Manitoba | Provincial Politics

[RTD]

Originally Posted by grumpy old man

Why is Manitoba a "have not" province? We have one of the lowest unemployment rates in Canada. With everyone (mostly) gainfully employed why does the federal government (and Saskatchewan and Alberta and BC and Ontario) have to send any of their money to Manitoba?

Dislike people saying it until the cows come home, it is federal welfare. And I for one don't believe we need to take so much.

Fully agreed. I am of the belief that if equalization payments were not around, Manitoba would have dried up a long time ago. This province is heavily dependant on welfare. We are indeed a welfare province, as much as it pains me to say. One of the many reasons why we don't see substantial development like BC, Alberta, Ontario and now Saskatchewan. As much as it would hurt Manitoba, I wish that equalization payments would be substantially reduced or eliminated. This would give a REAL indication of Manitoba's ability to survive on our own without any handouts from anyone. And if we tank, we tank. That is the nature of the market.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Right, but the alternative is that people get the level of services they want by moving to the places where they can be most productive economically.

That somehow (falsely) assumes that a country is simply about money. Countries are about far more. Manitoba has a higher GDP than the vast majority of the worlds countries per capita, but it doesn't quite meet the average for the country. Canada is the country after all, and the idea is to treat all Canadians in it fairly. Just because Alberta was created on top of oil, it doesn't mean that the money from that oil should not benefit the entire country.

Though the US has no equalization program, they do give grants to poorer states on a year by year basis. Most industrialized federations have a similar program to Canada's. There is of course a reason.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Equalization makes it possible for people to survive indefinitely in places where they can remain unproductive (Newfoundland historically being the most obvious example of this).

Does this mean you don't support other forms of redistribution, like unemployment insurance or social assistance?

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by RTD

Fully agreed. I am of the belief that if equalization payments were not around, Manitoba would have dried up a long time ago.

I guess by this logic, most provinces would have "dried up" by now, considering that most provinces have received transfer payments at some point...As for your comment about the nature of "the market", the market isn't always the best way to allocate resources (ie: healthcare?)

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

That somehow (falsely) assumes that a country is simply about money. Countries are about far more. Manitoba has a higher GDP than the vast majority of the worlds countries per capita, but it doesn't quite meet the average for the country. Canada is the country after all, and the idea is to treat all Canadians in it fairly. Just because Alberta was created on top of oil, it doesn't mean that the money from that oil should not benefit the entire country.

Though the US has no equalization program, they do give grants to poorer states on a year by year basis. Most industrialized federations have a similar program to Canada's. There is of course a reason.

I agree but it's not just a matter of demanding our share . We have a responsibility to the nation to not pass budgets that keep us in debt.
Here we are about to rack up incredible debt and the reasons given are so stupid that the federal government should enact a law that prevents the NDP from doing what they're doing. Obviously the NDP can't be trusted to uphold the laws they have some control over so as a drain on the national economy , the feds have a responsibility to step in and smack some sense into those bozos on Broadway.
It's ridiculous actually how poorly the NDP handles budgeting. I know that I could do a better job. I know that my six year old nephew could do a better job. In fact , I'll bet that the bottle of oregano in front of me right now could do a better job. We're going in debt to fight a recession that's over to pay for ... for ... for ...hey , does anybody know what we're getting for all this cash ?

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Here we are about to rack up incredible debt and the reasons given are so stupid that the federal government should enact a law that prevents the NDP from doing what they're doing.

Increasing money for health and education while cutting other spending? I don't find that stupid at all.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Increasing money for health and education while cutting other spending? I don't find that stupid at all.

Of course it's stupid. The whole reason for the global economic meltdown was because of exactly this sort of thinking. It's like nobody in the NDP read one article on why we had a recession in the first place. Just to quickly sum it up though : People wanted to buy homes with money they didn't have so they borrowed it from banks only too willing to help them out. When "I'll have enough money to pay for it in the future" didn't pan out , the debt crushed those people.
It's simple really : If you spend more money than you have , eventually you have to spend all of your income to pay off your debts. What kind of budget would we have if we didn't have to finance debt ? What kind of funds would the NDP have to draw on if it hadn't blown the provincial reserves (think Hydro for example) during the good years ?

Does it not even concern you that since they intend to break the law but don't want to deal with it , they'll just change the law to make their actions legal ? Does that not set off warning sirens and flashing red lights for you ? It should.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Of course it's stupid. The whole reason for the global economic meltdown was because of exactly this sort of thinking. It's like nobody in the NDP read one article on why we had a recession in the first place. Just to quickly sum it up though : People wanted to buy homes with money they didn't have so they borrowed it from banks only too willing to help them out. When "I'll have enough money to pay for it in the future" didn't pan out , the debt crushed those people.
It's simple really : If you spend more money than you have , eventually you have to spend all of your income to pay off your debts. What kind of budget would we have if we didn't have to finance debt ? What kind of funds would the NDP have to draw on if it hadn't blown the provincial reserves (think Hydro for example) during the good years ?

Does it not even concern you that since they intend to break the law but don't want to deal with it , they'll just change the law to make their actions legal ? Does that not set off warning sirens and flashing red lights for you ? It should.

I agree with jmt18325. Spending money now on health and education is not just spending for the sake of spending; rather, it's an INVESTMENT in the future. To give a crude analogy, lets say you're going to go to university: Do you wait until you have the money to pay for school, or do you take out a loan knowing that you will be able to pay it off once you graduate because you've invested in your skills. Same thing with the government. Investing in training and education may cost a little now, but will bring about dividends in the future.

As for your simplistic "analysis" of the global economic meltdown, people were lured into taking out mortgages by predatory lenders (often with low teaser rates that increased significantly later). Regardless of what you think about the housing crisis, I wonder how you paid for your house (if you even own one)? Did you take on debt, assuming that your investment would pay off in time? Or did you pay for your house in cash? If you did take on debt, are you paying all your income to cover that debt (as you suggest will be the case with the government, even though our debt to GDP ratio is relatively low)?

It boggles my mind when people are quick to jump on government for borrowing (to invest in the long-term health of our province), but feel that their own borrowing (whether for a house or car) is a sound investment...

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Does it not even concern you that since they intend to break the law but don't want to deal with it , they'll just change the law to make their actions legal ? Does that not set off warning sirens and flashing red lights for you ? It should.

No. In case you haven't noticed, deficits are the norm for the current climate. Would I rather we didn't have them? Yes. Are they what cased the crisis? No. Government debt is different than personal debt....regardless, under the NDP, we've come to have one of the best credit ratings of the provinces. We can afford the debt right now because of that. When we can, we should pay back what we can.

[Only The Lonely..]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

When we can, we should pay back what we can.

I'm sure the Nothing Done Properly party will still be saying the same thing in four years time.

[jmt18325]

I'm sure the fact that the NDp has improved the provincial credit rating substantially is a severe inconvenience. Manitoba's debt to GDP ratio is very good in comparison to many.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by Bdog

I agree with jmt18325. Spending money now on health and education is not just spending for the sake of spending; rather, it's an INVESTMENT in the future.

As for your simplistic "analysis" of the global economic meltdown, people were lured into taking out mortgages by predatory lenders (often with low teaser rates that increased significantly later). Regardless of what you think about the housing crisis, I wonder how you paid for your house (if you even own one)? Did you take on debt, assuming that your investment would pay off in time? Or did you pay for your house in cash? If you did take on debt, are you paying all your income to cover that debt (as you suggest will be the case with the government, even though our debt to GDP ratio is relatively low)?

It boggles my mind when people are quick to jump on government for borrowing (to invest in the long-term health of our province), but feel that their own borrowing (whether for a house or car) is a sound investment...

B-Dog, spending money on health is not an investment in the future. Health care is a bottomless pit and is completely broken. Canadians don't have health care. We only have the right to stand in line (and in some cases, die in line). The only time you get real health care in this country is when you are critically ill and on the verge of death. As much as I would appreciate the attention if I had the misfortune of being stricken with cancer or another like debilitating disease, I wish healthy people could get health care too. Concern for wellness. My point being, that investment in health care can't be billed as an investment in the future unless it is dollars tossed into R&D (which for the most part it isn't). Not that I am one for international statistics, but Canada ranks somewhere around #30 globally in terms of health care provided to its citizens. As of a few short years ago, this was right in line with global powerhouses like Botswana. If I needed diagnostic testing, I would drive down to Grand Forks and pay the $500 - $1000 necessary to get the CT scan or MRI done there. You get your results same day. On an hour by hour basis, if it takes 62.5 days in Canada (what I think is a fair, rough estimate, stemming from one I had to get a year or two ago which operated in a 2 month or so time-frame) or roughly 2 months to not only get your appointment, but get your results (assuming you aren't believed to be critically ill, in which case you get pushed through quick), then it is somewhere in the order of 200 times slower to get standard diagnostic imaging results in Winnipeg then it is in Grand Forks. That is not bad. It's not even disgraceful. It's decrepit, on a scale of galactic proportions. I can get my dog elite health care anytime I want in this country, but I couldn't get the same service for myself. Not even close. Pouring money into a health care system that is substandard relative to its veterinary counterparts in this country colours me uninterested.

As far as 'predatory lenders' are concerned, sure they may have operated in a way that could be argued to be morally wrong. I agree with that. However, I refuse to blame the stupidity of many of those who defaulted, on the lenders, though the lenders themselves are responsible for a major credit crisis. If an individual is so stupid as to think they can afford a home that is 7 times or more the cost of their annual family income, then I have zero sympathy when they lose said home. Stupidity doesn't deserve a hug. If you live within your means, you generally (as always, there are exceptions to the rule, and good people do occasionally get caught in a rough circumstance) don't have problems like a home being repossessed. Society cannot forever shoulder the blame of the slip-ups of an individual. At some point, the onus is on the individual. You do what you can afford to do. If you can't afford to do it, you don't do it. If the argument is that lenders flashed a handful of candy and adults came running mindlessly like pigs to a trough, then please excuse me for turning a blind eye to pity.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by Boreal

B-Dog, spending money on health is not an investment in the future. Health care is a bottomless pit and is completely broken. Canadians don't have health care. We only have the right to stand in line (and in some cases, die in line). The only time you get real health care in this country is when you are critically ill and on the verge of death. As much as I would appreciate the attention if I had the misfortune of being stricken with cancer or another like debilitating disease, I wish healthy people could get health care too. Concern for wellness. My point being, that investment in health care can't be billed as an investment in the future unless it is dollars tossed into R&D (which for the most part it isn't). Not that I am one for international statistics, but Canada ranks somewhere around #30 globally in terms of health care provided to its citizens. As of a few short years ago, this was right in line with global powerhouses like Botswana. If I needed diagnostic testing, I would drive down to Grand Forks and pay the $500 - $1000 necessary to get the CT scan or MRI done there. You get your results same day. On an hour by hour basis, if it takes 62.5 days in Canada (what I think is a fair, rough estimate, stemming from one I had to get a year or two ago which operated in a 2 month or so time-frame) or roughly 2 months to not only get your appointment, but get your results (assuming you aren't believed to be critically ill, in which case you get pushed through quick), then it is somewhere in the order of 200 times slower to get standard diagnostic imaging results in Winnipeg then it is in Grand Forks. That is not bad. It's not even disgraceful. It's decrepit, on a scale of galactic proportions. I can get my dog elite health care anytime I want in this country, but I couldn't get the same service for myself. Not even close. Pouring money into a health care system that is substandard relative to its veterinary counterparts in this country colours me uninterested.

That is a complete mischaracterization. The maximum wait time for a CT in Manitoba is 4 weeks. The exact time varies from city to city. That is the maximum. If you need one now, you get one new. If they suspect something semi serious, you may get it in a week or less. MRI waits are a different story, but they are again falling and should return to the two month range that they originally occupied soon. These times are not unreasonable. Expecting to get an MRI or CT the same day simply because you want to is not at all reasonable. If I needed a CT, I would have no problem getting it in Manitoba, and the same goes for an MRI or a PET.

Canadians have health care, and you are in the small minority if you don't believe that.

On the list that you're talking about btw, the US system ranked 37th. There is a new list though, including only industrialized countries relating to preventable deaths:

France did best -- with 64.8 deaths deemed preventable by timely and effective health care per 100,000 people, in the study period of 2002 and 2003. Japan had 71.2 and Australia had 71.3 such deaths per 100,000 people. The United States had 109.7 such deaths per 100,000 people, the researchers said.

After the top three, Spain was fourth best, followed in order by Italy, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Germany, Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, Britain, Ireland and Portugal, with the United States last.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN07651650

[jmt18325]

Oh, and much of the health care spending now is going to research/clinical partnerships as well as primary health care. These are both investments in the future. All healthcare really is, as it allows for people to live longer, more productive lives.

[Boreal]

An MRI or a CT scan is a good/service to be purchased like anything else (of course, that isn't allowed in this country). Of course I have expectations, because I'm willing to pay. What I don't wish to pay for is a health care system that I have no access to unless as you indicated, there is concern about serious illness. Few health issues border on serious illness. These are the issues I would like dealt with in a timely fashion. I'm not the least bit surprised that Canada performed well as per your last quote - we prevent death with the best of them. I had stated previously that in Canada you get great health care once you're rough shape.

The US system is broken too. But it still remains the only country I can drive to from my home in Winnipeg in a few short hours and purchase an MRI or CT scan. That doesn't by any stretch indicate that I am a huge supporter of the American health care system. I am however a supporter of two-tiered health care, where everyone has coverage with a reinvestment loop from the private to public sector, where I can - after taxes - go and purchase real health care if I can afford to do so. Canada's financial elite go out of borders for the care they want. Even Danny Williams left this country for health care.

[jmt18325]

Danny Williams though, didn't have to leave. He did so in order to recover in his Florida condo. Two tiered healthcare sounds Ok, until you realize that there is already a shortage of health practitioners in the western world. There are only so many people to operate MRIs (a 3 year program) and CTs (a 2 year program). A private alternative would simply steal from the public system. The objective should be to improve our system (and there has been steady improvement over the last ten years) to the point where no one needs to go to the US. In reality, for a thing like a CT, it's there already. An MRI, not so much. Equal access for everyone when it comes to something as important as health.

It will be interesting to see what happens to wait times for things like CTs and MRIs in the US now that so many more people will have access.

[Bdog]

Originally Posted by Boreal

B-Dog, spending money on health is not an investment in the future. Health care is a bottomless pit and is completely broken. Canadians don't have health care. We only have the right to stand in line (and in some cases, die in line). The only time you get real health care in this country is when you are critically ill and on the verge of death. As much as I would appreciate the attention if I had the misfortune of being stricken with cancer or another like debilitating disease, I wish healthy people could get health care too. Concern for wellness. My point being, that investment in health care can't be billed as an investment in the future unless it is dollars tossed into R&D (which for the most part it isn't). Not that I am one for international statistics, but Canada ranks somewhere around #30 globally in terms of health care provided to its citizens. As of a few short years ago, this was right in line with global powerhouses like Botswana. If I needed diagnostic testing, I would drive down to Grand Forks and pay the $500 - $1000 necessary to get the CT scan or MRI done there. You get your results same day. On an hour by hour basis, if it takes 62.5 days in Canada (what I think is a fair, rough estimate, stemming from one I had to get a year or two ago which operated in a 2 month or so time-frame) or roughly 2 months to not only get your appointment, but get your results (assuming you aren't believed to be critically ill, in which case you get pushed through quick), then it is somewhere in the order of 200 times slower to get standard diagnostic imaging results in Winnipeg then it is in Grand Forks. That is not bad. It's not even disgraceful. It's decrepit, on a scale of galactic proportions. I can get my dog elite health care anytime I want in this country, but I couldn't get the same service for myself. Not even close. Pouring money into a health care system that is substandard relative to its veterinary counterparts in this country colours me uninterested.

As far as 'predatory lenders' are concerned, sure they may have operated in a way that could be argued to be morally wrong. I agree with that. However, I refuse to blame the stupidity of many of those who defaulted, on the lenders, though the lenders themselves are responsible for a major credit crisis. If an individual is so stupid as to think they can afford a home that is 7 times or more the cost of their annual family income, then I have zero sympathy when they lose said home. Stupidity doesn't deserve a hug. If you live within your means, you generally (as always, there are exceptions to the rule, and good people do occasionally get caught in a rough circumstance) don't have problems like a home being repossessed. Society cannot forever shoulder the blame of the slip-ups of an individual. At some point, the onus is on the individual. You do what you can afford to do. If you can't afford to do it, you don't do it. If the argument is that lenders flashed a handful of candy and adults came running mindlessly like pigs to a trough, then please excuse me for turning a blind eye to pity.

I have to disagree with you about the healthcare as an investment part. Healthcare is an investment, because it brings about returns - Increased productivity probably being the most evident (less sick days, etc). But also, a public system that doesn't bankrupt it's citizens also has obvious benefits as well (less people need to go on social assistance due to health care costs, etc).

As for your other point about the predatory lending, I agree that individuals must be responsible for their actions... to an extent. What was seen two years ago was a SYSTEMATIC problem brought about by institutions, rather than individuals (in my opinion). To draw a crude analogy, when a person gets fired because they are lazy/irresponsible, the onus is on them. When a person loses their job because the unemployment rate in their city is 30%, the problem is systemic, and the onus is not on them...

[Boreal]

I agree with your point about health care prevent social assistance in the form of additional costs borne on the citizens. My idea would be of not having public or private doctors, but simply doctors that work a cycle with two lines of people. With increased individual spending for 'private' care, a reinvestment loop can be used to fork over X amount of those dollars spent on the 'private' side, into the public side. This allows the public sector to purchase more equipment and employees, and ultimately perform more procedures than it could before. As an example, say 100 people are waiting for glaucoma surgery and the system can currently perform a maximum of 2 surgeries per day. That is to say that it would take 50 days for that line to clear in the system we have now (hypothetically of course). But if 50 of those people could afford to, and were willing to pay for service at a 'private' clinic where all doctors in their given fields cycle through, then maybe an additional 2 per day can be performed there. What you have now is a situation where the private clinic has split the line of 100 into two lines of 50. Both clinics the 'private' and public can perform two surgeries per day, but with the 'private' individually-paid service, everybody's wait time has been cut from 50 days to 25 days, 50%. Additionally, profits made in the private side can be reinvested in a variety of ways - pay for equipment, increase salaries to be more competitive in terms of retaining skilled and key health care professionals, hiring more health care professionals, etc. The people who receive public care and that cannot afford private care actually get their treatment faster, and if the reinvestment loop functions properly might even get better treatment. Of course, this is a rudimentary, simplified example, but that is the type of two-tier system I can hope for. I didn't edit this post, so hopefully it makes sense both literal, and economical.

Fair enough - in a 1 in 90 year market correction, if you work outside of a previously decaying industry (the auto industry was going to collapse with or without a recession, the recession only sped things along by a year or two) and lived within your means, not spending at your financial limits on big ticket items like a home and vehicle, then yes I agree that it is a systematic problem. Sadly, I think those people in such situations represent only the minority of those that were affected.

[Only The Lonely..]

McFadyen's Tories increasing in popularity

Winnipeg Free Press

10/06/2010 9:56 AM

WINNIPEG — The Progressive Conservatives have extended their provincial lead over the governing New Democrats and are now virtually even with them in Winnipeg, according to the results of a new Angus Reid public opinion poll released today.

The polling firm said an online survey of a representative provincial sample of 800 Manitoba adults conducted between May 26 and June 1 showed 48 per cent of decided voters would support the Progressive Conservative candidate in their constituency if a provincial election were held tomorrow.

That's a gain of four per cent from February.

The New Democratic Party is in second place provincially, with support of 36 per cent of decided voters (down one per cent from February). The Liberal Party was third with 13 per cent and the Green Party had three per cent support. Both of those numbers are unchanged from February, the firm said.

In Winnipeg, which is traditionally a stronghold for the NDP, the two top parties are now virtually even. The NDP has the support 42 per cent of decided voters, and the PC's 41 per cent. The Liberals are once again at 13 per cent, with the Green Party at four per cent and "other" at one per cent.

In rural Manitoba, the PCs continue their dominence over the NDP with the support of 58 per cent of decided voters compared to the NDP's 28 per cent. The Liberals have 11 per cent, the Green Party three per cent, and "other" one per cent.

In terms of demographics, the Conservatives hold an 18 point lead over the NDP among males (52 per cent to 34 per cent) and a six-point lead among women (44 per cent to 38 per cent).

The Liberals continue to do better among women (15 per cent) than men (nine per cent).

The margin of error, which measures sampling variability, for the Angus Reid poll is plus or minus 3.5 per cent. Discrepancies in or between totals are due to rounding, the firm said.

[email protected]

[rrskylar]

I think the head line should have read: Tories increasing in popularity despite Hugh McFadyen as leader.