Seniors and Entitlement

[Riverwind]

With a progressive tax system, the only thing that dictates your premium is you income. I suggest that with a medical type insurance, you medical risk, age, history, and other relevant factors determine your premium not your income.

Heath insurance is not the same as car insurance - it is a mistake to pretend it is. This system you propose does not even exist in countries where priviate health insurance is the norm. In the US most people get group coverage which costs the same for everyone in the group. Insurance companies also prefer group coverage because it reduces their risk exposure. So the incentive for better behavoir does not exist.

[Renegade]

Heath insurance is not the same as car insurance - it is a mistake to pretend it is.

Please explain why not.

This system you propose does not even exist in countries where priviate health insurance is the norm. In the US most people get group coverage which costs the same for everyone in the group. Insurance companies also prefer group coverage because it reduces their risk exposure.

I don't hold out the US as a system which is one to emulate. There are numerous faults in it. Group coverage primarily initiated in the US because coverage was provided through the employer. Since the employer was looking to cover all employees, it made sense for the employer to cover them as a group.

We have heard numerous stories in the past of employeers refusing employment to new high-risk employees if they expect that the group's premiums will change because of the additional risk.

Where an individual health insurance policy is required, they very much do ask for, and may have a doctor verify, risk factors, and the premium based upon that assessment.

So the incentive for better behavoir does not exist.

I agree, and a more appropriate system would incent proper behaviour.

-----------------

Is this the appropriate thread for this discussion? We discussed this before here: At what cost a human life?, How much should our healthcare pay?

[Riverwind]

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....82entry170682

[Catchme]

Heath insurance is not the same as car insurance - it is a mistake to pretend it is.

Please explain why not.

I went to the thread that Riverwind linked to and found this:

Furthermore, there are a huge number of people with expensive pre-existing conditions that would be simply denied coverage in a individual risk based system. Such a system is unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of people which means these people whould have to 'subsidized' by lower risk people.

When people are advocating for right to "access" to be based upon: history, age, lifestyle or other are advocating for something that is dangerously close to the superior race/people mentality and with economics as a determining factor tied in we are talking about a movement back towards feudalistic serfs and peasants.

Econmic circumstance is not so simplistic or black and white as some portray. With the fault laying upon those for not getting a better education, or having more family support etc, and saying that the dirty 30's is the fault of the individuals for not planning for the future better is remarkedly devoid of any actual historical facts.

What some are advocating by "health insurance" in the end result, would mean that priviledged access to health care, would be for those that economically have the ability to genetically engineer a "perfect" human.

This system you propose does not even exist in countries where priviate health insurance is the norm. In the US most people get group coverage which costs the same for everyone in the group. Insurance companies also prefer group coverage because it reduces their risk exposure.

It does not exist because most people are mature and rational thinkers after they have been out of their parents homes for a while.

So the incentive for better behavoir does not exist.

I agree, and a more appropriate system would incent proper behaviour.

What would proper behaviour mean, and who would determine "proper" behaviour?

Is this the appropriate thread for this discussion? We discussed this before here: At what cost a human life?, How much should our healthcare pay?

This is an interesting thread in its own right.

[Renegade]

If you received a primary education in this country, someone else paid for it.

And if I didn't get a public primary education in this country, do I get a reimbursment from the state?

Now that you pay taxes, you are paying for it. It is deferred payment.

For some people yes, for some people no. Some people have paid no taxes, yet get the benefit. Some people pay a lot of taxes and get no benefit ever. So it is hard to rationalize it as a deffered payment.

We purchase medical insurance in the form of taxes. I don't see the difference, the same people will pay.

No it is not nececessarily the same people who pay. Universal coverage means even those who don't pay taxes are still covered. Further the amount people pay will vary. If I keep myself healthy, I should pay less than someone who doesn't . My income is irrelevant to my state of health. See the thread where RW posted the link.

Most of us don't need it when we are young but do when we get older. For most people it is a deferred benefit.

Again only some people will be able to claim the benefit they paid for. Some may die, some may leave the country. Some will claim the benefit for which they have never paid, such as those who immigrate into the country.

There will only be a small segment of the population who will get the same fair-value benefit as what they have paid. Most will either overpay or underpay, so it is mislabelling to call it a deferred benefit.

I guess it depends on your circumstances as to how useful they are but in the case of the CPP we need some sort of enforced pension system because one way or another you will be looking after those who can't look after themselves in old age.

I'm in a quandry about whether CPP should be a forced system. Ideally the libertarian in me, says it should be voluntary, however there should be no other support program provided (ie OAS, GIS).

Given that we provide a welfare programs (GIS, OAS) to seniors, I can see an argument which says it should be mandatory, but it is a real problem for me to advocate removing choice from people.

[Wilber]

[

quote]I'm in a quandry about whether CPP should be a forced system. Ideally the libertarian in me, says it should be voluntary, however there should be no other support program provided (ie OAS, GIS).

I didn't say it had to be CPP, just a requirement to put a minimum part of ones income toward retirement.

And if I didn't get a public primary education in this country, do I get a reimbursment from the state?

No, but you might want to reimburse the country that gave it to you.

[

quote]For some people yes, for some people no. Some people have paid no taxes, yet get the benefit. Some people pay a lot of taxes and get no benefit ever. So it is hard to rationalize it as a differed payment.

If you got it and didn't pay for it at the time, it is a deferred payment.

No it is not nececessarily the same people who pay. Universal coverage means even those who don't pay taxes are still covered. Further the amount people pay will vary. If I keep myself healthy, I should pay less than someone who doesn't . My income is irrelevant to my state of health. See the thread where RW posted the link.

You will pay anyway or people will die. . We decided some time ago that all Canadians would have access to health care. I don't think that sentiment has changed. Your income level is definitely relevant. It is an established fact that more affluent people are generally healthier because they are financially able to eat better and lead a healthier lifestyle

Again only some people will be able to claim the benefit they paid for. Some may die, some may leave the country. Some will claim the benefit for which they have never paid, such as those who immigrate into the country.

There will only be a small segment of the population who will get the same fair-value benefit as what they have paid. Most will either overpay or underpay, so it is mislabelling to call it a deferred benefit.

Those that enter the country may get more than they paid for, those that leave will transfer the burden from our system to someone else's. Why do you somehow think you will get more value from a private plan if you don't take as much out as you put in.

Most will, the great majority of a persons medical expenses are in the last two years of their life, right when rates would be sky high with a private plan because you would be the biggest risk, hence a differed benefit.

[Renegade]

I didn't say it had to be CPP, just a requirement to put a minimum part of ones income toward retirement.

By whatever name you want to call it, the concept is the same.

No, but you might want to reimburse the country that gave it to you.

You seem to be contradicting yourself philosophically. You say if I was educated elsewhere, Canada shoudl not reimburse me, yet I should reimburse whomever paid for my education? To be consistent either both parties are reimbursed or none.

If you got it and didn't pay for it at the time, it is a deferred payment.

What do you call it if I never pay for a benefit I got? What do you call it if I paid but never got the benefit?

We decided some time ago that all Canadians would have access to health care. I don't think that sentiment has changed.

The sentiment may not have changed but the access has changed. All Canadians do not have access to healthcare, since healthcare is rationed.

Your income level is definitely relevant. It is an established fact that more affluent people are generally healthier because they are financially able to eat better and lead a healthier lifestyle

I'm not sure that is true, since the affluent tend to indulge in excesses and vices beyond what others could afford. Even assuming it is true and there is a correlation between income and health, that woudl say we should be giving a cost break to those with higher incomes, since they are less of a burden on the system.

Those that enter the country may get more than they paid for, those that leave will transfer the burden from our system to someone else's.

Those that leave aren't necessarily transferring the burden to someone else's system. It may be that someone elses system doesn't provide the benefit, and basically they have to provide it for themselves. For example not every country has public healthcare. Not every country has an OAS program or if they do there is usually a long-term residency requirement.

Why do you somehow think you will get more value from a private plan if you don't take as much out as you put in.

I'm not following you. Who said anything about a private plan?

Most will, the great majority of a persons medical expenses are in the last two years of their life, right when rates would be sky high with a private plan because you would be the biggest risk, hence a differed benefit.

Maybe you should define for me what you mean by "deffered benefit" because I believe we are taking about different things.

[jester]

An interesting thread. I am living in the UK but both my parents are in Canada. I am always amazed how there is a senior discount and how freely people ask for it. If you asked for one here in the UK everyone would look as if you were having a senior moment. If you think pensions are bad over there you are lucky you aren't here. Many of the company pensions are bankrupt or the money has been used by the companies and lost, not forgetting the government tax raid a few years ago. Along with the hospitals deciding if it is worth the money to keep you alive being a pensioner there is a lot better than here.....

[Renegade]

An interesting thread. I am living in the UK but both my parents are in Canada. I am always amazed how there is a senior discount and how freely people ask for it. If you asked for one here in the UK everyone would look as if you were having a senior moment. If you think pensions are bad over there you are lucky you aren't here. Many of the company pensions are bankrupt or the money has been used by the companies and lost, not forgetting the government tax raid a few years ago. Along with the hospitals deciding if it is worth the money to keep you alive being a pensioner there is a lot better than here.....

Can you please enlighten us on what government pension benefits a retiree is eligible to recieve in the UK? Also is it available to all retirees or just a subset?

[Wilber]

By whatever name you want to call it, the concept is the same.

Do you want people to save for retirement or pay them welfare? It will be one or the other.

You seem to be contradicting yourself philosophically. You say if I was educated elsewhere, Canada shoudl not reimburse me, yet I should reimburse whomever paid for my education? To be consistent either both parties are reimbursed or none.

No more contradictory than you wanting something for nothing. Did you pay for your primary education or did your parents through their taxes? You want to be reimbursed for something you never paid for or in effect have your children educated for nothing. Of course, since they were educated here, they will have to pay for their children. What makes you special?

The sentiment may not have changed but the access has changed. All Canadians do not have access to healthcare, since healthcare is rationed.

Yes it is rationed but it is rationed equally according to the capacity of the system, not by the ability to pay. If we can build the facilities and find the personnel for both systems to operate satisfactorily, I don't have a problem with a parallel system.

I'm not sure that is true, since the affluent tend to indulge in excesses and vices beyond what others could afford. Even assuming it is true and there is a correlation between income and health, that woudl say we should be giving a cost break to those with higher incomes, since they are less of a burden on the system.

It is true, there are plenty of studies to back it up. The more affluent are also generally better educated which is also a factor in their better general health but also a big reason they are more affluent.

Those that leave aren't necessarily transferring the burden to someone else's system. It may be that someone else's system doesn't provide the benefit, and basically they have to provide it for themselves. For example not every country has public healthcare. Not every country has an OAS program or if they do there is usually a long-term residency requirement.

What do you care, that's their problem and that of the country they went to, not Canada's.

Maybe you should define for me what you mean by "differed benefit" because I believe we are taking about different things.

You pay into a system that you don't use for years but when you do use it, you are taking out at a rate far greater than you are putting in. You can call it a differed benefit or an insurance policy you collected on, I don't care..

[Renegade]

Do you want people to save for retirement or pay them welfare? It will be one or the other.

I don't know what further point you are trying to make. I've already said that as long as welfare is provided then I can see why you woudl force someone to save for retirement. If you did away with welfare, you could also do away with forced retirement savings.

No more contradictory than you wanting something for nothing.

Thanks for at least agreeing that your statemetn is contradictory. Let me show you that I am not.

Did you pay for your primary education or did your parents through their taxes?

The education of kids is not the obligation of kids. It is the obligtation of parents. They take on that obligation when they decide to be parents. Not just to educate them, but to feed, clothe and care for them. My primary education was paid for by my parent's taxes. It was never my obligation. My obligation is to to pay for my kids in the same way. If I have no kids, I have no such obligation.

You want to be reimbursed for something you never paid for or in effect have your children educated for nothing.

If I pay to have a private education , then I immigrate to Canada after my education is completed, then continue my working life in Canada, paying school taxes along the way, and I have no kids, who owes me my money back?

Yes it is rationed but it is rationed equally according to the capacity of the system, not by the ability to pay.

That is a niave statement. Do you really think top-tier athletes wait the same as the rest of us to have sports injuries treated, do you really think medical staff do not promote themselves and their families to the front of the line. Connections make all the difference. I think you have bought the party line.

It is true, there are plenty of studies to back it up. The more affluent are also generally better educated which is also a factor in their better general health but also a big reason they are more affluent.

So, you ok to give them a cost break since they are so healthy?

What do you care, that's their problem and that of the country they went to, not Canada's.

I care to show you that you deferred benefit theory is completely fulll of holes. There are so many exceptions to who does or does not recieve "deferred benefit" that it makes no sense to call it deferred benefit.

I care because I could someday be one of those leaving. I effect I could be the one paying but not receiving benefit.

I know a set of parents who earned great salaries working overseas as expats. They paid no taxes to Canada. The had a daughter who was severely disabled. They rushed back to Canada, to establish residence and take advantage of the healthcare system. They ended up leaving again to work overseas but left the disabled child in Canada in the care of the grandmother and the "free" medical system. Remind me again how they paid and got a deferred benefit?

You pay into a system that you don't use for years but when you do use it, you are taking out at a rate far greater than you are putting in. You can call it a differed benefit or an insurance policy you collected on, I don't care..

Your terms are completely mixed up because an insurance policy and deferred benefit are completely different things. You aren't using deferred benefit the same as the standard use in the benefits industry.

A deferred benefit scheme is one where you pay into and you recieve a benefit or payment at a later time. The benefit or payment is proportional to what was contributed. To know what as contributed it must be tracked. CPP is an example of such a program. I have repeatedly shown that in all of your examples there is no traceability between contribution and payout hence it is not a deferred benefit scheme as all the world except you define it.

An insurance scheme is one which transfers risk for a price. You pay a premium and if the event you insure agains happens, you collect a payout usually far in excess of your premium. It make no difference for how long you have been insured, simply that you are insured at the time the event happened. EI is an example of such a program.

See the difference?

OAS is neither an insurance nor a deferred benefit as I have defined them above. It is simply a general benefit program similar to welfare. There is no tracking of contributions and there is no event which is being insured against.

[Wilber]

Fine, lets make everything user pay and what isn't profitable, won't exist. Your only responsibility is to yourself. Your idea of paradise but not mine.

[Renegade]

Fine, lets make everything user pay and what isn't profitable, won't exist. Your only responsibility is to yourself. Your idea of paradise but not mine.

Now you are finally on to a good idea.

[Wilber]

The education of kids is not the obligation of kids. It is the obligtation of parents. They take on that obligation when they decide to be parents. Not just to educate them, but to feed, clothe and care for them. My primary education was paid for by my parent's taxes. It was never my obligation. My obligation is to to pay for my kids in the same way. If I have no kids, I have no such obligation.

If you did decide to have kids one day, how would you educate them?

I don't know what further point you are trying to make. I've already said that as long as welfare is provided then I can see why you woudl force someone to save for retirement. If you did away with welfare, you could also do away with forced retirement savings.

Only for those who can save, anyone who cannot, will starve.

If I pay to have a private education , then I immigrate to Canada after my education is completed, then continue my working life in Canada, paying school taxes along the way, and I have no kids, who owes me my money back?

So Canada owes you because you went to private school in a foreign country? Now there is a sense of entitlement. Why should Canada give a fat fig?

I care to show you that you deferred benefit theory is completely fulll of holes. There are so many exceptions to who does or does not recieve "deferred benefit" that it makes no sense to call it deferred benefit.

I care because I could someday be one of those leaving. I effect I could be the one paying but not receiving benefit.

If you get sick, where will you get treatment?

Again, you want to buy insurance from a private company that you may never collect on but you want a guaranty that you will get your money back from a public system. What if your contributions were tracked and once you used them up they wheeled you out of the hospital and left you on the curb?

OAS is neither an insurance nor a deferred benefit as I have defined them above. It is simply a general benefit program similar to welfare. There is no tracking of contributions and there is no event which is being insured against.

True, I was referring to medicare which is the same but somewhat more essential..

[fellowtraveller]

I know a set of parents who earned great salaries working overseas as expats. They paid no taxes to Canada. The had a daughter who was severely disabled. They rushed back to Canada, to establish residence and take advantage of the healthcare system. They ended up leaving again to work overseas but left the disabled child in Canada in the care of the grandmother and the "free" medical system. Remind me again how they paid and got a deferred benefit?

Of course, when they established residency, they would have to pay Canadian taxes until they could re-establish their nonresident status elsewhere..

And by abandoning their child, they display their character.

The tax issue is moot anyway. If you are a citizen and resident, you have certain social benefits. Big deal.

[Renegade]

Of course, when they established residency, they would have to pay Canadian taxes until they could re-establish their nonresident status elsewhere..

And by abandoning their child, they display their character.

The tax issue is moot anyway. If you are a citizen and resident, you have certain social benefits. Big deal.

They paid very little taxes, as they took leaves of absences from employment and as such showed little income.

Of course they displayed their character. In their minds, they were doing what was best for their child.

You may see it as no big deal, but I see it as just a way to hoist a financial burden on the Canadian taxpayer.

I gave this example to dispute Wilber's notion of the program as a deferred benefit, not to demonstrate the holes in our benefit eligibilty system.

[Renegade]

If you did decide to have kids one day, how would you educate them?

It would depend upon the circumstances. If I'm overseas, I may educate them in a private school there. If I'm here I may send them to public or private shool depending upon what is available. If they have aptitutde they may go to a specialized school. There are too many variables to answer your question hypothetically on an event a some time in the future.

Only for those who can save, anyone who cannot, will starve.

Yes, or look for handouts. Please clarify what you mean by "cannot" save. Cannot because they don't have the money, or cannot because they don't have the willpower?

So Canada owes you because you went to private school in a foreign country? Now there is a sense of entitlement.

Because Canada has a sense of entitlement from me. It feels entitled to forcibly take my tax dollars to support its school system. If Canada feels entitled to take my money to support its school system, I should feel entitled to ask for it back if I don't use that system under your "deferred benefit" concept.

Why should Canada give a fat fig?

For the same reason I should give a fat fig about paying for Canada's public education system.

If you get sick, where will you get treatment?

It depends upon the circumstances when I'm sick. Same answer as to the first question.

Again, you want to buy insurance from a private company that you may never collect on but you want a guaranty that you will get your money back from a public system. What if your contributions were tracked and once you used them up they wheeled you out of the hospital and left you on the curb?

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Now you are calling it insurance?? All this time you have called it a deferred benefit. In a deferred benefit system I am entitled to my contribution back. In an insurance system I am not because it is a premium. I have explained that to you already. The fact that you use the two interchangeably shows that you are completely confused about the difference. So which is it an insurance or deferred benefit?

I will agree with you medicare is somewhat akin to insurance, but that is a reversal of your previous position.

True, I was referring to medicare which is the same but somewhat more essential..

See my response above.

[jester]

An interesting thread. I am living in the UK but both my parents are in Canada. I am always amazed how there is a senior discount and how freely people ask for it. If you asked for one here in the UK everyone would look as if you were having a senior moment. If you think pensions are bad over there you are lucky you aren't here. Many of the company pensions are bankrupt or the money has been used by the companies and lost, not forgetting the government tax raid a few years ago. Along with the hospitals deciding if it is worth the money to keep you alive being a pensioner there is a lot better than here.....

Can you please enlighten us on what government pension benefits a retiree is eligible to recieve in the UK? Also is it available to all retirees or just a subset?

Basic pension roughly $170/week and is payable to everyone at age 65. varies with marital status etc but not by much.....

[Wilber]

It would depend upon the circumstances. If I'm overseas, I may educate them in a private school there. If I'm here I may send them to public or private shool depending upon what is available. If they have aptitutde they may go to a specialized school. There are too many variables to answer your question hypothetically on an event a some time in the future.

So you believe all education should be private and only those who's parents can afford it, should have access to it.

Yes, or look for handouts. Please clarify what you mean by "cannot" save. Cannot because they don't have the money, or cannot because they don't have the willpower?

The disabled, those who cannot afford the education to improve themselves in your private user pay system. Of course there will be many more of those if education and health care are only available to the affluent.

Because Canada has a sense of entitlement from me. It feels entitled to forcibly take my tax dollars to support its school system. If Canada feels entitled to take my money to support its school system, I should feel entitled to ask for it back if I don't use that system under your "deferred benefit" concept.

No, you got your education on the differed payment concept. Someone else paid for your education and the advantages that come with it. You feel entitled to what others provided for you during your childhood but those who weren't so fortunate are entitled to nothing. To me you are just another of those who feel entitled to something for nothing and now that you have got it, screw everyone else.

I will agree with you medicare is somewhat akin to insurance, but that is a reversal of your previous position.

How so? Any time you pay for something that you don't presently use on the possibility that you may have to in the future is form of insurance.

[Renegade]

So you believe all education should be private an only those who's parents can afford it, should have access to it.

Huh? How did you read that into what I said? You asked me where I woudl get my kids educated. I don't think I even commented on what other parents should do. If I have please point it out.

The disabled, those who cannot afford the education to improve themselves in your private user pay system. Of course there will be many more of those if education and health care are only available to the affluent.

Huh? I wasn't commenting at all on my view of a user-pay system. Disscussion of a user-pay system is much more involved than anything I have commented on here.

In my response I was simply agreeing with you that if you didn't force a retirements savings plan, then people would end up on welfare, and if welfare wasn't avialble they would starve, or look for handouts. Which part of that statement do you read that I wanted to exclude the disabled and those who can't afford education?

No, you got your education on the differed payment concept. Someone else paid for your education and the advantages that come with it. You feel entitled to what others provided for you during your childhood but those who weren't so fortunate are entitled to nothing.

So who are these others you refer to who paid for my education? Canadian taxpayers? My parents? Some other taxpayers?

Again you use "deffered payment", without understanding the concept. I've given up trying to explain it to you.

To me you are just another of those who feel entitled to something for nothing and now that you have got it, screw everyone else.

You are wrong. Who is it that paid for what I got, tell me because I'd like to pay them back. I'm afraid it is you who are very confused. You have tried to simplify a complex payment mechanism into something simple you call a "deferred benefit" without understaning the meaning of the word.

How so? Any time you pay for something that you don't presently use on the possibility that you may have to in the future is form of insurance.

Of course it is form of insurance! I've been trying for the last couple of days to point it out to you, but you have insisted in calling it a deferred benefit. The real problem is that you don't understand the difference between the two and use the terms interchangably, and I've given up trying to explain it to you.

[Wilber]

Huh? How did you read that into what I said? You asked me where I woudl get my kids educated. I don't think I even commented on what other parents should do. If I have please point it out.

I read what you said. Do you feel entitled to have others pay to build and maintain a public school system on the off chance you might want to use it? If not, I can only assume you believe all education should be private and user pay.

In my response I was simply agreeing with you that if you didn't force a retirements savings plan, then people would end up on welfare, and if welfare wasn't avialble they would starve, or look for handouts. Which part of that statement do you read that I wanted to exclude the disabled and those who can't afford education?

You have said in previous posts that you want to get rid of all welfare and you have said that you are only willing to contribute to any school system while and if your children use it therefore education will only available to those who are able to pay for it.

So who are these others you refer to who paid for my education? Canadian taxpayers? My parents? Some other taxpayers

Doesn't matter, you got something you didn't pay for.

Again you use "deffered payment", without understanding the concept. I've given up trying to explain it to you.

Getting something now and paying for it later, like your education. As in credit. Don't you pay your bills?

You are wrong. Who is it that paid for what I got, tell me because I'd like to pay them back.

Whoever built and maintained the school system when you used it. You do that by maintaining the present school system.

Of course it is form of insurance! I've been trying for the last couple of days to point it out to you, but you have insisted in calling it a deferred benefit. The real problem is that you don't understand the difference between the two, and I've given up trying to explain it to you.

Insurance is a deferred benefit. You pay now for what you may need later. What's so hard to understand?

[Renegade]

I read what you said.

Ok, quote me what I previously said which lead you to that conclusion.

Do you feel entitled to have others pay to build and maintain a public school system on the off chance you might want to use it? If not, I can only assume you believe all education should be private and user pay.

Is this a new question or do you already know my response based upon what I've said? Why ask the question when you claim I have already said that I "believe all education should be private and only those who's parents can afford it, should have access to it."?

The fact is, I agree with a public school system, whether or not I or my kids use it, however if given the choice I would fund it very differently than is done today, and is probably the subject of a different thread.

You have said in previous posts that you want to get rid of all welfare and you have said that you are only willing to contribute to any school system while and if your children use it therefore education will only available to those who are able to pay for it.

Forgive me, but where did I say that?

Doesn't matter, you got something you didn't pay for.

Of course it matters. I "owe" those who contributed to whatever it is you claim I got for free. So go ahead and be specific.

Getting something now and paying for it later, like your education. As in credit. Don't you pay your bills?

So, its like credit and bills now? Your analogies are going over your financial head. Do you notice that they track how much you owe for credit, and how much you owe for bills? That is why yes, credit and bills are deferred payment systems exactly like I described above. Education is not. So try again with your analogy.

Whoever built and maintained the school system when you used it. You do that by maintaining the present school system.

So if I follow you, if I take a loan from John, and I pay back the loan to Paul. My debts are clear right? Please, please don't go into finance.

Insurance is a deferred benefit. You pay now for what you may need later. What's so hard to understand?

Please don't say that to anyone in the insurance or benefit industry. You have completly muddled both concepts.

Let's just agree to call it a kind of insurance ok?

[Wilber]

My obligation is to to pay for my kids in the same way. If I have no kids, I have no such obligation.

If I'm here I may send them to public or private shool depending upon what is available.

If you have no obligation except to pay for your own kids, should you have them, someone else will have to pay for the public system otherwise there will be no public system, therefore there could only be a user pay private system.

What if your parents for some reason beyond their control couldn't provide for your education, should you have been denied one?

[Renegade]

My obligation is to to pay for my kids in the same way. If I have no kids, I have no such obligation.

If I'm here I may send them to public or private shool depending upon what is available.

Let's put my responses in context. I said, and believe that parents have an obligation to educate their kids. If the state didn't provide an education to my kids, I as parent would still have that obligation. The obligation I speak of is a moral one and one I signed up for as a parent. That is why I stated "My obligation is to to pay for my kids in the same way. If I have no kids, I have no such obligation".

You asked me what I would do with my kids if I had any. So I said "If I'm here I may send them to public or private shool depending upon what is available."

Now does any of this state that I wouldn't fund the education of other kids who couldn't afford it? Not as far as I can see, and I fail to see how you can read it that way.

Is this all you have to prove your aligation that I "believe all education should be private an only those who's parents can afford it, should have access to it." ?

If you have no obligation except to pay for your own kids, should you have them, someone else will have to pay for the public system otherwise there will be no public system, therefore there could only be a user pay private system.

Again you are reading things which I never said. I said I have obligations to my own kids, that doesn't preclude me having societal obligations as well.

My comments were with respect to your concept of a deferred system of payments and benefits, which implies that people recieve benefits which they pay for later, or people pay for benefits which they receive later. What I am saying is this model doesnt apply to education or medicare or a host of social programs simply because you must pay regardless if you receive benefits or not.

Yes, I do support a user-pay system, however with caveats. For certain essentials like education and medicare, there should be mechanisms so that people who can't afford it can still use the services.

What if your parents for some reason beyond their control couldn't provide for your education, should you have been denied one?

No as I've said above, even in a user pay system, no-one should be denied education.

[margrace]

An interesting thread. I am living in the UK but both my parents are in Canada. I am always amazed how there is a senior discount and how freely people ask for it. If you asked for one here in the UK everyone would look as if you were having a senior moment. If you think pensions are bad over there you are lucky you aren't here. Many of the company pensions are bankrupt or the money has been used by the companies and lost, not forgetting the government tax raid a few years ago. Along with the hospitals deciding if it is worth the money to keep you alive being a pensioner there is a lot better than here.....

Can you please enlighten us on what government pension benefits a retiree is eligible to recieve in the UK? Also is it available to all retirees or just a subset?

Basic pension roughly $170/week and is payable to everyone at age 65. varies with marital status etc but not by much.....

The basic pension in Canada is $105 a week. Are you in dollars or pounds. If it is dollars than you can get a lot more over there. If you arei in pounds then it would be The equivilant of $387 a week.

The basic pension in Canada is $