Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

[W. K. Lis]

From the Ontario website, at this link.

Proposed Amendment to Ontario Regulation 552 under the Health Insurance Act



The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (ministry) is proposing to amend Regulation 552 under the Health Insurance Act (HIA) to end the Ontario Health Insurance Program (OHIP) coverage for emergency services (arising while outside the country) for Ontarians travelling outside of Canada. If approved this change would take effect October 1, 2019.

Currently the Out-of-Country Travellers Program provides reimbursement at the following rates for services required to treat conditions that are acute, unexpected, arose outside Canada, and require immediate treatment.

For out-of-country inpatient services:
• a maximum of $400/day for higher level of care (e.g. Intensive Care Unit, operating room);
• a maximum of $200/day for any other level of care;

Otherwise:
• $50/day for outpatient services; and
• $210 for renal dialysis.

These reimbursement rates have not increased in over 20 years.

With this very limited coverage and the low reimbursement rates (~5% of costs on average) provided by the OOC Travellers Program, OHIP-eligible persons who do not purchase private travel health insurance can be left with catastrophically large bills to pay because of OOC emergency medical care. Ontarians are advised to obtain private travel health insurance before travelling outside of Canada.

The proposed revocation of the OOC Travellers Program is consistent with recommendations made by E and Y and by the OAGO. It also aligns with government's commitment to implement changes to restore accountability and trust in the use of taxpayer dollars and to bring greater modernization, efficiency and transparency to OHIP to benefit both providers and patients. Ontarians who decide to travel outside of Canada may continue to seek the best, most comprehensive coverage from travel insurance companies who already cover 94% of reimbursement for eligible costs related to emergency care services out of country. This proposal does not affect current publicly funded health care coverage for Ontarians travelling in other parts of Canada. In addition, this change will have no impact on 99.5% of Ontarians. OHIP data suggests, of those 40,000 Ontarians who do travel outside of Canada each year and require health services, over 90% obtain private travel health insurance.

In addition, the ministry is proposing to amend regulation 552 under the HIA to end OHIP coverage for osteopath services provided out-of-province. Regulation 280 under the Drugless Practitioners Act, which regulated the profession of osteopathy in Ontario, was revoked on October 25, 2004, and as a result osteopathy is no longer recognized as a regulated health profession in Ontario nor are there any active OHIP billing numbers. There have been no claims submitted for osteopathy services rendered in Ontario for over seven years. The ministry has however, paid annually on average, a total of $100 or less for osteopathy services rendered in other provinces to Ontario patients. This regulatory amendment will eliminate this residual inconsistency in coverage for osteopathy services provided out of province versus in province.

The proposed revocation of osteopathy services is consistent with the government's commitment to update and modernize OHIP to be more efficient, effective and responsive to Ontarians' in-province needs for health care.

This proposal imposes little ongoing administrative costs to business although there will be some one-time costs associated with adapting to the elimination of the OHIP OOC Travellers program. Based on comments received during consultations with the travel insurance industry in April 2019, ending of the OOC Travellers Program would result in a small increase in premiums and some one-time transitional costs.

Further Information:





Proposal Number:

19-HLTC006



Posting Date:

April 24, 2019



Comments Due Date:

April 30, 2019



Contact Address:

Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
Health Services Branch
49 Place D'Armes, 2nd Floor
Kingston ON K7K 1E7




Comment on this proposal via email

 

[W. K. Lis]

Expect higher travel health insurance premiums. Expect more denial of claims because of typos or mistakes on application, especially with "preexisting conditions".

 

[Thinker]

Oh please. Drunk driving incident rates have come down substantially over the last few decades. Social norms have changed around this. And that's why MADD has moved on to talking about adjacent issues like speed limits. Happens with every lobby group that outlives their initial cause.



It won't get me anywhere faster. But it will cancel the corrupt practice of ticketing what is effectively traffic speed outside urban areas.



BS. And Ontario still has worse road fatality rates than many places where higher speed limits are allowed. Why is it that fewer people are killed on the narrower freeways of Europe where most posted speed limits are 130 kph and traffic is often moving at 140-160 kph? I'm sure enforcement and driver education have nothing to do with it right?

I'm not even suggesting 130 kph (which is what the 400 series highways were designed for). The rest of Canada has 110 kph on roads that are far, far less controlled than the 400 series highways. You won't get a tractor pulling out from an intersection on the 401. But you will get that on the Trans-Canada in Saskatchewan or Manitoba. And they have no issues with 110 kph. What makes Ontario special?

How many folks here actually drive at the posted speed limit? Do it in the passing lane of the 401 Express and see if you don't get a ticket for obstructing traffic. Even the cops think the speed limits are a joke until they need make quota.....



If you don't get the difference between a beer or a glass of wine in the park and public intoxication you can't be helped.

Again. All I am asking is that Ontario join the rest of the developed world. No more. No less. I don't think Ontarians are any more prone to public drunkeness than the average European or Kiwi, or somehow spectacularly terrible drivers who need speed limits 10 km/h lower than the rest of Canada. I really don't care whether it's a Liberal, Conservative or NDP government that makes these changes. These are common sense.

You seems to have the drunk driving stats, I don't and wasn't able to find them, but IF fatalities and drunk driving have decreased, I would say it's because of programs like MADD and other educational services. They are not against enjoying yourself, they just don't want you to drive under the influence of any substance that might impair your driving skills and judgement. But I would like to see the downward statistics you speak of.

Speed limits, not an important policy, certainly not more important than health, social services and other budget cuts that have occured recently. So it is mostly irrelevant to the average city dweller. Public transport would certainly help in any situation and as you like to compare Ontario with other countries I would like to mention that their public transport, whether it is inner city or between large cities is far superior and until recently well managed.

Oh yeah if you don't speed, you don't get a ticket, since speeding won't get you anywhere faster why the need?

I do know the difference between =a= beer and =a= glass of wine, I won't likely have to worry about public intoxication.

What most of us here are not upset about the relaxation of the alcohol rules it's about the "cost" that are attached due to a contract that was fairly negotiated by the previous govt. The contract will expire and new ones can be negotiated but tax payers won't be on the hook for 1 billion dollars just because Doug wants to keep his nation content with corner store beer. All of us are familiar with Beer Store hours, so buy your beer within those hours for just a little while longer and spend that "found 1 billion dollars" on services that are needed. Corner Store suds should not be prioritized over health, education or any other essential service. (how hard is that to understand?)

 

[PinkLucy]

From the Ontario website, at this link.

Proposed Amendment to Ontario Regulation 552 under the Health Insurance Act



The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (ministry) is proposing to amend Regulation 552 under the Health Insurance Act (HIA) to end the Ontario Health Insurance Program (OHIP) coverage for emergency services (arising while outside the country) for Ontarians travelling outside of Canada. If approved this change would take effect October 1, 2019.

Is there any information on how much this actually costs a year? Is it a significant savings?

 

[JGHali]

It’s hard to measure how much public campaigns from MADD and similar groups have helped change “social norms” but I don’t think it should be underestimated. But I think Doug’s seeming obsession with making sure that people who tend to abuse alcohol have as much access as possible is inexplicable. His brother was - of course - an infamous polysubstance abuser. I’m sure Rob would have appreciated ordering that beer at 9am at Denny’s, stopping off at the corner store just after, and enjoying “a beer” in a public park (hopefully with a handy gas station parking lot nearby to piss in after). Doug was his chief enabler and he seems to want to do the same for everyone else.

I’m by no means any kind of “temperance” minded person but I still think that drinking at 9am (outside of an all inclusive) is problematic behaviour. And breaking a contract at a cost of $1bn is an appalling waste of our money. I’ve never in my life found it so challenging to get a hold of booze that we need still more options, whether it’s been the LCBO, NSLC or NLC. Sure I can get a case of Coors at any gas station in Newfoundland, but it’s not essential. It certainly isn’t warranted as policy by a government which wants to cut public health funding in half, ensure more fatal overdoses in parks (but you can watch while enjoying a glass of Chardonnay!), and basically set the stage for another Walkerton. Which party was responsible for that one, by the way? Which handled Ontario’s disorganized response to SARS?

 

[kEiThZ]

You seems to have the drunk driving stats, I

From Stats Can:

• In 2015, police reported 72,039 impaired driving incidents, representing a rate of 201 incidents per 100,000 population. This is the lowest rate since data on impaired driving were first collected in 1986 (-65%) and 4% lower than in 2014.

Source:

Impaired driving in Canada, 2015

Description

www150.statcan.gc.ca

And that was a 2 minute Google search.

Speed limits, not an important policy,

I never suggested they were. But it's an annoyance that I hope this government deals with since nobody before them seems to have bothered.

So it is mostly irrelevant to the average city dweller.

Last I checked the government of the PROVINCE of Ontario legislates for more than just city dwellers.

Oh yeah if you don't speed, you don't get a ticket, since speeding won't get you anywhere faster why the need?

Like I said, drive the speed limit 100% of the time and see if you don't get a ticket for obstructing traffic. Indeed, driving the speed limit is now a regular protest format for all those truckers protesting. Just drive in all lanes of the 401 at 100 kph.

I do know the difference between =a= beer and =a= glass of wine, I won't likely have to worry about public intoxication.

You say you do and yet suggest that someone can be charged for consumption. Was that a weak attempt at a strawman or red herring?

What most of us here are not upset about

It seems to me like you are more upset at the fact that anyone anywhere might agree with some policy of this government that particularly concerned about the costs. Particularly telling is the fact that you simply sought to dismiss everything I considered important. That is extremely condescending and offensive. And to me as a centrist who votes across the spectrum, sincerely off-putting.

I am not happy about Ford's managment style and skills to be sure. And I definitely disagree with the way the policy was implemented (especially with the contractual defaults costs now coming out). But I am absolutely in agreement with the intent and policy on this particularly issue (liberalization). That doesn't mean I support the rest of the Ford agenda or would vote for this party. But condescending leftists who dismiss all my concerns are going to get me gunning to the polls for the opposition either.

 

[kEiThZ]

It’s hard to measure how much public campaigns from MADD and similar groups have helped change “social norms” but I don’t think it should be underestimated.

I appreciate what they've done. I just take issue with some of their opposition to higher speed limits or continuing to defend legislated monopolies like the LCBO.

But I think Doug’s seeming obsession with making sure that people who tend to abuse alcohol have as much access as possible is inexplicable.

Are you suggesting that alcohol liberalization has to do with facilitating addictions? By that logic, Trudeau is doing the same thing with cannabis.

Somebody who is an addict will abuse a substance when and where they get it. Stopping someone from having a mimosa with brunch won't suddenly impact the rate of addictions. Mostly though, I see Doug's work as reactionary pushback and he's getting points for it specifically because the nanny state has gotten so intrusive and annoying. If the Liberals hadn't waited till over a decade in power to simply liberalize to the level seen in other provinces, they could have gotten credit for this.

I’m by no means any kind of “temperance” minded person but I still think that drinking at 9am (outside of an all inclusive) is problematic behaviour.

Sure. But what's the government's role here in regulating access universally to address a problem individually. Translate your logic here to smoking. Cigarettes are universally bad and smoking any time of day is "problematic behaviour". Since it's a problem for everyone, should government simply ban smoking for everyone?

Sure I can get a case of Coors at any gas station in Newfoundland, but it’s not essential.

Man. You folks certainly have low expectations of government. I expect my legislators to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Not every issue they take up is going to be essential. If they can expend minimal legislative effort and fix an annoyance, I appreciate politicians that do so.

Do you seriously think legislators should never discuss any topic until it is deemed essential? And who gets to decide what's essential?

 

[narduch]

Ford had support during the election from the Convenience Store Association. This is his way of paying them back.

I agree ts dumb to burn money on this policy change. I would just ride out the deal and then bring in the changes.

I personally haven't stepped foot in a Beer Store since my local Grocery Store got beer. Its a way better shopping experience. I get to choose beers by looking at them. I don't have to look at a giant board with prices from a company pushing crappy macro brews.

 

[Thinker]

From Stats Can:

• In 2015, police reported 72,039 impaired driving incidents, representing a rate of 201 incidents per 100,000 population. This is the lowest rate since data on impaired driving were first collected in 1986 (-65%) and 4% lower than in 2014.

Source:

Impaired driving in Canada, 2015

Description

www150.statcan.gc.ca

And that was a 2 minute Google search.



I never suggested they were. But it's an annoyance that I hope this government deals with since nobody before them seems to have bothered.




Last I checked the government of the PROVINCE of Ontario legislates for more than just city dwellers.



Like I said, drive the speed limit 100% of the time and see if you don't get a ticket for obstructing traffic. Indeed, driving the speed limit is now a regular protest format for all those truckers protesting. Just drive in all lanes of the 401 at 100 kph.



You say you do and yet suggest that someone can be charged for consumption. Was that a weak attempt at a strawman or red herring?



It seems to me like you are more upset at the fact that anyone anywhere might agree with some policy of this government that particularly concerned about the costs. Particularly telling is the fact that you simply sought to dismiss everything I considered important. That is extremely condescending and offensive. And to me as a centrist who votes across the spectrum, sincerely off-putting.

I am not happy about Ford's managment style and skills to be sure. And I definitely disagree with the way the policy was implemented (especially with the contractual defaults costs now coming out). But I am absolutely in agreement with the intent and policy on this particularly issue (liberalization). That doesn't mean I support the rest of the Ford agenda or would vote for this party. But condescending leftists who dismiss all my concerns are going to get me gunning to the polls for the opposition either.

My replies were neither condescending or dismissive, it was in fact to make a point that increasing the speed limit or selling beer at corner stores are hailed as great policies might be just a bit low on the priority list of many other Ontarians.. Schools are starved from funding, public health funding is reduced, healthcare is being messed with, social services are reduces, libraries are being closed. Where is the greatness in that strategy? Again I did not dismiss your concerns, I merely pointed out that speed limits and alcohol sales should not be prioritized and hailed as good policies over providing health and social & education services.

Since I have no particular ties with any political party using condescending language such as calling someone a leftist or offensive names is therefore not applicable or needed especially when someone disagrees on speed and beer priorities.

 

[kEiThZ]

policies might be just a bit low on the priority list of many other Ontarians.

I'd like you to answer the questions you keep evading.

1) Do you believe that legislators should never take up any issue until it's deemed important?

2) Who gets to determine what is on the "priority list"?

You seem to have an issue with democracy. I don't agree with Ford's agenda. But as the duly elected government I think they have some right to decide what to tackle and when to do it. If you think the "priority list" should be different work harder to get a party closer to your viewpoint elected.

Schools are starved from funding, public health funding is reduced, healthcare is being messed with, social services are reduces, libraries are being closed.

And none of those things would change at all if alcohol liberalization was set aside till the end of their term. It's not like they would stave off cuts just because they didn't implement buck-a-beer and corner store sales. You get that this is a red herring right?

I personally haven't stepped foot in a Beer Store since my local Grocery Store got beer. Its a way better shopping experience.

While living in California, I was able to buy beer, wine and spirits at my local Safeway with the rest of my groceries. Was fantastic.

There were no massive hoardes of drunk Californians out in the street. Granted, California still had many social and economic issues left to address. So maybe their "priority list" was as wrong as Ford's. Apparently, they should have restricted alcohol sales until their state was perfect.

My other reason for despising Ontario's alcohol sales regime: the internet. I could order booze from anywhere. Have it delivered to my home. Small batch gin from London. Rare Scotch. Etc. With the only stipulation being that someone over 21 had to sign for it. Here in Ontario, the government has to maintain an entire retail chain for such a commodity. And specifically restricts online sales to the province. You can't even order stuff from some retailers to Ontario even when you're willing to pay all the taxes. In the age of Amazon, this is archaic.

Scrap the LCBO and Beer Store. Let Walmart, Loblaws, Amazon sell booze and let them collect taxes that generate the exact same revenue as the LCBO for the government today. Would be an economic boost to corner stores. And would free up some nice retail space in lots of malls and plazas. It's unfortunate that Ford chose to layoff teachers instead of LCBO shelf stockers.

 

[Northern Light]

The answer to 'drinking and driving' is not unduly restricting alcohol sales.

Its to lower the legal limit for alcohol while driving to 0.05 from 0.08; and changing the penalty to the same as 'stunt driving', on a first offense, for having between 0.05 and 0.075 in your blood stream, your lose you car for 7 days; over 0.075 and you lose your car for 21 days on a first offense.

For a second offense in less than 5 years, 21 days and 60 days respectively.

A third offense and your car will be seized, you retain any net proceeds, after your fines are paid, but you have a 10-year driving ban and car ownership ban.

The problem will stifle.

***

We also need to go after those who drive while under lic. suspension with car impounds as well.

 

[Northern Light]

Likewise on 400-series speed limits, I'm ok with a modest increase to 110 or 120, no higher than the latter.

But I also think we need to enforce much better driving etiquette, including lane change/passing laws.

As above, I think going after those driving under lic. suspension with impounds would be wise.

I also favour income-contingent fines as is done in several of the Scandinavian countries. A $150 ticket may really sting someone of moderate income, but be inconsequential to someone whose affluent.

A base fine (ie. you can't go below $50) and then a percent of income say 0.5% would make sense to me. So if you make $20,000 per year, the ticket is $150, but if you make $200,000 per year the ticket is $2,050

 

[Thinker]

I'd like you to answer the questions you keep evading.

1) Do you believe that legislators should never take up any issue until it's deemed important?

2) Who gets to determine what is on the "priority list"?

You seem to have an issue with democracy. I don't agree with Ford's agenda. But as the duly elected government I think they have some right to decide what to tackle and when to do it. If you think the "priority list" should be different work harder to get a party closer to your viewpoint elected.



And none of those things would change at all if alcohol liberalization was set aside till the end of their term. It's not like they would stave off cuts just because they didn't implement buck-a-beer and corner store sales. You get that this is a red herring right?



While living in California, I was able to buy beer, wine and spirits at my local Safeway with the rest of my groceries. Was fantastic.

There were no massive hoardes of drunk Californians out in the street. Granted, California still had many social and economic issues left to address. So maybe their "priority list" was as wrong as Ford's. Apparently, they should have restricted alcohol sales until their state was perfect.

My other reason for despising Ontario's alcohol sales regime: the internet. I could order booze from anywhere. Have it delivered to my home. Small batch gin from London. Rare Scotch. Etc. With the only stipulation being that someone over 21 had to sign for it. Here in Ontario, the government has to maintain an entire retail chain for such a commodity. And specifically restricts online sales to the province. You can't even order stuff from some retailers to Ontario even when you're willing to pay all the taxes. In the age of Amazon, this is archaic.

Scrap the LCBO and Beer Store. Let Walmart, Loblaws, Amazon sell booze and let them collect taxes that generate the exact same revenue as the LCBO for the government today. Would be an economic boost to corner stores. And would free up some nice retail space in lots of malls and plazas. It's unfortunate that Ford chose to layoff teachers instead of LCBO shelf stockers.

1) Of course legislators can address issues that are not important, however if they are insignificant they should not be deemed as important when budget cuts are going to affect far more lives and services (I think I had made that clear in previous discussions)

2) You can make your own priority list, if raising the speed limit and having a drink in the park is high on your list, it might not be hailed a priority on mine and probably many others.

I have no problems with democracy, empathy or concerns for those who need care and assistance from agencies that are underfunded and cancelled because the government has cut their funds or are told to cease to desist. This government is hacking and slashing essential service, but encouraging gambling, alcohol sales that will cost the tax payer 1 billion dollars if implemented.

The Ford circus may have been elected by Ontarians, however so far Toronto has lost the most with spiteful decisions aided by rural MPPs who told me that "the Toronto decisions" are not affecting their constituents thus they couldn't have cared less.
Right now the Ontario government is making decisions without proper consultation which will affect all of us.

A job lost is a job lost, regardless if they taught our children or stocked shelves at the LCBO and unemployment will lead to economic and mental hardship (empathy and concerns that most of us have).

While living in Europe, wine and beer were sold in grocery stores but liquor was sold in licenced outlets, so little difference as the situation stands at the moment. You can order wine on line and a courier or post office will deliver it to your door. As for ordering liquor on line: the LCBO does offer online service and same day pickup, so we slowly progressing.

Like I mentioned many of us have a different priorities and don't consider increasing speed limits and beer sales at the cost of 1 billion dollars stellar legislation.

 

[tiffer24]

Cheers! Ontario cancels program that aimed to plant 50 million trees.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...pid=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

[DSC]

Is there any information on how much this actually costs a year? Is it a significant savings?

You think that Doug would look at 'evidence" or facts? Not really his style!