Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Compassion Liberal Style

It’s funny how words can mean different things to different people.

Take the word compassion.

To me compassion means feeling empathy for people who are enduring misery, or pain or suffering.

I, for instance, have great compassion for Toronto Maple Leaf fans.

For Ontario Liberals, however, compassion means something else.

Compassion for Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman means rejecting the lead of Alberta which is planning to give Albertans more choice when it comes to health care.

Compassion for Smitherman means patients suffering in pain must remain suffering in pain on long waiting lists.

Compassion for Smitherman means denying ailing Ontarians fast medical help, simply for the sake of socialist ideological purity.

In other words, Liberals are determined to be compassionate even if it kills us.

10 comments:

Miles Lunn said...

I suspect as people see that the reforms in Quebec and Alberta and hopefully soon BC won't mean the end of medicare, the Ontario government will look silly. I would say neither can be considered compassion, rather it is freedom vs. equality and off course the right tends to value freedom more while the left equality more. Alberta has enough money that even if the feds fine them, it won't make a dent at all so I would suggest they go ahead regardless of what the federal government does.

Clinton P. Desveaux said...

"compassionate" is leaving someone alone, nanny state is not "compassionate". New policy idea for you over at my place by the way about Employment Insurance.

Miles Lunn said...

I don't consider the nanny state compassion, but nor do I consider the free market system compassionate either. Capitalism versus socialism are different types of economic systems, while compassion is a feeling and is based on final outcome, not on the process. Capitalism and socialism are based on the process not outcome so there are compassionate individuals who support both systems and non-compassionate who support both. I am on the capitalist side and prefer freedom over equality but this is based on which system I believe achieves the best outcome, not on a difference of final goals from the socialists.

Ed Hardison said...

Miles , the current Liberal government in Ontario already looks silly .
They look silly because of their inability to look ahead to :
* the new healthcare options being explored by wiser Premiers
* the supply of reasonably priced hydro power to keep current industry and to attract new industry.
We do agree that there must be more private healthcare ...which will cause widespread panic among the unions . Our doctors are overworked because we have allowed our system to become a placibo to anyone with a hangnail , a sniffle or a headache. Real medical needs are lost in a sea of those who waste medical time because it is free and their right .
blessings from Virgil , Ontario

Jeff said...

It's funny that some of us are talking about freedom vs. equality. In my opinion, freedom IS equality. If everyone has the same freedom to give life their best shot, then they are equal. "Equality" in the liberal sense is precisely the opposite. It is the cutting down of those who are successful to artificially prop up those who are not.

Miles Lunn said...

Jeff - I was more talking about ideologies that outcomes. Lets separate process from outcomes. Most of us regardless of which side of the political spectrum we stand on generally stand for similiar outcomes. The disagreement is over process. When I mentioned freedom vs. equality, I was meaning in the sense of libertarianism vs. socialism/egalitarianism. Off course freedom means equality of opportunity, but those on the left believe equality means everyone is the same even if it means making some worse off. Likewise some on the left argue that anything involving money is not true freedom since only those with money can enjoy the freedom. I don't agree with this view, but I am not going to deny some people hold this view.

I consider myself an outcomes driven person rather than a process driven person. In terms of health care, I want a strong health care system which is accessible to all individuals regardless of income and provides top quality care in the shortest time possible. If this can better be achieved by having a parallel private system, which I believe it can, then I support it. Many on the right and left are too focused on the process as opposed to the final outcomes.

primvs pilvs said...

Why are the LIEberals in Ontario worried about money for health? They're stealing about a thousand bucks more from me and every other worker per year (after promising not to raise taxes). Were has all that money gone?

Ed Hardison said...

Way to go Miles !
We finally agree.
Let's have a parallel healthcare system ...works for me.
Smitherman has already proven to be a fool in MPP clothing .
blessings from Virgil Ontario;

Miles Lunn said...

Ed Harison - Why not let Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia go ahead. So what if Ontario thinks it is a dumb idea. If it works in those three provinces others will follow in time. Lets remember Medicare started out in one province, Saskatchewan, and over time other provinces followed since it was popular. I support a parallel private system, but I know you will never get all provinces to agree, but rather it needs to start somewhere. I am glad those three provinces are moving in that direction and I am positive others will follow in time.

Ed Hardison said...

MILES...we agree again....let the big three provinces, that are willing to see that the future of health care must include some private clinics , proceed .
Once the government changes in Ontario , we will be quick to institute our own " made in Ontario " reforms .
But I still care for integrity .
blessings from Virgil , Ontario.