Saturday, April 22, 2017
Norm Farrell on the Site C Dam and the privatization of health care
Readers have sent in links to two interesting posts on Norm Farrell's blog called In Sights. I have kept a pretty neutral stance on the Site C dam myself because I'm from Vancouver. I support hydro electric power. It is cost effective and environmentally friendly. They are a lot better than nuclear reactors. Yet I do support the freedom of speech and if people have legitimate concerns with the Site C dam then let's hear them.
NS News: Not worth a dam
The first article is about the Site C dam and states: "Most of the British Columbia’s corporate media rides the Liberal bandwagon but the Glacier Media paper in my town, the North Shore News, takes a strong position against Site C, the most expensive white elephant ever conceived by bankrupt politicians."
The blog posts then quotes the North Shore News which said: "The project, which was approved without a proper review by the B.C. Utilities Commission, is going to cost $8.8 billion we don’t have to produce electricity we can’t use, to power LNG plants that won’t exist, at a cost too expensive to sell to foreign markets…"
That is the most logical opposition to the project I have heard thus far. Hydro electric power is normally cost effective. Why does this project cost so much money and what need will it be fulfilling? Will it be powering LNG plants that don't exist or will it be supplying power to foreign markets at below cost rates? Since the project costs so much money we need to ask who is really building it? Is SNC-Lavalin using a shell company to get the contract? Why in God's name would we give SNC-Lavalin the contract for anything? Is that what this is really about? Why would we sell power to foreign markets for less than it cost us to produce it?
Liberal supports health system privatization
The second post on Norm's blog that my readers have sent in is with regards to Liberal incumbent Linda Reimer's position on the privatization of our public health care. I totally support fiscal responsibility. Lower taxes and less spending means business and taxpayers prosper within a free market. Yet public health care is good business. It's not a Communist plot to take over the free world. It is actually a British tradition.
I have a friend whose mother lives in Arizona. He said in Arizona the hospitals have a legal obligation to provide emergency health care to everyone even if they don't have medical insurance. As a result all the hospitals are built in the rich areas and no one wants to build a hospital near a poor area because they don't want to be the ones that get all the poor people showing up needing emergency care when they don't have insurance. That in my opinion is not an example of a civilized society.