedom of movement' agreement, but that's about it (that's currently hard to do because of health care issues).

Sure, in an absolute collapse, Canadians would make a rational decision. But having some fiscal issues related to an aging workforce isn't going to get there. Canada can raise taxes (they're higher than the USA, but far lower than the rest of their peers). Canada also has the ability to accept migrants too. Collapses happen when there isn't a readily available solution or if there's some sort of structural issue in their society or political system that prevents an otherwise workable solution to be implemented. I think Canada's problems aren't going to get to that level.

----

GTS, I think that Canada's geopolitical and fiscal concerns, and its relationship with the USA is a fun topic.


He didn't say they wanted to become Americans. "I'm not saying it's going to happen." But I am saying it does solve nearly ALL of Alberta's problems. And if Ottawa continues to aggressively fleece Alberta while simultaneously handicapping their ability to pay via a pipeline ... well ... there's no faster way to change hearts and minds than going after wallets. If things get too out of hand nationalism/patriotism can be thrown overboard in quick order.
11-16-2018 01:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,296
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #24
RE: The end of Canada
(11-16-2018 01:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(11-16-2018 11:32 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  By the way, the presenter makes a sadly common (among Americans), and wildly inaccurate, postulation about Canada. He assumes that Canadians wish to be, or are even open to becoming, Americans. I think many Canadians would be open to discussing a 'freedom of movement' agreement, but that's about it (that's currently hard to do because of health care issues).

Sure, in an absolute collapse, Canadians would make a rational decision. But having some fiscal issues related to an aging workforce isn't going to get there. Canada can raise taxes (they're higher than the USA, but far lower than the rest of their peers). Canada also has the ability to accept migrants too. Collapses happen when there isn't a readily available solution or if there's some sort of structural issue in their society or political system that prevents an otherwise workable solution to be implemented. I think Canada's problems aren't going to get to that level.

----

GTS, I think that Canada's geopolitical and fiscal concerns, and its relationship with the USA is a fun topic.


He didn't say they wanted to become Americans. "I'm not saying it's going to happen." But I am saying it does solve nearly ALL of Alberta's problems. And if Ottawa continues to aggressively fleece Alberta while simultaneously handicapping their ability to pay via a pipeline ... well ... there's no faster way to change hearts and minds than going after wallets. If things get too out of hand nationalism/patriotism can be thrown overboard in quick order.

You presume that there aren't plenty of people in Alberta that are sick and tired of the oil people running the province for their exclusive benefit. That's the main reason the NDP won. Most Albertans understand that oil and gas concerns are very important to their economy. But most of them don't directly work in that field and have watched their standard of living fall as they've been crowded out of housing by the mammoth amount of cash being dumped on a relatively small number of people. That proposal might be of significant help to a few Albertans living in nice neighborhoods in Calgary. They're doing pretty well as it is.

Also, remember that in Canada, the GOVERNMENT, not private property owners, owns the minerals. So farmers and other landowners don't see energy extraction as the unreserved 'good' that Americans do (The owners to get rent and land access fees for property used in production).

As we have seen in the USA, people don't always vote with their wallets.

Either way, joining the USA wouldn't solve many of Alberta's problems in a significant way.

First, building the pipeline will NOT reduce the very high price of production of much of Alberta's tar sand crude. And Albertan oil would still need to find a market. Why would a refinery take crude from Alberta, when they can just get it from Wyoming or North Dakota? It would be a benefit, but just a marginal one.

In Natgas, Albertan production is actually price competitive. But nat gas prices are very low and are projected to go lower. And there are pipelines. Canada is in the process of turning its LNG regassification import plant in Atlantic Canada into a degassification LNG export plant (I actually worked on that plant when it was being built). But prices are so low for nat gas right now that even that is looking dubious as a way to increase prices. I'm not sure that the pipelines or LNG degassification plants are really the problem in Alberta, but rather the lack of markets and low prices. If there was a supply contraint, this would be a different story. But there isn't.

Basically, the presenter is saying that IF Alberta secedes AND convinces US refineries to structure their refineries specifically to take Albertan crude AND the pipeline gets built, then Alberta will make more money than it does now. This is true, but there are a LOT of ifs and Alberta, even if they started now, is too late to that party. Once the refineries have been reconfigured to take light sweet, then Alberta will be fully shut out.
(This post was last modified: 11-16-2018 01:23 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
11-16-2018 01:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 59,421
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1290
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #25
RE: The end of Canada
(11-16-2018 11:32 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  By the way, the presenter makes a sadly common (among Americans), and wildly inaccurate, postulation about Canada. He assumes that Canadians wish to be, or are even open to becoming, Americans. I think many Canadians would be open to discussing a 'freedom of movement' agreement, but that's about it (that's currently hard to do because of health care issues).
Sure, in an absolute collapse, Canadians would make a rational decision. But having some fiscal issues related to an aging workforce isn't going to get there. Canada can raise taxes (they're higher than the USA, but far lower than the rest of their peers). Canada also has the ability to accept migrants too. Collapses happen when there isn't a readily available solution or if there's some sort of structural issue in their society or political system that prevents an otherwise workable solution to be implemented. I think Canada's problems aren't going to get to that level.
----
GTS, I think that Canada's geopolitical and fiscal concerns, and its relationship with the USA is a fun topic.

I just don't see health care as being an insurmountable barrier. Canada pretty much does health care by province anyway, and they could certainly keep the plan they have now and fund it with the money that would not be getting siphoned off by Ottawa to the east. If we got smart and did Bismarck, I wouldn't see health care as any sort of problem.

The prairie provinces all have similar issues, hating getting screwed by Ottawa. Economically, they are in sort of the position of US flyover country, they are the places where raw materials are either grown or extracted, and they get ripped off by the financing interests on the coasts. Yes, they tend more to the left than the US overall, but there are some issues that cut the other way. For example, Canadian provinces have far more autonomy than US states, an issue where they would align with states' rights proponents. One of those rights is apparently the right to secede, so it's not impossible to consider. As Ottawa has to subsidize Quebec and the Maritimes more and more, the situation is only going to get worse.
(This post was last modified: 11-16-2018 01:23 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
11-16-2018 01:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,296
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #26
RE: The end of Canada
(11-16-2018 01:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-16-2018 11:32 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  By the way, the presenter makes a sadly common (among Americans), and wildly inaccurate, postulation about Canada. He assumes that Canadians wish to be, or are even open to becoming, Americans. I think many Canadians would be open to discussing a 'freedom of movement' agreement, but that's about it (that's currently hard to do because of health care issues).
Sure, in an absolute collapse, Canadians would make a rational decision. But having some fiscal issues related to an aging workforce isn't going to get there. Canada can raise taxes (they're higher than the USA, but far lower than the rest of their peers). Canada also has the ability to accept migrants too. Collapses happen when there isn't a readily available solution or if there's some sort of structural issue in their society or political system that prevents an otherwise workable solution to be implemented. I think Canada's problems aren't going to get to that level.
----
GTS, I think that Canada's geopolitical and fiscal concerns, and its relationship with the USA is a fun topic.

I just don't see health care as being an insurmountable barrier. Canada pretty much does health care by province anyway, and they could certainly keep the plan they have now and fund it with the money that would not be getting siphoned off by Ottawa to the east. If we got smart and did Bismarck, I wouldn't see health care as any sort of problem.

The prairie provinces all have similar issues, hating getting screwed by Ottawa. Economically, they are in sort of the position of US flyover country, they are the places where raw materials are either grown or extracted, and they get ripped off by the financing interests on the coasts. Yes, they tend more to the left than the US overall, but there are some issues that cut the other way. For example, Canadian provinces have far more autonomy than US states, an issue where they would align with states' rights proponents. One of those rights is apparently the right to secede, so it's not impossible to consider. As Ottawa has to subsidize Quebec and the Maritimes more and more, the situation is only going to get worse.

New England and the West Coast have been subsidizing the flyover states in the USA for decades. Not a real issue here, not a real issue there.

Canada has an interesting rule. If you don't live for 7 months of the year in Canada, you cannot be on their health care system. So perhaps they just put in a rule that allowed Canadians to buy into Obamacare and Americans to buy into Canada's Health System.
11-16-2018 01:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 59,421
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1290
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #27
RE: The end of Canada
(11-16-2018 01:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  New England and the West Coast have been subsidizing the flyover states in the USA for decades. Not a real issue here, not a real issue there.

The "studies" that show this use some pretty creative math. In several ways, the methodologies are weighted heavily against producer states.

Quote:Canada has an interesting rule. If you don't live for 7 months of the year in Canada, you cannot be on their health care system. So perhaps they just put in a rule that allowed Canadians to buy into Obamacare and Americans to buy into Canada's Health System.

Or we pass Bismarck and Canadians quickly figure out that it's so much better than what we have that they adopt ours. This idea that Canada has such a wonderful heath care system is kind of a myth. Remember the 2000 WHO study where the left gleefully points out that the US ranked 37th? Any idea where Canada ranked? 30th. And it was the highest-ranked true single-payer system. All the rest were worse than the US. And in subsequent studies, it has ranked pretty poorly too. A comparison of Canadian health care to European rated it like 28th out of 30, and 30th when costs were factored in. But Canadians love their system, you say. Well, actually they sort of do, but the polls are interesting. When two questions are asked, number one, how do you rate your country's health care, and number two, how do you rate the specific health care available to you individually, Canadians rate their system higher than Americans do on the first question, but lower on the second. Or at least they did the last time I saw Gallup results on it.
(This post was last modified: 11-16-2018 02:00 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
11-16-2018 01:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chess Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,864
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For: ECU & Nebraska
Location: Chicagoland
Post: #28
RE: The end of Canada
Thank you, for posting this link. I just bought one of his books.
11-17-2018 11:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nomad2u2001 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,438
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation: 402
I Root For: ECU
Location: NC
Post: #29
RE: The end of Canada
(11-16-2018 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-16-2018 01:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  New England and the West Coast have been subsidizing the flyover states in the USA for decades. Not a real issue here, not a real issue there.

The "studies" that show this use some pretty creative math. In several ways, the methodologies are weighted heavily against producer states.

Quote:Canada has an interesting rule. If you don't live for 7 months of the year in Canada, you cannot be on their health care system. So perhaps they just put in a rule that allowed Canadians to buy into Obamacare and Americans to buy into Canada's Health System.

Or we pass Bismarck and Canadians quickly figure out that it's so much better than what we have that they adopt ours. This idea that Canada has such a wonderful heath care system is kind of a myth. Remember the 2000 WHO study where the left gleefully points out that the US ranked 37th? Any idea where Canada ranked? 30th. And it was the highest-ranked true single-payer system. All the rest were worse than the US. And in subsequent studies, it has ranked pretty poorly too. A comparison of Canadian health care to European rated it like 28th out of 30, and 30th when costs were factored in. But Canadians love their system, you say. Well, actually they sort of do, but the polls are interesting. When two questions are asked, number one, how do you rate your country's health care, and number two, how do you rate the specific health care available to you individually, Canadians rate their system higher than Americans do on the first question, but lower on the second. Or at least they did the last time I saw Gallup results on it.

I'm just as much of a Bismarck guy as you, but we should both know that the likelyhood of it ever getting passed anytime soon is very, very low. The American people and the American policy makers have it as single payer vs. whatever vague sh** the republicans come up with when they need to win an election. I bet you could go to republicans and democrats alike and 98% of them couldn't tell you the difference between the UK's NHS, Canada's single-payer, or Netherlands Bismarck.

Healthcare is a big deal in Canada. They know it's not perfect, but universal healthcare is not a partisan issue there and it's not just about not having to pay for the doctor.
11-18-2018 04:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 59,421
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1290
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #30
RE: The end of Canada
(11-18-2018 04:57 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  
(11-16-2018 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-16-2018 01:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  New England and the West Coast have been subsidizing the flyover states in the USA for decades. Not a real issue here, not a real issue there.
The "studies" that show this use some pretty creative math. In several ways, the methodologies are weighted heavily against producer states.
Quote:Canada has an interesting rule. If you don't live for 7 months of the year in Canada, you cannot be on their health care system. So perhaps they just put in a rule that allowed Canadians to buy into Obamacare and Americans to buy into Canada's Health System.
Or we pass Bismarck and Canadians quickly figure out that it's so much better than what we have that they adopt ours. This idea that Canada has such a wonderful heath care system is kind of a myth. Remember the 2000 WHO study where the left gleefully points out that the US ranked 37th? Any idea where Canada ranked? 30th. And it was the highest-ranked true single-payer system. All the rest were worse than the US. And in subsequent studies, it has ranked pretty poorly too. A comparison of Canadian health care to European rated it like 28th out of 30, and 30th when costs were factored in. But Canadians love their system, you say. Well, actually they sort of do, but the polls are interesting. When two questions are asked, number one, how do you rate your country's health care, and number two, how do you rate the specific health care available to you individually, Canadians rate their system higher than Americans do on the first question, but lower on the second. Or at least they did the last time I saw Gallup results on it.
I'm just as much of a Bismarck guy as you, but we should both know that the likelyhood of it ever getting passed anytime soon is very, very low. The American people and the American policy makers have it as single payer vs. whatever vague sh** the republicans come up with when they need to win an election. I bet you could go to republicans and democrats alike and 98% of them couldn't tell you the difference between the UK's NHS, Canada's single-payer, or Netherlands Bismarck.
Healthcare is a big deal in Canada. They know it's not perfect, but universal healthcare is not a partisan issue there and it's not just about not having to pay for the doctor.

The only reason Bismarck won't pass is that
1) democrats don't care about making health care better, they just want more power, and Bismarck reduces rather than increases the role of the central government, and
2) republicans are too stupid to realize that a) they need to come up with a better idea for health care or punt the issue to democrats, and b) this is the better idea. What is really stupid is that Heritage actually gave them a nudge in that direction 25 years ago, with something that looked a lot like Swiss Bismarck, they could have passed it and Bill Clinton would have signed it, and they did nothing.

I don't think democrats will ever come off single payer, although I doubt half a dozen congress critters from both parties could tell you the difference between single-payer, single-provider, Bismarck, and the Singapore system. I really kind of like Bismarck with a Singapore option.
11-18-2018 05:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nomad2u2001 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,438
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation: 402
I Root For: ECU
Location: NC
Post: #31
RE: The end of Canada
(11-18-2018 05:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-18-2018 04:57 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  
(11-16-2018 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-16-2018 01:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  New England and the West Coast have been subsidizing the flyover states in the USA for decades. Not a real issue here, not a real issue there.
The "studies" that show this use some pretty creative math. In several ways, the methodologies are weighted heavily against producer states.
Quote:Canada has an interesting rule. If you don't live for 7 months of the year in Canada, you cannot be on their health care system. So perhaps they just put in a rule that allowed Canadians to buy into Obamacare and Americans to buy into Canada's Health System.
Or we pass Bismarck and Canadians quickly figure out that it's so much better than what we have that they adopt ours. This idea that Canada has such a wonderful heath care system is kind of a myth. Remember the 2000 WHO study where the left gleefully points out that the US ranked 37th? Any idea where Canada ranked? 30th. And it was the highest-ranked true single-payer system. All the rest were worse than the US. And in subsequent studies, it has ranked pretty poorly too. A comparison of Canadian health care to European rated it like 28th out of 30, and 30th when costs were factored in. But Canadians love their system, you say. Well, actually they sort of do, but the polls are interesting. When two questions are asked, number one, how do you rate your country's health care, and number two, how do you rate the specific health care available to you individually, Canadians rate their system higher than Americans do on the first question, but lower on the second. Or at least they did the last time I saw Gallup results on it.
I'm just as much of a Bismarck guy as you, but we should both know that the likelyhood of it ever getting passed anytime soon is very, very low. The American people and the American policy makers have it as single payer vs. whatever vague sh** the republicans come up with when they need to win an election. I bet you could go to republicans and democrats alike and 98% of them couldn't tell you the difference between the UK's NHS, Canada's single-payer, or Netherlands Bismarck.
Healthcare is a big deal in Canada. They know it's not perfect, but universal healthcare is not a partisan issue there and it's not just about not having to pay for the doctor.

The only reason Bismarck won't pass is that
1) democrats don't care about making health care better, they just want more power, and Bismarck reduces rather than increases the role of the central government, and
2) republicans are too stupid to realize that a) they need to come up with a better idea for health care or punt the issue to democrats, and b) this is the better idea. What is really stupid is that Heritage actually gave them a nudge in that direction 25 years ago, with something that looked a lot like Swiss Bismarck, they could have passed it and Bill Clinton would have signed it, and they did nothing.

I don't think democrats will ever come off single payer, although I doubt half a dozen congress critters from both parties could tell you the difference between single-payer, single-provider, Bismarck, and the Singapore system. I really kind of like Bismarck with a Singapore option.

I think Bismarck won't get passed because it's probably the furthest out of the minds of either party. It just doesn't have the same ring to it as "market based" or single-payer. They can't market Bismarck healthcare.

Congress also happens to be filled with the least intellectually curious people on the planet. They make a lot of money to just be as uninformed as everyone else.
(This post was last modified: 11-18-2018 05:35 PM by nomad2u2001.)
11-18-2018 05:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 59,421
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1290
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #32
RE: The end of Canada
(11-18-2018 05:34 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I think Bismarck won't get passed because it's probably the furthest out of the minds of either party. It just doesn't have the same ring to it as "market based" or single-payer. They can't market Bismarck healthcare.
Congress also happens to be filled with the least intellectually curious people on the planet. They make a lot of money to just be as uninformed as everyone else.

I don't think anybody in congress understands it, in line with your least intellectually curious comment. Heritage explained it to them 25 years ago, and they didn't pay attention. All they really care about now is how many votes they are going to get in 2020.

It's probably more market-based than what we have now, or had before. And definitely more universal than either.
(This post was last modified: 11-18-2018 07:05 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
11-18-2018 07:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,296
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #33
RE: The end of Canada
(11-18-2018 07:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(11-18-2018 05:34 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I think Bismarck won't get passed because it's probably the furthest out of the minds of either party. It just doesn't have the same ring to it as "market based" or single-payer. They can't market Bismarck healthcare.
Congress also happens to be filled with the least intellectually curious people on the planet. They make a lot of money to just be as uninformed as everyone else.

I don't think anybody in congress understands it, in line with your least intellectually curious comment. Heritage explained it to them 25 years ago, and they didn't pay attention. All they really care about now is how many votes they are going to get in 2020.

It's probably more market-based than what we have now, or had before. And definitely more universal than either.

When the GOP kills off Obamacare, which was convertible to a Bismark system.....what comes next is Medicare for All.

This was clearly forseeable.

Either way, freedom of movement cannot be politically sold either, even with Canada.
11-18-2018 10:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 59,421
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1290
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #34
RE: The end of Canada
(11-18-2018 10:58 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  When the GOP kills off Obamacare, which was convertible to a Bismark system.....what comes next is Medicare for All.
This was clearly forseeable.
Either way, freedom of movement cannot be politically sold either, even with Canada.

Obamacare could be converted to a Bismarck system. But you'd have to get rid of a lot of government overhead, which isn't going to sit well with the lazy ass bureaucrat community.
11-19-2018 06:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 45,453
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 1264
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #35
RE: The end of Canada

12-03-2018 07:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,296
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #36
RE: The end of Canada
You really should consider looking at a more nuanced view of Canada. Canada's economy is a LOT more diverse than just Oil Sands petroleum. Its not even Alberta's biggest export (its natural gas). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Canada. Albertan Crude Oil probably represents somewhere around 3 percent of Canada's economy. Oil is probably no more than 12 percent of the economic output in Alberta and is maybe represents 5 percent of provincial employment.

The Bloomberg link appears to be little more than the Saudis and the Russians agreeing to cut production, and Rachel Notley (the NDP Primier of Alberta) also trying to cut the glut.
(This post was last modified: 12-03-2018 08:05 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
12-03-2018 07:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 45,453
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 1264
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #37
RE: The end of Canada
(12-03-2018 07:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You really should consider looking at a more nuanced view of Canada. Canada's economy is a LOT more diverse than just Oil Sands petroleum. Its not even Alberta's biggest export (its natural gas). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Canada. Albertan Crude Oil probably represents somewhere around 3 percent of Canada's economy. Oil is probably no more than 12 percent of the economic output in Alberta and is maybe represents 5 percent of provincial employment.

The Bloomberg link appears to be little more than the Saudis and the Russians agreeing to cut production, and Rachel Notley (the NDP Primier of Alberta) also trying to cut the glut.


Read the link in the top about Alberta cutting oil production by "an unprecedented" amount.
12-03-2018 08:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,296
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #38
RE: The end of Canada
(12-03-2018 08:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(12-03-2018 07:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You really should consider looking at a more nuanced view of Canada. Canada's economy is a LOT more diverse than just Oil Sands petroleum. Its not even Alberta's biggest export (its natural gas). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Canada. Albertan Crude Oil probably represents somewhere around 3 percent of Canada's economy. Oil is probably no more than 12 percent of the economic output in Alberta and is maybe represents 5 percent of provincial employment.

The Bloomberg link appears to be little more than the Saudis and the Russians agreeing to cut production, and Rachel Notley (the NDP Primier of Alberta) also trying to cut the glut.


Read the link in the top about Alberta cutting oil production by "an unprecedented" amount.

Ok..the wellhead price of Albertan Heavy Sour is probably less than 20 USD/bbl. Ordering a cut is probably more of a plan by Notley to simply stop Albertan companies going bankrupt in a dumb fight to see who can protect market share while losing money with every barrel sold.
12-03-2018 08:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,148
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 695
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #39
RE: The end of Canada
(11-18-2018 05:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The only reason Bismarck won't pass is that
1) democrats don't care about making health care better, they just want more power, and Bismarck reduces rather than increases the role of the central government, and
2) republicans are too stupid to realize that a) they need to come up with a better idea for health care or punt the issue to democrats, and b) this is the better idea. What is really stupid is that Heritage actually gave them a nudge in that direction 25 years ago, with something that looked a lot like Swiss Bismarck, they could have passed it and Bill Clinton would have signed it, and they did nothing.

I don't think democrats will ever come off single payer, although I doubt half a dozen congress critters from both parties could tell you the difference between single-payer, single-provider, Bismarck, and the Singapore system. I really kind of like Bismarck with a Singapore option.

I think you are very wrong. A Bismarck model requires a fairly heavy hand from government.
1. Everyone MUST be insured.
2. Insurance is tightly regulated
3. Government sets prices.

The Bismarck model I believe is the superior model unless we develop the stomach to force savings and create a national catastrophic health insurance plan.

The problem is finding five Supreme Court Justices who would uphold the idea that the government can decree that the price of the surgeon's fee for an appendectomy is $1500 and Blue Cross of Wisconsin is to pay the surgeon $1500 not $1700 or $1450.

Now if the Federal government were extending coverage to everyone and told them that if you want to bill and receive payment from us you bill our price list of $1500 for appendectomies or be kicked out from billing and receiving? Court likely upholds that.

Now if you had some weird mash-up where the Federal government remitted X dollars per insured to health insurers conditioned upon following a national or regional price list, you might get it past the courts but the price fixing absent some spending power, won't fly under the way the Constitution is normally interpreted.
01-24-2019 04:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 59,421
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1290
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #40
RE: The end of Canada
(01-24-2019 04:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(11-18-2018 05:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The only reason Bismarck won't pass is that
1) democrats don't care about making health care better, they just want more power, and Bismarck reduces rather than increases the role of the central government, and
2) republicans are too stupid to realize that a) they need to come up with a better idea for health care or punt the issue to democrats, and b) this is the better idea. What is really stupid is that Heritage actually gave them a nudge in that direction 25 years ago, with something that looked a lot like Swiss Bismarck, they could have passed it and Bill Clinton would have signed it, and they did nothing.
I don't think democrats will ever come off single payer, although I doubt half a dozen congress critters from both parties could tell you the difference between single-payer, single-provider, Bismarck, and the Singapore system. I really kind of like Bismarck with a Singapore option.
I think you are very wrong. A Bismarck model requires a fairly heavy hand from government.
1. Everyone MUST be insured.
2. Insurance is tightly regulated
3. Government sets prices.

Those things apply to half the system (actually, about 70%). The beauty of Bismarck is that they realize that such conditions will necessarily produce shortages. So they allow a market-based system to operate alongside and take care of those people who get stuck in queues.
01-25-2019 02:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.