"Catastrophic Drug Plan"

[betsy]

It speaks volumes about how you want to find something wrong with what would be an excellent addition to the health care system.

Excellent perhaps, IF properly implemented. IF we can afford it.

With all these big plans of Dion (Green Shift, Universal child care, Education, Catastrophic drug plan, Child poverty, resurrection of the gun registry, etc..,), there is a big possibility we go bust.

We'll end up worse off than we are now.

Isn't he saying that we are now on the brink of being back into deficit? If so, why all these grandiose plans?

Where is he going to get the money?

Edited September 18, 2008 by betsy

[betsy]

Partisanship-aside, take stock how much spending Dion is talking about. Most of his schemes are universal in nature.

Just with the Green Shift alone, with all the multiple spendings that will fall under this plan: calculator for each and every household, research and development, subsidies, beaurocrats that will be formed, etc..,

UNIVERSAL child care.

Cutting 50% child poverty in just 5 years! Who doesn't dream of ending poverty. But how can this realistically be

do-able?

Education grant for mostly everyone. Who wouldn't want to see our young people get their education...but again, how can this be do-able?

Catastrophic drug plan.

Their fight against crime! Gun registry, social programs for youth, more police....

Etc..,

All of these at a time when there is economic uncertainty!

What more, Dion knows and ardently believe that deficit-wise, we are in pretty bad shape. Then why would he keep making promises that would mean humonguous spendings?

It's bad enough that he'll knowingly and deliberately drive us to our knees with all these....and what for?

For half-baked plans they've SCRAMBLED to put together!

Edited September 18, 2008 by betsy

[scribblet]

Of course we do, our neighbour whose drugs cost upwards of $20,000 a year gets help from them and my daughter who developed leukemia and lost her benefits after Mr. Harris laid off 20% of the "Bimbo" got it as well. What do the other provinces do with their lottery takes.

I don't understand your comments, "after Mr. Harris laid off 20% of the "Bimbo" got it as well"

Mr. Harris along with other premiers had to cut back on education and health spending because Paul Martin cut back on transfer payments, how soon we forget - or never cared to know.

http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/500568

Dion yesterday announced a program for catastrophic drug coverage worth $900 million over four years.

snip

The proposed plan would be in addition to programs already offered by such provinces as Ont

Ontario's catastrophic coverage plan, called the Trillium Drug Program, pays for only the drugs listed by the province, Savage noted.

[Argus]

I don't understand your comments, "after Mr. Harris laid off 20% of the "Bimbo" got it as well"

Mr. Harris along with other premiers had to cut back on education and health spending because Paul Martin cut back on transfer payments, how soon we forget - or never cared to know.

http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/500568

So is Dion planning on taking over other areas of provincial responsibility? This is a provincial thing. Most provinces already have such coverage. Does that mean Dion is simply going to refund to them the money they're already spending? Good news, I suppose, for people in provinces which have no coverage, but I don't see how it helps the bulk of Canadians already covered.

[marksman]

So is Dion planning on taking over other areas of provincial responsibility?

Probably no more than Harper planned on taking over provincial responsibility when Harper talked about wait times.

This is a provincial thing. Most provinces already have such coverage. Does that mean Dion is simply going to refund to them the money they're already spending? Good news, I suppose, for people in provinces which have no coverage, but I don't see how it helps the bulk of Canadians already covered.

I think the goal is to have a national minimum standard for covering catastrophic drugs. Provinces that don't have this get cash to do it and provinces that already meet that standard get cash which frees up the money they're currently spending. Seems like a good idea for everyone.

[marksman]

Can't they come up with a better name than that?

It's one thing for it to be used by insurance companies....but when you're on a campaign trail, trying to sell the idea and you know political opponents will try to shoot it down, why provide the opportunity?

I think their press release called it "a new plan for catastrophic drug coverage".

Politics is bad enough as it is I don't think we need to criticize someone's policy because someone else might try to mock it. Maybe you should start expecting some decorum from the political opponents who mock the names of things rather than criticizing those who come up with policies worthy of being discussed. Looks like you've got your priorities mixed up and would prefer to discuss form rather than substance.

[OddSox]

...Provinces that don't have this get cash to do it and provinces that already meet that standard get cash which frees up the money they're currently spending. Seems like a good idea for everyone.

Except the taxpayer?

[Smallc]

Except the taxpayer?

Chances are pretty good that some day the tax payer will need an expensive drug.

[betsy]

I think their press release called it "a new plan for catastrophic drug coverage".

Politics is bad enough as it is I don't think we need to criticize someone's policy because someone else might try to mock it. Maybe you should start expecting some decorum from the political opponents who mock the names of things rather than criticizing those who come up with policies worthy of being discussed. Looks like you've got your priorities mixed up and would prefer to discuss form rather than substance.

Speaking of priorities, I am actually questioning Dion's priorities. And your priorities for that matter!

Dion cannot plead ignorance since he believes that we are already on the brink of getting into deficit , and yet he keeps coming up with all these grandiose plans!

It would've been credibly great if he pursues only one grandiose scheme. Let's say just offer this drug plan. Then it's believable.

Perhaps you should read all of my replies.

Yes the plan does sounds excellent since probably everyone will end up needing an expensive drug sometime in our lifetime. But that's all it is right now....something that sounds excellent!

So answer this: Dion says, thanks to Harper we're in pretty bad shape right now, deficit-wise....then how is he going to afford all these plans?

Edited September 18, 2008 by betsy

[scribblet]

Yeah, but 'it's hard to prioritize you know' -

[capricorn]

Scriblett, it goes like this. "Stephane, we didn't get it done, we didn't get it done". Reply. "You teenk eat eeze eezy to make preeoreetees?"

[scribblet]

Scriblett, it goes like this. "Stephane, we didn't get it done, we didn't get it done". Reply. "You teenk eat eeze eezy to make preeoreetees?"

:lol:

[betsy]

Holy smoke! 100 billion just for the Green Shift alone (according to Jeff Norquay on MDuffy)!

Then I read on the stream that Dion also promise 70 billion for infrastructures (in 10 years)! Well that's just two policies. What about the cost for the others?

How much for the universal child care?

How much for the drug plan?

The Education grant?

The Fight on crime? Gun Registry? Social Programs?

Child Poverty?

Rebuilding Afghanistan?

So our future generation may still face the same problem, environment-wise....and they'll be flat broke to boot!

Preeoreetees, really!

Edited September 19, 2008 by betsy

[nothinarian]

Holy smoke! 100 billion just for the Green Shift alone (according to Jeff Norquay on MDuffy)!

Then I read on the stream that Dion also promise 70 billion for infrastructures (in 10 years)! Well that's just two policies. What about the cost for the others?

How much for the universal child care?

How much for the drug plan?

The Education grant?

The Fight on crime? Gun Registry? Social Programs?

Child Poverty?

Rebuilding Afghanistan?

So our future generation may still face the same problem, environment-wise....and they'll be flat broke to boot!

Preeoreetees, really!

Unfortunately we are already on the way to being flat broke ... just ask Andrew Coyne of National Post fame and a former fan of Cons

Flaherty/Harper team are now Canadas biggest spenders

"It’s true. The $200-billion in program spending Mr. Flaherty has budgeted for this year works out to about $5,800 for every man, woman and child in Canada. Even adjusting for inflation and increases in population, that’s more than Paul Martin spent in his frantic last hours. It is more than the Mulroney government spent in its last days. It is more than the Trudeau government spent in the depths of the early 1980s recession. All of these past benchmarks of out-of-control spending must now be retired. Jim Flaherty has outdone them all."

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...ing-budget.aspx

and pre-election spending while flirting with a deficit ... ask taxpayers federation

OTTAWA: From June 2nd to September 4th, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) tracked 293 pre-election spending announcements totaling $8.8-billion made by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government. That is roughly $94-million a day or about $3.9-million every hour. More spending is expected today and over the weekend in advance of Sunday’s probable election call.

http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=2954

I fear there are absolutley no fiscal conservatives left in this country

The more things change...

[Smallc]

and pre-election spending while flirting with a deficit ... ask taxpayers federation

OTTAWA: From June 2nd to September 4th, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) tracked 293 pre-election spending announcements totaling $8.8-billion made by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government. That is roughly $94-million a day or about $3.9-million every hour. More spending is expected today and over the weekend in advance of Sunday’s probable election call.

http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=2954

I fear there are absolutley no fiscal conservatives left in this country

The more things change...

Every one of those spending announcements were in the budget. It has been stated by many media outlets.

[Bryan]

Unfortunately we are already on the way to being flat broke ... just ask Andrew Coyne of National Post fame and a former fan of Cons

Flaherty/Harper team are now Canadas biggest spenders

Coyne is being deliberately deceptive. He's counting tax cuts as spending. He's also counting the Conservatives actually following through on financial committments that the Liberals made as increased spending. He's also counting restoring cuts the Liberals made to healthcare, the military, and provincial transfer payments as increased spending. He's also counting debt repayment as increased spending.

You can't just not pay your bills, and expect people to take you seriously when you brag about how much money you have saved up. When the next guy comes in and actually pays the bills, you can't bag on him for wasting the money you saved either.

[jdobbin]

Every one of those spending announcements were in the budget. It has been stated by many media outlets.

And that is over the spending promise Harper has made every election.

[marksman]

Speaking of priorities, I am actually questioning Dion's priorities. And your priorities for that matter!

How silly of me for pointing out that people should look at the substance and not the spin. What a ridiculous claim I've made that I think we should expect our politicians to be professional rather than twisting facts so that they can then mock their opponents.

Your support for prioritizing form over substance is why politicians think they can get away with that useless behaviour.

Perhaps you should read all of my replies.

You opened the topic by mocking the name so I pointed out that I think Canadians and our politicians should rise above such behaviour. I'm not replying to every post you've ever made in these forums.

So answer this: Dion says, thanks to Harper we're in pretty bad shape right now, deficit-wise....then how is he going to afford all these plans?

I'd like to see a list of priorities and how much it'll cost from every single party. In the meantime what Dion's suggesting doesn't seem too different from what Harper's been doing since he was elected.

[marksman]

Coyne is being deliberately deceptive. He's counting tax cuts as spending. He's also counting the Conservatives actually following through on financial committments that the Liberals made as increased spending. He's also counting restoring cuts the Liberals made to healthcare, the military, and provincial transfer payments as increased spending. He's also counting debt repayment as increased spending.

You can't just not pay your bills, and expect people to take you seriously when you brag about how much money you have saved up. When the next guy comes in and actually pays the bills, you can't bag on him for wasting the money you saved either.

Coyne made the very accurate point that just because you've put a spending program into the tax system doesn't make it a tax cut at least not in the way that tax cuts have normally been understood. Example you can give a $300/year baby bonus in multiple ways. 1 way is to just send a cheque to parents for $300 at the end of the financial year. That's a spending program. A 2nd way is you could give parents $300 at the end of the financial year by letting them reduce their payable taxes by that much. That's 1 form of a Harper "tax cut". A spending program hidden in the tax system is still a spending program. These programs are called "tax expenditures" in other words spending. When the GST was cut I don't think Coyne included it in his spending calculations because that was a real tax cut.

Your other points are also clear examples of spending. It doesn't matter why they spent the money because they still spent the money. Saying that money wasn't spent because it went to pay the debt doesn't make sense.

He pointed out that the overall level of spending had increased by a huge amount. And he was right.

[betsy]

In the meantime what Dion's suggesting doesn't seem too different from what Harper's been doing since he was elected.

But you see, here's the difference between the two:

Harper is saying we are not in trouble financially.

Dion is saying we are. So, inspite of knowing we are teetering on the brink of being broke, as he continuously claims....why this grandiose splurge then? He believes that we are going broke, and yet he makes plans to spend hundreds of billions! Have you looked at the figures???

This is like someone who smells and knows gas is leaking all over the place but proceeds to light the fire anyway!

Not only will he turn Canada into a have-not and tax us to the gills (at a time when we are going to face economic uncertainty).....but he'll also saddle our future generations with this debt (at a time when they'd most probably need to have cash to adjust to climate change)! This would be wilfull, reckless negligent on his part.

Those who are toying with the idea of putting Dion into power, this is something you really should think about.

Which is your priority? The party or your country?

Edited September 19, 2008 by betsy

[betsy]

How silly of me for pointing out that people should look at the substance and not the spin. What a ridiculous claim I've made that I think we should expect our politicians to be professional rather than twisting facts so that they can then mock their opponents.

Your support for prioritizing form over substance is why politicians think they can get away with that useless behaviour.

I guess that depends on your perception of "substance."

In my view, pointing out the reckless negligence of Dion with his apparent stubborn and wilfull determination to take our country on the road straight to bankruptcy is of paramount substance.

The Liberals are showing a maniacal obsession to obtaining power. It will be a very costly mistake - one that we may never, ever recover from!

You opened the topic by mocking the name so I pointed out that I think Canadians and our politicians should rise above such behaviour. I'm not replying to every post you've ever made in these forums.

Knowing what Dion claims he knows (that our country is on the brink), and yet still make all these grandiose spending spree, not to mention the billions wasted in past boondagles, indeed only makes it so ironic that the tag CATASTROPHIC is so aptly used.

Well how would I know your feelings will be hurt over something like this?

I had stated my reasons as to why. I defended my positions. Heck, by all means kindly put me on ignore if it will make you feel so much better. This is a forum.

Sometimes the way arguments are presented will not be to everyone's liking.

I hope nobody demand that I apologise for that.

Edited September 19, 2008 by betsy

[marksman]

But you see, here's the difference between the two:

Harper is saying we are not in trouble financially.

Dion is saying we are. So, inspite of knowing we are teetering on the brink of being broke, as he continuously claims....why this grandiose splurge then? He believes that we are going broke, and yet he makes plans to spend hundreds of billions! Have you looked at the figures???

If you've got webpages with a tally of each party's figures post them please.

It seems like you're saying don't vote for Dion because he knows we're on the brink and his spending will destroy us. But that assumes we're on the brink and if that's true then Harper is the 1 who brought us there and you're now telling us to vote for the person who doesn't even realize he brought us to the brink with his spending.

Not only will he turn Canada into a have-not and tax us to the gills (at a time when we are going to face economic uncertainty).....but he'll also saddle our future generations with this debt (at a time when they'd most probably need to have cash to adjust to climate change)!

So your argument on why we shouldn't try to deal with climate change now with a carbon tax - offset by income taxes and not just a tax to the gills - is because future generations will need to deal with climate change?

Which is your priority? The party or your country?

Someone's been listening to a few too many John McCain ads. I reject the implication that if I don't vote for Harper I must be a traitor. That type of thinking generally doesn't play too well in Canada.

[marksman]

I guess that depends on your perception of "substance."

In my view, pointing out the reckless negligence of Dion with his apparent stubborn and wilfull determination to take our country on the road straight to bankruptcy is of paramount substance.

I didn't say looking at actual numbers was not an issue of substance. I said trying to attack the name of a policy was to prioritize form over substance. Especially when that name is a common 1 in the industry.

That's what you did in the 1st post in this thread and that's what I responded to. Even in the best possible light your 1st post might rise to the level of a petty partisan attack. But it certainly wasn't looking at the substance of the policy.

The Liberals are showing a maniacal obsession to obtaining power. It will be a very costly mistake - one that we may never, ever recover from!

Gee where've we heard that before. All you needed was a picture of a soldier standing on a street corner and an ominous voice saying "we did not make this up".

The "oh my gosh that guy is so scary" argument was rightly criticized by Harper supporters when it was aimed at Harper. It carries just as much weight when aimed against any other leader.

Well how would I know your feelings will be hurt over something like this?

I had stated my reasons as to why. I defended my positions. Heck, by all means kindly put me on ignore if it will make you feel so much better. This is a forum.

Sometimes the way arguments are presented will not be to everyone's liking.

I hope nobody demand that I apologise for that.

I'm not sure how you went from me saying that I was responding to 1 of your posts not all of them to my feelings being hurt. Don't worry though. I don't have an emotional investment in what happens here on mapleleafweb. Anyone who does should probably take a break from the internet.

Also for future consideration when someone points out a flaw in your argument and you respond with a totally different point you should know that doesn't count as a defense of your original position.

[Bryan]

So your argument on why we shouldn't try to deal with climate change now with a carbon tax - offset by income taxes and not just a tax to the gills - is because future generations will need to deal with climate change?

Everyone needs to deal with climate change, because climate changes all the time.

A carbon tax does nothing to "deal" with climate change. Carbon tax is just a tax grab.

[betsy]

It seems like you're saying don't vote for Dion because he knows we're on the brink and his spending will destroy us. But that assumes we're on the brink and if that's true then Harper is the 1 who brought us there and you're now telling us to vote for the person who doesn't even realize he brought us to the brink with his spending.

Dion is the one saying we're going broke. And at the same time, Dion is promising billions of spending.

Either he's going to be the most reckless PM of all time....or he is a liar.

Either way, he definitely cannot be trusted!

Edited September 20, 2008 by betsy