Ontario Government is out to Lunch


Retired_Can_Soldier
+3
#1  Top Rated Post
Quote:

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
+2
#2
I agree, but only because I think we shouldn't be encouraging people to have children to begin with.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I agree, but only because I think we shouldn't be encouraging people to have children to begin with.

Hilarious.
 
spaminator
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

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.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

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 by spaminator; Apr 11th, 2014 at 08:45 AM..
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by spaminatorView Post

you apparently haven't seen those very scary adoption movies.

No, but I watched a friend of mine son waste away while his young wife held his hand and his two young kids looked on.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#6
Sorry about your friend's son. I hope you can push the government to rearrange its priorities.
Last edited by Tecumsehsbones; Apr 11th, 2014 at 08:44 AM..
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#7
I guess cancer takes a back seat to jokes as well. Never mind, feel free to piss all over this thread with jokes.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

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 .
 
spaminator
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

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.

 
Locutus
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Out to lunch? It's only 9:30! The policy clearly states that lunch is 10:00-3:30!

Layabouts. Ne'er-do-wells.

Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

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.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by spaminatorView Post

sorry ret, I meant no disrespect to you and the people you care about. my apologies.

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.
 
Locutus
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by spaminatorView Post

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

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
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

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
No Party Affiliation
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

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
#15
No sweat folks. All is good.

Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

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.
 
petros
#16
The worst case Ontario.....
 
spaminator
+3
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

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
No Party Affiliation
+3
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by spaminatorView Post

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.
 
spaminator
+2
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

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.

thanks, slm.
 
Locutus
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by spaminatorView Post

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

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.
 
BornRuff
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

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

I really don't know how much sense that makes. Will many people really care about this unless they personally need to use it?

I get the point that in general women seem to be more focused on having kids than men, but I don't think anyone really thinks about this sort of treatment until they are actively trying to have kids and not being successful. I don't think that is a very large portion of the population, and it would be an even smaller portion who's thoughts about this line up with the election cycle.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2
#22
There are tonnes of stuff not covered. Frankly it should all be covered. If any type of coverage for any disease, test for disease, help with disease it should be covered. I have no problem with invetro being covered if you cover stuff like prostate tests or countless other stuff excluded. Elective stuff like plastic surgery (not resulting from accident) is the last on the list.

Perhaps if they weren't pissing money away buying votes by cancelling projects, they would have money for healthcare.

Good OP RCS.
 
BornRuff
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

No, but I watched a friend of mine son waste away while his young wife held his hand and his two young kids looked on.

I 100% empathize with you on this one. I went through this with my mom when she was far too young, and 3 friends so far. It is a terrible terrible thing to go through.

What I don't agree with is the idea that these situations are a reason not to do anything for anyone else. If we follow the logic that it is wrong to spend money on something when there are people worse off who you think need the money more, then it doesn't even really make sense to spend money on cancer patients. Why spend so much money on a person who has cancer, sometimes just to extend their life by a few months, when the same money could feed hundreds, sometimes thousands of kids in the third world and give them a chance at a long life?

OHIP can definitely improve care in a lot of areas, but I don't think that is just related to stuff like cancer care. Healthcare shouldn't just be about keeping us alive, but also allowing us to do the things that make life worth living.
 
petros
-1
#24
BumFluff...lol
 
Sal
No Party Affiliation
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

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.

Sorry to hear of the death of your friend's child. My mind can't begin to process the horror of such a death especially that of a child.

While I too doubt this is voter pandering, it is disconcerting to know that money which could help with cancer treatment is perhaps being diverted.

I do know I've heard comments from people with breast cancer speak about how successful their fundraising is and that they wished all types of cancer could receive the support that they felt that they received during treatment. Other forms of cancer do not seem to gain the same type of support. I don't have an answer here just saying it is a sad situation for all involved.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

I 100% empathize with you on this one. I went through this with my mom when she was far too young, and 3 friends so far. It is a terrible terrible thing to go through.

Thank you

Quote:

What I don't agree with is the idea that these situations are a reason not to do anything for anyone else. If we follow the logic that it is wrong to spend money on something when there are people worse off who you think need the money more, then it doesn't even really make sense to spend money on cancer patients. Why spend so much money on a person who has cancer, sometimes just to extend their life by a few months, when the same money could feed hundreds, sometimes thousands of kids in the third world and give them a chance at a long life?

I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that most cancer patients have to seek other funding and even fund raising for treatment. I am not suggesting we take money out of Heart and Stroke research and treatment or any other pressing medical issue. But we are failing so terribly at taking care of the sick in this province I do think alotting $50 million to Invitro is by any means smart. That $50 million could used in a myriad of ways that will benefit ontario patients rather than a feel good gesture. Not be able to have children should not take priority over the treatments we should be administering.


Quote:

OHIP can definitely improve care in a lot of areas, but I don't think that is just related to stuff like cancer care. Healthcare shouldn't just be about keeping us alive, but also allowing us to do the things that make life worth living.

Absolutely.
 
BornRuff
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that most cancer patients have to seek other funding and even fund raising for treatment. I am not suggesting we take money out of Heart and Stroke research and treatment or any other pressing medical issue. But we are failing so terribly at taking care of the sick in this province I do think alotting $50 million to Invitro is by any means smart. That $50 million could used in a myriad of ways that will benefit ontario patients rather than a feel good gesture. Not be able to have children should not take priority over the treatments we should be administering.

I guess we mostly disagree on the value of something like IVF treatments. I don't think this is just a "feel good" gesture. Reproduction is a pretty fundamental part of life.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

I guess we mostly disagree on the value of something like IVF treatments. I don't think this is just a "feel good" gesture. Reproduction is a pretty fundamental part of life.

No it's not. Breathing and nutrition are a fundamental part of life.

Reproduction has no bearing on whether one lives or dies. And there is no epidemic of Female infertility so we as a species are in no danger of extinction.
 
BornRuff
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

No it's not. Breathing and nutrition are a fundamental part of life.

Reproduction has no bearing on whether one lives or dies. And there is no epidemic of Female infertility so we as a species are in no danger of extinction.

I don't know about you, but I know that lots of people see starting a family as one of the most basic purposes of life.

If we see healthcare as more than just doing what is necessary to sustain the human race, you need to look beyond the criteria you set out there.
 
Nuggler
+2
#30
So, the government of Ont. remains a fukking twit organization. Like the one before it, and the one which will come after.


For too many years Ont. had too much money, a lot of industry, and was the big kid in the pool. Now it's not, but still acts the part. Spending money we don't have on horsesh*t when health and welfare of all kinds fall by the board.


Nuff to make a mare bite its colt.
 

Similar Threads

199
For lunch today I had.....
by Twila | Jul 15th, 2005
2
Ontario government to hold onto 51% of hydro one
by SumOfAllFears | Jun 13th, 2002
no new posts