Ontario Government is out to Lunch

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,346
556
113
59
Alberta
Ontario proposes to pay for in vitro fertilization


Plan would help pay for 1 cycle of IVF

Ontario's governing Liberals are promising to provide limited coverage of infertility services to more women who are
struggling to get pregnant.


They say they plan to help would-be parents pay for one cycle of in vitro fertilization for all forms of infertility starting early
next year.


But the province won't cover the costs of drugs and other services associated with IVF which can cost thousands of dollars.
Health Minister Deb Matthews wouldn't say exactly how much of the IVF costs will be covered, but estimates Ontario will pay out $50 million annually once the program is fully implemented.


Read more
This Saturday my wife and I will be attending a benefit for Hospice that is dedicated to a friend of ours son who died of skin cancer. In addition to this, my Sister-Inlaw is a cancer survivor and a very close friend of mine's wife has pancreatic cancer. I'm not that different than anyone here, we've all been touched by this disease either directly or indirectly, but I am aghast when I see governments allocate tax payer dollars for treatments like Invitro while leaving refusing to fund drugs and treatment for cancer. Something I've learned about cancer is that we are not doing everything we can to help patients and families. Drugs are astronomically expensive and getting in for diagnosis and treatment can be agonizing slow.

While I don't have an issue with women wanting to get pregnant, the fact is that we shouldn't be robbing Peter to pay Paul. $50 million dollars can be utilized for life saving and life extending treatment. If someone cannot get pregnant I would suggest that they consider other alternatives including adoption. An adopted child will love you just as much as kid that comes from your body.

I find this allocation to be nothing more than an attempt to buy votes and no matter the Party I think it is extremely short sighted.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
I agree, but only because I think we shouldn't be encouraging people to have children to begin with. ;)
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,811
3,031
113
This Saturday my wife and I will be attending a benefit for Hospice that is dedicated to a friend of ours son who died of skin cancer. In addition to this, my Sister-Inlaw is a cancer survivor and a very close friend of mine's wife has pancreatic cancer. I'm not that different than anyone here, we've all been touched by this disease either directly or indirectly, but I am aghast when I see governments allocate tax payer dollars for treatments like Invitro while leaving refusing to fund drugs and treatment for cancer. Something I've learned about cancer is that we are not doing everything we can to help patients and families. Drugs are astronomically expensive and getting in for diagnosis and treatment can be agonizing slow.

While I don't have an issue with women wanting to get pregnant, the fact is that we shouldn't be robbing Peter to pay Paul. $50 million dollars can be utilized for life saving and life extending treatment. If someone cannot get pregnant I would suggest that they consider other alternatives including adoption. An adopted child will love you just as much as kid that comes from your body.

I find this allocation to be nothing more than an attempt to buy votes and no matter the Party I think it is extremely short sighted.
I guess cancer takes a back seat to jokes as well. Never mind, feel free to piss all over this thread with jokes.
sorry ret, I meant no disrespect to you and the people you care about. my apologies. :(

 
Last edited:

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
I agree, but only because I think we shouldn't be encouraging people to have children to begin with. ;)

Son you should have studied a bit of biology in school.Or at least peered into the girls change room more often. People do not need to be encouraged to reproduce. It will happen naturally. Anything the government tryes to do in this department is just a vote buying .
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
Out to lunch? It's only 9:30! The policy clearly states that lunch is 10:00-3:30!

Layabouts. Ne'er-do-wells.

I guess cancer takes a back seat to jokes as well. Never mind, feel free to piss all over this thread with jokes.


This is what happens when assholes like bonehead here, simpleton attention-whores that simply must get in a thread, up their post-count, jump in where they do not belong and where they are not wanted.

Maybe give it a proper rest you idiot.
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
sorry ret, I meant no disrespect to you and the people you care about. my apologies. :(


Unlike say, this man here who edited his first post back there some. Had the decency, the maturity.

Same here, RCS. I admit I didn't really read your post, only the quote, before I shot off my mouth. Which I regret. I've changed my lame-a ss post accordingly.

Fuckin' read the next one before you try to piss in it or I'll sort you out sir.
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
Son you should have studied a bit of biology in school.Or at least peered into the girls change room more often. People do not need to be encouraged to reproduce. It will happen naturally. Anything the government tryes to do in this department is just a vote buying .

Well, not necessarily. The entire reason this program is being proposed is because it doesn't always come naturally.

I kind of question the idea of referring to this as vote buying. How big could the voter base interested in this really be?
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Well, not necessarily. The entire reason this program is being proposed is because it doesn't always come naturally.

I kind of question the idea of referring to this as vote buying. How big could the voter base interested in this really be?

Depends on just who you want to count as potential benifactors. Teachers and health care workers benefit from increased youth population. Then again a politician will say most anything just to buy a vote when it is not his /her money being spent.
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,346
556
113
59
Alberta
No sweat folks. All is good.

I kind of question the idea of referring to this as vote buying. How big could the voter base interested in this really be?

This is targeted specifically at buying the votes of women. OHIP has enough shortfalls, that 50 million dollars could be utilized in other places.
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
35,811
3,031
113
Unlike say, this man here who edited his first post back there some. Had the decency, the maturity.
thanks loc, for your kind words. :) I guess sometimes I get caught up in trying to post something funny, I end up forgetting the context of what was posted previously. :(
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
thanks loc, for your kind words. :) I guess sometimes I get caught up in trying to post something funny, I end up forgetting the context of what was posted previously. :(

I think it's safe for me to say that we all know you well enough to know that your intention is never to be hurtful. :)
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
thanks loc, for your kind words. :) I guess sometimes I get caught up in trying to post something funny, I end up forgetting the context of what was posted previously. :(

no prob...as Mark said, it's all good.

I think it's safe for me to say that we all know you well enough to know that your intention is never to be hurtful. :)

yep

As for the other one in threads like this one, I remain ever vigilant.