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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..."

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.