I agree that keeping prisoners idle in prison is not particularly economically productive and is in fact a drain on the economy and taxpayers as are unnecessary fighter jets.
Conservatives cut healthcare funding after 2018
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
I agree that keeping prisoners idle in prison is not particularly economically productive and is in fact a drain on the economy and taxpayers as are unnecessary fighter jets.
Not even.
As for prisoners, make them work in prison so as to alleviate some of the burden on maintaining them in prison or, if the reason they're in prison in the first place is lack of sellable skills on the labour market, then provide them with free literacy, trades or professional education or drug rehabilitation or any combination of the above as necessary.
Either way, they should come out of prison with some kind of trade or professional diploma at a minimum and possibly work experience while in prison. this would save money all around.
As for fighter jets, how about sharing a common international military force with a maximum 100,000 well trained and equipped troops. Sharing such a force woudl allow multiple nations to pool their resources together so as to reduce the overall cost of military spending for each nation.
There is no money in it. If you're going to invest into human capital, invest it in the best and brightest.
That won't work Petros, (you know better than that) :lol: The best and brightest will look after themselves, they will find a way to success, whereas the underdogs will always be with us, so best to give them a hand up so they can compete with the best and brightest and in theory at least you will have a well oiled society running like a 23 jewel Waltham! :smile:
They become the best and the brightest precisely because their parents have invested in them not only financially but emotionally through love and nurture too. Some of the less education have potential that has simply not been tapped. Why would you now want to invest even further in those who've had an oportunity others have never had and abandon those who might not have had an opportunity. Then we're talking about direct systematic government intervention to expand the wealth gap.
Besides, it would be preferable to have each member of society each contributing what he can rather than leave most of the population unproductive.
By 2018 the provinces will be getting 140% of the cash they got in 2011.
Under a new Health Accord, the amount of money delivered will continue to rise, just not as quickly.
To call this a "cut" is a blatant lie.
Or simply stupid.
NDPers never were real good at math.
Or reality.
Under a new Health Accord, the amount of money delivered will continue to rise, just not as quickly.
To call this a "cut" is a blatant lie.
Or simply stupid.
NDPers never were real good at math.
Or reality.
Then have them do some other work.
By 2018 the provinces will be getting 140% of the cash they got in 2011.
Under a new Health Accord, the amount of money delivered will continue to rise, just not as quickly.
To call this a "cut" is a blatant lie.
Or simply stupid.
NDPers never were real good at math.
Or reality.
Not all Dippers are bad at maths, though I will concede many of them, including many of the NDP leadership, do fall in that category you mention. Those who aren't good at maths are either backbenchers or are not likely to have a chance to even run a campaign under the NDp banner.
NDPers never were real good at math.
Or reality.
:roll:
No different than stating that all conservatives are inbred, war mongering, killers only interested in how they can get more of the almighty dollar and no regard for their fellow man.
gee walter, I noticed you didn't give a thumbs down to machjo and colpy for their bullshyte comments about ndpers. A tad unfair don't you think?
Something you say almost every day
Actually, no it isn't. When it comes to war mongering etc., the cons really don't have too much over the libs. Same with the republicans and the democrats.
I gather that you don't remember what Paul Martin did to health care funding when he was in Finance.
Perhaps I missed it somewhere in this thread, but where has anyone made the case that tying healthcare spending to GDP is a good idea? Obviously if we're paying for something, it should be enough to cover the true cost of the program, or find other sources of funding as others have mentioned.
So, absent any new funding like a new tax, or user fees, tying the healthcare transfers to nominal GDP is stupid, because the cost of healthcare and the rise and fall of GDP are not associated.
Insert conspiracy theories here-------------------->
So, absent any new funding like a new tax, or user fees, tying the healthcare transfers to nominal GDP is stupid, because the cost of healthcare and the rise and fall of GDP are not associated.
Insert conspiracy theories here-------------------->
But I DO remember- he obliterated it. :lol:
I've noticed Walter has improved a bit lately...............I think he may have been paying close attention to some of my posts. But hey Ger, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to become a staunch N.D.P.er! :lol:
Ah, but many people have learned that you have to base any increase in spending on what your increase in income is, and therefore, to make any increase in health spending tied to increase in GDP only makes sense. Otherwise, we're headed to where health takes 100% of the federal budget.
It's so ethically obvious.
People who work hard deserve better healthcare!
People who are just nice only deserve adequate healthcare.
And considering GDP growth won't ever jump beyond 3.5%, people will work very hard for their healthcare.
I'm so proud to be a Canajun. *wipes tear*
The absence of tying healthcare to GDP does not mean healthcare will take 100% of the budget.
In fact, it's gone from 80% to 6%.
Last edited:
You're saying that health care is now 6% of the budget? And that it used to be 80% of the budget?
Over what time span did this drop take place?
Right, so where is the additional income supposed to come from? Heathcare costs are rising faster than GDP, so fixing the increase to GDP increase means the deficit grows. Really it's Ottawa punting to the Provinces, who have 6 years to figure out what to do, within the confines of the federal Canada Health Act.
Honestly this is probably more palatable than what really needs to be done, opening up the Canada Health Act to investigate the best available practices. We have the whole world to use as a case study...many different systems, some closer in composition and form to ours.