Xref: utcsri can.politics:64143 Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qlink!3rje4 From: 3rje4@qlink.queensu.ca (Elgie Richard J) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Heard of Klein? Date: 12 Jan 1995 19:45:06 GMT Organization: Queen's University, Kingston Lines: 62 Message-ID: <3f40s3$h19@knot.queensu.ca> References: <3euppb$qdk@scapa.cs.ualberta.ca> <3evi6u$2fa@knot.queensu.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: qlink.queensu.ca X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Iggulden Christine I (4cii@qlink.queensu.ca) wrote: : What about the people who have been hurt in the process? With due respect, Christine, I think that the only people Klein has "hurt" are the civil servants. The Premier is attempting to restore badly needed economic freedom to his province and he is succeeding marvelously. : Yes, she is trying to stop a 2 tier health care system in Alberta. If : Alberta wants federal health care transfers they have to follow the : national health act. Ok. It's time to debunk the "2-tier health care" rhetoric. Klein's health care reforms actually will _improve_ the quality of health care in the province. And it will do so substantially. You see, the private practices that Klein is allowing will relieve the stress on the public system by allowing the rich to pay for private care instead. As a result of this reform, health care providers will have the will be able to target resources for fewer people. Particularly, I should mention, fewer poor people. This free market change is fundamentally egalitarian despite the federal health minister's horn-blowing. : Many would argue that Klein has acted in an undemocratic fashion. Why : didn't you mention that he forced health care workers to take a pay cut : which contravened their collective agreements. What about the high school : students who protested about cuts to education. What about the 80,000+ : people who have been shunted off of public assistance since the Klein : Regime began? Yet, money is still being given to corportaions (ie the : Flames comes to mind). I believe that later on in this thread, someone else counters your comment about corporations. I agree with you entirely that they should not receive public funding. I also would tend to agree with you that it is important to abide by collective agreements when dealing with public sector employees (given the monopolistic nature of government). With respect to your other comments, however, I think you have lost sight of what is important. People in Alberta have jobs. And thanks to Klein's reforms, they will continue to have jobs because of the economic environment that he has been created in the province. It has been said in an American magazine that, were the Canadian federation to come to an end, the highways into Alberta would be jam-packed with motorists trying to get in. The reason: the low-tax, low-debt economy combined with efficient and high-quality public services would make the province a magnet for employers. Ensuring that employment is at a maximum, as everyone knows, is the most egalitarian and fruitful of public policies. : Thank goodness we live in a federation and someone can stop Klein : Scissorhands from wreaking even more havoc in the province of Alberta. Your vision of federalism is rather unique. On what basis do you think a federal state exists? Do you sincerely feel that it is right for a government that represents Albertans to have their decisions overturned by a government that has little Albertan representation. Such a notion is quite antidemocratic. The Feds should butt out. Their failure to do so is appalling. : Chris Iggulden - Jamie Elgie Xref: utcsri can.politics:64147 Newsgroups: can.politics Path: utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!alberta!undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!worm47.watstar.uwaterloo.ca!DJYATES From: DJYATES@CHEMICAL.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Yates) Subject: Re: Heard of Klein? Message-ID: Lines: 56 Sender: news@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca Nntp-Posting-Host: worm47.watstar.uwaterloo.ca Organization: University of Waterloo References: <3euppb$qdk@scapa.cs.ualberta.ca> <3evi6u$2fa@knot.queensu.ca> <3f12j2$cnd@scapa.cs.ualberta.ca> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 22:36:30 GMT In article pfleiderer_j@ wizard.colorado.edu writes: >>>Yes, she is trying to stop a 2 tier health care system in Alberta. If >>>Alberta wants federal health care transfers they have to follow the >>>national health act. >> What would be wrong with a 2 tiered health care system? Sure, >>those who afford it would get their care immediately, but the rest of >>us would have to use the present health care system, which according >>to most is sufficient. >If it is sufficent, there is no need for a 2-tiered system. If it is not >sufficient, there is no justification for a 2-tiered system, unless you >subscribe to the proposition that the rich ought to get really good health >care and everyone else ought not. Sufficiency is determined by individuals, not by a bunch of social engineers. What is sufficient or insufficient for me is none of your stinking business. Capice? >>>: care system. Unfortunately, she sees this as a threat, and uses >>>: the Canada Health Act to try to stop it. Her method of punishment >>>: is to cut transfer payments to any province that allows any degree >>>: of privatized health care. >>>: We here in Alberta voted for Ralph Klein. Therefore, by >>>Some of "us" in Alberta voted for Klein. I for one did not. >> Welcome to a DEMOCRACY. Majority rules. If you didn't vote, >>then you deserve to be bossed around by those who did. If you voted >>for someone else, then you lost. >You missed Christine's point entirely. You said "we here in Alberta voted for >Ralph Klein". She was simply making the point that not everyone "here in >Alberta" voted for him. This is important, because in a democracy where "the >people" rule it is always the case at any given moment that at least some of >"the people" do NOT rule. In democracies that work reasonably well, some >attention is paid to the "rights of the minority" as well as to the "rule of >the majority" because you just never know when the minority is going to turn >into the majority, and also because it's just the humanly decent way to live. >"Majority rules" without "minority rights" is not "democracy"--rule by "the >demos"--it is mob rule. Rights of majority & minority ==> fundamental freedoms, property rights, a rule of law, equality under the law...(at all times) Rights of majority in democracy = the right to determine fiscal policy and content of social programs which do not infringe on above. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- djyates@chemical.watstar.uwaterloo.ca djyates@cape.uwaterloo.ca Never swallow your dip. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------