Dan Heap Federal MP

[August1991]

I recall Dan Heap as a federal NDP MP who wanted more money for Toronto.

Now, apparently, he wants more money for himself (while claiming that he's working for the public good):

Heap and his wife of 61 years, Alice, put their names on a waiting list for long-term care in 2006 and have been ailing in a retirement home since 2009, where they pay up to $10,000 a month for lodging and care.

Last December, the Annex Retirement Residence on Spadina Rd. said it could no longer meet the couple’s needs. In February, the family hired extra help to bridge the gap. And they began to pressure the local Community Care Access Centre (CCAC) to place them in Kensington Gardens, the long-term care home they had chosen almost five years earlier.

Toronto Star

----

As one would say : Et nous autres... Or, it is easy to spend other people's money.

Edited October 17, 2011 by August1991

[scribblet]

Is he actually asking for more money, not sure, I think they are just asking for a care facility in the Kensington area and don't like that they have a long wait list. I doubt that he'd be in that predicament if they were more flexible but they want the Kensington area which is limiting their choices.

They are paying $10,000 a month now - that's a lot, but he does have a decent pension.

[punked]

I recall Dan Heap as a federal NDP MP who wanted more money for Toronto.

Now, apparently, he wants more money for himself (while claiming that he's working for the public good): Toronto Star

----

As one would say : Et nous autres... Or, it is easy to spend other people's money.

How dare someone from a party that has fought decades for affordable, and accessible care for Canadas elderly DARE ASK for something he has always fought for and believed in. HOW DARE HE!!!

[August1991]

Is he actually asking for more money, not sure, I think they are just asking for a care facility in the Kensington area and don't like that they have a long wait list. I doubt that he'd be in that predicament if they were more flexible but they want the Kensington area which is limiting their choices.

In effect, he and his wife are asking for more money. They are asking to be placed in a specific facility and the State is saying no.

How dare someone from a party that has fought decades for affordable, and accessible care for Canadas elderly DARE ASK for something he has always fought for and believed in. HOW DARE HE!!!

On the contrary, Dan Heap has spent his life defending a system that limits choice. Heap defended State-provided education, State-provided health care, and promoted a variety of other State-organized services.

In all of these cases, it amounts to limiting the choice of people. The State, by definition, is a monopoly and State-provided/organized services are monopolies. You want food? Go to the State Grocery Store in your neighbourhood. Your passbook is not valid at any other State Grocery Store.

Dan Heap was a socialist and that is the system he wanted for Canada. Remarkably, it is still how people receive education services, and increasingly how we receive health services.

So, it is ironic that Dan Heap now wants to have choice after defending for many years a system that limits choice. If the Gods exist, they are surely laughing...

-----

Here's a radical question, punked. Can the State truly make care for the elderly "affordable and accessible"? That is, can the State make people "care" for one another? The State has the power to coerce. Can it coerce people to be "more caring"?

Edited October 19, 2011 by August1991

[punked]

In effect, he and his wife are asking for more money. They are asking to be placed in a specific facility and the State is saying no.

On the contrary, Dan Heap has spent his life defending a system that limits choice. Heap defended State-provided education, State-provided health care, and promoted a variety of other State-organized services.

In all of these cases, it amounts to limiting the choice of people. The State, by definition, is a monopoly and State-provided/organized services are monopolies. You want food? Go to the State Grocery Store in your neighbourhood. Your passbook is not valid at any other State Grocery Store.

Dan Heap was a socialist and that is the system he wanted for Canada. Remarkably, it is still how people receive education services, and increasingly how we receive health services.

So, it is ironic that Dan Heap now wants to have choice after defending for many years a system that limits choice. If the Gods exist, they are surely laughing...

-----

Here's a radical question, punked. Can the State truly make care for the elderly "affordable and accessible"? That is, can the State make people "care" for one another? The State has the power to coerce. Can it coerce people to be "more caring"?

You are going to have explain to me how a Socialist wanting to move from a For Profit facility to a Non-For-Profit facility (funded by in some part by the state) is somehow out of wack with his beliefs before I answer any of your questions.

Edited October 19, 2011 by punked

[August1991]

You are going to have explain to me how a Socialist wanting to move from a For Profit facility to a Non-For-Profit facility (funded by in some part by the state) is somehow out of wack with his beliefs before I answer any of your questions.

Indirectly, I think "profit" matters in this question.

----

"... out of wack with his beliefs"?

Dan Heap now wants the freedom to choose. And yet he spent his entire life to create a system/society where we would all be equal. Heap wanted a society in which choice was limited so that we would all receive the same. Yet now, he and his wife and children want the freedom to choose.

The irony. Oh, the irony....

Edited October 19, 2011 by August1991

[cybercoma]

On the contrary, Dan Heap has spent his life defending a system that limits choice.

Not this crap again, as if this idea wasn't already thoroughly decimated in other threads. We have a single-payer system. That payer happens to be the provincial governments. You can choose to get your healthcare wherever the hell you want. Doctors too have a choice. They can choose to charge patients or they can choose to collect from the government program. What they don't have the option of doing is both. There was a point in time where they were double-dipping.

It would be nice if you would stop trotting out this "complete nonsense" about not having a choice when it comes to healthcare. Your alternative would create a stratified healthcare system that would provide widely varying standards of care based on how much money a person has. When it comes to healthcare, people are in a pretty disadvantaged place. Having to pay for your own medical care is like someone holding a gun to your head and telling, "you there may or may not be a bullet in the chamber. How much money will you give me to put the gun away?" That's the choice you want people to have. You want them to choose who is going to hold the gun to their head.

Edited April 25, 2012 by cybercoma

[Bryan]

It's not nonsense. There's a distinct difference between private and public care, even when both are fully funded by the public system. When governments take over private facilities, the standard of care and efficiency goes down, while costs go up.

[Shakeyhands]

It's not nonsense. There's a distinct difference between private and public care, even when both are fully funded by the public system. When governments take over private facilities, the standard of care and efficiency goes down, while costs go up.

Do you have an example? It may be my bias but as i sit here the one example that I can pull out says the opposite, look at the example of privatized jails. I honestly can't think of another one.

[cybercoma]

It's not nonsense. There's a distinct difference between private and public care, even when both are fully funded by the public system. When governments take over private facilities, the standard of care and efficiency goes down, while costs go up.

The government doesn't run many of the hospitals in Canada. Often times they're run by not-for-profit organizations. Healthcare is mostly delivered privately, while paid for publicly. The biggest misunderstanding people have about healthcare in Canada is that it's an entirely public system. The only way this could be further from the truth is if we had a private payer system.

The only difference between us and the US is that we have a universal single-payer system. Everyone gets coverage, regardless of their income or socioeconomic status. In the United States, you're only covered if you're extremely low income or a hospital does work on you for charity because they know they won't be paid back. In emergency situations, say a meth lab blows up and the cook suffers 3rd degree burns over 60% of his body. They're obligated to care for him, but they know they won't be paid back. Hospitals and charities eat this cost in the United States by passing it on to those that can pay. So people actually pay more for healthcare in the US than we do here. It's not for the reason that American Woman likes to pretend (that Canadians are overburdening the US system ). It's because healthcare providers have no way of recouping those expenses. In Canada, we don't force people to go bankrupt paying for care. Instead, we pool our money through taxes and the healthcare providers get paid by the provinces, regardless of the patient's ability to pay. The hospitals then don't get stuck holding the bill for all the expenses and the costs of healthcare aren't inflated for others.

Edited April 25, 2012 by cybercoma