Abbott and Costello Come To Ottawa

My recent post on our Leaders 'telling it like it is', gave me the idea to try it to the tune of Who's on First.




Abbott: Well Lou here we are in Ottawa - Canada's capital.

Costello: So where are the igloos?


Abbott: Out in the suburbs.

Costello: And the Eskimos?


Abbott: In the Igloos.

Costello: Don't they get cold?


Abbott: Of course not, they wear skins.

Costello: Naturally.


Abbott: Naturally what?

Costello: Naturally they wear their skins.


Abbott: Oh never mind.

Costello: So what's Ottawa known for Bud?


Abbott: Elections!
Costello: Elections?


Abbott: Ya, they have one approximately every year.
Costello: Boy they must really like them.


Abbott: No they hate them.
Costello: Hate them?


Abbott: My research shows that Canadians view them as a monumental
waste of time and money.
Costello: So the Politicians do?


Abbott: No they don't want them either.
Costello: So who wants them?


Abbott: No one does.
Costello: So why have them then?


Abbott: To break the monotony.
Costello: Boy they must be really board.


Abbott: With all the snow and cold there is not much else for them to do.
Costello: But have Elections?


Abbott: That's right.
Costello: So no one wants them but everyone gets them?


Abbott: Not a single person.
Costello: But they all get them?


Abbott: Very True.
Costello: To break the boredom?


Abbott: Precisely.
Costello: Precisely what?


Abbott: They have Elections to break the boredom.
Costello: So they do want them?


Abbott: Of course not.
Costello: But I thought you said they want them to break the boredom.


Abbott: That's right.
Costello: But no one wants one.


Abbott: Exactly.
Costello: Exactly What?


Abbott: Canadians do not want Elections.
Costello: But they have one a year.


Abbott: Annually.
Costello: Because they don't want them?


Abbott: Not one.
Costello: So let me get this straight. Canadians do not want Elections nor do their politicians
because Elections are time consuming and expensive. But they have frequent elections
because they are bored. And that's the way they like it.

Abbott: I couldn't have said it better.
Costello: ????

My apologies to those two great comedians.


"Galagher"

Worst President In The Last 100 Years - Proves Again Why

Sorry, I am not referring to Geo. W. Bush...

Rather, to Jimmy Carter.

A guy who has never met a Terrorist he didn't like.

And now, he finds opposition to President Obama to be raced based.

Imagine.

He spoke so convincingly of what a racist was thinking it begged the question of whether he speaking of his own personal belief.

Carter has had his time in the sun. It is long past time for him to ride off into the sunset.

Enough said.

"Galagher"

The 4 Canadian Leaders Finally Tell It Like It Is...

Behind Closed Doors That Is,



We often lament the fact that Politicians have great difficulty saying what they really think - that is to say, - telling the truth.



Let's go behind the scenes and see how they would explain their positions to their confidantes on whether or not they favour an early Election.



First, Mr. Harper:



H - I can just taste it. At long last I am within reach of a majority. Think what I will be able to do. If one of my Members screws this up by mouthing off- he's history.



C - Why Stephen, on T.V. today and you said the worse thing for the country at this time would be to have an Election? What gives?



H - Never mind the country. I want a majority and the polls say the time is now. Those clowns in opposition don't know it but they are just about ready to provide it to me. All I have to do is trick them into voting non-confidence.



C - But why would they be so stupid to vote non-confidence if it means you will win a majority?



H - Because, to a man, they are all prima donnas. I will just continue to humilate each of them and sooner or later they will crack and vote against me.



H - Get my pollster on the line.


Ignatieff



I - For the first time in a long time, I am free of propping up that pompous ass Harper. Do you know how humilating it has been for me this past year?

C- I can only imagine.

I - Now Layton has to eat crow. Did you see him in the House today - I thought he was going to throw-up when he said he wanted to make Parliament work. It was the first for him.

C- Ya, he did look a little green around the gills.

I - I just hope Jack can hold his ground now and ward off the Election. You certainly cannot count on the Bloc.

C - But Michael, you were quoted today as saying you wanted an Election at the earliest possible time. That Harper was destroying the country and time was of the essence.

I - Well that's partly correct - Harper is destroying the country but we are in no shape to have an Election right now. We are still in debt and only a few of our ridings have nominated candidates. Plus don't you follow the polls? We are so far behind the Tories that it will take a miracle to catch up.


C- Ya, I see what you mean. Those are certainly good reasons why not.


I - But that's not even the main reason. So many of our members have not qualified for their life-long pensions. You know the one that takes 6 long years to get.


C - that doesn't seem too long Mike when you see Nortel workers of 30 + years losing their pensions.


I - They could have become MPs like me.



Layton:



J - I can't take it anymore - propping up that pompous ass and his band of knuckle draggers.



C- But Jack, it has only been a day - poor Ignatieff had to put up with it for over a year.


J - Well it just cannot go on. It is so unseemly.


C - Why don't you vote non-confidence then; I would think the Bloc would come along.


J - Of course they would come along; that's the problem.


C - So you really want Parliament to work, just like you said today in the House?

J - Of course I don't, - never have. It's just that we are so low in the polls; we have to look up to tie our shoes. If an Election was to be held, we would not have enough seats left to form party status.


C -So you are worried about no longer being effective?


J - No not that - we are never really all that effective - the problem is we would lose our research money - we'd be broke.


J - I've got to speak with Duceppe himself, - we cannot risk stumbling into voting non-confidence - there is just too much at stake.



Duceppe:



C - Bonjour Gilles, how'd travail go today? I saw you on the television today and heard you say that you would do everything you can for the nation.



D- Oui, Oui - must protect Quebec.



C - does that mean you will vote for an Election?


D - Of course not. I think I can free up billions from the Harperites for our homeland. It is a chance of a lifetime.


C - So Harper really does not want to have an Election?


D - Of course he wants an Election - he just has to pretend he doesn't and through his pretending, we can squeeze more and more out of Canada.


C - Now I am really confused Gilles. Harper really wants an Election but he is prepared for appearances sake to pay - I mean - seek your support of his Government as if he was opposed to an Election.

D - You got it.


C - You're so smart Gilles - you should be Prime Minister.


D- Mon Dieu.

----

On second thought, maybe we are all better off not knowing the truth.

As I see it.

"Galagher"

How to Make Health Care Work - Anywhere - Part II

Health Care, Part II



As I mentioned in Part I, health care proponents for either public or private delivery should first be focusing on what the product is to be delivered. This is the critical missing element and fundamental flaw in the current debate.



There first needs to be a consensus on what is to be delivered.



Currently I estimate that Canada in total spends 40% of every tax dollar on health care. The sum has grown and will continue to grow annually much faster than the cost of living rate. We have been able to get away with that since we do not spend a similar per capita cost on our military as does the United States. But even in Canada we are coming to the breaking point.



How the USA can expect to adopt a system similar to ours with its huge and growing health care costs, in addition to its mammoth military expense, is beyond me. Indeed, from my perspective, with its trillions of dollars in bailout payments, I think our neighbour to the south is teetering on bankruptcy right now. (Something for another Blog)



Here is what I believe needs to be done:

• Develop a list of core services - starting from basics;


• This list needs to focus solely on protecting the citizen from illnesses that have potential to threaten one's life and to protect against economic catastrophe - illnesses such as cancer, heart, alzheimer's, etc., etc;


• Health care in relation to the items on this list would be available to all citizens - i.e. universal coverage, and would be paid for by the government directly to the service provider;


• Everything else would be left to the individual to decide whether to pay for his / her own private coverage - for things such as cosmetic surgery, birth control (abortions), knee / hip replacements, broken bones, day surgery and the like;
• Co-payment for visits to a Doctor (e.g. if a visit cost $50, patient would pay 20% or $10 and the taxpayer would pay the remaining $40).

Many will see this approach as being draconian but the fact is we as a society can no longer afford to pay the cost of entire universal care. In fact, we haven't been, since we have 2-tier health care now in many respects plus more and more items are being dropped from the list of insured care by the financially challenged provincial governments.

And, it will only get worse as our societies continue to age.

Simply stated, there is no other choice.

So we end up now with 2 glasses:

• Glass number one contains water representing the core services paid for by government and from which everyone drinks. Users give it a 10;
• Glass number two contains water representing the extra services paid for by the user him or herself which they too allocate a 10.

Once this is determined, society can get on with deciding how the above services are to be delivered. As you might guess, I believe fervently that they should be delivered by the private sector with government oversight. My main reason for saying this is due to the fact that dispensing Health Care is no different from dispensing Dish Detergent or motor vehicles - only through true competition can the consumer expect to receive a quality product at a reasonable price. Just ask General Motors.

More on the delivery aspect of Health Care later...

"Galagher"

How to make Health Care Work - Anywhere

Another 2 parter...

Picture this - 3 glasses - two full of water and one empty.

Glass A represents private health care currently available in the USA. The vast majority of American citizens drink from this glass and give it a grade of 10 out of 10.

Glass B represents the lack of health care for those 45 million Americans (15%) who have no coverage. Needless-to-say, this group scores their empty glass at zero.

Glass C represents the public health care received by all Canadians. The water tastes salty and the citizens score the contents at 5 out of 10.

In America, the experts ignore the fact that the majority - 85% are pleased with their private coverage and place their focus on the 15% that do without. Their solution is to have a public system set-up - like in Canada - for all Amercans. In effect, to turn the majority's glass of water from a grade of 10 to a 5. Rationing will result as will the lack of Doctors and other key health care providers and so on. Without competition, health care - like the sale of cereals or any other product, suffers.

The 15% though will be pleased since their score will go from 0 to a 5.

In Canada, our so called experts believe our public system is the best in world regardless of the facts which indicate otherwise. They continually shun a private system which would raise the water in our glass from 5 to 10.

But experts and proponents on both sides of the health care issue in both countries have it wrong. They trying to determine which is the better system for delivery of health care - public or private, when they should all be looking at what exactly is to be delivered under either regime.

My solution in part 2...

"Galagher"

Sports - We Have Gone Off Track Part II

For those of you anxiously awaiting part 2 - you may be in for a disappointment...

Why have sports gone off track?

Because governments have gone off track.

Starting with the Olympics.

From my perspective they have less to do with sport than they do with politics.

Countless billions are spent by the economic elite countries in their quest to buy medals.

A handful of Amateurs are transformed into professionals with government support.

Billions are spent by the Host Country in a bid to outdo its predecessor.

What to do?

First, return the Olympics to Greece. Make it the permanent Host and their costs will more than be repaid via tourists.

Amateurs should not be expected to be in constant training. If they feel it is necessary to do so to win medals - and it no doubt is - that is to be their choice - not their government's. Cut out the departments of sport and return the tax savings to 'you know who'.

If a country does not win a bunch of medals - it is not cause for the gnashing of teeth. Indeed, only a very few select countries really find themselves in the medal race and this is due to their financial prowess. Open it up and give everyone a shot at the podium. To me, it is the sportsman like thing to do.

Return the focus of sport to the population as a whole - children and adults alike.

Authorities in medicine are now saying that children born in this century will not live as long as their parents did due to poor nutrition and lack of physical activity. This is the first time in history that such a development has occurred.

We need to get back to basics.

Have sports run via volunteers and community associations. If it was found that some pay was required - hire students which would assist them in completing their studies.

One role that would fall to the government is the return of mandatory phys-ed in the schools. Plus credits should be given to all students who participate in intramural sports.

Plus school sports facilities need to be made available to the general public.

Society will be the better for it.

As I see it.

"Galagher"

Sports - I Think We Have Gone Off The Track

A two parter.



My grand-daughter enrolled in 'competitive' soccer when she was 12 or so. I don't know why they called it 'competitive' it was anything but - save in the mind of her coach.



This venture into 'competitive' sport cost her parents over $1,000 for the season - fees for the field, pay for the refs, travel costs, fees for this and fees for that. Even in the non-competitive leagues the cost for joining is in the hundreds of dollars.



When I heard this I was dumbfounded. So here I go...

"When I was a kid' - such a sport cost us nothing - save for a pair of $5 sneakers. The field was a free public school field and the coaches and refs donated their time. They enjoyed the fun as much as the players. When and if we travelled out of town - we all piled into whoever parent's car was available.



Children today do not need an excuse to avoid sports - there are plenty of distractions available, starting with the internet. Cost should simply not enter into it.



We came to our various sports prepared - we brought our own gloves, bats, balls, skates and sticks. And we did our own preparation - lining the fields, cleaning the ice and so on.



Everyone took part, at least for the boys. Girls in sports being a recent development. And about time too.



There was Newt, one of our town's few Aboriginals. We never thought of him as different in any way - but we knew he could run circles around the rest of us. He was perpetual motion.



And Covell who had a wicked curve ball. And Dougall. I often played first in baseball and Dougall played Short Stop - I did not often flinch when I caught the ball at first, but I inevitably did when he was the thrower. Smoke steamed off my glove.



When it wasn't organized play - we often gathered for pick-up games - Johnny, Dave, George, Newt, Coop, Randy, Fownsy, the Hamiltons, the Lyles, and so on. Everyone who showed up got to play and no one had a weight problem back in then.



We also had mandatory physical education -Every day. I remember we had a fellow in our class named Glen. He was a farm lad who could kick a football the length of the field. Being on a farm, he never had the chance to play organized games or even pick-up games for that matter. Glen was far too busy working. And much to the chagrin of our coach.

Us townies who did play though did not need the latest in equipment. Old hand-me-downs were quite sufficient or we simply went without. Our parents generation even had less. Fields were not pristine - nor did they need to be. These were just games afterall - not tryouts for the pros. Refs and Umps were simply parents sans the need for 12 levels of training.

Today's kids are lumbered down with so much equipment that he or she can barely move. And the cost for this stuff makes the registration fees look cheap. Why the old 5 dollar runners now cost in excess of many dress shoes.

I mentioned that obesity was not the issue it is today, nor were the rates of diabetes nor were other health and fitness problems evident as they now are. It is not all due to lack of participation in sports but it is a major factor.

We have gone off track when it comes to sports: it needs to be free, universal, and above all fun.

More on this in part 2....

"Galagher"