A couple of things to chew on...
October 15, 2007 | 05:17 PM
The NDP appears to have missed the big issue of the campaign so far. I checked out as many reactions from the media that I could find regarding the big "universal drug plan" and everyone seems to think it was the wrong way to go.
The Sask Party looks like the winner with this issue so far by preaching a more fiscally responsible approach. I have thought for a while that the old style Tommy Douglas concept of universality in health care is something today's affluent voter isn't so sold on as in years past when the average family was struggling for very basic health care.
In today's world of instant news world wide and everyone travelling to other provinces for jobs universal state funded health care seems to exist in the minds of hard core socialists in Saskatchewan and no where else. I think I saw a comment from Karwacki regarding buying prescription drugs for millionaires which is probably a fair comment for the majority right now.
When 60 grand a year was considered a good income in this province, no matter where you lived, a universal health care platform looked pretty good. Now if people need to come up with 15 hundred a year for prescription drugs they just put off installing the deck on the cabin for another month.
I'm sure there are activists in the inner cities who will claim this attitude is snobby, right wing and even politically incorrect but if you look around you will see that the neighbourhoods filled with people who actually need this type of political attitude are getting smaller, and the neighbourhoods with 200 thousand dollar houses are growing like weeds.
The people in these mansions likely don't care for a policy that drains the public purse by billions, maybe, while wait lists continue to grow.
Now, about post-secondary education. I have to give the Sask party another mark for this one. The NDP plan gives money back to the student right away, which is good, but I believe the real problem is the provincial brain drain. What good does it do us as Saskatchewanians if we give our post-secondary education away only to have those grads move to Alberta to get the big bucks?
The Sask Party gives the break after the graduation, when the former students are working and need to pay off the loans. It is geared to keep the brightest and best of us at home, and that is a policy that I can get behind a lot more than breaks to today's student.
The comment I heard more than anything else was that it doesn't matter what goodies the province gives students, they will always follow the money after graduation.
You want to give today's students a break that they can support, put a few million dollars into improving our options. Build new schools, give tax breaks to independent trade schools, and fix the infrastructure on our existing universities.
That's it for now. More when the politicians come back from their weekend and start with the announcements again.
Comments: (5)
First of all the NDP drug plan will give farm familes access to a drug plan. This is a major step forward considering we know farmers are not wealthy people. Secondly this plan will cost about $150 million per year. When the government cut the PST by two points ($250M) and corporate taxes ($350M) nobody questioned the sustainability of a $600 million loss to the treasury so I find it odd $150M is going to break the bank.
Furthermore, the SaskParty plan only covers you if you are 14 or under, or 65 and older and make less than $65,000. Is that fair?
Kids do not move out of the house when they are 15, and cannot even work. So guess who is picking up that bill? Brad Wall points out that a childs asthma inhaler costs $100 and he thinks that is unfair. So if he thinks that is unfair then why is it fair to tell that kid who is 15,16,17 or 18 they have to foot the bill?
I have no problem with a someone getting their medication before they turn 65. And finally I support the concept of universality because its is fairer and cheaper because there is no administration. That is what grows burreacracy. The public service should be about delivering services to the public, not creating burreacracy to investigate the burreacracy - how does that help the public?
Posted October 17, 2007 11:09 PM
I only partially agree with you regarding the NDP's election promise of the implemetation of a "free drugs for all" plan, in that we cannot afford it. However, I believe, as an alternate plan, that Seniors, full-time university students, and people living on social assistance, should not pay for their drugs. For everyone else, a "sliding fee scale" for medications, based on income and employer health insurance coverage (if any), would be much more enthusiastically supported by the majority.
As a health care professional, I disagree with you regarding the numbers who do need drug care assistance. Those who do are not just those "living in the inner city" as you infer. They are average families, most with both parents working, who have no health insurance, and/or a seriously ill member. They are people without employment health insurance - everyone from small business owners to farmers, and those with any kind of chronic illness, including mental health disorders. With more & more medications available for various disorders, I see more and more families struggling to pay for prescribed drugs.
And your quote of $1500 a year for meds indicates that you are not aware of medication costs these days. For example, a person who needs various heart medications in order to continue to be well enough to continue to function in society but has no health ins. can easily need at least $600 a Month for their meds. And if anyone needs something that is not already on SaskHealth's "covered drugs" list, they have to pay full price. Even some antibiotics -not particularly exotic ones- that are not covered cost $150 for 7 days.
If income-based assistance for drug costs was instituted by the NDP, & a simplified method of application - perhaps automatically linked to annual income tax records - was in place, I think this would benefit those who need the help most and would not drain the public purse by paying for the meds of those who can afford to pay for them.
Posted October 17, 2007 11:29 AM
The thing about the prescription drug plan is that with the Sask Pary plan, what happens to kids once they turn 15? Also, if the NDP plan were to come to exist what's to stop employers from changing the nature fo their benefits packages to no longer include a prescription drug plan and instead invest that monsy in better dental/orhodontics coverage for example? Win/win, isn't it? Those without a plan at work benefit and have more disposable income to contribute to the economy and whose with a plan may end up with better beneifts in other areas.
It's just a question I have. Also, how much will it cost to go tracking every senior's income? And since we file income taxes individually what's to stop the lower income person from buying the pills? I don't know I just think there would be a higher admin cost to a non-universal plan. Maybe I'm way off on this one.
I also think that 20K over 7 years is a pittance that isn't that attractive. The ROI on that for students is not good enough. You are asking kids to wait a period of time that amounts to close to a third of thier lives for a total of 20k. These kids will look and see that they can make 10k more in Alta. today and after 7 years that's at least 70k...no contest. Cost of living is an alien concept to some kids as well and given the jump in housing costs in Regina and Saskatoon lately it's not that great an argument anymore.
Posted October 16, 2007 03:32 PM
I wasn't saying the Saskparty plan is the absolute answer, just the better of the two options given so far. I give the NDP a D and the Saskparty a C plus or maybe B minus, as they appear to be heading in a direction that makes more sense to me. Of course, as I said in the blog the grads will follow the money and for a provincial govt. to really make a difference they can't realistically guarantee the same dollars in our agriculture based economy as the petro dollars available to the west. All they can do is make it a bit more attractive to stay here after grad, and a tax break is a sensible approach, to me.
By the way, if you can't bother to give your name, don't bother to send the critique. I will only assume you are a card carrying member of the NDP who doesn't like to see a negative response to their party but doesn't want to be identified. Also, if you live in Calgary it kind of looks strange for you to talk about sustained job creation in Saskatchewan at the hands of your party.
Posted October 16, 2007 02:30 PM
$20,000 over seven years is peanuts compared to what a new grad can make in Alberta. New grads need job opportunities in Saskatchewan, not handouts from the government. My vote would be for the party that can create sustained growth and increase jobs in the province, something that the NDP has been able to do over the last 4 years.
Posted October 16, 2007 07:29 AM