Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-28-2017, 07:42 AM   #21
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14 View Post
On the one hand, you'll have parents who will be glad to enjoy some free money. On the other, you'll have everyone else who may not be so happy to pay for everyone else's kids.
Healthy kids is not just "free money". Having a new generation of healthy kids is in the best interest of all of society, and having access to the proper medications without having to choose between the medications and food or clothes will mean less strain on society later on (since the problems don't get worse even worse).

I'm not one of these mentioned "non-earners" , but $500 a month for medications means even I would have to make some harder choices.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2017, 07:50 AM   #22
Northendzone
Franchise Player
 
Northendzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Exp:
Default

I am not saying this is a bad idea, but now the cost of the meds for the kids shifts from the parents to all the taxpayers of Ontario.

the government should have looked at model where catastrophic costs are covered.

I should also note, that the pricing of drugs in Canada is a hot mess as there are drugs that cost $20,000+ annually in Canada that cost a fraction of that ($2,000) in countries like india.

the drug is the same, the base cost should be similar.
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
Northendzone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2017, 07:50 AM   #23
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

I'd rather see this means tested as a way to ensure employers don't just opt out of providing drug benefits. This is great for people in jobs without plans and self-employed or contract but it's also a mass tax cut for businesses that you don't get the headline benefit of cutting the corporate rate.

Also if they are adding this drug coverage for under 25 they should also be adding free birth control for all ages.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2017, 07:51 AM   #24
Ducay
Franchise Player
 
Ducay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Exp:
Default

Vote buying - cover all scripts or none, others are just as affected.

Just pray the NDP here doesn't catch wind, or they'll have EcoFit deliver free drugs while they're screwing in a free lightbulb.
Ducay is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ducay For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2017, 07:57 AM   #25
Locke
Franchise Player
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
Exp:
Default

Sweet! Free Medical Marijuana until you're 25! Free University just got better!
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!

This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.

If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
Locke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2017, 07:58 AM   #26
Resolute 14
In the Sin Bin
 
Resolute 14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by photon View Post
Healthy kids is not just "free money". Having a new generation of healthy kids is in the best interest of all of society, and having access to the proper medications without having to choose between the medications and food or clothes will mean less strain on society later on (since the problems don't get worse even worse).

I'm not one of these mentioned "non-earners" , but $500 a month for medications means even I would have to make some harder choices.
In terms of trying to buy votes, however, which group do you think is larger? The one that will see this as a benefit, or the one that will see this as yet another tax burden?
Resolute 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2017, 08:08 AM   #27
temple5
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Exp:
Default

Am I correct in assuming Ontario's budget is revenue neutral or positive with a 25yr plan to pay off any remaining debts and cover liabilities? If so then this is a great move to spend the excess revenue they are receiving. Personally I would have spent that extra money on one time infrastructure upgrades because who knows if they will have this extra money next year.
temple5 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to temple5 For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2017, 08:19 AM   #28
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14 View Post
In terms of trying to buy votes, however, which group do you think is larger? The one that will see this as a benefit, or the one that will see this as yet another tax burden?
I don't really care about vote buying (if only "vote buying" if it's something someone doesn't support anyway). Single payer health care for kids is a tax burden, having a public school system for kids is a tax burden. Paying for the insurance plan at my work for my co-workers kids is a pre-tax income burden. People are going to see it as a benefit or a burden based on whoever they already support or don't.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2017, 08:53 AM   #29
Jason14h
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
Really? http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=161789

Feel free to take a jab back at yourself if you have the humility to admit when you are wrong.

If you could stick to those types of posts it would make it a lot easier for me to do so. I don't even understand what you'd hope to gain from typing the other 2 out of 3 posts you've made in this thread.
You realize basic income would eliminate social services and the need for government administration .....so you're continuing to make my point when you post a link showing your against basic income. Keep those government programs and jobs alive!

You are allowed to have the opinion that government should run everything and distribute wealth as they feel fit. I am allowed to have my opinion that government destroys economic growth and efficiency.
Jason14h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2017, 09:06 AM   #30
Jason14h
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northendzone View Post
I am not saying this is a bad idea, but now the cost of the meds for the kids shifts from the parents to all the taxpayers of Ontario.

the government should have looked at model where catastrophic costs are covered.

I should also note, that the pricing of drugs in Canada is a hot mess as there are drugs that cost $20,000+ annually in Canada that cost a fraction of that ($2,000) in countries like india.

the drug is the same, the base cost should be similar.
1. Short term it is a burden of cost shift. HOWEVER, in reality it is a mandatory insurance program that covers every citizen. EVERYONE is/was once a under 25 person. Every will no longer be a 25 year old at one point. So in reality this program just shifts the paying for drugs from 0-25 years old to 26-infinity years old. The same amount of money is still spent, and no one really has a burden. (In a perfect world).

2. The issue is everyone who is currently>25 and doesn't have kids is now being forced to pay for a service they never got to use. Is it fair? Nope. However, you need to start somewhere. Maybe a tax break for the childless! Wouldn't that be a marvel idea! I would love to see the reaction to that even if it would be 'fair'

3. Whenever something is 'free' and run by the government, abuse will be rampant. Doctors will prescribe the most expensive prescription. Companies will jack up prices of prescriptions for children.

4. This will cause the government to create review boards and more price regulatory boards to ensure this doesn't happen, also paid for by the tax payer.

5. People will also abuse, and when not paying yourself you don't make hard/smart decisions. Why even consider if it is a drug I actually need, its free!

5. At the end of the day a few people who couldn't afford prescriptions and really need the help will get it, at an enormous marginal cost for everyone else.

Should the kid who needs a specific drug to stay alive that is very expensive be helped/subsidized? Absolutely

Does give free drugs to everyone under 25 solve this problem correctly? Not positive, but I doubt it!
Jason14h is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Jason14h For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2017, 09:06 AM   #31
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by temple5 View Post
Am I correct in assuming Ontario's budget is revenue neutral or positive with a 25yr plan to pay off any remaining debts and cover liabilities? If so then this is a great move to spend the excess revenue they are receiving. Personally I would have spent that extra money on one time infrastructure upgrades because who knows if they will have this extra money next year.
Nope they may have balanced the budget based on some highly optimistic revenue figures. However there is nothing in the budget to pay down the debt so its just going to keep growing.

Its pretty much a shell game BS budget just in time for an election, and if the Liberals win and a deficit happens again, its not another lie, its a whoops math is hard moment.

Basically all of these hotshot announcements, the Basic Income experiment, this prescription drug plan, this shaky budget, the rent and home controls announcement etc, are all part of an election plan where Wynne will be able to cry on stage and say, if you let the other parties win, they'll take this all away.

I hate Politics because its all so much BS, the Cons, the Libs, the NDP all share a similar philosophy, its not about the good of the people, its about getting re-elected, spend promise and then deal with the falling rubble later if we win, but if we don't F-em.

At the end of the day, to pay for all of this "Stuff" the government in Ontario will jack up taxes again, and the people that are on the bleeding edge of surviving will fall.

At some point there's going to have to be a balance of taxation, social programs and even pay per fees especially in Ontario who's main industry sector is being eyed up by the States like a Horny Teen eyeing up a cheerleader.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2017, 09:35 AM   #32
rotten42
Powerplay Quarterback
 
rotten42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

This is just more evidence of how broken the Ontario government is and the depths that they will go to to try and stay in power. This program doesn't make sense and really it is just a desperate attempt at vote buying.
rotten42 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to rotten42 For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2017, 09:52 AM   #33
calf
broke the first rule
 
calf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Exp:
Default

Drugs aren't cheap depending on the condition, regardless of brand or manufacturer. My wife and I make a very good salary; but our kid's drugs cost enough that with all the downsizing and cost cutting in the world, we'd still end up either broke or not effectively treating our little guy (I've estimated the cost at about $20k this year, and it would get larger as he grows up and needs larger doses). This sort of plan doesn't just affect & benefit low income earners, but a broad spectrum.

Covering my kid's expensive drugs means a few things in our situation:
-he can grow up not being in a protective bubble, benefitting his physical and mental health because he'll be 'normal'
-less time off work dealing with complications as they arise
-when he's of age, less time being absent from school
-fewer long term complications that can & will result in more costly treatment options in the future


That being said, I do believe there should be equity. My kid's drugs are completely covered by the government. I'm reading here that some cancer drugs are not. That's not right. Parents have enough to deal with when their kids are sick, with universal health care, finances shouldn't be one of them. All kids deserve a shot to be productive when they grow up; burdening the parents isn't being fair to people without kids (or without sick kids), it's helping to let them keep up with their peers and benefit the next generation.
calf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2017, 10:05 AM   #34
OMG!WTF!
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

I wonder how long it will take drug manufacturers to raise prices in Ontario. Also wondering if there will be a run on drug mules...18 year olds with ED. But hey, if you can balance a budget, not raise taxes and still do this, kudos.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2017, 10:45 AM   #35
northcrunk
#1 Goaltender
 
northcrunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Exp:
Default

So free Oxy for teens until 25? Then they have to find their fix somewhere else.
northcrunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2017, 12:13 PM   #36
TheSutterDynasty
First Line Centre
 
TheSutterDynasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by northcrunk View Post
So free Oxy for teens until 25? Then they have to find their fix somewhere else.
Seriously. This will do a small portion some real good but for the most part this is going to make the opioid/prescription epidemic so much worse.
__________________
ech·o cham·ber
/ˈekō ˌCHāmbər/
noun

An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.
TheSutterDynasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2017, 12:33 PM   #37
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Yes, it's simply the cost that is keeping us pesky under 25s from obtaining copious amounts of Oxy from our doctors.

Screw the lightened burden for all families with a sick child, it's those drug addled teens we have to worry about.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2017, 12:43 PM   #38
Locke
Franchise Player
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
Yes, it's simply the cost that is keeping us pesky under 25s from obtaining copious amounts of Oxy from our doctors.

Screw the lightened burden for all families with a sick child, it's those drug addled teens we have to worry about.
Its like the minimum wage all over again. Its a blanket solution for a niche problem.

There are families burdened with a sick child? Help them.

Nope. Free Drugs for everyone!

You dont even have to be especially cynical to consider it shameless vote-buying.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!

This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.

If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
Locke is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2017, 12:56 PM   #39
Lubicon
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Exp:
Default

Nothing is free folks, this comes straight out of the pocket of every Ontario taxpayer. I can see company plans being pared back in their coverage (although not necessarily with a reduction in cost). Also, the government will determine which drugs are covered and which are not. People may not always get what they assume they will be getting if some bureaucrat decides there is a cheaper alternative.
Lubicon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Lubicon For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2017, 01:06 PM   #40
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke View Post
Its like the minimum wage all over again. Its a blanket solution for a niche problem.

There are families burdened with a sick child? Help them.

Nope. Free Drugs for everyone!

You dont even have to be especially cynical to consider it shameless vote-buying.
Ok... but who is getting these drugs from doctors that aren't sick?

Im not saying there aren't issues, but this somehow leading to a severe increase in teens getting Oxy doesn't make sense to me, does it to you? It's not like the regular checks and balances are vanishing.

Last edited by PepsiFree; 04-28-2017 at 01:13 PM.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:46 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021