Ontario plans to have free prescription drugs for anyone under 25

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I'm starting to question whether or not you actually know what making stuff up means.

You seem to be confused, let me help. When you invent fictions wholesale and try to pass them off as facts to support your spurious arguments, you are making stuff up. It makes your arguments laughable and it makes you look stupid.

"but frankly you need medication to treat most health issues"

That's quite the claim. Prove it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Ok... but who is getting these drugs from doctors that aren't sick?

Im not saying there aren't issues, but this someone 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.

I'm not making that argument. At all. Where have I said that?

If teens want to get Oxy then free drugs or no free drugs they'll find a way. Its tough to dissuade that type of behaviour and whether that drug is free or costs money I dont think is going to sway the pendulum significantly one way or the other.

The argument that I am making is that just making everything free for everyone does not target or solve any specific issue. Its lazy, its disingenuous, its potentially burdening an already over-burdened system and its done for Political Brownie points rather than in any manner to genuinely help people.

[PepsiFree]

My comment was pointed to the two posts right above the post you had quoted, I wasn't suggesting you made that argument.

I don't disagree though. I think it's a very, very good and helpful idea, done in an inefficient and potentially disingenuous way. You can't argue it's a total loss, though.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

My comment was pointed to the two posts right above the post you had quoted, I wasn't suggesting you made that argument.

I don't disagree though. I think it's a very, very good and helpful idea, done in an inefficient and potentially disingenuous way. You can't argue it's a total loss, though.

I'm not making that argument either.

Its lazy, disingenious, inefficient and expensive and doesnt solve the problem. So why do it?

I'll give you a hint: The answer rhymes with 'coats.'

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Locke

I'm not making that argument. At all. Where have I said that?

If teens want to get Oxy then free drugs or no free drugs they'll find a way. Its tough to dissuade that type of behaviour and whether that drug is free or costs money I dont think is going to sway the pendulum significantly one way or the other.

The argument that I am making is that just making everything free for everyone does not target or solve any specific issue. Its lazy, its disingenuous, its potentially burdening an already over-burdened system and its done for Political Brownie points rather than in any manner to genuinely help people.

So are you against all non means tested social programs or just new ones. Should Canada have universal health care or should we just have catastrophic coverage and means tested benefits for the rest?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Locke

I'm not making that argument either.

Its lazy, disingenious, inefficient and expensive and doesnt solve the problem. So why do it?

I'll give you a hint: The answer rhymes with 'coats.'

It does solve the problem though. It may create a different one, but it solves the problem in a pretty substantial way I think. I guess if we disagree on "the problem" that might make a difference, but I think it set out to ease the burden on families with sick children.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

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.

the cost to group benefit plans will decrease as you are likely taking about 15% to 22% of the EHC claims out of the experience.

For companies that pare back their plans, they would wind up cost shifting even more to the employee.

Given the change is a cost savings for employers they are not likely going to pare back their plans.

only about 4,000 or so drugs on the Ontario Drug Benefit List are eligible, so Dr's can't prescribe wildly and even if they did, there are likely plan rules around generic replacements and step therapy that leads to progressively more expensive drugs

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

So are you against all non means tested social programs or just new ones. Should Canada have universal health care or should we just have catastrophic coverage and means tested benefits for the rest?

Not at all, if someone has a sick child and is either a pauper or a millionaire it makes no difference to me, if its something outside of the norm then assistance should be available.

But just making everything free for everyone is not a viable long-term solution especially for a Province that is using some creative accounting to make it look like they arent hemorrhaging red ink.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It does solve the problem though. It may create a different one, but it solves the problem in a pretty substantial way I think. I guess if we disagree on "the problem" that might make a difference, but I think it set out to ease the burden on families with sick children.

You have to work the problem without creating new ones. My biggest beef is that the 'new problem' being created is being fabricated out of laziness and the desire to create ancillary benefits to people not on the hook for the faults of the program that they created.

They're spending other people's money to genuinely help some people, benefit a great many more who likely dont need it, but by doing so help themselves disproportionately without putting themselves out by doing it.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

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!

This was your "point" I was responding to and are now claiming my criticism of basic income supports:

Originally Posted by Jason14h

EVERY government run program that redistributes wealth you love, regardless of merit.

Consider these facts:
-Basic income is government run form of wealth redistribution.
-I have many concerns about the potential ramifications of this concept.
-You've stated that those two facts bring credibility to your "point" above.
-Basic income eliminating social services or the need for government administration is irrelevant to your "point".

Even though it's irrelevant to your "point" I'll give you my take on your comment about basic income eliminating social services and government administration.. Basic income essentially repackages, increases and broadens welfare. The current welfare administrators would likely just switch to running this program, only larger numbers to deal with. People currently on welfare or in low income housing won't necessarily be much further ahead than they are right now due to a variety of factors, mental health/addiction issues, rising costs and housing availability to name a few. I may be misinterpreting your post, but the way you've written it, to me reads as though you believe the basic income plan in Ontario would eliminate all social services and administration staff. If you could clarify whether you mean all social services or just some, and what they would be that would help. I'd suggest doing it in the basic income thread though.

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.

You are more than entitled to your own opinion, however when your opinion of what you believe my opinion to be isn't accurate and you're insinuating it is, I don't think it's unfair that I call you out on it. My opinion is not that the government should run everything, nor that they should distribute wealth as they see fit as you suggest. Both of your claims were extremely broad statements, and I've never made either of them. Agreeing with policies that you don't, doesn't mean I agree with all of the government's policies. I'm not sure why you are making up such things.

In your posts in this thread where you don't focus on directing your inaccurate opinion based accusations towards me, you actually make some sensible points, the ones where you seem hell bent on getting your unfounded jabs in, not so much. So maybe stick with the former. It would at least make for better discussion. But that's just my opinion.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Locke

You have to work the problem without creating new ones. My biggest beef is that the 'new problem' being created is being fabricated out of laziness and the desire to create ancillary benefits to people not on the hook for the faults of the program that they created.

They're spending other people's money to genuinely help some people, benefit a great many more who likely dont need it, but by doing so help themselves disproportionately without putting themselves out by doing it.

I understand where you are coming from, but if you dig a little deeper into this, past free prescriptions that will cost taxpayers money, there are many indirect economic benefits to consider:

- savings to both employers and individuals on drug coverage premiums
- parents will likely miss less time from work by not needing to stay home to care for their sick children as often, resulting in a reduction in lost productivity and income
- parents will likely miss less time from work not needing to stay a home to recover after getting sick from from the previous point, same results
- young adults dealing with debilitating conditions(depression etc) may be able to rejoin the workforce or further their education instead of sitting at home collecting disability or nothing at all
- teen/young adult suicide rates may go down, which will reduce time lost at work by grieving friends and family, which will also
- financial stress will be reduced on young adults or parents of children with chronic illnesses/high drug expenses(financial stress is a major contributor to the 2 previous points)
- starting with a small group instead of going for universal coverage gives the government the opportunity to slowly raise the age of eligibility if the program proves to have a net financial benefit overall, it is also easier to cancel if it does not

Just a few examples, I'm not saying there are no potential risks, that your opinion is wrong or that these points will guarantee viability. Just thought that looking at it from a different perspective might provide some food for thought.