Sell the LCBO now.

[Toro]

You would remove the safety net from single mothers, the elderly, and the disabled because you want to get the few lazy people off public support. Either you are ignorant of all of the people that you'd hurt, and right after reading this, will change your ways, or you're a mean-spirited, cruel, uncaring scumbag like Mike Harris...

Nope. The reason I would remove public welfare is because it is just another word for charity, and as a charity it should be funded by voluntary donations. Each taxpayer earns his income and that taxpayer should be the one to decide where it is spent.

Call me all the names you want. It doesn't bother me in the least. It seems to be a pattern when you lack a cohesive argument

You can make an argument about the level of welfare, but scrapping the welfare system would be a bad mistake. Certainly, there are problems in welfare that should be fixed - you will always have a certain level of fraud, and some people will be disincentivized. But in a country as wealthy as Canada, we can afford to help those less fortunate than the rest of us.

[Renegade]

Actually my post above was not intended to establish my position on welfare, it was to indicate that there are reasons to reform welfare beyond trying to eliminate fraud, or being "mean-spiritied" to groups relying on the system

There are actually economic reasons why welfare should be maintained. The justification for welfare put forth by others, seems to be a mix between "insurance" (ie I want it there if I need it) and "charity" (ie. let's help the less fortunate). The problem is that the welfare system is structured as neither. The welfare system as currently structured does not give recipients sufficent inducement to work. Do I fault them? No not reallly, since they are only looking to their own self interest. However looking to the funding public's interest, means structuring welfare low enough so that there is still an inducement to work (even at minimium wage jobs) while still making sure the economic reasons for welfare are retained. Policies such as requiring welfare recipients who can work, to do so, helps achieve that aim.

[Toro]

I'd agree with your post, Renegade.

[err]

However looking to the funding public's interest, means structuring welfare low enough so that there is still an inducement to work (even at minimium wage jobs) while still making sure the economic reasons for welfare are retained.  Policies such as requiring welfare recipients who can work, to do so, helps achieve that aim.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mike Harris sounded mighty convincing when he put forth the same argument. But look what he did....

Decreasing welfare to the point of starving people into going to work is not an incentive, as you call it. One of the largest problems with your approach is that those "lazy" people who can work but dont... they'll get work... And the people who need it most (single mothers, disabled, elderly) will live a humiliating subsistance living.

Your approach sounds "sensible" or "moderate", but the realistic net effects of it are devastating to the most unfortunate in our society....

[Renegade]

Mike Harris sounded mighty convincing when he put forth the same argument.  But look what he did....

What's your point? Mike Harris made no secret of his intentions. I fully support what Mike Harris did. So did Ontarians who elected him twice.

Decreasing welfare to the point of starving people into going to work is not an incentive, as you call it.  One of the largest problems with your approach is that those "lazy" people who can work but dont... they'll get work... And the people who need it most (single mothers, disabled, elderly) will live a humiliating subsistance living.

Living on the public dole is humiliating, regardless of the amount of welfare. If someone was not self-sufficeint, and had to rely on public assistance, should they be embarrassed? Sure they should. It is one of the motivations to get off welfare.

Your approach sounds "sensible" or "moderate", but the realistic net effects of it are devastating to the most unfortunate in our society....

Sorry I just don't agree that taxpayers should be paying for anything above the bare minimium. I would say that any additional funding should go to programs aimed at getting people off the public purse. Working for welfare is one program that does that.

[err]

What's your point? Mike Harris made no secret of his intentions. I fully support what Mike Harris did. So did Ontarians who elected him twice.

Did you notice how soundly they were hoofed from office. His implementations were considerably more severe than his stated intentions. Do you have any idea how much they cut funding for single mothers?? Or a better question is do you even care ???

Decreasing welfare to the point of starving people into going to work is not an incentive, as you call it.  One of the largest problems with your approach is that those "lazy" people who can work but dont... they'll get work... And the people who need it most (single mothers, disabled, elderly) will live a humiliating subsistance living.

Living on the public dole is humiliating, regardless of the amount of welfare. If someone was not self-sufficeint, and had to rely on public assistance, should they be embarrassed? Sure they should. It is one of the motivations to get off welfare.

How about feeding their chidren... If their children are starving, maybe then they'll get off their lazy asses and get good jobs ???

Sorry I just don't agree that taxpayers should be paying for anything above the bare minimium. I would say that any additional funding should go to programs aimed at getting people off the public purse. Working for welfare is one program that does that.

Not everybody on welfare is a "lazy bum", as you would have them described.

Women with small children whose husbands have left them with no support... they probably don't want to be in that position... and should they put their kids up for adoption so that they can meet your standards of productivity... Should they put them in a state-funded daycare so they can prove themselves in the workforce... with a net greater cost to the public.... Or should they give their children the best care that they can....

How about the elderly woman whose husband died and had no life insurance... should we cut off her benefits so she'll go to work at Walmart until she can't stand up any more... Or should we bring in euthenasia for those old folks who cannot contribute any more... even though they did all their lives.....

If you can't think about these cases that deserve to be treated as humans, and not intentionally humiliated, then you are a sad case. Again, the term "mean-spirited" is probably the best description I can give of people with your sentiment if I have to refrain from resorting to explitives.

[Renegade]

Did you notice how soundly they were hoofed from office.  His implementations were considerably more severe than his stated intentions.  Do you have any idea how much they cut funding for single mothers??  Or a better question is do you even care ???

If I remember correctly it was not Mike Harris who was "hoofed from office". If Ernie Eaves was more true to Harris' policies he might still be in office.

How about feeding their chidren... If their children are starving, maybe then they'll get off their lazy asses and get good jobs ???

Let me get one thing clear. I DO NOT believe everyone on welfare is lazy, I have no idea how you have come to that conclusion. Some are on welfare as a result of bad choices, others are there because of their circumstances, yet others while not lazy may not have any marketable skills. Regardless, in your scenario, where is th onus on the responsibility of the parent? Do they not have a responsiblity to be able to afford children prior to deciding to procreate? How can they be fit parents if they do not provide for their kids?

In any case I believe there is a place for both state welfare and private charity. Hardship cases should fall to charities to provide for.

Not everybody on welfare is a "lazy bum", as you would have them described.

I described???? where??

Women with small children whose husbands have left them with no support... they probably don't want to be in that position... and should they put their kids up for adoption so that they can meet your standards of productivity... Should they put them in a state-funded daycare so they can prove themselves in the workforce... with a net greater cost to the public.... Or should they give their children the best care that they can....

I'm all for FAIR support. If a husband has abandoned his kids, make him accountable for paying. I don't see why public funds should subsidize a spouse who is delinquent in payments.

Since you keep bringing up parents with kids as hardship cases, and citing why intervention is necessary, perhaps you would support "licensing" parenting, so that parents would need to meet a mental, emotional, and financial criteria prior to being allowed to be a parent. Perhaps that woudl minimize the number of kids in hardships situations.

If you can't think about these cases that deserve to be treated as humans, and not intentionally humiliated, then you are a sad case. Again, the term "mean-spirited" is probably the best description I can give of people with your sentiment if I have to refrain from resorting to explitives.

I see you like to toss around "mean-spirited" towards me. I have refrained from responding in kind. But what would you call someone who freely likes to spend other peoples money? A thief perhaps? Frankly what I am for is individual choice. I want people to be able to choose where to best utilize THEIR funds. Welfare is nothing less than the state forcibly extorting funds and then using it for its own causes. I want a say!! If I want to donate to hardship cases as you have described, I am free to donate to a charity accordingly, and so are you.

[Renegade]

** duplicate post ** (deleted)

[Guest eureka]

Mike Harris did not introduce the rquirement for those able to work for welfare to do so. It has always been a requirement for welfare or EI.

What Mike Harris did was to use the creation of Ontario Works as a propaganda tool to support his reduction of welfare to the needy. He achieved nothing but the creation of misery and deep suffering.

[Renegade]

Mike Harris did not introduce the rquirement for those able to work for welfare to do so. It has always been a requirement for welfare or EI.

Actually it was Bob Rae's NDP who introduced the idea. They just happened to get tossed out before they had a chance to implement it. Prior it had NOT been a requirement for either welfare or EI. The requirement for EI was to be available, willing, and actively looking for employment. There was no forced labour in order to receive benefits.

What Mike Harris did was to use the creation of Ontario Works as a propaganda tool to support his reduction of welfare to the needy. He achieved nothing but the creation of misery and deep suffering.

No doubt any change in policy will cause hardship on anyone who is used to receiving the benefits. When circumstances change, so do people. For example, there were quite a few welfare recepients who moved back with their parents when benefits were cut.

[err]

Regardless, in your scenario, where is th onus on the responsibility of the parent? Do they not have a responsiblity to be able to afford children prior to deciding to procreate? How can they be fit parents if they do not provide for their kids?

I don't know much about your love life, but it happens to a lot of people.... unplanned pregnancy. The world would be underpopulated if every pregnancy were planned....

I'm all for FAIR support. If a husband has abandoned his kids, make him accountable for paying. I don't see why public funds should subsidize a spouse who is delinquent in payments.

I'm all for it (going after the husband)... however, I don't think that you want to pay the taxes for a bigger government to track down the louts....

Since you keep bringing up parents with kids as hardship cases, and citing why intervention is necessary, perhaps you would support "licensing" parenting, so that parents would need to meet a mental, emotional, and financial criteria prior to being allowed to be a parent. Perhaps that woudl minimize the number of kids in hardships situations.

Chastity belts ???

Frankly what I am for is individual choice. I want people to be able to choose where to best utilize THEIR funds.

I see the argument for "choice" as an argment for the choice not to contribute (to our society). You feel free to earn spoils from a society that provides you with an infrastructure that allows you to... but you don't want to give back to it... wait, no... you want the CHOICE of not contributing to that society.

Welfare is nothing less than the state forcibly extorting funds and then using it for its own causes.

Huh ???

I want a say!! If I want to donate to hardship cases as you have described, I am free to donate to a charity accordingly, and so are you.

And given the strenuous arguments you have put into having your freedom of CHOICE, I don't think we should waste much time waiting for you charity...

[Guest eureka]

I worded that badly. There has, however, always been the obligation to be trying to find work under both EI and welfare. It was just administered differently and more humanely at the front line.

[Renegade]

I don't know much about your love life, but it happens to a lot of people.... unplanned pregnancy.  The world would be underpopulated if every pregnancy were planned....

It's unplanned. So what? Parents still bear the responsiblity once they decide to keep the child. And your saying the world would not be better off if it was substantially underpopulated? I certainly disagree with that. Much of the problems today is the unsustainability of the world's population.

I'm all for it (going after the husband)... however, I don't think that you want to pay the taxes for a bigger government to track down the louts....

No I'n not for paying taxes for it. It should be funded by fees collected from the non-paying spouse (husband or wife as the case may be).

Chastity belts ???

We license driving without locking up anyone under 16. We do this by providing a deterrent for unlicensed drivers. I'm sure we can figure out a deterrent to unlicenced parenting

I see the argument for "choice" as an argment for the choice not to contribute (to our society).  You feel free to earn spoils from a society that provides you with an infrastructure that allows you to... but you don't want to give back to it... wait, no... you want the CHOICE of not contributing to that society.

I'm glad you acknowledge that "I earn". I earn therefore it is MY MONEY. If your point is that we ought to pay for the infrastructure we use.. I agree. My point is that we ought not to pay for that we don't use. Prove to me that welfare somehow allowed me to earn, because I don't see the connection, and you haven't made one.

Welfare is nothing less than the state forcibly extorting funds and then using it for its own causes.

Huh ???

What I mean is that the government takes funding for me and uses it for a program I have no wish to contribute to. Hugo is correct in this. It is no different than the Mafia extorting money from you for protection.

And given the strenuous arguments you have put into having your freedom of CHOICE, I don't think we should waste much time waiting for you charity...

How witty of you, but also how ignorant. You have no idea how I would choose or not choose to use my money given the choice. Let me ask you. As you have discretionary funds (over and above what you need for bare sustenance), why are you not voluntarily giving it away to those who are in more need, since that is obviously your philosophy? To admit that you don't would only show your own hypocrisy.

[err]

Parents still bear the responsiblity once they decide to keep the child. And your saying the world would not be better off if it was substantially underpopulated?

I said nothing of the sort... I was merely commenting on the fact that a large percentage of pregnancies are unplanned....

No I'n not for paying taxes for it. It should be funded by fees collected from the non-paying spouse (husband or wife as the case may be).

Maybe we should get the non-paying spouses to form a club where they track each other down and make each other pay their dues .....

We license driving without locking up anyone under 16. We do this by providing a deterrent for unlicensed drivers.  I'm sure we can figure out a deterrent to unlicenced parenting

Hitler did...

I'm glad you acknowledge that "I earn".  I earn therefore it is MY MONEY.  If your point is that we ought to pay for the infrastructure we use.. I agree. My point is that we ought not to pay for that we don't use. Prove to me that welfare somehow allowed me to earn, because I don't see the connection, and you haven't made one.

If you are a single guy, and you buy a car... do you think the dealership should give you a deal because you aren't going to use the back seats ????

What I mean is that the government takes funding for me and uses it for a program I have no wish to contribute to. Hugo is correct in this. It is no different than the Mafia extorting money from you for protection.

Your charity is overwhelming... You've shown what kind of self-centred, mean-spirited person you really are....

And given the strenuous arguments you have put into having your freedom of CHOICE, I don't think we should waste much time waiting for you charity...

How witty of you, but also how ignorant. You have no idea how I would choose or not choose to use my money given the choice. Let me ask you. As you have discretionary funds (over and above what you need for bare sustenance), why are you not voluntarily giving it away to those who are in more need, since that is obviously your philosophy? To admit that you don't would only show your own hypocrisy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you've painted a pretty good picture of yourself just above... and I think it would sheds light on the the types of choices you would make... I think you gave everybody an idea of how you would choose not to use your money.

As you have seen fit to presume that I do not practice what I preach, I'll share something with you. Aside from my taxes, I do regularly donate to a number of charitable (and politically motivated) organizations on a monthly basis, as auto-deductions from my bank account. I don't do it because of the tax write-offs that they buy me, because I still end up with less money than if I didn't donate.. I do it because it feels good to help people. But you probably wouldn't understand a motive like that.....

[Renegade]

I said nothing of the sort... I was merely commenting on the fact that a large percentage of pregnancies are unplanned....

My mistake. I misunderstood what you said. However you seem to excuse personal responsibliy if the pregnancy was unplanned. Is that what you mean?

Maybe we should get the non-paying spouses to form a club where they track each other down and make each other pay their dues .....

Go start one. When you have no argument to make you resort to nonsense.

Hitler did...

Are you presenting an argument here? Again clearly you don't have one.

If you are a single guy, and you buy a car... do you think the dealership should give you a deal because you aren't going to use the back seats ????

Actually the analogy is akin to a radio. I can choose to buy it with the car, buy it aftermarket, or not buy it at all. Again you avoid the question of how welfare contributed to the money I earn, because you can't answer it.

Your charity is overwhelming... You've shown what kind of self-centred, mean-spirited person you really are....

It's always clear when you have no argument to present as your tactic at that point is to resort to name calling. Go ahead. It doesn't bother me.

As you have seen fit to presume that I do not practice what I preach, I'll share something with you. Aside from my taxes, I do regularly donate to a number of charitable (and politically motivated) organizations on a monthly basis, as auto-deductions from my bank account. I don't do it because of the tax write-offs that they buy me, because I still end up with less money than if I didn't donate.. I do it because it feels good to help people. But you probably wouldn't understand a motive like that.....

So you practice what you preach? To be consistent in your philisophy you would need to basicly equalize income from yourself in lesser need to people in greater need. So are you saying you have no disposable income left over because you have given it all to people in greater need than you?

[err]

If you are a single guy, and you buy a car... do you think the dealership should give you a deal because you aren't going to use the back seats ????

Actually the analogy is akin to a radio. I can choose to buy it with the car, buy it aftermarket, or not buy it at all. Again you avoid the question of how welfare contributed to the money I earn, because you can't answer it.

One nice thing about the Canadian car lot, is that there's radios in all of the cars... So if you're so cheap and mean that you can't play music for your fellow man, maybe you should go to the US car lot, where it's "survival of the fittest".... And if you need help, tough shit for you if you can't afford it.

I'm sure your world would be very different if we didn't have any social safety net in this country. Maybe your boss once needed to make avail of it, or your wife's parents, (assuming you have one). So many people have made avail of the social safety network, not because they are parasites (as you would call them), but because of unfortunate and unforseen events has necessitated it. Because the social safety net has been in place for so many years, a lot of people's lives have been significantly improved, leading to the 'better country' that you now live in.

You could similarly argue that the discovery of penicillin hasn't affected your life, and I cannot concretely say that it has... but your world would certainly be different without it.... (and not necessarily better).

Your charity is overwhelming... You've shown what kind of self-centred, mean-spirited person you really are....

It's always clear when you have no argument to present as your tactic at that point is to resort to name calling. Go ahead. It doesn't bother me.

Just calling a spade a spade.

So you practice what you preach? To be consistent in your philisophy you would need to basicly equalize income from yourself in lesser need to people in greater need. So are you saying you have no disposable income left over because you have given it all to people in greater need than you?

Why must you try to twist what someone else says. I would not give away my last dollar, or make my family suffer unnecessarily in my quest to assist my fellow citizens. However, I do get pleasure from helping other people when I can. I never claimed to be Jesus Christ, Mother Theresa, or the like, but you don't have to be one of those to want to help your fellow man.

[cybercoma]

i remember way back in the day when this thread was actually about the LCBO being privatized.

[err]

i remember way back in the day when this thread was actually about the LCBO being privatized.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The ball's in your court... kick it off....

(but I fear that Renegade is on a roll...) Maybe he should start a new thread on the benefits of sticking it to the unfortunate....

[Renegade]

One nice thing about the Canadian car lot, is that there's radios in all of the cars... So if you're so cheap and mean that you can't play music for your fellow man, maybe you should go to the US car lot, where it's "survival of the fittest".... And if you need help, tough shit for you if you can't afford it.

You are quite right that the status quo is that we have no choice. And just because it is the status quo doesn't it make it right. I for one am advocating change and choice. The biggest reason you are against it is that you favour the choice of the factory default radio. Further you are against anyone having their own choice. Why not advocate dictatorship so that you can force your choices down everyone else's throat.

I'm sure your world would be very different if we didn't have any social safety net in this country. Maybe your boss once needed to make avail of it, or your wife's parents, (assuming you have one). So many people have made avail of the social safety network, not because they are parasites (as you would call them), but because of unfortunate and unforseen events has necessitated it. Because the social safety net has been in place for so many years, a lot of people's lives have been significantly improved, leading to the 'better country' that you now live in.

You could similarly argue that the discovery of penicillin hasn't affected your life, and I cannot concretely say that it has... but your world would certainly be different without it.... (and not necessarily better).

Sure I too can play what if. What if there was no safety net and my boss was forced to take a lower paid job then he otherwise would. Suppose he thrived in that job and developed his career to what it is today. What if there was no safety net and the government didn't have to go into debt in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Then the interest saved would have lowered taxes and resulted in a booming economy.

You see we can all play 'what if' forever. But as I have said, you have not one backup of your claim.

Just calling a spade a spade.

Sure name calling, sure is a compelling argument!!!! But I guess it is in line with the rest of your argument: nothing more than speculation and opinion without any basis in fact.

Why must you try to twist what someone else says. I would not give away my last dollar, or make my family suffer unnecessarily in my quest to assist my fellow citizens. However, I do get pleasure from helping other people when I can. I never claimed to be Jesus Christ, Mother Theresa, or the like, but you don't have to be one of those to want to help your fellow man.

So if I understand what your response is, you would give away when it makes you feel good to do so, however you won't give away if it causes you or your family pain, despite the fact that those actions would be in line with your philosphy???

Hmm sounds like hypocrisy to me.

[err]

One nice thing about the Canadian car lot, is that there's radios in all of the cars... So if you're so cheap and mean that you can't play music for your fellow man, maybe you should go to the US car lot, where it's "survival of the fittest".... And if you need help, tough shit for you if you can't afford it.

You are quite right that the status quo is that we have no choice. And just because it is the status quo doesn't it make it right. I for one am advocating change and choice. The biggest reason you are against it is that you favour the choice of the factory default radio.

I don't know how much you know about manufacturing cars, but the more options they have, the more expensive it is to make all of the cars...

Further you are against anyone having their own choice.  Why not advocate dictatorship so that you can force your choices down everyone else's throat.

My interest is in the common good. You could go to the USA where you have the choice to die because you chose not to purchase medical coverage... but what about the person who couldn't afford it..... They don't have a choice... So you want to put in a system that gives you more choices for you personally, at the expense of someone else's choice...

So if I understand what your response is, you would give away when it makes you feel good to do so

And I also give the full amount that I am required by law to give, the full amount of taxes that are tabulated by my accountant, according to the prescribed tax laws. And my guess is that this amount exceeds the average...

I would suggest that the laws that my accountant adheres to require change. If even a small percentage of current tax avoidance schemes were cut out, the health care system that we could easily afford would be phenominal.... and we wouldn't have mean-spirited people like you, willing to take away the health-care system from our poorest citizens so you could afford to pamper some of your own selfish interests with the few dollars you save.

[Renegade]

I don't know how much you know about manufacturing cars, but the more options they have, the more expensive it is to make all of the cars...

Yet they still offer options on cars. Why? Perhaps your preference was the Ladas built by the USSR for its citizens with no options. Your right it was cheap.

My interest is in the common good. You could go to the USA where you have the choice to die because you chose not to purchase medical coverage... but what about the person who couldn't afford it..... They don't have a choice... So you want to put in a system that gives you more choices for you personally, at the expense of someone else's choice...

You profess the common good while happily trampling individual freedoms in the process. Yes I could go to the US but I would rather advocate change here. BTW, I am not advocating for a mirrror image of the US but at least they do respect the individual's right to choose. Yes I am advocating for more choice for people who can afford that choice. I hardly see it is at the expense of anyone else's choice.

And I also give the full amount that I am required by law to give, the full amount of taxes that are tabulated by my accountant, according to the prescribed tax laws. And my guess is that this amount exceeds the average...

I would suggest that the laws that my accountant adheres to require change. If even a small percentage of current tax avoidance schemes were cut out, the health care system that we could easily afford would be phenominal.... and we wouldn't have mean-spirited people like you, willing to take away the health-care system from our poorest citizens so you could afford to pamper some of your own selfish interests with the few dollars you save.

You have alreay admitted to being a tax-cheat. Your only excuse is that you rely on your accountant for tax advice. You can turn a blind eye to your accountant's tax antics if you want to, but that doesn't make you any less culpable.

I'm going to prove to you you are a tax-evader:

Here's a quote from Business and Professional Income Guide

You can deduct the salary you pay to your child, as long as

you meet all these conditions:

■ you pay the salary;

■ the work your child does is necessary for earning business

or professional income; and

■ the salary is reasonable when you consider your child’s

age, and the amount you pay is what you would pay

someone else.

You can also deduct the salary you pay to your spouse or

common-law partner. When you pay your spouse or

common-law partner a salary, use the same rules that apply

to paying your child.

You have alredy admitted that your wife earns a salary paid by your company but does not work. THAT MAKES YOU A TAX-CHEAT.

Given your demonstrated hypocracy it is hard to take your advocacy on changing the tax structure seriously.

[Toro]

I don't know how much you know about manufacturing cars, but the more options they have, the more expensive it is to make all of the cars...

Yet they still offer options on cars. Why? Perhaps your preference was the Ladas built by the USSR for its citizens with no options. Your right it was cheap.

My interest is in the common good. You could go to the USA where you have the choice to die because you chose not to purchase medical coverage... but what about the person who couldn't afford it..... They don't have a choice... So you want to put in a system that gives you more choices for you personally, at the expense of someone else's choice...

You profess the common good while happily trampling individual freedoms in the process. Yes I could go to the US but I would rather advocate change here. BTW, I am not advocating for a mirrror image of the US but at least they do respect the individual's right to choose. Yes I am advocating for more choice for people who can afford that choice. I hardly see it is at the expense of anyone else's choice.

Besides, what choice is it if you die waiting in line because you don't have another option?

[err]

You profess the common good while happily trampling individual freedoms in the process. Yes I could go to the US but I would rather advocate change here. BTW, I am not advocating for a mirrror image of the US but at least they do respect the individual's right to choose. Yes I am advocating for more choice for people who can afford that choice. I hardly see it is at the expense of anyone else's choice.

And what choices do they (the USA) give the person who makes $8/hour... they aren't eligible for free health care because they make too much money... Is that one of the things you respect about the USA's system ????

The system you appear to be promoting, is one in which you can pay for superior service, by taking the money intended for the public system, and augmenting it with money from your pocket. Effectively, you've taken money out of the public's pocket, and added a few dollars from your pocket to buy the service that you want. This leaves less money in the public pocket.

The money that the public purse pays for hospital service is more than just giving the doctor who looked after you his dues. That money also pays for administration, maintenance, laundry service, heating, and much more... The funding received for a specific service, such as setting a broken arm accounts for these factors. Only a prescribed percentage of this 'fee' is for the doctor's compensation.

I see a problem with taking public money to pay for the administration and running of a privately owned, for profit hospital... If, for example, 25% of current patients elect to go to a privately owned, for-profit hospital, that gets paid from the private purse, then the public hospital has suddenly lost 25% of its funding for heating, administration, equipment, etc...

The public medical care system could compensate for the loss of income required to run the infrastructure of our health care system by charging 25% more tax to keep the system afloat.... If that is not a viable option, the public system will have to cut costs... by that, I mean services, staff, etc...

Neither scenario is favourable to a right-wing conservative like yourself... So you should really think about what you are wishing for before you start advocating such a foolish option...

[err]

And I also give the full amount that I am required by law to give, the full amount of taxes that are tabulated by my accountant, according to the prescribed tax laws. And my guess is that this amount exceeds the average...

I would suggest that the laws that my accountant adheres to require change. If even a small percentage of current tax avoidance schemes were cut out, the health care system that we could easily afford would be phenominal.... and we wouldn't have mean-spirited people like you, willing to take away the health-care system from our poorest citizens so you could afford to pamper some of your own selfish interests with the few dollars you save.

You have alreay admitted to being a tax-cheat. Your only excuse is that you rely on your accountant for tax advice. You can turn a blind eye to your accountant's tax antics if you want to, but that doesn't make you any less culpable.

I will guarantee you that my taxes are completely and totally legal. I get away with what our system lets people get away with....

I'm going to prove to you you are a tax-evader:

Without knowning the technical details of my tax situation, how could you possibly imagine doing so... The auditors who audited my taxes last year found nothing untoward. (I'll give you a hint though... My wife doesn't technically work for me... she's an independent consultant.)

Given your demonstrated hypocracy it is hard to take your advocacy on changing the tax structure seriously.

You really don't get it, do you... My taxes are completely legal. The tax system gives me the choices that you don't have, including the ability to go to the front of the line, with a high-end accounting firm who can get me the best service (because I'm willing to pay for it). Sort of like what you are advocating for our medical system.

[Renegade]

And what choices do they (the USA) give the person who makes $8/hour... they aren't eligible for free health care because they make too much money... Is that one of the things you respect about the USA's system ????

The system you appear to be promoting, is one in which you can pay for superior service, by taking the money intended for the public system, and augmenting it with money from your pocket. Effectively, you've taken money out of the public's pocket, and added a few dollars from your pocket to buy the service that you want. This leaves less money in the public pocket.

The money that the public purse pays for hospital service is more than just giving the doctor who looked after you his dues. That money also pays for administration, maintenance, laundry service, heating, and much more... The funding received for a specific service, such as setting a broken arm accounts for these factors. Only a prescribed percentage of this 'fee' is for the doctor's compensation.

I see a problem with taking public money to pay for the administration and running of a privately owned, for profit hospital... If, for example, 25% of current patients elect to go to a privately owned, for-profit hospital, that gets paid from the private purse, then the public hospital has suddenly lost 25% of its funding for heating, administration, equipment, etc...

The public medical care system could compensate for the loss of income required to run the infrastructure of our health care system by charging 25% more tax to keep the system afloat.... If that is not a viable option, the public system will have to cut costs... by that, I mean services, staff, etc...

Neither scenario is favourable to a right-wing conservative like yourself... So you should really think about what you are wishing for before you start advocating such a foolish option...

You seem to treat the money in the public system as your trust account. It is not. The money each of us contribute is ours not the publics. We earn it, we should be allowed to spend it in ways which beneift each of us.

There are many other necessary services in life which we allow people to purchase according to the ability to pay. Arent the wealthy able to purchase better food than the poor? Arent the wealthy able to purchase better housing than the poor? Arent the wealthy able to purchase better education than the poor? It would seem that we don't have a mental block against the wealthy paying to getter better service, however health care seems to be out of line in policy with these other services.

In any case you should know that there is already mullti-tier health care in Canada. The truly wealthy can go to the US should they need to. Polititians and elite athletes seem to go to the front of the line anyway. The middle-class are gettting screwed in this deal by not having the same choices others do in a system which they provide the bulk of the funding for.