The Shotgun Blog
« Joe Comuzzi | Main | How to acquire an instant library »
Monday, June 27, 2005
Debate? We don't need no stinking debate!
The nanny state steps in to urge people to stop talking about stuff and getting themselves all worked up:
Federal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh says he's "disappointed" with Canada's doctors -- and especially the head of their influential national association -- for planning a debate at their annual meeting this summer on the role of private health care in this country.
"I would have expected the president of the [Canadian Medical Association] to be a little more circumspect."
Talking leads to thinking and thinking leads to criticism and criticism leads to a new health minister.
Time to nip this talking thing in the bud!
[Hate tip to NealeNews]
Posted by Steve Janke on June 27, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83480847c69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Debate? We don't need no stinking debate!:
Comments
Dosanjh obviously hasn't read Orwell, or, if he has, he needs an irony transplant (sorry, Minister, not covered in Canada).
What a pathetic excuse for a Minister of the Crown---and what a dangerous man. A failure as BC Premier; a bully (this isn't the first edict he's issued about criticising the Liberals); and, as revealed by Grewal, a criminally culpable participant in an attempt to subvert Parliament.
The Liberal strategy on the Supreme Court Chaoulli decision is now clear: deny it really took place; if it did, it only applies to Quebec; if it has general applicability, we can't talk about it. My guess is another Royal Commission or some such dithering device: perhaps another First Ministers Coven to hatch another generational solution. My guess is means-tested user fees, determined by tax returns.
Posted by: Patrick B | 2005-06-27 9:50:53 AM
This kind of socialist bullying is necessary when trying to coerce people into acting against their own self-interest. Clearly private health care is in the interests of doctors, hence the 'social sanction' to try to force them to side with the ban on private health care.
It's like Jack Layton joining the protests over Blue Man not signing a union agreement, and talking about it as if it's a 'Canadian' thing (i.e. about morals/values/etc..).
It's kind of sad, but I think socialism ('liberal values') in this country may have to run it's course, maybe we'll see a turn around after Canada becomes a 2nd world shithole.
And I agree... I don't think Chaoulli will mean private health care, I think it'll just mean *way* more taxes to support the public system.
Posted by: random | 2005-06-27 11:06:34 AM
Sounds like a Soviet minister having a word with their medical association, except the Soviet minister (at least post-Stalin) would probably have been "circumspect" enough to have the word in private, not as an implicit threat plastered all over the press.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2005-06-27 11:17:00 AM
A hate tip?
Cool!
Posted by: old squid | 2005-06-27 1:11:40 PM
FP Comment this day:
Re: Meeting the Court's Challenge, Buzz Hargrove, June 20
Basil (Buzz) Hargrove may consider himself a protector of medicare, with his fuzzy logic on the benefits of eliminating the private sector and profit.
...
... the medicare system works well for the likes of Buzz Hargrove. When he injured his knee last year, he had an MRI the next day and surgery the day after - all in the public system. Ordinary Canadians might wait two years for such service.His type of "two-tier medicine" is only for the privileged few. People of influence use this technique regularly - a scenario reminiscent of those of the Communist Party Central Committee in the former Soviet Union. No wonder Hargrove wants to keep the system as it is.
Brian Day, MD, Vancouver
=====================
The Nat. Post printed this!!!!!!!!!!
Letter from an MD.
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-06-27 3:07:25 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.