Well here it is, finally, spelled out without any ambiguities, with no equivocation and no weasel words.
In one concise article Mr. Singer says what a good deal of environmentalists are afraid to. Which is to say that he says what they wilfully evade, that the end result, the final solution of their Green fascism is the end of humanity.
Well I for one would like to invite them all, each and every one to do away with themselves, in whatever ecologically sound manner they wish of course.
So Mr. Singer, Mr. Benatar... This is your philosophy, and since all philosophies are constructed to show man how he ought to live, I hope you will have the intestinal fortitude and courage to live by yours.
Oh, don't get me wrong I'm not asking you to do something I wouldn't. I do my very best to live my life by my philosophy (Objectivism), its just that were we both to do so, you would see that your philosophy leads you to your death and mine encourages me to live.
So lets both start...
You will go first.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Farewell
For reasons of my own I have decided to go solo with this blog from here on out, so Thucydides will no longer be posting here.
I appreciate and have enjoyed his posts for Uncommon Sense and I hope that he begins a blog of his own, and lets me know so that we can all enjoy it.
Thanks again Thucydides, keep in touch.
Zip
I appreciate and have enjoyed his posts for Uncommon Sense and I hope that he begins a blog of his own, and lets me know so that we can all enjoy it.
Thanks again Thucydides, keep in touch.
Zip
Methinks He Doth Protest Too Much
This sounds like a scared Liberal in a CBC suit.
Why shouldn't the right of the political spectrum in this country have what the left has enjoyed in the form of the CBC for all these years?
Of course partisanship on the left is just considered good reporting, on the right it's "drive-by attacks... misrepresentations, and is positively Orwellian"
All that aside more is better in any marketplace, especially when one is dealing with information.
Why shouldn't the right of the political spectrum in this country have what the left has enjoyed in the form of the CBC for all these years?
Of course partisanship on the left is just considered good reporting, on the right it's "drive-by attacks... misrepresentations, and is positively Orwellian"
All that aside more is better in any marketplace, especially when one is dealing with information.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Gaza 2010 = Sarajevo 1914?
It is ridiculous that the world seems to be standing around watching as this shapes up. To think of a parallel, the Iranians sending an aid ship to Gaza is the equivalent of the Russians sending an “aid ship” to Cuba in October of 1962.
Iran has sworn to “wipe Israel off of the map”. Israel has sworn to defend herself, and that includes the blockade of Gaza.
With Israel standing alone and surrounded by her Muslim enemies, and the rest of the world playing the part of two of three monkeys - seeing and hearing no evil in the intent of those who would break the blockade – does someone really need to point out that Israel is a nuclear capable nation and Iran is pushing toward that goal (while Obama, America’s Nero – fiddles with his foreign policy)?
Israel’s enemies continue to push. They launch rockets, they threaten, they cajole and so far all Israel’s appeasement has done has been to embolden them. Israel’s patience is not infinite however and when push comes to shove they will strike back to save their lives.
This is the point we are going to reach sooner rather than later if the Iranian “aid ships” steam for Gaza. Israel will push back, there will be blood. The Muslim world will condemn. The UN will condemn out of one side of its mouth while calling for an “impartial investigation” out of the other. The new American administration will lower its eyes, kick as the dirt beneath its feet like a shamed child and remain silent.
At that point, abandoned by all her allies implicitly if not explicitly, what option does Israel have?
Surely Israel will launch an attack on Iran to prevent that theocratic totalitarian state from ever achieving nuclear status, and from that act of self-preservation the entire set of dominoes may fall.
This single event, this largely ignored calculated provocation of Israel by her sworn enemies has the possibility of being this millenniums "shot heard round the world"..
And so far all the world has done is scold the victim and praise the assassin.
Iran has sworn to “wipe Israel off of the map”. Israel has sworn to defend herself, and that includes the blockade of Gaza.
With Israel standing alone and surrounded by her Muslim enemies, and the rest of the world playing the part of two of three monkeys - seeing and hearing no evil in the intent of those who would break the blockade – does someone really need to point out that Israel is a nuclear capable nation and Iran is pushing toward that goal (while Obama, America’s Nero – fiddles with his foreign policy)?
Israel’s enemies continue to push. They launch rockets, they threaten, they cajole and so far all Israel’s appeasement has done has been to embolden them. Israel’s patience is not infinite however and when push comes to shove they will strike back to save their lives.
This is the point we are going to reach sooner rather than later if the Iranian “aid ships” steam for Gaza. Israel will push back, there will be blood. The Muslim world will condemn. The UN will condemn out of one side of its mouth while calling for an “impartial investigation” out of the other. The new American administration will lower its eyes, kick as the dirt beneath its feet like a shamed child and remain silent.
At that point, abandoned by all her allies implicitly if not explicitly, what option does Israel have?
Surely Israel will launch an attack on Iran to prevent that theocratic totalitarian state from ever achieving nuclear status, and from that act of self-preservation the entire set of dominoes may fall.
This single event, this largely ignored calculated provocation of Israel by her sworn enemies has the possibility of being this millenniums "shot heard round the world"..
And so far all the world has done is scold the victim and praise the assassin.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Not out of Curiosity
Michael Ignatieff is a smart guy. You have to be to teach at Harvard. The thing of it is that all the Liberals in Canada pinned their hope on this guy to be their new leader and not one of them waited to see if he could lead.
What they failed to grasp... probably because the ones making the call were also more academically minded than politically minded and the rest followed their lead... was that smart doesn't necessarily translate into either decisive or savvy. As time has gone on Ignatieff has proven himself to be a slightly more personable version of Stephane Dion.
Truth of the matter is Iggy could probably explain to you the way the country ought to be run (as a Liberal would do it) but he wouldn't be able to convince you and ten of your close friends to try and do it with him.
As a friend of mine once quipped to a particularly inept Troop Commander... "Sir, I wouldn't follow you out of curiosity."
What they failed to grasp... probably because the ones making the call were also more academically minded than politically minded and the rest followed their lead... was that smart doesn't necessarily translate into either decisive or savvy. As time has gone on Ignatieff has proven himself to be a slightly more personable version of Stephane Dion.
Truth of the matter is Iggy could probably explain to you the way the country ought to be run (as a Liberal would do it) but he wouldn't be able to convince you and ten of your close friends to try and do it with him.
As a friend of mine once quipped to a particularly inept Troop Commander... "Sir, I wouldn't follow you out of curiosity."
Friday, June 4, 2010
Imagine...
"From this distance, it's easy to be sanctimonious about Israel's commando raid on the Turkish flotilla, and costless to be naive about the motives of those onboard.
Read the whole thing...
Read the whole thing...
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Socialists Don't Understand The Nature of Work
This article exemplifies the difference between those that do deserve bonuses and those that don’t. Pat Martin’s statement that; “The Bank of Canada is not a private business. It's not tied to performance or productivity outcomes, it's not a profit-making venture where you can measure a good year from a bad year ... What is the merit they are being rewarded for, coming to work on time?" is absurd, ignorant and disrespectful.
The comment is absurd because as long as this country has a public service it should strive to have the best possible public service. That means to have people who work their asses off to do the best possible job. It is common for corporations to give huge bonuses to their top performers if the public service wants to attract any of that sort of talent they must compete, they must show their employees that they are valued and that their work is valued and that productivity and excellence is recognized.
Mr. Martin’s comment demonstrates his ignorance of the nature of the work that goes on in the Bank of Canada. Canada has come out of the global recession far in advance of the rest of its G8 and G20 counterparts due in no small way to the prudent fiscal policies and monetary controls instituted by none other than The Bank of Canada. For Mr. Martin to then lambaste the Bank’s executives (people who work so very hard behind the scenes) as not deserving of bonuses because the crown corporation doesn’t produce profits is to ignore the immense benefit that those policies and controls provide to Canadians and Canadian corporations,,, Talk about the creation of profit! When the rest of the worlds banks are being wiped out not a single Canadian Bank has even come close. When sovereign debts in Europe are being downgraded and nations fear economic collapse Canada is rebounding stronger than any other country on the planet.
Mr. Martin’s words are disrespectful of workers and executives everywhere. They imply that Mr. Martin believes only if a profit is made is a person working hard enough to earn a bonus. Perhaps he, as a public servant, isn’t deserving of a gold plated pension for only working 6 years maybe he ought to work for 20 or 25 years first. After All Mr. Martin has produced even less profit as an MP than the good people at the Bank of Canada.
But the ideological heart of the matter is revealed when “Martin argues the system creates divisiveness among public sector workers -- labelling some as winners and some as losers -- he's most worried about their effect on productivity.”. You see in the socialist world everyone is a winner, which is to say that they all loose equally. There is no such thing as equality among and between people. You can’t create it, enforce it or demand it. There is no way to have a functioning society if you can not even bring yourself to admit that some people are smarter, more industrious and more driven than others. The blind equality that would see no one
praised for effort or productivity is the end result of the failed socialism of the USSR and its satellites.
If you want to negatively effect productivity in a workplace tell everyone that no one will be recognized for their effort. What is the end result of a place like that? Well it isn’t a rush for excellence. It’s a slow and steady decline, a march to the lowest common denominator. As Russians working in state sponsored factories used to quip about that very same sort of system. “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”
It’s a strange sort of schism that a socialist like Mr. Martin, indeed I would argue all socialists, do not understand the nature of work as being an essential part of the human experience. The benefit in work to the individual is not in the work itself but in the personal satisfaction in and the recognition of the work itself.
Only a complete imbecile would believe that the world will be a better place when everyone from the Doctor to the ditch-digger is equally valued and earns the same wage and praise.
The comment is absurd because as long as this country has a public service it should strive to have the best possible public service. That means to have people who work their asses off to do the best possible job. It is common for corporations to give huge bonuses to their top performers if the public service wants to attract any of that sort of talent they must compete, they must show their employees that they are valued and that their work is valued and that productivity and excellence is recognized.
Mr. Martin’s comment demonstrates his ignorance of the nature of the work that goes on in the Bank of Canada. Canada has come out of the global recession far in advance of the rest of its G8 and G20 counterparts due in no small way to the prudent fiscal policies and monetary controls instituted by none other than The Bank of Canada. For Mr. Martin to then lambaste the Bank’s executives (people who work so very hard behind the scenes) as not deserving of bonuses because the crown corporation doesn’t produce profits is to ignore the immense benefit that those policies and controls provide to Canadians and Canadian corporations,,, Talk about the creation of profit! When the rest of the worlds banks are being wiped out not a single Canadian Bank has even come close. When sovereign debts in Europe are being downgraded and nations fear economic collapse Canada is rebounding stronger than any other country on the planet.
Mr. Martin’s words are disrespectful of workers and executives everywhere. They imply that Mr. Martin believes only if a profit is made is a person working hard enough to earn a bonus. Perhaps he, as a public servant, isn’t deserving of a gold plated pension for only working 6 years maybe he ought to work for 20 or 25 years first. After All Mr. Martin has produced even less profit as an MP than the good people at the Bank of Canada.
But the ideological heart of the matter is revealed when “Martin argues the system creates divisiveness among public sector workers -- labelling some as winners and some as losers -- he's most worried about their effect on productivity.”. You see in the socialist world everyone is a winner, which is to say that they all loose equally. There is no such thing as equality among and between people. You can’t create it, enforce it or demand it. There is no way to have a functioning society if you can not even bring yourself to admit that some people are smarter, more industrious and more driven than others. The blind equality that would see no one
praised for effort or productivity is the end result of the failed socialism of the USSR and its satellites.
If you want to negatively effect productivity in a workplace tell everyone that no one will be recognized for their effort. What is the end result of a place like that? Well it isn’t a rush for excellence. It’s a slow and steady decline, a march to the lowest common denominator. As Russians working in state sponsored factories used to quip about that very same sort of system. “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”
It’s a strange sort of schism that a socialist like Mr. Martin, indeed I would argue all socialists, do not understand the nature of work as being an essential part of the human experience. The benefit in work to the individual is not in the work itself but in the personal satisfaction in and the recognition of the work itself.
Only a complete imbecile would believe that the world will be a better place when everyone from the Doctor to the ditch-digger is equally valued and earns the same wage and praise.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Capitalism isn't the Problem... Its the Solution
This is the kind of thinking that the majority of people don't do.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Not Neutral... Ambivalent. Not Compassionate... Evil
I will never donate another penny to the Red Cross.
The Red Cross' treatment of the Taliban in Afghanistan exemplifies the predominant philosophy of our age writ large. The Red Cross is exhibiting its altruistic roots, it is supporting people who would see it and every other vestige of "western society" completely destroyed. How wonderfully selfless.
Ayn Rand once said that "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." and she was right.
That answer to the Red Cross' implicit philosophy draws some fire from "compassionate humanists" though...
"The Red Cross is just being neutral" they say just like in WW2 when they dealt with German POW's in Prison camps.
That is a good point and I hadn't thought of it before but their assistance to the Taliban now is no different than their assistance to Nazi's in WW2.
I see now that the Red Cross is not immoral for doing this but rather that it is amoral. It is designed as an organization to be unable to distinguish between right and wrong, good from evil. Which in my book puts it directly alongside the evil it is unable to recognize.
"But the Red Cross is just like Switzerland..." they cry "Neutral!"
But they miss a very important distinction between the Swiss neutrality and the Red Cross'.
The Swiss neither help nor hinder any side. They keep their hands to themselves in all matters. This isn't amoral, they have decided that it is in their self-interest as a nation to stay out of it all altogether.
The Red Cross is not neutral it is ambivalent. It doesn't care who it helps. It makes every one of the good guys fighting for the moral and right reasons, the exact same as every misogynistic, racist, ignorant, socially backward, religious fanatic and bugger Taliban on the battlefield.
In short, the Red Cross equates MMV winners, guys like Tpr Shane Dolmovic and our leaders, like General Hillier with the scum-bags who throw acid on schoolgirls and stone women to death for the crime of adultery when they have actually been raped.
There is a moral choice facing the Red Cross, it is as clear as white and black, and they are evil for failing to make that choice.
Then comes the next philosophical head fake...
"The Taliban were raised to believe what they do, their society is structured that way, their religion has taught them that they are right. So who are we to say what is moral? "
To answer a question of morality I would ask what is the purpose of existence and what position among all the positions of all religions, ideologies and cultures best upholds that purpose?
For me the purpose of existence is life, my life and my living of it. In other words living in a rationally self-interested way.
Now this does not mean living as a range of the moment hedonist. Tiger Woods was not operating in his self-interest when he was out whoring around, as evidenced by how much those actions have cost him personally and professionally.
Nor is it a blank cheque to treat people as sub-human, as disposable and worthless. After all it does not further my life to live in a society where I would need to treat every other person as a danger rather than a possible source of value to enhance and enrich my life.
It also doesn't benefit me to treat this life like a shadow of something more "beyond the grave". Reality and the facts of it all point to this being the only existence we are going to get. Dismissing reality is the first cardinal sin against living a good, long, successful and happy life.
It also means that altruistic sacrifice (the relinquishment of a greater benefit for a lesser one) is contrary to living in this life.*
* A note here, our soldiers do not sacrifice themselves for a lesser value. They have either made a conscious decision that what they are fighting for is worth the possibility of death or they have weighed the risks and believe themselves to be skilled enough to survive where others will not. Neither of these is sacrifice.
So to get back to the deciding of what is moral or not; using these few points and many others that it would take too long to list I can, and you can, determine what is moral and what isn't, and we should.
More than that I believe that this world would be much better off if people would use the standard of their own lives to determine their morality instead of accepting someone else's definition, ideology or superstition.
Like Rand said. "The moral principle to adopt is Judge and be prepared to be Judged."
Actions can not be separated from their results, no matter if you claim compassion, humanity or neutrality as your excuse. No matter if you are an individual or a multi-national organization.
I have judged the Red Cross by their actions and I find them to be immoral, and evil.
*H/T Chris
The Red Cross' treatment of the Taliban in Afghanistan exemplifies the predominant philosophy of our age writ large. The Red Cross is exhibiting its altruistic roots, it is supporting people who would see it and every other vestige of "western society" completely destroyed. How wonderfully selfless.
Ayn Rand once said that "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." and she was right.
That answer to the Red Cross' implicit philosophy draws some fire from "compassionate humanists" though...
"The Red Cross is just being neutral" they say just like in WW2 when they dealt with German POW's in Prison camps.
That is a good point and I hadn't thought of it before but their assistance to the Taliban now is no different than their assistance to Nazi's in WW2.
I see now that the Red Cross is not immoral for doing this but rather that it is amoral. It is designed as an organization to be unable to distinguish between right and wrong, good from evil. Which in my book puts it directly alongside the evil it is unable to recognize.
"But the Red Cross is just like Switzerland..." they cry "Neutral!"
But they miss a very important distinction between the Swiss neutrality and the Red Cross'.
The Swiss neither help nor hinder any side. They keep their hands to themselves in all matters. This isn't amoral, they have decided that it is in their self-interest as a nation to stay out of it all altogether.
The Red Cross is not neutral it is ambivalent. It doesn't care who it helps. It makes every one of the good guys fighting for the moral and right reasons, the exact same as every misogynistic, racist, ignorant, socially backward, religious fanatic and bugger Taliban on the battlefield.
In short, the Red Cross equates MMV winners, guys like Tpr Shane Dolmovic and our leaders, like General Hillier with the scum-bags who throw acid on schoolgirls and stone women to death for the crime of adultery when they have actually been raped.
There is a moral choice facing the Red Cross, it is as clear as white and black, and they are evil for failing to make that choice.
Then comes the next philosophical head fake...
"The Taliban were raised to believe what they do, their society is structured that way, their religion has taught them that they are right. So who are we to say what is moral? "
To answer a question of morality I would ask what is the purpose of existence and what position among all the positions of all religions, ideologies and cultures best upholds that purpose?
For me the purpose of existence is life, my life and my living of it. In other words living in a rationally self-interested way.
Now this does not mean living as a range of the moment hedonist. Tiger Woods was not operating in his self-interest when he was out whoring around, as evidenced by how much those actions have cost him personally and professionally.
Nor is it a blank cheque to treat people as sub-human, as disposable and worthless. After all it does not further my life to live in a society where I would need to treat every other person as a danger rather than a possible source of value to enhance and enrich my life.
It also doesn't benefit me to treat this life like a shadow of something more "beyond the grave". Reality and the facts of it all point to this being the only existence we are going to get. Dismissing reality is the first cardinal sin against living a good, long, successful and happy life.
It also means that altruistic sacrifice (the relinquishment of a greater benefit for a lesser one) is contrary to living in this life.*
* A note here, our soldiers do not sacrifice themselves for a lesser value. They have either made a conscious decision that what they are fighting for is worth the possibility of death or they have weighed the risks and believe themselves to be skilled enough to survive where others will not. Neither of these is sacrifice.
So to get back to the deciding of what is moral or not; using these few points and many others that it would take too long to list I can, and you can, determine what is moral and what isn't, and we should.
More than that I believe that this world would be much better off if people would use the standard of their own lives to determine their morality instead of accepting someone else's definition, ideology or superstition.
Like Rand said. "The moral principle to adopt is Judge and be prepared to be Judged."
Actions can not be separated from their results, no matter if you claim compassion, humanity or neutrality as your excuse. No matter if you are an individual or a multi-national organization.
I have judged the Red Cross by their actions and I find them to be immoral, and evil.
*H/T Chris
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Time to Pay Up
UPDATE: Second Firm Pulls out of Greece , and the Greeks continue to evade reality...
This is the end of the road for socialized medicine.
Medicine just like bread, automobiles and bowling balls cost a certain amount to produce. That is a fact. It is not a construct of a company or a secret cabal of evil capitalists perpetrating a "brutal blackmail".
It is also not "a violation of corporate social responsibility" the company would not exist, there would be no insulin to buy, and no one to produce it if they (the company) were to ignore the realities of what it takes to produce this or any other product.
It is simply a matter of reality, things cost money, and nothing can be produced for free. Nothing can be supplied indefinitely at a loss. Yes, you might be able to supply it for a time at a loss but as less money comes in less product is produced and soon there is nothing and no company to produce it.
The decree by the Greek government that all medicine prices shall be cut by 25% (so that the government can continue to supply those medicines through the health care system) is a command divorced of reality.
There is a simple solution. Return the portion of taxes that each Greek pays into the health care scheme and allow then to pay for their own medicine at the market rate.
The Greek Government is not the only one to blame for this though. The Greeks have themselves as individuals to blame. Every time they demanded that their government give them more for less, every time they allowed another government program to supply for them something that they should have bought themselves. Every time they asked for more pay and less work, every demand to feather their social safety net led to this.
Reality can not be ignored forever, you may survive for a time while evading it but sooner or later its time to pay up.
Greece's bill is due.
This is the end of the road for socialized medicine.
Medicine just like bread, automobiles and bowling balls cost a certain amount to produce. That is a fact. It is not a construct of a company or a secret cabal of evil capitalists perpetrating a "brutal blackmail".
It is also not "a violation of corporate social responsibility" the company would not exist, there would be no insulin to buy, and no one to produce it if they (the company) were to ignore the realities of what it takes to produce this or any other product.
It is simply a matter of reality, things cost money, and nothing can be produced for free. Nothing can be supplied indefinitely at a loss. Yes, you might be able to supply it for a time at a loss but as less money comes in less product is produced and soon there is nothing and no company to produce it.
The decree by the Greek government that all medicine prices shall be cut by 25% (so that the government can continue to supply those medicines through the health care system) is a command divorced of reality.
There is a simple solution. Return the portion of taxes that each Greek pays into the health care scheme and allow then to pay for their own medicine at the market rate.
The Greek Government is not the only one to blame for this though. The Greeks have themselves as individuals to blame. Every time they demanded that their government give them more for less, every time they allowed another government program to supply for them something that they should have bought themselves. Every time they asked for more pay and less work, every demand to feather their social safety net led to this.
Reality can not be ignored forever, you may survive for a time while evading it but sooner or later its time to pay up.
Greece's bill is due.
Friday, May 28, 2010
McGuinty Plans Surgical Castration
ARTICLE
“The Ontario government is warning doctors that it plans to radically overhaul how they are compensated by paying more of them salaries – the latest salvo in its efforts to rein in the biggest contributors to ballooning health-care costs.”
Sounds like the McGuinty government wants to cut Doctors wages. What does that mean for those of us on the streets. What is that “savings” going to mean at the end of the line (our health care) vice at the start line (the bloated provincial budget)? You can choose from three doors. Behind Door #1 we have fewer people decide to become doctors in Ontario because they will have no control over what they are paid. Door #2 = Doctors stop working as hard because no matter how many patients they see or how many procedures they do they get paid the same amount. Door #3 leads us to an accelerated “brain drain” as more Doctors upon finishing medical school run to the US where they can still (for now) get paid more for what they do than in Canada.
If you guess all three then you are probably correct.
“The McGuinty government has already targeted generic prescription drugs and hospitals as part of a plan to get a bigger bang for its investment in health care. Now it is zeroing in on doctors and a fee-for-service compensation system that has been in place for more than four decades.”
Whoa! Wait a second… “fee-for-service compensation system”? What a ham-fisted attempt to drop the context of the entire issue here. It’s called PAY! Compensation makes it sound like some sort of government run welfare system not a persons honest work and effort.
Would you expect the mechanic at your local garage to fix 10 cars in a day and only charge for 5 of them? Would you trust your car to a mechanic that has been told (forced) that he will fix your car for a certain $value regardless of what is wrong with it?
“I think we’ve got some work to do when it comes to appropriately compensating physicians and others in health care for that matter,” Health Minister Deb Matthews told reporters on Thursday."
No. Government intervention and arbitrary establishment of pay based on political and budgetary concerns rather than value, skill and complexity is about as far removed from “appropriate compensation” as one can get.
“The majority of Ontario’s approximately 24,000 doctors are paid on a fee-for-service basis, meaning they bill the provincial health plan for each service they provide to a patient. But in recent years, some hospitals, particularly those in smaller, rural communities, have switched to a salary system for doctors in their emergency departments. As well, the 1,900 doctors who work in clinics as part of family health teams created by the McGuinty government are also paid a salary.”
Fee for service means if the Doctor works harder he is paid more.
What will the alternative mean?
No incentive.
Ha! These people are actually holding up rural Canada as a model that they are trying to emulate? Didn’t I hear something about a shortage of Doctors in Rural Ontario/ the rest of the country? Yes, yes I did.
“Ms. Matthews said she would like to see that compensation model expanded to include more doctors. She was responding to a report released this week by Toronto-Dominion Bank, which made eight proposals to wring more efficiencies out of the health-care system, including moving doctors away from the fee-for-service compensation model.
In a system where doctors are paid for each service, the report says, there is no incentive for them to measure the cost-effectiveness of their treatment decisions against the potential benefits.”
$5.00 for anyone who can make rational sense out of the last sentence. Are they really trying to tell us that a set wage will make Doctors think about the cost effectiveness of their work? Or is it that they are saying that Doctors will ration their services more? Pick and choose who gets their limited services from their limited pay.
“Robert Bell, chief executive officer of University Health Network, Ontario’s largest hospital, said the government has to examine the rapid rise in doctors’ compensation, which has far outstripped the increase in hospital budgets.”
Finally a sentence that gets (in an off hand way) to the root of the problem. It’s not that Doctors aren’t worth the money they are paid. Just ask anyone who has undergone a life saving operation. It is the arbitrary allotment of funds by a government who is trying to nickel and dime a system that has never worked properly.
There is no personal incentive in a government run system to innovate or to reduce costs. If hospitals were privately run each would be competing for customers and each would be trying to innovate to reduce costs and take more customers from the other hospitals. Yes, they might even reduce the amount they are willing to pay Doctors, but then the Doctors would be free at least to search for better pay.
Compensation divorced of effort, skill and quantity is a good way to castrate a system that is already suffering from financial erectile dysfunction.
“The Ontario government is warning doctors that it plans to radically overhaul how they are compensated by paying more of them salaries – the latest salvo in its efforts to rein in the biggest contributors to ballooning health-care costs.”
Sounds like the McGuinty government wants to cut Doctors wages. What does that mean for those of us on the streets. What is that “savings” going to mean at the end of the line (our health care) vice at the start line (the bloated provincial budget)? You can choose from three doors. Behind Door #1 we have fewer people decide to become doctors in Ontario because they will have no control over what they are paid. Door #2 = Doctors stop working as hard because no matter how many patients they see or how many procedures they do they get paid the same amount. Door #3 leads us to an accelerated “brain drain” as more Doctors upon finishing medical school run to the US where they can still (for now) get paid more for what they do than in Canada.
If you guess all three then you are probably correct.
“The McGuinty government has already targeted generic prescription drugs and hospitals as part of a plan to get a bigger bang for its investment in health care. Now it is zeroing in on doctors and a fee-for-service compensation system that has been in place for more than four decades.”
Whoa! Wait a second… “fee-for-service compensation system”? What a ham-fisted attempt to drop the context of the entire issue here. It’s called PAY! Compensation makes it sound like some sort of government run welfare system not a persons honest work and effort.
Would you expect the mechanic at your local garage to fix 10 cars in a day and only charge for 5 of them? Would you trust your car to a mechanic that has been told (forced) that he will fix your car for a certain $value regardless of what is wrong with it?
“I think we’ve got some work to do when it comes to appropriately compensating physicians and others in health care for that matter,” Health Minister Deb Matthews told reporters on Thursday."
No. Government intervention and arbitrary establishment of pay based on political and budgetary concerns rather than value, skill and complexity is about as far removed from “appropriate compensation” as one can get.
“The majority of Ontario’s approximately 24,000 doctors are paid on a fee-for-service basis, meaning they bill the provincial health plan for each service they provide to a patient. But in recent years, some hospitals, particularly those in smaller, rural communities, have switched to a salary system for doctors in their emergency departments. As well, the 1,900 doctors who work in clinics as part of family health teams created by the McGuinty government are also paid a salary.”
Fee for service means if the Doctor works harder he is paid more.
What will the alternative mean?
No incentive.
Ha! These people are actually holding up rural Canada as a model that they are trying to emulate? Didn’t I hear something about a shortage of Doctors in Rural Ontario/ the rest of the country? Yes, yes I did.
“Ms. Matthews said she would like to see that compensation model expanded to include more doctors. She was responding to a report released this week by Toronto-Dominion Bank, which made eight proposals to wring more efficiencies out of the health-care system, including moving doctors away from the fee-for-service compensation model.
In a system where doctors are paid for each service, the report says, there is no incentive for them to measure the cost-effectiveness of their treatment decisions against the potential benefits.”
$5.00 for anyone who can make rational sense out of the last sentence. Are they really trying to tell us that a set wage will make Doctors think about the cost effectiveness of their work? Or is it that they are saying that Doctors will ration their services more? Pick and choose who gets their limited services from their limited pay.
“Robert Bell, chief executive officer of University Health Network, Ontario’s largest hospital, said the government has to examine the rapid rise in doctors’ compensation, which has far outstripped the increase in hospital budgets.”
Finally a sentence that gets (in an off hand way) to the root of the problem. It’s not that Doctors aren’t worth the money they are paid. Just ask anyone who has undergone a life saving operation. It is the arbitrary allotment of funds by a government who is trying to nickel and dime a system that has never worked properly.
There is no personal incentive in a government run system to innovate or to reduce costs. If hospitals were privately run each would be competing for customers and each would be trying to innovate to reduce costs and take more customers from the other hospitals. Yes, they might even reduce the amount they are willing to pay Doctors, but then the Doctors would be free at least to search for better pay.
Compensation divorced of effort, skill and quantity is a good way to castrate a system that is already suffering from financial erectile dysfunction.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Why?
Why is it always a chore to get our government to do the right thing? Why is it that every Tom, Dick and Harry on the street from Toronto to Tuktoyaktuk knows what the right thing is and what should be done but our elected officials don't?
From Letting the Auditor General see MP's expenses to the Afghan Detainee "scandal" how come these people are so damn obtuse?
Are these "issues" some sort of political version of a head-fake? While we are getting the run around on a simple matter of transparency what else is happening?
We need a new way of doing politics in this country, and fast.
Fire. Them. All.
From Letting the Auditor General see MP's expenses to the Afghan Detainee "scandal" how come these people are so damn obtuse?
Are these "issues" some sort of political version of a head-fake? While we are getting the run around on a simple matter of transparency what else is happening?
We need a new way of doing politics in this country, and fast.
Fire. Them. All.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Forget the Colour of the Collar
Here is a question for you. What is the difference in principal between an embezzler and an unarmed bank robber?
What is the difference between stealing for a mob boss and stealing for a legal and legitimate organization?
The answer is of course none. There is no difference, theft is theft, force is force. So why do we have a distinction of "white collar" and "blue collar" crime?
Lady justice is supposed to be blind but do we as a society draw aside the blindfold just enough to let her know if the person standing accused has a good education or is more well to do? Apparently so.
The story of Benoît Corbeil makes that abundantly clear. The maximum sentence for theft over $5000.00 is life imprisonment, according to this chart, can you imagine our imaginary unarmed bank robber being sentenced for only 15 months after stealing $117,315? Could you imagine a judge entertaining an appeal on the grounds that such a sentence was "too onerous"?
It's time to put the blindfold back on Lady Justice and start handing out sentences for theft that reflect the actual crime.
By the way Corbeil, as far as you loosing your job at Université du Québec à Montréal that is something you should have considered before becoming a thief and a criminal.
What is the difference between stealing for a mob boss and stealing for a legal and legitimate organization?
The answer is of course none. There is no difference, theft is theft, force is force. So why do we have a distinction of "white collar" and "blue collar" crime?
Lady justice is supposed to be blind but do we as a society draw aside the blindfold just enough to let her know if the person standing accused has a good education or is more well to do? Apparently so.
The story of Benoît Corbeil makes that abundantly clear. The maximum sentence for theft over $5000.00 is life imprisonment, according to this chart, can you imagine our imaginary unarmed bank robber being sentenced for only 15 months after stealing $117,315? Could you imagine a judge entertaining an appeal on the grounds that such a sentence was "too onerous"?
It's time to put the blindfold back on Lady Justice and start handing out sentences for theft that reflect the actual crime.
By the way Corbeil, as far as you loosing your job at Université du Québec à Montréal that is something you should have considered before becoming a thief and a criminal.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Come on Ladies
This article by The Globe And Mail spends a lot of effort telling us that the government is sorry that no women won grants to become Canada Excellence Research Chairs under the governments attempt to attract academic talent with the 20 million dollar program. But what really do they have to be sorry about?
The G&M themselves finds "No deliberate attempt to shut out women, but concludes the tight deadlines for the competition, the areas picked for research and a competition where candidates on the short list had only a 50 per cent chance of winning probably all worked against female candidates."
With the government falling over itself to make amends for the lack of women in what has been ruled as a fair competition, it has elicited the help of three prominent women academics...
Their recommendations include;
1.To include a rising stars category - this is apparently to offset the male domination in some fields... but if it is proven talent that the government is trying to attract then to throw money at potential ability is contrary to the point.
2. another suggested the inclusion of an "established leaders" category - hold on, If the complaint being addressed by point #1 is that there aren't enough women in some of these fields do they really mean that they want an "established women leaders" category?
There is a nebulous complaint directed at an academic old boys club and this is connected once again to male domination, not any specific misogyny. But the specific complaint seems to be that women were unwilling to try, and that is the real tragedy here.
As the article states;
"Senior women also may be more reluctant than their male colleagues to move for personal reasons or to enter a competition where the odds of success were 2 to 1, the report says, citing U.S. studies."
The question that ought to be asked is why are women unwilling to extend themselves to compete for an opportunity like this? There has been a human rights challenge to the fact that 19 male winners were selected and not one woman but is this a symptom of the problem? Do women in our oh so politically correct society expect some sort of gender based distribution regardless of merit, regardless of effort even?
Come on Ladies, you can do better than that!
The G&M themselves finds "No deliberate attempt to shut out women, but concludes the tight deadlines for the competition, the areas picked for research and a competition where candidates on the short list had only a 50 per cent chance of winning probably all worked against female candidates."
With the government falling over itself to make amends for the lack of women in what has been ruled as a fair competition, it has elicited the help of three prominent women academics...
Their recommendations include;
1.To include a rising stars category - this is apparently to offset the male domination in some fields... but if it is proven talent that the government is trying to attract then to throw money at potential ability is contrary to the point.
2. another suggested the inclusion of an "established leaders" category - hold on, If the complaint being addressed by point #1 is that there aren't enough women in some of these fields do they really mean that they want an "established women leaders" category?
There is a nebulous complaint directed at an academic old boys club and this is connected once again to male domination, not any specific misogyny. But the specific complaint seems to be that women were unwilling to try, and that is the real tragedy here.
As the article states;
"Senior women also may be more reluctant than their male colleagues to move for personal reasons or to enter a competition where the odds of success were 2 to 1, the report says, citing U.S. studies."
The question that ought to be asked is why are women unwilling to extend themselves to compete for an opportunity like this? There has been a human rights challenge to the fact that 19 male winners were selected and not one woman but is this a symptom of the problem? Do women in our oh so politically correct society expect some sort of gender based distribution regardless of merit, regardless of effort even?
Come on Ladies, you can do better than that!
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Why all the Fear?
The more they talk, the more I want to see, the more I think we need to see...
Why all the fear folks?
You know, I don't trust a single one of these people as far as I could spit a wet rat, and the second they begin telling me that I don't need to know what they are spending my taxed money on, well that really piques my interest.
It is our money, they have been entrusted to spend it wisely within agreed upon terms on agreed upon expenses. If they are doing that then they shouldn't mind giving us a peek. An honest man fears nothing, a criminal fears all, so I'll ask again...
Why all the fear?
Why all the fear folks?
You know, I don't trust a single one of these people as far as I could spit a wet rat, and the second they begin telling me that I don't need to know what they are spending my taxed money on, well that really piques my interest.
It is our money, they have been entrusted to spend it wisely within agreed upon terms on agreed upon expenses. If they are doing that then they shouldn't mind giving us a peek. An honest man fears nothing, a criminal fears all, so I'll ask again...
Why all the fear?
Big Brother's Mascots
Well, what else would you expect from the worlds most surveilled society but Mascots that bear a striking resemblance to giant eyes perched atop disembodied eye stalks.
On a brighter note...
It's good news for the Vancover Olympic Committee. They won't go down in history as the games with the lamest mascots after all.
On a brighter note...
It's good news for the Vancover Olympic Committee. They won't go down in history as the games with the lamest mascots after all.
Push and We Push Back...
I wasn't going to get involved with "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day"on the 20th as advertised here, and elsewhere... That is until I saw this.
So here he is.
Although, as of yet no one has tried to do the same here I have no doubt that Islamofascists would try if they thought they could get away with it.
Regardless, here is a little bit of advice for any would be Islamic fanatics out there. If you try to push your nonsense onto our way of life, if you try for the sake of stupid superstition to limit our freedoms, if you threaten and if you cajole... we will push back. And you will loose.
By the way... my response is the same to Christian fanatics that want to force their particular brand of stupidity down our throats.
Believe what you want, that is your right but your right ends where my right begins.
So here he is.
Although, as of yet no one has tried to do the same here I have no doubt that Islamofascists would try if they thought they could get away with it. Regardless, here is a little bit of advice for any would be Islamic fanatics out there. If you try to push your nonsense onto our way of life, if you try for the sake of stupid superstition to limit our freedoms, if you threaten and if you cajole... we will push back. And you will loose.
By the way... my response is the same to Christian fanatics that want to force their particular brand of stupidity down our throats.
Believe what you want, that is your right but your right ends where my right begins.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Ponzi Statism
According to Wikipedia...
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going."
If you replace the promise of cash returns for government "services" then the definition above doubles as the definition of a welfare state...
A Welfare State is a fraudulent investment operation that pays social services to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The welfare state usually entices new citizens by offering social services that are either abnormally efficient or unusually inclusive . The perpetuation of the services that a welfare state advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from citizens to keep the scheme going.
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going."
If you replace the promise of cash returns for government "services" then the definition above doubles as the definition of a welfare state...
A Welfare State is a fraudulent investment operation that pays social services to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The welfare state usually entices new citizens by offering social services that are either abnormally efficient or unusually inclusive . The perpetuation of the services that a welfare state advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from citizens to keep the scheme going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
