Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Success: Toronto Star Publishes HRC Rebuttal Countering Dubious Napalm Charge

     

 
 Success: Toronto Star Publishes HRC Rebuttal Countering Dubious Napalm Charge
 
 

September 9, 2009

 
Dear HonestReporting Canada Subscriber,

Slanderous and unsubstantiated allegations are par for the course for anti-Israel protagonists. Be it an odious blood libel by Sweden's largest newspaper, Aftonbladet, which claimed that Israel was stealing Palestinian body parts, Hamas' allegations that Israel supplies "aphrodisiac" gum to corrupt the Palestinian youth, or recent accusations claiming that Israelis trained snakes to attack Palestinian farmers.

No matter how big the lie, there seems to be no shortage of these outrageous accusations. Sometimes Western media outlets give these baseless allegations credibility by giving them a platform, instead of doing necessary due diligence by fact checking these claims ahead of time to confirm or deny the veracity of the charges before publication.

Recently, on August 27, the Toronto Star gave letter writer Orest Slepokura a platform to issue his own baseless allegations. Responding to a column written by Rabbi Dow Marmur on August 24 about proposed Israel boycott resolutions tabled at the United Church of Canada's national meeting, Mr. Slepokura wrote the following:

          

His allegation that Israel, during the Six-Day War had "napalmed fleeing Palestinian refugees that included children" is malicious and unsubstantiated. It's true that Mr. Slepokura is just merely citing the work of A.C. Forrest, the one-time editor of the United Church Observer; however his book ("The Unholy War" available online by clicking here) cannot be viewed as a credible source considering his problematic past as an anti-Israel activist. (
Please see Haim Genzi's book "The Holocaust, Israel, and Canadian Protestant Churches," pages 109-169 and David Taras' and David Goldberg's book "The Domestic Battleground: Canada and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" beginning on page 86 for more information).

HonestReporting Canada brought our concerns to the attention of senior editors at the Toronto Star who agreed to publish our rebuttal to counter Mr. Slepokura's dubious napalm charge. Yesterday, the following letter submitted by HRC's Executive Director was published on the Star's website:

          

We appreciate the opportunity that the Toronto Star gave us to properly refute this egregious allegation. We also trust that Star editors will think twice before publishing similar missives in the future.

If
history is a proper indicator, there's no question that there will be more attempts by anti-Israel proponents to accuse Israel of fictional atrocities. Palestinian officials will lie, photos will be staged, newscasts will be fabricated, and the media will rush to report the "stories."

Please keep your eye out for the next Big Lie and join HonestReporting Canada's efforts in countering them.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 
 
   
 
 
Toronto Office: P.O. Box 6, Station Q Toronto, Ontario M4T 2L7
Montreal Office: P.O. Box 42508, Succursale Snowdon Montreal, Quebec H3W 3H7
Office: (416) 915-9157 E-mail: info@honestreporting.ca Web: www.honestreporting.ca

 

You are currently subscribed to honestreportingcanada as: pressing4truth.canada@blogger.com
Add info@honestreporting.ca to your email address book to ensure delivery
Forward to a Friend  |  Manage Subscription  |   Subscribe  |   Unsubscribe
Net Atlantic

Monday, September 7, 2009

Re: life expectancy

[This was written in response to a local American broadcaster who obviously had incorrect facts about the Canadian Health System.]

Our system is not free. But when paid through a group as you know, in this case the group is ALL residents of Ontario, those who are healthy pay just the same as those who are not. Therefore lowering the individual cost.

And it would be interesting to compare tax rates in New York state to Ontario. Unfortunately right now we have had a Liberal Premier who was never going to raise taxes [sound familiar?] and immediately upon election said that "things were MUCH worse than we thought, so we have to raise taxes BUT ONLY ....] Does that sound familiar?

[She said that our health costs are 13% of our GDP.] Now as regard to 13%, where did that figure come from?

From this wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada I see this:

"Health care spending in Canada is projected to reach $160 billion, or 10.6% of GDP, in 2007. This is slightly above the average for OECD countries, and substantially below the 15.2% of GDP taken up by healthcare in the United States as of 2005.[4]"


"Canada's healthcare spending is expected to reach $171.9 billion, or $5,170 per person, in 2008. Health expenditures are expected to be 10.7% of the gross domestic product"

"Canada has a federally sponsored, publicly funded Medicare system, with most services provided by the private sector. Each province may opt out, though none currently do. "

Hospitals account for the largest segment in spending at $48.1 billion, however, this amount is declining. According to the OECD, spending was second amongst other countries, less than United States and more than Norway, Switzerland and Luxembourg.[6]

Considerable attention[who?] has been focused on two issues: wait times and health human resources. There is also a debate about the appropriate 'public-private mix' for both financing and delivering services.

With our former Liberal government, it was taboo to even speak of a public-private mix. We already have that to some degree since we choose our own doctors. However that needs to be extended I believe to private clinics which can specialize in one area and become very good at it. To me this would seem to alleviate wait times since some would opt to go to the specialized private clinic for their particular specialty leaving fewer to wait.

Regarding sleep apnea, I got into a specialist in a short period of time. I cannot remember how long but it did not seem inordinate. The equipment was 75% paid for. I paid $250 for my CPAP machine. However I noticed that in Amazon, I could have bought a cheap unit for that outright or pay a bit more and get a deluxe. I think this shows that there is some padding of the price so that the paramed companies can make a higher profit.

"Canada, like its North American neighbour the United States, has a level of practising physicians that is well below the OECD average [21] but a level of practicing nurses that is higher than either the U.S. or the OECD average"

"
Although life threatening cases are dealt with immediately, some services needed are non urgent and patients are seen at the next available appointment in their local chosen facility."

"Some, especially in the US, see waiting as a form of government rationing. Canadians, however, see it as a fairer form of allocation of available resources than the system in place before Medicare, when lack of buying power meant there were people who were effectively waiting indefinitely for access but could not get it due to insufficient insurance or other available funds. These people were never counted in any official way and their waiting time was never measured. The queuing system is seen as both fair and transparent."


"The Fraser Institute, a conservative think tank, claims to do its own research and found that treatment time from initial referral by a GP through consultation with a specialist to final treatment, across all specialties and all procedures (emergency, non-urgent, and elective), averaged 17.7 weeks in 2005.[43][44] However, the Fraser Institute's report is greatly at odds with the Canadian government's own 2007 report and must therefore be treated wth great caution as it is a fierce critic of socialization of health care in Canada."

K......... This is where some of the gross distortions that you or other conservatives in the U.S, get their stats. But you can see what the problem is with those stats by reading the example below.

"Canadian pysychiatrist Dr David Gratzer who is also employed by the libertarian Cato Institute was once asked by congressman Dennis Kucinich if he knew what the wait time for diagnostic imaging procedures such as CT scans and MRIs was across Canada. Gratzer began his reply "I can tell you what the Ontario government said it was for cancer and..." when Kucinich cut him short and gave him the true figure of 3 weeks, just as Gratzer was uttering the answer of "six months" to his preferred question. [46]Distortions of this kind and worse are often found on the internet."

K...., have you ever seen this before?
The number of Canadians seeking health care in the U.S. is very small compared to Americans seeking health care abroad. The Deloitte Center for Health Solutions reported that approximately 1.5 million Americans sought health care abroad in 2008. UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research reported a study by Wallace, et al, in which an estimated 952,000 California adults annually sought medical care in Mexico. Of these, 488,000 were Mexican immigrants.[60]

and

A 2002 study by Katz, Cardiff, et al, reported the number of Canadians using U.S. services to be "barely detectible relative to the use of care by Canadians at home" and that the results "do not support the widespread perception that Canadian residents seek care extensively in the United States." [7]


"The Canadian health care system is often compared to the US system. The US system spends the most in the world per capita, and was ranked 37th in the world by the World Health Organization in 2000, while Canada's health system was ranked 30th. The relativly low Canadian WHO ranking has been criticized by some for its choice of ranking criteria and statistical methods, and the WHO is currently revising its methodology and withholding new rankings until the issues are addressed.[64][65]"

According to the OECD Canadians have a longer life expectancy than Americans.
Canada - average life expectancy is 80.4 and the U.S. is 77.8.

I certainly know that the stress associated with ability to pay for medical care, is totally eliminated as a Canadian because I know if I need it, it will be done and paid for.

So you are welcome anytime K. to talk to your husband and come to Canada for a few years as a diagnostic test of our system. Then you may feel qualified to write a book correcting the myths about Canadian health care. (:-)

By the way in reading that wiki I discovered that some provinces also include drug and dental as part of the care given.

With respect,
Charles G. Pedley
905-228-2161
===========================
200 Educational Programs = Less than $21 CAD - Excellent Software - Over 8 Million Users
http://www.schoolgenius.com
=======================
www.integrity-marketing.com
=======================
www.church-mart.com
=======================
www.church-software-store.com
=======================

VIDEO:Canada Human Rights

VIDEO of CTV PowerPlay Canada Human? Rights Commission?

Iranian S-Elections?

Evolution / Intelligent Design

Legitimate Questions Should Be Discussed

I am reminded of how established "science" has been wrong many times before such as in the case of Piltdown man. So could it be wrong now? Or has it been perfected? Should not reasonable arguments be considered?

We have become a nation of beggars

Terence Corcoran reports in the National Post on Friday, January 16, 2009 that the STIMULUS everyone is yelling for may only work over a short period and may actually MAKE THE ECONOMY WORSE over longer periods.

[Read the article below for the researchers who studied this phenomenon.]

POINTS

- "What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?"

- Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.

-One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."

-A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

-Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.

- What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."

The whole article by Terrance Corcoran follows:

Are you "shovel-ready," poised to hit the ground running, or merely desperate for cheap cash to get through the recession? If so, here's your last chance to apply to Ottawa for a piece of the massive government spending-bailout-infrastructure-stimulus operation now being prepared for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's Jan. 27 budget extravaganza.

To get you going, the National Post has created an all-purpose Stimulus Canada application document. Simply make sure your company/institution fills out the form here to get in on the action.

We're just kidding, of course, or at least we were until our satirical Stimulus Canada General Application Form was mugged by reality, which is rapidly turning out to be funnier than the fanciful idea of a government department called Stimulus Canada. To all intents and purposes, Stimulus Canada already exists.

Government money to flow, the taps are opening, deficits are no problem. The spending, as Stephen Harper said after a meeting with the premiers on Friday, will be "very significant" and there will be "very significant deficits." That could mean new spending of $20-billion and deficits of $40-billion.

Industry groups, corporate opportunists, charities, municipal politicians, arts groups, provincial premiers, tech firms, mining companies, forestry operators, banks, money lenders -- in fact, just about everybody has come forward to get in on Canada's portion of what is turning out to be a mad global government stimulus pandemic.

Each claims to have a plan or an idea that they say would produce jobs, spending, investment and activity that would get Canada through the recession and stimulate the economy.

At some point, though, the clamour of claims and calls becomes absurd, and that point looks to have been crossed the other day in the United States when porn merchant Larry Flint said the U.S. sex industry was falling on hard times, business was down 25%, and it needed a $5-billion slice of the $1.2-billion U.S. stimulus program.

And why not?

Mr. Flint has a point. It is not totally illogical for anyone to think that way. If you spend a dollar somewhere -- whether building a bridge or operating a forest company or buying a car -- it generates activity. And, after all, it's a grand old economic theory, created by John Maynard Keynes, that spending, especially government spending, rolls through the economy on a giant multiplier, piling jobs on jobs, growth on growth.

Except for one problem: What if it's not true? What if, as a wide and growing school of economists now suspect, the government spending and stimulus theory is a crock that is shovel-ready to be heaved out into the barnyard of economic waste?

The Prime Minister, in his comments on Friday, seemed to be riding right into the barnyard. He said the government would be simply "borrowing money that is not being used" and "that business is afraid to invest." By borrowing that money, and turning it over to all the groups and interests looking for part of the stimulus spending, he would be jump-starting activity while the private sector got its legs back.

Even disciples of Keynes, such as Harvard's Greg Mankiw, recently highlighted economic studies that show government spending binges -- shocks, they are sometimes called -- don't seem to help the economy grow. They might even make it worse.

One of the studies cited by Mr. Mankiw was by two European economists (Andrew Mountford and Harald Uhlig), titled "What are the Effects of Fiscal Shocks?" It looked at big deficit-financed spending increases and found that they stimulate the economy for the first year, but "only weakly" compared with a deficit financed tax cut. The overriding problem is that the deficits crowd out private investment and, over the long run, may make the economy worse. "The resulting higher debt burdens may have long-term consequences which are far worse than the short-term increase in GDP."

Two other studies point in the same direction. A paper by two economists, including the current chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, Olivier Blanchard, concluded that increased taxes and "increases in government spending have a strong negative effect on private investment spending."

Roberto Perotti, an Italian economist with links to Columbia University, in "Estimating the Effects of Fiscal Policy in OECD Countries," found nothing but bad news for Keynesians. Economic growth is little changed after big increases in government spending, but there are signs of weakening private investment.

What we all might logically intuit to be true -- spend government money, especially borrowed money, and you stimulate growth -- has long been thought to be a fallacy by some economists. That thought is now spreading. British economist William Buiter said the massive Obama fiscal stimulus proposals "are afflicted by the Keynesian fallacy on steroids."

Over at Stimulus Canada, Mr. Harper's plan looks somewhat more modest and Canada is not in the same fiscal fix as the United States. But Ottawa and the provinces are clearly ready to borrow big wads of money from the future to stimulate the economy today. It's money that is supposedly sitting out there in the timid hands of investors who will be repaid with tax dollars later.

But if that stimulus spending does not generate much fresh economic growth, and the borrowing chews up money that private investors could invest in the future, the shovel-ready brigades who get the cash today will produce only short term gains at the expense of the long term health of the economy.

Educational Purposes Only

All articles quoted here are for educational purposes only. Canada-For-Truth encourages you to read the original articles on their respective sites.
We do not necessarily agree with all links posted here but we include them to bring balance to an unbalanced media.