Interesting math. That means because I asked for a 15% raise but got zero this year I took a 15% pay cut? Wait until I tell the bean counter that one.
Did you finish high school yet?
Conservatives cut healthcare funding after 2018
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Interesting math. That means because I asked for a 15% raise but got zero this year I took a 15% pay cut? Wait until I tell the bean counter that one.
Did you finish high school yet?
We need a new sub-forum to put your propaganda in MF.
I vote we call it the The Department of Mis-information. Or Pravda.
I vote we call it the The Department of Mis-information. Or Pravda.
No, I am touchy about tax increases and people with agendas manipulating the facts to suit their dogma.
I'm happy to be of service:
tobacco products (to help pay for lung cancer treatments),
drinking alcohol (to pay to treat alcoholism and other alcohol-borne illnesses),
petrol (to help pay for asthma-related illnesses especially in urban areas),
high-cholesterol-laden foods and drinks (to help pay for heart disease treatments),
etc.
So, in this thread, we whine about the word "cut" instead of discussing the need for reduced spending on healthcare.
And I am to be banished for my heinous propaganda.
And I am to be banished for my heinous propaganda.
Then if you want more funding for healthcare, how about proposing sources of income like I did instead of just complaining about the cuts.
Or we negotiate a reasonable rate instead of tying it to GDP?
I did mention that in this thread.
Like i said, if you want that reasonable rate of increase then how about proposing sources of funding so as to accomplish that?
Or did you mean a reasonable tax rate or something else? because clearly if we're to increase healthcare funding, the money must come from somewhere.
I agree with other sources of funding, but that doesn't excuse unnecessary fiscal conservatism on a top priority.
In other words, I take no issue with coming up with ideas to help fund our healthcare needs. I disagree with unreasonably cutting (by tying it to GDP).
I don't see anything unreasonable in this: the plan ties increases with inflation and economic growth (i.e the cost of living) so while this may not be an ever increasing strain on gov't resources, it is definately not a cut. It is a stabilization at the current level of funding instead of increasing it to a point where it is unsustainable.
Two tier health care will not fly in Canada until people have a radical attitude adjustment in how they view private providers... and with the example of the US system so dominant (with all its weaknesses), those in favour of the status quo have an easy sell.
As for sin taxes, they are already in place. The cost of production and transportation (and margins) on alcohol are about 20-30% of the sticker price: its 70-80% tax already. Tobacco is also high. The only thing left would be to tax junk food, which is getting into some pretty grey areas once you start challenging the nutritional composition of food; if we go down this road, we can expect to see the McDonalds adn Wendy's of the world raising court challenges, and going after less-than-optimum health choices in the grocery store, such as Mac & Cheese, ramen-style noodles, canned soups and many pre-package dinners.
Instead of burying $80K stainless steel hips and knees with dead people why not hack them out and use them again? That'll save big.
You are assuming that public healthcare needs reflect economic growth.
This is simply not true.
We struggle with healthcare now even though funding is already greater than current GDP growth.
Or we could just not use them at all. Putting a new knee in a 75 year old is like putting new hubcaps on a 72 Pinto
I agree with you within the context of private health care being so restrictive within Canada. If the government will not allow full two-tiered health care like they do in even some of the most socialistic states like Sweden, then yes it has a responsibility to provide quality health care. But, learning from other countries like Sweden and going two-tiered would be worthwhile.
Then how about a letter-writing campaign or petition asking the government to increase our sin-taxes. Whenever the government raises taxes, people complain, so as long as the government fears raising taxes, it has no choice but to cut funding. How about a petition or letter-writing campaing making it clear that we want increased sin taxes so as to make the government less fearful of tapping into these other sources of revenue. In the end, if we complain each time the government raises taxes, then we get what we reap.
One possibility would be to tax all foods containing cholesterol for example, as cholesterol content is measurable.
I don't quite know how we'd tax dangerous or extreme sports for broken bones though. Maybe taxes on related sports equipment?
My Province won't be running short of healthcare funding or any funding for that matter anytime soon.
Come on you deadbeat Provinces, Get off your asses.
Come on you deadbeat Provinces, Get off your asses.
Honestly though, I'd be hesitant about taxing extreme-sports equipment except the most dangerous of them. After all, you can't ask people to take care of their health and then tax their efforts after all.
This is part of the problem as well.
Provinces like Alberta and B.C. already have natural resources that will allow them to cope with the healthcare demand if it becomes tied to economic growth. Other provinces, that aren't lucky enough to be able to tap into these resources will incur an increasing debt.
It's unfair to favour the people in those provinces who are simply fortunate enough to be sitting on top of a gold mine to the detriment of the other provinces.
No negotiations with the provinces are underway to try and compensate for this unilateral demand.
I agree with that in principle, that resources ought to be a federal and not provincial or territorial jurisdiction.