On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 Apparently some do. Keep at it. Quote
Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 As has been pointed out to you before: "we'll have a lot of older people out of the work force needing health care, and not enough sustaining income to keep them happy and in the right levels of health care, canadas-aging-population-projected-to-exacerbate-health-care-strain/ . Apparently you missed the part where you were proven wrong. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 Apparently you missed the part where you were proven wrong. And all that in the face of the upcoming cuts to healthcare. Quote
Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 And all that in the face of the upcoming cuts to healthcare. Yeah, the provinces are doing a lot of cutting lately. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 Yeah, the provinces are doing a lot of cutting lately. I guess they are gearing up for 2016/17. Quote
Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 I guess they are gearing up for 2016/17. Is blame Harper your default setting? If it weren't for Harper, they would have been gearing up for 2014/2015, when the money was scheduled to stop altogether. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 Is blame Harper your default setting? If it weren't for Harper, they would have been gearing up for 2014/2015, when the money was scheduled to stop altogether. The money was never scheduled to stop altogether. It's just now scheduled to be cut back. Quote
Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 The money was never scheduled to stop altogether. The program was for 10 years and nothing more. You need to do more research rather than resorting to shallow talking points. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 The program was for 10 years and nothing more. You need to do more research rather than resorting to shallow talking points. So you think that Martin's plan called for a 6%/annum increase and then full stop of xfer of payments? Talk about needing to do some research! Quote
Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 So you think that Martin's plan called for a 6%/annum increase and then full stop of xfer of payments? Talk about needing to do some research! The program wasn't designed to continue to infinity. That's the point. The idea was to review it in 10 years and see if we needed to do something different. The reality is that the new federal money didn't buy what it was supposed to in terms of service. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 (edited) The program wasn't designed to continue to infinity. That's the point. The idea was to review it in 10 years and see if we needed to do something different. The reality is that the new federal money didn't buy what it was supposed to in terms of service. Correct, it had a 10 year life span. But at least you seem to have got the hint that the limit wasn't supposed to end healthcare xfer payments. A cutback may in fact be necessary, although I can't see why with the ageing population we have. Maybe we could take a few hundred million out of the ads for this silly economic action plan and other crap Harper likes to waste taxpayer money on. Edited July 27, 2015 by On Guard for Thee Quote
Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 Correct, it had a 10 year life span. But at least you seem to have got the hint that the limit wasn't supposed to end healthcare xfer payments. Without a new program it would have ended. You can thank Harper for that. A cutback may in fact be necessary, although I can't see why with the ageing population we have. The aging population will put pressure on budgets. 6% is more than the increase in government revenue. It's unsustainable. Maybe we could take a few hundred million out of the ads for this silly economic action plan and other crap Harper likes to waste taxpayer money on. I'd be fine with that, but it's not going to make much of a difference when we're talking about a $300B annual budget. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 Without a new program it would have ended. You can thank Harper for that. The aging population will put pressure on budgets. 6% is more than the increase in government revenue. It's unsustainable. I'd be fine with that, but it's not going to make much of a difference when we're talking about a $300B annual budget. Well we can thank Harper for a new scaled back program. Maybe it's necessary, but it is what it is. Quote
Argus Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 And all that in the face of the upcoming cuts to healthcare. Are you saying that the NDP will increase health transfers by 6% yearly? If so, how do they intend to pay for that? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 So you think that Martin's plan called for a 6%/annum increase and then full stop of xfer of payments? Talk about needing to do some research! Do you think it called for 6% forever? If so, why didn't he write that? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 Do you think it called for 6% forever? If so, why didn't he write that? You'll have to ask him that. Quote
Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 You'll have to ask him that. I think the answer is obvious. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 You'll have to ask him that. The question was posed to you. Do you think he meant it to be 6% forever? What's your opinion of why he didn't say that? Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 The question was posed to you. Do you think he meant it to be 6% forever? What's your opinion of why he didn't say that? do you think the expectation was Harper refusing to meet with Canada's premiers and the Harper dictatorial imposition of reduced funding without regard to the provinces involvement? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 The question was posed to you. Do you think he meant it to be 6% forever? What's your opinion of why he didn't say that? You are asking me to speak for Paul Martin, how would I do that? I suspect however that nobody is silly enough to say any particular program should or could last forever. That's a long time and I doubt he had that viable a crystal ball. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 You are asking me to speak for Paul Martin, how would I do that? I suspect however that nobody is silly enough to say any particular program should or could last forever. That's a long time and I doubt he had that viable a crystal ball. That's what I - and others have been trying to educate you about. Glad it finally sunk in. Quote Back to Basics
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 That's what I - and others have been trying to educate you about. Glad it finally sunk in. I don't see what you were trying to educate me about. I was trying to educate some who failed to see how the new plan amounts to a cut. Don't think I ever discussed what was on Paul Martins mind when he penned the current system. Quote
Argus Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 You are asking me to speak for Paul Martin, how would I do that? I suspect however that nobody is silly enough to say any particular program should or could last forever. That's a long time and I doubt he had that viable a crystal ball. Well now, that's true. But most programs last until the PM decides to get rid of them. This one had a specific time frame and was designed to end automatically at the end of that. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted July 27, 2015 Report Posted July 27, 2015 Well now, that's true. But most programs last until the PM decides to get rid of them. This one had a specific time frame and was designed to end automatically at the end of that. Harper let the Health Accord expire... what is now shaping national standards? How does the dictator Harper arrive at his health cuts figure without engaging the provinces to recognize provincial health funding requirements? Quote
Keepitsimple Posted July 28, 2015 Report Posted July 28, 2015 I don't see what you were trying to educate me about. I was trying to educate some who failed to see how the new plan amounts to a cut. Don't think I ever discussed what was on Paul Martins mind when he penned the current system. Then I take it back - it still hasn't sunk in. The old program ended - as Martin planned. You can't "cut" a program that doesn't exist......nor can a minimum 3% year-over-year increase be viewed as a "cut" no matter how your anti-Harper rhetoric tries to so ineloquently spin it. A new program is now in place - and it's permanent. Quote Back to Basics
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.