Layton's Home Care For Seniors plan

[Scotty]

Precious little has caught my attention so far, but Layton's promise of a half billion to help seniors stay in their homes sounds, on the surface, like an awfully good idea. I don't know how much it would wind up growing as the senior population ages, though. And since it's an NDP plan it almost has to be fiscally irresponsible. So does anyone know where it fails? Aside from the fact he'll never be PM, that is?

Ottawa Citizen

Edited April 6, 2011 by Scotty

[ToadBrother]

Precious little has caught my attention so far, but Layton's promise of a half billion to help seniors stay in their homes sounds, on the surface, like an awfully good idea. I don't know how much it would wind up growing as the senior population ages, though. And since it's an NDP plan it almost has to be fiscally irresponsible. So does anyone know where it fails? Aside from the fact he'll never be PM, that is?

Ottawa Citizen

It could certainly get more expensive as the Baby Boom bubble moves through the system, and it's going to take some negotiations with the provinces, but pretty much everyone is feeling the impact of the demographic time bomb, so I'm sure that could be negotiated. It is something that we're increasingly going to have to deal with, as we are with the increased health costs involved in this generation living longer.

[Bryan]

Besides the fact that you can promise anything you want if you're never going be Prime Minister, my biggest concern is that Jack keeps making promises like this that seem reasonable at first blush until you realize that most of what he talks about is a provincial jurisdiction, not federal.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Bryan

[ToadBrother]

Besides the fact that you can promise anything you want if your never going be Prime Minister, my biggest concern is that Jack keeps making promises like this that seem reasonable at first blush until you realize that most of what he talks about is a provincial jurisdiction, not federal.

When you actually look at the big picture; the NDP probably equal the Bloc in sheer contempt for our institutions. They hate the Senate, they hate separation of provincial and Federal powers, they have no small number of republicans, they hate the military.

[RNG]

When you actually look at the big picture; the NDP probably equal the Bloc in sheer contempt for our institutions. They hate the Senate, they hate separation of provincial and Federal powers, they have no small number of republicans, they hate the military.

And the NDP never tell us how they will pay for their vote-buying promises.

[ToadBrother]

And the NDP never tell us how they will pay for their vote-buying promises.

Now if only the Tories would admit that Parliament is supreme and there exists absolutely no right for the Government to defy Parliament in even the smallest thing, I might even vote for them (even if my Conservative MP is a quack and a jerk).

But alas, the NDP and the Tories both seem to despite our constitution and institutions.

[Oleg Bach]

Childern should not be dumped into mini-institutions and be taken care of by care givers...Nor should seniors all be dumped into instituions....especially by jerk kids that can not patiently wait for their inheritance. It is better that the aged are left to their own device unless they are chronically ill...The new senior is a robust creature . The toughest yet.

[Keepitsimple]

It's frustrating to hear these types of election goodies. This really a Provincial issue and it makes a lot of sense that there is a Provincial plan in place. Giving people money to care for elders at home takes a large strain off the Provincially funded Extended Care Facilities that are often not adequate. My father-in-law was in the Military and we were able to provide 24 hour homecare by paying private individuals $100 per day to provide live-in care. We could claim that as an expense through Veterans Affairs. It really helped. We did that for 8 years until he passed away. Otherwise, he would have had to go to a Veterans Home and it would have cost far more to house, feed, care and administer. So it makes sense for the Provinces to start a plan to partially reimburse homecare costs. I'm sure some or all do that to a certain degree but I don't know the details. The thing is, the juristiction is Provincial and if it's not CLEAR, then the Provinces and Feds conveniently use each other as an excuse and very little gets done. Look at Healthcare - it's Provincial also - the Feds only contribute 15% so that they can enforce the Canada Health Act....but because many people don't understand that it's the Provinces' reponsibility to deliver services - it becomes a Federal election issue.....and for the most part, it shouldn't. Roles and responsibilities - they should be clear and accountable.

[Oleg Bach]

Taking care of our very young and very old is important...cos' we have been there and will be there ourselves in time. I believe they should make it possible for families to take care of family members the best they can with out to much finacial strain. There should be no extremes in cost when it comes to kids and the aged. To make it to expensive to care for children or the elderly is not saying much about our society....people are all we have . They are NOT a buisness or resourse in their weakened state. HOME....is where the family is.

[ToadBrother]

It's frustrating to hear these types of election goodies. This really a Provincial issue and it makes a lot of sense that there is a Provincial plan in place. Giving people money to care for elders at home takes a large strain off the Provincially funded Extended Care Facilities that are often not adequate. My father-in-law was in the Military and we were able to provide 24 hour homecare by paying private individuals $100 per day to provide live-in care. We could claim that as an expense through Veterans Affairs. It really helped. We did that for 8 years until he passed away. Otherwise, he would have had to go to a Veterans Home and it would have cost far more to house, feed, care and administer. So it makes sense for the Provinces to start a plan to partially reimburse homecare costs. I'm sure some or all do that to a certain degree but I don't know the details. The thing is, the juristiction is Provincial and if it's not CLEAR, then the Provinces and Feds conveniently use each other as an excuse and very little gets done. Look at Healthcare - it's Provincial also - the Feds only contribute 15% so that they can enforce the Canada Health Act....but because many people don't understand that it's the Provinces' reponsibility to deliver services - it becomes a Federal election issue.....and for the most part, it shouldn't. Roles and responsibilities - they should be clear and accountable.

I'm thinking that if the Feds were holding a fistful of cash for senior care, providing there weren't too many strings attached, the Provinces would grab it.

[TheRightWing]

Laytons an idiot.

What does he say he wants to do?

Double benefits and pensions?

Yeah Mr. Layton, that's all well and good. But perhaps your mustache can tell me how you're going to pay for all of that

[ToadBrother]

Laytons an idiot.

What does he say he wants to do?

Double benefits and pensions?

Yeah Mr. Layton, that's all well and good. But perhaps your mustache can tell me how you're going to pay for all of that

It's too bad Harper didn't have a moustache, then it could explain why the average taxpayer has to wait four years for tax breaks, but corporations will get them right quick (providing the budget ever happens).

Edited April 7, 2011 by ToadBrother

[TheRightWing]

It's too bad Harper didn't have a moustache, then it could explain why the average taxpayer has to wait four years for tax breaks, but corporations will get them right quick (providing the budget ever happens).

Right quick eh?

Maritimer?

[ToadBrother]

Right quick eh?

Maritimer?

And here we go again, someone assuming they know my political leanings because I dare to be critical of a Tory policy.

Wrong side of the continent my friend, and whatever political affiliation you think I have, you're wrong.

[Evening Star]

And the NDP never tell us how they will pay for their vote-buying promises.

Actually, the NDP are usually pretty up-front about raising taxes, ending fossil-fuel subsidies, and limiting our military actions. Whether you think those ideas would work is another matter but I never see the federal party buying votes with promises of goodies without explaining where the money would come from. (I've always associated that approach with the LPC, tbh. Maybe the NDP would be more successful if they tried it.)

[Evening Star]

(TB, I'm guessing he was commenting on the use of "right" as an adverb, which seems to be part of Maritime dialects.)

[bloodyminded]

And here we go again, someone assuming they know my political leanings because I dare to be critical of a Tory policy.

Wrong side of the continent my friend, and whatever political affiliation you think I have, you're wrong.

I don't think that was his meaning, TB. I think he took your use of "right" as qualifier to wonder if you're a Maritimer.

It's not particular to the Maritimes, but is more common here.

Another one is "some" as qualifier, as in "that beer tastes some good!"

Edited April 7, 2011 by bloodyminded

[TheRightWing]

And here we go again, someone assuming they know my political leanings because I dare to be critical of a Tory policy.

Wrong side of the continent my friend, and whatever political affiliation you think I have, you're wrong.

Actually if you'd notice, I did not comment on your political affiliation.

Wanna play victim? That's your choice. I was merely seeing if you're a maritimer, nothing more nothing less *shrugs

So I'll comment on your post now.

Stephen Harper is a politician first and foremost, I don't agree with that particular policy no.

However what Stephen Harper does is irreverent to the topic of how Layton intends to pay for the benefits he wants to increase (not that we have to worry about that anyway since the NDP is on the "not a chance in hell" they'll be elected Ticket.

Anything else?

[TheRightWing]

(TB, I'm guessing he was commenting on the use of "right" as an adverb, which seems to be part of Maritime dialects.)

Nah "right quick" is the ticket.

Generally in my experience it's an east coast expression.

[ToadBrother]

Actually if you'd notice, I did not comment on your political affiliation.

Wanna play victim? That's your choice. I was merely seeing if you're a maritimer, nothing more nothing less *shrugs

So I'll comment on your post now.

Stephen Harper is a politician first and foremost, I don't agree with that particular policy no.

However what Stephen Harper does is irreverent to the topic of how Layton intends to pay for the benefits he wants to increase (not that we have to worry about that anyway since the NDP is on the "not a chance in hell" they'll be elected Ticket.

Anything else?

Layton doesn't intend on paying for it. Right now, I have a feeling that the NDP are hoping one of two things; that either the Tories will come to their senses after being delivered another minority on May 2 and invite Jack and Co. to give "input" on the budget that has to be introduced, or, failing any agreement there, that Iggy and Duceppe will play ball and turf the Tories at the end of May when the Throne Speech is voted on.

Edited April 7, 2011 by ToadBrother

[blueblood]

Layton doesn't intend on paying for it. Right now, I have a feeling that the NDP are hoping one of two things; that either the Tories will come to their senses after being delivered another minority on May 2 and invite Jack and Co. to give "input" on the budget that has to be introduced, or, failing any agreement there, that Iggy and Duceppe will play ball and turf the Tories at the end of May when the Throne Speech is voted on.

And this is why a minority govt would be a bad idea right now. Instability anyone?

[ToadBrother]

And this is why a minority govt would be a bad idea right now. Instability anyone?

Instability hasn't hurt us so far. Why are you so worried about it now?

[bloodyminded]

And this is why a minority govt would be a bad idea right now. Instability anyone?

But as Toadbrother pointed out elsewhere, cannot an argument be made that this instability has proven economically helpful in certain ways?

It sounds counterintuitive, maybe. But considering (as you pointed out) the relative success of Canada in the past few years, this has been done under a minority government.

So while we might say, "Under a majority, it would be even stronger, more robust," that remains speculative.

Whereas the real-world success that has occurred under the minority is not speculative. It is what it is.

Edited April 7, 2011 by bloodyminded

[blueblood]

Instability hasn't hurt us so far. Why are you so worried about it now?

Parliament had the same atmosphere in 2005 as it did in late 2010-2011. In other words the govt was going out on a rail. If harper wins a minority, what's stopping the opposition from exercising parliamentary manoeuvers to put themselves in the captain's seat? And we all know what will happen if tax and spend parties get their hand on the spigot in a minority situation...

There is no free pass for harper this time around, the opposition has made it quite clear harper has to go. Do you think the gg will let harper prorogue for a third time?

[ToadBrother]

Parliament had the same atmosphere in 2005 as it did in late 2010-2011. In other words the govt was going out on a rail. If harper wins a minority, what's stopping the opposition from exercising parliamentary manoeuvers to put themselves in the captain's seat? And we all know what will happen if tax and spend parties get their hand on the spigot in a minority situation...

Then I guess Harper better bloody well put a budget together that pleases enough Opposition MPs to stay in government. It was what the GG made him do in January 2009.

My goodness, imagine having to get a majority of MPs to agree to your plans. How did such a concept ever intrude upon our Parliamentary system?

There is no free pass for harper this time around, the opposition has made it quite clear harper has to go. Do you think the gg will let harper prorogue for a third time?

Harper can't prorogue until Parliament it has sat. It's not even an option. If he can't produce a budget that the rest of Parliament will agree to, he's done for. He's been down this road before, so he ought to know the rules of the game by now.

Edited April 7, 2011 by ToadBrother