HawthorneVillager.com

Hawthorne Village (Milton) Discussion Board
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:15 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 8:22 am
Posts: 3430
Why not allow people access to private health care if they want it?
Regardless of the communist all are equal slogans even a deaf-blind-mute can see there are major differences in how much health care certain people can already pay for


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:13 am
Posts: 1283
Location: Milton
rickp wrote:
So explain your math to me Annie - how is a minimum 3% increase to transfers a cut? I made no mention of Duffy, education, Wright or anything else - only that you linked to a story from a completely biased source, and that by definition, there are no cuts to health care being made.

There are PLENTY of reasons not to like Harper and the Tories - they have been in power for 9 years and have made as many mistakes as they have successes. Use actual facts to make your case - no need to resort to biased , inaccurate arguments!


Originally, Medicare was a shared responsibility between the federal government and provinces and territories, with each part contributing 50 per cent of the funding - FACT.

Over time, the federal government’s contribution has declined. - FACT

In 2004, Ottawa and the provinces signed the 2004 Health Accord, a 10-year agreement that stabilized federal funding at 20 per cent, with a six per cent annual increase. - FACT

When the accord expired in 2014, the Conservative government refused to meet with the provinces and territories. - FACT

Instead of negotiating a new agreement, they unilaterally changed the Canada Health Transfer from a needs-based model to a per capita one. Health-care funding is now strictly based on population, and excludes rates of illness, demographics or rural access. - FACT

The funding formula will change again in 2017. Moving from fixed annual increases of six per cent, the rate of growth of the CHT will depend on each province’s gross domestic product. - FACT

This means that provinces with a larger population and higher economic growth will get larger funding increases, while less populated, poorer provinces with slower economic growth will have lower rates of health transfer growth. - FACT (All provinces except Alberta will receive less funding under this new model.)

These changes reduce the federal share of health funding from 20 per cent to 12 per cent. - FACT

That the Conservatives would have indeed reduced (aka 'cut') funding by $36 million nationally was released by the premiers in the 2012 Report of the Council of the Federation Working Group, a report written by provincial and territorial finance ministers. - FACT

Does that work for you? If you know better than all of the provincial and territorial finance ministers or you have some Joe Oliver math to throw in the mix, well I believe you've already threatened that. If you want to debate and argue, please debate and argue but that means doing more than asking me to prove, reprove and disprove. I am Conservative at core. Don't you think I question myself? I do. If you have a stance or an argument, defend it. I already said I am open to discussion and would readily change my stance if you make sense. But you gotta do more than just requestioning my posts.

_________________
Laugh when you can; Apologize when you should; and Let go of what you can't change.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:23 pm
Posts: 2894
Location: New Milton
Foreveryoung wrote:
And how exactly is that criminal?


http://paulsrants-paulsstuff.blogspot.c ... hleen.html
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Quote:
Elections Canada Confirms Kathleen Wynne Expenses Must Be Paid And Claimed By Trudeau Liberals.
Yesterday I filed a complaint with Elections Canada over Kathleen Wynne campaigning for Justin Trudeau and the associated costs. Today alone she attended 4 different Liberal candidate events. She also brings with her staff whose costs must also be claimed by the Federal Liberals and or local ridings.

...They confirmed I was correct and that they were going to refer the complaint to the Commissioner of Canada Elections. They also took it a step further and suggested I file a complaint with the Ontario Ombudsman as well, which I will do in the morning...

_________________
Let me know if you need a picture or two


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 9:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:32 am
Posts: 873
kf095 wrote:
Foreveryoung wrote:
And how exactly is that criminal?


http://paulsrants-paulsstuff.blogspot.c ... hleen.html
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Quote:
Elections Canada Confirms Kathleen Wynne Expenses Must Be Paid And Claimed By Trudeau Liberals.
Yesterday I filed a complaint with Elections Canada over Kathleen Wynne campaigning for Justin Trudeau and the associated costs. Today alone she attended 4 different Liberal candidate events. She also brings with her staff whose costs must also be claimed by the Federal Liberals and or local ridings.

...They confirmed I was correct and that they were going to refer the complaint to the Commissioner of Canada Elections. They also took it a step further and suggested I file a complaint with the Ontario Ombudsman as well, which I will do in the morning...

And how exactly is that criminal?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:23 pm
Posts: 2894
Location: New Milton
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... miers-aide

Quote:
Ontario Provincial Police have laid two criminal charges against a Liberal fundraiser for his involvement in the Sudbury byelection scandal, but the premier’s deputy chief of staff will not face criminal prosecution.


They are highly organized criminals. Even Al Capone was thrown in jail not for his direct criminal activities.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:12 am
Posts: 4609
Annie wrote:

Originally, Medicare was a shared responsibility between the federal government and provinces and territories, with each part contributing 50 per cent of the funding - FACT.

Over time, the federal government’s contribution has declined. - FACT



An easy thing to do when the babyboomers were all young and healthy and health care treatments more limited and simple then they are today. Today, people over 80 consume 75% of the health budget. Most of these expenses are end of life care that generally extends a persons life for a few months. I don’t know how ethical it is to deny people with months to live expensive treatments, but unless we do the baby boomers are going to send healthcare spending through the roof.

Annie wrote:

When the accord expired in 2014, the Conservative government refused to meet with the provinces and territories. - FACT

Instead of negotiating a new agreement, they unilaterally changed the Canada Health Transfer from a needs-based model to a per capita one. Health-care funding is now strictly based on population, and excludes rates of illness, demographics or rural access. - FACT

The funding formula will change again in 2017. Moving from fixed annual increases of six per cent, the rate of growth of the CHT will depend on each province’s gross domestic product. - FACT


Harper never meets with the provinces, which it terrible optics, but the right thing to do. All that has ever happened at these meetings is the provinces gang up on the federal government and demand money. There are only two possible outcomes from this. Give them what they want, or deal with them all denouncing you for being “unwilling to cooperate” and becoming their scapegoat for everything wrong in their province. Paul Martin got hammered in the press going to these meetings every year.

Your better to just tell these guys “Here’s what I’ll give you, manage your taxes and spending accordingly”. Basing it on GDP makes sense. If the pie grows, theres more pie. If not, then we sorta can’t give what we don’t have, so find another way to cover the bills.

Annie wrote:
This means that provinces with a larger population and higher economic growth will get larger funding increases, while less populated, poorer provinces with slower economic growth will have lower rates of health transfer growth. - FACT (All provinces except Alberta will receive less funding under this new model.)


I think this is incorrect. It will be based on GDP across Canada, not by province. So provinces with below average GDP growth would see their propoertion of health spending increase more then those with above average growth. This would seem logical to me, correct me if I am wrong.

Annie wrote:
These changes reduce the federal share of health funding from 20 per cent to 12 per cent. - FACT


Yes, because it assumes that the provinces do NOTHING to reign in out of control health spending. If I agree to give you 20% of the cost to run your house, say $10,000 a year, and then over the years you decide to install a pool, add skylights, and leave all the windows open in the winter, suddenly that $10,000 might only cover 15%. Am I a scrooge for not giving you more money? I’d be an idiot to pay for your mismanagement.

Annie wrote:
That the Conservatives would have indeed reduced (aka 'cut') funding by $36 million nationally was released by the premiers in the 2012 Report of the Council of the Federation Working Group, a report written by provincial and territorial finance ministers. - FACT


It’s also a fact that those guys are manipulating numbers to paint a picture that serves their interests, just like I called you out on before. Two wrongs don’t make a right. - FACT.

I know being “all of the provincial and territorial finance ministers” gives a serious shot of credibility to what may be claimed, but these people all have one thing in common. They have expenses they want someone else to pay for because making cuts or raising taxes is politically unpopular for them personally. Much better to make a devil out of the federal government for refusing to shoulder the burdens caused by their refusal to control costs.

Just wait. Justin’s gonna take this election, and he’ll do exactly what Dalton did in Ontario. He will give money to anyone who demands it to keep everyone happy. Things will be all rosy and there will be peace across the land as the deficits slowly pile up. Then a recession will hit 10-15 years down the line, and suddenly all the rot they build up over the years will come to bear and they’ll have no leg to stand on. That’s when the sh*t hits the fan and they are forced to make drastic cuts and tax hikes to keep things going. That’s exactly what his father did, and it exactly what happened in 1995 when the reality of deficit spending couldn’t be avoided any longer.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 9:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:32 am
Posts: 873
kf095 wrote:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/opp-charge-local-liberal-fundraiser-after-probe-into-sudbury-byelection-but-not-premiers-aide

Quote:
Ontario Provincial Police have laid two criminal charges against a Liberal fundraiser for his involvement in the Sudbury byelection scandal, but the premier’s deputy chief of staff will not face criminal prosecution.


They are highly organized criminals. Even Al Capone was thrown in jail not for his direct criminal activities.

You are so desperate to prove your ridiculous mention of "criminals" that you are making up facts and twisting facts to "prove" your point. I give up I will not respond to you any longer.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 10:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:54 pm
Posts: 733
Bremer pretty much nailed in it in his response above, but just to add a few thoughts:

First, the definition of FACT is: a thing that is indisputably the case

Now that we have established what a FACT is, here are a few facts:

1) the 10 year health accord signed in 2004 was a "contract" for 10 years, not an indeterminate amount of time.
2) the 10 year health accord therefore ended in 2014.
3) the health transfers still go up by 6% even after the accord ended, until 2017-18
4) starting in 2017-18, the growth is the larger of either 3% or the growth in GDP in Canada as a whole
5) Therefore, health transfers will be higher every year than the year before. Therefore, by definition, there are no cuts to health care at all.
6) anyone who thinks you can continue every year to grow expenditures by a rate greater than the growth rate of income is an idiot. Ask Greece how that worked out!
7) if you think that you can continue to increase health (or any other) transfers by a rate greater than GDP growth in perpetuity, you are not conservative at core (either Small C or Big C.)

Bremer made a great point,
bremer wrote:

Yes, because it assumes that the provinces do NOTHING to reign in out of control health spending. If I agree to give you 20% of the cost to run your house, say $10,000 a year, and then over the years you decide to install a pool, add skylights, and leave all the windows open in the winter, suddenly that $10,000 might only cover 15%. Am I a scrooge for not giving you more money? I’d be an idiot to pay for your mismanagement.



I hope that Trudeau only creates deficits of $10 Billion a year for 3 years - if he tries to go back to 6% increases for health, along with all his other promises, the only way $10 Billion can be met for a deficit will be to cut spending in other areas or to raise taxes. Perhaps he can learn from Dalton and create a national "Health Premium" that goes into general revenues and not directly to healthcare!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:12 am
Posts: 4609
Trudeau's going to govern exactly like Dalton. His first campaign is identical, promise everything to everyone, which is exactly what Dalton did against Ernie Eaves. Fair enough, it's a tried and true election strategy for first time runners. I don't blame him for wanting to win.

Once elected, he'll do exactly what Dalton did. Crank taxes (hopefully less theatrically then Dalton did with the health premium), throw money at the loudest groups, shaft the rest (autistic kids anyone?), and run small deficits to hide the realities of your over generous commitments.

This won't be a big deal for a long time. Sure, we'll all moan about the tax hikes and such, but it won't run any lives. The amounts will be absorbable. We'll adapt and move on. Just like life under Dalton wasn't that bad for the first 5-6 years.

It's when the next recession hits, and those small deficits become huge deficits (rather then small surpluses turning into moderate deficits), and years of piling on small amounts of debit leave him with no ability to afford them that things get ugly. Canada in 1995, or Ontario right now. Credit downgrades, major tax hikes now and going forward, wage freezes, union strife. Of course, none of it is ever enough, so then the cuts to services come.

This is what the left calls "helping people".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:13 am
Posts: 1283
Location: Milton
rickp wrote:

First, the definition of FACT is: a thing that is indisputably the case
Now that we have established what a FACT is, here are a few facts:
1) the 10 year health accord signed in 2004 was a "contract" for 10 years, not an indeterminate amount of time.
2) the 10 year health accord therefore ended in 2014.

Annie wrote:
In 2004, Ottawa and the provinces signed the 2004 Health Accord, a 10-year agreement that stabilized federal funding at 20 per cent, with a six per cent annual increase. - FACT

Yup I was totally wrong there. Good thing you redefined fact for me. Your facts are so different from what I said. Man you and your little dictionary are really making a point.


rickp wrote:

3) the health transfers still go up by 6% even after the accord ended, until 2017-18
4) starting in 2017-18, the growth is the larger of either 3% or the growth in GDP in Canada as a whole
5) Therefore, health transfers will be higher every year than the year before. Therefore, by definition, there are no cuts to health care at all.

Annie wrote:

The funding formula will change again in 2017. Moving from fixed annual increases of six per cent, the rate of growth of the CHT will depend on each province’s gross domestic product. - FACT

Hmmm, down from fixed 6 % to 3% or growth in GDP - Yup no cut at all. You did ask me to explain math to you. I get it now.

rickp wrote:

6) anyone who thinks you can continue every year to grow expenditures by a rate greater than the growth rate of income is an idiot. Ask Greece how that worked out!
7) if you think that you can continue to increase health (or any other) transfers by a rate greater than GDP growth in perpetuity, you are not conservative at core (either Small C or Big C.)

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/ ... -last-year
Federal departments left $8.7 billion unspent last year. Money assigned for work in departments likeVeterans Affairs and National Defence and programs for women and Aboriginals. Yeah, I think Healthcare really needs to take the hit as well. Cuts by stealth. That's Harper's thing and yours too apparently. You acknowledge the drop in funding but you wont call it a cut.

And is that the single defining characteristic of a Conservative? Is the definition that narrow that anyone who disagrees with you must be against you? A person can't hold differing views on certain areas but have an overall belief that aligns with Conservative values? Is this 1984 or Animal Farm? Which Orwellian world are we living now?

rickp wrote:

Yes, because it assumes that the provinces do NOTHING to reign in out of control health spending. If I agree to give you 20% of the cost to run your house, say $10,000 a year, and then over the years you decide to install a pool, add skylights, and leave all the windows open in the winter, suddenly that $10,000 might only cover 15%. Am I a scrooge for not giving you more money? I’d be an idiot to pay for your mismanagement

Annie wrote:

Instead of negotiating a new agreement, they unilaterally changed the Canada Health Transfer from a needs-based model to a per capita one.

You forgot the part where they are supposed to work together. A new agreement would define the parameters of responsibility and spending - spending that I don't know the details of, but I assume you do since you're certain it's all wasted funding. The dictatorship thing is my problem with Harper. He's done this in so many ways. You can agree with his heavy handed methods. That's your prerogative but I don't. That's my prerogative. Also can you honestly tell me that the Federal Government under Harper hasn't mismanaged funds? How many of his people has the RCMP investigated and charged for money dishonesty? But you have to tow the line he feeds you. Cons will save you. Libs will eat your children and NDP will give Union bastards total control of the country. I get it.

We wont agree on Harper and you can judge my political leanings all you want. It won't change my Conservative style. I'm comfortable with people having different viewpoints. I respect that. I wont stop posting articles I want to share. At the very least it stirred up some passion and reduced some apathy - which ever camp you're in.

Don't forget to vote if you haven't already done so.

_________________
Laugh when you can; Apologize when you should; and Let go of what you can't change.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 9:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:12 am
Posts: 4609
Annie wrote:
Hmmm, down from fixed 6 % to 3% or growth in GDP - Yup no cut at all. You did ask me to explain math to you. I get it now.


I get how you can choose to look at that as a cut, but it's really not. The same way that the conservatives claim Justin will raise EI premiums by not cutting them as much. It's fuzzy logic most people would say is faulty.

Do you understand compound interest and how powerful that is? Allow me to demonstrate.

The feds transferred 34 billion dollars to the provinces in 2015 for health care. If you got your wish, this is Canada in 25 years, vs with Harper:

PM "LaLa Land": 34B + 6% annual for 25 years = 145,923,604,471.28 per year

PM Harper: 34B + 3% annual for 25 years = 71,188,449,608.24 per year

No government can pay for that. None. It is unsustainable. Are you able to comprehend that at all???


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:32 am
Posts: 873
Bremer, you should apply for a job in the Conservative Propaganda Department.

Anything Conservative = Very good.
Anything Liberal = Very bad.

Many of your arguments are based on assumptions what you think the Liberals will do, without offering any evidence of that actually going to happen. I am not going to bother to dig up all the fancy promises and dire predictions of ANY party in the past that never came to bear, but personally I am more interested in forming my opinions based on facts rather then misguided and politically driven predictions about what "the others" will do. Even in his latest infomercial Harper makes another big lie. He states that this election is not about "me or them". Yet he has spent 2 years bashing JT. And suddenly it is not about JT? Harper is a hypocryte of the first order.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:12 am
Posts: 4609
What have I said that is untrue? Is my math wrong? Have I claimed anyone would do something they won't?

I made a prediction, comparing Dalton with Justin, which was clearly an opinion, but apart from that everything I've said here has been a factual based arguments. How is that propaganda?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:32 am
Posts: 873
bremer wrote:

Once elected, he'll do exactly what Dalton did. Crank taxes (hopefully less theatrically then Dalton did with the health premium), throw money at the loudest groups, shaft the rest (autistic kids anyone?), and run small deficits to hide the realities of your over generous commitments.

This won't be a big deal for a long time. Sure, we'll all moan about the tax hikes and such, but it won't run any lives. The amounts will be absorbable. We'll adapt and move on. Just like life under Dalton wasn't that bad for the first 5-6 years.

It's when the next recession hits, and those small deficits become huge deficits (rather then small surpluses turning into moderate deficits), and years of piling on small amounts of debit leave him with no ability to afford them that things get ugly. Canada in 1995, or Ontario right now. Credit downgrades, major tax hikes now and going forward, wage freezes, union strife. Of course, none of it is ever enough, so then the cuts to services come.

This is what the left calls "helping people".

I guess these are not predictions of something people won't do?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:12 am
Posts: 4609
No, it's a prediction what I think people will do. And clearly so. That's not propaganda. It's how I see things unfolding under Justin, based on my observations of his campaign and past experiences Dalton who seemed to take as strikingly similar approach to politics.

I could similarly say that if Harper is reelected, he will continue to trim back the civil service, increase health transfers, cut taxes, implement stupid social policies and minimum sentencing, and probably totally bungle the new right to die legislation by passing status quo legislation despite the ruling of the supreme court, just like he did for prostitution.

How's that for conservative propaganda?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.016s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]