Wilber

You say you might be a boomer, you might have contributed, you might have benifited. Well, which is it?

We agree on something then. I provided the link to show that unless we die unnaturally, eventually we all put a heavy load on the system regardless of our lifestyle. I assume you are not in favour of universal care then because many will not be able to afford such a thing through no fault of their own. Either from medical conditions they are not responsible for, their financial position or both. We don't need a public system for something like that. If you are I hope you have saved up enough for you and your spouse's medical needs in your old age. If we don't want any "burdens" on the system then lets get rid of the system all together because if we can't have any "burdens" on it there is no point in having the system. At least I'm honest about who I am and where I'm coming from. Put up or shut up. You are missing a fundamental point. Before we had Medicare we had insurance. We decided that wasn't good enough and that all Canadians would have access to care regardless of their age, medical condition or financial position. You want to change that? I think you are in a very small minority.

Your link is to another post of yours. Your comment regarding one of my claims. I provided a link to an all government report, not to one of my own posts. And so they should be. I'm concerned about it. What do you propose, the system changes until the boomers die then magically reinstates itself in time for your retirement. It's the boomers who have been supporting the system for the past 30 years with their taxes, not you. Gee, all those years they supported a system that has benefited you but when they've outlived their usefulness they are now a burden to you. Poor baby.

Do you know how much they paid? Do you know how much cost they imposed on the system? The system hasn't even been around for 50 years. By my estimate people, even contributing their entire working lives, contribute far less then the cost they impose on the system. Ok, it's only been around for about 40 years. I'll give you that. Health care costs as a percentage of Provincial budgets are a matter of record. The more you have made and consumed, the more you have contributed. By your estimate? Now who is throwing in unsubstantiated "facts". If we contribute less than we impose, how can we have a system without running deficits? We can't take out more on average than we put in without the system eventually collapsing. Certainly some will contribute more than others but that will be because of their higher incomes, not necessarily their lifestyle. Got to go.

Tell you what, it wasn't an option for me but if you want to go that way I want all the money back that I put into the system. I figure that the portion of my income tax alone that went into health care over the past 40 years plus interest must be at least a half million, not to mention the portion of all the sales and other taxes I have paid over those years which have gone into health care. Give me my money back.

Or you could sell the car. The insurance company is not going to give you more than it is worth. How does that have anything to do with your health?

Check the link.

Because they paid premiums and taxes to support the system for 50 years when they didn't take anything out of it.

Here's one from Nova Scotia Have a look at page 34.

I read it somewhere in an article of how aging impacts the cost of care in BC. Can't remember where. I don't say smokers/obese people cost the system less but unless we die suddenly for some reason, all of us will put a substantial burden on the system one day. I think in many ways it does. There are exceptions to everything of course. My parents are both hitting 90 are still living on their own but not for much longer I think. They have led healthy active lives but the last few years the system has been putting out increasingly more for age related ailments which are not life threatening if treated and so will continue to cost the system more and more for a few years to come.

Pension income is taxed the same as earned income. Investment income outside a pension plan is subject to capital gains and the money that was originally invested outside a plan was after tax income. The 80+ year old probably does pay income taxes. He pays the same consumption taxes as anyone else. Where I live they get a bit of a break on property taxes (their residence only) but that is about it. How we pay for the system won't stop that epidemic from happening. If people live healthier lifestyles, they will also live longer. Catch 22. Either we believe in a society where everyone has access to medical care or we don't. I do because even though I have been a contributer to the system all my life and have rarely taken much of anything from it, one day I will need it.

You say that you ski. Why should anyone else accept the risk that entails? You are rewarded, with good health and all that it brings. For most people the bulk of their health care costs are incurred in the last two years of their lives. These people are just in a rush to collect. Healthy people who drag out the process over many years can incur more costs than those who kill themselves quickly with their life style. Not just medical care associated with aging but assisted living for the aged who can't afford to pay the big bucks for private care. The 300 lb couch potato smoker is more likely headed for a quick heart attack or a death from complications associated with diabetes before he nears old age. We all die of something eventually and our system will spend a bundle trying to treat whatever it is before we go, regardless of our lifestyle.

It would be for any of the western democracies. Sure, they have used certain events to get approval for going to war but name one instance where they have staged an attack on themselves and killed their own people to do it.

Considering the gravity of the event and the part it played in our history, that for some, the issue of who did or did not get invited seems to be the major concern surrounding it is somewhat pathetic and sad, IMO.

Why is it that the British and Americans have no difficulty identifying D Day and their part in it as glorious victory? Weren't Utah, Omaha, Gold and Sword just other beaches as well. Many of Britain's greatest victories such as Waterloo were accomplished with a very large allied component. I suspect that the Dutch, Belgians and Germans all take pride in their part of that victory. It seems that many feel it is somehow un Canadian to take pride in the martial sacrifices and accomplishments of our ancestors. Perhaps it is because we don't believe it is in us to replicate them.

Back in the sixties this country decided that universal health care was a fundamental part of our society. Universal means everyone.

True and for that reason they should be corrected. The fact that this country sent nearly 10% of its population to war and nearly 1% of that population died in it is very much here and there. At the end of the war there were small towns with nearly no male inhabitants between the age of 18 and 35. What other event in our history has had such a traumatic influence on our country? The idea that only 1 in 100 of any segment of our population would have anything to say about that could only be described as pathetic.

Every country has defining moments in its history which were very important even though the event in itself may not have changed much. As Quebec doesn't seem to be able to define itself in the context of Canada, that doesn't surprise me at all. If this is the case, why should anyone get sweaty if the French on a few plaques was screwed up?

Not quite that simple. Local militias from both the American and Canadian colonies played a large part in both wars, not to mention the native population. Regardless, if the War of 1812 had been lost this thread wouldn't exist because all of us would be Americans.

India was a mishmash of independent states before the British arrived. There is no reason to think there would even be a united India as we know it. It does. The Imperial Japanese Navy and its ships were modeled after and with the help of the Royal Navy. Many were built by the British. For the most part colonial powers weren't in Africa that long. Not a lot more than half a century in most cases. The British were in India for over two hundred years building infrastructure and a bureaucracy in what had been a much older and more advanced society in the first place

For the most part but I think at one point or another he has called just about everyone who has dissagreed with him a liar, self included. You can't debate with someone like that so I just don't respond to his posts anymore because it is a waste of time repeating myself. Perhaps that's the answer.

The "status quo" has changed....now it will take a passport to visit the America that "sucks". Change is hard. "Sucks" is your word. It will also "suck" for Americans who will need a passport to get back into their own country from Canada and there are many who commute back and forth on a daily basis.

The same way we pay for ours. Why are Canadians lining up for passports in record numbers to get into the America that sucks? Cheaper gas and cigarettes? For all our lifetimes going back and forth across the border has been a non issue for citizens of both countries. Now there is a major change in the status quo that we have all lived by and everyone is scrambling to adapt, not just Canadians.

It's a tough job but someone has to do it. I guess.

Sure must be a lot of people working for the CIA on this forum.