olp1fan Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) Why are the Cons scared of Euthanasia if they do not want to take care of old people? Edited December 20, 2011 by olp1fan Quote
Bonam Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 I like the idea of a tax exempt RHSP. The government could even match a % of contributions, like they do for RESPs, to encourage saving. I have an equivalent setup in the US right now, it gives freedom and flexibility in that no insurance company gets to tell you what doctors you can see or what procedures are covered, and you can save as much or as little as you feel is needed. Seems like a great system to me. Quote
cybercoma Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 Tying healthcare to employment or the amount of money you can afford to save is completely unethical. The rich get healthcare while the poor die in the streets; is that what Are you even aware that one of the largest recipients of social assistance (OAS is nothing more than welfare for the elderly) as a group are widows? Women make less contributions to CPP than men because they make less money and do not contribute to the plan when they go on maternity leave. Quote
PIK Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 Jails, jets, gazebos in Clement's riding, flights to hockey games, helicopter rides, hundreds of millions on G8/G20 security, a fake lake for a photo op, a second Remembrance Day party to honour the vets from Libya, more cabinet ministers with their golden parachutes, more seats in parliament, billions in tax-cuts to businesses, expensive european hotels, and tickets to the grey cup. All on the taxpayers' dime. And you know who, ironically, is the biggest critic of Conservative spending? That's right, the Canadian Taxpayer Federation. We would have never known about Peter Mackay living the high life if the CTF didn't use the Access to Information Act to find out about it. Just think if the libs paid back the 100 mil they stolr ,we would be in better shape. Every party in power does that shit, but IMO harpers people have spent less then former goverments. Harper will take care of spending, but like usual he had a lib mess to clean up 1st.It seems everything that harper is dealing with , is the same problems chretien had for 13 years. Yes that chretien that was also indians affairs minister which did nothing to help, now harper will clean it up. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
PIK Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 Tying healthcare to employment or the amount of money you can afford to save is completely unethical. The rich get healthcare while the poor die in the streets; is that what Are you even aware that one of the largest recipients of social assistance (OAS is nothing more than welfare for the elderly) as a group are widows? Women make less contributions to CPP than men because they make less money and do not contribute to the plan when they go on maternity leave. What it does is force the provinces to clean up their act. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
cybercoma Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 Not justifying what the Liberals did, but $100 million wouldn't even put a dent in the profligate spending that the CPC has been doing. Meanwhile, they're complaining that healthcare spending is unsustainable. Perhaps you should be looking at Ottawa to clean up its act. Quote
jacee Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2011/ch2h.html#c2_secH_chart23 $47.6B is spent on healthcare in Ontario by the provincial government per year (38% of government spending). There are 13.3 million Ontarians. That is $3578 per Ontarian. Would you opt out of Ontario health care for a $3578 cheque per year? I sure as hell would. I go to the Doc maybe twice a year for less than 30 minutes and I usually diagnose myself and just ask the doc to write me a prescription. Last I checked, doctors don't make $3500 per hour. Health cards need to have a usage limit. For example, after the age of 10, you shouldn't be able to go to a health clinic more than 6 times per year (without paying). Or give me my $3500/yr and let me opt out of the health care program (and make room for private health clinics). I will invest around $3000/yr of that money and have over $100-200k saved up for private treatment by the time I'm in my 60s and actually need to use that health care money. My capital gains and dividends can be taxed to generate more revenue for the people that want to remain in the system. Costs need to come down. They are ridiculous. If there's one thing all people will be greedy about, it is their health. Free health care is not sustainable. The healthcare budget includes all facilities, equipment and personnel as well as your cost of service, so you wouldn't get all of that hypothetical $3500/yr. Nonetheless, show me where you can get good health insurance for $3500/yr. (Idon't think so.) Costs would be higher with private medical facilities because they have to make a profit. People who think private health care would be cheaper and better than our public system are, frankly, just naive imo. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 The healthcare budget includes all facilities, equipment and personnel as well as your cost of service, so you wouldn't get all of that hypothetical $3500/yr. Nonetheless, show me where you can get good health insurance for $3500/yr. (Idon't think so.) Costs would be higher with private medical facilities because they have to make a profit. People who think private health care would be cheaper and better than our public system are, frankly, just naive imo. There is in fact a good reason for the newly coin phrase "for profit motive". It will cost more, the numbers don't lie. However in order to get there in the first place means you get to create a multiple tier system. I suppose that those that can afford extra benefits ought to be able to acquire them. That said , you have to open the door in order to get their. Quote
eyeball Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) Why are the Cons scared of Euthanasia if they do not want to take care of old people? A. euthanasia breaks a commandment from the belief system they swear their oaths to. B. old people who are suffering are probably more amenable to subscribing to that belief system. The more people there are who believe what Cons believe... Edited December 20, 2011 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
dre Posted December 20, 2011 Report Posted December 20, 2011 Would you opt out of Ontario health care for a $3578 cheque per year? I sure as hell would. I go to the Doc maybe twice a year for less than 30 minutes and I usually diagnose myself and just ask the doc to write me a prescription. Last I checked, doctors don't make $3500 per hour. I think you need to look up what insurance is. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
cybercoma Posted December 21, 2011 Report Posted December 21, 2011 The healthcare budget includes all facilities, equipment and personnel as well as your cost of service, so you wouldn't get all of that hypothetical $3500/yr. Nonetheless, show me where you can get good health insurance for $3500/yr. (Idon't think so.) Costs would be higher with private medical facilities because they have to make a profit. People who think private health care would be cheaper and better than our public system are, frankly, just naive imo. It's certainly not cheaper, just look south of the border. Quote
cybercoma Posted December 21, 2011 Report Posted December 21, 2011 those that can afford extra benefits ought to be able to acquire them As long as you're aware that you're in a small minority of Canadians by viewing healthcare as a "benefit." Quote
cybercoma Posted December 21, 2011 Report Posted December 21, 2011 I think you need to look up what insurance is. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm When that article was written the average was almost $5000/year for a single person and $13375 for family coverage (just in case you wanted your kids to have healthcare). The median income for an individual in Canada, as of 2009, was just under $29000/year. Half of Canadians make less than that and half make more (just so we're clear about median not being "average"). Therefore, the individual average insurance rate in the US ($5000/year) is over 17% of the median gross income for Canadians. In other words, $1 out of $6 made by someone at the median income level would have to go towards life insurance. Nevermind if they're supporting a family on that income. Quote
Bonam Posted December 21, 2011 Report Posted December 21, 2011 Tying healthcare to employment or the amount of money you can afford to save is completely unethical. The rich get healthcare while the poor die in the streets; is that what Are you even aware that one of the largest recipients of social assistance (OAS is nothing more than welfare for the elderly) as a group are widows? Women make less contributions to CPP than men because they make less money and do not contribute to the plan when they go on maternity leave. Look, health care costs money just like everything else. The rich can also afford things that keep them healthier in the first place, like better food, living in cleaner areas, optional/preventative screenings/procedures, betterlifestyles, etc. They can also afford things that give them other advantages in society. Why is it so unethical for them to also be able to buy healthcare? Quote
MiddleClassCentrist Posted December 21, 2011 Report Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm When that article was written the average was almost $5000/year for a single person and $13375 for family coverage (just in case you wanted your kids to have healthcare). The median income for an individual in Canada, as of 2009, was just under $29000/year. Half of Canadians make less than that and half make more (just so we're clear about median not being "average"). Therefore, the individual average insurance rate in the US ($5000/year) is over 17% of the median gross income for Canadians. In other words, $1 out of $6 made by someone at the median income level would have to go towards life insurance. Nevermind if they're supporting a family on that income. I don't expect Ideologues to respond to this rationally. The cost of educating kids in Ontario is something like $7.5/classroom hour. Notably cheaper than hiring a baby sitter or daycare provider 6 hours. To the ideologues, facts that go against their belief are somehow biased or questionable. The reality is that public delivery systems are more cost effective. As soon as you add greed into the mix, the cost to the end user goes up. Edited December 21, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
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.