Western Expresso

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

With all the hostile press/campaigns that new office on academy had I'm shocked they were able to so casually destroy that building without a lengthy consult process.

I just drove by it today and there doesn't appear to be a sign for a new building going up. Not much activity has taken place since it was razed (new parking lot for academy?)

I thought the same thing, but the only reason that happened with the doctor's office was because it was next door to Lindsey Steek, and it was her that led the crusade against it. Funny how she doesn't give a sh*t when it's not directly next door to her. She's brutal. Talk about a hypocrite, why should she get to have a retail store Academy (in an old house, no less), but other people can't? I've heard nothing but awful things about her, even before that debacle.

[Ando]

What happened to the moderator who so zealously removed any mention of Elon musk but is allowing this political discussion about health care to continue for pages? Wish there was some consistency.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by Ando

What happened to the moderator who so zealously removed any mention of Elon musk but is allowing this political discussion about health care to continue for pages? Wish there was some consistency.

called working 12 hr days up north

[Ando]

I hear ya. And thanks for what you do.

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by Andy6

The “out of pocket” piece of the bar graph looks surprisingly similar for the two countries.

That's "out of pocket" AFTER what insurance covers. Which an American would have also paid "out of pocket" for, only earlier, and five or six times as much. AND they pay higher taxes for healthcare.

Originally Posted by Andy6

I bet the average CBC-listening Canadian would guess that the ratio between out-of-pocket medical expenses in the US vs. Canada was 50 to 1, or even infinity ... but the graph seems to suggest maybe 1.5:1.

No, 1.5:1 is about right. Americans pay 50% more for the same level of healthcare as Canadians.

Of course that's skewed demographically. Richer Americans paying more, while poorer Americans - or Americans with pre-existing conditions - go without and have shorter lifespans.

And no, Americans aren't getting better healthcare for it.

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

... because it does nothing to address the horrible care and high cost we pay here... regardless of what's done in the states.

Our care is roughly the same. Better in some ways, like overall life span, infant mortality, and cancer survival rates.

And "high cost?" Americans pay 50% more than we do, including higher taxes for healthcare.

Originally Posted by Wolf13

So why do so many go south for help?

That's largely a myth. The exceptions:

- Canadian snowbirds who get American treatment because they're living in Florida or Arizona.

- Specialized treatment like gamma knife radiation and proton beam therapy for some cranial tumors and specialized programs to treat severe brain injuries. With Canada having only 1/10th the population of the U.S., it's cheaper for the Canadian government to pay to send people to those clinics rather than set up similar clinics in Canada. (Winnipeg got it's own gamma knife a few years ago.) This is a function of population density. The U.S. and Canada could swap health care systems, and it wouldn't change a thing.

- People living along the border, for which we have agreements with nearby American hospitals to treat them. That goes both ways, of course. Like Sarah Palin getting her health care in Canada when she lived in Juneau.

- And yes, the very rich. Like independently wealthy Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams getting "minimally invasive" surgery to repair a leaky heart valve. Not only was the treatment available in at least four Canadian cities, but it was developed in Canada.

The difference: Luxury facilities. "If for example he came to the Ottawa Heart Institute he would be in a little private room where there's just a chair for his wife to sit on and his family [would]have to stand around the end of the bed. He goes to one of the American luxury institutions and he gets a suite for his wife and family and so forth."

Even proponents of the Canadian system will fully agree that the American systems is better for the wealthy.

Canada also has its specialties. U.S. insurers send Americans to Canada for hernia treatment using the Shouldice technique, for example. Also cosmetic dentistry and laser eye surgery. And of course Americans flock to Canada for prescription drugs and flu shots.

In the late '90s Ontario had to replace their health care cards because of all the Americans using fake cards to get treated in Canada.

Nearly 1 million people in California alone seek medical care in Mexico each year.

Originally Posted by Wolf13

The US system is NO solution, as they have a major pharma/insurance epidemic.

American healthcare and insurance companies are INVESTMENT companies. The shareholders, not the patients, are the customers. They have a Congressionally granted exemption from anti-trust laws that is the wet dream of every other industry.

And of course you won't see anything in Canada's public system like the CEO of America's United Health Group stepping down as CEO, due to his involvement in an employee stock options scandal, with a $1.1 Billion golden parachute. Not for a job well done, but for resigning in disgrace. The voters would freak.

No answering to the voters, the American system can simply, logically, "go where the money is." Service the wealthy, and who cares about everyone else?

[Stormer]

I'm not going to argue that the American Medical system is better overall, but to suggest that it's not better for those who have either have money or good insurance is ludicrous. And it's not just rich people but anyone with decent insurance, which is more than half of the people in the US. In Canada it doesn't matter how much money you have, you're not allowed to pay for better or quicker Healthcare. It's illegal for almost all significant procedures. In Canada you can pay for the best stylist to do your hair but not for the best surgeon to do your lifesaving surgery. I understand the public policy behind this but It does seem absurd on the surface.

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by Stormer

In Canada it doesn't matter how much money you have, you're not allowed to pay for better or quicker Healthcare. It's illegal for almost all significant procedures.

It's illegal for surgery. Pretty much everything else, you can pay for faster treatment. For *lifesaving* surgery, you're going to get that in Canada just as fast as in the US, and with doctors who are at least as good.

As for waiting lists, the reality is often much different from the theory:

The waiting list for sleep apnea testing in Manitoba for example is over a year. Of course I didn't wait a year; instead I was at RANA medical within a week. The overnight sleep/respiration/blood oxygen test cost me $196, and a CPAP machine cost me $2000. My private insurance through work paid for it, private insurance that costs FAR less than in the US because of what the public system covers.

That overnight test actually cost more, but the government paid RANA what it would have cost the public healthcare system had I waited.

I compared notes with an American friend. His insurance company made him wait for well over two years, insisting that he didn't need testing. When he finally got the test - that same overnight test cost his insurance company $7000 - yes, he needed treatment. AND THEN he got his CPAP machine right away.

So despite the year-long Canadian wait list, and the American getting his treatment "right away" on paper at least, I had my testing and treatment much faster than the fully insured American.

[windypeg]

As Wolf pointed out it's really doesn't make that much sense to compare the Canadian vs US systems and it's a little absurd how obsessed we are with doing that. Our system is a disgrace but the US system is not the solution. Both Canada and the US should be looking at the countries that do it right like Switzerland, Japan, Germany to figure out best practices. Instead we argue about which one of our crappy systems is crappier than the other.

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

It's illegal for surgery. Pretty much everything else, you can pay for faster treatment. For *lifesaving* surgery, you're going to get that in Canada just as fast as in the US, and with doctors who are at least as good.

As for waiting lists, the reality is often much different from the theory:

The waiting list for sleep apnea testing in Manitoba for example is over a year. Of course I didn't wait a year; instead I was at RANA medical within a week. The overnight sleep/respiration/blood oxygen test cost me $196, and a CPAP machine cost me $2000. My private insurance through work paid for it, private insurance that costs FAR less than in the US because of what the public system covers.

That overnight test actually cost more, but the government paid RANA what it would have cost the public healthcare system had I waited.

I compared notes with an American friend. His insurance company made him wait for well over two years, insisting that he didn't need testing. When he finally got the test - that same overnight test cost his insurance company $7000 - yes, he needed treatment. AND THEN he got his CPAP machine right away.

So despite the year-long Canadian wait list, and the American getting his treatment "right away" on paper at least, I had my testing and treatment much faster than the fully insured American.

In my experience there are many tests that take way too long in Canada, especially lab and pathology. In addition to surgery, and tests, seeing a specialist is the other big disappointment.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Wigglez

Eh, theres not really much to reply to your comment there Wolf13. You've decided to misquote me and take the casual dismissal of "crutch that a lot of leftists lean on." Of course you have also decided to provide no numbers/evidence/sources for any of your claims which I'm not surprised about. (for example, why are so many children with seizures being thrown on the streets in Canada without treatment??)

I suppose the only things worth commenting on would be

And what kind of classist nonsense is that? His "Audi"? it's primitive to constantly pit peoples' successes against each other to avoid discussions.

What discussions am I avoiding here? please do explain success shouldn't be condemned but avoiding social responsibilities while living in a society just because you believe you're above others isn't what Canada is.

My taxes go to roads I'll never use and people I'll never see (and since I guess you assume I'm a homeless "leftist" I'll haft to mention I pay A LOT in income taxes, that new Waverley underpass should be dedicated to me ), but those people my money is going to help will live a better life as a result. Not sure how that's "disguising it as compassion", that's a pretty narrow and pathetic way to view how a society functions.

Do you believe that all people that volunteer are just jerking themselves off and could care less about those they're helping? I'd ask you at my next volunteer effort but I suspect you won't be there

But as a few people have mentioned this is a construction thread for our 1 or 2 projects that don't have their own thread. No real reason to keep going as this will just devolve into your average twitter debate.

This is complete drivel much in line with your initial post, and you quite literally dodged every major item I mentioned claiming "no sources/numbers"... I cited personal experiences, should I have the Free Press and google verify that? Talk to people, talk to professionals. You'd be surprised.

If you believe you compassionately pay your taxes, and lots of them, fantastic. Any reasonable person can give out of their own pocket rather than the government doing it for them, not to mention their gross inefficiency for your dollar.

Maybe you've been all over the world, maybe you have not, but there are many societies that function differently from ours... you were the one to take a complaint about our high taxes and health care system (which far from every discerning Canadian is a fan of) and turned it into a character assault for being right wing. That's the discussion you avoided... you made a cynical assertion about someone's values just because they think our tax/health caresystem is flawed, which is what always happens in Canada... and the problems of our complicated tax system and horribly inefficient, low quality, yet "free and compassionate" health care system never get addressed.

And yes, when you tell everyone to raise taxes, you're telling them how to spend their money. For something that is theirs and not yours, it's a little bizarre. We ight as well fix what we're spending money on.

To suggest that someone wants to be taxed less and have a better health care system is inherently selfish and incapable of volunteering is beyond straw man. I've spent a lot of time helping others, which I realized is more efficient on a person to person level than through taxes. You've build a solid pedestal with your ideals.



Aaaaaand...

I've been responding as I went through your post, and helped devolve this into a twitter debate so I'll happily share the blame burden with you

[esquire]

Interesting point raised by someone123 in the Canadian skylines of the past thread in the Canada subforum... he mooted the idea of a maximum width for buildings to address the issue of single buildings that take up immense amounts of streetfront space, thereby deadening the area at street level.

We see this kind of thing commonly with new developments... pretty well any major new project downtown except for dCondo swallows up a huge part of the block that it sits on, and probably far more than it really needs to. Manitoba Hydro is a good example of a building that could have probably taken up half a square block instead of the entire thing.

Would a maximum width in relation to the building's overall size be a help or a hindrance in keeping that horizontal sprawl in check a little?

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by esquire

Interesting point raised by someone123 in the Canadian skylines of the past thread in the Canada subforum... he mooted the idea of a maximum width for buildings to address the issue of single buildings that take up immense amounts of streetfront space, thereby deadening the area at street level.

We see this kind of thing commonly with new developments... pretty well any major new project downtown except for dCondo swallows up a huge part of the block that it sits on, and probably far more than it really needs to. Manitoba Hydro is a good example of a building that could have probably taken up half a square block instead of the entire thing.

Would a maximum width in relation to the building's overall size be a help or a hindrance in keeping that horizontal sprawl in check a little?

Isn't it all about having active frontage. Regina downtown now requires this. You cannot just have a massive lobby. Also you can no longer have parking garage frontage.
Here are some excerpts form the Downtown zoning bylaw:

The zone provides regulations, development standards, urban design standards, and development incentives to facilitate and encourage developments that contain ground floor and pedestrian-oriented streets containing clusters of retailing, personal services, entertainment, eating and drinking establishments and an active 24/7 urban environment.

...

The façade is as interactive as possible at street level, through transparency, multiple entrances, and storefront and active uses;

...

Priority Active Frontage: Priority active frontages shall consist of Storefront Uses, public uses, or other uses. Patios and outdoor uses shall be encouraged to locate on priority active frontages.
(d)
A minimum of 70% to 90% coverage of Street Wall facades shall be clear or lightly tinted glass (Glazing).

...

On Streets with No Visible Parking new surface accessory use parking lots or above grade parking structures shall be screened by Storefront uses or other active uses along the street as illustrated in Figure 7.15.

[drew]

Originally Posted by esquire

Interesting point raised by someone123 in the Canadian skylines of the past thread in the Canada subforum... he mooted the idea of a maximum width for buildings to address the issue of single buildings that take up immense amounts of streetfront space, thereby deadening the area at street level.

We see this kind of thing commonly with new developments... pretty well any major new project downtown except for dCondo swallows up a huge part of the block that it sits on, and probably far more than it really needs to. Manitoba Hydro is a good example of a building that could have probably taken up half a square block instead of the entire thing.

Would a maximum width in relation to the building's overall size be a help or a hindrance in keeping that horizontal sprawl in check a little?

I don't think you could mandate something like this. Properties come in all manner of widths, depths and values.

Tall skinny buildings are inherently more expensive to build, as you minimize floor space and maximize exterior wall space, building services (elevators, stairwells, mech., plumbing etc.), while also complicating the structural design.

I would argue that current building code requirements for elevators, stairwells, exiting, etc. etc. have made building tall skinny buildings difficult, especially somewhere like Winnipeg where property values are not high enough and climate and geography are not in your favour.

[esquire]

^ Good point, drew. I was wondering if the economics of such a thing would be prohibitive here.

Maybe the compromise is something along the lines of what Stormer posted above... active frontage. In other words, tell developers fair enough if your 15 storey office building takes up half a city block, but you're going to have to put something other than blank walls or parkades at the base.

The concept needs to be simplified with some buzzwords that the public could easily understand and get behind, as council cannot be expected to lead on this issue.

[drew]

People have short memories.

Last year, outdoor work was great well into December.

This quick (normal?) fall to winter swing has caught lots of contractors off guard.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by drew

People have short memories.

Last year, outdoor work was great well into December.

This quick (normal?) fall to winter swing has caught lots of contractors off guard.

That would be my guess. I can't imagine it's an easy transition, especially with the fact that a general contractor will likely be trying to hammer out any enclosure, concrete or paving matters before it's too cold, and obviously glass companies have, well, glass openings to close. Perhaps Border Glass simply had to rush a few other sites briefly because 360 is already enclosed?

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by drew

People have short memories.

Last year, outdoor work was great well into December.

This quick (normal?) fall to winter swing has caught lots of contractors off guard.

Last year was an all-time record. We had the latest in the year first measurable snowfall on record in 144 years of record-keeping.

Other years we've had built-up snowbanks by Halloween.

[drew]

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

Last year was an all-time record. We had the latest in the year first measurable snowfall on record in 144 years of record-keeping.

Other years we've had built-up snowbanks by Halloween.

There hasn't been accumulating snow by Halloween since at least 2010.

I know this, because that is the year my son was born, and when I started caring about Halloween again.

Compared to at least the past 7 years - this fall has been noticeably colder and more severe in terms of snow accumulation.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

Originally Posted by Roger Strong

Last year was an all-time record. We had the latest in the year first measurable snowfall on record in 144 years of record-keeping.

Other years we've had built-up snowbanks by Halloween.

Last time we had snow on the ground on Halloween was either 2005 or 2006.