Dental coverage for seniors/disabled | Page 3 | Your stories | Discussion forum

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Dental coverage for seniors/disabled
June 1, 2024
5:50 pm
Bill
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3970
Member Since:
September 11, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

To me this program is about politics, a good move politically, that's why it was done. Given that younger Canadians prefer socialism over capitalism (however they understand those two terms) it's a good move electorally for the gov't to get heavily involved in formerly private-sector dental care, today's Canadians like increased gov't involvement in economy so gov't is doing what most want.

In other words the overall long-term impact on the availability, quality, cost, etc of dental services in Canada in general was not top of mind, it was the popularity of almost-free dental care for many people. We'll see how it goes.

June 1, 2024
6:18 pm
JohnnyCash
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 279
Member Since:
April 21, 2022
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bill said
To me this program is about politics, a good move politically, that's why it was done. Given that younger Canadians prefer socialism over capitalism (however they understand those two terms) it's a good move electorally for the gov't to get heavily involved in formerly private-sector dental care, today's Canadians like increased gov't involvement in economy so gov't is doing what most want.

In other words the overall long-term impact on the availability, quality, cost, etc of dental services in Canada in general was not top of mind, it was the popularity of almost-free dental care for many people. We'll see how it goes.  

I see it as a general health issue. We have a universal health care system in Canada, might as well add dental to the program. I would to think uninsured children will benefit the most from it.

June 1, 2024
6:37 pm
Bill
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3970
Member Since:
September 11, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

We do have a universal health care system in name, one that recently ranked last out of 10 high-income countries, including USA, in terms of access to primary health care, i.e. about 4 million Canadian adults (14%, up from 7% in 2016) have no access to primary health care provider.

That's my point. The long-term impact on the general dental care system of gov't getting involved was not top of mind.

Certainly all children should have access to dental care, totally agree.

June 2, 2024
3:59 am
RetirEd
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1076
Member Since:
November 18, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Let's not lose sight of the fact that most of the population will still have employer-funded or other dental insurance plans, a great many procedures are not covered, and there are yearly payment limits - apparently only $500.

I don't foresee a dentistry disaster anytime soon.

RetirEd

June 2, 2024
6:34 am
mordko
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 889
Member Since:
April 27, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

RetirEd said
Let's not lose sight of the fact that most of the population will still have employer-funded or other dental insurance plans, a great many procedures are not covered, and there are yearly payment limits - apparently only $500.

I don't foresee a dentistry disaster anytime soon.  

There is no limit. Not sure what is excluded. “Most routine dental care will be covered under the CDCP, including cleanings, X-rays, fillings, root canals and dentures. Some of the more complex dental services — such as partial dentures and crowns — will require federal pre-authorization of payment. Pre-authorized services won't be covered until November 2024.”

Employer’s benefits often provide employees with options. Employees can choose the appropriate level of coverage with varying costs. Going forward these benefits will be structured so that its easy for the employee to exclude taxpayer funded benefits.

It's another costly debt-funded program.

June 2, 2024
6:44 am
dommm
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 174
Member Since:
November 15, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

RetirEd said
Let's not lose sight of the fact that most of the population will still have employer-funded or other dental insurance plans, a great many procedures are not covered, and there are yearly payment limits - apparently only $500.

I don't foresee a dentistry disaster anytime soon.  

Where did you get your info on the $500 limit? Thanks

June 2, 2024
7:51 am
Alexandre
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1189
Member Since:
November 8, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bill said
To me this program is about politics, a good move politically, that's why it was done. Given that younger Canadians prefer socialism over capitalism (however they understand those two terms)...

I would say, older Canadians have nothing against Canadian-type socialism, too.
They wish it works better, but not very many seniors are against free medical care (doctors/hospital/prescriptions/dental) and against OAS+GIS.

I hope to see in my life Guaranteed Basic Income implemented in Canada. The whole package of GBI+medical+dental could change society in quite dramatic way. People will not need to work jobs they hate, just for the sake of income and health insurance.

June 2, 2024
8:26 am
mordko
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 889
Member Since:
April 27, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

None of this is socialism. Guaranteed Basic Income is Milton Freedman’s idea. Not exactly known for being an advocate for socialism.

You only get socialism when the government owns means of production. Then it won’t need taxes because it will have all income streams going directly to bureaucracy in Ottawa.

In our high welfare capitalist economy we use business-generated taxes to fund programs such as this. If taxes are zero then we can’t fund anything. If taxes are 100% then we can’t fund anything because nobody will be producing anything. The point of maximizing tax income is somewhere in between. We are passed the optimal point as production is being hurt. We also can’t sustain current level of spending because budgets don’t balance themselves.

Every new spending program like free dental needs to have associated cuts elsewhere; otherwise we are just ensuring that the budgetary crunch happens faster and the cuts have to be deeper. From that point of view, this program could be a positive; it will force the government to contract sooner rather than later.

As for “people not needing to work”, its called communism. Can’t exist unless we change humans. Its utopia.

June 2, 2024
8:42 am
Alexandre
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1189
Member Since:
November 8, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

mordko said

As for “people not needing to work”, its called communism.

I am not of Canadian retirement age, but I don't need to work jobs I hate just for the sake of income and health insurance.
I would not mind other Canadians to be in the same financial situation. Dental coverage on top of doctors and prescriptions is the step in that direction. GBI will be too, and will complete it, mostly.

June 2, 2024
9:12 am
mordko
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 889
Member Since:
April 27, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Alexandre said

mordko said

As for “people not needing to work”, its called communism.

I am not of Canadian retirement age, but I don't need to work jobs I hate just for the sake of income and health insurance.
I would not mind other Canadians to be in the same financial situation. Dental coverage on top of doctors and prescriptions is the step in that direction. GBI will be too, and will complete it, mostly.  

I don’t need to work either but its only because I worked and invested for decades. If nobody needs to work for the sake of income then its communism. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (original German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen). People have been attracted to this utopian idea but you need different people for it to work.

Of course it can work for small groups rather than universally. What I am seeing is that children of billionaires who are in this position often get hurt as a result, unless parents restrict “free” money and force them to work for a living.

June 2, 2024
11:52 am
Alexandre
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1189
Member Since:
November 8, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

mordko said
You only get socialism when the government owns means of production.

This is not the first time you remind us of rigid Socialism definition by Marxist theory.
It is good you haven't skipped Marxism-Leninism classes at your college. In your college diploma, you must have good grade for this discipline.

Speaking in simple terms, the goal of Socialism is to spread wealth more evenly and to treat working class fairly.

In Karl Marx times, the straightforward way to achieve that goal was for the government to own business (means of production), a.k.a. nationalization. The government/owner collects profits and defines how employees are treated. The government distributes these profits it collected from running the business (wealth redistribution).

History has proven that governments are not good in running businesses: Soviet Union and UK are two good examples, among many.

There is different way of achieving same result, without assuming any risks of running business. It is taxation of profits.
Outsource running of business to business owner, collect portion of profits. The government has tools and means to collect taxes, does it better than running business.

Also, the government is getting more and more involved in running businesses: by creating rules and regulations. If you own a farm, for example, you must know that personally. The government outsources all risks of farming on you, and you own all mistakes and shortcomings from government regulations.
Business owner must follow The Labour Code provided by the government - an owner can't just do as they pleased with employees.

It can't get better than that, for the government. It sets rules, it takes no risks, it collects rewards.

Yes, you can call that "Welfare Capitalist State." Yes, it does not comply with Marxist definition of Socialism.
It does comply with an underlying idea of Socialism: fairer wealth distribution and working class treatment.

"If it looks like a duck..."

June 2, 2024
4:09 pm
Bill
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3970
Member Since:
September 11, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Alexandre, you can have you opinions but they are not supported by the data I've seen, i.e. those over about age 35, even more so in age 55+, do not think socialism in Canada would herald an improvement in peoples lives whereas the young thought it would, generally. Of course we're talking about percentages so naturally there are lots of people in each age group on the other side of the majority view. Just fyi.

June 2, 2024
4:52 pm
mordko
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 889
Member Since:
April 27, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Alexandre said

mordko said
You only get socialism when the government owns means of production.

Yes, you can call that "Welfare Capitalist State." Yes, it does not comply with Marxist definition of Socialism.
It does comply with an underlying idea of Socialism: fairer wealth distribution and working class treatment.

"If it looks like a duck..."  

You can call it anything you like of course but all wealth in Canada is generated by our capitalist economy, be it farms, banks, engineering consultancies or mines. I know RBC, CN Rail and Brookfield aren’t operating in a socialist economy because I own their shares.

What is “fair” can be and is argued ad nauseam but in the mean time we reached a state when the size of the pie is being reduced (GDP per person) and productivity is stagnating while we are falling further behind our peers. That happens in high welfare states when incentives are suppressed.

The immediate effect is that in real terms per person tax that the government can collect is falling or at best stagnating. More redistribution will reduce the incentive and hence the overall pie even more. And the more “free” stuff is being distributed by the government (like dental care and prescription drugs), the faster we’ll come to a major fiscal crunch, forcing a sharp reduction in taxpayer funded services. We are seeing it in healthcare; anecdotally I find the contrast with 20 years ago quite stark.

June 3, 2024
11:56 am
Bill
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 3970
Member Since:
September 11, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I completely agree, mordko, except I think there's still a heck of a lot of wealth that can be confiscated in various ways from all those Canadians that have any wealth, that's hardly started yet, so I believe we have at least a couple of decades before we have to worry about fiscal crunch time.

June 3, 2024
2:46 pm
CAD
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 43
Member Since:
January 25, 2024
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It looks like CDCP on-line application for disabled is NOT ready yet even though we are in June 2024.

No permission to create posts

Please write your comments in the forum.