Heath Care too expensive?

[Machjo]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I've always been in favour of higher wages.  It's one of the reasons I was happy to get out from working under the yoke of a union.  They kept my pay down for years. 

 

Interesting. Could you elaborate on that?

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Interesting. Could you elaborate on that?

Sure.  For 12 years I was a member of the BCGEU who absolutely insisted I was paid the same as the wasters and no hopers I worked with.  I finally left that job and went to the oil patch, where I am paid based on merit. 

[Machjo]

50 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Sure.  For 12 years I was a member of the BCGEU who absolutely insisted I was paid the same as the wasters and no hopers I worked with.  I finally left that job and went to the oil patch, where I am paid based on merit. 

That's why I support right-to-work laws. Heck,  Sweden has right-to-work laws and even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) declares the right to work. The UDHR  guarantees freedom of association too.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Machjo

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The thing is - in the 1970s and 1980s when people were arguing for higher wages conservatives pushed back.  Why are you people switching teams now ?

I have no idea what you're talking about or how it's related to giving people free money. You think they deserve this because they don't have high wages they don't deserve?

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is the natural end game of libertarianism: large players control the 'free' market, lower wages to nothing... squeeze out the poor who can't pay for anything, and eventually sell themselves willingly and freely into slavery.

The poor can't pay for anything? You think it's like Dickens London out there? The poor in Canada still have flat screens, cable TV, computers, internet, cell phones, beer, shelter and plenty of food. Not to mention they get lots of transfer of money from the government and pay no taxes. What do you want us to do, fund their holidays to Hawaii?

[Argus]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I've always been in favour of higher wages.  It's one of the reasons I was happy to get out from working under the yoke of a union.  They kept my pay down for years.

I don't know what you do for a living, but for the vast majority of people unions increase their pay and benefits. The states with the fewest union members tend to be the states with the lowest salaries.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

I don't know what you do for a living, but for the vast majority of people unions increase their pay and benefits. The states with the fewest union members tend to be the states with the lowest salaries.

I really don't know about the vast majority of people, not having studied the issue.  I do know that when I was a member of the BCGEU, the negotiators were not of the highest calibre.

I also know that almost everyone I talk to is happier working in a non-union job.  Granted, it's not McDonald's or Horton's.

Edited October 16, 2018 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Argus said:

The poor can't pay for anything? You think it's like Dickens London out there? The poor in Canada still have flat screens, cable TV, computers, internet, cell phones, beer, shelter and plenty of food. Not to mention they get lots of transfer of money from the government and pay no taxes. What do you want us to do, fund their holidays to Hawaii?

Hunger is still a problem in Canada.  No, you should cut out all their cheap electronics, and make them poorer I agree.

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Hunger is still a problem in Canada.  No, you should cut out all their cheap electronics, and make them poorer I agree.

Where is there hunger? The problem isn't a lack of money it's that people who are poor also tend to be people who have no idea how to handle their money, how to budget, and how to set money aside for upcoming bills. You think $50,000 a year isn't enough? What would be enough? $100,000 a year?

Edited October 16, 2018 by Argus

[Argus]

13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I really don't know about the vast majority of people, not having studied the issue.  I do know that when I was a member of the BCGEU, the negotiators were not of the highest calibre.

I also know that almost everyone I talk to is happier working in a non-union job.  Granted, it's not McDonald's or Horton's.

You worked for the government. Governments, at least in Canada, and anything affiliated with government (ie education, health) tend to pay very well as a matter of policy.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

You worked for the government. Governments, at least in Canada, and anything affiliated with government (ie education, health) tend to pay very well as a matter of policy.

Nevertheless, I greatly increased my salary and benefits by moving to a non-union employer.

It wasn't the only reason I left, to be sure.  I also had to live in the Lower Mainland at the time.

[Michael Hardner]

34 minutes ago, Argus said:

Where is there hunger? The problem isn't a lack of money it's that people who are poor also tend to be people who have no idea how to handle their money, how to budget, and how to set money aside for upcoming bills. You think $50,000 a year isn't enough? What would be enough? $100,000 a year?

Wait.. Weren't you just scapegoating poor people for getting a free ride on taxes ?  Maybe I should just step aside and let you debate yourself ?

[turningrite]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is the natural end game of libertarianism: large players control the 'free' market, lower wages to nothing... squeeze out the poor who can't pay for anything, and eventually sell themselves willingly and freely into slavery.

My dismal experience with the Canadian (well, Ontario's) health care system has transformed me into a critic. This has nothing to do with the "free market" or "slavery". Rather it has to do with realizing that I'd been defrauded, having dutifully paid taxes for decades only to find the health care system, when I really needed it, utterly inadequate and dehumanizing. Nothing will more effectively change one's mind about our health care system than having to spend days on a gurney in an emergency department as an "admitted" patient while sharing a bathroom with dozens of other patients and their visitors and trying to brush your teeth at a sink blocked with other peoples' hair and vomit. And that's for starters. Don't lecture me on the benefits of Canadian health care without acknowledging its clear shortcomings. To do so simply suggests that you are blindly ignoring glaring realities for ideological reasons. 

Edited October 16, 2018 by turningrite

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, turningrite said:

1. My dismal experience with the Canadian (well, Ontario's) health care system has transformed me into a critic. This has nothing to do with the "free market" or "slavery". Rather it has to do with realizing that I'd been defrauded, having dutifully paid taxes for decades only to find the health care system, when I really needed it, utterly inadequate and dehumanizing.

2. Nothing will more effectively change one's mind about our health care system than having to spend days on a gurney in an emergency department as an "admitted" patient while sharing a bathroom with dozens of other patients and their visitors and trying to brush your teeth at a sink blocked with other peoples' hair and vomit.

3. And that's for starters. Don't lecture me on the benefits of Canadian health care without acknowledging its clear shortcomings. To do so simply suggests that you are blindly ignoring glaring realities for ideological reasons. 

1. Your experience does not sound completely unusual.  And you have a right to expect better.  When I post on the topic you will find I always ask for something better.

2. Yes, but alternately - many make up their minds that the system is great based on a once-in-awhile visit to ER or doctor also.  Neither anecdote is useful for a 'system'.

3. I don't believe I ever did this.

Healthcare is a SYSTEM.  We need and informed and engaged public to be able to regularly monitor the value they are delivering: the health outcomes and costs.  The Canadian public tends to accept what the royalty at the top hands them and chatter to each other 'thank god we're not American'.  Two-tier is a swear word, even though other countries (other than the US - yes they exist) manage this well.  But frankly, given how the public accepts the status quo two-tier would be a disaster if we implemented it with the public engagement that exists now.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada already has a multi-tiered health care system, but too many are afraid to admit this for political reasons.   Province to province...reserve to reserve...many different investments, experiences, and outcomes.   It's not really a Canadian (national) health care system at all.

[cannuck]

17 hours ago, Machjo said:

We also need to make taxes more user-pay, such as a carbon tax to ensure everyone pays for the roads they use. permanent residency should be more difficult to obtain, but working in Canada visa-free should be easier, but they shouldn't get any GST, carbon, or any other credit from the government. In other words, they must support themselves and be self-sufficient.

"carbon tax" has nothing to do with paying for the roads.  There is already a "road tax" included in every fuel purchase.  The problem is, ALL taxes in Canada simply go into one level of government or the other's general revenue.   "Carbon Tax" is just a politically correct way of saying we don't have a clue what to do, so we'll tax some imaginary boogeyman - better yet create a new marketplace where speculators can rip even more money out of the economy by trading credits.

To have anything effectively "user pays" we need dedicated tax accounts for dedicated taxes.

[Wilber]

What is user pay when it comes to things like roads? Whether you personally use them or not, most of what you need in daily life comes to you at least in part by road.

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Your experience does not sound completely unusual.  And you have a right to expect better.  When I post on the topic you will find I always ask for something better.

2. Yes, but alternately - many make up their minds that the system is great based on a once-in-awhile visit to ER or doctor also.  Neither anecdote is useful for a 'system'.

3. I don't believe I ever did this.

Healthcare is a SYSTEM.  We need and informed and engaged public to be able to regularly monitor the value they are delivering: the health outcomes and costs.  The Canadian public tends to accept what the royalty at the top hands them and chatter to each other 'thank god we're not American'.  Two-tier is a swear word, even though other countries (other than the US - yes they exist) manage this well.  But frankly, given how the public accepts the status quo two-tier would be a disaster if we implemented it with the public engagement that exists now.

1. The problem is that it's getting worse. And others among my friends and my broader group of acquaintances have had similar experiences.

2. My impression of the system is based on the ongoing treatment over the past three years of a serious, degenerative and likely genetically-based medical condition, which has resulted in serious functional impairments and overt disability. It's not based on occasional or "once-in-awhile" contact. I was referred to the U.S. for necessary medical assessment and treatment but that fell through for reasons entirely beyond my control, including the fact that Ontario's coverage for such care (as I was informed by a rep for the American institution to which I was being referred) is minimal and has been declining for more than a decade. If you get sick in this province, especially with anything rare or unusual, you're essentially left to your own devices. As I was told, and quite contrary to our propaganda about "universal" coverage, Canadians are just "uninsured" patients when dealing with U.S. institutions, even when no equivalent care or expertise is available in Canada. My on practical option now, essentially, is assisted death, when I reach the point where I can no longer tolerate the effects of my illness.

[dialamah]

13 hours ago, Argus said:

You worked for the government. Governments, at least in Canada, and anything affiliated with government (ie education, health) tend to pay very well as a matter of policy.

I currently work for BC Gov and my pay is low enough that I am in JT's group of "working toward middle class"; as such I get a GST rebate.  I had better pay and comparable benefits in the private sector.  The pension, partial though it will be, will be helpful and as I am nearing retirement, its worth remaining.  Plus the job I am doing now is interesting and challenging, which I like. 

BC is near the bottom or at the bottom of the pay scale for public employees.  One person from our business unit went back to Ontario cause better wages, though she and her husband loved the BC "lifestyle".  

[Machjo]

58 minutes ago, Wilber said:

What is user pay when it comes to things like roads? Whether you personally use them or not, most of what you need in daily life comes to you at least in part by road.

Wouldn't a trucker pay the tax and so pass the cost on to the consumer?

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, Machjo said:

Wouldn't a trucker pay the tax and so pass the cost on to the consumer?

Who would build the road in the first place?

[Wilber]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

I currently work for BC Gov and my pay is low enough that I am in JT's group of "working toward middle class"; as such I get a GST rebate.  I had better pay and comparable benefits in the private sector.  The pension, partial though it will be, will be helpful and as I am nearing retirement, its worth remaining.  Plus the job I am doing now is interesting and challenging, which I like. 

BC is near the bottom or at the bottom of the pay scale for public employees.  One person from our business unit went back to Ontario cause better wages, though she and her husband loved the BC "lifestyle".  

Back in the olden days, government jobs were generally regarded as lower paying than the private sector,  compensated by  better job security, pension and benefits. With so much of government having been privatized, that tradeoff has become questionable.

[turningrite]

13 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Back in the olden days, government jobs were generally regarded as lower paying than the private sector,  compensated by  better job security, pension and benefits. With so much of government having been privatized, that tradeoff has become questionable.

My perception is that public sector wages tend to converge toward the middle, with less skilled workers enjoying better compensation than that paid in comparable private sector roles while more educated and skilled workers often face lower compensation than that paid in comparable roles in the private sector. During my career, I worked on both sides of the divide and this perception was pretty much confirmed for me. The biggest difference between the two kinds of workplaces related more to quality of work and performance, where I believe the private sector was vastly more consistent in comparison to the public one and this applied to performance expectations at all job levels, albeit there were still some outstanding performers in the public sector who were mainly driven by personal pride, intelligence and good work habits. The prevailing mentality in the public sector, however, was that there was little point in working too hard to accomplish much because you got the same pay as those in your position who accomplished little and the work not done by non-performers was often foisted on the productive staff. In other words, it was a system governed by disincentives.

[Machjo]

1 hour ago, Wilber said:

Who would build the road in the first place?

The state in most cases.

[Argus]

19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Wait.. Weren't you just scapegoating poor people for getting a free ride on taxes ?  Maybe I should just step aside and let you debate yourself ?

Well I guess I'd do a better job of it since you only seem to be interested in posturing.