punked Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 There were large reductions in the 1970s too. I showed you think once before. Yes in 77 the government reduced it too about 30% of the cost. The NDP did not support that either that was a Liberal majority government. It was reduced again under the Conservative Majority government, and then again under Martin to about 10% Harper has upped the number to about 14% still terrible. You keep denying what I have already shown you. You showed me one article which said "one company offers huge perk of sex change operations and is named one of the best companies in America to work for" yes. You have not showed it is real option for out of pocket insurance to cover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Yes in 77 the government reduced it too about 30% of the cost. The NDP did not support that either that was a Liberal majority government. It was reduced again under the Conservative Majority government, and then again under Martin to about 10% Harper has upped the number to about 14% still terrible. It wasn't just reduced under majority governments. It has been a steady decrease which was done partly in exchange for provinces having more control over their programs. That was also in the link I showed you. There were also provincial NDP governments at the time who were asking for more control so in turn more responsibility was given in terms of finances. You showed me one article which said "one company offers huge perk of sex change operations and is named one of the best companies in America to work for" yes. You have not showed it is real option for out of pocket insurance to cover. Actually, some of the links I showed you gave a few companies. Bank of America was one. The AMA only in 2008 said that it should be funded and accordingly more insurance plans are coming aboard since the medical association has given its thumbs up. That was also in a link I showed you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 That's how Martin and the Liberals achieved their balanced budgets. On the backs of the Province's ability to provide healthcare. They cut funding to the bone. And then he has the nerve to criticize provinces for struggling, while at the same time, Liberals were shoveling money to their cronies, and buying $100 dollar golf balls. And the provinces at the same time cut health while cutting taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 It wasn't just reduced under majority governments. It has been a steady decrease which was done partly in exchange for provinces having more control over their programs. That was also in the link I showed you. There were also provincial NDP governments at the time who were asking for more control so in turn more responsibility was given in terms of finances. The largest amounts were done under Majorities. I agree some of it was done to give the provinces more sway with their money, but the majority of the cuts made for more fiscal reasons then giving power to the provinces. In 1996 when decided Ottawa would no longer even assess what provinces spent on health care when making transfer payments we all knew we were in big trouble. Actually, some of the links I showed you gave a few companies. Bank of America was one.The AMA only in 2008 said that it should be funded and accordingly more insurance plans are coming aboard since the medical association has given its thumbs up. That was also in a link I showed you. You haven't showed me one out of pocket plan that would pay for it. You showed me a wiki link about the AMA, which is fine but when I clicked on their source material nothing came up leading me to believe it was not well researched. I want to learn more on the subject becuase besides large corporation offering it as a perk I can not see it working in the insurance industry as a bisuness model it just cost too much and does not have a large enough base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 The largest amounts were done under Majorities. I agree some of it was done to give the provinces more sway with their money, but the majority of the cuts made for more fiscal reasons then giving power to the provinces. In 1996 when decided Ottawa would no longer even assess what provinces spent on health care when making transfer payments we all knew we were in big trouble. The provinces wanted more control and they got it. The only thing that the Feds continued to monitor was the five principles. You haven't showed me one out of pocket plan that would pay for it. You showed me a wiki link about the AMA, which is fine but when I clicked on their source material nothing came up leading me to believe it was not well researched. I want to learn more on the subject becuase besides large corporation offering it as a perk I can not see it working in the insurance industry as a bisuness model it just cost too much and does not have a large enough base. I don't think I suggested an out of pocket plan. I said there are company plans out there right now that would offer additional services if permitted. The AMA statement in 2008 is widely available. I think it was mentioned in a few of the links already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 The provinces wanted more control and they got it. The only thing that the Feds continued to monitor was the five principles. You got no arguement from me but Martin cutting Federal costs to 10% of total health care costs was just horrible. Liberals like to take credit for Medicare I wonder if they will take credit for its death if this continues? I don't think I suggested an out of pocket plan. I said there are company plans out there right now that would offer additional services if permitted.The AMA statement in 2008 is widely available. I think it was mentioned in a few of the links already. So you think company plans will cover sex change operations? Maybe, I don't think so. Nothing is stopping from doing it now. Almost no medical insurance covers it. Yes Goldman Sach, and Bank of America does, Ford will give you time off and pay your salary for that time period but that represents such a small portion, and becuase it is much cheaper in Canada due to our hospitable and equipment already being subsidized I don't see any Canadian company offering to cover it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted August 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 (edited) You got no arguement from me but Martin cutting Federal costs to 10% of total health care costs was just horrible. Liberals like to take credit for Medicare I wonder if they will take credit for its death if this continues? Your forget that it was also Martin who began to restore funding. What was particularly galling is seeing some provinces bank it or spending it on other things. So you think company plans will cover sex change operations? Maybe, I don't think so. Nothing is stopping from doing it now. Almost no medical insurance covers it. Yes Goldman Sach, and Bank of America does, Ford will give you time off and pay your salary for that time period but that represents such a small portion, and becuase it is much cheaper in Canada due to our hospitable and equipment already being subsidized I don't see any Canadian company offering to cover it. Actually, I keep pointing out to you the impediments imposed by the provinces. Most will not allow a doctor to perform the surgery unless they are fully out of the public system. How is that possible if a doctor only does a few of those surgeries a year? Likewise, insurance in some provinces are only allowed for a select few procedures and within a timeframe set by the government. To put it simply, the government says they don't have the money but will let people pay out of their own pocket but not give them access to a doctor unless they are fully privatized. And insurance is not even allowed to cover the procedure because only select procedures are allowed. It is enough to make anyone's head spin around. It doesn't help to fingerpoint. It doesn't help to say there isn't a solution. I wish this was the only area where people are struggling in. Autism is even worse. Most provinces don't cover the care, the drugs. Some jurisdictions in other countries have mandated private insurance because families literally go bankrupt trying to provide for their children. We have major holes in our system. Not all of them can be met through the public health system. Edited August 12, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.