Post by Beaver FeverPost by bill vanPost by Beaver FeverPost by bill vanPost by Beaver FeverPost by HowardPost by bill vanThere is some early talk in Canada of incorporating dental care into
our Medicare system. No politicians anywhere near power are campaigning
for it yet, but the CBC, emboldened by a Liberal/liberal government in
Ottawa, has been running documentaries on the terrible health
implications of dental neglect. It was Liberal governments in the late
1950s and mid-'60s, pushed by the social democrats, that brought in
socialized medicine in the first place.
The big obstacle is that recent federal governments have been running
significant deficits, which gives the Conservative opposition a lot of
traction against socialized dental care. But if they can get back into
the black while Trudeau fils is PM, I think there's a chance.
Shows my ignorance that I thought it was already covered in Canada.
This is a clear cut case where the economics favors regular checkups and
cleanings. Governments would probably be better off paying parents $20
per appointment to take their kids in for checkups and full flouride
treatments, although of course it would take decades for the benefits to
be fully realized.
What's the problem with people just paying for their own stuff?
Dentistry is very expensive and people who don't have a lot of money or
dental insurance plans often go without. That leads to deteriorating
teeth and other health problems, which ultimately cost society much
more than simply providing free or low-cost dental care would.
bill
Which brings us to the next obvious item of concern to the downtrodden
- when are we going to start talking about free housing?
I know you have neanderthal political leanings, and you have now
exceeded the amount of time I am willing to waste on you for this
month, and perhaps the next as well.
bill
I really have no idea what the political leanings of neanderthals were as the
public record from that era is somewhat lacking but I consider myself somewhat
left of center.
Based on your postings here, you are well right of center. Unless left and
right mean something different in your world. You also exhibit a strong "fuck
everybody else" attitude, which is decidedly *not* a liberal or progressive
trait.
Post by Beaver FeverI would say anybody can answer but no one is really left here.
So, "what's the problem with people just paying for their own stuff?"
Nothing -- if they are paid equitably. But they are not.
The Federal minimum wage is $7.25. There is not a single county in the U.S.
where that is a living wage for even a single person, let alone someone
supporting a family. If the Federal minimum wage had kept pace with gains in
worker productivity over the last four or five decades, it would be about $19.33
an hour. And that would be the *minimum*. Most people would be paid more.
Quite literally, workers are making more money overall for the companies that
employ them, but only a very small portion of that gain, if any at all, is being
shared with them. The money has been given instead to stockholders and
top executives. Or in the case of leveraged buy-outs, private equity firms.
Businesses have been far less reluctant to raise prices for their goods and
services however, so most people's effective buying power has been further
reduced. And many companies, particularly in the retail and service sectors,
employ small armies of part-time workers specifically so they are not eligible
for benefits. This is not insignificant: Walmart is currently the largest
employer in twenty-two states.
It's called "income inequality." In the past three or four decades, the income
curve in the United States has been grotesquely skewed towards the very rich.
Post by Beaver FeverThen again I have no idea what the housing situation is like in Canada so you may not be qualified to answer.