Growing Seniors Population Spell Trouble

[Renegade]

I am quite happy you are clarifying your position for everyone. I'll let others be the judge.

It is nothing new willie. It has always been my position. You can judge, others can judge, it matters not to me.

It is because of people like you who would steal for self-benefit that laws are required to protect personal property.

You're the only one here who wants to enact laws. I was just making an observation.

So am I willie.

[Argus]

Ten pages of crap with hardly a single intelligent posting. Congratulations, people.

The original point of this topic was the discussion of the economic problems posed by an aging population. No one has yet done so.

There was an early focus on retirement and health benefits, and severely limiting them - which you might as well just stop talking about because that ain't happening. Case closed. End of story. Or hadn't you figured out that an aging population also meant an aging voter base? Now you're talking about pie-in-the-sky libertarian concepts. Phhhht.

The idea we should limit health benefits is ludicrous. You want to stop cancer treatment because the money clock has run out? Go live in the US.

Examine the overall budget. There is massive room for cutbacks in it. The problem is the people standing in the way - us. All that money is being spent on programs for US and WE LIKE IT. Even small programs most of us have never even heard of can create an outcry when the government cuts funds to them. Remember the mess over the cutbacks to a few arts programs almost no one had ever heard of before the last election? Many suggest that cost the Tories a majority.

I mean, Jesus H Christ, here you people are talking about cutting off funding for all social programs. LOL. The government couldn't even cut a few tens of millions to ARTS programs without a national outcry!

Maybe you might want to reorganize where you think the government needs to save money, huh? Like the half billion in arts and cultural programs or the $3.5 billion in foreign aid. Then there's all the corporate welfare, the billions given to "help companies" modernize or do this or that improve their environmental output or find markets abroad or whatever. I think last time I checked that was about $11 billion.

And before you suggest we cut people off health care after they cost too much don't you think suggesting we reform the health care system to implement more privately funded care might be appropriate?

But how much of that is going to happen? One of the few intelligent columns I've read in the Toronto Star was one by Angelo Persichilli today in which he basically points out that the reason federal governments - of any political stripe - continue to spend more money than we need is because we, the people, reward them for it, and punish them for not doing so.

The straight truth is that we have two important problems to solve – one immediate, namely the deficit, and the other in a decade, namely the aging population.

We don't need more economists telling us that we can't spend money we don't have, and that the shrinking of the working force when the baby boomers retire will increase the need for social spending. But those important problems will not be solved because our politicians are not used to dealing with important matters with no immediate tangible results.

Governments and Populace blind to Gathering Fiscal Storm

[Bonam]

Ten pages of crap with hardly a single intelligent posting. Congratulations, people.

The original point of this topic was the discussion of the economic problems posed by an aging population. No one has yet done so.

There was an early focus on retirement and health benefits, and severely limiting them - which you might as well just stop talking about because that ain't happening. Case closed. End of story. Or hadn't you figured out that an aging population also meant an aging voter base? Now you're talking about pie-in-the-sky libertarian concepts. Phhhht.

Just because certain ideas have little/no chance of being implemented in reality, isn't a reason not to talk about them on a forum (where people post and debate for their own entertainment, basically). You should know this, you've certainly posted your share of topics proposing ideas contrary to the prevalent ideas of multiculturalism, which basically have no chance of ever happening.

The idea we should limit health benefits is ludicrous. You want to stop cancer treatment because the money clock has run out? Go live in the US.

Examine the overall budget. There is massive room for cutbacks in it. The problem is the people standing in the way - us. All that money is being spent on programs for US and WE LIKE IT. Even small programs most of us have never even heard of can create an outcry when the government cuts funds to them. Remember the mess over the cutbacks to a few arts programs almost no one had ever heard of before the last election? Many suggest that cost the Tories a majority.

I mean, Jesus H Christ, here you people are talking about cutting off funding for all social programs. LOL. The government couldn't even cut a few tens of millions to ARTS programs without a national outcry!

Maybe you might want to reorganize where you think the government needs to save money, huh? Like the half billion in arts and cultural programs or the $3.5 billion in foreign aid. Then there's all the corporate welfare, the billions given to "help companies" modernize or do this or that improve their environmental output or find markets abroad or whatever. I think last time I checked that was about $11 billion.

Cutting less important programs is all well and good, but you have to realize that the money spent on them is tiny compared to healthcare. Healthcare is the single largest expense of the government, and continues to grow exponentially in cost, as the portion of the population that requires extensive care increases, as well as the cost of ever newer and more advanced technologies and procedures continues to increase. In a decade or two, even if there was no spending on anything else at all, we still couldn't pay for healthcare as it is structured now.

And before you suggest we cut people off health care after they cost too much don't you think suggesting we reform the health care system to implement more privately funded care might be appropriate?

But how much of that is going to happen? One of the few intelligent columns I've read in the Toronto Star was one by Angelo Persichilli today in which he basically points out that the reason federal governments - of any political stripe - continue to spend more money than we need is because we, the people, reward them for it, and punish them for not doing so.

The straight truth is that we have two important problems to solve – one immediate, namely the deficit, and the other in a decade, namely the aging population.

The ONLY realistic way out of any of these problems is continued economic growth. That's what the government's priority should be. For one, it's something they can actually work on, politicians certainly have no trouble focusing on short term economic growth. And secondly, whether funding comes out of the public purse or is payed for by people individually, the cost of healthcare is still going to rise and keep on rising. The only way to pay for it is by making more money. And we certainly have plenty of opportunity for economic growth in Canada if we get right down to it.

[msdogfood]

what ever happens it will not be good at all!

[bloodyminded]

That's funny willie, I don't think I ever tried to hide my position. Excactly how much a person should have or earn before being allowed to have chlidren is up for debate? As to penalties, I liken the analogy to the state requireing people have a licence to drive. The state cannot physically prevent people from driving but will apply a variety of penalties to those who transgress. If a person unfit for parenthood, decides to become a parent anyway, IMV they should be subject to penalties even up to the placement of children with suitable parents.

That's disgusting.

[bloodyminded]

Ten pages of crap with hardly a single intelligent posting. Congratulations, people.

I disagree. There have been many. Toadbrother in particular has composed multiple postings on the philosophical and (especially) potential practical problems of Libertarianism which are extremely insightful and carefully-argued.

[Renegade]

That's disgusting.

That you find it digusting is not a surprise. Do you also find it disgusting that adoptive parents are qualifed before they are allowed to adopt?

[bloodyminded]

That you find it digusting is not a surprise. Do you also find it disgusting that adoptive parents are qualifed before they are allowed to adopt?

Of course not. But this allows a limited power of the State to look after a child's welfare to a relatively UNintrusive degree. The would-be parents are vetted to ensure their capabilities.

But it is not their child until the adoption goes through. they have NO parental rights OR responsibilities during this process.

What you're advocating is not only Big Government, but HUGE Government--true Statism--where government intrusion into family affairs is continual and draconian. Literally from birth. There IS no real family unit under your scenario; the children are first the responsibilities of the government; and then--providing parents meet up with government expectations--they are allowed to keep their children.

Of course, they would have to be monitored over the years to ensure they don't slip up.

I'm surprised to discover that I am more libertarian than you are.

[Renegade]

Of course not. But this allows a limited power of the State to look after a child's welfare to a relatively UNintrusive degree. The would-be parents are vetted to ensure their capabilities.

But it is not their child until the adoption goes through. they have NO parental rights OR responsibilities during this process.

What you're advocating is not only Big Government, but HUGE Government--true Statism--where government intrusion into family affairs is continual and draconian. Literally from birth. There IS no real family unit under your scenario; the children are first the responsibilities of the government; and then--providing parents meet up with government expectations--they are allowed to keep their children.

Of course, they would have to be monitored over the years to ensure they don't slip up.

I'm surprised to discover that I am more libertarian than you are.

I doubt you are more libertarian than me. I really don't see a difference in qualifying potential adoptive parents and qualifying potential natural parents. You need to be more specfic on what parental rights or responsiblities you are referring to.

I do not think it is contrary to a libertarian position for the state use its power to enforce contracts. I'm even willing to say I can see how the state can intervene so that parties who cannot or are unlikely to live up to a contract do not enter into a contract. IMV when a parent chooses to become a parent they enter into a contract with the child. They agree to commit to the child certain obligations. It seems reasonable that the state can intervene to prevent those who cannot live up to the terms of those obligations from entering into such a contract.

BTW, further discussion on this is better served in a separate thread.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Renegade

[Mr.Canada]

Mnay times the state does intervene. It's called the CAS or CHildren's Aid Society.

[bloodyminded]

I doubt you are more libertarian than me. I really don't see a difference in qualifying potential adoptive parents and qualifying potential natural parents. You need to be more specfic on what parental rights or responsiblities you are referring to.

I do not think it is contrary to a libertarian position for the state use its power to enforce contracts. I'm even willing to say I can see how the state can intervene so that parties who cannot or are unlikely to live up to a contract do not enter into a contract. IMV when a parent chooses to become a parent they enter into a contract with the child. They agree to commit to the child certain obligations. It seems reasonable that the state can intervene to prevent those who cannot live up to the terms of those obligations from entering into such a contract.

BTW, further discussion on this is better served in a separate thread.

If you believe discussion on this better suited for another thread, perhaps you shouldn't try to make your case before you add the rejoinder at the end...so that you can get the last word, so to speak.

All I'll say is that if you see no profound distinction between a government vetting potential adopters, and government vetting parents after the fact (since you added in the "potential" just now, contradicting your earlier claim, no doubt anticipating a sane response to your statist beliefs), then the discussion has no point.

You believe in large-scale government sticking its nose in everywhere; I do not.

Edited March 4, 2010 by bloodyminded

[PIK]

After listening to the CBC anti - harper everything today, I know where we can save a billion dollars. Why spend that much money for one side of the story.But back to the topic, in my town alone it is about 2-4 year wait for a senior home, and yet they are now raising money to build a autitorium, instead of more rooms for seniors. Poor planning, and it goes back to when we built a new home, tore down a 300 bed unit and replaced it with 150 bed unit, and this is less then 15 years ago and this problem was know then. Now I know this eventually will be blame on harper, but I wonder ''what did chretien do in his 13 years in power"?

Edited March 4, 2010 by PIK

[Mr.Canada]

After listening to the CBC anti - harper everything today, I know where we can save a billion dollars. Why spend that much money for one side of the story.But back to the topic, in my town alone it is about 2-4 year wait for a senior home, and yet they are now raising money to build a autitorium, instead of more rooms for seniors. Poor planning, and it goes back to when we built a new home, tore down a 300 bed unit and replaced it with 150 bed unit, and this is less then 15 years ago and this problem was know then. Now I know this eventually will be blame on harper, but I wonder ''what did chretien do in his 13 years in power"?

No matter what any politician does they will never please all the people. There will always be someone who is unhappy.

[Renegade]

If you believe discussion on this better suited for another thread, perhaps you shouldn't try to make your case before you add the rejoinder at the end...so that you can get the last word, so to speak.

Actually I edited my post to add that at the end because IMV this thread got way off track. Since you don't want to persue the conversation in another thread, because you are afraid that I "can get the last word", it's no issue to me to continue in the current thread.

I'm amused at how you take an administrative suggestion to confer some sort of debate advantage.

All I'll say is that if you see no profound distinction between a government vetting potential adopters, and government vetting parents after the fact (since you added in the "potential" just now, contradicting your earlier claim, no doubt anticipating a sane response to your statist beliefs), then the discussion has no point.

Feel free to point out the contradiction as I see none. At the early stages of a child's development, from conception to probably sometime after birth, all you have are "potential" parents. Except in the strictly biological definition, inseminating an egg, or hosting a pregnancy, doensn't make one a parent. It makes one a potential parent.

Also, no I don't believe that government should only act after the fact. In fact I think the bulk of the work in qualifying a parent should be done before the fact, in a similar way that driver's licences are used to filter qualified drivers even before they get behind a wheel.

You believe in large-scale government sticking its nose in everywhere; I do not.

That's really quite funny. Not long ago you contended what a rabid liberttarian I was.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Renegade

[bloodyminded]

Actually I edited my post to add that at the end because IMV this thread got way off track. Since you don't want to persue the conversation in another thread, because you are afraid that I "can get the last word", it's no issue to me to continue in the current thread.

I'm amused at how you take an administrative suggestion to confer some sort of debate advantage.

Ok, fair enough. Hopefully you'll indulge me enough to understand that some posters will, after a lengthy debate, post a full page of argument before spitting, "Now I'm done with you, and won't read another word."

You weren't doing this, I know.

Feel free to point out the contradiction as I see none. At the early stages of a child's development, from conception to probably sometime after birth, all you have are "potential" parents. Except in the strictly biological definition, inseminating an egg, or hosting a pregnancy, doensn't make one a parent. It makes one a potential parent.

Also, no I don't believe that government should only act after the fact. In fact I think the bulk of the work in qualifying a parent should be done before the fact, in a similar way that driver's licences are used to filter qualified drivers even before they get behind a wheel.

It is a personal invasion, in a way that vetting potential adoptees is not. Further, even as the State has the power to remove a child (a power which I agree is necessary), governments are highly conservative in their approach to it. As they should be. What we don't need is automatic government intrusion into everybody's personal life without prior cause.

And in fact, one of the reasons the government is cautious about removing children is that it has become a psychological standard that fairly poor parents are preferable to a foster situation. Both have emotional and psychological effects on a child, sometimes affecting them in various ways for life. But it's not at all obvious--to the people who do this for a living, and who have deep understanding of child psychology--that removing a child from not-too-great parents is the healthy choice...for the child, I mean. That's why they restrict it to abusive and dangerously neglectful homes.

How would the government decide exactly what makes a parent "qualified"? With a driver's license (your repeated analogy) the required skills and knowledge of the rules are nice and clear, at least mostly. Parenting, I daresay, is a profoundly different matter.

First of all, people disagree wildly on what constitutes good parenting; on what is acceptable and what is not.

How do we measure this?

What about financial security? This is a sticky situation. What if you have little, but feel you're likely to have a lot more later...and you're already pregnant. (I add this in case you deflect with a "well, don't have children yet" remark.) Or what if you're financially stable...but later fall into ruin? Should you be monitored, and so have your children blithely removed at the moment of insolvency?

What's too strict? Not strict enough?

And what about parents--the untold millions--who begin rather badly, but then "grow into" a fine parenting ability?

That's really quite funny. Not long ago you contended what a rabid liberttarian I was.

I know, you're a walking contradiction. But I don't mean this as an insult, because we are by nature contradictory animals.

[Moonbox]

One of the few intelligent columns I've read in the Toronto Star was one by Angelo Persichilli today in which he basically points out that the reason federal governments - of any political stripe - continue to spend more money than we need is because we, the people, reward them for it, and punish them for not doing so.

This is probably the smartest thing anyone has said here in the whole thread.

If you want to complain about the deficit, then find us places where we can reduce spending. Health Care is a universal benefit and useful to basically everyone. It is also most important to the vast majority of Canadians. This is probably one of the last places you want to look for cuts. From there, where can we cut? I can think of 10 easy things that would save us billions, but we'd have people up in arms over every single one of them. At the same time though, they're happy to complain about the deficit. Quite a nasty little circle isn't it?

[Renegade]

Ok, fair enough. Hopefully you'll indulge me enough to understand that some posters will, after a lengthy debate, post a full page of argument before spitting, "Now I'm done with you, and won't read another word."

You weren't doing this, I know.

Well then, I'll take my own advice an respond to you another thread which is relevant to the topic being discused.

Child Poverty

Edited March 4, 2010 by Renegade