2018 Ontario Provincial Election Discussion

[JGHali]

I think most voters welcome the moves but its like taking the bribe payment and not doing what you been bribed for (support the liberals)

Personally I like the idea of reducing drug costs but the liberals free drugs to anyone under 25:
- regardless if they are working full time with benefits
- regardless how much they make
- regardless if they live with parents who are wealthy
- regardless that most young people hardly buy any drugs apart from basic ones at all

Pretty much shows the stupidity of this government and thinks any money should be spent without much thought.

They could have easily provided greater benefits to those who needed it instead of giving rich kids free allergy medicines

Idiots

This x 1 million.

What tears me about this "pharmacare" is how useless it is. Most 24 year olds to say nothing of most children are not on any medications. Those that are have coverage from their parents if available. If their parents don't have benefits, then they would benefit from this. But they shouldn't. So not only is this policy smoke and mirrors - it is far less significant than it appears - it also manages to be supremely wasteful.

None of this helps with issues around prices or bulk purchasing. I disagree that this portends any notion of universal pharmacare.

If they wanted to make a big difference, they would move to proper universal pharmacare - possibly for income-adjusted copays. A similar approach for basic dental care is crucial as well. It is nothing more than an artifact of history that it is excluded from medicare.

 

[Northern Light]

An interesting tidbit......almost escaped my notice, at the end of this CBC article.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-budget-toronto-reaction-1.4087957

All cities will get the ability to tax vacant land that's been approved for new housing to spur housing development.

This would appear to be an authorization to deferentially tax 'white belt' lands in an effort to stifle developer from sitting on approved plans.

 

[Northern Light]

This x 1 million.

What tears me about this "pharmacare" is how useless it is. Most 24 year olds to say nothing of most children are not on any medications. Those that are have coverage from their parents if available. If their parents don't have benefits, then they would benefit from this. But they shouldn't. So not only is this policy smoke and mirrors - it is far less significant than it appears - it also manages to be supremely wasteful.

None of this helps with issues around prices or bulk purchasing. I disagree that this portends any notion of universal pharmacare.

If they wanted to make a big difference, they would move to proper universal pharmacare - possibly for income-adjusted copays. A similar approach for basic dental care is crucial as well. It is nothing more than an artifact of history that it is excluded from medicare.

Working backwards, I completely agree that at least basic dental care (fillings, xrays, yearly exam, root canal should be covered)

As to the pharmacare issue. I don't disagree with much of what your saying, but I'm considering a political tactic and trajectory on the issue, rather that the best possible policy tool.

A government that didn't want to raise taxes materially, chose to cover the cheapest part of the population and only for one quarter of this fiscal year, precisely because it was modest fiscal commitment.

IF one were to choose to you use age as the key criteria, one would obviously start at the other end and lower the age at which the seniors benefit kicks in.

However, given the much higher proportion of use, the same money would likely allow you only to lower the coverage age by 3-5 years, instead of covering a vast swath of people.

Covering select drugs (costly cancer drugs for outpatients) might have been a more agreeable place to start; but tactically, fewer immediately affect people/families.

I think its also a good thin edge of the wedge, as it does reduce the cost of delivering the rest of the program. Now covering everyone else is only covering 25-64 year olds.

There are some indirect benefits too. For instance, many universities in Ontario currently have mandatory benefit plans for students. These will either go away or remain as dental etc. w/o drug coverage and become cheaper, modestly reducing one barrier to higher education.

I'm under no delusion this is a satisfactory conclusion, I just think its a long over due good start.

 

[Bayer]

I would completely disagree with an income test for pharmacare. Do we have one for the rest of our health care coverage? How can you suddenly forget the principle of universal coverage? Higher income people should contribute more, and they do through our tax system.

 

[narduch]

I would completely disagree with an income test for pharmacare. Do we have one for the rest of our health care coverage? How can you suddenly forget the principle of universal coverage? Higher income people should contribute more, and they do through our tax system.

I guess Universal only means up to age 25?

 

[Jasmine18]

The issue is health care costs for young people is not a pressing concern for most young people, its for families and older people...

For a government with finite resources, giving rich people or those who can easily pay free drugs is a poor use of taxpayers money.

You will find many people from the centre or centre right really have no issues with expanded social programs if they are seen as good uses of money and this is not.

Imo there are solutions to rather giving everyone a free ride and they would cost less money and help those who need it.

The savings could be used in other ways and is a perfect example of why people find Ontario Liberals to be a bunch of incompetent fools.

 

[Bayer]

I guess Universal only means up to age 25?

I agree that everyone should be covered, and that income taxes should be increased if necessary. But this is an interesting first step - it is difficult politically to eliminate a social program once it is established.

 

[Bayer]

The issue is health care costs for young people is not a pressing concern for most young people, its for families and older people...

For a government with finite resources, giving rich people or those who can easily pay free drugs is a poor use of taxpayers money.

You will find many people from the centre or centre right really have no issues with expanded social programs if they are seen as good uses of money and this is not.

Imo there are solutions to rather giving everyone a free ride and they would cost less money and help those who need it.

The savings could be used in other ways and is a perfect example of why people find Ontario Liberals to be a bunch of incompetent fools.

Some people think the Ontario Liberals are incompetent fools - and a large number of them because it has become fashionable to think so regardless of what they do, which is irrational. If you are talking about "free rides", my guess is you do have issues with expanded social programs. No one should have to be reminded that we have a progressive tax system, and that people with higher incomes pay a higher proportion of that income in taxes. That makes universal programs fair (even those of limited universality such as this one). OHIP is not means-tested and this should not be either.

Additionally, it is obvious that with time, private health plans will be adjusted to remove drug coverage for people of that age category. It is reasonable to assume that premiums would come down accordingly.

 

[torontologist]

What tears me about this "pharmacare" is how useless it is. Most 24 year olds to say nothing of most children are not on any medications.

Which is why it is absolutely politically brilliant. The costs are lower than it would be for any other segment of the population. People with children worry about their unemployed millennial offspring's quality of life, so this sort of thing resonates with them (similar to free tuition). It helps a segment of the population that is struggling right now and is more likely to be less well off (moreso than seniors). Full coverage for young people is more impressive than Horwath's discount plan.

The Liberals just may win this election!

 

[Bayer]

Which is why it is absolutely politically brilliant. The costs are lower than it would be for any other segment of the population. People with children worry about their unemployed millennial offspring's quality of life, so this sort of thing resonates with them (similar to free tuition). It helps a segment of the population that is struggling right now and is more likely to be less well off (moreso than seniors). Full coverage for young people is more impressive than Horwath's discount plan.

I agree. I am consistently disappointed with the NDP's timid proposals. There is always this concern about spending as little as possible, as if businesses and individuals were not spending lots of money on private plans already. Mine costs $159 a month! Harmonizing Horwath's plan with private coverage would not be simple.

It is illogical to oppose the Liberals' plan as wasteful while recognizing in the same breath that few young people use medications - that is why it will be relatively inexpensive. The whole point of coverage is to help those who need it. This isn't about distributing free candy!

 

[ADRM]

I agree with this, the policy is very short-sighted. If they were smart what they would have put income restrictions on the policy and increase the target age range, instead of handing out free medication to everyone and anyone with a prescription under 25.

Are you prepared to tell that to a single mother making $54,000 per year whose 19-year-old kid whose kid was just prescribed a cancer medication that costs $29,000?

I'm a strong proponent of progressive policies, but I think that agreement falls apart when it comes to healthcare; you wouldn't make it for non-pharma healthcare, so why would you make it for pharmacare? Healthcare is a universal right that Canadians are supposed to enjoy, and pharmacare has been a glaring, expensive, and strange omission to that right for years.

Universal (regardless of age) would've been great, but wildly expensive, especially with an ageing population, and perhaps premature given the ongoing federal-level discussions around nationwide pharmacare. This is absolutely a step in the right direction, and one that'll make a huge difference in people's lives. I'm all for it in a big way.

 

[Bayer]

...This is absolutely a step in the right direction, and one that'll make a huge difference in people's lives. I'm all for it in a big way.

Definitely a step in the right direction - and there are a lot more steps to take. Last year, my partner had medical expenses of more than $4,000, not counting my private health insurance that costs about $1,800. That is because so little is covered outside hospitals. Don't get me started on dental care either...

 

[Jasmine18]

The liberals are incompetent fools by the way they govern, not because it is fashionable.

The government consistently has put out plans that would be popular with any other government but has gotten no boost in the polls why?

It is simply because they spend money they do not have in a way that is not beneficial to everyone... Would people want free drugs for millennials who are mostly healthy or maybe we can build 2km of subways every year for that cash?

The balanced budget is the same smoke and mirrors as the Tories last balanced budget in 2015 on the federal level, reality is we are the most debt ridden provincial state entity and average tax payers have seen substantial increases to fuel this debt.

Because in the end they are corrupt party and voters realize its all to make us forget the decade of scandals.

 

[narduch]

Definitely a step in the right direction - and there are a lot more steps to take. Last year, my partner had medical expenses of more than $4,000, not counting my private health insurance that costs about $1,800. That is because so little is covered outside hospitals. Don't get me started on dental care either...

Or eye examinations...

 

[Jasmine18]

"Additionally, it is obvious that with time, private health plans will be adjusted to remove drug coverage for people of that age category. It is reasonable to assume that premiums would come down accordingly.

How many times have liberals lied on that.

Reducing car insurance coverage did not reduce insurance rates.

The average may be down by 8% but I dont believe the government as everyone I know rates are going up big...People living in Brampton are pay around 5-10% of their take home pay just for car insurance and that is with a clean record, its absurd.

Of course many here live downtown and could give a rats ass.