Thursday, July 30, 2009

Don't tell Mike Dukakis: Another patient sent to Buffalo from Ontario

The St. Catharines Standard ran a story on Jul.30, 2009, "City property manager remembered as personable and kind", regarding the sudden passing of St. Catharines, Ontario city staffer Helen Harris. Marlene Bergsma reported that Harris was returned from Millard Fillmore Hospital in Buffalo, and that Harris' organs were donated through the Trillium Network:

"St. Catharines city hall employees are reeling from the sudden death of the city’s property manager. Helen Harris, 52, died Sunday after suffering a stroke at a city property meeting Thursday night.

Harris was feeling unwell and left the meeting early, and was rushed to hospital that night, said her sister, Robin Begolo Goddard.

Once it became clear she would not survive, her family knew that she would want to donate her organs, Begolo Goddard said, and the decision was made to return her to St. Catharines from Millard Fillmore Hospital in Buffalo.

Her heart, lungs, kidneys, liver and eyes were donated through the Trillium Gift of Life Network, said Begolo Goddard, because Harris had made it clear she wanted to be an organ donor. “We all knew that about Helen. They got a lot from her, and we are so glad about that.”

Everybody who worked at city hall knew Harris because she was “so personable and such a generous and kind person,” said city treasurer Shelley Chemnitz, who was Harris’s boss.

Chemnitz said Harris’s death is hard on city hall workers “because it’s so shocking. I can’t recall the last time we had someone pass away who was working,” she said. “To come into work the next day and someone is no longer there is difficult.”

Chemnitz said Harris, who worked for the city for 16 years, managed hundreds of lease, sale and purchase deals on taxpayers’ behalf. “She had a busy and pressurized job but she was always so kind and thoughtful,” she said. “She was a professional in everything she did, but there was also a personal touch in everything she did.”

Her work in progress is being handled by staff in the legal and finance departments at city hall, including the acquisition of seven downtown properties which will become the location of the new Brock University school of fine and performing arts and the new performing arts centre.

“She was a consummate professional,” said Kerry Leask, a St. Catharines realtor who worked in the same office as Harris many years ago and became her friend. “She was very intelligent and very concerned about doing the job right, because she realized she was safeguarding the assets of the city. She really cared about what she was doing.”

Begolo Goddard said Harris met the Begolo family about 30 years ago when Kim Begolo and Harris were in a wedding party together. The women became such good friends they considered themselves sisters, and the entire Begolo family soon considered Harris their daughter and sister as well.

They sent and received birthday cards printed with “Sister” greetings, she hosted family gatherings, and was called “Aunt Helen” by all the children of the Begolo siblings, said Begolo Goddard. “She was my sister.”

Harris was passionate about gardening, cooking and entertaining, Begolo Goddard said, and she also had many good friends.


A memorial service for Harris will be held at 11a.m. today at First Grantham United Church on Linwell Road in St. Catharines."

*
Why was this Canadian, Helen Harris, in an American hospital in Buffalo?
Can St. Catharines Liberal MPP (and single-payer-pushing monopolist hack) Jim Bradley answer that question?

If Jim Bradley is afraid or too smug to bother answering, then why don't other Ontario Liberals, such as David Caplan, or Dalton McGuinty, explain?
Were there not any facilities in Ontario's Liberal -enforced health care monopoly available for this patient, when the patient needed them?

Once again, Ontario's Liberals export another patient to the United States - but will local monopolist Jim Bradley explain the details of why patients are regularly sent from Ontario to the States by his Liberal government?
Is this just another incident that Liberals want us to ignore, to downplay, to forget about; or, was this another so-called "Smitherman anecdote" in a Liberal monopoly riddled with similar systemic "anecdotes"? Shona Holmes was an anecdote, Suzanne Aucoin was an anecdote, the Coote twins were an anecdote, Lindsay McCreith was an anecdote, Charlie Godden was an anecdote... these were all downplayed and dismissed by smug Liberals as "anecdotes" -  but, these patients actually were victims of Liberal single-payer health-care monopolism.

Mike Dukakis, down in the States, believes it's a myth that Canadian patients (such as Harris) are being exported to the U.S. - he thinks this is a "fairy tale", that it's NOT happening!!
Rabid single-payer-pushing fanatics on both sides of the border are dumping all over patient Shona Holmes - another Ontario victim of McGuinty's Liberal health despotism (but, at least she managed to fight back).
Was Ms. Harris' situation different?
Why won't the Liberal monopolists now controlling Ontario's health care, answer?

Why is Buffalo's health-care - delivered, by the way, in hospitals that would be illegal in Liberal-run Ontario - the answer, time and again, for failed Liberal health monopolism? (see: Liberal Healthcare Duplicity)

I'm still waiting for MPP Jim Bradley (or his Liberal government) to respond to my request to provide me with figures regarding how many Ontario patients McGuinty's Liberals have exported to the United States for health care unavailable to them in Ontario, from 2003-04 to 2009. (On CFRB July 30, 2009, Toronto Star writer Tanya Talaga was interviewed regarding health care issues, and Talaga mentioned this very topic, about patients having to go to the States for treatment, because care was not available in Ontario; but she also wasn't sure how many patients were rendered to the States for care. Maybe MPP Jim Bradley, seeing as he arrogantly avoids answering me, can clarify this information to others. Come on Jim - stop hiding. At least, McGuinty's Liberals have finally bothered to issue their paltry defense in the Shona Holmes case. About time. Their defense consists of the same talking points which were given - and refuted - in Quebec's Chaoulli case.)

Will Jim Bradley's secretive Liberals be adding Helen Harris to their list of Ontarians who have been exported to the States for treatment - treatment that wasn't available in their health monopoly?
*

McGuinty's monopolist Liberals finally respond to Shona Holmes lawsuit

Romina Maurino wrote in "Ont. health minister defends system as gov't fights criticism by U.S. group", (CP, Jul.30, 2009):

"Ontario's health minister is defending the province's track record as the government fights back in the case of a Hamilton-area woman whose story has become a source of ammunition for critics of U.S. health care reforms.

Responding to criticism that some Canadians are forced to travel south to get medical treatment they can't afford to wait for, Ontario Health Minister David Caplan said Wednesday the province is proud of its publicly funded system and is working to increase access to care and lower wait times.

"We have a system that provides universal coverage - the flaw in the American system is that first they check the size of your wallet, not the size of your need," said Caplan.

"Politics is not something which is really helping patients in Canada or the United States, but it seems like this is the culture in the United States."

His comments come as the Attorney General's office filed a defence against a claim made by Shona Holmes - a Waterdown, Ont., woman who says that if she relied on her government for medical treatment, she'd be dead.

Holmes is featured in a TV ad campaign by Americans For Prosperity Foundation, a conservative U.S. lobby group that opposes government involvement in health care. In the ads, she claims she had to travel to an Arizona clinic for brain surgery in 2005 due to a six-month wait for care in Canada.

"Government health care isn't the answer, and it sure isn't free," Holmes says in the ad.

The video also warns Americans to reject Canadian-style health care, claiming that "many drugs and treatments are not available because governments say patients aren't worth it."

Critics of U.S. President Barack Obama's revamping of the U.S. medical system have claimed he's actually trying to adopt the Canadian system of public health care funding, and say that will lead to expensive, government-run programs that limit patients' choices.

While Caplan declined to comment on the specific case, noting it's before the courts, he said it was "unfortunate" that some senators in the United States have made false and unfair claims about health care in Ontario.

"What this shows is that when you inject politics into health care, people are not well served," Caplan said.

"It really should be based upon what is in the best medical abilities to be able to support, to be able to treat, and to be able to provide for the needs and well-being of patients."

The ad has drawn the ire of many Canadians, who say Holmes is being used to make Americans afraid of any change in their health care system.

One group on the social-networking site Facebook, which is called "Shona Holmes does not speak for me" and boasts more than 800 members, explains that "Canadians love their health care system" and urges Americans "not be intimidated into remaining with the status quo by the words of a woman whose experience and attitude is not shared by 98 per cent of Canadians."

On another group, titled "Let's deport Shona Holmes," members suggest she move to the United States if she believes their system is a better one.

John Carpay, a lawyer and executive director of Canadian Constitution Foundation, which supports the suit by Holmes and fellow plaintiff Lindsay McCreith, said he's saddened by the negative reaction, arguing that "it's not unpatriotic or un-Canadian to point out facts and to fight for change."

"It's disappointing to see self-described patriotic Canadians attacking a woman who has suffered a lot and who is fighting for something better," Carpay said.

"The fact that Canadians are dying on waiting lists and suffering on waiting lists and losing income from not being able to work because they are on medical waiting lists, these are facts which the Supreme Court of Canada (recognized) in 2005."

Carpay argues Ontario has "the worse legislation in Canada" in terms of restrictions preventing people from accessing essential health outside of a government monopoly, and dismisses suggestions that people do have the option to access private health care if they're willing to pay.

"What kind of an option is that - risk going blind, risk dying, or put a second mortgage on your house? That's a pretty awful choice," said Carpay.

"The problem is that it's illegal to purchase private health insurance."

Officials in Attorney General Chris Bentley's office confirmed court documents were filed but declined to comment because the case is before the courts, while Holmes herself is declining requests for interviews.

In the court filing, obtained by the Hamilton Spectator, the government denies that Holmes and McCreith were prevented from accessing timely treatment and denies claims that Ontario's monopoly over health services is unconstitutional.

The defence, filed July 14, is Ontario's first response to a lawsuit launched two years ago by Holmes."
*
What a joke Caplan's turning out to be. Typical Liberal, spouting typical tired old Liberal status-quo homilies. The old Ted Marmor excuses didn't work as a defense in Quebec's Chaoulli challenge, and, hopefully, will be revealed for the political fraud that they also are in Liberal Ontario.
Many Canadians are forced to obtain their health care in the States, because timely care is not available to them when they require it in Canada.
Local St. Catharines Liberal MPP, health monopolist Jim Bradley - who isn't afraid to inject politics into health care - is afraid to reveal how many patients his Liberals export to the States for treatment.

Niagara Falls Then and Now: the Loretto Academy

Beside Niagara’s sounding deeps,

Dark wooded isles and vine-clad steeps

Like incense rise the clouds of spray;

Where rainbows shone at close of day,

Thy children all with hearts aflame,

Sing to thy gracious, holy name,

Ave Maria Loretto

Loretto Sisters Academy school song, written 1894

*
Below: looking at the east face of the historic Loretto Academy, overlooking the Horseshoe Falls, photo probably taken Jan.11, 1938 or soon after. The massive fire began at about 9pm on Jan.10, 1938; note ice hanging off the burned roof. The cause of the blaze was said by the Fire Marshall (but disputed by the sisters) to have been a cigarette thrown down a paper chute in the south wing, as was reported in the Niagara Falls Review on Jan.20, 1938. The North Wing (at the far right) was relatively untouched after the blaze; this was was the oldest part, built in 1879-80.
click on photos to enlarge! above: Jun.16, 2009 - same view, the building now sits vacant on its serene lot. The roar of the Horseshoe Falls (which are literally below the front of the building, to the bottom right out of frame) mixes with the songbirds in amongst the mature trees here.

What a storied history this site has had: (see here; see here)

The first Loretto Academy was opened on this site, inside a former inn, the Canada House, in Sept. 1861, when the American Civil War was just starting.
*
below: photo of the Canada House, which was taken over by the sisters to become Niagara's Loretto Academy. The convent sold some of their land on the east side (facing the Falls) to the Canada Southern (later Michigan Central) railroad in 1861, using the money received to fund the construction of a new building. By 1880 this portion (which became the North Wing) was built. The North Wing (seen earlier above) survived the fire of Jan. 1938. (Date of below photo not known, from Francis J. Petrie collection.) I'm still unable to ascertain where exactly on the Loretto lands the Canada House stood, and, when it was demolished. Note that there are tracks seen running along at the bottom, in front of the fence, which could either be railroad or streetcar tracks. If these are railroad tracks, this would indicate that the front door of the Canada House (as seen below, at the right) could have faced east, overlooking the Falls, with the old Erie and Ontario / Canada Southern railway tracks running in front of it; and, that the road seen by the tracks could be the original Portage Rd. as it had been before the railroad widening eliminated the road (...which Harry Oakes had later rebuilt in the 1930's as a Depression-era make-work project).
Another possibility is that these were not railroad tracks, but streetcar tracks: this then could mean that the front door of the Canada House had faced north, looking onto Livingstone St. The streetcar line had once looped here at the Loretto, travelling from Stanley Ave., going east down Livingstone, turning left (north) onto today's Fallsview Blvd., where it ran for just about half a block, before it turned to the left again onto its own right-of-way, heading in a north-westerly direction back towards Stanley Ave. again. In the 1970-80's, this area was where the Niagara Falls bus station had once been located.
above: Jun.3, 2009 - a notice, announcing a June 8, 2009 rezoning meeting, sits by the Stanley Ave. stone gate on the west side of the Loretto Academy.
Three new high rise towers (a 57 storey hotel; a 42-storey tower; and a 32-storey tower) have since been approved for this historic site by the Niagara Falls, Ont. city council. The original building is to be preserved, but to what extent - complete building including its interior, or just its east exterior facade - is unclear.
Back on Jan. 20, 2006, the Niagara Falls Review reported that the Sheraton Fallsview Hotel, which sits directly next door, north of the Loretto Academy, had purchased the “rare Fallsview jewel” from the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary, an order of Roman Catholic nuns, for future development.
above: a photo from the Niagara Falls Review showing the proposed three buildings, set behind and beside the existing Loretto Academy building, seen at the centre bottom.
*
below:  the Dominion Awning Co. stood at 630 Clifton Ave. (which has been since renamed and is today known as Zimmerman Ave.) in the Bowen building; (not sure why it was called the Bowen building)
In the 1950's 'Ontario Aluminum Products' office and plant were located here, as seen in this Apr.17, 1956 Review ad:

The Dominion Awning building, seen in Oct.1946 below, was one of three buildings which had once stood on the east-side of the former Clifton Ave., between the Michigan Central Railroad bridge and Queen St.; today this area is the parking lot for the Happiness Inn. In 1938, prior to housing the Dominion Awning company, this building housed a firm named Benjamin Tents and Awnings, proprietor was Benjamin G. Schulze. The bit of the building barely visible at the far left (address in 1945 was given as 618 Clifton Ave.) was the Niagara Paper Box Co.

above: photo date unknown; this is the same (future) 'Dominion Awning' building, seen at the right. In the centre of the above photo is the Niagara Paper Box building (which in 1938 had its address as 622 Clifton Ave., not 618) At the far left was the Mack-Miller candle factory, at 610 Clifton Ave. Originally, these three buildings were factories of the Doran Brothers Dominion Suspender Company. I have not been able to find out when each of these three buildings were built, but the company was already at this location in 1885, until 1927. The date of the above photo could be from the 1920's or earlier, possibly still in the late 1800's, as there are no trees yet in front of the buildings, as would be seen later...
above: photo date unknown; this is a closer view of the Niagara Paper Box building (which was demolished Feb.24, 1965). It appears that the Dominion Awning building, which should have been visible immediately to the right, has already been demolished. Also, the building at the far left (the Mack Miller site) has had its second floor removed. Note the train cars on the tracks at the extreme left; and note the trees.
above: Nov. 2010 - this is the same view of where the above three buildings had once stood, now the site of the motel and its parking lot. The same bridge of the former Michigan Central railway is seen at the far left, crossing over Zimmerman Ave. It's a good bet that those two mature oak trees seen today at the left, are the same ones seen in the previous photo. Note the same limestone-block-lined road-curb, which ran along the street in all the above shots.
*
below: Photo of the first railway suspension bridge in Niagara Falls, located at the exact same spot where today's Whirlpool Rapids railroad bridge still is, at Bridge St. and River Rd. The lower deck of the bridge was opened for pedestrians and carriages in 1854; the first train crossed over the upper deck on Mar.8, 1855.
Prior to the Suspension Bridge being built, there was an earlier bridge at this very same location, designed by engineer Charles Ellet Jr. It was a temporary, pedestrian-only bridge, which opened in 1848. By 1851, engineer John Augustus Roebling began work on the 'new' Suspension Bridge, using Ellet's existing bridge as a scaffold from which to construct the new structure. By 1880, the wooden trusses, beams and decking were replaced by steel; by 1886 the original limestone cable towers were replaced with steel towers, but towards the end of the 19th century, the development of heavier locomotives and train cars necessitated the construction of a still stronger steel structure (in the form of an steel arch structure) which became the Whirlpool Bridge we still see today.
The date of this postcard below is not known.

above: The Suspension Bridge was once located where the bridge at the left is seen today: seen now on the exact same spot is the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge; it is still open and in daily use by both cars and trains, CN tracks are on the upper deck, below them is a road for cars. This view looks east from Niagara Falls, Ont., to Niagara Falls, N.Y. The Whirlpool Rapids bridge was originally called the "Lower Arch Bridge"; its name was officially changed on Aug.4, 1937.
The old Michigan Central bridge sits at the right; it is now closed, walled off, and razor wired to prevent border jumpers. (...it sounds so ancient to say that I had seen hundreds of trains over the years crossing that bridge, and heading along Palmer Ave. past Clifton Hill, and then towards the Montrose Junction. It was such a common sight that I never took a photo of these trains, though I saw them all the time...)  At the bottom right on the U.S. side can be seen a set of three footings of  Vanderbilt's original Michigan Central Cantilever bridge, which stood at this same location. Also running along the bottom (just above the Niagara River) can still be seen the track right-of-way outline of the old Great Gorge streetcar route.above: Same view, Sept.9, 2009; after having a coffee at Simon's Resstaurant on Bridge St. I walked across the street to take a photo of the Whirlpool Bridgeas it was undergoing some major maintenance work, with the steel beams below deck fully tarped over..above: same view as above (date given with photo was 'ca 1899', however, the bridge was built between Apr.1896 and was opened on Apr.27, 1897!)
This is the same view of the Whirlpool Bridge as it was under construction, designed by engineer Leffert L. Buck, replacing John Roebling's earlier Suspension Bridge.
This view looks from Canada towards the U.S.
Note the engineering feat, as Roebling's old Suspension Bridge (the steel towers can be seen [at far right], as well as the cables) was still in place and still in use as Buck's new steel bridge was being built from underneath up into it. The track landing alignment on both ends of the bridge did not change! The new Lower Arch/Whirlpool Bridge opened on Apr.27, 1897.
The above photo was most likely taken looking north from the track-level of the neighbouring Michigan Central Cantilever bridge. Note the MC bridge pipe-railing seen in the bottom right of the photo; and also a bit of the shadow of the MC bridge on the Niagara River, at the extreme bottom right! Note also that the streetcar tracks of the Great Gorge route are clearly seen on the U.S. side down along the Niagara River!
above: ca.1924 - this interesting view is of the second Michigan Central railroad bridge being built; this view looks west from the U.S. towards the Canadian side; in this instance, the Whirlpool Bridge would be just out of frame, to the right (north).
In the above photo, note that two bridges are seen: the older one (the original Michigan Central Cantilever Bridge) is seen in the left background, behind the new MC bridge, which is being built in the foreground.
As can be seen, the abutments of the old and the new bridges, on the Canadian side, were almost under each other; while on the American side the abutments were a bit further apart. This is because the new bridge did not exactly parallel the old bridge: on the Canadian side, the new bridge was designed to meet and align with the existing tracks exactly where the old one did; then, as the new bridge went towards the States, it diverged slightly to the left (north) of the original bridge.
Note in the far right distance, above, can clearly be seen the distinctive roof of the Customs and Post Office building on Park St. (click on photos to enlarge!)
below: Sept.10, 1924 - looking from Canada towards the States at the second Michigan Central bridge under construction. Note the steel girder being craned into position. Note a tiny corner of the original MC Cantilever Bridge is seen at the far right (south), showing how much further to the left (north) the new bridge was being built from the original bridge, as it landed on the U.S. side. On the Canadian side, though, the new MC bridge converged to where the old one was, aligned to meet the existing tracks.
above: Feb.15, 2009 - same view as previously above; looking east towards the States, standing just on the south side of the second MC bridge, which is seen at the left - this is the same bridge which was being built in the previous above photo. Now it sits rusting and abandoned at the left. On top of the bridge, in the upper left distance, can be seen a large razor-wired border wall.
The original Michigan Central Cantilever Bridge was torn down after the newer MC bridge opened, but the Cantilever Bridge's stone landing is still clearly visible, seen in the center-right distance on the U.S. side. The earthen track-embankment behind the original bridge landing (as was seen at the upper-right side of the previous 1924 photo) has long-since been removed. A highway bridge now passes over the site in the distance. The Cantilever Bridge's stone footings are also still visible on both sides of the river, down near the water level, as seen next below:
above: Feb.23, 2009 - same view as the two previous photos, looking farther down towards the Niagara River. The second MC bridge is at the left. The Cantilever Bridge's stone footings are still clearly visible, with a set of three bases on each side of the river, shown with the red arrows. At the top of the photo, the red arrow points to where the stone track landing structure still sits on the American side. Note on the American side the trail which is seen running along just above the river level; that is where the Great Gorge streetcar route once ran.

below: 1925 - in this great photo, workers gather at the center of the new Michigan Central Bridge, probably a celebratory photo after completion of the major steelwork. Note the rigger swinging from the crane! This photo looks southwards, most likely taken from the deck of the neighbouring Whirlpool Bridge; the Canadian side would be to the right (west). Note that there is a train in service still running on the older MC Cantilever Bridge in the background!
By 2001, after some 76 years in use, the 'new' MC bridge was closed and walled off, as the MC tracks were abandoned. I can remember when the trains regularly crossed this bridge!


 above: Apr.27, 2011 same view of the abandoned MCR bridge. At the very centre of the bridge, where the workers, proud of their achievement, had gathered for that iconic photo in 1925, there is now a chainlink fence running underneath the bridge deck, to prevent illegals from crossing the bridge along its girders. Another large black border wall was built across the bridge on top of the deck, as seen at the upper center-right.
*
below: looking at an A and P supermarket which had stood on the west side of Victoria Ave. between Willmot St. and Morrison St., as seen in June 1976. The store would close in July 1976. This A&P opened in Oct.1946 and its storefront was remodelled in June 1968.below: May 1977 - same view, previous A&P building remodelled; now Canada Immigration was in the back, Ceasar's Shoes was at the left and King Optical was on the right. The building burned in Jan. 1994.
above: May 26, 2009, the lot is now vacant. Note the same building (a former CIBC bank) can be seen at the far left in all three above shots.
*
below: date not known - Thompson & Norris Co; built in 1909 to produce corrugated cardboard boxes. Sold to American Can Co. in 1920 and connected to it by a skywalk for 59 years.

above: same view, Aug.31, 2009. This building is on the south side of  Lewis Ave., between Centre St. and Magdalen St.
*
below: 1919 - looking at a bucolic Dobbie Florists greenhouses, located on the west side of Victoria Ave., between Jepson St. and McRae St.

above: May 26, 2009 - same view, looking west from Victoria Ave.; the site is now a plaza; the church roof with the chimney (in the right rear) is visible in both above shots. Dobbie's former lot became a supermarket site (Carroll's); now seen the "old" mid-1970's building is being gutted and turned into a Shopper's Drug Mart.
above: Feb.17, 2009 - same view of plaza prior to renovation. Note same church in right rear distance.
*
below: date said to be Aug. 1976 - the original framing for the building, a Miracle Mart, later becoming a Hy and Zel's. This view is looking south-west from Victoria Ave.

(I question the date of this photo as Aug.76, because in the second below photo, dated Sept.77, we see the same building under construction from another view, yet the photos claim to be a year apart. Seeing as it would not have taken a year to finish the roof, one of these dates isn't correct.
Also, it is obvious that the supposed 'Sept.77' photo is definitely older than the supposed 'Aug.76' photo, because the '77' photo shows the steel roof trusses with no deck, while the '76' photo shows the roof deck already installed!! So, again: one (or both) of these dates is wrong)
above: May 26, 2009 - here the same steel framing is exposed again, thirty-three years later: the old facade has been fully removed, back to the original roof girders and columns.
*
below: date said to be Sept. 1977 - note the barn-roofed building, seen in the centre-left distance, facing onto Victoria Ave. This view is from the rear north-west corner of the lot, looking towards Victoria Ave. in the distance.

above: May 26, 2009 - from the same viewpoint, the yellow-roofed barn-style building is still seen in the left distance - this had once been an outlet of the "Red Barn" hamburger chain. The old facade of the building at the right was entirely stripped away in 2009 and the structure was almost fully rebuilt.
*
below: Aug. 2005 - Skywalker Jay Cochrane walks on a tightrope making his way towards the top of the Hilton Hotel; he walked the tightrope from the Fallsview Casino on a regular basis all summer. It was quite amazing to watch this spectacle. There was music turned up in the street below for his performance, when he was over Fallsview Blvd. the police would close the street temporarily. People at the top of the tower were there watching and waiting to greet him. Photo by R. Bobak.

above: Jun.14, 2007 - looking at the Hilton from the north, standing on Murray St. A bit of the Fallsview Casino is seen at the left. At the bottom is seen the excavation for the new 53 storey Hilton Hotel tower; the concrete forms have just reached the sidewalk level. On this site a stand-alone Denny's had stood previously.
*
below: Apr.20, 2009 - this is the same view as above, but now the building has risen way above sidewalk level. Here the new Hilton's facade is under construction. The tarp was protecting the stucco work.

above: same view, Apr.28, 2009, showing the progress on the stucco work. Older photos from the Niagara Falls Library Digital Historical collection archives. Recent photos by R. Bobak.
*
I hope you enjoyed this look back at aspects of old Niagara Falls.
Thanks for visiting Right In Niagara!
*

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Any wafer - thin excuse to attack Prime Minister Harper

CTV news reported in "N.B. paper apologizes for Harper wafer flap" (Jul.28, 2009) :

"A New Brunswick newspaper issued a front-page apology Tuesday for publishing a story that alleged Stephen Harper slid a communion wafer into his pocket during a memorial service for a former governor general.

The Telegraph-Journal said the article, which was written after Romeo LeBlanc's death last month, was "inaccurate and should not have been published."

The paper also apologized to the reporters who wrote the story, explaining that the contentious details were added during "the editing process."

After the story was picked up by media outlets across the nation, Harper slammed the story "as a low moment in journalism." He also maintained that he had eaten the wafer.

By Tuesday afternoon, Shawna Richer was no longer the paper's editor, and publisher Jamie Irving -- a member of one of Canada's most powerful families -- was also temporarily suspended, CTV Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife reported.

While Harper didn't immediately issue a response about the apology, members of his caucus welcomed the news.

"I think it's unfortunate, quite frankly, that this became such a cause celebre," said Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who also attended LeBlanc's memorial.

"I think when there's a misinterpretation or a misunderstanding of what took place, it never hurts to say you're sorry."

The article also quoted a Roman Catholic priest who reportedly raised issue with Harper's alleged actions.

"There was no credible support for these statements of fact at the time this article was published, nor is the Telegraph-Journal aware of any credible support for these statements now," the apology read.

Roman Catholics believe that the wafer offered during communion becomes the body of Jesus Christ -- something rejected by Protestants, who see the wafer as a symbolic representation.

LeBlanc, a former Liberal cabinet minister, died at age 81 in June. He was the first Acadian to hold the post of governor general, and he did so from 1995 to 1999."
*
The amazing thing is that an apology was even made! What a flap over nothing - needlessly overshadowing the story of Mr. LeBlanc's memorial itself.
*
see video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yp1Htm0dBs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2F74%2E125%2E47%2E132%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dcache%3AKXh%5FBA%2DSDq8J%3Awww%2Eggfc%2Eca%2Fliberalliar%2Eca%2F%2Bmcguinty%2Bliberal%2Blie%2BeHealth%26cd%3D5%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3D&feature=player_embedded

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Leftys are afraid of Shona Holmes' message

It’s astounding how those na├»ve/ignorant single-payer pushers in the U.S. still continue to regard Canada as their Utopian health care model. It’s like they just don’t understand that giving the government sole health control is a disaster in the making.

Just on Jul.26, 2009, the New York Times reported in “Obama Defends Proposed Health Office” that the "Congressional Budget Office said Saturday that a new agency proposed by President Obama as a way to cut health costs might save only $2 billion in its first four years, and that there was a high probability that “no savings would be realized."

No savings”… got that?!

And forget the 'probably' part – you can be assured that there will be NO "savings" - it's a non starter to have even been told (let alone believe) this crap!
There most assuredly will be plenty of costs, plenty of studies, plenty of new taxes, more deficits, and  corresponding coverage CUTS - much like happened in Ontario.
Patients will be trapped in a no-choice health monopoly at the mercy of a lying, cost-cutting, coverage-cutting, service-cutting, tax-increasing state-run health monopoly.
The Americans are now experiencing the ole 'Tommy the Commie Douglas' two-step that Canadians danced with forty years ago: lure the sheeple with grand health care promises; once the populace is dependent on your control, then - as the sole purse-string controller in your single-payer monopoly - use your health care control for political gain.
What do American single-payer pushing morons like Paul Krugman or Mike Dukakis or Dennis Kucinich not understand about this scenario? They find the prospects of this kind of power exhilarating! A deluded Dukakis believes it’s a myth that Canadians have to go to the States for health care, because when they need it, it is often unavailable in Canada! But, I guess this is what happens if you only read reports written by Morris L. Barer or Robert G. Evans or Ted Marmor... FLICK!
This is the whole point, isn’t it – of ‘liberals’ inserting themselves into health care as "saviours", as supposed “cost-cutters”, as phony "benevolent" providers, as 'we're gonna git 'em' anti-insurance company populists, as phony 'patient rights' advocates, bla bla bla – yep, heard it all before: but that isn’t the reality.

Why don't American single-payer nutbars have a look at the controversy in B.C., where again, on Jul.27, 2009, a single-payer, state-run monopoly, run by a Liberal government, is proposing to cut hospital beds, cut diabetes programs, cut operating rooms, and remove ER status from hospitals.
This is the same game plan that Ontario’s Liberals have also been playing – forcibly cutting health care budgets to ostensibly “save money”.
And this is what the single-payer-pushing Obamacare-hungry Americans want as well!? They should be heeding what their own Budget Office has just presciently said of Obama’s plan.

This is why the experience of Shona Holmes, who was victimized by Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario Liberal health monopoly, is, as Obama likes to now say, “a teachable moment.”
But will anyone really listen, mesmerized by all the 'single-payer is Utopia' bullshit?
Holmes’ attackers are plenty – because no single-payer-dependent ward of the state wants the victim to fight back.
It’s the Uncle Tom-ification of health care – shun, dismiss, and deride the victims of your own ideology when they don't play along, when they leave the club, when they stand up for themselves.

Suzanne Aucoin was in the same predicament as Shona Holmes, as was Lindsay McCreith, as were dozens of other patients from single-payer Liberal Ontario.
Holmes’ experience was not a one-off, as monopolists on both sides of the border want to believe. Holme’s experience was a manifestation of systemic single-payer health policy failure. George Smitherman, Ontario’s former Liberal Health Monster, er, Minister, under whom a lot of these patient-victimizations occurred, simply dismissed such cases as anecdotal. (much like Dukakis and other single-payer fanatics still do)

Another smug attack on Shona Holmes came from Barbara Yaffe in “Anti-medicare Americans cite Canada's system – wrongly”, (Vancouver Sun, Jul.28, 2009).

Yaffe dismisses Holmes as “a disgruntled Canadian embroiled in a fight with the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. The dispute revolves around funding for surgery -- for either a cyst or a brain tumor.”

Gosh, darn it, Babs – you’re right… she’s just a disgruntled, ungrateful, greedy turncoat, an ‘Uncle Tom’, ain’t she?
What damn business is it of Yaffe’s to question the cyst or tumour issue – whether it was for a cold, or heart surgery, or a burn, or a broken leg: what business does Yaffe have with another patient’s health choices? The point is that a patient should have the option - the private option - to provide coverage for themselves if they so choose, for whatever reason. It isn't Barbara Yaffe's, or Gordon Campbell's, or Dalton McGuinty's, or Jim Bradley's damn business. That doesn’t impugn or affect a government’s obigations to provide universal care. The problem is the single-payer lie that 'being covered' means you’ll also get timely care!!
For Canadians, that often occurs only by going to the States. Yaffe herself conveniently has a “knee-jerk aversion” to acknowledging this; underplaying the “government’s role” as a failing monopoly single-payer provider.

(While Americans debate "public option", Canadians should be debating "private option". The problem is that Obama's "public option" is seemingly becoming another euphemism for "single-payer", even though Obama has said that he's not seeking to emulate Canada's system. But, Obama, has also said 'if he could start again' (whatever that meant?!) that he would endorse a single payer system. Shona Holmes' experience in a single-payer regime is relevant to the American public in either event.)

By the way, Yaffe conveniently forgets to mention her own B. C. Liberal government's recent single-payer health CUTS ! Don't worry, Babs - your precious single-payer monopoly will victimize more patients, and spawn more patient-victims like Holmes or the late Suzanne Aucoin.
Yaffe can continue her pathetic career denigrating them and dismissing them as extreme examples. Yaffe can kiss Tommy Douglas's dead ideological ass, rather than acknowledge the practical consequences of Douglas's deathly ideology, which manifests itself as state-run monopolism in Canada.

Notice carefully how these slimy, duplicitous single-payer monopolist governments will incrementally CUT health care to their trapped sheeple - but NOT correspondingly CUT taxes! Notice they STILL enforce a MONOPOLY while at the same time CUTTING care.
Notice that the patients have NO CHOICE in the single-payer system.
Notice that single-payer pushers pretend that this never will happen! This is Liberal health care duplicity!

Oh, and when Yaffe writes: “Americans should be making decisions about their health care system based on fact -- not irrelevancies or extreme examples of what goes on in another country's system,” perhaps she should refer to Liberals, such as oh… Paul Martin, Iggy, or Dalton McGuinty, or Jim Bradley… who do nothing but point to the States, fearmonger, and disparage the U.S. system – to which Canadians are then sent, because single-payer couldn’t deliver in its own country!!

The "fact" is, Shona Holmes' experience was not, and is not, an ‘irrelevancy’, as smug shits like Yaffe dismiss it to be.

That’s the lesson Shona Holmes’ experience brings to the forefront, to those who bother to listen. This is why single-payer pushers are so dismissive of what she represents – she’s a victim of their own despotic ideology who fought back. She’s another Canadian hero, showing today how the deadly hand of Tommy the Commie Douglas can still pull patients to their graves.

Commie Douglas and his ghoulish enforcers are the extremists.
*

Monday, July 27, 2009

Niagara Snapping Turtle

While driving in west Niagara Falls, Ontario, today, we came upon this large snapping turtle sitting in the middle of the road, barely moving. No cars were stopping as this creature sat there, barely crawling slowly along the pavement. We stopped and tried to coax the turtle towards the grass; this took about 15 minutes! Though she(he?) was a slow crawler on that hot road, she was surprisingly feisty when first approached, her eyes were very aware and followed you, and she would always turn to face you and snap, so it was a challenge to coax this reptile across. Picking her up was out of the question; this prehistoric-looking creature strangely had a swarm of flies and wasps(!?) buzzing around it. She was surprisingly quick to suddenly shoot her head out and snap, and her neck was quite powerful and long too. Her barbed tail and large claws on all four legs were quite fearsome, as seen below:
Photos by R. Bobak, Jul.27, 2009. Click photos to enlarge!
Above: This turtle had a pretty large mouth. The oval shell was easily about 14-16 inches long front-to-back; side to side the shell was for sure 12 inches wide. This was a pretty big turtle! Her tail was for sure another 12 inches long; it had a row of ancient looking triangular scales; it was very thick at the shell, then tapered to a thin point. Her head was at least the size of a pop can, maybe even a bit larger. When at first we hesitantly tried moving her physically, she felt surprisingly heavy; I'd say this turtle was maybe ten pounds.
Finally, above, she was coaxed into the grass, and we left this creature far enough that hopefully she would find her home pond and wouldn't cross back again. We coaxed her by waving a shirt in front of her, while standing safely behind her; the turtle would focus and watch the shirt, then snap at it. Everytime she decided to snap at the shirt, her whole body kind of bounced with a soft thud about six inches forward. The most disheartening thing was that passing cars did not even bother to stop. It is almost certain this turtle would have been run over.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Ignatieff pours revisionist syrup on his coalition waffle

During May 2009, revisionist Michael Ignatieff began trying to con Canadians into believing that he had had serious reservations about Dion's coalition coup attempt back in Dec. 2008.

Come on, Iggy, stop your flip-flop.

The Liberal/Bloc/NDP coalition document was signed on Dec.1. 2008.

No federal Liberal had the balls to stand up before the afternoon of Dec.4, 2008 (when the Governor General made her decision to prorogue parliament) and say "Hey, 'I’m not on board with this."

Some behind-the-scene Liberals waited until after the GG made it clear that the clowns of the cuckoo cobblition . . .

[the 'cobbled-coalition' - made up of Canada's Three Stooges: Larry (Jack Squat Layton), Curly (Separatist dupe Duceppe) and Moe (ringleader and circus-master clown-extraordinaire, Stephane Bumbledore Dion]

. . . were not going to get the keys to Canada's government as easily as they thought they would.

So, where was Iggy when his Liberal party was performing political fellatio on the separatists and socialists in order to grab the reins of power?

Iggy didn’t protest - he and Bob Rae coyly hedged their bets - they claimed they supported their leader Moe, er, Dion, then they retired into the woodwork to watch the fallout.

So, when exactly was Iggy on record as not having agreed to go along with Dion's gambit?

Iggy willingly signed Dion's coalition agreement - and then, Iggy was conspicuously MIA for about four days! Supportive when necessary, but not necessarily supportive, eh, Iggy? Yep - clear as Liberal mud.

Where the hell were Iggy's so-called 'reservations' about Dion's coalition then?! If he had any second thoughts - as Iggy wants us now to believe - then why did he sign and support Dion's plan? Why did Iggy not stop it? Or present another scenario of his own? Or simply act honestly and clearly say: 'No - I can't support this' ?

Iggy - you had a choice.

By Dec.5, 2008 (the day after the GG's decision) Dion's little junta became toast, and for all intents and purposes, began disintegrating, although Liberals at the time still vowed they'd fight on... bla... bla... bla... but it was over, as we now can see in retrospect. However, Iggy was still using his 'My view is perfectly clear... coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition' line, on Dec.7, 2008 (with Michael Enright, CBC). "Clear", Iggy? Clear as mud. As clear as Iggy's trite 'the coalition was a means, and it was an end' double-speak.

Iggy's backroomers were already scheming to oust Dion; Dion announced on Dec.8, 2008 that he's quitting as Liberal leader; on Dec. 10, 2008, Iggy was acclaimed as the Liberal leader.

(Let's not forget, though, that Dion, back on Oct.20, 2008, had already announced his intention to resign as Liberal leader in May of 2009.
Dion had made this decision shortly after his Liberals got their ass kicked in the federal election, losing 19 seats and receiving only 26 per cent of the popular vote!
So Dion's previously-announced departure date was simply sped up when he quit on Dec.8, 2008.
Looking at this timeline in retrospect, Dion's coalition attempt was clearly a desperate, last-minute, opportunistic attempt to steal power. Let's always remember: Michael Ignatieff went along on Dion's coalition ride as a willing accomplice.)

But by the spring of 2009, only a few months later, Iggy wants some kind of Dion-style-'Can-I-have-a-do-over'; he somehow wants to rewrite, recast, reconsider, or revise his role in that whole unsavoury episode, and tries to portray to Canadians that he was somehow against Dion’s cuckoo coup-attempt: but that was just not so!

The Liberals, including Iggy and Rae, didn’t mind Dion's gamble, and willingly took the chance that Canada be sacrificed to this coalition of separatists and socialists for the expediency of a power-hungry Liberal party.

No Liberals - especially Iggy - protested a deluded-Dion's disastrous coalition plan. It's worthy to ask: Where was Iggy's much-heralded judgement then? Why is Iggy now trying to reframe what he actually did then?

When he could have, Ignatieff did not do what was right and call Dion on the folly of Dion's cobblition gambit, for the sake of the country, as Ignatieff now tries to spin it. Like a true Grit, Iggy greedily tried to keep his personal options open, despite sensing unease (as we're supposed to now believe) about the odious audacity of Dion's coalition.

Iggy - the two faced waffler - stood by his man on his reckless gamble. And this is the Iggy that wants us now to think of him as a decisive leader? Come on. Iggy threw out any principles he might have had when he greedily signed Dion's coalition papers.

Once again, don’t ask what Liberals can do for Canada, ask what Canada can do for the Liberals.

Over a $1.95/vote subsidy, the price of a cup of coffee, Canada's disgusting Liberals whored themselves out to grab power in the most vile manner they could - and this right after they had just LOST the federal election.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Yet another attack on Shona Holmes

(see: http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1826199)

Ontario citizen Shona Holmes was attacked in the press again, this time by Janet Whitman in her article "Obama health plan raises questions", published in the National Post / Financial Post, July 25, 2009.

Without any reasons given whatsoever to back up her allegation, here's Whitman's sweeping condemnation of Holmes' experience as a victim of single-payer socialized health care; a victim who fought back:

"Already, conservative groups have come out with ads against an overhaul, including a misleading TV spot featuring Shona Holmes, an Ontario citizen who says she would have died if she'd waited for surgery in Canada rather than going to the United States for brain-tumour treatment."

Is Whitman alleging that Holmes DID NOT have to go to the United States to obtain treatment - treatment which was not available in Dalton McGuinty's Liberal-run health monopoly?

What exactly is so "misleading" that Whitman here is alleging?!

Whitman smears Holmes without providing any damn reason and simply moves on! WTF? This is the drive-by media at work.

If anything, Whitman's own curt, dismissive portrayal of Holmes' case is itself "misleading" - and this from a so-called 'journalist' writing an economic report for the Financial Post. I think Post readers deserve better than this half-assed smearmongering from Whitman.

Mike Deluded Dukakis and Dennis The Witness Won't Respond Kucinich will be be proud of Whitman's effort to smear Holmes for revealing to a largely-ignorant America (and to an equally dim Canada) what Holmes had to go through in Ontario's single-payer supposed Nirvana. That Holmes sought and got treatment in the 'terrible' U.S. - because Ontario's Liberal-underfunded health monopoly failed her, is purposefully underplayed and overlooked by socialist health care pushers and their fifth columnists on both sides of the border.

It is refreshing to see that the Financial Post is not immune to different opinions - but, this was supposed to be a real 'news report', wasn't it? Reading Whitman's dismissive generalization of Holmes makes her whole report into simply questionable info-taiment. She was moralizing and personalizing her so-called 'news report' with her unsubstantiated comment regarding Holmes.

Shona Holmes deserves much better than Whitman's callous smear job. Like Jacques Chaoulli, Holmes should be a Canadian hero. I didn't see Whitman's scholarly analysis of Dalton McGuinty's health care lies , tax increases, coverage cuts and uninvestigated c. difficile deaths.

Holmes' experience is what Tommy the Commie Douglas fans want to suppress, ignore and disparage. They don't see her as a hero, but as a right-wing plant and a traitor, out to git da system dat Ole Tommy bilt. Many politically-retarded Canadians do not want any criticism being levelled at our single-payer health-scare monopoly. We just want to emphasize the 'good parts', wave the flag a bit, and to make us feel even better, to reassure our selves of our supposed superiority, we simultaneously dump on the American system (...to which many Canadians must go!)

Americans have no reason to fear Holmes - they should have the opportunity to examine what "single-payer" state-run health monopolism really is. Americans should question the shit-hole health care monopoly run by Dalton McGuinty's secretive health-cutting monopolists in Liberal No Patient Choice Ontario. Americans should realize that their system is Canada's not-so-secret-anymore health-care safety valve, and they should take that into consideration when contemplating the repercussions and implications of Obamacare. [Seeing the Demotard's recently-exposed, chilling 'elderly counselling' Soylent Green-ification of ObamaCare, maybe it now will be referred to as ObaMacabre.]

***

(See: http://rightinniagara.blogspot.com/2009/07/another-lefty-attack-on-shona-holmes.html )

(See: http://rightinniagara.blogspot.com/2009/07/single-payer-sucks.html )

(see: http://rightinniagara.blogspot.com/2007/10/another-canadian-patient-forced-to-us.html )

Another lefty attack on Shona Holmes

(See: http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Canadian+health+care+hardly+Marxism+threat/1823845/story.html)
Another Shona Holmes bashing story, "Canadian health care hardly a Marxism threat", was written by Naomi Lakritz (Calgary Herald, July 24, 2009).

Along with the usual dumping on the U.S. system and the trumpeting of Canada's single-payer monopoly (Lakritz even trots out useless Liberal turd Ujjal Dosanjh: nuf said), here's Lakritz on Shona Holmes:

"The latest poster girl for the socialism-scaredy cat crowd is Shona Holmes, who re-mortgaged her Waterdown, Ont. home so she could spend $100,000 to get a growth near her pituitary gland treated at the Mayo Clinic. Holmes stars in an ad sponsored by Patients United Now, and she claims Canadian doctors told her a referral to a specialist would take several months. Holmes's pitch is ironically quite a nice plug for Canadian health care, because nobody up here has to remortgage their home or scrounge up $100,000 to pay for their health care. You almost feel like saying, "the defence rests" after that. Holmes also admits health care is "wonderful" in Ontario. Further, the Canadian health-care system prioritizes cases and people whose situations are dire do get in faster; such triaging is done every day with heart bypass surgery and MRIs. Since no one is privy to Holmes's health records, it's impossible to know how urgent her condition was. "

*

'The defence rests', my ass. We'll yet see about that!

Holmes got her treatment in the States - BECAUSE CANADIAN SINGLE-PAYER FAILED. If the United States system hadn't been available for Holmes, then what would Lakritz be proudly pointing to? That Holmes should have died waiting in Canada like a true Canadian socialist?

What a FLICKING joke.

Naomi's the one obviously playing the private-option scaredy-cat role.

Nobody has to pay here, eh, Naomi? How about all the taxes we pay and the health cuts we get - where's our choice to by-pass the state-run health monopoly's plan? Where's the choice to buy our own non-government insurance? Why the FLICK should Tommy the Commie Douglas limit any patient's payer or provider choices? Why is the left fearful of free-choice 'private option' in Canada?!

Albertans whine about Stelmach - hey, Liberal McGuinty in Ontario's doing the same thing - single-payer monopolist politcians have no competition and naturally do as they please. Why doesn't Lakritz ask for a competitive health system where there is no monopoly?

Shit, the noise and the narrative in Lakritz's article is the same standard garbage that single-payer monopolist fearmongers were using against Chaoulli. Lakritz probably thinks that the Chaoulli decision was anti-Canadian!

Some of the feedback regarding Lakritz's article was right on:

Anthony Oluwatoyin posted on July 24, 2009:

"Your attack on Ms. Holmes is cruel, unusual and foul. Any patient who even has to worry about the possibility of such a crushing bill rather than risk death on Canada's notorious wait list, commands our admiration and brings up our deepest sympathy. May our Good Lord bless Ms. Holmes as she moves forward. The fact is that Canadians have died waiting for care. The fact is that Canadians are dying on wait lists. The fact is that our Supreme Court has come down on the side of Canadians seeking some private relief to alleviate the pain and consequence of our wait lists. That's our very left-wing, feminist-dominated Supreme Court. The debate has nothing to do with Karl Marx. Incidentally, the adjective is "Marxist," not Marxism. The title of your piece should have been "Canadian health care hardly a Marxist threat." Perhaps you should be more concerned with basic grammar than shameless personal attacks on a brave cancer-survivor. Never mind what is going on in the American side of the debate. If you and federal Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, are so obsessed with American politics then why don't the both of you go back there?! Prime Minister Harper is focussed on Canada and making our system better. How dare you and Ignatief dismiss the tragic reality of even one Canadian?

*

The real tragedy is that, both at home in Canada and in the States, there are many such as Lakritz who think nothing of dismissing Holmes' experience with socialized medicine. We know what the dismissive crowd on the left says - why, it's only an anecdote, only a minority, a once in a million, an aberration, (as dipshit Liberal Dosanjh propagandized in Lakritz's story!). Socialism is good, because it only hurts some! The individual is not important!

It's disgusting how lefties have latched onto Holmes with such contempt. I'm reminded of radio host Carol Mott's recent reaction to Holmes, (see http://rightinniagara.blogspot.com/2009/07/single-payer-sucks.html)

Overlooking the basic fact that health care for Holmes couldn't be found in Canada, it is spun by Liberals as a SUCCESS of medicare!

When Lakritz insinuates that no one really knows how bad Holmes' condition was, she means: 'Hey, lookit, folks - maybe this right-wing fearmonger poster girl for privatization is lying! Maybe she wasn't even sick at all'!

Yep - disgusting it is - and Lakritz - the poster girl of liberal smarm - happily rolls in it like a pig in shit.

Iggy the carpetbagger has said squat about health care since he was parachuted into Etobicoke-Lakeshore. His big deal has been UI crap. Dion before him also said squat about health care - Bumbledore's priority was fearmongering about global-warming. And Chretein - well, he was the classic do as I say not as I do duplicitous privatizer. Iggy knows Harper has done a good job. But which politician will acknowledge that Canada's health system needs competitive anti-monopoly reform, from the CHA down to each provinces' plan?

As for Lakritz's contention that Romanow's report be dusted off and implemented - GET REAL.
Honestly. Try Kirby's or Mazankowski's. Forget the socialism.

*

Another post was by 'Socialism fails' on July 24, 2009:

"Our healthcare system is in an emergency reorganization period currently. Any one who reads the news can see it. In other words it is failing. Why? because it is a socialist model. The proof? the budgets are balloning each and every year. The model does one thing well; it destroy the wealth that is dumped into it. It is not a sustainable model. Those who propose that it is a wondefull system sholuld note that line ups are a symptom, health spending is out of control, rationing is being openly discussed as an option based on lifestyle choices, severe restructuring is underway to postpone the inevitible and every one sreams the same thing; more money! Any thing based on socialism will fail. We can pretend to fool ourselfs that It can work but it will always be the mirage in the desert - it is a system based on theft and weatlh destruction. So keep calling for more money and more government intervention, it will only accelerate the problem; those dollars always come from the taxpayers pocket. We all get poorer for it. The solution will always be the free market. Let people choose instead of the government forcing thier product on us and then propogandizing to us on how lucky we are to have it. Truth be told, if the free market in medicine were to compete with the government forced model it would destroy the socialized model outright, thanks to the power of the consumer to choose. "

*
Let people choose? HAH!
Liberals operate from the smug standpoint that sheeple are incapable of choosing - and that only a Liberal knows what's best for them.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Three ER doctors leave Niagara Falls hospital - no comment from local Liberals Bradley or Craitor

Above: story "Falls' hospital loses ER docs" by Alison Bell, (Niagara This Week, Jul.24, 2009)
(click photo to read)
*
Why weren't local Liberal MPP's Kim Craitor or Jim Bradley interviewed in this story? Wow - it's like their Liberal health monopolism has nothing to do with the doctor shortage which just occurred before our very eyes.
You damn well know that if this had occurred while Bradley was in opposition, he'd be screaming his FLICKING ass off at the "Harris neo-con health cuts and resultant doctor shortages"!!! You know it.
Yet today - not a bloody peep from our local Liberal health care monopolists.
Nothing in the press here; no mention of any Liberal being asked to comment on the loss of THREE doctors in THREE months at GNGH.
Unbelievable.
'Oh we can't comment on this, it's a personnel matter' the Grits might say (if anyone were to ask, that is!!); but you sure as hell would see the Liberals commenting if they weren't in power, and this wasn't happening under their noses in their Liberal under-funded system!
Apparently, when Good Ole Jim Bradley was in opposition, why, there was a severe doctor shortage crisis (no doubt caused - yes, wait for it... by Harris neo cons!!! haha) But now, the press doesn't mention any doctor shortage crisis, and it doesn't mention any Liberal either!
Let's ask Liberal health monopoly-enforcers Jim 'I hate doctors' Bradley and Kim Craitor - or if they're afraid to answer, then David Caplan, or his boss, Dalton McGuinty, to explain what is going on here at the NHS's ER, and whether patients or service at the Niagara Falls ER could become compromised.
And what's this crap mentioned in the news report about changing the hospital staffing model, putting (forcing??) fee-for-service doctors onto the NHS payroll, thereby preventing them from speaking out in public against hospital mis-management?! WTF is this?!

Didn't reporter Alison Bell find this at all worthy of follow up - getting a response or comment from the local Liberal politicians, you know, the Liberals who claim there are no problems in their single-payer monopoly monstrosity?!
Was any Liberal even asked for a comment; were they asked, but then declined; or, were the Liberals basically hiding? Or, were they just let off the hook, with no one even bothering to ask?
Time and again , we see that Liberal healthcare duplicity is rampant. (see:
http://rightinniagara.blogspot.com/2007/08/liberal-healthcare-duplicity-ontario.html )
Ontario's single-payer status-quo sucks, as do the Ontario Liberals.
*

Obamacare is about killing grandma and population control

Brian Moore at The New Age Patriot posted this great piece about ObamaCare on Jul.24 ,2009

(see: http://newagepatriot.blogspot.com/2009/07/soylent-green-is-people.html) :

"Soylent Green is a 1973 dystopian science fiction flick depicting a future in which overpopulation leads to depleted resources. In the film, an aged character learns the truth about Soylent Green, a government distributed wafer like substance that is actually made out of human remains. The character decides he can no longer deal with the world, and states that he is "going home". By this, he means that he is going to sign up for government-assisted suicide. When the character arrives at the clinic, he is asked to select a lighting scheme and a type of music for the death chamber. After changing into comfortable clothing and being sedated, the character lies on a large bed and listens to soothing music while beautiful images appear on a large projector screen, ....eventually he goes to sleep and dies.

Obamacare 2009, could very easily be a precursor to such an event, minus the green wafers made out of people of course!

Today, several health economist are warning that the current health care reform, that I like to call Obamacare, could very well end up denying health care to a rather large portion of the American population, .....the elderly. The reason for this rationale is not based on conjecture, it isn't based on hypothesis and ....drum roll please....it is not based on some right-wing conspiracy to hurt the presidents image. It is based on statements made by top bureaucrats within the health care reform movement, most of which consider themselves "MODERN PROGRESSIVES."

In the medical journal The Lancet (January 2009 [PDF]) Obama's special health policy advisor Ezekiel Emanuel wrote that if health care has to be rationed, he prefers the "complete lives system," which "discriminates against older people." What the heck is the "complete lives system?" It is a proposed health system, that when implemented would give priority to persons age 15 to 40 instead of persons over the age of 40. Instead of "sickest person first" health care, like we now have in America, we would instead get "most substantial chance" health care. What does this mean?

Basically, it works like this, if a person is between the desirable ages of 15 and 40, they would be granted a higher priority than a patient over the age of 40. If, for example a 28 year old male and a 59 year old male both needed a liver transplant, the 28 year old would receive priority, regardless of who needed the transplant the most. The reason for this determination would be that the "younger" patient has more "profitable" years to offer to society and would therefore be deemed more deserving of the operation. Furthermore, statistics would also show that the younger patient would probably recover quicker and have less complications.

Just in case, you have any doubts about Emanuel's position regarding this "new, more progressive" health care approach, consider these comments.

Emanuel suggested that health care SHOULD NOT be guaranteed to "individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens." He said "an obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."

Notice the use of the words, Participating Citizens The obvious question here should be.......Who are these "participating citizens" and who gets to decide their status? Dr. Devon Herrick, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, says Emanuel believes young adults should be given preferential care over seniors because they have more years of their life ahead of them.

Herrrick says, "I guess the implication of that is if you're older, you will be assumed to have lived a complete life; whereas if you're younger, you'd have yet to live a complete life," Herrick suggests. "So in a way I kind of see it as a method to ration care to the elderly, but trying to use an ethicist's view to justify it."


The following chart, at the bottom of the blog..." {note: click above link to Moore's blog} "... demonstrates the probability of receiving medical intervention, based on the age of a person. The peak years for receiving intervention would be between the ages of 15 and 40, apparently the years in which we are the most "participating citizen." If anything, this chart proves that Obamacare is anything BUT free health care for all.

Under the proposed health care plan, instead of the doctor determining what is best care for the patient, the government will make the decision based on what is best for the "collective" This madness that is being proposed by the president is not about "free" health care, it is not about "helping" the less fortunate, it is not about regulating the industry, it is about population control and it will eventually lead to euthanasia or as our friend in Soylent Green called it "going home.""


*

Is this not shocking? Is this the 'change' Americans were 'hoping' for?! Who the f**k elected grandma killer Ezekiel Emanuel? WTF?! This is heinous Liberal Healthcare Duplicity! (see: http://rightinniagara.blogspot.com/2007/08/liberal-healthcare-duplicity-ontario.html )

I wonder if Ontario's Liberals are eagerly looking at Obama's Soylent Green - esque plans?

You can just see Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal gang salivating at the prospect of easily cutting their health budget. Hmm... a single-payer state-run monopoly can sure save some money on health care - by just "insuring" the young and giving the rest the old Kevorkian send off. The Americans don't yet have single payer - but we already do: Ontario Premier McGuinty can easily add the "Complete Lives System" to his already-fascist Commitment To The Future Of Medicare Act. He's probably already looking onto it.

"Participating citizens" are chosen how... politically? By the patient's Democratic Party membership; by the amount of their last DNC donation? By who they last voted for? By a Soylent Green ObamaCare lottery? (hey, look: lucky you... you won! Here's your pill...) Single payer was sold as not getting a bill - not about getting a pill.

This whole 'what's best for the collective' thing reeks. But this will appeal to Ontario Liberals, just as it does to Demotards.

Ontario Liberals have identified that the elderly cost a lot - the next step is obvious - cull the herd. In the States, Obamacare first has to force the sheeple into a single-payer, no-choice health care pen (like in Canada). After eliminating patient-payer-and-provider options, next, doctors must be forced to become employees of the state. Once the sheeple have been forced into no-choice health dependence, run by single-payer despots, then certain sheeple can be chosen for extermination, er, "counselling", by U.S. government agents to do 'what's best for the collective'.

When Moore says this is about population control, he's right. Here in Ontario, the same global-warming bullshit, the same population-control fear-mongering; the same health-care-cutting duplicity has been a trademarked belief of local St. Catharines Liberal MPP Jim Bradley.

Why, Canada's Tommy the Commie Douglas (Keifer's grandpappy), the socialist who pushed Canada into the single-payer system that we now have, also once had the same "progessive" belief that the "subnormal" are a burden, and should be sterilized, or euthanized.

When you allow the State to be THE "single-payer", you are now beholden and dependent on whatever the state deems fit to give you, like here in Ontario. You then vote for Liberals (or Demotards) who now control your care (because they, not you, are 'the single-payer') in the hope that they will be nice and not cut the services they solemnly promised you would get!

But: the politicians will cut services, cut coverage, raise taxes, institute fees, and play with all sorts of variables. It's a make-work project for political leeches who insert themselves between the patient and the doctor, for their own political gain.

This idea of a state-instituted "complete lives system" is horrifying. The idea that the state (having rounded the sheeple into their health-care prison of single-payer dependency) can now determine by its own fiat which 'elderly' to help kill first: by rationing the care to the "younger", to the "desirable"; to the "more important", is shocking.

Man, just six months after the inauguration, it looks like ObamaCare has already jumped the shark.
*