Discussion:
End of medicare in Canada . . .
(too old to reply)
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-04 00:36:12 UTC
Permalink
CBC News Posted: Dec 02, 2014


'End of medicare': Maude Barlow raises alarm on health spending

Maritimes to 'pay a price' under Ottawa's health plan
Canada Health Accord expires, prompting protest, uncertainty

Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians, says Canadians
don't realize medicare is at risk. (CBC)

Maude Barlow, who chairs the Council of Canadians, says the Harper government
will quietly reduce federal health care funding starting 2016.

Barlow estimates that Newfoundland and Labrador will lose $500-million a year,
or roughly $1,000 per person.

"It is really, in my opinion, the beginning of the end of medicare if we allow
this to happen," she said.

"But most Canadians don't even know it happened and, so far, it is not an
election issue because it doesn't kick in until after the 2015 election," she said.

"So we're trying to tell Canadians this is what it means to you — and to tell
Newfoundlanders specifically this is what's going to be removed from your
health care dollars."

Barlow said the Council of Canadians, which describes itself as an advocacy
group aimed at holding governments and corporations accountable, is blaming the
federal government for allowing the Canada Health Accord to expire.

Canada Health Accord expires, prompting protest, uncertainty

The 10-year-old, $41-billion dollar deal between Ottawa and the provinces and
territories provided stable funding and set common goals on wait times, home
care and prescription drugs.

Barlow is worried that a reduction in health care spending would lead to the
privatization of many medical services. She is concerned that will result in a
patchwork of different health care standards across the country.

"We want to really get the word out to Canadians," she said.


Corrections Dec 02, 2014 6:22 PM NT
A prior version of this story had referred to health care spending cuts as
having been in effect.
In fact, the federal government is not increasing funding at the same rate it's
been increased over recent years.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
cloud dreamer
2014-12-04 13:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
CBC News Posted: Dec 02, 2014
'End of medicare': Maude Barlow raises alarm on health spending
Maritimes to 'pay a price' under Ottawa's health plan
Canada Health Accord expires, prompting protest, uncertainty
Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians, says
Canadians don't realize medicare is at risk. (CBC)
Maude Barlow, who chairs the Council of Canadians, says the Harper
government will quietly reduce federal health care funding starting 2016.
Everything he has done has been quiet. That's why those blinded by their
ideology still worship this madman. He makes it easy to see how Hitler
so fooled the German people.

..
M.I.Wakefield
2014-12-04 14:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
CBC News Posted: Dec 02, 2014
'End of medicare': Maude Barlow raises alarm on health spending
Maude Barlow is a Liberal hack, and raising alarms is all she's good for ...
she's the Chicken Little of policy discussions.
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Maude Barlow, who chairs the Council of Canadians, says the Harper
government will quietly reduce federal health care funding starting 2016.
After 2016, healthcare funding will increase by the nominal GDP, which is
actual GDP growth plus inflation, but there will be a minimum annual
increase of 3%.
Post by cloud dreamer
Everything he has done has been quiet.
Everything has been pre-announced .... back in 2011.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/premiers-split-over-flaherty-health-funding-bombshell-1.1014496
Post by cloud dreamer
That's why those blinded by their ideology still worship this madman.
That's why those blinded by their hatred keep on lying.
Post by cloud dreamer
He makes it easy to see how Hitler so fooled the German people.
I invoke Godwin's Law.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-04 18:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
CBC News Posted: Dec 02, 2014
'End of medicare': Maude Barlow raises alarm on health spending
Maude Barlow is a Liberal hack, and raising alarms is all she's good for ...
she's the Chicken Little of policy discussions.
There you go . . . . can't challenge the message, so he attacks the 'Liberal'
in the messenger.
That 'Liberal' is warning us about the cuts that are happening, through
capping, and major reductions very, very soon - by your Conservatives.
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Maude Barlow, who chairs the Council of Canadians, says the Harper
government will quietly reduce federal health care funding starting> 2016.
After 2016, healthcare funding will increase by the nominal GDP, which is
actual GDP growth plus inflation, but there will be a minimum annual increase
of 3%.
What the hell does the GDP have to do with healthcare needs? PEOPLE need
healthcare. The amount that the corporations make in this country - and grow
or drop our 'GDP' - have nothing to do with how many people there are in the
country needing healthcare. You and your goddamn Conservatives have put a
dollar limit on everything to make themselves look like they're efficient
stewards of our economy. Then they turn around and cap and cut healthcare to
achieve those ends. You really are either: Stupid - or a complete lying shill
for the Harper Cons.
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
Everything he has done has been quiet.
Everything has been pre-announced .... back in 2011.
And it was talked about in this newsgroup. Nothing has changed except that you
continue to defend the way the Harper government is undermining healthcare in
this country.
Through capping, for years, and reductions in future. You'll notice that his
government is inviting even more immigrants into the country in future years.
ALL OF WHOM are going to need healthcare in some form or another. How the hell
do you REDUCE healthcare funding when you are INCREASING the number of people
relying on healthcare?

Loading Image...
Post by M.I.Wakefield
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/premiers-split-over-flaherty-health-funding-bombshell-1.1014496
Post by cloud dreamer
That's why those blinded by their ideology still worship this madman.
That's why those blinded by their hatred keep on lying.
No, ' Wakefield' . . . that would be YOU . . .
Loading Image...
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
He makes it easy to see how Hitler so fooled the German people.
Loading Image...
cloud dreamer
2014-12-05 13:33:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
CBC News Posted: Dec 02, 2014
'End of medicare': Maude Barlow raises alarm on health spending
Maude Barlow is a Liberal hack, and raising alarms is all she's good for ...
she's the Chicken Little of policy discussions.
There you go . . . . can't challenge the message, so he attacks the
'Liberal' in the messenger.
That 'Liberal' is warning us about the cuts that are happening, through
capping, and major reductions very, very soon - by your Conservatives.
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Maude Barlow, who chairs the Council of Canadians, says the Harper
government will quietly reduce federal health care funding
starting> 2016.
After 2016, healthcare funding will increase by the nominal GDP, which is
actual GDP growth plus inflation, but there will be a minimum annual increase
of 3%.
What the hell does the GDP have to do with healthcare needs? PEOPLE
need healthcare. The amount that the corporations make in this country
- and grow or drop our 'GDP' - have nothing to do with how many people
there are in the country needing healthcare. You and your goddamn
Conservatives have put a dollar limit on everything to make themselves
look like they're efficient stewards of our economy. Then they turn
around and cap and cut healthcare to achieve those ends. You really are
either: Stupid - or a complete lying shill for the Harper Cons.
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Everything he has done has been quiet.
Everything has been pre-announced .... back in 2011.
And it was talked about in this newsgroup. Nothing has changed except
that you continue to defend the way the Harper government is undermining
healthcare in this country.
Through capping, for years, and reductions in future. You'll notice
that his government is inviting even more immigrants into the country in
future years. ALL OF WHOM are going to need healthcare in some form or
another. How the hell do you REDUCE healthcare funding when you are
INCREASING the number of people relying on healthcare?
http://favimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ignorance-quotes-sayings-wise-deep-their-power.jpg
Post by M.I.Wakefield
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/premiers-split-over-flaherty-health-funding-bombshell-1.1014496
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
That's why those blinded by their ideology still worship this madman.
That's why those blinded by their hatred keep on lying.
No, ' Wakefield' . . . that would be YOU . . .
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/b5/56/19/b55619970797c3b82ce834340ea2d551.jpg
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
He makes it easy to see how Hitler so fooled the German people.
http://www.searchquotes.com/sof/images/picture_quotes/181723_20140220_172202_12183_719880794697749_1279053772_n.jpg
That pretty well sums it up.

Harper is obviously so quiet about disassembling our social safety net,
even Wakefield can't see it. And it's not increasing with GDP...Harper
is slashing $36 Billion.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/12/13/stop_stephen_harpers_destruction_of_our_social_safety_net_editorial.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/19/health-transfer-payments-flaherty_n_1158072.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/17/health-accord-canada-2014_n_1155315.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/maude-barlow/harper-economic-summit_b_2175693.html


Godwin's Law doesn't apply when one can definitively make the
connection. Harper is actually using some of Hitler's propaganda
techniques...like the Big Lie. He has everyone believing the Oil Sands
are good and renewables are bad. TV is full of commercials about the
"caring" oil sands companies while scientists are muzzled or fired.

And he even has his evil threat...but it's not the Jews. This time, it's
Muslims.

..
M.I.Wakefield
2014-12-05 15:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by cloud dreamer
That pretty well sums it up.
Harper is obviously so quiet about disassembling our social safety net,
even Wakefield can't see it. And it's not increasing with GDP...Harper is
slashing $36 Billion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/19/health-transfer-payments-flaherty_n_1158072.html
Most people who post a link do so to support their position, not destroy it.
But not cloud dreamer and KKKaren

"Health Transfer Payments: Flaherty Announces Reduction Of Growth In
Spending By 2018"

"... increasing health transfer payments at six per cent annually for the
next six years ..."

"... tying the transfer dollars to the rate of economic growth and inflation
..."

"... health transfer payments increases will never fall below three per
cent."

No cuts. 6% a year growth through 2017 ... GDP growth plus inflation after
that, and never less than 3%.
Post by cloud dreamer
Godwin's Law doesn't apply when one can definitively make the connection.
The only person in this thread that Godwin's Law doesn't apply to is Karen,
because she is a full blown, Jew-hating, nazi ... nothing "neo" about her
... she's old-school.

As for the Harper haters, it's all along the lines of "Harper's last name
begins with 'H', and he gets up in the morning ... just like Hitler", and it
gets tiresome.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-05 21:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Most people who post a link do so to support their position, not destroy it.
But not cloud dreamer and KKKaren. They just kick ass and my ass is tired of being kicked.
The only person in this thread that Godwin's Law doesn't apply to is Karen,
because she is a full blown, Jew-hating, nazi ... nothing "neo" about her ...
she's old-school. Whereas I hate only muslims, women, islamists, women and Liberals.
As for the Harper haters, it's all along the lines of "Harper's last name
begins with 'H', and he gets up in the morning ... just like Hitler", and it
gets tiresome. Just as tiresome as my constantly attacking the Ontario Liberals and defending
the Harper Conservatives, I suppose.
December 13, 2011 - http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/

John Ivison: Tories push cap on federal health funding


OTTAWA • Jim Flaherty, the federal Finance Minister, will insist that future
health-funding increases be linked to growth in the economy when he meets with
his provincial counterparts in Victoria, B.C., next Monday.

The manoeuvre would cut increases to about half of what the provinces have come
to expect.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But it is understood the Conservatives are ready to bank on the public's
willingness to accept some belt-tightening, after a decade of growth in
health-care spending.

While it shouldn't come as a shock to the provinces - Prime Minister Stephen
Harper indicated in Vancouver last month that "the cost of our health-care
system cannot continue to rise more quickly than our revenues" - it will not be
received as good news. Provinces have become used to annual increases of 6% as
a result of the 10-year health funding agreement struck with then-prime
minister Paul Martin in 2004.

Private-sector forecasts for the period 2011-15 used by the Department of
Finance suggest Canada's economy will grow by 2.2% annually over the next four
years. Even optimistic projections after that date indicate the rate of growth
will need to halve.

During the spring election, Mr. Harper committed to retaining the 6% escalator
for two years after the current health accord ends in March 2014.

However, the provinces have been pushing for 6% increases for the 10-year
period 2016-26. Atlantic premiers went further this month by calling for
Ottawa to pay 25% of provincial health costs, citing the 2002 Romanow
Commission report that said the federal government should never pay less than
25% of the cost of insured medical services.

That is not likely to happen. In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, which
receives about 15% of its $3-billion health-care spending from Ottawa, this
would see the province receive a 49% increase in federal health transfers. The
case being made by the Atlantic premiers is that the impact of an aging
population is being felt most acutely in their region.

The message from Mr. Flaherty will be that health care is an area of provincial
jurisdiction and, as such, it will be up to the provinces to decide how they
spend the $27-billion or so transferred to them annually, without strings or
conditions imposed by Ottawa.

But they will be expected to get their own houses in order. As with the
revamped equalization agreement, which also grows in line with GDP, the idea is
to create a sustainable system in which the federal government is not held
hostage every time the agreement comes up for renewal.

This is not an arcane debate. The deal the federal Conservatives are seeking
over the next 18 months will affect every person in Canada.

Health care spending in Canada is forecast to top $200-billion for the first
time in 2011, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information
(CIHI). The good news is that spending is slowing down - increasing by just 4%
in 2011, the lowest annual growth rate in the past 15 years. A CIHI report,
released last month, said the average growth in spending between 1998 and 2008
was 7.4% - a period when annual expenditure more than doubled.

One of the most significant drivers of cost increases was compensation for
health-care workers. CIHI data suggest the number of health-care workers in
hospitals grew by 21% in the decade to 2008 and their wages and benefits grew
faster than other workers in the general labour market.

Physician expenditures was the second-largest category of public-sector
health-care spending increases - rising 6.8% a year in the decade to 2008.
Within this category, compensation for doctors grew 3.6% a year.

Population growth and aging have had a modest impact on spending increases but
Canadians are filling more prescriptions than ever, visiting doctors more often
and undergoing more medical procedures.

Due to the increased demand, provinces have invested in new cancer drugs and
immunosuppressants, as well as in new technology such as diagnostic imaging
equipment. The number of CT scanners nearly doubled between 1997 and 2010,
while the number of MRI machines increased five-fold.

The provinces are aware that the era of economic growth and high incomes is at
an end. Despite calling for a 10-year extension of the 6% escalator, Ontario's
Premier Dalton McGuinty has committed to increasing health spending by just 3%
in the coming years. He is looking to limit growth in his province's
$47-billion health budget by reducing prices paid for generic drugs, increasing
home health care to keep people out of hospitals and calling for a voluntary
two-year pay freeze from the province's 24,000 doctors. About 10¢ of every
dollar spent by the province, goes to doctors' salaries.
cloud dreamer
2014-12-06 13:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
That pretty well sums it up.
Harper is obviously so quiet about disassembling our social safety
net, even Wakefield can't see it. And it's not increasing with
GDP...Harper is slashing $36 Billion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/19/health-transfer-payments-flaherty_n_1158072.html
Most people who post a link do so to support their position, not destroy
it. But not cloud dreamer and KKKaren
But it is from 2011. A lot has happened in the meantime. The changes we
are actually seeing means cuts, not increases:


http://cupe.ca/canadas-health-care-system-about-lose-36-billion

Starting in 2017 increases will be reduced from six per cent, and linked
to the rate of economic growth. The reduction will mean $36 billion less
for health care over ten years.


http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/26/ottawas-overhaul-of-health-care-funding-has-left-enormous-fiscal-gap-for-provinces-pbo-warns/

But Ottawa’s overhaul of medical funding has created an enormous “fiscal
gap” for the provinces, the PBO notes. Health spending is expected to
grow by an average of 4.9 per cent annually between now and 2050 — a
higher rate than federal funding increases.


I do love how The Sun tries to insinuate that a change in funding from
6% to 3% is not a cut. Under the accord, it would remain at 6%. Tying it
to economic growth means it won't see 6% and given how badly Harper has
mismanaged our economy, it'll likely mean the minimum 3%.

Provinces are just scraping by on 6%. You really think they can continue
to supply the same level care to an aging population at half that?

This is a government that has already destroyed veteran's benefits and
is in court ARGUING THAT IT HAS NO OBLIGATION TO CARE FOR INJURED VETS.

How long before they tell you it no longer has an obligation to care for
sick Canadians?

Harper is destroying universal health care and you're too blinded by
ideology to see it.


..
M.I.Wakefield
2014-12-06 15:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
That pretty well sums it up.
Harper is obviously so quiet about disassembling our social safety
net, even Wakefield can't see it. And it's not increasing with
GDP...Harper is slashing $36 Billion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/19/health-transfer-payments-flaherty_n_1158072.html
Most people who post a link do so to support their position, not destroy
it. But not cloud dreamer and KKKaren
But it is from 2011. A lot has happened in the meantime. The changes we
http://cupe.ca/canadas-health-care-system-about-lose-36-billion
Starting in 2017 increases will be reduced from six per cent, and linked
to the rate of economic growth. The reduction will mean $36 billion less
for health care over ten years.
Changing the rate of increase is not a cut: the amount of healthcare funding
provided by the Federal government is not being cut ... it will never
increase by less than 3% a year.

And, starting in 2017, increases will be linked to economic growth PLUS
INFLATION. Why do you keep leaving that part out?
cloud dreamer
2014-12-06 15:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
That pretty well sums it up.
Harper is obviously so quiet about disassembling our social safety
net, even Wakefield can't see it. And it's not increasing with
GDP...Harper is slashing $36 Billion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/19/health-transfer-payments-flaherty_n_1158072.html
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Most people who post a link do so to support their position, not
destroy
Post by M.I.Wakefield
it. But not cloud dreamer and KKKaren
But it is from 2011. A lot has happened in the meantime. The changes
http://cupe.ca/canadas-health-care-system-about-lose-36-billion
Starting in 2017 increases will be reduced from six per cent, and
linked to the rate of economic growth. The reduction will mean $36
billion less for health care over ten years.
Changing the rate of increase is not a cut: the amount of healthcare
funding provided by the Federal government is not being cut ... it will
never increase by less than 3% a year.
And, starting in 2017, increases will be linked to economic growth PLUS
INFLATION. Why do you keep leaving that part out?
In 2013, inflation was 1.3% and growth was 2%.

So, if it had been tied to health care funding, it would have been 3.3%.

But the provinces got SIX PER CENT!!!

In your Harperworld, they would have gotten 2.7% LESS.

LESS. Not MORE.

You have to be a goosestepping lunatic to think this isn't a cut. Just
another way Harper manipulates the wording so his lemmings think he's
doing something great while he's stabbing you in the back.

Why do you keep thinking a negative is a positive?

..
M.I.Wakefield
2014-12-06 18:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
That pretty well sums it up.
Harper is obviously so quiet about disassembling our social safety
net, even Wakefield can't see it. And it's not increasing with
GDP...Harper is slashing $36 Billion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/19/health-transfer-payments-flaherty_n_1158072.html
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Most people who post a link do so to support their position, not
destroy it. But not cloud dreamer and KKKaren
But it is from 2011. A lot has happened in the meantime. The changes
http://cupe.ca/canadas-health-care-system-about-lose-36-billion
Starting in 2017 increases will be reduced from six per cent, and
linked to the rate of economic growth. The reduction will mean $36
billion less for health care over ten years.
Changing the rate of increase is not a cut: the amount of healthcare
funding provided by the Federal government is not being cut ... it will
never increase by less than 3% a year.
And, starting in 2017, increases will be linked to economic growth PLUS
INFLATION. Why do you keep leaving that part out?
In 2013, inflation was 1.3% and growth was 2%.
OK.
Post by cloud dreamer
So, if it had been tied to health care funding, it would have been 3.3%.
Yes.
Post by cloud dreamer
But the provinces got SIX PER CENT!!!
Yes. That's the funding formula that runs through 2016. The new formula
starts in 2017. And note that if inflation had been 8% in 2013, the
provinces would still have gotten 6% more.
Post by cloud dreamer
In your Harperworld, they would have gotten 2.7% LESS.
No, they would have gotten 3.3% more than they did the year before.
Post by cloud dreamer
LESS. Not MORE.
No, more. Less than they might want, perhaps less than under the old
funding formula, perhaps more, but more than they were getting the year
before.

An increase that is smaller than you wanted is not a cut. A cut is getting
less than got previously.

You'd better be pretty, because it's obvious that you won't be able to
survive on your wits alone.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-06 21:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by cloud dreamer
LESS. Not MORE.
No, more. Less than they might want, perhaps less than under the old funding
formula, perhaps more, but more than they were getting the year before.
______________________________________________
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 -
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/12/17/ontarios-equalization-payment-shrinking

Ontario's equalization payment shrinking


TORONTO - Ontario’s equalization payment is shrinking while Quebec’s share gets
bigger.

According to federal finance ministry numbers posted online Tuesday, Ontario
will receive just under $2 billion from Ottawa in 2014-15, down from $3.2
billion this year.

Quebec will see its piece of the equalization pie rise to $9.3 billion next
year from $7.8 billion in 2013-14.

Equalization payments go to so-called “have not” provinces to ensure that
Canadians get access to comparable level of services regardless of where they
live in the country.

The Stephen Harper government was not pleased when Ontario, the most populous
province in the country, became eligible for equalization payments for the
first time in 2009-10.
____________________________________________________
An increase that is smaller than you wanted is not a cut. A cut is getting
less than got previously.
That's what Ontario got . . . LESS than it had previously. The numbers are
online, ya stupid person. Your lies can't erase them.
You'd better be pretty, because it's obvious that you won't be able to survive
on your wits alone.
You'd better be rich and loved by your mommy, because you aren't going to
survive here on your bullshit rhetoric alone.
_____________________________________

Equalization Payments: Ontario Still Paying More Than It Gets Despite
'Have-Not' Status, Study Finds
The Huffington Post Canada | 04/01/2013

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/01/equalization-payments-ontario-canada_n_2992486.html

Posted: 04/01/2013 11:17
Alan Baker
2014-12-06 21:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by cloud dreamer
LESS. Not MORE.
No, more. Less than they might want, perhaps less than under the old funding
formula, perhaps more, but more than they were getting the year before.
______________________________________________
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 -
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/12/17/ontarios-equalization-payment-shrinking
Ontario's equalization payment shrinking
TORONTO - Ontario’s equalization payment is shrinking while Quebec’s
share gets bigger.
According to federal finance ministry numbers posted online Tuesday,
Ontario will receive just under $2 billion from Ottawa in 2014-15, down
from $3.2 billion this year.
Quebec will see its piece of the equalization pie rise to $9.3 billion
next year from $7.8 billion in 2013-14.
Equalization payments go to so-called “have not” provinces to ensure
that Canadians get access to comparable level of services regardless of
where they live in the country.
The Stephen Harper government was not pleased when Ontario, the most
populous province in the country, became eligible for equalization
payments for the first time in 2009-10.
____________________________________________________
An increase that is smaller than you wanted is not a cut. A cut is getting
less than got previously.
That's what Ontario got . . . LESS than it had previously. The
numbers are online, ya stupid person. Your lies can't erase them.
No. They will be getting MORE than they have previously, just not as
much more as they WOULD HAVE gotten.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-06 22:29:16 UTC
Permalink
No. They will be getting MORE than they have previously, just not as much more
as they WOULD HAVE gotten.
"Would have gotten" - WHEN ?

Loading Image...
Alan Baker
2014-12-07 03:10:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
No. They will be getting MORE than they have previously, just not as much more
as they WOULD HAVE gotten.
"Would have gotten" - WHEN ?
Indeed.
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/3d/3b/bd/3d3bbd571da18a501b931514afd60581.jpg
M.I.Wakefield
2014-12-06 23:06:52 UTC
Permalink
Giving up on the healthcare funding discussion, Karen goes with a classic
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Ontario's equalization payment shrinking
TORONTO - Ontario’s equalization payment is shrinking while Quebec’s
share gets bigger.
Good. Equalization is based on need. Declining equalization means that the
economy is improving. Of course, this caused Wynne and her finance minister
to whine, because, math is hard, and they're getting less than they thought
they would be getting.

Note that the Health and Social transfers went up by $410 million and $131
million, respectively.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp#Ontario
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by M.I.Wakefield
An increase that is smaller than you wanted is not a cut. A cut is getting
less than got previously.
That's what Ontario got . . . LESS than it had previously. The numbers
are online, ya stupid person. Your lies can't erase them.
Yes. But Equalization has nothing to do with healthcare funding: health
funding went up $410 million.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-06 20:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Changing the rate of increase is not a cut: the amount of healthcare
funding provided by the Federal government is not being cut ... it will
never increase by less than 3% a year.
And, starting in 2017, increases will be linked to economic growth PLUS
INFLATION. Why do you keep leaving that part out?
In 2013, inflation was 1.3% and growth was 2%.
So, if it had been tied to health care funding, it would have been 3.3%.
But the provinces got SIX PER CENT!!!
In your Harperworld, they would have gotten 2.7% LESS.
LESS. Not MORE.
You have to be a goosestepping lunatic to think this isn't a cut. Just another
way Harper manipulates the wording so his lemmings think he's doing something
great while he's stabbing you in the back.
Why do you keep thinking a negative is a positive?
Because he's a negative sort of person.

And also:

Loading Image...
Barry Bruyea
2014-12-07 10:56:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 11:46:21 -0330, cloud dreamer
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
That pretty well sums it up.
Harper is obviously so quiet about disassembling our social safety
net, even Wakefield can't see it. And it's not increasing with
GDP...Harper is slashing $36 Billion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/19/health-transfer-payments-flaherty_n_1158072.html
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Most people who post a link do so to support their position, not
destroy
Post by M.I.Wakefield
it. But not cloud dreamer and KKKaren
But it is from 2011. A lot has happened in the meantime. The changes
http://cupe.ca/canadas-health-care-system-about-lose-36-billion
Starting in 2017 increases will be reduced from six per cent, and
linked to the rate of economic growth. The reduction will mean $36
billion less for health care over ten years.
Changing the rate of increase is not a cut: the amount of healthcare
funding provided by the Federal government is not being cut ... it will
never increase by less than 3% a year.
And, starting in 2017, increases will be linked to economic growth PLUS
INFLATION. Why do you keep leaving that part out?
In 2013, inflation was 1.3% and growth was 2%.
So, if it had been tied to health care funding, it would have been 3.3%.
But the provinces got SIX PER CENT!!!
In your Harperworld, they would have gotten 2.7% LESS.
LESS. Not MORE.
You have to be a goosestepping lunatic to think this isn't a cut. Just
another way Harper manipulates the wording so his lemmings think he's
doing something great while he's stabbing you in the back.
Why do you keep thinking a negative is a positive?
Given your posting history, under whatever handle, you've never
indicated that you even understand what the hell 'positive' is.
Post by cloud dreamer
..
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
me
2014-12-07 20:24:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry Bruyea
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 11:46:21 -0330, cloud dreamer
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
That pretty well sums it up.
Harper is obviously so quiet about disassembling our social safety
net, even Wakefield can't see it. And it's not increasing with
GDP...Harper is slashing $36 Billion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/19/health-transfer-payments-flaherty_n_1158072.html
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Most people who post a link do so to support their position, not
destroy
Post by M.I.Wakefield
it. But not cloud dreamer and KKKaren
But it is from 2011. A lot has happened in the meantime. The changes
http://cupe.ca/canadas-health-care-system-about-lose-36-billion
Starting in 2017 increases will be reduced from six per cent, and
linked to the rate of economic growth. The reduction will mean $36
billion less for health care over ten years.
Changing the rate of increase is not a cut: the amount of healthcare
funding provided by the Federal government is not being cut ... it will
never increase by less than 3% a year.
And, starting in 2017, increases will be linked to economic growth PLUS
INFLATION. Why do you keep leaving that part out?
In 2013, inflation was 1.3% and growth was 2%.
So, if it had been tied to health care funding, it would have been 3.3%.
But the provinces got SIX PER CENT!!!
In your Harperworld, they would have gotten 2.7% LESS.
LESS. Not MORE.
You have to be a goosestepping lunatic to think this isn't a cut. Just
another way Harper manipulates the wording so his lemmings think he's
doing something great while he's stabbing you in the back.
Why do you keep thinking a negative is a positive?
Given your posting history, under whatever handle, you've never
indicated that you even understand what the hell 'positive' is.
Barry, I seriously doubt that anyone who has to invoke Nazism in
order to support a position could ever be positive.
M.I.Wakefield
2014-12-07 21:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry Bruyea
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 11:46:21 -0330, cloud dreamer
Snip!
Post by Barry Bruyea
Post by cloud dreamer
Why do you keep thinking a negative is a positive?
Given your posting history, under whatever handle, you've never
indicated that you even understand what the hell 'positive' is.
Barry, I seriously doubt that anyone who has to invoke Nazism in order to
support a position could ever be positive.
Or numerate ... if they got a 5% raise last year, and tomorrow the boss
tells them that this year, it's a 4% raise, they'll be complaining about a
pay cut, because 4 is less than 5, and ... and ... math is hard.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-07 23:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry Bruyea
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 11:46:21 -0330, cloud dreamer
Snip!
Post by Barry Bruyea
Post by cloud dreamer
Why do you keep thinking a negative is a positive?
Given your posting history, under whatever handle, you've never
indicated that you even understand what the hell 'positive' is.
Barry, I seriously doubt that anyone who has to invoke Nazism in order to
support a position could ever be positive.
Or numerate ... if they got a 5% raise last year, and tomorrow the boss tells
them that this year, it's a 4% raise, they'll be complaining about a pay cut,
because 4 is less than 5, and ... and ... math is hard.
Only for you, dummy.
cloud dreamer
2014-12-08 01:26:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by Barry Bruyea
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 11:46:21 -0330, cloud dreamer
Snip!
Post by Barry Bruyea
Post by cloud dreamer
Why do you keep thinking a negative is a positive?
Given your posting history, under whatever handle, you've never
indicated that you even understand what the hell 'positive' is.
Barry, I seriously doubt that anyone who has to invoke Nazism in order to
support a position could ever be positive.
Or numerate ... if they got a 5% raise last year, and tomorrow the boss tells
them that this year, it's a 4% raise, they'll be complaining about a pay cut,
because 4 is less than 5, and ... and ... math is hard.
Only for you, dummy.
LOL...he still doesn't get it.

If an employee was hired and told they would get 6% raise every year and
this employee set up their mortgage and car payments etc with that 6%
every year factored in....

....and suddenly the employer decides to only give him 3% a year...

...what happens?

Granted, the logic might be too complicated for Wakefield.

..
M.I.Wakefield
2014-12-08 01:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by cloud dreamer
LOL...he still doesn't get it.
If an employee was hired and told they would get 6% raise every year and
this employee set up their mortgage and car payments etc with that 6%
every year factored in....
....and suddenly the employer decides to only give him 3% a year...
...what happens?
Granted, the logic might be too complicated for Wakefield.
The 6% annual increase was part of the 2004-2014 Health Accord. So the
problem with your analogy is that nobody ever told the provinces that they
were getting 6% a year forever. And the provinces were given 5 years notice
of the change.
me
2014-12-08 04:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
LOL...he still doesn't get it.
If an employee was hired and told they would get 6% raise
every year and this employee set up their mortgage and car
payments etc with that 6% every year factored in....
....and suddenly the employer decides to only give him 3% a
year...
...what happens?
Granted, the logic might be too complicated for Wakefield.
The 6% annual increase was part of the 2004-2014 Health Accord.
So the problem with your analogy is that nobody ever told the
provinces that they were getting 6% a year forever. And the
provinces were given 5 years notice of the change.
Don't confuse CD with facts, her head might explode.
M.I.Wakefield
2014-12-08 14:00:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
LOL...he still doesn't get it.
If an employee was hired and told they would get 6% raise
every year and this employee set up their mortgage and car
payments etc with that 6% every year factored in....
....and suddenly the employer decides to only give him 3% a
year...
...what happens?
Granted, the logic might be too complicated for Wakefield.
The 6% annual increase was part of the 2004-2014 Health Accord.
So the problem with your analogy is that nobody ever told the
provinces that they were getting 6% a year forever. And the
provinces were given 5 years notice of the change.
Don't confuse CD with facts, her head might explode.
They've never needed facts, they have animus.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-08 20:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by cloud dreamer
LOL...he still doesn't get it.
If an employee was hired and told they would get 6% raise>> every year and this employee set up their mortgage and car >> payments etc
with that 6% every year factored in....
Post by cloud dreamer
....and suddenly the employer decides to only give him 3% a>> year...
...what happens?
Granted, the logic might be too complicated for Wakefield.
The 6% annual increase was part of the 2004-2014 Health Accord.> So the problem with your analogy is that nobody ever told the > provinces
that they were getting 6% a year forever. And the > provinces were given 5
years notice of the change.
Don't confuse CD with facts, her head might explode.
They've never needed facts, they have animus - and facts that keep getting in my way.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-08 20:22:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
Don't confuse CD with facts, her head might explode.
Ah . . . our rabid rightwing Halifax poster is back: aka 'Carter' aka 'James
Warren' aka 'Carter <***@AF/CF>'.
Things a little slow in Halifax these days, 'Carter'?
cloud dreamer
2014-12-09 13:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by me
Don't confuse CD with facts, her head might explode.
Ah . . . our rabid rightwing Halifax poster is back: aka 'Carter' aka
Things a little slow in Halifax these days, 'Carter'?
Yup. It's amazing how people can be so blinded by ideology that they
can't see that reducing the amount of money the provinces are going to
get as a cut.

With an aging population, the annual increase shouldn't be REDUCED. It
should be increased.

Meanwhile, the dictator is still set on buying a fighter that has been
proven to not be capable of meeting our needs and that other nations are
saying no to now. But no one can tell Harper he made a mistake. (And
that isn't coming from me...that's coming from Stockwell Day).

As for Carter...he's a goosestepping traitor. As a former military
member, he supports the massacre the Harper government has inflicted on
the benefits for injured veterans. Thousands of vets are now facing a
lifetime of medical and financial hardship that those of us covered
under the old Pension Act won't have to face with a pension. Instead of
getting $20-$40 grand annually on average for serious disability...vets
can get less than that in a one time payment followed by a boot out the
door.

And no, Carter, the Liberals and NDP didn't create the NVC as it is
today. It was supposed to continue with the pension. The Reform snatched
out the pension at the last minute and replaced it with lump sum.

Meanwhile, the dictator has been getting a hard on every time there's a
conflict cause all he wants to do is send the troops to fight in foreign
wars. This lunatic actually wanted to send Canadian troops to the Ukraine!

And then he would give them the finger when they come back injured.

If a former military member (I refuse to use the word veteran when it
comes to Carter) can't see how this harms soldiers then he is allowing
ideology to override common sense and that sense that all soldiers
should have their fellow soldier's backs.

And that is the most dangerous mindset out there...cause we all know how
that worked out in 1930s Germany.

..
me
2014-12-09 23:00:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by me
Don't confuse CD with facts, her head might explode.
Ah . . . our rabid rightwing Halifax poster is back: aka
'Carter' aka
Things a little slow in Halifax these days, 'Carter'?
Yup. It's amazing how people can be so blinded by ideology that
they can't see that reducing the amount of money the provinces
are going to get as a cut.
With an aging population, the annual increase shouldn't be
REDUCED. It should be increased.
Meanwhile, the dictator is still set on buying a fighter that
has been proven to not be capable of meeting our needs and that
other nations are saying no to now. But no one can tell Harper
he made a mistake. (And that isn't coming from me...that's
coming from Stockwell Day).
As for Carter...he's a goosestepping traitor. As a former
military member, he supports the massacre the Harper government
has inflicted on the benefits for injured veterans. Thousands
of vets are now facing a lifetime of medical and financial
hardship that those of us covered under the old Pension Act
won't have to face with a pension. Instead of getting $20-$40
grand annually on average for serious disability...vets can get
less than that in a one time payment followed by a boot out the
door.
And no, Carter, the Liberals and NDP didn't create the NVC as
it is today. It was supposed to continue with the pension. The
Reform snatched out the pension at the last minute and replaced
it with lump sum.
Meanwhile, the dictator has been getting a hard on every time
there's a conflict cause all he wants to do is send the troops
to fight in foreign wars. This lunatic actually wanted to send
Canadian troops to the Ukraine!
And then he would give them the finger when they come back
injured.
If a former military member (I refuse to use the word veteran
when it comes to Carter) can't see how this harms soldiers then
he is allowing ideology to override common sense and that sense
that all soldiers should have their fellow soldier's backs.
And that is the most dangerous mindset out there...cause we all
know how that worked out in 1930s Germany.
..
There ya go folks, that from someone who accuses others of being
blinded by ideology. Can you believe it?
James Warren
2014-12-10 14:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by me
Don't confuse CD with facts, her head might explode.
Things a little slow in Halifax these days, 'Carter'?
Ahem. I, James Warren, have never presented myself as
Carter. I am, and always have been, James Warren.

Please, if you must insult me, find something, anything,
other than Carter to do it.

-jw
me
2014-12-10 18:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Warren
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by me
Don't confuse CD with facts, her head might explode.
Ah . . . our rabid rightwing Halifax poster is back: aka
Things a little slow in Halifax these days, 'Carter'?
Ahem. I, James Warren, have never presented myself as
Carter. I am, and always have been, James Warren.
Please, if you must insult me, find something, anything,
other than Carter to do it.
Leave it alone Jimmy, you're replying to an idiot.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-10 21:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by me
Post by James Warren
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by me
Don't confuse CD with facts, her head might explode.
Ah . . . our rabid rightwing Halifax poster is back: aka 'Carter' aka
Things a little slow in Halifax these days, 'Carter'?
Ahem. I, James Warren, have never presented myself as
Carter. I am, and always have been, James Warren.
Please, if you must insult me, find something, anything,
other than Carter to do it.
Leave it alone Jimmy, you're replying to an idiot.
Carter
Alan Baker
2014-12-08 06:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by Barry Bruyea
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 11:46:21 -0330, cloud dreamer
Snip!
Post by Barry Bruyea
Post by cloud dreamer
Why do you keep thinking a negative is a positive?
Given your posting history, under whatever handle, you've never
indicated that you even understand what the hell 'positive' is.
Barry, I seriously doubt that anyone who has to invoke Nazism in order to
support a position could ever be positive.
Or numerate ... if they got a 5% raise last year, and tomorrow the boss tells
them that this year, it's a 4% raise, they'll be complaining about a pay cut,
because 4 is less than 5, and ... and ... math is hard.
Only for you, dummy.
LOL...he still doesn't get it.
If an employee was hired and told they would get 6% raise every year
and this employee set up their mortgage and car payments etc with that
6% every year factored in....
....and suddenly the employer decides to only give him 3% a year...
...what happens?
Granted, the logic might be too complicated for Wakefield.
..
Where in the world does anyone depend on such things absolutely?
Barry Bruyea
2014-12-08 08:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by Barry Bruyea
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 11:46:21 -0330, cloud dreamer
Snip!
Post by Barry Bruyea
Post by cloud dreamer
Why do you keep thinking a negative is a positive?
Given your posting history, under whatever handle, you've never
indicated that you even understand what the hell 'positive' is.
Barry, I seriously doubt that anyone who has to invoke Nazism in order to
support a position could ever be positive.
Or numerate ... if they got a 5% raise last year, and tomorrow the boss tells
them that this year, it's a 4% raise, they'll be complaining about a pay cut,
because 4 is less than 5, and ... and ... math is hard.
Only for you, dummy.
LOL...he still doesn't get it.
If an employee was hired and told they would get 6% raise every year
and this employee set up their mortgage and car payments etc with that
6% every year factored in....
....and suddenly the employer decides to only give him 3% a year...
...what happens?
Granted, the logic might be too complicated for Wakefield.
..
Where in the world does anyone depend on such things absolutely?
Idiots whose knowledge fiscal reality would fit in the head of a pin.
Post by Alan Baker
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
cloud dreamer
2014-12-09 13:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by Barry Bruyea
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 11:46:21 -0330, cloud dreamer
Snip!
Post by Barry Bruyea
Post by cloud dreamer
Why do you keep thinking a negative is a positive?
Given your posting history, under whatever handle, you've never
indicated that you even understand what the hell 'positive' is.
Barry, I seriously doubt that anyone who has to invoke Nazism in order to
support a position could ever be positive.
Or numerate ... if they got a 5% raise last year, and tomorrow the boss tells
them that this year, it's a 4% raise, they'll be complaining about a pay cut,
because 4 is less than 5, and ... and ... math is hard.
Only for you, dummy.
LOL...he still doesn't get it.
If an employee was hired and told they would get 6% raise every year
and this employee set up their mortgage and car payments etc with that
6% every year factored in....
....and suddenly the employer decides to only give him 3% a year...
...what happens?
Granted, the logic might be too complicated for Wakefield.
..
Where in the world does anyone depend on such things absolutely?
Sheesh. It's a fucking analogy, not an absolute. Holy cow, are you so
daft you can't understand the point?

<sigh>

..
M.I.Wakefield
2014-12-09 14:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by cloud dreamer
If an employee was hired and told they would get 6% raise every year
and this employee set up their mortgage and car payments etc with that
6% every year factored in....
....and suddenly the employer decides to only give him 3% a year...
...what happens?
Granted, the logic might be too complicated for Wakefield.
Where in the world does anyone depend on such things absolutely?
Sheesh. It's a fucking analogy, not an absolute. Holy cow, are you so daft
you can't understand the point?
I guess you missed the post where your analogy got destroyed. The 6%
increases were part of an agreement that lasted from 2004 until March 31,
2014. There was no guarantees of what would happen when the agreement
expired. And back in 2011, the provinces were told that the 6% increases
would continue until the new formula becomes effective on April 1, 2017.

So: nobody told the provinces that they were getting 6% forever, they were
given over 5 years notice of the change, and, a change in the rate of
increase is not a cut.
<sigh>
You have no idea ...
Alan Baker
2014-12-09 16:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by Alan Baker
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by Barry Bruyea
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 11:46:21 -0330, cloud dreamer
Snip!
Post by Barry Bruyea
Post by cloud dreamer
Why do you keep thinking a negative is a positive?
Given your posting history, under whatever handle, you've never
indicated that you even understand what the hell 'positive' is.
Barry, I seriously doubt that anyone who has to invoke Nazism in order to
support a position could ever be positive.
Or numerate ... if they got a 5% raise last year, and tomorrow the boss tells
them that this year, it's a 4% raise, they'll be complaining about a pay cut,
because 4 is less than 5, and ... and ... math is hard.
Only for you, dummy.
LOL...he still doesn't get it.
If an employee was hired and told they would get 6% raise every year
and this employee set up their mortgage and car payments etc with that
6% every year factored in....
....and suddenly the employer decides to only give him 3% a year...
...what happens?
Granted, the logic might be too complicated for Wakefield.
..
Where in the world does anyone depend on such things absolutely?
Sheesh. It's a fucking analogy, not an absolute. Holy cow, are you so
daft you can't understand the point?
<sigh>
..
I understand that as an analogy it was fundamentally flawed...

...because things don't work that way.

The provinces are getting what they were promised for as long as it was
promised to them.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-10 01:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
The provinces are getting what they were promised for as long as it was
promised to them.
"If Ottawa giveth, then Ottawa can taketh away… " ~ Stephen Harper, Dec 8,
2000
Alan Baker
2014-12-10 07:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by Alan Baker
The provinces are getting what they were promised for as long as it was
promised to them.
"If Ottawa giveth, then Ottawa can taketh away… " ~ Stephen
Harper, Dec 8, 2000
Non sequitur.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-10 21:09:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by Alan Baker
The provinces are getting what they were promised for as long as it was
promised to them.
"If Ottawa giveth, then Ottawa can taketh away… " ~ Stephen Harper, Dec
8, 2000
Non sequitur.
You really are stuck on those two words aren't you, 'Baker'. Get a Latin
dictionary and get a larger vocabulary.
You're really getting predictable - and boring.


Loading Image...
Alan Baker
2014-12-10 22:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by Alan Baker
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by Alan Baker
The provinces are getting what they were promised for as long as it was
promised to them.
"If Ottawa giveth, then Ottawa can taketh away… " ~ Stephen Harper, Dec
8, 2000
Non sequitur.
You really are stuck on those two words aren't you, 'Baker'.
I'm only "stuck" on them because they precisely respond to things that
have been written.

In this case, Ottawa is not taking away something they had given. On
the contrary, they are giving something after it was supposed to have
ended.
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Get a Latin dictionary and get a larger vocabulary.
You're really getting predictable - and boring.
http://img3.rnkr-static.com/list_img/5643/285643/full/notable-and-famous-ignorance-quotes.jpg
Barry Bruyea
2014-12-08 08:51:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 21:56:31 -0330, cloud dreamer
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by Barry Bruyea
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 11:46:21 -0330, cloud dreamer
Snip!
Post by Barry Bruyea
Post by cloud dreamer
Why do you keep thinking a negative is a positive?
Given your posting history, under whatever handle, you've never
indicated that you even understand what the hell 'positive' is.
Barry, I seriously doubt that anyone who has to invoke Nazism in order to
support a position could ever be positive.
Or numerate ... if they got a 5% raise last year, and tomorrow the boss tells
them that this year, it's a 4% raise, they'll be complaining about a pay cut,
because 4 is less than 5, and ... and ... math is hard.
Only for you, dummy.
LOL...he still doesn't get it.
If an employee was hired and told they would get 6% raise every year and
this employee set up their mortgage and car payments etc with that 6%
every year factored in....
....and suddenly the employer decides to only give him 3% a year...
...what happens?
Granted, the logic might be too complicated for Wakefield.
Only someone with their head in the clouds would realize that no
employer would ever promise a specific raise 'every' year. The world
of business just isn't that predictable. Even union contracts are only
for specific periods.
Post by cloud dreamer
..
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
cloud dreamer
2014-12-09 13:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barry Bruyea
On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 21:56:31 -0330, cloud dreamer
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by Barry Bruyea
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 11:46:21 -0330, cloud dreamer
Snip!
Post by Barry Bruyea
Post by cloud dreamer
Why do you keep thinking a negative is a positive?
Given your posting history, under whatever handle, you've never
indicated that you even understand what the hell 'positive' is.
Barry, I seriously doubt that anyone who has to invoke Nazism in order to
support a position could ever be positive.
Or numerate ... if they got a 5% raise last year, and tomorrow the boss tells
them that this year, it's a 4% raise, they'll be complaining about a pay cut,
because 4 is less than 5, and ... and ... math is hard.
Only for you, dummy.
LOL...he still doesn't get it.
If an employee was hired and told they would get 6% raise every year and
this employee set up their mortgage and car payments etc with that 6%
every year factored in....
....and suddenly the employer decides to only give him 3% a year...
...what happens?
Granted, the logic might be too complicated for Wakefield.
Only someone with their head in the clouds would realize that no
employer would ever promise a specific raise 'every' year. The world
of business just isn't that predictable. Even union contracts are only
for specific periods.
*facepalm* The point really went over your head, didn't it?

..
Barry Bruyea
2014-12-09 20:49:12 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:36:51 -0330, cloud dreamer
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by Barry Bruyea
On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 21:56:31 -0330, cloud dreamer
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by Barry Bruyea
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 11:46:21 -0330, cloud dreamer
Snip!
Post by Barry Bruyea
Post by cloud dreamer
Why do you keep thinking a negative is a positive?
Given your posting history, under whatever handle, you've never
indicated that you even understand what the hell 'positive' is.
Barry, I seriously doubt that anyone who has to invoke Nazism in order to
support a position could ever be positive.
Or numerate ... if they got a 5% raise last year, and tomorrow the boss tells
them that this year, it's a 4% raise, they'll be complaining about a pay cut,
because 4 is less than 5, and ... and ... math is hard.
Only for you, dummy.
LOL...he still doesn't get it.
If an employee was hired and told they would get 6% raise every year and
this employee set up their mortgage and car payments etc with that 6%
every year factored in....
....and suddenly the employer decides to only give him 3% a year...
...what happens?
Granted, the logic might be too complicated for Wakefield.
Only someone with their head in the clouds would realize that no
employer would ever promise a specific raise 'every' year. The world
of business just isn't that predictable. Even union contracts are only
for specific periods.
*facepalm* The point really went over your head, didn't it?
Not quite, considering your ignorance on the subject.
Post by cloud dreamer
..
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
Alan Baker
2014-12-08 06:45:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by Barry Bruyea
On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 11:46:21 -0330, cloud dreamer
Snip!
Post by Barry Bruyea
Post by cloud dreamer
Why do you keep thinking a negative is a positive?
Given your posting history, under whatever handle, you've never
indicated that you even understand what the hell 'positive' is.
Barry, I seriously doubt that anyone who has to invoke Nazism in order to
support a position could ever be positive.
Or numerate ... if they got a 5% raise last year, and tomorrow the boss tells
them that this year, it's a 4% raise, they'll be complaining about a pay cut,
because 4 is less than 5, and ... and ... math is hard.
Only for you, dummy.
Sorry, but in this case it is clearly YOU who has the problem
understanding what a cut is.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-08 20:27:15 UTC
Permalink
Sorry, but in this case it is clearly YOU who has the problem understanding
what a cut is. I don't see a reduction from 6% to 3% as a reduction.
Loading Image...
Alan Baker
2014-12-09 00:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Sorry, but in this case it is clearly YOU who has the problem understanding
what a cut is. I don't see a reduction from 6% to 3% as a reduction.
http://rlv.zcache.com/ignorance_is_not_a_crime_cards-rce612428372a46e0882a398fdb248eff_xvuak_8byvr_512.jpg
How said for you...
cloud dreamer
2014-12-09 14:03:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by Alan Baker
Sorry, but in this case it is clearly YOU who has the problem
understanding
what a cut is. I don't see a reduction from 6% to 3% as a reduction.
http://rlv.zcache.com/ignorance_is_not_a_crime_cards-rce612428372a46e0882a398fdb248eff_xvuak_8byvr_512.jpg
Yup. Harper is a hypocrite and a liar.

Loading Image...



..
Alan Baker
2014-12-09 16:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Sorry, but in this case it is clearly YOU who has the problem understanding
what a cut is. I don't see a reduction from 6% to 3% as a reduction.
http://rlv.zcache.com/ignorance_is_not_a_crime_cards-rce612428372a46e0882a398fdb248eff_xvuak_8byvr_512.jpg
Yup. Harper is a hypocrite and a liar.
https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/1508063_10153415039744251_89496408936426679_n.jpg?oh=74e00a401bacc35e9a7d229e254cd1d7&oe=5503967C
..
Non sequitur.

Not germane.

It still doesn't make changing the rate of increase from 6% to 3% into
a reduction in funding.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-10 01:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by cloud dreamer
Yup. Harper is a hypocrite and a liar.
https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/1508063_10153415039744251_89496408936426679_n.jpg?oh=74e00a401bacc35e9a7d229e254cd1d7&oe=5503967C
Non sequitur.
Nope . . . . secutus esse
Post by Alan Baker
Not germane.
Leave the Germans out of it . . .
Post by Alan Baker
It still doesn't make changing the rate of increase from 6% to 3% into a
reduction in funding.
It sure as hell does.

Loading Image...
Alan Baker
2014-12-10 07:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by Alan Baker
Post by cloud dreamer
Yup. Harper is a hypocrite and a liar.
https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/1508063_10153415039744251_89496408936426679_n.jpg?oh=74e00a401bacc35e9a7d229e254cd1d7&oe=5503967C
Non sequitur.
Nope . . . . secutus esse
That... ...doesn't mean what you think it means.
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by Alan Baker
Not germane.
Leave the Germans out of it . . .
Post by Alan Baker
It still doesn't make changing the rate of increase from 6% to 3% into a
reduction in funding.
It sure as hell does.
http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server3000/86d67/products/5685/images/4343/t5462_WithoutStupidPeople_BLK_CRM__27408.1405352842.600.600.jpg?c=2
No. Getting a smaller increase is not a reduction in funding.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-10 21:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
No. Getting a smaller increase is not a reduction in funding.
http://img3.rnkr-static.com/list_img/5643/285643/full/notable-and-famous-ignorance-quotes.jpg
Alan Baker
2014-12-10 22:42:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by Alan Baker
No. Getting a smaller increase is not a reduction in funding.
http://img3.rnkr-static.com/list_img/5643/285643/full/notable-and-famous-ignorance-quotes.jpg
I don't know how you think that is germane.

If I give you money (and let's face it, the chances you actually earn
what you get are slight), and I have an agreement for increases in the
amount with each passing year, then:

1. When that agreement expires and I start giving you smaller
increases, that is NOT a reduction in the amount you are receiving.

2. It isn't a reduction in the amount you are receiving even if I make
the increases smaller before the agreement expires.

These are facts, Karen.

6% increases

2010: $100
2011: $106
2012: $112.36
2013: $119.10
2014: $126.25

Now 3%

2015: $130.04

$130.04 is LARGER than $126.25.

Thus it is not a reduction in funding.

(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-06 20:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Changing the rate of increase is not a cut: the amount of healthcare funding
provided by the Federal government is not being cut ... it will never increase
by less than 3% a year.
So you think that 3% a year is not less than the current 6% a year?
Loading Image...
Post by M.I.Wakefield
And, starting in 2017, increases will be linked to economic growth PLUS
INFLATION. Why do you keep leaving that part out?
Maybe because the number of people needing health care has nothing to do with
economic growth?

And maybe because the 'rate of inflation' also has nothing to do with how many
people need healthcare - and is largely based on things such as oil prices?
And which has been dropping because of high unemployment and jobs disappearing
to foreign countries? Inflation used to be 2% or higher before Harper came
into power.
Now it hovers at 1% or lower because of our lower GDP.

Face it, 'Wakefield' . . . you couldn't balance your own chequebook.
Alan Baker
2014-12-06 21:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Changing the rate of increase is not a cut: the amount of healthcare funding
provided by the Federal government is not being cut ... it will never increase
by less than 3% a year.
So you think that 3% a year is not less than the current 6% a year?
http://favimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ignorance-quotes-sayings-meaningful-cool-short-best.jpg
Post by M.I.Wakefield
And, starting in 2017, increases will be linked to economic growth PLUS
INFLATION. Why do you keep leaving that part out?
Maybe because the number of people needing health care has nothing to
do with economic growth?
Can you demonstrate that the number of people needing health care is
growing faster than the economy?
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
And maybe because the 'rate of inflation' also has nothing to do with
how many people need healthcare - and is largely based on things such
as oil prices?
And which has been dropping because of high unemployment and jobs
disappearing to foreign countries? Inflation used to be 2% or higher
before Harper came into power.
Now it hovers at 1% or lower because of our lower GDP.
The inclusion of inflation is to prevent the eroding value of the
dollar from affecting funding, Karen.

Thoughtful people had already figured that out.
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Face it, 'Wakefield' . . . you couldn't balance your own chequebook.
cloud dreamer
2014-12-07 13:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Changing the rate of increase is not a cut: the amount of healthcare funding
provided by the Federal government is not being cut ... it will never increase
by less than 3% a year.
So you think that 3% a year is not less than the current 6% a year?
http://favimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ignorance-quotes-sayings-meaningful-cool-short-best.jpg
Post by M.I.Wakefield
And, starting in 2017, increases will be linked to economic growth PLUS
INFLATION. Why do you keep leaving that part out?
Maybe because the number of people needing health care has nothing to do
with economic growth?
And maybe because the 'rate of inflation' also has nothing to do with
how many people need healthcare - and is largely based on things such as
oil prices?
And which has been dropping because of high unemployment and jobs
disappearing to foreign countries? Inflation used to be 2% or higher
before Harper came into power.
Now it hovers at 1% or lower because of our lower GDP.
Face it, 'Wakefield' . . . you couldn't balance your own chequebook.
Yup. It's like talking to a brick wall.

I remember thinking back to 2003 and was baffled at how people could
actually believe Bush about Iraq. It was so plain what he was doing yet
millions goosestepped right into a quagmire without question. No
willingness to question. Just blind allegiance.

And now I see it in Canada. An unwillingness to question anything Harper
is doing while he destroys this country. An unwillingness to apply
critical thinking and common sense.

Instead, it's that "I've always voted Conservative" mentality and it
makes them blind to what is in front of their faces. It wasn't a problem
with the PCs. They were a moderate party. But the Reform are so close to
the extreme edge of the Right, they make the Tea Party look downright
centralist.

Wakefield's blindness has made him too stupid to make simple math
calculations. Harper says it's a good thing, so he agrees....like a good
little Reformer.

..
me
2014-12-07 20:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Changing the rate of increase is not a cut: the amount of
healthcare
funding
provided by the Federal government is not being cut ... it
will never
increase
by less than 3% a year.
So you think that 3% a year is not less than the current 6% a
year?
http://favimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ignorance-quotes-sayings-meaningful-cool-short-best.jpg
Post by M.I.Wakefield
And, starting in 2017, increases will be linked to economic
growth PLUS
INFLATION. Why do you keep leaving that part out?
Maybe because the number of people needing health care has
nothing to do
with economic growth?
And maybe because the 'rate of inflation' also has nothing to
do with
how many people need healthcare - and is largely based on
things such as
oil prices?
And which has been dropping because of high unemployment and jobs
disappearing to foreign countries? Inflation used to be 2% or higher
before Harper came into power.
Now it hovers at 1% or lower because of our lower GDP.
Face it, 'Wakefield' . . . you couldn't balance your own
chequebook.
Yup. It's like talking to a brick wall.
I remember thinking back to 2003 and was baffled at how people
could actually believe Bush about Iraq. It was so plain what he
was doing yet millions goosestepped right into a quagmire
without question. No willingness to question. Just blind
allegiance.
And now I see it in Canada. An unwillingness to question
anything Harper is doing while he destroys this country. An
unwillingness to apply critical thinking and common sense.
Instead, it's that "I've always voted Conservative" mentality
and it makes them blind to what is in front of their faces. It
wasn't a problem with the PCs. They were a moderate party. But
the Reform are so close to the extreme edge of the Right, they
make the Tea Party look downright centralist.
Wakefield's blindness has made him too stupid to make simple
math calculations. Harper says it's a good thing, so he
agrees....like a good little Reformer.
..
Ah, yes. Spoken like a good little goosestepping socialist who
revels in biting the hand that feed her.
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-08 00:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Ah, yes. Spoken like a good little goosestepping socialist who revels in
biting the hand that feed her.
Oops . . . the goosesteppers were from rightwing parties . . . You need to
brush up on your left/right rhetoric.

Loading Image...
cloud dreamer
2014-12-05 15:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
CBC News Posted: Dec 02, 2014
'End of medicare': Maude Barlow raises alarm on health spending
Maude Barlow is a Liberal hack, and raising alarms is all she's good for ...
she's the Chicken Little of policy discussions.
There you go . . . . can't challenge the message, so he attacks the
'Liberal' in the messenger.
That 'Liberal' is warning us about the cuts that are happening, through
capping, and major reductions very, very soon - by your Conservatives.
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Maude Barlow, who chairs the Council of Canadians, says the Harper
government will quietly reduce federal health care funding
starting> 2016.
After 2016, healthcare funding will increase by the nominal GDP, which is
actual GDP growth plus inflation, but there will be a minimum annual increase
of 3%.
What the hell does the GDP have to do with healthcare needs? PEOPLE
need healthcare. The amount that the corporations make in this country
- and grow or drop our 'GDP' - have nothing to do with how many people
there are in the country needing healthcare. You and your goddamn
Conservatives have put a dollar limit on everything to make themselves
look like they're efficient stewards of our economy. Then they turn
around and cap and cut healthcare to achieve those ends. You really are
either: Stupid - or a complete lying shill for the Harper Cons.
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Everything he has done has been quiet.
Everything has been pre-announced .... back in 2011.
And it was talked about in this newsgroup. Nothing has changed except
that you continue to defend the way the Harper government is undermining
healthcare in this country.
Through capping, for years, and reductions in future. You'll notice
that his government is inviting even more immigrants into the country in
future years. ALL OF WHOM are going to need healthcare in some form or
another. How the hell do you REDUCE healthcare funding when you are
INCREASING the number of people relying on healthcare?
http://favimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ignorance-quotes-sayings-wise-deep-their-power.jpg
Post by M.I.Wakefield
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/premiers-split-over-flaherty-health-funding-bombshell-1.1014496
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
That's why those blinded by their ideology still worship this madman.
That's why those blinded by their hatred keep on lying.
No, ' Wakefield' . . . that would be YOU . . .
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/b5/56/19/b55619970797c3b82ce834340ea2d551.jpg
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
He makes it easy to see how Hitler so fooled the German people.
http://www.searchquotes.com/sof/images/picture_quotes/181723_20140220_172202_12183_719880794697749_1279053772_n.jpg
Oh look....more "quiet" deals signed on a Friday so that people won't care.


http://globalnews.ca/news/1708990/exclusive-harper-government-quietly-signed-customs-agreement-with-china/

..
Alan Baker
2014-12-05 21:43:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
CBC News Posted: Dec 02, 2014
'End of medicare': Maude Barlow raises alarm on health spending
Maude Barlow is a Liberal hack, and raising alarms is all she's good for ...
she's the Chicken Little of policy discussions.
There you go . . . . can't challenge the message, so he attacks the
'Liberal' in the messenger.
That 'Liberal' is warning us about the cuts that are happening, through
capping, and major reductions very, very soon - by your Conservatives.
Actually, he did refute the message. Just read on...
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Maude Barlow, who chairs the Council of Canadians, says the Harper
government will quietly reduce federal health care funding starting> 2016.
After 2016, healthcare funding will increase by the nominal GDP, which is
actual GDP growth plus inflation, but there will be a minimum annual increase
of 3%.
What the hell does the GDP have to do with healthcare needs? PEOPLE
need healthcare. The amount that the corporations make in this country
- and grow or drop our 'GDP' - have nothing to do with how many people
there are in the country needing healthcare. You and your goddamn
Conservatives have put a dollar limit on everything to make themselves
look like they're efficient stewards of our economy. Then they turn
around and cap and cut healthcare to achieve those ends. You really
are either: Stupid - or a complete lying shill for the Harper Cons.
So if the number of people grows more slowly than the GDP, you'd
advocate for a slower rate in the growth in health spending?

But in any case, increases aren't cuts.
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
Everything he has done has been quiet.
Everything has been pre-announced .... back in 2011.
And it was talked about in this newsgroup. Nothing has changed except
that you continue to defend the way the Harper government is
undermining healthcare in this country.
Through capping, for years, and reductions in future. You'll notice
that his government is inviting even more immigrants into the country
in future years. ALL OF WHOM are going to need healthcare in some form
or another. How the hell do you REDUCE healthcare funding when you are
INCREASING the number of people relying on healthcare?
http://favimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ignorance-quotes-sayings-wise-deep-their-power.jpg
Post by M.I.Wakefield
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/premiers-split-over-flaherty-health-funding-bombshell-1.1014496
Post by cloud dreamer
That's why those blinded by their ideology still worship this madman.
That's why those blinded by their hatred keep on lying.
No, ' Wakefield' . . . that would be YOU . . .
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/b5/56/19/b55619970797c3b82ce834340ea2d551.jpg
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by cloud dreamer
He makes it easy to see how Hitler so fooled the German people.
http://www.searchquotes.com/sof/images/picture_quotes/181723_20140220_172202_12183_719880794697749_1279053772_n.jpg
(ಠ_ಠ)
2014-12-05 22:23:16 UTC
Permalink
So if the number of people grows more slowly than the GDP, you'd advocate for a
slower rate in the growth in health spending?
Loading Image...
Alan Baker
2014-12-06 00:23:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
So if the number of people grows more slowly than the GDP, you'd advocate for a
slower rate in the growth in health spending?
http://cdnpix.com/show/imgs/fba2ca91d83d43fae360ec31bc894bcb.jpg
Can't face honest, direct questions can you?

:-)
M.I.Wakefield
2014-12-05 22:47:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Maude Barlow is a Liberal hack, and raising alarms is all she's good for ...
she's the Chicken Little of policy discussions.
There you go . . . . can't challenge the message, so he attacks the
'Liberal' in the messenger.
I remember Maudie from way back when she worked ... strike that ... when she
showed up ... no, no, that's not right either ... when she was drawing a pay
cheque from the City of Ottawa for no reason that could be adequately
explained. Not a woman to let "doing her job" interfere with her
"activism".
Post by Alan Baker
But in any case, increases aren't cuts.
But if the 2nd derivative isn't increasing, that's as good as a cut to her.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...