News   Apr 18, 2024
 66     0 
News   Apr 18, 2024
 1.3K     3 
News   Apr 18, 2024
 356     0 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

Moving my reply to the politics thread.

The paternalism is making the decision on behalf of immigrants that they are better off not coming here, rather than letting them exercise some agency in the matter. Those migrants who regret coming here can generally return home.
We are failing everyone - both our own people and newcomers - with our crazy housing market.

I'd argue our only obligation is to our existing citizens and residents (in that order) to create a better country, and immigration may or may not be a part of that, refugees aside (the only immigrants we actually might have any kind of obligation towards) . I feel - as a second generation immigrant - zero regret making the decision on behalf of prospective immigrants. Are we a sovereign nation or not?
 
At great expense, to them, their family, and our society.

I'm not sure why we should facilitate that.

You have yet to articulate a case why slave labour is good, and phony educations at exorbitant prices are wonderful for anyone.

You've merely lobbed on to the idea that not facilitating same is somehow paternalistic.
I think slave labour is hyperbole. The present situation is more akin to a roundabout head tax and indentured servitude. Neither are desirable per se. But Canada should be setting immigration policy with a clear-eyed view to what is best for its own interests, and not out of a potentially misguided view of what is in the best interest of the would-be migrants.

Similar arguments could be made that Canada should not allow foreign doctors, etc. to migrate to Canada because we are essentially depriving their home nations of the benefit of their services by enabling that brain drain.
 
I think slave labour is hyperbole.

12 foreign students, 1 basement, all sleeping on the floor, because that is all they can afford.

You can call that whatever you would like, I call it abhorrent.

But Canada should be setting immigration policy with a clear-eyed view to what is best for its own interests

I'm not arguing different. I am arguing there is no 'moral imperative' to let anyone into Canada. That doesn't mean I wouldn't, I am in fact pro-immigration broadly speaking, I just think the form and the volume the last few years have not served this country or the would be immigrants well.

The level of emigration (returning home, or going elsewhere) is somewhat suggestive of the problems; but equally I have admittedly anecdotal evidence from a young man who lives near me, with whom I struck up a chat.

He was a recent emigre, as a foreign student and what he found here was not what he was led to believe, and he regrets coming, but is bearing down, afraid to return home and bring shame to his family. (his words)

***

That said, I think the evidence of the housing crisis is clear enough as is low wage growth, as is low investment in productivity all of which have clear links to the existing policy; that Canada's interests are not and have not been served by the status quo.
 
Last edited:
I think it's important not to diminish literal slavery, which over 25 million people are subjected to currently. People coming to Canada of their own volition and feeling like they got a raw economic deal but are free to leave at any time are not slaves.
 
Details on the Federal Dental program are coming today:


Benefits claims for some people will be possible starting in May:

1702299913920.png


The program will extend to all low and lower-middle income Canadians who lack dental coverage by sometime in 2025.
 
How is this funded?

The program is funded from general revenues, the way most programs are funded. That is to say, only programs like CPP and EI have segregated funding sources.

I don't see how the Liberals will ever meet their 2015 promise to reach balanced budgets (by 2019) if we keep adding new spending.

There is no current projection for budgetary balance. From the Fall '23 Economic Statement:

1702316438589.png


1702316406358.png


For clarity the budgetary balance is Billions of dollars CAD, the negative in front reflecting a deficit position.

****

The total extend of Federal Expenditure, as per the Fall Economic Statement:


1702316582242.png


The estimate costs of the Federal Dental Program, as per the Parliamentary Budget Office:

1702316695874.png


So, we're looking at net costs per annum in the 1.8B range at year 5

Based on the above, this program will represent ~0.3% of Federal expenditures.

****

So while I agree that balancing the budget is important, and should happen sooner rather than later, and that some spending restraint is in order, this program is comparatively inconsequential in that mix.
 
So while I agree that balancing the budget is important, and should happen sooner rather than later, and that some spending restraint is in order, this program is comparatively inconsequential in that mix.
I expect that in isolation most federal program are inconsequential. Adding a new program that is not in the top tier of spending can seem like peanuts. That's how death by a thousand cuts works.

Now, I support bringing dental care in to government covered healthcare. What I wanted to see was the increase in revenue to pay for it, either an increase in taxation or reductions elsewhere to free up existing revenues.
 
I expect that in isolation most federal program are inconsequential. Adding a new program that is not in the top tier of spending can seem like peanuts. That's how death by a thousand cuts works.

No disagreement there; though I see this one as comparatively good value for money; though, I would have done the program differently.....but that's water under the proverbial bridge.

People w/o dental coverage often go to ERs and get emergency access to oral surgery; where preventative or low intervention care would have been much cheaper.

If the nature of their problem doesn't get intervention, it often gets a prescription for pain killers........

There are lot of Federal programs that could be revisited. This one would not top my list.
 
People w/o dental coverage often go to ERs and get emergency access to oral surgery; where preventative or low intervention care would have been much cheaper.
Then in balance, funding to ERs should be reduced as these patients migrate to the dental plans. But that accounting exercise never happens. That’s how government spending constantly spirals upward, because any savings found in a program by moving services/costs to another program are simply gobbled up by new spending.

I wish our governments would just live within their means. If programs spending exceeds revenue, then increase revenue through higher taxation or cut spending.
 
Then in balance, funding to ERs should be reduced as these patients migrate to the dental plans. But that accounting exercise never happens. That’s how government spending constantly spirals upward, because any savings found in a program by moving services/costs to another program are simply gobbled up by new spending.

While I agree w/the above to a certain point; taken to its logical extreme you have just argued that government can never spend another dollar ever again.

I can't agree to that.

The object ought to be to identify those programs that can should be cut, in many cases entirely; and bank those savings.

The low hanging fruit is the endless number of tax credits we've lobbed into the income tax system. Streamlining those, even on a tax-neutral basis (where you apply the value of the credit to the recipients in the form of a higher basic exemption and/or lower tax rates) would bring considerable savings in administration.

In some cases, it would clearly be preferably (to me) to apply savings to program area the credit is intended for.....

Example, RESP credit eliminated, but the cost of the credit would be applied to a transfer to the provinces to lower tuition.

This is not administration heavy. as that transfer already exists, and lower tuition is a policy choice.
 
While I agree w/the above to a certain point; taken to its logical extreme you have just argued that government can never spend another dollar ever again.
Not true. But what we can’t do is to invent savings that will never be realized as a justification for new spending. We should spend on X because it’s cheaper than Y, but X-Y does not equal actual savings.
 
Last edited:
Then in balance, funding to ERs should be reduced as these patients migrate to the dental plans. But that accounting exercise never happens. That’s how government spending constantly spirals upward, because any savings found in a program by moving services/costs to another program are simply gobbled up by new spending.

I wish our governments would just live within their means. If programs spending exceeds revenue, then increase revenue through higher taxation or cut spending.
It would be interesting to know the number of people who would be diverted as a percentage of total ED visits. Hospitals would be limited to things like pain management, infection control, etc. since no hospital that I am aware of has the staff or facilities to treat actual dental issues.

Regardless, the number, however small, might serve to reduce ED wait times by a minute or two. Certain not a diversion to the point where funding could be pulled away.

I did some reading on it and am curious about the 'cost recovery' line item, since co-pays are listed separately.
 
Hospitals would be limited to things like pain management, infection control, etc. since no hospital that I am aware of has the staff or facilities to treat actual dental issues.

Most larger hospitals actually have dental surgery programs:


1702388568762.png


Plus:

1702388602752.png


And one for cancer patients:


***

Sunnybrook:


1702388733869.png

*****

Obviously most of the above services are not intended for the general practice of dentistry where there is no special need or complexity involved.

That said, the capability is there at many hospitals and it is deployed, rarely, to serve those who come in through the ER. Though usually this is for extreme cases, and most typically, the service provided is tooth extraction.

A good summary of the impact of dental care visits to ERs and GPs can be found here:

 
Last edited:

Back
Top