Jody Wilson-Raybould & Jane Philpott: Where do they go politically from here?

313 posts / 0 new
Last post
Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Capitalism

Correct. The longer version is that those who benefit most from the current system, a tiny minority, have outsized political power, and have managed to avoid policies which would clearly benefit the whole of society at the cost of some of their wealth.

JKR

Amongst other things, isn’t “capitalism” an ideology?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

JKR wrote:

Amongst other things, isn’t “capitalism” an ideology?

Yes, of course. But in this case, it is one which gives provably non-optimum results. No opinion required, except on values.

Pondering

JKR wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Private insurance companies have to charge premiums to create profit. Paying into any insurance means you are paying for someone else's meds. Pharmacare is a non-profit single-payer insurance program. 

It seems to me that for ideological reasons people on the left tend to support establishing new public insurance programs and for ideological reasons people on the right tend to oppose establishing new public insurance programs. In Canada I think there is a clear ideological divide on the issue of Pharmacare whereby the centre-left parties, the NDP, GPC, LPC, and BQ, tend to support establishing a new Pharmacare program and the right of centre parties, the CPC and PP’s tend to oppose a new Pharmacare program. I think most Canadians see this ideological divide.

Yes, but the evidence is clear that public insurance is always better and cheaper than private because there is no profit added on to the actual costs of administering the insurance, which is a well understood and easily managed task. A cost benefit analysis will always favour public over private insurance.

So why doesn’t universal public insurance cover areas such as pharmaceuticals, dental, optometry, and home care?

Because it benefits people over profits. That's why the Liberal's plan is just for people who don't have private insurance which isn't pharmacare. As long as people with more money are paying into the private system then "pharmacare" is just covering the drugs of people who can't afford private insurance. 

When medicare came in many doctors and hospitals supported it and still do because bills went unpaid. Pharmaceuticals, dental, optometry, and home care are profit generators because if you don't have the money you don't get the treatment. They get the money upfront. Doctors and hospitals couldn't not treat someone while they are having a heart attack and people could run out of coverage while in the hospital and unable to leave. 

Government is getting more involved in home care because old people are taking up hospital beds but can't just be released into the street to wander about confused or weak without any money. 

Hospitals and many government programs cover pharmaceuticals so a single buyer makes sense. Insurance companies like it too as it lowers their costs not their profits. Pharmacare puts them out of business in a key area that sells their coverage. 

Optometry won't be covered any time soon because it too is a profit generator with little to no risk of being left unpaid. 

We are in a topsy turvy world in which the general public is virtually brainwashed to support neoliberalism without even knowing it exists. 

brookmere

JKR wrote:

Amongst other things, isn’t “capitalism” an ideology?

Capitalism (without the quotes) is not an an ideology. It's the economic system which developed as a result of the end of feudalism and technological advances which made possible mass production and labour and resource mobility. Nobody sat down and wrote a book advocating its adoption. Adam Smith for example was just describing what was already in place.

On the other hand there is an ideology of "capitalism" which was developed as a reaction to Marxism, but this came much later.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I think that capitalism is an ideology started by people in power to justify their actions. Capitalism is the system that resulted from the British Lords stealing the commons and forcing the people into factory towns while at the same time saying they personally could not be held responsible for the actions of their companies, beyond the amount of their investment.

ideology

  • n.

    A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

 

JKR

Michael Moriarity wrote:

JKR wrote:

Amongst other things, isn’t “capitalism” an ideology?

Yes, of course. But in this case, it is one which gives provably non-optimum results. No opinion required, except on values.

What difference is their between “ideologies” and “values?” I think they are greatly synonymous.

cco

There's been a subtle shift in the use of "ideology" in popular media, pushed by "centrist" types. These days it's often used as synonymous with "dogma", an ideology slavishly and religiously adhered to at the expense of common sense – with the natural inference that only self-proclaimed "non-ideological" types, the Liberal Party people who believe in nothing but their own power, are truly enlightened and pragmatic.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

We are in a topsy turvy world in which the general public is virtually brainwashed to support neoliberalism without even knowing it exists. 

I think many people generally support neo-liberalism/ capitalism because they feel that it creates a great amount of wealth. I think that there is a lot to be said for that opinion. That’s why I generally support a mixed economy where capitalism and socialism are melded to offset the others weaknesses.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

JKR wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

JKR wrote:

Amongst other things, isn’t “capitalism” an ideology?

Yes, of course. But in this case, it is one which gives provably non-optimum results. No opinion required, except on values.

What difference is their between “ideologies” and “values?” I think they are greatly synonymous.

Ideologies are built as philosophical structures on the foundation of a set of values. In this case, the values behind capitalism are self interest and greed. The values behind socialism and other non-capitalist alternatives are empathy and sharing. I know which set of values I prefer, and I don't need a logical argument to make my choice.

JKR

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Ideologies are built as philosophical structures on the foundation of a set of values. In this case, the values behind capitalism are self interest and greed. The values behind socialism and other non-capitalist alternatives are empathy and sharing. I know which set of values I prefer, and I don't need a logical argument to make my choice.

Even though you don’t need a logical argument to support socialism, your argument in support of socialism is logical.   : ) 

Debater

Dr. Helena Jaczek, Ontario Liberal MPP between 2007-2018, who was also a cabinet minister, is running for the Liberal nomination in Markham-Stouffville:

https://globalnews.ca/news/5478902/helena-jaczek-markham-stouffville/

Pages