Bill C-51: Federal Anti-Terror Legislation polling results

[Smallc]

You should talk to Bryan, apparently both of you have it wrong.

The program, with the 6% escalator ended March 31st. There was nothing beyond that until the Conservatives did the not less than 3% and sometimes more.

[On Guard for Thee]

The program, with the 6% escalator ended March 31st. There was nothing beyond that until the Conservatives did the not less than 3% and sometimes more.

I think its actually 2016_17 when the 6 goes out the window. And yes after that a guarantee of not less than 3.

[Bryan]

The program, with the 6% escalator ended March 31st. There was nothing beyond that until the Conservatives did the not less than 3% and sometimes more.

It's better than that., they added four additional years of 6%, followed by further increases tied to the rate of inflation (guaranteed to be no less than 3%). It's a lot more money than Martin had ever promised to do.

[Smallc]

I think its actually 2016_17 when the 6 goes out the window. And yes after that a guarantee of not less than 3.

That's correct, the Conservatives extended it to this year. That didn't exist without them either. The Paul Martin program escalator (actually the entire program) simply terminated at the end of the last fiscal year.

[Smallc]

It's better than that., they added four additional years of 6%, followed by further increases tied to the rate of inflation (guaranteed to be no less than 3%). It's a lot more money than Martin had ever promised to do.

I actually don't remeber the 4 additional years. The original program went to 2014/2015, IIRC.

[Smallc]

Okay - the 6% program ended March 31st 2014. The Conservatives extended it by two years to the end of this fiscal year. After that, it's estimated that the average increase will be 4.9%, far more than the privinces will increase growth in health spending in the same period.

[Argus]

Hmm ... the RCMP seem to think pipeline protesters are a target ... and the RCMP are the ones who will make arrests under c-51.

anti-petroleum-movement-a-growing-security-threat-to-canada-rcmp-say

In highly charged language that reflects the governments hostility toward environmental activists, an RCMP intelligence assessment warns that foreign-funded groups are bent on blocking oil sands expansion and pipeline construction, and that the extremists in the movement are willing to resort to violence.

and if some of them resorted to violence (which wouldn't be a first) then they'd deserve to be arrested.

[On Guard for Thee]

It's better than that., they added four additional years of 6%, followed by further increases tied to the rate of inflation (guaranteed to be no less than 3%). It's a lot more money than Martin had ever promised to do.

Boy your knowledge and numbers are so very cocked up. You have the dates wrong, but more importantly, the estimated 36 billion dollar decrease in transfers is certain not a lot more money.

[jacee]

It's better than that., they added four additional years of 6%, followed by further increases tied to the rate of inflation (guaranteed to be no less than 3%). It's a lot more money than Martin had ever promised to do.

What are the numbers per person, accounting for increased need for services?

.

[Smallc]

What are the numbers per person, accounting for increased need for services?

.

Do you think it's sustainable to increase spending faster than revenue?

[On Guard for Thee]

Healthcare is expensive and likely to get more so as Canadians age, no one is disputing that. But it is something we hold dear, and for obvious reasons. Maybe we need to convince Harper to not piss away billions on income splitting and re direct it into healthcare which would benefit us all, instead of roughly 15 % of us. But anybody paying attention knows that Harper is all about looking for votes, and has long since wanted to kill out national healthcare system.

[Smallc]

You might have a point if Harper weren't already pouring billions more into healthcare.

[jacee]

Okay - the 6% program ended March 31st 2014. The Conservatives extended it by two years to the end of this fiscal year. After that, it's estimated that the average increase will be 4.9%, far more than the privinces will increase growth in health spending in the same period.

Really?

Do you have a link for that?

.

[jacee]

You might have a point if Harper weren't already pouring billions more into healthcare.

Oh please ...

Costs go up, demand goes up.

Is funding falling behind?

.

[Smallc]

Oh please ...

Costs go up, demand goes up.

Is funding falling behind?

.

Federal spending will raise by more than the average provincial increase.

[jacee]

Federal spending will raise by more than the average provincial increase.

Will funding per person go down?

[Smallc]

Really?

Do you have a link for that?

.

I read that wrong. The funding will generally increase by slightly more than 3%. Overall health spending (mostly out of pocket) will increase by 4.9%. We need to do better at becoming more efficient.

[Smallc]

Will funding per person go down?

As the Canadian population grows by far less than 3% a year, the answer is a simple no.

[On Guard for Thee]

You might have a point if Harper weren't already pouring billions more into healthcare.

You might have a point if he werent offloading billions onto the provinces.

[cybercoma]

It more than keeps up with inflation

lmfao. You think healthcare costs are commensurate with inflation? You're joking right? You do realize that people are living longer, require more long-term care, and that the proportion of elderly in our society is growing, right? Healthcare costs are outpacing inflation by a wide margin.

[cybercoma]

You might have a point if Harper weren't already pouring billions more into healthcare.

That's some impressive Orwellian doublespeak. Harper cuts the yearly increases in half and you describe that as pouring MORE into healthcare. Edited April 8, 2015 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I read that wrong. The funding will generally increase by slightly more than 3%. Overall health spending (mostly out of pocket) will increase by 4.9%. We need to do better at becoming more efficient.

So in other words the transfers fall short of the increased costs, whereas before the spending was a bit more than the increased costs.

[jacee]

As the Canadian population grows by far less than 3% a year, the answer is a simple no.

Costs increase.

Aging increases demand.

Is that considered?

.

[Smallc]

Costs increase.

Aging increases demand.

Is that considered?

.

We can do better in terms of efficiency.

[jacee]

We can do better in terms of efficiency.

lol

So the truth is that the Harper propagandists are trying to bluff us into believing "increase" in Federal health funding, when in fact the 'increase' is not enough to cover increases in cost and demand.

So effectively the increase is a decrease in per person funding.

.

Edited April 8, 2015 by jacee