Our “free” healthcare is nothing to be proud of.

Maybe Canadians gloat and brag about the fact that we have "free" healthcare. We are so much more compassionate, loving, caring. We don't just care about profits, we care about people! We are so morally superior to Americans who couldn't care less if a poor person died on the streets!

 

To me, this sense of moral superiority is annoying, for many reasons.

 

First of all, it's not free. Free would imply volunteers built the hospitals, and doctors volunteer their time to help patients, medical supplies are donated, and it's all just a benevolent endeavor. In actual fact, it costs us massive amounts of money. A huge percentage of our income is taken away to pay for healthcare. So calling it free is one of the most factually inaccurate statements one can make.

 

Objection: "Okay, it costs money, but we are just paying for those who cannot pay. It's a mutually beneficial society. The strong look after the weak."

 

Response: There is no moral merit to forcibly taking money from people and then spending it something, no matter how worthy the cause. It would however be morally viable to spend your own hard-earned money to help the less fortunate or those who couldn't afford it. This can be done through donations. There could be a sort of child sponsorship model for people who need medical care. This is just one possible idea. The bottom line is that you should not be proud of taking money from others by force to pay for some service. There is no moral merit to it.

 

Second point about our healthcare is that it's deplorable. Again "free" doesn't describe the quality. A friend of mine recently, who is still in the hospital, arrived at the hospital complaining of intense pain. She had just given birth to twins and was understandably concerned. She spent around 10 hours before anyone would even see her. She had to stay overnight waiting for a doctor to see her. And in the end they basically only gave her painkillers. Then a couple of days later, they told her to go home. She works in the medical field and so she knows a thing or two about medicine. She insisted on staying for a  number of reasons. They allowed it after she insisted, and she is currently facing many issues. She is having a difficult time. But they just wanted to throw her out.

 

This story reproduces itself many times each day. Ask anyone in Canada, even advocates, and they will tell you a medical horror story that happened to either them or a friend or family member of theirs. Whether it's 10-30 hour wait times, inadequate help, being ignored, and low quality care. There seems to be a cognitive dissonance involved. On the one hand, die-hard advocates will always praise our "amazing system" while being able to also talk about many many terrible incidents. These arent' just "one-off" things, but the norm. You have to take an entire day off to visit the hospital, and there you will get very low-quality care.

 

Canada's healthcare system is expensive and immoral and must be massively reformed.

 

 

CBC Gloating Over Trouble of Private Rivals

CBC is posting article after article after article gloating about The Rebel Media and other conservative outlets being in trouble for various reasons. One reason is the federal government will stop advertising there. To this, CBC has penned several giddy articles mockingly saying “boohoo” to Rebel. They brag about how much better CBC is than these low-brow publications. What is so ironic is that CBC could be (and actually is) the worst news outlet the world has ever seen and this would make one iota of difference to their bottom line. They don’t have to work hard to get advertisers or subscribers. They are protected by the full force of the law and not really required to compete in any real sense. They are given over a billion dollars each year to spout their liberal left-wing agenda and there’s nothing we can do about it.

 

The real extreme bias can be seen in their opinion pieces which are pages out of the socialist playbook. Recent articles on CBC have stated that anyone the CBC considers “right wing” or “far-right extremists” or whatever shouldn’t have freedom of speech. They argue for left-wing extremists it’s different. They in fact do have a right to free speech. But far-righters? Not a chance.

 

CBC is pathetic. They are like the trust-fund baby who hasn’t worked a day in his life and then brags about being superior to his hard-working friends who are struggling to make it in the world. They aren’t even aware of their own arrogance and privilege and in fact believe they are champions of the “common man”. In reality, they gloat when their non-wealthy friends, who are trying their best, falter.

 

CBC needs to be defunded. Then we’ll see how much longer they gloat.

Protest at St. John's to fight MASSIVE problem here.

They had that protest apparently yesterday at Bannerman Park in St. John’s against white suprem-acism as if it’s a huge thing in Newfoundland. They said black and indi-genous people are systematically treated badly, etc. but I would ask “what do you want?”

I can guarantee they want other people to give them stuff. I don’t know if that’s an oversimplification. But that seems to be what it boils down to. But isn’t that a position of weakness? How can you say you are equal if you have to be given things? They aren’t even saying they want equality, they want some compensation. But again, it’s like asking for a higher allowance or welfare. Why can’t they just ask to be free and then do their own thing? If there really is systematic discri-mination somewhere, why not fight it? Not vague “attitudes” or perceptions. How can you change those? But I mean laws and regulations. Otherwise you have to admit they don’t exist, on a systematic basis.

Nick Whelan tried to make some comments and he was shouted off stage, because of comments he made a long time ago saying indig-enous people should eat more fish. He apologized for it, and that should be the end of it. But to these fanatics nothing is ever enough. It seems to me they want special treatment, not equal treatment. I’m sure he has said much worse things to many other people, but again, this seems like a special protected group who we can only praise.

Kind of reminds me of how people obsess about se×ism, about comments men make towards women. But men usually make much worse comments towards other men. Take video games for instance. They will say these are not welcome environments for women. As if the gamers should be complimenting them and being chivalrous. At the same time however, men are bashing other men in a much more derogatory manner.

Let land sell for market value

Government officials don’t allow certain land to be used in Labrador for anything but farming. But it could be worth a lot more for other purposes. Also it can’t be passed down. If it can be more valuable, this is the government destroying more wealth, as usual:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/byrne-farming-agriculture-land-1.4248439

 

Don Pittis is Pitiful

Don Pittis writes the most pathetic articles for CBC. Not as bad as Neil Macdonald who doesn’t even write articles but just blabs on about hwo much he loathes conservatives. Anyway Don Pittis is a text-book Keynesian and probably socialist. He can see the dark lining of every white fluffy cloud. He has no idea how the market works. He takes the banal and ever-so-common attitude that the market is stupid, can’t adjust to supply and demand and must be regulated by our government overlords. His articles are predictable and pitiful.

 

Average income goes up? Don Pittis writes about income inequality.

More technology jobs created? Don Pittis writes about the loss of low-end low-wage jobs.

Business profits up? Well, let’s not even go there, that’s just bad news to him.

 

I doubt he even took a single course in economics. He believes in financial stimuli and heavy government control of all aspects of society. He is strongly biased and seeks to prove his anti-conservative bona fides all the time.

 

Why didn’t Pittis write about the low unemployment rate now in the US? Oh right, because Trµmp is in power.

 

Don never talks about the miracles of the market, probably because he sees the market as a threat rather than an opportunity, unless of course it’s a government sponsored green initiative. Then it’s innovative.

 

Practically everything he writes is about the Keynesian concept of boom and bust. To him, it’s absolutely inevitable and for some reason he must write about an inevitability. It’s like being in charge of the physics section of a newspaper and constantly writing about gravity. Or simply stating it exists. Predictably Don Pitti-ful never blames the government for the boom and bust cycle through currency and inflation manipulation, which is the real culprit. That wouldn’t be allowed at CBC.

 

Like Neil Macdonald, Don Pittis has the easiest job ever. Do no research and just sit at a computer and type of random articles about the same thing every week. Glad we are paying these guys hundreds of thousands of dollars. Well, to Pittis that kind of make-work project would be considered an economic stimulus so I’m sure he’s in favor.

Stupid people electing smart people to lead them?

Why do we think some people have to be our overlords? I think for most things people can get along just fine and this has been proven. But government officials always try to interject themselves. Mutual agreements and understanding are a good thing. But think about it. People are allegedly too stupid to make good decisions, but they are smart enough to elect politicians who will make the good decisions for them on their behalf for millions of people. Something wrong with this “logic”.

More & more regulation is ALWAYS the solution apparently

So goes the logic. Today the government of NL announced even more stringent regulations on child care facilities. What libertarian ideologue would oppose new regulation to “protect our children”.

In the article, Dale Kirby who introduced the new rules, dismisses concerns from people in the industry by saying there will always be people who oppose regulation, but it’s necessary because it’s for the safety of children.

There are a number of things at play in this situation.

1)      Who can decide what the right level of quality is? Can a top-down government decide that? Is it the same for everyone? Yes, we are dealing with children. But different parents and different children have different wants and needs. Some might want more stringent regulation. Others might want less. As far as I can tell, some of the requirements were already ridiculous and over the top. Now they want more? It’s like when people say “Best possible healthcare” or “best possible education”. Those are meaningless concepts. What is the “best”? If every child was regulated to have 3 caregivers each, you can still do more. You could have 5 or 10 or 2000.

2)      Prices are eliminated or distorted which makes deciding between options very difficult. If the government pays for all or most of the childcare, people will obviously support maximum regulation. It costs them nothing. If they had to pay the real cost, people wouldn’t necessarily want all of the absurd regulations.

3)      Stringent regulation discourages or prevents innovation. Maybe some entrepreneurs have ideas to decrease price and increase value, whether in terms of safety, learning, or any other aspect. Regulating every tiny detail makes it difficult to work within the system and still innovate.

4)      Government paying for daycare of most of it not only distorts the market, but also creates massive economic loss. The goal of free childcare ostensibly is to allow mothers to work to increase family income. The problem is, with all these new regulations, the amount spent per child per day is enormous. I will have to calculate figures on it. But let’s assume $30 per hour per child. If the government pays for childcare, the mother has no incentive to stay home with her child or children. Economically speaking she is better off putting them in indoctrination camps daycare. However, if she puts them in daycare and then goes off to a job which pays $13 per hour, there is an economic loss of $17 per hour. Obviously there is an ulterior motive to daycare and it’s not just about caring for children. Indoctrination is much easier when it starts early. And it’s also the reason why government is so strictly involved.

I know this article didn’t provide a lot of specifics, but these are general thoughts. To summarize:

-          There is no such thing as “best possible” when it comes to services

-          Government involvement distorts prices and discourages innovation