err
-
Posts
884 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by err
-
-
The sooner that North America is one country, the better we'll be.
Hard pill to swallow for some I guess.
You certainly live up to your name.....
-
I said nothing of the sort... I was merely commenting on the fact that a large percentage of pregnancies are unplanned....Parents still bear the responsiblity once they decide to keep the child. And your saying the world would not be better off if it was substantially underpopulated?
Maybe we should get the non-paying spouses to form a club where they track each other down and make each other pay their dues .....No I'n not for paying taxes for it. It should be funded by fees collected from the non-paying spouse (husband or wife as the case may be).
Hitler did...We license driving without locking up anyone under 16. We do this by providing a deterrent for unlicensed drivers. I'm sure we can figure out a deterrent to unlicenced parenting
If you are a single guy, and you buy a car... do you think the dealership should give you a deal because you aren't going to use the back seats ????I'm glad you acknowledge that "I earn". I earn therefore it is MY MONEY. If your point is that we ought to pay for the infrastructure we use.. I agree. My point is that we ought not to pay for that we don't use. Prove to me that welfare somehow allowed me to earn, because I don't see the connection, and you haven't made one.
Your charity is overwhelming... You've shown what kind of self-centred, mean-spirited person you really are....What I mean is that the government takes funding for me and uses it for a program I have no wish to contribute to. Hugo is correct in this. It is no different than the Mafia extorting money from you for protection.And given the strenuous arguments you have put into having your freedom of CHOICE, I don't think we should waste much time waiting for you charity...How witty of you, but also how ignorant. You have no idea how I would choose or not choose to use my money given the choice. Let me ask you. As you have discretionary funds (over and above what you need for bare sustenance), why are you not voluntarily giving it away to those who are in more need, since that is obviously your philosophy? To admit that you don't would only show your own hypocrisy.
I think you've painted a pretty good picture of yourself just above... and I think it would sheds light on the the types of choices you would make... I think you gave everybody an idea of how you would choose not to use your money.
As you have seen fit to presume that I do not practice what I preach, I'll share something with you. Aside from my taxes, I do regularly donate to a number of charitable (and politically motivated) organizations on a monthly basis, as auto-deductions from my bank account. I don't do it because of the tax write-offs that they buy me, because I still end up with less money than if I didn't donate.. I do it because it feels good to help people. But you probably wouldn't understand a motive like that.....
-
Another non-answer. If you're not going to answer the question, just say so.
I didn't ask what the government offers, I asked what YOUR position was.
You have not provided any reason why programs are not separable, so then ASSUMING it is, what is your position regarding opting out. Please think about this and answer, and stop avoiding the question.
Could you imaging the accounting nightmare to sort every program out, every contributor, etc... Our government would not be nearly as efficient as it is if it were to implement such a system.
Plus, given your arguments for "choice"... you know that the wealthiest who can afford their own health care are going to "choose" not to pay taxes on their income if they can get away with it. They will choose to help themselves... and not the less fortunate in our society....
-
I don't know much about your love life, but it happens to a lot of people.... unplanned pregnancy. The world would be underpopulated if every pregnancy were planned....Regardless, in your scenario, where is th onus on the responsibility of the parent? Do they not have a responsiblity to be able to afford children prior to deciding to procreate? How can they be fit parents if they do not provide for their kids?
I'm all for it (going after the husband)... however, I don't think that you want to pay the taxes for a bigger government to track down the louts....I'm all for FAIR support. If a husband has abandoned his kids, make him accountable for paying. I don't see why public funds should subsidize a spouse who is delinquent in payments.
Chastity belts ???Since you keep bringing up parents with kids as hardship cases, and citing why intervention is necessary, perhaps you would support "licensing" parenting, so that parents would need to meet a mental, emotional, and financial criteria prior to being allowed to be a parent. Perhaps that woudl minimize the number of kids in hardships situations.
I see the argument for "choice" as an argment for the choice not to contribute (to our society). You feel free to earn spoils from a society that provides you with an infrastructure that allows you to... but you don't want to give back to it... wait, no... you want the CHOICE of not contributing to that society.Frankly what I am for is individual choice. I want people to be able to choose where to best utilize THEIR funds.
Huh ???Welfare is nothing less than the state forcibly extorting funds and then using it for its own causes.I want a say!! If I want to donate to hardship cases as you have described, I am free to donate to a charity accordingly, and so are you.And given the strenuous arguments you have put into having your freedom of CHOICE, I don't think we should waste much time waiting for you charity...
-
A couple of years ago the BC government introduced the concept of a 2-year time limit for welfare. They are the only province to do so. Before implementing they added so many exemptions that the time limit was pretty much toothless.
Isn't it a shame they added exemptions for elderly women whose husbands died leaving them no life insurance. Or how about the single mom with 4 kids whose husband died with no life insurance... or just left her with no support. The government should come down hard on these parasites, shouldn't they Renegade???
I know that you'd like to open the question of how we can avoid helping those who need it most, but fortunately, most Canadians have a heart, and are glad that we live in a society where we look after each other.It also opens up the question on whether people have a right to welfare. -
What's your point? Mike Harris made no secret of his intentions. I fully support what Mike Harris did. So did Ontarians who elected him twice.
Did you notice how soundly they were hoofed from office. His implementations were considerably more severe than his stated intentions. Do you have any idea how much they cut funding for single mothers?? Or a better question is do you even care ???
Decreasing welfare to the point of starving people into going to work is not an incentive, as you call it. One of the largest problems with your approach is that those "lazy" people who can work but dont... they'll get work... And the people who need it most (single mothers, disabled, elderly) will live a humiliating subsistance living.Living on the public dole is humiliating, regardless of the amount of welfare. If someone was not self-sufficeint, and had to rely on public assistance, should they be embarrassed? Sure they should. It is one of the motivations to get off welfare.
How about feeding their chidren... If their children are starving, maybe then they'll get off their lazy asses and get good jobs ???
Not everybody on welfare is a "lazy bum", as you would have them described.Sorry I just don't agree that taxpayers should be paying for anything above the bare minimium. I would say that any additional funding should go to programs aimed at getting people off the public purse. Working for welfare is one program that does that.Women with small children whose husbands have left them with no support... they probably don't want to be in that position... and should they put their kids up for adoption so that they can meet your standards of productivity... Should they put them in a state-funded daycare so they can prove themselves in the workforce... with a net greater cost to the public.... Or should they give their children the best care that they can....
How about the elderly woman whose husband died and had no life insurance... should we cut off her benefits so she'll go to work at Walmart until she can't stand up any more... Or should we bring in euthenasia for those old folks who cannot contribute any more... even though they did all their lives.....
If you can't think about these cases that deserve to be treated as humans, and not intentionally humiliated, then you are a sad case. Again, the term "mean-spirited" is probably the best description I can give of people with your sentiment if I have to refrain from resorting to explitives.
-
However looking to the funding public's interest, means structuring welfare low enough so that there is still an inducement to work (even at minimium wage jobs) while still making sure the economic reasons for welfare are retained. Policies such as requiring welfare recipients who can work, to do so, helps achieve that aim.
Mike Harris sounded mighty convincing when he put forth the same argument. But look what he did....
Decreasing welfare to the point of starving people into going to work is not an incentive, as you call it. One of the largest problems with your approach is that those "lazy" people who can work but dont... they'll get work... And the people who need it most (single mothers, disabled, elderly) will live a humiliating subsistance living.
Your approach sounds "sensible" or "moderate", but the realistic net effects of it are devastating to the most unfortunate in our society....
-
Just to throw this into the mix
International comparison by Fraser Institute
Canada spends more on health care than most European and Asian nations but has some of the longest waiting times and worst access to physicians in the world, concludes a report comparing 27 countries that all guarantee access to health care, regardless of ability to pay.
Canada has far less expensive health care than the USA, and its waiting lines are infinitely long for millions and millions of Americans... How about throwing that into the mix....
And I love how you can compare Canada's spending to most European nations... Because you didn't explicitely say "per capita", I trust that it is not "per capita", and it is a bogus statistic to help lie to the public to steer them into believing their right-wing tripe....
Did the neo-cons at the Fraser institute fail to mention that the Europeans are accustomed to, and accept paying much higher taxes in return for the excellent "socialist" benefits that they get in return.... the article compares Canada's health care with Sweden's, but fails to mention that Swede's pay more than 40% tax.... and have probably the best social services of any country in the world.
-
But it would be ridiculous to ask your mom for a refund on the ingredients she paid for that went into the family pie because you bought your own pie...
WOAH!! Who is asking mom for a refund? Not I. All I want to do is go to the local bakery and plunk down my $8 and buy a pie. How does that stop mom from doing what she was originally going to do for everyone else anyway?
If you borrow money from your mom for the pie, (analogous to getting public funding for a private service), thereby leaving her short of funds to make pies for the rest of the family, there is a problem. The "refund on ingredients" is analgous to a "tax deduction" as a result of use of the private service....
If you want to plunk down your own money for a pie, good for you.... enjoy it..
-
and yes, the public system should be fixed...I thought that's the whole point of the discussion on health care.
Buying a second car is not how you fix the first one...
I resent you or anyone else referring to the politicians, doctors, nurses and sick that advocate a two-tier system as "meatheads".I think I said "Conservatives and other meatheads"... It is rather underhanded of you to proport that I would suggest that doctors, nurses, and the sick were meatheads. It is also quite the supposition that doctors, nurses, and especially the sick support a two-tier system...
Private clinics that are paid for by people and corporations that choose to open them. The services would be paid for by our public insurance so everyone has equal access to the care that OHIP affords us.Hello, anybody home ??? Our public system is to pay for public services. If you want to pay for private services that are also publicly available for "free", you have the right to dip into your pocket to pay that non-approved vendor. But you are not allowed to dip into my pocket to pay for non-approved vendors....
To suggest that OHIP should not be used to pay for care in a private facility is to turn two-tier system into a private system for the rich and a public system for everyone else. This is something that not a single politician or canadian would even dream of advocating. To suggest otherwise is slanderous and a flat out lie.You'll have to talk more slowly, because you aren't making any sense... We don't officially have a two-tier system, and we don't want a two-tiered system, and we don't want the public system to pay for a private system...
My point is if you don't allow our public insurance to pay for services in private clinics, you effectively ban those who can't afford the care from this facilities. It is YOU and those who agree with your stance that don't want the poor and middle-class to have access to private care.Our Universal health-care system is supposed to provide all that is required as far as medical care (North American standards). There should be no need for an idividual to use a "pay for" private system. If our system is missing some "standard practice" treatments, then we should fix our system. If someone want's accupucture, or some other non-standard medical practice, let them pay for it, outside our public system.
Meanwhile, you try to pass it off as some idealistic utopian society where everyone gets equal care under one public system. The reality is people are suffering everyday because the government and bureaucrats suck at business.What's important here is whether they are good at medical care. It's half-brained conservatives like you who think that we shouldn't pay civil servants a good wage, or pay for the latest and greatest medical equipment to keep our taxes down... and then say that we should pay all kinds of extra money to private industry that cost a whopping load more than our public system for the same functions. You'll have to go back and think about how inconsistant you are in your convictions.....
Keep a single public system, people will continue to suffer and we'll continue to waste more money on something that is damn near impossible to make work. Banning private industry and giving the government total control over something is a recipe for disaster, as has been proven around the world.Let's hear some specific examples, backed up with some kind of acceptable proof....
Allowing a parrallel private system would give people better access to medical services and if OHIP continues to cover the things it covers now (regardless of whether you're getting service in a public or private hospital) everyone will be able to get better care.And when we pay more money out of our pockets for private services, there will be less money left in the pocket for our public services.... So public services will go downhill.... And we'll all pay more taxes for your public/private service.... And I thought you were against paying more taxes... Again, you have an inconsistent position...
The money is already being spent by OHIP outside the public system. It's being spent in another country for crying out loud. Not only is it being diverted out of the system, but it's leaving our country and costing tons more than care would in Canada.When you have a hole in your bucket, do you fix it by drilling more holes in the bucket as you are advocating...... No, you patch the hole....
A two-tier public healthcare system would provide better access to care for everyone, better quality care for everyone and doctors & nurses will be paid what they're worth instead of some arbitrary wage the government dreams up.And you, with your conservative ideals, want to pay these higher wages, and you vehemently begrudge paying $17/hour to a LCBO employee... Your position is all over the place, contradicting yourself at every corner...
-
The rich aren't allowed to build a pool.
(He means health care system for the rich)
Not with PUBLIC money.... they're not..... With their OWN money, nobody's stopping them...
Pass the joint... maybe it'll help me understand you ....Yeah, see, it's not about using public funds to build private businesses......contrary to what the NDP believes.It (the purse) needs a strong central control, and our medical system needs to
as per the terms of funding of our health-care system."be administered and operated on a non-profit basis by a public authority appointed or designated by the government of the province;"(thanx mirror)
You're absolutely right, our public health care system should be run that way....and the government should allow private hospitals to open up next door so you can have a choice of where to go. Your public insurance, which is a seperate entity, should still cover medical necessities and be valid at the public or private hospital so everyone has an equal ground for critical care.Read the quote about the conditions for financing of our public health care... If you don't understand it, ask your mom to explain what it says. Especially note the words "non-profit", and "administerd by... public authority"....
-
The public system is the "company store" that we all pay into with our taxes. The government will occasionally send patients to the US for life-saving treatment when our public system cannot accomodate in a timely fashion. What the government needs to do is fix our services so that they meet all of our requirements.You're absolutely incorrect, just plain wrong. Public health insurance is there to allow people who can't afford it to have the most serious care paid. Public insurance already pays for private care in the United States for those who need it, as I've pointed out earlier. What's even worse is that it pays for procedures like having one's stomach stapled as well as some cosmetic surgery.So, you're just flat out wrong about public funds not paying for private service.
You have some deluded idea about what public health care is.... It is not a system for the poor, as your verbal diatribe would suggest. It is a system for everyone. And in its inception, there were conditions laid down so that Conservatives and other meathead couldn't bastardize the system... read the following quote.
"it is to be administered and operated on a non-profit basis by a public authority appointed or designated by the government of the province;"
And your point is ???Furthermore, should there be a two-tier healthcare system in Canada, it will go towards paying for care in those private clinics as well. Why? Because you're paying into PUBLIC INSURANCE as well as the public clinics.We have a public system, paid for by public money. If you want to use a system that is not a public system, it shouldn't be paid for with public money.... Don't you get it ????
Rephrased, you are upset that you cannot give THE PUBLIC's money to an institution that's not publicly funded. I have no problem with you going to the USA and blowing your OWN money on whatever you want. What sensible Ontarians don't want is the public's tax dollars being diverted from the public system into a private system. That will leave less money in the public system, and hence, cut the quality of the public service, which will futher exacerbate the situation...The only problem now is that you're not allowed to give your money to an institution that's not publicly funded. -
It costs the federal government in the US $2.5 billion annually in subsidies to Walmart employees because of their low incomes and LACK of benefits. It probably costs Canadian governments a substantial amount; possibly proportionately less healthcare.
You are subsidizing WalMart through your taxes.
Municipalities thave WalMart stores receive approximately one third less taxes than they received from the diplaced businesses and lost expansion of business that would have come in without WalMart.
You are paying increased Municipal taxes to subsidize WalMart.
There are many other losses due to WalMart but we hammered that to death on the WalMart thread.
Excellent reply and CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR 2000th POST!!!!!! Keep it up.
-
Another way to enhance the incentive to work without raising the minimium wage, is to cut the welfare benefits!
You would remove the safety net from single mothers, the elderly, and the disabled because you want to get the few lazy people off public support. Either you are ignorant of all of the people that you'd hurt, and right after reading this, will change your ways, or you're a mean-spirited, cruel, uncaring scumbag like Mike Harris...
-
That's right. Like if you built a swimming pool with public funds, everybody should get to jump in and splash around. But making a separate pool for rich people, and a 'public pool' for the poorer people... doesn't seem right does it. If the rich people want their own swimming pool, they should pay for one. Their private clubs should be privately paid for. But the public one is there if they should choose to use it...Err,you seem to have a problem with the Public that are financially well off,aren't they still part of the public? Shouldn't members of the public regardless of financial status,religion,health needs ect.,who contribute to the public purse have some rights to that purse?
It should be obvious, that if you pay for several (say 10 or 15 different language shcools, and 5 or 6 different religions) different systems, and administrative staff for each of them, that none of them will be adequately funded.Should Catholic schools be removed from the public purse because they are a religious school, don't Catholics pay taxes too. Why shouldn't a Hindu school in Sudbury not have a share of the taxes to run their school?
I will agree that, concerning your own child's health, you should do whatever it takes. I certainly would for my children. However, this debate is about what our tax dollars should buy, and what kind of health care system we should be building or maintaining. I think that if there is something that should be fixed with our system, lets fix it, no go running elsewhere.If my child needs special attention for a health crisis isn't her health the most important issue and the urgency of her getting the best help immediately,and if it is not available in public health care but is available in the private,does it really matter where the tax money goes?If there are services that you feel that should be available in our health care system that are not available, or underfunded, then I think you should contact your provincial government and let them know about the deficiency, and that you think it should be fixed.
In your house, do you let everybody take what they want out of your wallet.... Your wife, kids, in-laws, etc... You'd be in trouble if you did. If our provincial government let everybody do that to its purse, it would be in trouble too.... It (the purse) needs a strong central control, and our medical system needs toThe public is made up of everybody and we all make our own choices as to how to run our life. You attitude appears to be my public,my way or the highway. Remember the Public is me you,rich,poor,Catholic,Hindu,whatever,all of us.Our public purse is there for all of us to share,because it is our public purse. Your'e too hung up on the word "private"
as per the terms of funding of our health-care system."be administered and operated on a non-profit basis by a public authority appointed or designated by the government of the province;"(thanx mirror)
-
Well, if you don't want the Canadian package, you can always take the USA package... but you'll have to move there to get it...
That's really a non-answer. What I asked was what makes the package indivisible and immutable?
It's the one that the Canadian government offers... They don't have a "buy one get one free", no "scratch and dent sales", and no "partial subscriptions".
-
Are they living at home ????2) Students are there until they can find better once they're out of school. They make a bit of money to cover their schooling expenses and are given flexible hours to allow them to take their courses.
really....Walmart has one of the most comprehensive benefits packages in the entire retail industry, that's how they've retainied workers for decades. Are you going to be rich working there? Hell no. You're in a job that anyone an do.
(and you have)Now since I've humoured you, humour me and answer my question from earlier:
... raise the wages...Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Imagine the government was hard pressed to find enough people to work at the LCBO stores because not enough people hold the qualifications they're looking for, what would YOU do to try to get and retain quality employees?
I do think that $17 might be a little bit high for a general minimum wage. However, minimum wage should be high enough as an incentive for the lazier elements in our society to get off their buts and go to work...Do you think everyone should make at least 35k/year? Would you advocate the government raising minimum wage to $17/hour?Currently it is below $8/hour. A minimum wage that's too low is not an incentive for a lesser ambitious person to work. A significant increase in minimum wage will also help the "working poor", of which there are many, to afford something of a life...
What's more, is that this will provide a significant boost to the local economies. People who make minimum wage usually don't hide their cheques in the Cayman Islands... They spend them every week .... locally. Everyone in their local economy will benefit... Not just the recipients of the minimum wage...
-
I'm not following your logic on why benefits need to be an "all-or-none" package. Sure there are some which have fixed setup costs, but others are for the most part variable. BTW, I'm not just talking medical care, I'm including welfare, Old Age, etc. If it is such a benefit as you say, why not make it voluntary?
Well, if you don't want the Canadian package, you can always take the USA package... but you'll have to move there to get it...
-
Why do you want to deny the poor access to the most advanced technologies available? I can't believe you're against public insurance paying for someone going to a private clinic. That's just ridiculous.
If you have a gift certificate that someone gave you for Canadian Tire , it is a bit ridiculous to rant about not being able to use it at "Source For Sports"....
There are a great many services available in our health-care store... If you want to shop in a different store, by all means shop there... but you'll have to pay that shopkeeper... yourself....
-
Yea err, I hear where your coming from.And while we're at it, let's ban SUVs 'cause they use too much gas and let's ban fast foods 'cause they make people fat and that's no good for the health system, and let's ban TV 'cause there's too much American stuff on it and that's no good for our culture and let's ban polical parties because they are corrupt and don't use our money wisely and let's ban the press because it's all propaganda...and.... Yea err, let's do all that because what's good for you is always going to be good for me.
Where do you get this from ??? I just said that our public purse should pay for public services... If you want private services, pay yourself.
Is your rant (above) because you don't have an answer, and it makes you really mad that you don't have one???? Because it has nothing to do with anything that I said ???
-
Yea err, I hear where your coming from.And while we're at it, let's ban SUVs 'cause they use too much gas and let's ban fast foods 'cause they make people fat and that's no good for the health system, and let's ban TV 'cause there's too much American stuff on it and that's no good for our culture and let's ban polical parties because they are corrupt and don't use our money wisely and let's ban the press because it's all propaganda...and.... Yea err, let's do all that because what's good for you is always going to be good for me.
Where do you get this from ??? I just said that our public purse should pay for public services... If you want private services, pay yourself.
Is your rant (above) because you don't have an answer, and it makes you really mad that you can't think of one???? Because it (your rant) has nothing to do with anything that I said ???
-
So to relate it to your analogy, you are forced to pay your mom $5 regardless of if you care for her pie or not. But let's say that you got a bonus at work and you had an additional $8 in your wallet. Let's further say that you didn't care much for your mom's pie and that she was too busy to make it right away so you had to wait. Why shouldn't you be able to take your $8, walk to the bakery and buy your pie (as a side effect you are saving your mom some effort)
Let's get the analogy a little more in line with the situation. If you want the pie, but don't have your own money to pay for it, what are you going to do... Your mom has offered to bake the pie for you. She tells you that if she lends you $8 to buy the pie at the private bakery, there won't be enough money in her wallet to bake a pie for the rest of the family.... What are you going to do... force her to give you the money and make your family starve, or work within a framework that will allow everyone to eat pie...
Alternately, if you do have enough money (of your own) in your pocket to buy a pie at the bakery, then who's stopping you (from going to the USA for your pie)... But it would be ridiculous to ask your mom for a refund on the ingredients she paid for that went into the family pie because you bought your own pie...
-
International comparison by Fraser Institute
Canada spends more on health care than most European and Asian nations but has some of the longest waiting times and worst access to physicians
The Fraser Institute's opinion on social services... That's like asking Hitler for an opinon on Jewish innovation.
-
So err, would you support a social saftey net in which someone could opt-out of? By this I mean they would not pay that portion of their tax which supports the saftey net, and also would not be eligible to receive no saftey net benefits?
No... only rich people will want to opt out... and maybe ignorant people.... And though the rich may be able to afford it, they'll want tax write-offs for any procedures they pay for... and they shouldn't be eligible for them...
People in Canada receive many beneifits, not just health insurance.... and they pay taxes for a pool of benefits... Wealthy people still need to drive on our roads. they still need to use the public infrastructure... they still need the police, etc... They cannot opt out of the other services to cut their tax bill, and neither should they be able to opt out of a portion of their taxes for medical care...
Paul Emery Arrested in Canada by order of USA DEA
in Canada / United States Relations
Posted
The hypocracy of the US is unbelievable.
Bill Clinton never exhaled. (pun intended)
We've all seen stories about George Bush in his younger days....
Our own Prime Minister has talked about decriminalizing pot... and then he'd send one of our own citizens to the states to be prosecuted and likely receive a sentence longer than a lot of murderers get (in Canada anyways)...
You should send Paul Martin an email telling him not to let the USA push him around... or interfere with Canada and its laws....
[email protected]