Trudeau Liberals target diabetics with tax grab

[Merry]

I'm tired of the attitude that people are responsible for causing their own health problems, because I've lived long enough to see lots of folks who've lived very healthy lifestyles who die anyway.

I remember one guy who didn't smoke, didn't drink, ate mainly organic, and exercised every day, who died of cancer when he was only 47. By the time he was diagnosed he was riddled with it. And he's not the only one I know who died too soon despite living a healthy lifestyle.

It's wrong to always assume that people who get a terrible disease did so because of something they did (or didn't) do, because frequently genetics have more to do with it than lifestyle choices.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't all take responsibility for our own health, because of course we should, but it does mean we need to stop playing the "blame game" when people get sick. Because sometimes bad things happen to good people, for no apparent reason.

[Bsuds]

I can understand this for Type 2 diabetics and that's the way it should be in most instances since it is often a consequence of lifestyle choices that the rest of us shouldn't be funding, but this is grossly unfair to those with Type 1.

If I remember correctly this tax credit was only for type 1 diabetics and not type 2.

[Keith Duhaime]

This has nothing to do with the Participaction Ad, and the Swede wasn't has healthy as he seemed and I just lost a good friend to a heart attack who was a vegetarian/athlete type.

All I'm saying is that once society agrees to download the costs of healthcare on to the individual due to spending habits, then prepare to have ALL spending habits analyzed for cost/benefit purposes.

BS! Participaction was an investment made by taxpayers and hence a return should be expected. Whether they got the 60 year old Swede exactly right or not is a matter of debate, but the message was pretty clear. And as for analyzing your spending habits of each citizen, that's simply not realistic. There are far more practical approaches. A sugar tax is one. Reforming MSP so the premiums are actual insurance premiums just like progressive health insurance companies in the US do is another. Make the latter voluntary - the actuaries will eventually figure out where the bifurcation is in the contingent liability distributions between participants and non-participants and adjust premiums appropriately to satisfy risk arbitrage. Both are much fairer and more democratic than the real invasion of privacy and tyranny which is invading people's bank accounts and forcing higher income earner that are responsible citizens to carry an unfair load because some people didn't heed the memo served them via Participation, our tax payer funded school system and other venues.

[Queen K]

Keithd, gentle tip here, if you edit that paragraph into two paragraphs it would be easier to read for a few of us.

And I see, you are advocating that we adopt the Americanized healthcare system. That's what I got out of it anyways.

You know, I see how you are pinning a large portion of your argument on participaction, well just so you know, I hated that program. I am not an athlete, I could not achieve what I would want to, no, I was simply not good at sports. Big deal. Not all people go on to pursue participaction and not all school athletes stay athletes.

Having said that, I don't think it's impossible to track spending habits, just have a Ministry of Insurance and Health be as beaucratic as any other one, have everyones number registered and go cashless as to analyze purchases. Not just food either. Heck, Orwell is spinning in his grave right now because it's do-able!

[Queen K]

BS! Participaction was an investment made by taxpayers and hence a return should be expected. Whether they got the 60 year old Swede exactly right or not is a matter of debate, but the message was pretty clear. And as for analyzing your spending habits of each citizen, that's simply not realistic. There are far more practical approaches. A sugar tax is one. Reforming MSP so the premiums are actual insurance premiums just like progressive health insurance companies in the US do is another. Make the latter voluntary - the actuaries will eventually figure out where the bifurcation is in the contingent liability distributions between participants and non-participants and adjust premiums appropriately to satisfy risk arbitrage. Both are much fairer and more democratic than the real invasion of privacy and tyranny which is invading people's bank accounts and forcing higher income earner that are responsible citizens to carry an unfair load because some people didn't heed the memo served them via Participation, our tax payer funded school system and other venues.

By "participants and non-participants" you mean those who are into sports or go to the gym according to their participaction training in school?

I'm taking it you are in the insurance business, as you can see I am not, nor are a lot of people here, heck the vast majority, so you may have to stop assuming we understand the lingo of insurance.

Risk arbitrage?
bifurcation?

So athletes or those who jog or do gym routines are at a lower risk for health problems than couch potatoes and low particpaction standards?

[Keith Duhaime]

Keithd, gentle tip here, if you edit that paragraph into two paragraphs it would be easier to read for a few of us.

And I see, you are advocating that we adopt the Americanized healthcare system. That's what I got out of it anyways.

You know, I see how you are pinning a large portion of your argument on participaction, well just so you know, I hated that program. I am not an athlete, I could not achieve what I would want to, no, I was simply not good at sports. Big deal. Not all people go on to pursue participaction and not all school athletes stay athletes.

Having said that, I don't think it's impossible to track spending habits, just have a Ministry of Insurance and Health be as beaucratic as any other one, have everyones number registered and go cashless as to analyze purchases. Not just food either. Heck, Orwell is spinning in his grave right now because it's do-able!

INo, I am not an advocate for the American healthcare system. Some of the market players however are very progressive. Vitality - a division of Canada's Manulife being one.

And sorry to burst your bubble snowflake, but whether you like going out for a 10 k run and hitting the gym a couple times a week is irrelevant. I do lots of things I don't like to do either. It's called being a responsible adult and citizen. And I never asked you to be an athlete, only get out and and hit the gym , run a few 10 kms. each OR pay your appropriate share.

And 'participation' in my previous posts were not about physical activity, they were about how one participates in the insurance market. - Which program do you subscribe and pay premiums into. Do I take Plan A like Vitality offers with fitness tracking and get lower premiums, or do I go to a competitor or even another Manulife offering and pay higher premiums because of the risk and uncertainty I am burdening them with?

And on bifurcation of the contingent liability distribution, I should have clarified that it is not actuaries that will figure out the bifurcation, they merely devise the SAS and/or R scripts (or whatever tool they are using today) that run the numbers. They fall where they fall.

And I have to run, but don't give me BS about not knowing what risk arbitrage or contingent liability, etc. is. I am a simple farm boy. The only interest I have in insurance companies is as plan holder (aka customer) and in my investment portfolio, which I am sure you probably do too as well as every Canadian that owns a car, a house, a life insurance policy, an extended health plan, etc. and is saving for retirement. Are you going to try to convince me that the vast majority of Canadians in this position don't know where there money is going? Tough if they don't. We invested tax money in primary and secondary education opportunities as well as colleges, libraries, etc to provide them with the opportunity to learn.

[Queen K]

Keithd, gentle tip here, if you edit that paragraph into two paragraphs it would be easier to read for a few of us.

And I see, you are advocating that we adopt the Americanized healthcare system. That's what I got out of it anyways.

You know, I see how you are pinning a large portion of your argument on participaction, well just so you know, I hated that program. I am not an athlete, I could not achieve what I would want to, no, I was simply not good at sports. Big deal. Not all people go on to pursue participaction and not all school athletes stay athletes.

Having said that, I don't think it's impossible to track spending habits, just have a Ministry of Insurance and Health be as beaucratic as any other one, have everyones number registered and go cashless as to analyze purchases. Not just food either. Heck, Orwell is spinning in his grave right now because it's do-able!

INo, I am not an advocate for the American healthcare system. Some of the market players however are very progressive. Vitality - a division of Canada's Manulife being one.

And sorry to burst your bubble snowflake, but whether you like going out for a 10 k run and hitting the gym a couple times a week is irrelevant. I do lots of things I don't like to do either. It's called being a responsible adult and citizen. And I never asked you to be an athlete, only get out and and hit the gym , run a few 10 kms. each OR pay your appropriate share.

And 'participation' in my previous posts were not about physical activity, they were about how one participates in the insurance market. - Which program do you subscribe and pay premiums into. Do I take Plan A like Vitality offers with fitness tracking and get lower premiums, or do I go to a competitor or even another Manulife offering and pay higher premiums because of the risk and uncertainty I am burdening them with?

And on bifurcation of the contingent liability distribution, I should have clarified that it is not actuaries that will figure out the bifurcation, they merely devise the SAS and/or R scripts (or whatever tool they are using today) that run the numbers. They fall where they fall.

And I have to run, but don't give me BS about not knowing what risk arbitrage or contingent liability, etc. is. I am a simple farm boy. The only interest I have in insurance companies is as plan holder (aka customer) and in my investment portfolio, which I am sure you probably do too as well as every Canadian that owns a car, a house, a life insurance policy, an extended health plan, etc. and is saving for retirement. Are you going to try to convince me that the vast majority of Canadians in this position don't know where there money is going? Tough if they don't. We invested tax money in primary and secondary education opportunities as well as colleges, libraries, etc to provide them with the opportunity to learn.

Well said but I don't agree with what you are truly advocating and don't agree with the Big Brotherness of it. Did you even read 1984 by George Orwell? As per bolded paragraph: No one can run numbers on charging for healthcare items, such as what diabetics need, unless there is detailed person by person information. You can't have some of the people, you need ALL of the people. You are advocating for complete and utter big brother to dictate what we are covered for and not. When you get back and read this, don't tear my tiara off for being correct, ok?

OH, and why are you calling me a "snowflake" you know nothing about me or my history. I have a few posts explaining both go find them. Feel free to get investigating.

And OHHHH calling yourself a "simple farm boy" is not going to cut it buster. There is a great deal to farming which is far from "simple" and I believe you've insulted a great vocation. I hope you didn't write that with your mouth full. Where is Rwede when you need him?

And I see behaviours all the time that belie that invested tax money in education. Want a long or short list? It's actually extremely distressing when I see the news out there proving that tax funded education apparently did squat.

If you plan to make another "talk down to QK" post except similar responses.

[Keith Duhaime]

Well said but I don't agree with what you are truly advocating and don't agree with the Big Brotherness of it.

If it's the 'Big Brother' thing you are so concerned about, simply opt for a policy that does not require personal info and puts you in the risk pool appropriate to the premiums required to reflect that and mitigate actuarial subsidization. Think if it in the same manner as when water meters were introduced to Surrey and some other jurisdictions in BC. Those that knew they were below median on the curve self selected for the meters and saved money. Those that knew they were probably at this high end of the curve did not, but eventually paid for it. Orwell and 'Big Brother' are mute. This all begs a question:

Why are you so against fairness and democratic choice?

OH, and why are you calling me a "snowflake" you know nothing about me or my history. I have a few posts explaining both go find them. Feel free to get investigating.

The fact that you are advocating for a position that disconnects one's personal decisions from the consequences of those decisions (ie. uncontained externality) pretty much says it all snowflake.

And OHHHH calling yourself a "simple farm boy" is not going to cut it buster. There is a great deal to farming which is far from "simple" and I believe you've insulted a great vocation. I hope you didn't write that with your mouth full. Where is Rwede when you need him?

My family is still heavily into farming, so we'll decide who a 'simple farm boy is'. You can have a say when you stop with the silly nonsense that you don't know what 'risk arbitrage' or 'contingent liability' is. If you didn't grow up feeding, cleaning and milking a herd of dairy cattle like I did, you had more than enough time to do your homework and push the limits.

And I see behaviours all the time that belie that invested tax money in education. Want a long or short list? It's actually extremely distressing when I see the news out there proving that tax funded education apparently did squat.

If you plan to make another "talk down to QK" post except similar responses.

Really, you see behaviours all the time that belie tax dollars invested in education? You mean like people speeding and going through red lights? And what happens to them if they do it often enough? Oh yeah, ICBC says 'bad boy/girl!', no more 43% discount for you. Are you going to whine about that too snowflake? How is that any different? People make choices. Choices have consequences. In a democratic, just, and fair society, we put systems in place that contain those externalities, like higher insurance premiums.

[Queen K]

My family ran cattle on the ranges and supplied a vegetable stand from their farm. Nevermind the crops, chickens and dairy cows. And I call my downtown property the "downtown farm" for a reason. So you can stop with the assuming that we're all city slickers?

I popped in for a few minutes, so I will get back when I have more time.

[Merry]

Response to Keith Duhaime:
If you truly believe that people should pay more for their healthcare based on their lifestyle choices, then you should be willing to pay more yourself if you do any of the following:
Horseback riding
Ski-ing
Tobogganing
Snow mobiling
Or just about any other kind of potentially dangerous activity you can think of (including hockey). Because why should folks like me, who don't do any of those things, pay for your healthcare if you break a limb (or worse) participating in a risky activity?

What about folks who go hand gliding, or parachuting, or bungee jumping? Should they pay a higher premium as well?

How about marijuana smokers? People who take too many over the counter medications, or overdose on any kind of drug? What if they're homeless or low income and can't afford to pay ANY premium, much less a higher one? Should we just cut them off healthcare altogether?

My point is, where does it all end? And who gets to decide which people pay more and which don't? It can be a very slippery slope indeed once we venture out on it. And I, for one, don't want to see us go there.

[Ka-El]

How about marijuana smokers?

Yes, with all the reported health effects they should get tax credits too.

[Keith Duhaime]

Response to Keith Duhaime:
If you truly believe that people should pay more for their healthcare based on their lifestyle choices, then you should be willing to pay more yourself if you do any of the following:
Horseback riding
Ski-ing
Tobogganing
Snow mobiling
Or just about any other kind of potentially dangerous activity you can think of (including hockey). Because why should folks like me, who don't do any of those things, pay for your healthcare if you break a limb (or worse) participating in a risky activity?

What about folks who go hand gliding, or parachuting, or bungee jumping? Should they pay a higher premium as well?

How about marijuana smokers? People who take too many over the counter medications, or overdose on any kind of drug? What if they're homeless or low income and can't afford to pay ANY premium, much less a higher one? Should we just cut them off healthcare altogether?

My point is, where does it all end? And who gets to decide which people pay more and which don't? It can be a very slippery slope indeed once we venture out on it. And I, for one, don't want to see us go there.

1. Can I suggest you look real close the next time you go skydiving, skiing, etc. at your ticket. Guess where a good chunk of what you just paid went to? Alternatively, you mention hockey. Talk to someone in the business of making or selling helmets. Guess where the biggest share of the price you pay for one goes to now.

2. Marijuana smokers? You live in a society where it is common knowledge that probably the biggest proportion of the cost of a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of liquor is taxes and you ask that question? They are called 'sin taxes' for a reason and they are assessed for a reason; so the incremental healthcare costs are incurred by those who decide to use those products. You honestly expect that there should not be similar taxes on marijuana? I don't have anything to do with the stuff nor tobacco, but I have absolutely no problem with the taxes I pay on a bottle of alcohol. It was my choice to purchase it and hence my responsibility to cover my share of the contingent liability.

3. 'slippery slope' - Spare me your conspiracy theories. As I recommended to another person here, if you are so concerned privacy or other matters, and real reforms are made to improve democracy, justice, and fairness, just opt for a different plan that doesn't have the requirements of something like Manulife's Vitality option. Arbitrage will do the rest.

[Keith Duhaime]

Response to Keith Duhaime:.....

ps. What's your problem with taking responsibilty for your decisions? Did mommy and daddy not raise you properly? Maybe you should put down your game console and get out of their basement. Go visit other parts of the world. See what people who didn't win the birth lottery have to live with being born in developing world conditions. Then maybe you'll be a little more appreciative of the opportunities winning the birth lottery provided you with.

[Merry]

Response to Keith Duhaime:.....

ps. What's your problem with taking responsibilty for your decisions? Did mommy and daddy not raise you properly? Maybe you should put down your game console and get out of their basement. Go visit other parts of the world. See what people who didn't win the birth lottery have to live with being born in developing world conditions. Then maybe you'll be a little more appreciative of the opportunities winning the birth lottery provided you with.

I DO take responsibility for my own health, which is why when I went for a routine medical my doctor told me she can't find a thing wrong with me (and I'm 62). I don't take ANY medication, and am not a burden on the health care system. But, that said, I'm old enough to have had friends who led equally exemplary lives who, through no fault of their own, developed chronic illness or terminal disease. It's not ALL about lifestyle. Genetics and luck play a role as well.

Yes, we should all eat and exercise sensibly, but far too many people start "finger pointing" and laying blame whenever someone gets sick, when it simply isn't true that all sick people are the author of their own troubles. It's a myth. Just because SOME folks are irresponsible when it comes to their own health, it isn't fair to "tar everyone with the same brush".

[Rwede]

So I understand the cash-starved Trudeau Liberals are also increasing taxes on those who have mental disabilities, too.

Is there any depth that entitled, smug jackass won't sink to?