Sellinger new premier
 

Greg Sellinger just won the NDP leadership thus becoming our new premier.Any thoughts people? Personally I find him just another bland Doer clone with not much policy behind him atleast with ashton he was proposing some big things such as removing the cpr yards and moving them to centre port and redevelop the north end and he proposed a rapid transit arm for south east winnipeg too. Sellinger though in an odd way sort of reminds me of paul martin or gordon brown a competent finance minister but a bad leader who will lose power fairly soon. Hopefully this is good news for the manitoba PC'S who won't have us become the biggest welfare bum from ottawa for transfers.

Steve Ashton is far too left for my liking. Greg Selinger I can tolerate. I wish there was a viable PC alternative, but Hugh is lost in the weeds.

I do agree though, Selinger seems like the made in Manitoba NDP version of Ed Stelmach. Nothing much really too him, at least, he doesn't have the chutzpah of some. He's not going to inspire anybody, but he won't blow it. Barring a miracle, the premiership is his for the next 6 years with both opposition parties being largely useless. Which is sad, seeing as I support one of them.

I wish our new premier the best - it's in my best interest to do so, and I don't wish failure upon anyone. However, once the winds of the Hydro scandal likely start to blow over Winnipeg, he'll be faced with his first real test, and the likely tone down of transfer payments from the Feds will hurt him as he won't have the pre-paid credit card that Gary Doer had.

My big complaint with Mr. Selinger is that he doesn't support the HST. That's a huge deal breaker for me - and a major deterrent to any business, putting us at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the country. On the bright side, he's not a bleeding-heart like Steve Ashton who wants to freeze tuition, when our Universities are bleeding, presumably by covering costs with money we don't have.

Two-tiered health care, and tax cuts are a long way away, and but a faint dream for this thoroughly unimpressed Tory.

...Free health care is going to hurt us all. It's a bottomless pit, that will pull valuable resources away from other government programs as I believe that many things will get starved further to support the monstrosity of public health care. I take great offense that guinea pigs and rabbits have better health care then I do. My dog has never had to wait in line, either. It's incredible.

It would be a cold day in hell before any Manitoba politician would advocate for that. I think they'd quickly be shown the door.

You're right as of October 2009. Wait until other programs get drained as average age increases, and obesity continues to increase at incredible rates, driving medical costs to stratospheric heights. Our health care system is unsustainable, at least, on the assumption that we want to have a level of health care more than on par with countries who have a per capita GDP about 1/5th of ours.

Some things will have to be driven by necessity then by campaign - to that end I agree with you, no politician will propose it right now. In good time, necessity will drive, as necessity has always driven. As long as there is a regulated reinvestment loop, you actually get better public care in a two tier system then you do in a purely public system.

Until then though, Grand Forks is just a short drive away if you or anyone you love needs medical care in real time. If you are a half-step from death's door however, we do manage to squeak you in, in this province.

But nobody thinks twice about paying for their cat. Our priorities have long since been lost.

2 tier health care is needed most people don't even know what it is FRANCE HAS 2 TIER HEALTH CARE its not what people think it is in canada. The 2nd tier eases pressure off the public system if people choose to pay that's it. All you would need to do is set up some parameters so that all the doctors don't jump on the private system but it can and does work in places like sweden ,France ect.. which are the most socialized countires in the world. This canadian myth that you will lose your health care is ridiculous and it takes up way too much of provincial budgets it can't sustain itself and it must change soon with all the baby boomers retiring now. Oh and by the way I wouldn't call it 2 tier it would just be a private-public partnership where you can decide where you want to go for health care.

My family has had excellent care in this province. From CT scans to ultrasounds to surgery.

We already have that. There are some private facilities in Canada, and anyone is free to go to the US. Another private option would only steal resources from the publicly funded system. Manitoba politicians will likely support the public system long into the future. It will always be a high priority.

It's fair to argue that Manitoban MLAs will likely support a public system for a long time, but I don't agree with you, in so far as I'm defining long term as 10-20 years.

I floated the idea of going to the US as a reasonable option if you are very ill. I would go to the US, if I needed immediate care, but it's not because I want to. I'd tell anyone who wants real care in real time to go to the US as well, but it's not because I want to either. It's painful to watch Canadian dollars flow over the boarder when they can and should be spent here. However, I also don't think any Canadian should serve their nationalist sentiment and accept lesser care than they deserve. If going to a different country is the only way you can get appropriate treatment right away, then you do it, because taking care of you is of much greater importance than any nationalistic sentiment.

Furthermore, I think it is absurd to say that, "Another private option would only steal resources from the publicly funded system." That is absolutely not true, unless you define a two-tiered or 'private-public-partnership system' as thurmas alluded to as THE AMERICAN SYSTEM. Clearly the American way is not a viable way as it forgets people. However, there are many models to pick and choose the best parts from. It doesn't shake down into a private system and public system for doctors.

What a layered health care system does shake down as, is a public or private option for citizens. Doctors would be 100% public (but with an overall pay boost, as revenues increases perhaps, which allows us to retain medical health care professionals of need for ALL Manitobans). Doctors are put on a cycle between public and private patients, but the entire system is publically administered. As a doctor you don't have any more offices, or a different place of work, just the fashion in witch you tend your patients is a little bit different.

The only moral people are going to have to forgo is the long held strange ideal of, "I would rather die in line, then let some rich person get in ahead of me". Yes, that person who is willing and able to pay will get in ahead of citizen X. However, the revenue generated by the willful paying is fed back as a reinvestment loop into the public care arm of the public health care system. Now, we can hire more doctors (nurses, etc.), perform more PUBLIC procedures, and absolutely everyone wins. Doctors can't pick and choose who they serve as they are on a static cycle. No more money flows down to Grand Forks anymore. Wait times are alleviated ACROSS THE BOARD, we add more white collar jobs in this province, we can improve our facilities with the increased revenues, and so many of the ridiculous problems that infect the public health care system today can be done away with, or severely truncated.

I don't know if you realize this, but every facility in Manitoba is private. Most of them or not for profit and mostly government funded. Doctors are all small businesses and hospitals are often charities or not for profit organizations. The government doesn't own anything, it just funds it. That's why I don't think that introducing more profit element into the system won't somehow make it better.

The reality is, things have gotten much better in the last ten years. We went from something like 8 CT scanners to 20 (and replaced others) and from 2 MRIs to 8 with 3 more on the way and a couple of replacements as well. There are new facilities at HSC, St. Boniface, Brandon, Swan River and many other places with more on the way. There is a new Woman's Hospital and a mental health ER on the way. There are new ERs across the province. There are over 300 more doctors and 2000 more nurses than ten years ago. We do multiple times more special procedures and are about to get equipment that exists almost nowhere else in the world. I could go on and on and on. Health care in Manitoba is getting significantly better. That doesn't mean there isn't problems (rural facilities are understaffed and there is a rural ER closure problem for example) but those are the exact problems that won't be solved by private care.

I'm open to anything that improves our system, but I don't want change for the sake of it. Maybe private care will make our system better, I don't know, and maybe we should study it, but we were in the top tier of developed countries in terms of health care in a 2003 study, and things have gotten better since then. We're doing well. We should all do what we can to make the system better for all Manitoban's, and so far it's been going that way. I hope we continue.

I am aware, and I'm not asking for the government to own anything. I'm suggesting that we heavily regulate our health care industry in a layered manner (like we do our banks in a sense - not a perfect example, but perhaps the best example of public regulation of a private body more or less in this country).

I never suggested for-profit. I suggested revenue generation that is immediately figured into a feedback loop. As long as your regulation is sound, I think a revenue feedback loop can be 100% functional.

Perhaps things have gotten better, in the last 10 years, but hallway medicine is still real, and to solve the problems that plague our medical system requires incredible public expenditure. That is why I think it is imperative to look for new revenue streams that a layered system would offer. Mention all the new facilities you would like to, but they still haven't come close to alleviating the pressures on our health care system. This is because our healt care system is a bottomless pit. Canadian people are and continue to get into worse physical condition of which obesity is the single most important. This will put incredible increased strain on our health care system in the near future. In short, our health care system needs help. How much as a taxpayer are you willing to pay? How much debt do you want to pass down generations (Obama and America makes me sick)? What initiatives do you want to starve for health care?

I agree with you on the rural front, but money talks. If ALL doctors can make more here (and not arbitrarily more like was recently done by Doer, Theresa Oswald and co. by handing out more dollars from taxpayer pockets) then there is more and more reason to stay. Is it a panacea? No. However, more money in the system (reinvestment loop from paying patients) can drive up salaries and can convince a percentage more to consider the rural medicine option. Money solves a lot of problems.

I wouldn't call this change for the sake of change. I'd like to think that even if you disagree with me at every turn I've been coherent enough to present my argument in a way that suggests I'm not a two-tier blowhard, but at least someone who has some reasoning behind what I say. Of course whether you interpret it as legitimate or not is a different story all together. Again though, I'm not suggesting change for the sake of change. I'm suggesting we find ways to get more money into our health care system without drying out our tax dollars and then some.

Perhaps we are doing well, but I'm not satisfied with good. I expect and demand greatness. Why should any Manitoban demand any less? I don't get up in the morning content with mediocrity. What we have now is mediocrity. Hallway medicine is mediocrity. Wait times exponentially greater than some of our industrialized world brethren is mediocre. This is my impetus for expecting change.

I'm not content with mediocrity. I'm simply not sure that two tier care is a solution to the problems that exist.

how often does someone that went to the london school of economics become a head of government?

Usually, the smarter someone is in that area, the worse they do in politics. Witness Paul Martin.

true but also it takes a good team of people around u to win not just the person.

How intelligent can he be? He's the leader of the Manitoba NDP fer christ's sake.

Nice comment! Smarter than you, for starters!!

still better then the alternitives..........

I know you are but what am I? Heh heh. Ahh, touche.

Sellinger huh, - what a horrible name... i think.

At least Doer and Sellinger rhymes. ;)