Olivia Chow announces bid to re-enter federal politics

somehow I doubt she is qualified to do much at the federal level. It seems rather prompt on the timing of this return to federal politics. Anything she did since Jack's death she has failed at, and I would be pretty embarrassed coming in third place behind Ford in the mayoral race!

Heard one of her promises on the radio. Subsidized daycare at the rate of $15 per day for 1 million children. So that is really $15,000,000 per day and if it was 250 days per year that would be $3.75 billion per year. Not a cheap promise.

I always have a philosophical problem with this. The parents chose to have children not the electorate. So why should the electorate pay for the day care? After all if someone chooses to speed and gets a ticket the taxpayer does not pay their ticket. So if someone chooses to have kids shouldn't they be responsible for the cost of their choice (bad judgement/mistake)?

Actually the parents would pay $15 a day. Who knows what the subsidy is. Didn't the NDP cost it out to 2 billion? Quebec now means tests the subsidy, that would be the way to do it, ie parents who can afford to pay more should.



How do you feel about the baby bonus cheques the govt just sent out for kids under 18? The various income tax deductions for kids? Or, to take it further, how about free education for kids?

Here we go again!

I guess she needs to top up her pension.

Pension. She's definitely a dipper

So you're only deducting $15 a day because it's capped at that. That will earn the gov't money back at that end.
FFS I was shelling out $800 a month for daycare back in the mid 1980s! That was almost $10K off my taxable income.

Nor is it realistic.

If there's no spaces in daycare, there's no sense spending money on a program without the facilities to support it.



Why should the electorate pay for someone who's health is poor because of their smoking, drinking or drug use? If someone chooses to do any of those, should they be on the hook for 100% of their health care costs?

Why should the rest of us be on the hook for the medical costs when some kid gets hurt playing hockey? He chose to play, the rest of us didn't force him too. Shouldn't he be carrying his own insurance policy before he steps on the ice? I mean, if he gets nailed from behind and ends up in a wheelchair at age 15 that's a tough break, kiddo, but it ain't my fault, so I don't want any of my tax money going to help you. You chose to do something inherently dangerous so pony up your own dough when things go bad.

Just an example of how painfully dumb this entire line of thinking can get when it gets taken to the most ridiculous kind of conclusions.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/par ... e21143936/

For problems with implementing the plan, read the article.

Meh, one can go that route without resorting to the hyperbolic. For example there are various activities that people engage in that have "acceptable risks".
Lot's of people enjoy downhill skiing, and although there are inherent risks associated with the sport, we accept them as a society. An unacceptable risk would be skiing down the backside of a mountain while broadcast and posted avalanche warnings are current.
Breaking your leg skiing is an accident. Getting buried by an avalanche and needing rescue and medical attention because you knowingly and willingly went skiing in an area you shouldn't have been, well that's just sheer stupidity.

Society shouldn't have to pay for sheer stupidity. As for OTI's argument using cigs, booze and drugs, well I think that's moot. When it comes to booze and cigs anyway, both the Fed and provinces are complicit in profiting from the sale and distribution of tobacco and alcohol. They really have no moral high ground to deny public health care to smokers and/or drinkers.

Why should the "electorate" pay for anyone? I'll tell you why--because that's how medicare works. You should write a nice thank you note to all those smokers who contribute to the system all their lives and then have the decency to kick off soon after they retire. It's these healthy people that hang on until their late 90s that are costing the system money. Why should we be paying for them?

Meh, one can go that route without resorting to the hyperbolic. For example there are various activities that people engage in that have "acceptable risks".
Lot's of people enjoy downhill skiing, and although there are inherent risks associated with the sport, we accept them as a society. An unacceptable risk would be skiing down the backside of a mountain while broadcast and posted avalanche warnings are current.
Breaking your leg skiing is an accident. Getting buried by an avalanche and needing rescue and medical attention because you knowingly and willingly went skiing in an area you shouldn't have been, well that's just sheer stupidity.

Society shouldn't have to pay for sheer stupidity. As for OTI's argument using cigs, booze and drugs, well I think that's moot. When it comes to booze and cigs anyway, both the Fed and provinces are complicit in profiting from the sale and distribution of tobacco and alcohol. They really have no moral high ground to deny public health care to smokers and/or drinkers.

We're not capable of deciding sheer stupidity from acceptable risk. Are we going to have review boards and appeal panels to decide if someone should be covered for medicare or not? We had people on here wanting to make out a soldier who died in an avalanche on a training exercise as a hero. I pointed out that he was climbing in a known avalanche gully (people had died there before) during a high avalanche warning, and omg did the fur fly. He took a stupid risk. Doesn't mean I don't think he should not be entitled to whatever the military provides for his family, for instance. I can't see putting in exclusion clauses in medicare.

Just FYI...

Every hockey league, player, coach and team staff are privately insured. In Ontario, even if you rent the ice for your own purpose, you have to have insurance (added to the hourly price).