Dial-a-Candidate

January 17, 2006 9:02 AM

2006 Canadian vote selector quiz! Politics Watch brings us the new Vote Selector Quiz for the Canadian election, which is less than a week away. 18 questions that should pin down your candidate for you. But sadly, this too is Green free.
posted by Hanover Phist (159 comments total)

100% NDP, bay-bee!
posted by you just lost the game at 9:09 AM on January 17, 2006

all NDP here too, and I'm living in Jack's riding... now to just get the rest of the country to agree...
posted by Hanover Phist at 9:15 AM on January 17, 2006

100% Bloc Quebecois (although I'm from Ontario)...
87% NDP and Liberal
31% Conservative

I think that some of the questions are misleading though (in the same way that the platforms are misleading)... I'd rather a survey that asks about desired philosophies in more general terms, rather than basically saying "do you support this Conservative platform item" and so on... Which is pretty much all this poll does...
posted by glider at 9:15 AM on January 17, 2006

1. Jack Layton Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada (100%)
2. Gilles Duceppe Leader of the Bloc Quebecois (85%)
3. Paul Martin Leader of Liberal Party of Canada, Prime Minister of Canada (78%)
4. Stephen Harper Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada (42%)

I'm still voting Liberal, as the Liberal candidate in my riding is the most likely to beat the Conservative candidate in my riding.
posted by solid-one-love at 9:16 AM on January 17, 2006

I'm in Jack's riding, too...let's hope his wife also gets voted in this time.
posted by you just lost the game at 9:16 AM on January 17, 2006

100 NDP
66 Bloc
66 Lib
20 Harper

Doesn't change my vote, which is NDP.
posted by Manhasset at 9:17 AM on January 17, 2006

Some of the questions were worded poorly. My results were unsurprising.
posted by raedyn at 9:17 AM on January 17, 2006

Glider, I'll swap your Bloc vote for my NDP vote. I'm in Quebec, where the NDP don't stand a chance.
posted by furtive at 9:20 AM on January 17, 2006

Some of the questions were worded poorly. My results were unsurprising.

I agree. For example, I don't support the handgun ban because it's nothing more than typical ad hoc Martinism. But I do support much stronger efforts to reduce violence, and would score on the extreme end of that scale if only the question was better worded.
posted by 327.ca at 9:24 AM on January 17, 2006

"Do you support a plan for Quebec to send its own hockey team, separate from Team Canada, to international competitions?"

Yeah, 'cuz that's a crucial reason to vote for one party over another.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 9:24 AM on January 17, 2006

100 NDP
80 BQ
70 Conservatives
30 Liberals

People who support the NDP should vote for them instead of shooting themselves in the foot by voting Liberal.
posted by angrybeaver at 9:25 AM on January 17, 2006

I wish that this was how elections are carried out. Then Jack Layton would be PM :^)
posted by krunk at 9:26 AM on January 17, 2006

I agree with glider; a more general quiz about political philosophies give a more accurate representation of the voter's views. As currently designed, there is a certain element of self-selection for the politically aware.
posted by angrybeaver at 9:29 AM on January 17, 2006

100 NDP
93 Liberal
60 BQ
53 Conservatives

Argh! I still don't know if I should vote NDP or lib!
posted by arcticwoman at 9:31 AM on January 17, 2006

100% NDP and 73% Quebecois, and I'm not even Canadian...
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:31 AM on January 17, 2006

People who support the NDP should vote for them instead of shooting themselves in the foot by voting Liberal.

I would prefer to vote strategically than to merely support the candidate or party that I most favour. If voting for a candidate with little chance of winning will help to elect a candidate whose views you detest, that would be shooting yourself in the foot. Nader supporters elected Bush in 2000, after all.
posted by solid-one-love at 9:32 AM on January 17, 2006

People who support the NDP should vote for them instead of shooting themselves in the foot by voting Liberal.

Yeah that worked well with the Nader voters in the states, they really showed Al Gore that he wasn't liberal enough for them.

If you vote NDP, you have no right to complain about mini-bush and his canuck-neo cons in the house of commons.
posted by Keith Talent at 9:32 AM on January 17, 2006

Heh. This is pretty fun for us Americans. Apparently, I'd be NDP if I lived just 45 minutes away...
posted by klangklangston at 9:39 AM on January 17, 2006

If you vote NDP, you have no right to complain about mini-bush and his canuck-neo cons in the house of commons.

And voting Liberal to defeat the Conservatives is like voting for McCain to defeat Bush... If you vote strategically you have to right to complain when you don't get the government that's right for you.

In my opinion, the NDP comes closest to representing what the average Canadian believes and values, and I don't think it's unreasonable that those Canadians vote the way they believe is right. This game of strategic voting is in part a scam played up by parties like the Liberals in order to subvert the democratic process.
posted by glider at 9:39 AM on January 17, 2006

[have NO right]
posted by glider at 9:39 AM on January 17, 2006

If you vote NDP, you have no right to complain about mini-bush and his canuck-neo cons in the house of commons.

This blanket statement is, pardon the french, retarded if you do not know what riding the person lives in.

In many toronna ridings, par example, voting liberal to prevent a conservative victory is ridiculous because, in most places, it's a Liberal v. NDP race, with the fasc Conservative far back.
posted by docgonzo at 9:41 AM on January 17, 2006

The United States is a two party state - there was no chance that Nader would gain enough votes to win a single electoral college vote.

Here in Canada, there is no chance that the NDP will ever be anything more than a marginal party, let alone the Official Opposition because their so-called supporters will always abandon them.
posted by angrybeaver at 9:41 AM on January 17, 2006

NDP
Liberal
BQ
Conservative

But I knew that already. The hard part is actually voting that way. I just have this feeling of dread because I know the Conservatives, I mean the Reform party, are going to win. And then, just like with Harris (or Bush) half of the people who vote for him will regret it very quickly.
I just don't understand the whole idea of "voting for a change" when the change will be the Reform party. People aren't thinking this through. I'm a-scared.
posted by chococat at 9:42 AM on January 17, 2006

100% NDP
69% Lib
60% Bloc
43% Reform

NDP will win in my riding (again....cmon rest of Canada...get in line!), so I'm voting for the Greens.
posted by foodeater at 9:45 AM on January 17, 2006

Geez, another 100% NDP here.

Maybe it just ALWAYS says "100% NDP". I mean, unless we really are all that far left...
posted by GuyZero at 9:46 AM on January 17, 2006

Here in Canada, there is no chance that the NDP will ever be anything more than a marginal party, let alone the Official Opposition because their so-called supporters will always abandon them.

So how do you explain the historical influence that the NDP and its earlier incarnation had on the development of Canadian social policies?
posted by foodeater at 9:48 AM on January 17, 2006

and, um, the NDP ain't far left
posted by foodeater at 9:49 AM on January 17, 2006

...unless you're American
posted by foodeater at 9:52 AM on January 17, 2006

arcticwoman: Argh! I still don't know if I should vote NDP or lib!

I gather you're in Lethbridge, so if we go by the results of the last election it doesn't make much of a difference. Only one district in the whole province is in doubt - I'd predict every Alberta district but Edmonton Centre goes over 50% Tory. Vote your heart.

(I already voted for a loser in my riding this past weekend [yay advance polls!])
posted by hangashore at 9:52 AM on January 17, 2006

At first I told my girlfriend "There's no way the Conservatives can/will win." Now it's "There's no way they'll win a majority," and I'm not even sure about that. C'mon, Canada...don't do this to me yourselves.

In our system, for better or worse, having over half the country vote for you does not guarantee you a majority government. Does anyone have any (credible) links to projected outcomes in terms of seats won, instead of polls that extrapolate results based on each party's current approval ratings?
posted by you just lost the game at 9:54 AM on January 17, 2006

Maybe it just ALWAYS says "100% NDP".

Nope. By making idiotic choices you can get:

1. Stephen Harper Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada (100%)
2. Gilles Duceppe Leader of the Bloc Quebecois (22%)
3. Paul Martin Leader of Liberal Party of Canada, Prime Minister of Canada (22%)
4. Jack Layton Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada (11%)
posted by Manhasset at 9:54 AM on January 17, 2006

I hope I'm not the only one who's not been co-operating with the polls.
posted by foodeater at 9:56 AM on January 17, 2006

foodeater, for the exact same reason the old Reform Party was able to push the Liberals into a fiscally conservative direction. The Liberals are opportunistic leeches who do not give a whit for NDP goals and ambitions. Witness how quickly the Liberals reinstated their corporate tax cuts when they realized that they could not get enough numbers from the NDP. Which is why people who support the NDP should be voting for the NDP.
posted by angrybeaver at 9:57 AM on January 17, 2006

Comminists! Yer all a pack a'comminists!
IMO, the best thing the NDP can do these days is to act as the House of Commons' Jiminy Cricket. They're better off marginalized anyhow; there's a lot of freedom in having nothing to lose.

I voted Liberal in the advance poll yesterday.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:58 AM on January 17, 2006

/ back from Google

Here's one site predicting a solid Conservative majority...*sigh*
posted by you just lost the game at 9:59 AM on January 17, 2006

By making idiotic choices you can get:

Anyone who has different views is an idiot?
posted by angrybeaver at 9:59 AM on January 17, 2006

You don't have to be an idiot to make idiotic choices.
posted by foodeater at 10:02 AM on January 17, 2006

I hope I'm not the only one who's not been co-operating with the polls.

Like it or not, people are influenced by polls, and some pollsters (such as the Strategic Counsel) are incredibly biased.

If you refuse to participate in a poll, they ask someone else; you aren't counted as a 'refused to answer/undecided' unless you actually participate. As such, responding honestly to polls increases support for the party you will be supporting.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:03 AM on January 17, 2006

For all those would-be NDP voters who are thinking about voting strategically, here's a Strategic Voting Calculator to see if it's needed in your riding.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:03 AM on January 17, 2006

You don't have to be an idiot to make idiotic choices.

NDP supporters who vote Liberal will be happy to hear that. :)
posted by angrybeaver at 10:04 AM on January 17, 2006

If you vote NDP, you have no right to complain about mini-bush and his canuck-neo cons in the house of commons. - Keith Talent

Bullshit. This kind of thinking is when strategic voting can backfire. It depends on your riding. Example: Last election, in one Regina riding (Palliser) the Conservative canidate beat the NDP incumbent by only 124 votes. The Liberal canidate was over 3600 votes behind either of them. Voting for the Liberals there would be stupid if you really want an NDP MP.
posted by raedyn at 10:06 AM on January 17, 2006

Here's one site predicting a solid Conservative majority...*sigh*

Huh? None of the surveyed predictors there show a Conservative majority. A party needs 155 seats for a majority.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:06 AM on January 17, 2006

I just want the Liberals to toss Martin. I could live with a couple of years of a cowed Conservative minority government for that.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:09 AM on January 17, 2006

I just want the Liberals to toss Martin. - Space Coyote

In favour of whom?
posted by raedyn at 10:10 AM on January 17, 2006

I just want the people of Canada to toss Martin and every other Liberal out. An NDP Opposition would be highly beneficial for the country.
posted by angrybeaver at 10:13 AM on January 17, 2006

raedyn: in favour of someone who could beat the corpse of the Reform party in an election.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:14 AM on January 17, 2006

If voting for a candidate with little chance of winning will help to elect a candidate whose views you detest, that would be shooting yourself in the foot.

Or you're helping your preferred party get $1.75 in election funding next time 'round. Which, if you have the ability to think beyond a few years' time, just might be wise.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:15 AM on January 17, 2006

...there is no chance that the NDP will ever be anything more than a marginal party...

Err, just ignore the numerous times they've been the majority party on a provincial level? Or the times they've been the official opposition.

/longing for the days when the conservatives lost their official party status due to total lack of support from Canadians.
posted by glider at 10:15 AM on January 17, 2006

Or the times they've been the official opposition.

The NDP have never formed the Official Opposition at the federal level.

And their inability to get anyone elected in Quebec pretty well dooms that hope.
posted by docgonzo at 10:18 AM on January 17, 2006

I just want the Liberals to toss Martin. - Space Coyote

In favour of whom? - raedyn

Lloyd Axworthy? Sigh.
posted by furtive at 10:20 AM on January 17, 2006

Huh? None of the surveyed predictors there show a Conservative majority. A party needs 155 seats for a majority.

There has been talk of the PQ and the Conservatives forming an alliance in order to form a majority government. I don't know how much credence to give talk like this, but it seems as though the two parties do have, if nothing else, an interest in increasing the strength of the provinces and weakening the federal government.
posted by you just lost the game at 10:21 AM on January 17, 2006

If the BQ would leave the strident separatism up to the provincial party where it matters and became a straight up social democratic regional party I could see them and the NDP forming quite a good government.

That's an elephant-sized 'if', of course, which is a shame.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:22 AM on January 17, 2006

That should be *BQ* up there...
posted by you just lost the game at 10:23 AM on January 17, 2006

What I don't understand is why these type of polls - there was one on CBC's site before christmas - include the Bloc for people outside Ontario and don't include the Green for everyone, which is the next closest truly national party.

Although I'm a Green voter (and will be doing so in my riding again because personally, I'm not in favour of strategic voting and want the Greens to get more cash to help them continue to grow) NDP was first on that list. The Bloc was second. What good is it to find out you agree with 78% of the Bloc's policies when you can't vote for them?
posted by Cyrie at 10:24 AM on January 17, 2006

Anyone who has different views is an idiot?

Nope. If you make choices that deny other Canadians the same rights you take for granted you're an idiot.
posted by Manhasset at 10:25 AM on January 17, 2006

Hey, furtive, you're in Quebec - thoughts on Jean Charest as federal Grit leader? Otherwise I'm stumped. Although...

1968: Trudeau beats Turner for Liberal leadership
1984: Turner beats Chrétien
1990: Chrétien beats Martin
2003: Martin beats SHEILA COPPS OH JESUS GOD NO NO NOOOOooooooooooo
posted by hangashore at 10:28 AM on January 17, 2006

Lloyd Axworthy? Sigh.

*Swoon*
posted by Space Coyote at 10:28 AM on January 17, 2006

Or you're helping your preferred party get $1.75 in election funding next time 'round. Which, if you have the ability to think beyond a few years' time, just might be wise.

Or you could send them a toonie in the mail. My vote's worth more than $1.75.

There has been talk of the PQ and the Conservatives forming an alliance in order to form a majority government.

The most leftist and the most rightist allying? Seems unlikely to me, too. And, regardless, a coalition government is not a majority government.
posted by solid-one-love at 10:30 AM on January 17, 2006

Hey, furtive, you're in Quebec - thoughts on Jean Charest as federal Grit leader? Otherwise I'm stumped. Although...

Neo-liberalism != liberalism.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:30 AM on January 17, 2006

As much as I would hate a Conservative minority, the prospect of of that happening with the NDP as official opposition (I know, highly unlikely) would make an interesting mix.

In any event, my prediction (regardless of early polls. They're always wrong anyway) is an even smaller Liberal minority, same or slightly higher Conservative opposition with an increase for NDP/Green and slight decrease for Bloq.

As for the questionnaire, 100% NDP, 73% Liberal (and the others don't matter) which is no surprise.
posted by purephase at 10:31 AM on January 17, 2006

The thought of a Harper majority is like a bad dream.

I don't even have to think about how I am going to vote, as I am in Libby Davies' riding, bless her and her little cotton socialist socks.

Why does a Canadian political quiz inevitably have to contain a question about hockey?
posted by jokeefe at 10:42 AM on January 17, 2006

There has been talk of the PQ and the Conservatives forming an alliance in order to form a majority government. [...] it seems as though the two parties do have, if nothing else, an interest in increasing the strength of the provinces and weakening the federal government. - you just lost the game

And as you said, nothing else.
posted by raedyn at 10:44 AM on January 17, 2006

Nope. If you make choices that deny other Canadians the same rights you take for granted you're an idiot.

None of the major political parties in this country are talking about denying anyone any rights.

If you're talking about same-sex marriage, the Liberals did not support that at all until it was politically expedient of them to do so.
posted by angrybeaver at 10:44 AM on January 17, 2006

I asked my scottish-ancestry mother what she thinks of the fact that Scotland has its own international sports teams. She told me not to be a smartass.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:45 AM on January 17, 2006

I t'ought tit was an 'ockey quiz wit a few too many questions 'bout dis election.
posted by isopraxis at 10:52 AM on January 17, 2006

I'd vote for a beaver if he was conservative enough. Or the communists, but never never never ever Liberals or NDP. Guess which province I'm from?
posted by blue_beetle at 10:57 AM on January 17, 2006

100% NDP for me...it so doesn't matter...the Tories could put a monkey in a suit and he would get elected here in Calgary. Case in point, one Rob Anders. Take the quiz if you are unfamiliar.
posted by dieselid at 10:57 AM on January 17, 2006

Election Prediction: This site uses submitted comments from people in various ridings to determine which way each riding will go. Looking at their results from previous elections, they are in the 80-90% accuracy range.
posted by jdot at 10:58 AM on January 17, 2006

blue_beetle, is your name a reference to the pine beetle?
posted by angrybeaver at 10:59 AM on January 17, 2006

Hey, furtive, you're in Quebec - thoughts on Jean Charest as federal Grit leader? Otherwise I'm stumped. Although...

Even as a Quebec Liberal Charest is still very much a conservative (wants smaller gov't and to cut taxes in the province, and yet has failed to do both). He's even gone so far as to having members of his party assist the CPC in ridings of Quebec where they have a chance of winning. I'm of the personal opinion that everything Charest touches (PC party, QC Liberals, his hair) turns to shit.

1968: Trudeau beats Turner for Liberal leadership
1984: Turner beats Chrétien
1990: Chrétien beats Martin
2003: Martin beats SHEILA COPPS OH JESUS GOD NO NO NOOOOooooooooooo
posted by hangashore at 10:28 AM PST on January 17 [!]


Hehe, that is comedy gold!
posted by furtive at 11:06 AM on January 17, 2006

> And as you said, nothing else.

Well, they do say politics makes for strange bedfellows...but, more likely than not, a Conservative/BQ alliance is just a bad dream, so I will leave it at that and hope for the best.
posted by you just lost the game at 11:07 AM on January 17, 2006

Like it or not, people are influenced by polls, and some pollsters (such as the Strategic Counsel) are incredibly biased.

If you refuse to participate in a poll, they ask someone else; you aren't counted as a 'refused to answer/undecided' unless you actually participate. As such, responding honestly to polls increases support for the party you will be supporting.

Of course, solid-one-love, you understand the other side of polls....giving each party the ammunition to alter the presentation of their platform so that they can get elected, instead of just expressing what they stand for and having the people decide on what they want.

(weren't the polls way off from the actual results in the last election???)
posted by foodeater at 11:11 AM on January 17, 2006

Interestingly, I got 100% for both Liberals and Conservative.
posted by gyc at 11:12 AM on January 17, 2006

I just want the Liberals to toss Martin. - Space Coyote

In favour of whom? - raedyn

John Manley is doing his time in the wilderness right now. I'm sure he plans a comeback at some point.

Michael Ignatieff (who even has his own tag) is trying to pull a I'm-the-second-coming-of-Trudeau right now. I think it's a little early for his run right now though.
posted by bonehead at 11:12 AM on January 17, 2006

Written like a true Calgarian, isopraxis.
posted by docgonzo at 11:13 AM on January 17, 2006

100% NDP, 87% Lib/BQ.

Just to show how very not-Canadian I am, I'll say the Bloc would be a pretty sensible party if it weren't for all this Quebec nationalist nonsense.

Still, watching politics up there is important. If you guys let Harper come to power, we're exporting the Bushites your way come November.
posted by Saydur at 11:14 AM on January 17, 2006

If you guys let Harper come to power, we're exporting the Bushites your way come November.

A harper government I can probably live with, the triumphalism of the David Frums and the US conservative press will probably be harder to take.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:16 AM on January 17, 2006

I just want the Liberals to toss Martin. - Space Coyote

In favour of whom? - raedyn

Michael Ignatieff is touted as the next one, but his run in this election has been bungled, and he comes across in the media as prickly at best. Plus, given that the media has gone to great length to mention the fact that he "sips herbal tea" and does yoga, obviously he's got some image issues to overcome.

There's Frank McKenna, the current ambassador to the US. And I suspect Dalton McGuinty might want a stab at it in the future. True, no premier has gone on to be PM, but there's a first time for everything. And he's a young man yet.
posted by Zinger at 11:17 AM on January 17, 2006

NDP 100% (though they came out in favour of minimum sentencing, which I strongly oppose)
BQ 88%
Liberal 88%
Conservative 41%

But what's missing is that voting based on platform is not necessarilly the wise way to go (especially if the general record is that election promises are soon forgotten). I am worried about a Conservative government, not so much because of their stated or non-stated policies, but because of the rank incompetants that litter the candidate pool. Seriously, a cabinet made up of those jokers? (Tongue in cheek: Rick Mercer reveals conservative cabinet. )

Like the Liberals or not (and I don't particularly), with the exception of the gun registry and the sponsorship fiasco, we've been served exceptionally well in the last dozen years. I am not convinced that the NDP, whose platform I strongly support, could provide effective government either. On the other hand, they -- and the Bloc -- have provided extremely useful and effective opposition, and will hopefully continue to do so... so one or the other gets my support. Which one comes down to strategic voting: in my riding, "en esperant que ici, c'est le Bloc!".
posted by bumpkin at 11:19 AM on January 17, 2006

We'll see how things play out once they crucify Martin, but a Liberal party headed by Frank McKenna might get my support (depending on policy, and record in opposition, of course).
posted by bumpkin at 11:21 AM on January 17, 2006

1. Jack Layton Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada (100%) Click here for info
2. Paul Martin Leader of Liberal Party of Canada, Prime Minister of Canada (88%) Click here for info
3. Gilles Duceppe Leader of the Bloc Quebecois (66%) Click here for info
4. Stephen Harper Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada (38%) Click here for info

DON'T vote for the Greens, fool. http://thetyee.ca/Views/2005/12/16/GreensArentGreen/

I am an Olivia Chow supporter living in Little Italy....Ianno signs EVERYWHERE
posted by pigasus at 11:37 AM on January 17, 2006

I'll say the Bloc would be a pretty sensible party if it weren't for all this Quebec nationalist nonsense. - Saydur

For the most part, I agree. I don't know what I'd do if I lived in Quebec. Being a federalist, I'd have trouble voting for a separatist party. But gee, a lot of the other stuff they talk about makes sense. (OTOH, this is only the stuff I've bothered to pay attention to. Given that they don't run here, I don't go out of my way to discover their position on all the issues. Just what the press bothers to report)
posted by raedyn at 11:45 AM on January 17, 2006

Um....the article cited some, but not all the reasons to vote for the Greens. If the NDP were more green, they'd be the perfect party for me. I couldn't give 2 shits about their leader and his ways at this point (I would if they had more support). A jump to 7 or 8% support for the Green Party might mean more attention to green issues from the other parties.

Again, if my riding was in doubt at all, my vote would go to the NDP.
posted by foodeater at 11:51 AM on January 17, 2006

I question the quiz results. I chose a few options that I know are not supported by the NDP (private health clinics) and still got a 100% NDP rating.
posted by rocket88 at 11:52 AM on January 17, 2006

we've been served exceptionally well in the last dozen years

How well have the Liberals actually served us? Our military and peacekeepers have inadequate equipment; our healthcare system has been condemned by the Supreme Court; we've slid a long way down the Corruption Index (1998); the Americans ignore us when it comes to softwood, wheat, hogs, and beef; Kyoto has been given lip service; our taxes have remained high despite massive cuts in the transfer payments to provinces; the Liberals almost lost the country in 1995; and politicized the army and the RCMP.

Liberal values are not Canadian values.
posted by angrybeaver at 11:59 AM on January 17, 2006

rocket88, I think the percentage thing just goes to 100% for whichever party is slightly ahead of the others, and then the otehr s as a fraction of that number. Not the best system, I agree.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:03 PM on January 17, 2006

Our military and peacekeepers have inadequate equipment;

But adequate for what we use them for. We do not have an expeditionary military. I think it could stand further cuts.

our healthcare system has been condemned by the Supreme Court

This is an overstatement. IMHO, the system is fine as-is. Our life expectancy is longer than most other Western nations.

we've slid a long way down the Corruption Index

Not compelling. I don't miss that fifteen bucks at all.

the Americans ignore us when it comes to softwood, wheat, hogs, and beef;

This will not change under a different government. I anticipate the Conservatives not looking out at all for our interests in trade disputes.

Kyoto has been given lip service;

And we're likely to pull out completely under Harper. I see no credible evidence that his replacement system will reduce emissions.

our taxes have remained high despite massive cuts in the transfer payments to provinces

Good. We need to keep taxes high or higher in order to pay down the debt and maintain social programs. The gas tax, for example, should be doubled or tripled.

What you see as drawbacks, I see as strengths or irrelevancies.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:17 PM on January 17, 2006

Liberal values are not Canadian values.
posted by angrybeaver at 2:59 PM EST on January 17 [!]

Agreed, and Conservative values are even further away. However, this is the extreme generalization arena isn't it. While in that arena, I'd say NDP fits the bill, unless you're big business...
posted by juiceCake at 12:25 PM on January 17, 2006

Michael Ignatieff is touted as the next one,

Yes, but only by this guy.
posted by docgonzo at 12:27 PM on January 17, 2006

Our taxes, contrary to popular rhetoric, aren't particularly high. Income tax rates sit squarely inthe middle of the pack when compared to all other OECD countries.

But unlike most other OECD countries, the federal government runs surpluses and is paying off debt. Interest rates are consequently low, and the economy benefits (although we have lost a certain amount of advantage with the strengthening of the Canadian dollar). Today, we have an election where the supposed right of center party is tripping over itself in order to outspend its opponents! That we have so much freedom to have these kinds of debates is a testimony to good fiscal management. Imagine trying to propose funding child care or competing tax cuts in the early 90s!

Meanwhile, in the last few years, we have seen some amazing progressive legislation: same-sex marriage, decriminalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana, a move towards funding child care. We managed to stay out of Iraq, but make commitments proportional to our capabilities in Afganistan.

Our action on greenhouse gases is pathetic, I agree. I suspect that no progress can be made on this file without addressing Albertan fossil fuel extraction. Harper has no greenhouse gas plan.

Finally, as much as we like to worry that our health care system is in crisis or in tatters, after having lived in the US for the last five years (with a nice private insurance plan), I find that perspective rather hard to swallow. Canadian public health care gives us a tremendous competitive advantage.
posted by bumpkin at 12:38 PM on January 17, 2006

I just wanted to add that I am working full time for the NDP in Lethbridge, and I am having the time of my life.

Yes, we are in Southern Alberta, but I honestly believe that Melanee Thomas (our candidate) has a serious potential to one day become a major player in Canadian politics (though, admittedly not from Lethbridge).

I have said this enough times to believe it now, but I don't know how anyone could consciously vote Liberal or Conservative in this election (has anyone else seen the pics of Martin and Harper at different events in Calgary, both wearing Calgary Flames jerseys, with the caption "Playing on the same team"? Classic!). Thus, there really is only one viable choice - NDP!
posted by Quartermass at 12:43 PM on January 17, 2006

Today, we have an election where the supposed right of center party is tripping over itself in order to outspend its opponents!

Yeah, more Bush-influence on Harper I suppose... cut taxes AND spend like mad!

Anwyay, I look forward to having this debate again in 18-24 months after the fall of the Conservative minority.
posted by GuyZero at 12:56 PM on January 17, 2006

As someone who doesn't know much about Canadian politics, I took the quiz and made selections mostly down the Libertarian party line and got 100% Conservative and 75% Bloc Quebecois.

My question is: do the conservatives really have a libertarian bent? Or did I just confuse the quiz?

And a question about one of the quiz's issues: do people really oppose the opening of private health care clinics?
posted by pandaharma at 12:57 PM on January 17, 2006

quartermass, is an image of that poster available online anywhere?
posted by Space Coyote at 12:58 PM on January 17, 2006

Meanwhile, in the last few years, we have seen some amazing progressive legislation: same-sex marriage, decriminalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana, a move towards funding child care. We managed to stay out of Iraq, but make commitments proportional to our capabilities in Afganistan. - bumpkin

I find that stuff encouraging. But remember that those things have mostly gotten only lip service. Decriminalization died on the order paper, right? Funding childcare is patchwork - you can hardly call it a national paln - and only partially negotiated. Remember, the Liberals have been promising childcare since I was young enough to be in the care they promised, and now I have a kid in care!
posted by raedyn at 1:00 PM on January 17, 2006

do people really oppose the opening of private health care clinics?

Yes. The phrase "two-tier health care", trite as it is, never ceases to get trotted out as Every Canadiana's Worst Nightmare(tm). It is seen as the beginning of the end of the current Canadian single-payer health care system. Though not by everyone I suppose.
posted by GuyZero at 1:01 PM on January 17, 2006

pandaharma, the opposition to private health care stems from the worry that it will lead to the dreaded two-tier health care system (ie one for the rich and one for the poor). This already exists mind you but further erosion in that direction is unwanted by many.
posted by dieselid at 1:01 PM on January 17, 2006

sorry for the duplication :-|
posted by dieselid at 1:02 PM on January 17, 2006

do people really oppose the opening of private health care clinics? - pandaharma

Absolutely.
posted by raedyn at 1:05 PM on January 17, 2006

do people really oppose the opening of private health care clinics?

Yes. In a two-tier system, it is inevitable that public health care declines in quality while health care costs per capita increase. Union contracts will always include private health care, including government unions; these costs will be passed on to the consumers (via increased costs of goods and services and increased taxes, respectively), so that even those who cannot afford private care will pay for the private care of others.

Health care is best provided by the state, not by the marketplace.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:09 PM on January 17, 2006

It is seen as the beginning of the end of the current Canadian single-payer health care system. Though not by everyone I suppose. - GuyZero

It's not only "single payor" that's good about our health care system. Privately owned for-profit hospitals that our government pays are an issue for me as well. It's a neccesary service, and I don't believe it should be for-profit. The kinds of reforms that I would like to see to our health care system would be moving to more community clinic models, where doctors are not paid per patient/test/procedure, so they don't have an incentive to blow through lots of patients. I'm aware that an official move in this direction is a pipe dream, but it is the kind of model that fits with my values.
posted by raedyn at 1:10 PM on January 17, 2006

Thanks for the responses regarding the private health care. Don't mean to derail the thread but this is a bit interesting.

As an uninformed observer, I would think the opening of private clinics would reduce the load placed on the national system and would therefore be, more or less, a good thing. And I would imagine the private clinics could offer services or speed of service which the national system is unable or unwilling to do.

On preview: I didn't realize the government would be paying for some/all of the care provided by the private clinics. I was assuming these clinics would be completely independent of the national system and would be paid for by individuals or private insurance plans. I can certainly understand how government funded private clinics would be very controversial.
posted by pandaharma at 1:17 PM on January 17, 2006

As an uninformed observer, I would think the opening of private clinics would reduce the load placed on the national system and would therefore be, more or less, a good thing. And I would imagine the private clinics could offer services or speed of service which the national system is unable or unwilling to do. - pandaharma

Those are the arguments in favour of private clinics that advocates of a parallell private system make, yes. But the concern is who gets the fast services? Only those that can afford it. The majority of people would have to languish waiting in the public system. If everyone is forced to wait, then there is more incentive & more pressure to fix the national system.
posted by raedyn at 1:21 PM on January 17, 2006

i see the biggest issue as getting your hands on a canada vs. quebec hockey ticket.
posted by gman at 1:22 PM on January 17, 2006

(Of course, for the most rich, they already don't have to wait. They just fly down to the states and pay. So far, this is pretty exclusive, though.)
posted by raedyn at 1:23 PM on January 17, 2006

i see the biggest issue as getting your hands on a canada vs. quebec hockey ticket. - gman

Can you imagine the rioting? Heehee.
posted by raedyn at 1:23 PM on January 17, 2006

As an uninformed observer, I would think the opening of private clinics would reduce the load placed on the national system and would therefore be, more or less, a good thing.

We already have a shortage of doctors, nurses and other health care professionals. Where are the private care providers going to get staff? By offering better wages to the staff currently in the public system, thereby taking the best people out of a system that cannot find enough staff as it is.

The staff working for private providers will have smaller workloads than they did in the public system (we see this time and again in countries with two-tier systems). The net result is that the load on the national system will increase and the staff who aren't "good enough" to get hired on in a posh private care position will be the staff available to the less privileged.

For those without private care, wait times increase, service quality decreases, and they still end up paying for the private care of others.

And then there's the foreign corporations who would set up shop here, siphoning those dollars out of the country....

It's just a bad idea, all-around.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:31 PM on January 17, 2006

Nader supporters elected Bush in 2000
No, I'm pretty sure the Bush supporters elected Bush and the Nader supporters tried to elect Nader.

To quote Jon Stewart, Ralph Nader was second only to Al Gore in costing Al Gore the presidency.
posted by Count Ziggurat at 1:45 PM on January 17, 2006

Finally, as much as we like to worry that our health care system is in crisis or in tatters, after having lived in the US for the last five years (with a nice private insurance plan), I find that perspective rather hard to swallow. Canadian public health care gives us a tremendous competitive advantage.

I've often said that Canadians need to get out more - see what other countries have and don't have. Then we'd not only appreciate what we have a lot more, we'd have a lot more perspective on all of it.
posted by Zinger at 1:53 PM on January 17, 2006

Since the derail has already taken hold...
In my province, we have a two-tier education system. As you put it "One for the rich and one for the poor". There is a public school system open to everyone, and the option of private school for those rich enough to afford it.
The existence of the private system has in no way degraded the quality of the public system. The private system hasn't lured the best teachers away with promises of higher pay (at least not in any way noticable) and the public system is still of high quality, and serves the people well.
What makes you think a similar model for heath care would have the apocalyptic results you predict?
posted by rocket88 at 1:55 PM on January 17, 2006

What makes you think a similar model for heath care would have the apocalyptic results you predict?

First off, because there is no shortage of available teachers. There are tens of thousands of unemployed or underemployed teachers in Canada. This is not true of doctors, nurses or other health care professionals.

Second, it is rare to see any employment contract that stipulates that the employer will pay for private education for employee children. It is common in two-tier countries for this to be the case for private health care.

It's dissimilar enough that "apples and oranges" doesn't apply; it's truck parts and purple.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:04 PM on January 17, 2006

So much talk about strategic voting! I hate strategic voting. I think it makes no sense. I really dislike hearing people talk about voters "wasting their votes." If your criterion for a non-wasted vote is that it affects who gets into office, then your vote is wasted no matter what. Your one vote will not affect the outcome of the election in the slightest. It doesn't matter if you're in a hotly contested riding where the election will be decided by 50 votes and you make it 51 instead. It doesn't matter that "if everyone thought this way the Conservatives would win." You don't speak for everyone. You, personally, encased in your first-person perspective, have only one slip of paper to put in that ballot box, and unless the election actually comes down to a single vote, your single piece of paper has no tangible effect on the flow of future politics. So stop acting like it does!

There's a bit of a taboo in most patriotic societies about pointing out the inconsequential nature of the individual voter. Voter apathy largely exists because people are told that the reason their vote gives them a personal ability to influence the government, and they see right through this lie. Many non-voters recognize that, whether they go to the polling station or stay at home on the couch, they simply won't have an impact on the election -- after all, they can't control what other voters do. The strategic voter and the apathetic non-voter work from the same rationale: the strategic voter is just less honest with himself about what his vote will accomplish.

None of this means that you shouldn't vote, though. Just don't accept the strategic voter's rationale -- don't vote for consequentialist reasons. Vote because it is your duty, and your right, as a member of a society. Vote for the candidate that best represents you and your interests, not as a means of getting him or her into office, but as an end in itself. Don't vote because you delude yourself into thinking you can manipulate forces that are beyond your control.
posted by painquale at 2:23 PM on January 17, 2006

If some rich old lady wants her hip replacement next week instead of next year, I have no problem with letting her fork over $100,000 to a private clinic to get it done. In fact, it would mean one less person in the waiting list. I don't see the harm.
Much of the opposition I've heard comes from people who can't stand the thought of rich people having a better system, even if the effect on the public system is zero.
Also, the only reason there is a shortage of medical professionals is because they're underpaid in the current system, and many choose to work in the US.
posted by rocket88 at 2:25 PM on January 17, 2006

The private system hasn't lured the best teachers away with promises of higher pay (at least not in any way noticable) and the public system is still of high quality, and serves the people well.

As a survivor of both public and private schools, with friends who teach in both types of school, I can confidently say all of your statements are incorrect.

What makes you think a similar model for heath care would have the apocalyptic results you predict?

The issue is scarcity. There is not enough money to go around, thus one system will choke the other.

Also, the only reason there is a shortage of medical professionals is because they're underpaid in the current system, and many choose to work in the US.

Or drive cabs, right?
posted by docgonzo at 2:31 PM on January 17, 2006

Those are the arguments in favour of private clinics that advocates of a parallell private system make, yes. But the concern is who gets the fast services? Only those that can afford it. The majority of people would have to languish waiting in the public system. If everyone is forced to wait, then there is more incentive & more pressure to fix the national system.

1) the majority of people languishing in the the public system wait less because there are fewer people in the public system.
2) the feds could in theory even if unlikely in practice put some kind of additional levy on fast care and pump that money into the public system as well.
posted by juv3nal at 2:32 PM on January 17, 2006

Or drive cabs, right?

Take that issue up with the doctors' professional organizations, which make it near impossible for foreign trained doctors to practice in Canada.
posted by rocket88 at 2:38 PM on January 17, 2006

Take that issue up with the doctors' professional organizations, which make it near impossible for foreign trained doctors to practice in Canada.

Which are under provincial jurisdiction. So, as the Bloc is fond of saying, there isn't anything the Feds can do to solve this particular problem.
posted by GuyZero at 2:42 PM on January 17, 2006

None of this means that you shouldn't vote, though.

I feel compelled to mention the categorical imperative somehow.
posted by GuyZero at 2:45 PM on January 17, 2006

If some rich old lady wants her hip replacement next week instead of next year, I have no problem with letting her fork over $100,000 to a private clinic to get it done.

Unlike the current system, where she just keeps asking around until someone does one next week for no extra cost, re:Shooting From The Hip.

Note: if you do a search for the article via google news and go via there, you can get the article for free. If you go straight there, it'll ask you to sign up. People who know how to do referrer spoofing can figure it out for themselves.
posted by GuyZero at 2:49 PM on January 17, 2006

I just have this feeling of dread because I know the Conservatives, I mean the Reform party, are going to win. And then, just like with Harris (or Bush) half of the people who vote for him will regret it very quickly.

Bwahaha... Well that certainly explains why BOTH won a BIGGER mandate for their second terms, eh? That's some quality political sciencin'!
posted by raider at 3:14 PM on January 17, 2006

Take that issue up with the doctors' professional organizations, which make it near impossible for foreign trained doctors to practice in Canada.

Oh, I thought you blamed the problem on alleged underpayment in the Canadian system?
posted by docgonzo at 3:15 PM on January 17, 2006

Ah, the mythology of privatization. As if privatizing hospitals is going to solve the problem of waiting times since every business wants a lineup of customers at the door. Ever wait in line at the bank or the video store? Everybody hates the insurance companies since rates just keep going up to increase profits for shareholders and pay for millionaire executive salaries. A public system puts the profits back into the system.
posted by disgruntled at 3:18 PM on January 17, 2006

I gather you're in Lethbridge, so if we go by the results of the last election it doesn't make much of a difference. Vote your heart.

(I already voted for a loser in my riding this past weekend [yay advance polls!])
posted by hangashore at 10:52 AM MST on January 17 [!]

Yes I'm in Lethbridge, and you certainly have a point. I think I will go NDP, I mean, it would be sort-of hypocritical of me to wear the button and display the sign (and scrutineer on their behalf) if I did otherwise.

I hope I'm not the only one who's not been co-operating with the polls.
posted by foodeater at 10:56 AM MST on January 17 [!]

They don't even bother to poll us Southern Albertans... it's pretty much a giveaway who'll get in here.
posted by arcticwoman at 3:20 PM on January 17, 2006

Oh, I thought you blamed the problem on alleged underpayment in the Canadian system?

Oh, come on. YOU (docgonzo) suggested it was doctors driving cabs. Rocket88 merely pointed out that issue is in the hands of the doctors' professional organizations. Cheap shot.

Certifying more foreign doctors would help somewhat, but it wouldn't really solve any issues with doctor shortages.
posted by GuyZero at 3:20 PM on January 17, 2006

I have no problem with letting her fork over $100,000 to a private clinic to get it done. In fact, it would mean one less person in the waiting list. I don't see the harm.

The harm is that it's a slippery slope that leads to a place where you HAVE to pay to get any kind of decent healthcare service at all. Healthcare should be a basic societal right that's equal for everyone.
And it's NOTHING like private vs. public school. Nobody ever died or suffered (physically...) because they couldn't get into a school.
posted by chococat at 3:22 PM on January 17, 2006

I was trying to get at the idea that rocket88's opinions were a bit simplistic and didn't reflect the complexity of the system.
posted by docgonzo at 3:24 PM on January 17, 2006

The harm is that it's a slippery slope that leads to a place where you HAVE to pay to get any kind of decent healthcare service at all. Healthcare should be a basic societal right that's equal for everyone.

So is it OK if it is equally shitty for everyone, as long as everyone gets the same shitty care? Obviously not, but I still don't understand your reason for opposing private healthcare alongside the public system. It doesn't have to end up being a choice between good and bad health care. If implemented properly, it could simply be a choice between good and very fast health care versus good and fast health care.
posted by gyc at 3:47 PM on January 17, 2006

I have no problem with letting her fork over $100,000 to a private clinic to get it done. In fact, it would mean one less person in the waiting list. I don't see the harm.

choncat: The harm is that it's a slippery slope that leads to a place where you HAVE to pay to get any kind of decent healthcare service at all. Healthcare should be a basic societal right that's equal for everyone.
And it's NOTHING like private vs. public school. Nobody ever died or suffered (physically...) because they couldn't get into a school.

No, the harm is that there are X number of doctors who can do this and and one doctor can do a maximum of Y surgeries in a week. That's XY surgeries doable per year. Given a fixed number of doctors, it's a zero-sum game. So if you let her pay for a hip replacement, it's not just "One person has to wait while someone else doesn't." it's "One person has to wait because someone else doesn't."

And of course, the person who has happily paid for a new hip suddenly cares a lot less about the waiting times and procedures for others are, which means the political will to ensure that people on the public system get absolutely top-quality care is lost.

(And yes, you can and should increase the number of doctors, but that just makes X and XY larger. Even if the pie is bigger, it's still the case that a bigger slice of the pie for one person requires a smaller slice for someone else.)
posted by duck at 3:54 PM on January 17, 2006

So is it OK if it is equally shitty for everyone, as long as everyone gets the same shitty care?

Uh... "shitty"?

I don't think by any measure you can call the Canadian health care system shitty.

The problem isn't with the healthcare system but with the aging middle class boomers who expect their health care to be as prompt and made-to-order as their morning venti frappucino. Our system is being stretched by their insatiable demands for high-tech procedures and the wonder drug du jour.

Strangely, this isn't being questioned by the aging middle-class boomers who run our newspapers or political parties.
posted by docgonzo at 4:30 PM on January 17, 2006

It doesn't have to end up being a choice between good and bad health care. If implemented properly, it could simply be a choice between good and very fast health care versus good and fast health care.

But not good and fast and cheap healthcare in either case. Canada spends about half of what the US does per capita on health care, and has lower infant mortality rates, higher life expectancies, and so forth, nearly across the board and even within the same demographics.
posted by solid-one-love at 4:34 PM on January 17, 2006

I call it shitty.
posted by angrybeaver at 4:39 PM on January 17, 2006

The problem isn't with the healthcare system but with the aging middle class boomers who expect their health care to be as prompt and made-to-order as their morning venti frappucino. Our system is being stretched by their insatiable demands for high-tech procedures and the wonder drug du jour.

To true. You forgot the fact that nobody wants to pay for it with higher taxes. We're a country of whiners and braggarts when it comes to healthcare.

Stephen Harper is an asshole.
posted by disgruntled at 4:52 PM on January 17, 2006

Conservative
NDP
Bloc
Liberal

Sounds about right.

I don't think by any measure you can call the Canadian health care system shitty.

I think you're delusional.
posted by Krrrlson at 4:53 PM on January 17, 2006

1. Jack Layton Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada (100%)
2. Gilles Duceppe Leader of the Bloc Quebecois (80%)
3. Paul Martin Leader of Liberal Party of Canada, Prime Minister of Canada (60%)
4. Stephen Harper Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada (40%)

:-)
posted by tranquileye at 4:57 PM on January 17, 2006

Thanks for proving my point, angrybeaver.

In what universe is wait times (measured in weeks) for knee surgery an indictment of a health care system?
posted by docgonzo at 5:07 PM on January 17, 2006

I think you're delusional.

Why dontcha try again, krrlson, except this time with facts instead of name calling?
posted by docgonzo at 5:09 PM on January 17, 2006

"Why does a Canadian political quiz inevitably have to contain a question about hockey?" posted by jokeefe

It's a trick question if you want to see Quebec secede from the Confederation.

Strategic voting? Wait a minute, you're saying our system isn't working? You like the MP in your riding, but then you'd be voting in a Prime Minister of the same party you may not trust... proportional representation? Pros, cons?

I say better de devil you know than de devil you don't know.


I voted [already] for the best person to do the job. In my riding [Metro Center], I have Bill Graham, Minister of National Defense whom is well spoken and non elusive.

As for Jack and Olivia, self serving gits I say. To Whit:

They profess supporting housing for homeless. A noble and righteous cause, however, they lived in a rent geared to earnings proportion community. They say they paid fair market value for their accommodations. The problem is that they took the space,whereas it should have been available to someone in a less advantaged position, which was the raison d'etre for that community [Queens Quay & Bathurst].

How about the time Jack changed the zoning where his house was located, thereby raising its value. Did it benefit the neighbourhood and was there much opposition? Hmm,...

Then there was the issue at The Doctor's Hospital, when Jack fought tooth and nail against extended care, I believe.

But don't take my word for it...
posted by alicesshoe at 5:23 PM on January 17, 2006

So is it OK if it is equally shitty for everyone, as long as everyone gets the same shitty care?

Uh... "shitty"?

See this is what I'm talking about. Does our health care system have some problems? Sure it does. Should we work to fix it? Of course we should.

But to categorize it as "shitty" is really overstating it. Try the health care systems in Russia, or China, or just about anywhere in Africa.
posted by Zinger at 5:27 PM on January 17, 2006

I have Bill Graham, Minister of National Defense whom is well spoken and non elusive.

Oh, no, Bill has never been elusive about anything.

Bill Graham is no Bill Graham.
posted by docgonzo at 5:51 PM on January 17, 2006

docgonzo, median wait times of 22 to 143 weeks (6 to 36 months) for knee surgery. If I needed an operation I wouldn't want to wait that long.

Or look elsewhere on that website - 10 weeks median wait for non-emergency cardiac surgery.

Zinger, yes we look fairly good by comparison to the 2nd and 3rd world. Is that something we should be proud of?
posted by angrybeaver at 5:55 PM on January 17, 2006

AngryBeaver, try reading people's entire posts before doing a knee jerk response.

I said: Does our health care system have some problems? Sure it does. Should we work to fix it? Of course we should.

But I repeat: Calling the Canadian healthcare system shitty is vastly overstating the case. It also demonstrates that you wouldn't recognize a system that IS genuinely crap, like those in the countries I mentioned.
posted by Zinger at 5:59 PM on January 17, 2006

But to categorize it as "shitty" is really overstating it. Try the health care systems in Russia, or China, or just about anywhere in Africa.

In other news, Canada's health care system is far superior to health care at Abu Ghraib, or to being stabbed in the eye repeatedly with a rusty fork. However, Canada's health care system is "shitty" compared to Canada's health care system several years ago, and it is completely incapable of handling an increasing elderly population or a major crisis like the bird flu. This is well documented. If you are asking for "facts," you either haven't been paying attention recently or are in willful denial.

Furthermore (and this is where my personal opinion begins), I believe Canada's public health care system is beyond salvation. It suffers from inefficiency and incompetence, due in large part to our failure to retain good medical professionals, who prefer to leave the country. Throwing money at the problem won't help, because we simply don't have the kind of money it will take to fix public health care. As such, the transition to private health care seems inevitable to me - it's just a matter of how many people die before everyone realizes this.


The problem isn't with the healthcare system but with the aging middle class boomers who expect their health care to be as prompt and made-to-order as their morning venti frappucino.

So everything is fine... it's just those finicky baby boomers making trouble, right? Have you needed a serious procedure lately? What condescending bullshit.
posted by Krrrlson at 6:00 PM on January 17, 2006

It also demonstrates that you wouldn't recognize a system that IS genuinely crap, like those in the countries I mentioned.

Isn't this just like that tired argument that America is still less evil than certain other nations, and the equally tired rebuttal that we should be holding America to a higher standard?
posted by Krrrlson at 6:03 PM on January 17, 2006

What is bullshit is calling Canada's system "shitty" when comparison to the USA, UK, and a handful of other first-world democracies shows it to be superior.

Private healthcare in the USA is just plain nasty. It is horrifically expensive for those that have it, there are endless stories of denial of coverage, and there are way too many people in the USA with no coverage.

Privatization has been a cockup from the word "go" in the UK. Their system is in shambles. It is now very expensive, the wait times have increased umpteenfold, and important pieces of the system are wholly broken.

I can not imagine why anyone would care to emulate those two failures. Privatization is apparently the worst thing you can do with public healthcare.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:18 PM on January 17, 2006

Everybody hates the insurance companies since rates just keep going up to increase profits for shareholders and pay for millionaire executive salaries.

ICBC is a public automobile insurance company in BC. All drivers must have their primary coverage through ICBC. Extended coverage can be held by a third-party insurer.

Consequently we have the third-lowest premiums in Canada.

ICBC does not discriminate based on age, sex, or vehicle. Its price structure is based mainly on the driving record of the insured, with some influence on location (the crowded, high-stress lower mainland versus the near-empty interior), usage (personal vs business), and average repair costs for the vehicle.

It is a fundamentally fair system and it costs S.F.A. ICBC is a handsomely profitable public system, and it uses its profits for everything from infrastructure improvements (paying significant costs for the redesign of high-collision locations) to cash-back rebates to its consumers.

Whenever anyone wishes to argue that privatization is the be-all and end-all of efficiencies and consumer benefits, they need to be referred to the ICBC model. It is world-famous, the envy of every other province and state, and a near-perfect example of how the public interest can be best served by public corporations.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:25 PM on January 17, 2006

The public health care system is not beyond repair. Having had to make extensive use of it in recent years, I can see exactly where certain procedures and methods in the patient treatment process unnecessarily cost the system thousands of dollars, and wasted time. But this is a problem not with government, but a common problem when managing complex processes - which health care certainly is.

The advantage of a public health care system is that when a problem is identified and fixed, then it can be fixed across the whole system. Likewise when one small part of the system discovers a new best practise, that can be disseminated across the whole.

A private health care system would see 20, 30, 100, 1000 or however many it takes, organizations (private clinics, private hospitals etc) all operating individually, all working to their own standards, some of which will be good, some of which will be bad. Incompetence and inefficiency is not unheard of in the private sector. And any independent organization that does come up with a best practice will keep it to themselves because that represents their competitive advantage.

Now I know there are people here who will say, but that's okay, because eventually the bad and incompentent will be weeded out, and we'll be approaching medical nirvana because only the best private organizations will survive. One only has to look at the business world to see that's not true: Microsoft certainly doesn't have the best, nor by any stretch of the imagination most efficient computer operating system product available. But it's still the biggest company out there and has managed to trample many smaller, better organizations in the past.

And the main thing about privatized health care is that at the end of the day, its main goal is to produce the cheapest service, which isn't necessarily the best service from a human health standpoint. Just ask any American who's had to fight tooth and nail with their HMO to get a procedure approved.

I think both private and public health care systems have their pros and cons, and I think it has to be said that in an ideal world, if either system were run properly and worked the way they were supposed to in theory, they'd be great. I think a public system has the bigger advantage in the long run in terms of economies of scale and eliminating the profit motive as the end goal. But I suspect a mishmash of the two systems put together is likely the worst way to go.
posted by Zinger at 6:55 PM on January 17, 2006

If I already voted, and I take the quiz and find out I voted for the wrong guy, can I get my vote back?
posted by jacquilynne at 7:02 PM on January 17, 2006

Ok zinger, our health care system is not very good. Better?

[not]: "Specialists are also surveyed as to what they regard as clinically “reasonable” waiting times. In 88 percent of the 123 categories surveyed, actual waiting time exceeded reasonable waiting time."

[very]: "She also warned that medical staffers are overworked, which could prove detrimental if a crisis were to occur."

[good]: "The evidence also shows that many patients on non‑urgent waiting lists are in pain and cannot fully enjoy any real quality of life. The right to life and to personal inviolability is therefore affected by the waiting times." - from the Supreme Court decision on private health insurance in Quebec.
posted by angrybeaver at 7:07 PM on January 17, 2006

Whenever anyone wishes to argue that privatization is the be-all and end-all of efficiencies and consumer benefits, they need to be referred to the ICBC model.

Privatization is certainly not the best option -- I'd rather have Canada's system of the early 90's then something like what the US has today -- but it will be the only option if the public health care system can't cope, and unfortunately I doubt it will be able to.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:16 PM on January 17, 2006

But I repeat: Calling the Canadian healthcare system shitty is vastly overstating the case.

OK, I wasn't calling the Canadian healthcare system shitty. I was asking a hypothetical question and in no way was trying to demean the Canadian healthcare system. Sorry.
posted by gyc at 8:25 PM on January 17, 2006

A two-tier system and privatization are two very different things. What I'm supporting is a second tier system for those who choose to use it, while maintaining guaranteed standards in the public system. Opting out of supporting the public system through taxes and/or OHIP (or your provincial equivalent) premiums would not be allowed. The doctor shortage can be addressed directly by increasing salaries and providing incentives to practice in underserviced regions.
I do not support all-out privatization of the system, and I don't believe that a two-tier system must necessarily lead to the ruin of the public system.

And anyone who doesn't believe that we have a 'for-profit' system now should see my doctor's house!
posted by rocket88 at 8:42 PM on January 17, 2006

The mister:
1. Liberal Party (100%)
2. New Democratic Party (72%)
3. Conservative Party (72%)
4. Bloc Quebecois (54%)

Me:
1. New Democratic Party (100%)
2. Liberal Party (100%)
3. Bloc Quebecois (54%)
4. Conservative Party (54%)

The mister can vote (and will vote Liberal), I can't yet (not a citizen) but I'd probably vote Liberal as well.
posted by deborah at 8:53 PM on January 17, 2006

The doctor shortage can be addressed directly by increasing salaries and providing incentives to practice in underserviced regions.

Increasing salaries would increase the number of people who want to be doctors. It would not increase the number of doctors.

And is there a surplus of doctors in some places (not just less of a shortage, but a surplus?) I'm not saying there's not, maybe there is somewhere. But if there's not, moving doctors around will equalize the shortages across regions, but it won't remove them.

The problem with a two tiered system with guaranteed standards for the public system is that the people who will ultimately have the power to influence what those standards should be are the people who will be unaffected by them (who can buy their way to a higher standard). Look right here how easy it is to characterize people needing healthcare as overly demanding, just for wanting the healthcare that they and their doctors feel is best for them. It's very easy to say "X isn't really necessary, you can just have Y cause it's pretty good, too" to other people when you know that you will still have the option of X. Knowing that taking X from others takes it from you too makes people think a little harder about what is really necessary (if you wouldn't want to go without out, why would you expect others to?). The single tiered system creates the political will to have top quality care in the public system.

And again, even if there were more doctors, there are a finate number. Every doctor-hour that you drain from the public system reduces the quality and speed of care that people in that system will get. The private system *causes* less care to be available in the public system.

And of course there's the justice issue...if there's a higher tier then by definition people who can't afford to pay are being punished with worse care.
posted by duck at 9:17 PM on January 17, 2006

See also: Vote By Issue which lets you agree, disagree, or abstain on various issues.
posted by antifuse at 2:16 AM on January 18, 2006

rocket88 - the two-tier healthcare system in the UK has made the NHS (National Health Service, same as OHIP) much worse. It has made public waiting times longer, and it is now extremely difficult to get a dentist (they cover that here) unless you go private. (My housemate's dentist said he would only treat him under the NHS as long as he was a student and not employed, which was nice, but foolish - my housemate is a graduate student.)

I have personally lived and used health care in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. The best care I received was in Canada. Now, this is just anecdotal, of course, but since the statistics (check out the CIA World Factbook) on life expectency and infant mortality also follow this pattern, I think that there really is no argument (anecdotal or valid) that the Canadian health care system is worse than private or semi-private first world health care.

Things may have gotten worse in Canada, that I would believe, but following the same path as what has hurt the UK system would be very, very foolish.

And the reason we don't have enough doctors is not money - we just don't train enough. I know people with masters in Health science who have been accepted to PhD programs but not accepted to medical school. It is crazy competitive, and it shouldn't be - there are enough smart competent people that we could triple our medical school programs. I don't know why we aren't - it's not like Ontario has any cost excuse (what with beggaring their current medical students). Personally, I would rather see doctors paid less (and not be expected to cover clinic costs) - maybe then we would see more people who have a true calling to care for people than people looking to it as just a high status and high paid job. It would still be an incrediably high status, interesting and rewarding job - we would still have competitive applications to medical school.

That said, I have a plan that I think should implemented immediately in Britain. The government in Britain currently subsidizes the education of doctors who go on to work privately. I think that they should say that if the doctors work publicly only, they will get subsidized or free education; if they work privately, then they have to pay all their costs themselves. That would be a fair system, and give a very good incentive to work under the public system. They want to be private, fine. They can pay for a private education then.

(Ontario has already gone this way with insane tuition, that outstrips our student loan programs by about 10 times. Except there everyone has to pay it - even if you try to access the program where the government will help you for serving an underserved area, you still have to pay the tuition upfront. Way to make sure no one but the rich will ever become doctors. But the Conservatives who brought it in have no problem with that - and I'm equally disgusted at the universities who jumped on the opportunity.)
posted by jb at 4:24 AM on January 18, 2006

100% NDP was my results.

But I'm really torn this time around. I'll vote for anyone who will help defeat a Conservative majority, so I may not be voting with my beliefs.
posted by Savannah at 6:54 AM on January 18, 2006

The Vote by Issue quiz at CBC (mentioned above) kicks ass.

Why is it that almost every sensible response to those questions inevitably leads to voting for Layton? How the hell do the opposition disagree with those values?

It sure looks like Layton wants to make the tax system more fair, make sure there are excellent social support systems, establish our independence as a nation, and plan for the future.

More and more, I think the fellow is ready to lead the country. What he wants for Canada is pretty close to what I want.

Just don't know that he'd ever be allowed to be effective. The other parties would spend all their energy on destroying him.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:44 AM on January 18, 2006

If Ed Broadbent had been kept as the NDP leader he might be prme minister by now.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:23 AM on January 18, 2006

The CBC quiz results are in line with my previous results. It's nice to know I'm consistent, if nothing else.
posted by deborah at 11:37 PM on January 18, 2006