Federal Budget 2024 megathread
- Thread starter CBH99
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 21,842
- Points
- 1,360
Although….remember the Government’s statement that there would be no change in coverage to the PSHCP in the move of administration from Sun Life to Canada life?
Turns out the government quietly reduced some coverage with the change. Ex: Physiotherapy previously was covered $0-500, then $1000 and more (the amount between $500-1000 was not reimbursed, but fully covered above that). Now, coverage is flat-rate limited to a maximum of $1500. My wife has required ongoing physio for many years following a bad fall that fractured several lumbar vertebrae and the ‘no change’ reduced coverage has resulted in notably higher medical costs that were previously covered.
So, I am less on the side of trusting panacea-type statements about how things will be all unicorns and fairie dust, and more on the side of ‘it’s only a matter of time when they do something they swore they wouldn’t do.’
I think Poilievre was inappropriately bombastic and I think deliberately stretched things and voters should expect better, but it is a ways still from stating budgets would balance themselves, and to be honest, I would not be surprised to see some amount of chicanery in the implementation of the pharmaceutical bill.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,697
- Points
- 1,040
This is the actual flaw. What governments might do in future is beside the point and unpredictable. But whenever governments undertake obligations, those already in the business reassess their positions. Insurance companies drop coverages; businesses change plans to reduce costs if they are paying part of the premiums. Employees get kicked over to what little it is that government will pay for. It's almost always safe to assume that market-based insurance for anything is better, even if the insurance companies have to make profits.
The "pharmacare" benefit is just a political stunt. The overwhelming majority of people in Canada have access to some kind of plan and aren't having trouble getting what they need on those plans. The political stunt was to create an agreement to fill Singh's outstretched hand and appeal to a large body of potential voters (women - birth control) without undertaking an immediate large fiscal obligation.
- Reaction score
- 5,994
- Points
- 1,160
.
Quirky
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,608
- Points
- 1,260
3.87 Million homes promised by 2031, so basically Canada needs to double its annual production every year for the next 7 years. Canada built 225,000 homes in 2022, 3.87m in 7 years works out to 550k annually. Got it. Maybe 12x20's made out of pallets it might be doable. Another empty promise like clean drinking water on reserves.
Definitely ambitious. I would echo what I previously said. Until people are able to buy and live in their homes, I doubt that these initiatives will move the needle politically.
As to drinking water, I’m not sure I would classify that as empty promises.
Ending long-term drinking water advisories
This initial progress is the result of First Nations' work with the Government of Canada and other partners towards a common goal: to end drinking water advisories that last more than one year by March 2021. Boil water advisory. Advisories. Boil water notice. Clean water.
Quirky
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,608
- Points
- 1,260
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,697
- Points
- 1,040
Again, this works fine until retirement.
For certain people renting is a good option. My parents liquidated all their physical assets and are renting a high end apartment. That freed up two properties for someone else, and it fits their lifestyle of spending winters in sunnier climates.
If people are transient and mobile, that might also be a good option.
My take is that the market should be a balance of home ownership and rentals and that each should have decent entry points and the ability to be improved.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,161
- Points
- 1,260
I don't put down renting, and I used to get why people would do it. It was usually cheaper and you didn't have to worry about the maintenance.
I'm not against it all.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,350
- Points
- 1,260
Niether am I BUT it should not be government policy.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,229
- Points
- 1,010
- Reaction score
- 21,713
- Points
- 1,260
I was about to say to the original post that we’d love that too.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,329
- Points
- 1,010
People working full time should have reasonable prospect to own a house if they want.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,329
- Points
- 1,010
Fan? Not really. He is the horse I am betting on. When he wins the next election, if he shows a lack of integrity, accountability and transparency, I will cut my support for him in a heart beat. I said it before, like 100 times now.
Agreed he shall not be immune from fair criticism. It seems like any tiny thing or made up thing, a certain crowd here of government employees jumps all over him. Next election coming, we shall see.
He really is the only VIABLE option. The only one. You guys keep looking for a "perfect candidate", please, face the real world there ain't one. Got one? Lets hear it.
But what the hell do I know, I am only a small business owner (farmer).
not a fan of him, I meant a fan of me
I get the impression you don’t like government employees. Why? You’ve mentioned that before.
That’s what you aren’t getting. Some of us like none of the above. Who is asking for a perfect candidate? Right now I’d settle for a good candidate. For me, I’m not seeing that. Only Mountain Dew and crab juice.
Why would that be a disqualifier?
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,651
- Points
- 1,160
I'm no longer a fan of the PM and increasingly impressed with PP, but in this era of sound bites and gotcha politics, these types of unforced errors need to be avoided by him and his handlers.
It's a one-page Bill that says very little except enabling some people to do more work. Regarding private plans, it says nothin one way or the other. In that sense, he said something that was not factually supported. Whether people give politicians a pass on statements like that is up to them.
lenaitch
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,651
- Points
- 1,160
Depending on the source, between 67 and 76%, although the extent of coverage varies between plans. I understand (it's not an issue for me so I don't know for certain) that diabetic 'supplies', such as pumps, strips, monitors, etc. can be pretty limited under many plans. I know coverage for hearings aids under our plan is pretty limited.
Similar threads
