Renegade

Melanie, There is no question that bad things sometimes happen to good people and any of us would want a safety net should the need arise, but the system as structured promotes abuse and a sense of entitlement. Those of us who sparsely use the system subsidize those who abuse it. I know of people who structure their employment habits around EI rules. They work long enough to qualify, then claim benefits till they run out, then restart the cycle. They see no problem with their behaviour. For them they are living by the system's rules. If their premiums were based upon their propensity to use (or abuse) the system, that behaviour would soon change. Examples of similar behaviour can be found in healthcare, welfare etc. You may be fine to pay through taxes for the social safety net, but for me, I'm tired of subsidizing freeloaders and deadbeats, and I'm not getting fair value out of it.

Responded in a new thread: Tax Policy Thread

Spun from the Jack Layton thread. Of course we still have poverty. Some people are rich, some are poor, some are beautiful, some ugly, some smart, some stupid. That's life. So what? If we are poor and wish to improve our lot, we will undertake steps necessary to do so. Some will succeed, others not. I've read the document. Interesting reading. Its objective is to suggest a "fairer" tax system. It defines fairness as follows: I can't agree with the conclusions in the document, because I don't agree in its presumption of what is fairness. By my definition of fairness, taxes pay for services provided and we consume. A fair tax is one which the taxpayer is taxed proportonate to the level of a specific service he consumes and at a level which is reflective of the cost of the service.

Taking trucks off the road solves nothing. Each mode of transportation is more efficient in certain circumstances. Of course trucks use the roads, and they do cause a disproportinate amount of damage to the roads, but as long as they pay their share of the cost of the road they should have access to the road just like other vehicles.

C'mon now, is that the best you can do for an argument for income redistribution? I'm not even sure what "the Canadian way" is. We all have different backgrounds and different viewpoints. This forum is existance of diverse viewpoints. I hardly see how can take your view point and lay claim to it as "the Canadian way" Yes I can see how it is really oppressive for those who are rich it to give their time and money to others. I can see how the poor feel really opressed when they accept something which has been donated to them So what if they don't. That's what personal choice is. They support to their own level of concience. Enforced redistribution (which is what the government does) is no different than robbery, regardless of the fact that the robber (the government) redistributes the gains to another party. I'm really not sure how you can speak for all of Canada. Each person in Canada values people differently. I don't value people by their bank account, and I have made no valuation judgments on anyone rich or poor. Its certain actions which I abhor (such as freeloading) I can't really help what you believe. I have advocated certain priciples which I believe. I don't discriminate by who is negatively affected by those principles whether rich or poor, individual or corporate. Maybe with time you will believe that I don't have a double-standard in this regard.

Welfare is freeloading regardless of if it is done by corporate welfare bums or individual welfare bums. I have the same contempt for corporate freeloading as I do for individual freeloading. If people need help, that is the role of charities, not forcible income redistribution. I'm not sure what is bullying about a principle which says that people are responsible for paying their own way in society.

The system wasn't free. Services provided were more than paid for by the taxes my parents paid on my behalf. What wasn't paid for by taxes was accrued as debt. That debt lives with us today and consumes a fair share of our taxes. Everyone should have the same opportunity, but everyone should contribute to the cost as they consume the services provided. Says who? Probably, but that is probably because it is justified. There is another thing you can count on. Freeloaders in soceity crying for more services for which they think others should pay.

Not really, since every every dollar they make cost me many more dollars in inflated prices every time I shop at the LCBO. I guess by logical extension of your argument, you would support the government having a monopoly in tabacco retailing and selling that at inflated prices as well. BTW, the government gets a nice cut of the action in the tabacco industry even though the retailing is private not public

If the government owning the LCBO is such a good idea, why not extend it to automobile dealerships, food stores, hell why not the entire retail industry? That way the government could have a monopoly, charge you whatever price they wanted and provide you with whatever service they chose. If you as a consumer didn't like it, well tough luck. You couldn't even go outside the province to purchase your goods because they have armed guards only allowing you to bring in a minimal amount in order to protect the monopoly. Remind me again, how is this fair for the consumer?

Dear theloniusfleabag, It's a pretty safe bet that the respondent cares more for his own well being than yours.

President Bill Clinton called Chretien with an emergency: Our largest condom factory has exploded!" the American President cried, "My people's favorite form of birth control! This is a true disaster!" "Bill, da Canadian pipple would be 'appy to do anyt'ing wit'in der power to 'help you," replied the Prime Minister. "I do need your help," said Clinton. "Could you possibly send 1,000,000 condoms ASAP to tide us over?" "Certainment! I get right on it!" said Chretien. "Oh, and one more small favor, please?" said Clinton. "Oui?" "Could the condoms be red, white & blue in color, at least 10" long and 4" in diameter?" said Clinton. "No problem," replied the Prime Minister and, with that, Chretien hung up and called the President of Trojan Condoms. "I need a favor, you got to make 1,000,000 condoms right away and send 'dem to Hamerica." "Consider it done," said the President of Trojan. "Great! Now listen, dey hab to be bleu, blanc et rouge in colour; at least 10" long and 4" in diameter." "Easily done. Anything else?" "Yah," said the Prime Minister, "an' print 'MADE IN CANADA, SIZE MEDIUM' on each one."

Your poll presumes that the respondant wants to solve global warming. Not necessarily a valid assumption.

One of the principles in our soceity is a separation of church and state. Prayer in a public school vilolates that prinicple. The parents don't fund a public school, taxpayers do. Even if 100% of the parents decide that the school should violate the principle, it doesn't mean they have the right to do so. If prayer is introduced into a public school, (assuming 100% of the parents agree), it creates a barrier to any other denomination even considering moving to the area or sending their kids to that public school.

Food for thought:

Old age is about a predictable an affliction as one can get. No I would not deny coverage to anyone over 65, but they would have to pay the higher premiums which reflect their higher cost to the system. Someone who is over 65 has had their entire lives to prepare for the additional costs that occur at old age, and healthcare shoudl be part of that cost. Let me ask you a hypothetical question. If I can invent a proven treatment to individuals older than 65 which will delay the effects of aging by 10 years, and cost $1Million per individual, should the senior population expect this treatment which the rest of us have to pay for? I couldn't agree more. If people don't have an economic stake in the outcome, they tend not to make economically sensible decisions. I would add that I think the sensible decisions need to be made through out life, not just at the end.

I don't think any property owner would argue that they shouldn't pay for the services they use, however there is no relation between the value of the property and the services provided. Why not just charge based upon services consumed? You seem to have a bias against a private corporaton providing the service, but there are many examples of private monopolies providing service at a reasonable price (eg your local telephone)

It matters not whether it is a public, semi-public, or private system, there is the same value in a risk-sharing mechanism for paying for healthcare as for other insurances. The vast majority of the population falls into the category of "lucky enough to be rich enough to pay the premiums or healthy enough not to have inherited risk factors". There will be some who do not, but I fail to see why this group should be subsidized by the rest. Sorry I failed to be more clear in my example. In general most property insurance doesn't cover flooding. You as property owner cover the risk not the insurance pool. Even if the situation were different and it was fire for example (which is covered by property insurance), would you not expect to have higher premium (all other things being equal) than your neighbour if you had a higher risk (eg your house is made from more flammable materials). My point is simply that you still sometimes assume the cost of the risk of events which are beyond your control.

I guess it depends on what you see the purpose of the public system is. I believe the purpose of the public system is to share the risk of unforseen future events which would be cost prohibitive for us to handle individually. There are many cases in society where we expect individuals to incur the cost of factors beyond their control. (Eg If your house floods due to heavy rainfall, you are not really expecting your neighbours to help share in the cost of repairs, are you?) Its not that I'm self-confident enough to believe that I or my family would not be affected by such risk, it is that I believe I should be the one to incur the increased (or reduced) costs of my own genetics. If I have a genetic pre-disposition to a disease, it is because my parents chose to accept the risk and procreate. I should assume the costs of that decision not society. Of course there need to be projections on revenues and expenses. That is no different than today. However, any system, whether risk-based or not is somewhat self-balancing. Cost overruns one year cause a change in rules or premiums and result in a surplus the next year. A risk-based system doesn't change some of the choices which need to be made, however it does help control costs by incenting people to stay healthy, and it more fairly allocates the cost-sharing of the public heath system

Probably not, since if she was responsible enough to buy extra insurance, she would also likely be responsible enough to avoid alcohol during pregnancy. Regardless, some people irresponsibily choose to drive without car insurance, does that invalidate the entire auto insurance system? Where there are worthy humanitarian causes, we as a community should fund it as such, but it should not be confused with insurance. I think this would fall into that category. An interesting question regarding FAS is whether the child as a victim of FAS, can sue the parent for the damage caused.

Economic Left/Right: 6.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64

Sparhawk, you make valid points. What you are pointing out is that it is hard to properly assess risk. This is true. I disagree with your assertion that insurance companies are arbitary in their calculations of risk. They spend a lot of time analyzing claims to determine risk factors. They do reject using risk factors that are not quantifable or verifiable. In some cases there are risk factors which may be not socially palatable to use. (As an aside, isn't it interesting that they do use age and gender as discrimminating factors, but not race) What you are pointing out (and I agree with) is that we will never have a perfect system for assessing risk, neither for insurance, nor for healthcare. However if we decide in principle that risk should be a determining factor, then we should take steps in implementing a system based upon assessed risk, despite that it cannot be perfectly assessed. Personally, I feel that it should be irrelevant whether the causative factor for the risk is genetic predisposition, personal choice, or factors beyond anyone's control.

It's hard to compare healthcare to a business. With a business, for the most part the goal is a profit. What is the goal for our healthcare system? Keeping people alive the longest, the best healthcare service, having the healthiest population, or spending the least while still having what the population considers acceptable care? I'm not sure we all even agree on the goal. Depending upon what the goal is, the actions required to change the system vary. If the goal is "spending the least while still having what the population considers acceptable care", then I'm probably ok to wait 4 hours in emergency for treatment because I only do it once every couple of years, and I'd rather wait 4 hours than pay an additional $1000/year in additional taxes. How do we measure efficiency when we haven't stated the goal?

IMO, that statement should be qualified as "government where the bottom line is not profit, but service to the citizens AT AN ACCEPTABLE COST". Afterall if cost was not an issue, we could arguably provide the best available service. I like it, even a family coverage amount woudl be ok.

I'm not inclined to accuse smokers of not paying their way. Besides the points you raise, smokers have a shorter life expectancy then the non-smoking population. This shorter life expectancy translates to less cost to the health system because as people age they use a disproportinate amount of healthcare resources. Hmmm. Maybe we should be paying smokers higher CPP pensions since they don't live as long...

Of course there is no clear line, however if you have ever filled in a life or disability insurance application, you would see that insurance companies have found a line. They do ask you about your smoking habits, they do ask about your history, and they do ask about your participation in high-risk sports activities. They do NOT ask about your driving habits, because they generally assume virtually everyone is involved in automobiles in some way, and it is a relatively minor risk factor. Filtering on major risk factors doesn't handle every case of course, but it goes a long way.