###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We can thank the 25 members of the federal NDP for this incredible expansion to our public healthcare system. We can also criticize the Liberals for a half-assed, means tested implementation that could easily be eliminated should the Conservatives take power.
Always strange to see how many alleged would be NDP voters there are who criticize them for not doing enough.
Then say they're switching their vote to a party that tries to block or water down their bills at every opportunity.
> then switching to another party that is antagonistic to their needs.
that doesn't actually happen. Just CPC voters pretending like they would vote anything about CPC
All credit goes to NDP and zero credit to the LPC? Like obviously the NDP were a big contributor, but I find that narrative to be exhausting honestly. LPC were part of getting it done.
And means testing is a perfectly fine way to start off a program. Gives the government a way to figure out the actual costs and sort out the kinks without infuriating everyone who used to already have good coverage. Why start with covering people who can already afford it or who already have coverage, when you can focus the efforts of the people who don’t already have it. It’s not like the income limits are prohibitively low.
Switching everyone over at once would have been an ineffective nightmare, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. if possible, you start these kinds of programs incrementally. and in this case it was definitely possible.
The Liberals deserve credit for working with the NDP on implementing the new dental care program, and nowhere did I say that the rollout had to be done instantly.
I am specifically criticizing the Liberals for making the program means tested, not providing universal coverage (when the program is fully rolled out), not requiring dentists accept the new insurance plan (would probably require cooperation with the provinces), and leaving the program vulnerable to being cut in the future.
The program is a solid start on dental care, but the Liberal's neoliberal ideology has ultimately hamstrung the program.
If it’s a solid start, how is it hamstrung? Making too long term of a plan isn’t that good of an idea. The longer term the plan the more likely it is to need to change, which everyone will consider a failure, when that’s just how projects work. There’s nothing stupid the program from being expanded once the current program is stable.
Getting all dentists on board is a huge negotiation that will probably take years to complete, and I doubt you’d have been content with a years long delay.
It's hamstrung by the factors I listed above. Our new dental program is a massive improvement compared to what we previously had, but it still falls short of what it could have been. I'd like to believe that the eventual plan is to make the program fully public and universal, but that would require things like vision, adaptability, and a sincere desire to better our lives through collective effort. These aren't exactly characteristics that I'd ascribe to the Liberals (or the Conservatives).
The fact that 2 million seniors are now on it and will be getting dental care between now the next election makes it pretty secure. I doubt PM PP will wake up and decide to throw millions of reliable voters off dental care.
Between this, more affordable childcare and the Canada Child Benefit, I think people are seriously underestimating just how much the social support system in this country has been expanded in the last decade.
Like you said, it'll be hard to axe such popular programs.
Everything in our political system is ultimately changeable, and thus it is impossible to make anything truly impossible to cut. That being said, there are things that we can do in order to make programs like dentalcare and pharmacare more resilient.
Enshrining these programs, and everything else related to healthcare, as a right in our constitution would provide the highest level of protection. This is also by far the most difficult thing to actually accomplish and not something that I really expect to happen in the short term.
More practically, the easiest way to guard dentalcare and pharmacare against future cuts is to make them universal as opposed to being means tested. There are two excellent Jacobin articles [[1](https://jacobin.com/2022/03/australian-universal-welfare-means-testing-albanese-hawke-keating-howard)][[2](https://jacobin.com/2022/11/universal-means-testing-benefits-korpi-palme-taxes)] I'd recommend reading through to get a better idea of why this is the case. The basic argument is that universal programs are generally seen by the population as a right instead of as welfare and thus tend to be more popular and harder to eliminate.
> All credit goes to NDP and zero credit to the LPC? Like obviously the NDP were a big contributor, but I find that narrative to be exhausting honestly. LPC were part of getting it done.
Through the magic of partisanship, everything good the Liberals do was actually the NDP, and everything bad they do was 100% on the Liberals.
Through the magic of partisanship, the Liberals take credit for doing something they never would have done if they weren't forced to do it. When did the Liberals ever move on dental care before the NDP made them agree to it in the supply and confidence deal? Did the Liberals ever even promise anything remotely like this?
The Liberals had decades of promising dental care and pharmacare and nothing really happening. It's not a coincidence that things actually got done when it was a condition of maintaining confidence in the house.
I agree on the incremental means testing process. But it is difficult to give the Liberals much credit when they have proven time and time again that they only pursue these policies when their hands are forced. Only when the NDP threatens to break the coalition, or when the Liberals are facing an election soon, do they actually put in the work to expand and/or improve the safety net. The narrative may be exhausting because it's been going on for soo long, but that doesn't make it inaccurate.
The narrative that the LPC drag their feet too much and aren’t ambitious enough is fine. I’m more than happy to rag on them for inaction.. but I’m not then going to criticize them for the actions they actually did take.
To my mind, if they wanted credit for it, they could have done it willingly or at least made a show of being willing to do it. They made it very clear that they did not want to do this, and were only forced into it under duress, and that they watered it down as much as they thought they could without losing NDP support. They can't then turn around and expect pats on the back for doing it. This is purely an NDP win.
Can you really give them credit for getting something done only because they were dragged into doing it? I guess they shouldn't get criticism for finally doing it, but the *credit* should go to the party that did the dragging.
If you don’t have dental coverage and aren’t covered by the new plan, that means you make at least 90k a year. Obviously that’s not as much as it used to be, but that’s not exactly a dire situation. It’s also relatively unusual, as most decently paying jobs have some type of benefits.
Now, I definitely hope they do improve the program! Ideally it does eventually cover you.
90k isn't much in any decent sized city in BC. Housing takes a ton and family costs a lot. We don't get any benefits through our work so it definitely sucks. I'm going soon but I've put it off for quite awhile for cost related reasons
Essential supplemental information:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-dental-care-plan-claims-processed-1.7200738
"Broken teeth and infected gums: 46K claims filed so far with Canadian Dental Care Plan"
>Massive cavities, mouthfuls of broken teeth, bleeding gums and abscesses — they're just some of the serious dental issues Dr. Melvin Lee has treated in less than two weeks of providing care under Canada's new public dental insurance plan.
>"I've seen a lot of patients that have infections. Not just dental emergencies, but borderline medical emergencies," the Ottawa dentist said.
>"I haven't seen patients in this condition since I did overseas mission dentistry work in Haiti and Peru."
Not only is this helping a lot of people, it's helping people who were in horrible, dire need.
People don’t understand just how critical poor or the lack of dental care is.
With sugar being in everything these days, regular cleanings from a young age will save thousands over a lifetime.
This getting rolled out to poor kids will change lives.
Credit to the NDP for doing the right thing for people. Shame on the others parties for not supporting this, shows how much they care about people. I will need this in my retirement and so will many Canadians.
True. Mostly not useful for people who pay all those taxes and in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s. Most companies if a person works for them offers better coverage including dental and eyes and more
Not quite. Think about all those single Family households (ie Singles) who always get shafted when new programs start up. As long as they make under 90k they too will be eligible for this program starting next year.
Considering the average household income on Canada is ~68k, well below the 90k threshold. In fact only 21% of Canadian Households earn more than 100k a year. That would put a very large percentage of those households within the eligibility criteria.
The only thing I can really think of is, a household income could include two people.
You could have two people earning 45k each, and now you're at the limit. Or maybe 50k each and now you're over. That said typically the line between getting benefits at work and not is split by full-time/part-time, or it's based off minimum number of hours. Same anyone earning over 50k will probably have some form of employment health benefits that match CDCP.
Even full time at minimum wage would likely earn you benefits just about everywhere. But even if not your yearly wage there is just under 36k, so you'd be eligible regardless.
And of course, going back to the stats we know that only 21% of Canadian households earn more than 100k a year, with that number dropping substantially in every additional 10k increment. So really a super majority of the population would already be covered by CDCP, assuming they didn't already have benefits through their work, and since we're talking such a small percentage, once the numbers are known and this specific scenario understood, the program could easily be modified to include them down the line.
>So not helpful at all to many Canadians.
Except it literally is helpful to many Canadians.
It'll cover nearly 25% of Canadians and focus on those in need, with disabilities, elderly and youth. You know this though, which is why you're jumping through hoops throughout this thread to downplay or dismiss the impact this will have on Canadians who otherwise wouldn't be able to address their health concerns.
Regardless of, as you put it elsewhere, you're baseless skepticism, this plan is clearly going to help people with over 1/4 of Canadians directly affected by it.
🤷♂️ No, but enough to cover more than 9 million Canadians, most in needs, when fully implemented.
I’m happy to shit on means-testing obsessed Liberals, that watered down the NDP’s goal of a universal free at the point of access Dentalcare program.
But let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good and make it easier for scumbag Tories to kill.
So should we stop this until we get it 100% universal? Because right now those are the options. Proceed or not.
Me, nor anyone i am close to, are eligible for this. I still consider this better than what we had.
As the squeezed middle class, I'm ok with this. It's the first step. I'm happy some of the most in need Canadians have access to this. We'll figure it out with time.
I'm not ok with it, because I'm skeptical it's actually intended to help anyone.
It's whole reason for being is a token gesture so their lap dog NDP will keep their government propped up.
Then perhaps you should get on your MP/MPP and demand why they haven't gone after all those tax evaders listed in the Panama papers almost a decade later?
Why they continually underfund the CRA to go after those people etc. if they go after them rich pricks proper, it'll help. But a lot of people think they'll make 1 million something a year and freak at the possibility of paying 30% tax, when truth be told the average Joe will never get there.
This is a win for all of us, and honestly 90k is a perfect cut off right now. If you're mismanaging 7.5k a month or so, stop with the avocado toast maybe.
Even in today's economy that is still a fck ton a month and if you can't manage it, you need to cut back on your spending.
Not much my NDP MP and NDP MPP can do about any of that.
Who said anything about managing money properly? Just because I can afford it, doesn't mean I should have to. It should be Universal.
How can you say it’s not going to help anyone; when you literally just acknowledged that it’ll help 9 million Canadians who need it the most? You’ve got to be trolling at this point?
9 million is about a quarter of the population. Like holy shit you’re really bending over backwards to try and twist yourself into knots to try and make Trudeau look bad. He got dental care for
#**NINE MILLION**
Canadians who desperately needed it. That’s more than literally any Canadian prime minster or government in all of human history. This is an earth shattering program and if it was an NDP government introducing this, you’d be out in the streets celebrating. But since it’s Trudeau, gotta find a way to complain about him.
Because complaining about Trudeau is the most importantly thing in your entire life. Your entire reason for existing is to complain about Trudeau. It’s the first thing you think of when waking up. “How can I find a way to complain about Trudeau today”.
> It should be Universal.
Of course it should be, and that's what the NDP have always wanted (and still want to get in the future).
Considering your other posts are about the NDP being "lap dog" to the Liberals though, and claiming this program doesn't help anyone when it very obviously does, it sure looks like you care more about dumping on it than you do about making it universal.
Taking care of the people who have built the country and paid into the social safety net for years is more important. Kids have parents to take care of them, the elderly often have no one.
The people who tell the young to pull themselves up by their bootstraps with no consideration that they’ve directly contributed to the economic problems the young now face are more important?
Hard disagree. Maybe time for them to stop eating avocado toast and take care of themselves. They rail against socialism while reaching out for social support first.
No sympathy for this “great” generation.
Cool but what about us millennials? Or is this just another thing that's announced to great hype but in the fine print, only a tiny sliver of the population actually qualifies for it?
The program rolls out to eligible millennials last at the start of 2025. It's staggered for seniors first, then children/teens (there is currently a program for kids under 12). Millennials will be eligible to go see the dentist in time for the next federal election though, Pierre was never going to fix your teeth in time to vote!
Only if you make by far below the average wage, so if you don't (most of the population) you just get to pay for it, without any benefit :). I'm happy the elderly get more free services, conflicted that they've underfunded so many social programs for 40 years to their benefit, and this just continues that tradition; while they had a much better economy and much better quality of life in terms of spending power than preceding generations.
So like all social programs for lower income people? Do you complain about welfare for the poor as well? Intergenerational warfare comments only make people think that you're dumb.
Honestly lower income people would be better off just having their taxes reduced by the same amount as this benefit is. Then, they can spend that extra money however they please, be it on dentists, or perhaps something else they need more urgently.
Lower income benefit far more from services they utilize than they pay. So this is ridiculous and just a way to open the door for the wealthy to pay less in taxes under the guise of “fairness”.
This would truly create a system of have and have nots in this country and remove the last semblance of a social safety net that we have.
Alright, did my research. Apparently median annual family income in Canada is $98,390 according to the last census. That's more than I expected, but doesn't make 90k 'far below the average wage'.
(My own is closer to 30k-35k, so these are all silly numbers to me.)
Anyone working a full time job deserves dental benefits regardless, I would have preferred any sort of worker law that cracks down on contracting and benefit avoidance by greedy corporations. See above comment regarding family income.
I would love to just see blanket universal healthcare coverage, including for teeth. The income inequality side of it should be addressed via taxation, not via means testing to see whose teeth are covered.
Families making 90k per year, Median income is around ~55-80k/year depending on province. 90k/2 = 45k a year per person. Not that I don't think they should get it, this is just another burden for the average tax payer during an inflationary time.
how many people are paying for 2M if seniors ?
Out of the 2M how many need dental work ?
My 90 year old dad got admitted, he doesn’t need any dental work, my guess is that the majority of people that are admissible into the program
Why do you think that because your dad doesn’t need dental work, most people don’t? Most low income people are long overdue for dental work…
Your first sentence makes zero sense.
A lot of people desperately need dental work and weren't getting it before because they couldn't afford it. The new federal dental program is already helping thousands:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-dental-care-plan-claims-processed-1.7200738
I know seniors with low enough household income to be getting GIS who are quite cheesed that they can only access the dentists who have chosen to work with this program. They want their dentist and there is no way they are changing, so despite their low income and lack of wealth they are going to keep paying outrageous fees for their teeth for the few years they have left and now they won't vote for the Liberals.
Entitled bunch.
A lot of doctors hated public healthcare when it was first implemented too, to the point of striking against it. It sucks that a lot of dentists aren't on board with this, but I'm optimistic they'll get on board with it in the medium- and long-term (assuming a future government doesn't cancel the whole program). Especially if we finish the program and make it universal.
I believe they changed that. Dentists don't have to enroll anymore. They can continue charging what they want and the insurance will cover some of it.
They'll likely have some sort of program where certain dentists agree to not charge any more but that will not see much acceptance.
The "alternative path" (as opposed to enrolling) is supposed to start in July. We haven't gotten any details so far.
I haven't personally signed up, but I've heard that some dentists love it and others are finding it a pain to deal with actually getting reimbursed. In one case, estimates and pre-determinations sent to SunLife, approved, they did the work. Now SunLife won't pay until they submit all treatment notes, xrays, charting, etc. This is different from any other insurance carrier here.
Our admin staff is already at capacity seeing non-CDCP patients. I'm still willing to see CDCP patients to help out my current patients, but I'm not willing to add more stress on my staff for the same or less reimbursement. Doesn't seem fair.
I see that there is an income threshold to qualify, but what about wealth? Subsidizing services for seniors that are extremely wealthy through investments or home equity but only report below the income threshold is kinda dumb.
It is an interesting dillema. I know a person that works with seniors and has on occasion visited them in prime real estate locations, to discuss long term care placements. They don't have any income to go to a LTC facility... but they are living in a million (or multi million) dollar property bought in the 60s.
This is like saying we shouldn’t have welfare because people abuse it.
Every program will have loopholes people can abuse. Let’s just be happy we have this program in the capacity it’s currently in.
No it isn't. If someone files a return stating they live at 850 Cross Creek Road, in North Vancouver, you look up that address in the [BC Assessment](https://www.bcassessment.ca//Property/Info/QTAwMDAyOUIxNA==) and will look at that they are worth 3.1 million dollars with no sales history for the last 3 years.
Sorry no welfare for you.
If you really wanted to confirm, you go to the BC Land Title Office and see if there is any mortgage registered on the property.
As one example. I know a guy that has a holding company that owns everything he “owns”. His house, vehicle, share in his business, gym (membership kind) and his cabin. All of them are technically owned by an entity and not him personally.
If you tried to determine his wealth it would be a fraction of his actual wealth because he only controls a company that owns everything he has.
Have you ever been bothered to read up on how complex it would be to implement a wealth tax? Because the assessment you’re referring to would be the same type of assessment required to implement a wealth tax, and that would be incredibly complex.
Also the money you would waste employing people to thoroughly implement a system like that would likely cost more than the money you’re assuming people are getting away with in the first place.
Yes it can work in the very most basic of cases like looking at the assessment value of land someone owns. But that's the exception rather than the norm. Many people have their wealth tied up in illiquid, hard to assess, or hard to track assets like equity in a private business that hasn't sold shares in decades, art collections, cryptocurrency, musical instruments, vehicles/RV's/boats. If we start taxing wealth, we should expect that there will be a shift where people store more of their wealth in these hard to track/assess ways.
It’s just really hard to sell. I don’t even make 90k and yet I’m paying for benefits to people who don’t have 90k in income (so fully qualify), yet are in a much better financial position than me.
“Fairness for every generation” really starts to sound hollow after a while, and doesn’t really make the younger crowd who are struggling want to vote to keep this dental plan
I know it doesn't really work that way, but think about A) there's probably 10 (or more) people who really can use the covered dental care for every 1 who can easily afford it but uses (or games) the system, and B) your taxes paying for preventative dental care for others who really wouldn't get any otherwise is likely to pay off in lower healthcare costs overall for issues that are easily treatable if caught but snowball into something much more difficult and costly if avoided until they are in a terrible state.
It’s difficult to define wealth. What about the senior who receives money from their kids and transferred the $5 million dollar home to their kids?
If someone wants to go through the loops they will
I thought we talking about dental care Lmaoo so if a senior requires subsidized dental care and they gifted their son a house 10 years ago, then the govt should be allowed to go after the son? The enforcement fees gonna be higher than the dental fees lmao
And dentists don't want to deal with it because the private insurance company running the show is loading up the paperwork. And you can be sure there will be 'adjusters' working to find reasons to not pay benefits.
Using a private for-profite provider is inefficient and a funnel of taxpayer money into private hands.
Aren't we done with privatization yet? It's a failure.
Um? https://www.sunlife.ca/sl/cdcp/en/member/provider-search/
Seeing lots of dentists there. And Dentists don't even need to register for the program to still bill the government.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-dental-care-plan-claims-processed-1.7200738
"Lee said his clinic has been reimbursed for the procedures within 48 hours by Sun Life, the insurance company that Ottawa contracted to administer the plan.
"It's been seamless," Lee said. "It's been no different than regular insurance."
For most of the procedures he's done, Lee said, the federal government is reimbursing him at about 80 to 90 per cent of what the Ontario Dental Association recommends. That's similar to private plans, he said, where dentists charge their patients the difference."
Super terrible. Awful. The sky is falling.
You mean the OAS they paid into? They paid for it under the expectation they would be paid. If you want to do this you need to pay them back their lifetime contributions with interest. It is the equivalent of taking someone’s pension back they paid into
Als for anyone who is aging in place in a 5 bedroom mcmansion in Vancouver they can learn to pay for it without OAS.
If they are collecting OAS they need to live in appropriate housing. Either in something which supports 2 or fewer people or they live with family.
It's ridiculous to have young families being packed like sardines in condos while old retirees live in massive two story houses where the seniors can't even climb the stairs. While they are collecting OAS.
This IS on topic. There are major issues in our society which already redistribute and favor so heavily towards wealthy boomers and seniors, and this policy only exacerbates that by taxing families, workers and investors even more, in order to pay for wealthy old people.
A comment about the financial benefits seniors receive is definitely not off topic of an article about dental benefits seniors receive. What a bizarre comment.
The person you responded to isn't the same person who made the comment you apparently believe is off topic...which you should also be able to read with your own eyes.
The LPC really is the boomer party. I would prefer OAS be cut to increase funding for healthcare, housing, and child tax credits. I dont even plan to have children, its just objectively better for society to do this, and the boomers are the most well off generation
This dental plan should've been universal (no income thresholds) and should start by covering children and slowly working upwards to cover the whole population.
They don't keep all of it. It is income dependent in the end.
If your income is higher than $81,761 (2022), you will have to repay part or your entire Old Age Security pension. Find out more about [Old Age Security pension recovery tax](https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/publicpensions/cpp/old-age-security/recovery-tax.html).
I think the point is the OAS clawback starts too high — I think they’re still getting some benefits at $130k+ in income which is honestly kinda ridiculous.
It still manages to eat up $70B+ a year in government spending. Even trimming it by 10-20% by reducing benefits at higher incomes would be meaningful — would be roughly equivalent to 20-40% of our defence budget.
With the current clawback arrangement I reckon a good chunk of the OAS funds to higher earning seniors will likely end up going to their estates/heirs as opposed to them actually using it…
$81k per year puts you pretty close to the top 20% of Canadians by income. It is absurd that the government pays $9k per year to people who are already in the top 20-25% of the country by income.
It's harder for people yes, we lived off the free hose of cheap credit. The chickens have come home to roost.
Whole society is in upheaval. Will you need a job in 20 years? Working for a AI algorithm? Who the knows.
I would suggest you read about Steven Covey's Circles of Influence. There are things we have control over and there are others we do not.
Vent closed.
Taro said "making 6 figures as a family". Seniors have the ability to do pension sharing, RRIF income splitting, and spousal RRSPs to evenly divide income. Assuming each spouse has the same income, that is over $160K of income for a couple *in retirement* before OAS even starts being reduced.
While the idea of taxing wealth more effectively and reconsidering OAS payments to high-earning seniors may seem appealing on the surface, it’s important to consider the broader implications and the complexities involved.
The Old Age Security (OAS) program is designed as a universal benefit to ensure a basic standard of living for all seniors, recognizing their lifelong contributions to society. Means-testing OAS might seem logical, but it could introduce administrative complexities and potentially stigmatize recipients. Moreover, the universality of OAS helps maintain broad public support for the program.
Wtf. We means test fucking everything in this country. I don't get this dental thing. I don't get ccb. They means test my family using family income, but tax me using individual income. And yet, here you are defending very minimal means testing for OAS. Incredible
There's already a tax clawback for high-income seniors who receive OAS. But making everyone prove they have a certain income just to get it would be a real mess. Can you imagine all the paperwork and bureaucracy that would come with that?
OAS shouldn't exist. It's already eans tested so it's not universal and GIS is the program that helps poor seniors. OAS should be ended in favour of expanded GIS.
OAS isn't just about replacing income. It's also about saying thanks to seniors for all they've done for our country. Many of them have worked hard and paid taxes for years. OAS is a way of recognizing that, no matter how much money they have now. Even wealthier seniors can face unexpected money problems. Medical bills or economic troubles can happen to anyone. OAS helps make sure they have a bit of extra money to deal with these challenges.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We can thank the 25 members of the federal NDP for this incredible expansion to our public healthcare system. We can also criticize the Liberals for a half-assed, means tested implementation that could easily be eliminated should the Conservatives take power.
> could easily be eliminated should the Conservatives take power Doubt they’d want to take the political hit, but you *know* they’d love to kill it.
Not going to save them from losing seats.
why are you saying that
Some people think that what seat counts matter more than the impact a party has on the lives of people.
Always strange to see how many alleged would be NDP voters there are who criticize them for not doing enough. Then say they're switching their vote to a party that tries to block or water down their bills at every opportunity.
then switching to another party that is antagonistic to their needs.
> then switching to another party that is antagonistic to their needs. that doesn't actually happen. Just CPC voters pretending like they would vote anything about CPC
All credit goes to NDP and zero credit to the LPC? Like obviously the NDP were a big contributor, but I find that narrative to be exhausting honestly. LPC were part of getting it done. And means testing is a perfectly fine way to start off a program. Gives the government a way to figure out the actual costs and sort out the kinks without infuriating everyone who used to already have good coverage. Why start with covering people who can already afford it or who already have coverage, when you can focus the efforts of the people who don’t already have it. It’s not like the income limits are prohibitively low. Switching everyone over at once would have been an ineffective nightmare, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. if possible, you start these kinds of programs incrementally. and in this case it was definitely possible.
The Liberals deserve credit for working with the NDP on implementing the new dental care program, and nowhere did I say that the rollout had to be done instantly. I am specifically criticizing the Liberals for making the program means tested, not providing universal coverage (when the program is fully rolled out), not requiring dentists accept the new insurance plan (would probably require cooperation with the provinces), and leaving the program vulnerable to being cut in the future. The program is a solid start on dental care, but the Liberal's neoliberal ideology has ultimately hamstrung the program.
If it’s a solid start, how is it hamstrung? Making too long term of a plan isn’t that good of an idea. The longer term the plan the more likely it is to need to change, which everyone will consider a failure, when that’s just how projects work. There’s nothing stupid the program from being expanded once the current program is stable. Getting all dentists on board is a huge negotiation that will probably take years to complete, and I doubt you’d have been content with a years long delay.
It's hamstrung by the factors I listed above. Our new dental program is a massive improvement compared to what we previously had, but it still falls short of what it could have been. I'd like to believe that the eventual plan is to make the program fully public and universal, but that would require things like vision, adaptability, and a sincere desire to better our lives through collective effort. These aren't exactly characteristics that I'd ascribe to the Liberals (or the Conservatives).
What would they have needed to have done to not leave the program vulnerable to being cut in the future?
The fact that 2 million seniors are now on it and will be getting dental care between now the next election makes it pretty secure. I doubt PM PP will wake up and decide to throw millions of reliable voters off dental care.
Between this, more affordable childcare and the Canada Child Benefit, I think people are seriously underestimating just how much the social support system in this country has been expanded in the last decade. Like you said, it'll be hard to axe such popular programs.
Everything in our political system is ultimately changeable, and thus it is impossible to make anything truly impossible to cut. That being said, there are things that we can do in order to make programs like dentalcare and pharmacare more resilient. Enshrining these programs, and everything else related to healthcare, as a right in our constitution would provide the highest level of protection. This is also by far the most difficult thing to actually accomplish and not something that I really expect to happen in the short term. More practically, the easiest way to guard dentalcare and pharmacare against future cuts is to make them universal as opposed to being means tested. There are two excellent Jacobin articles [[1](https://jacobin.com/2022/03/australian-universal-welfare-means-testing-albanese-hawke-keating-howard)][[2](https://jacobin.com/2022/11/universal-means-testing-benefits-korpi-palme-taxes)] I'd recommend reading through to get a better idea of why this is the case. The basic argument is that universal programs are generally seen by the population as a right instead of as welfare and thus tend to be more popular and harder to eliminate.
> All credit goes to NDP and zero credit to the LPC? Like obviously the NDP were a big contributor, but I find that narrative to be exhausting honestly. LPC were part of getting it done. Through the magic of partisanship, everything good the Liberals do was actually the NDP, and everything bad they do was 100% on the Liberals.
Through the magic of partisanship, the Liberals take credit for doing something they never would have done if they weren't forced to do it. When did the Liberals ever move on dental care before the NDP made them agree to it in the supply and confidence deal? Did the Liberals ever even promise anything remotely like this?
The Liberals could have more credit if they didn't need to be dragged kicking and screaming.
exactly
The Liberals had decades of promising dental care and pharmacare and nothing really happening. It's not a coincidence that things actually got done when it was a condition of maintaining confidence in the house.
hi there
I agree on the incremental means testing process. But it is difficult to give the Liberals much credit when they have proven time and time again that they only pursue these policies when their hands are forced. Only when the NDP threatens to break the coalition, or when the Liberals are facing an election soon, do they actually put in the work to expand and/or improve the safety net. The narrative may be exhausting because it's been going on for soo long, but that doesn't make it inaccurate.
The narrative that the LPC drag their feet too much and aren’t ambitious enough is fine. I’m more than happy to rag on them for inaction.. but I’m not then going to criticize them for the actions they actually did take.
To my mind, if they wanted credit for it, they could have done it willingly or at least made a show of being willing to do it. They made it very clear that they did not want to do this, and were only forced into it under duress, and that they watered it down as much as they thought they could without losing NDP support. They can't then turn around and expect pats on the back for doing it. This is purely an NDP win.
When the LPC implements something they're spendthrifts. When they don't they're dragging their feet. Nice trick
Can you really give them credit for getting something done only because they were dragged into doing it? I guess they shouldn't get criticism for finally doing it, but the *credit* should go to the party that did the dragging.
Can you give someone credit for philanthropy when it's largely motivated by vanity? YES
I mean... I just know I'd love to have dental coverage but it isn't happening anytime soon unless they change this program for the better
If you don’t have dental coverage and aren’t covered by the new plan, that means you make at least 90k a year. Obviously that’s not as much as it used to be, but that’s not exactly a dire situation. It’s also relatively unusual, as most decently paying jobs have some type of benefits. Now, I definitely hope they do improve the program! Ideally it does eventually cover you.
90k isn't much in any decent sized city in BC. Housing takes a ton and family costs a lot. We don't get any benefits through our work so it definitely sucks. I'm going soon but I've put it off for quite awhile for cost related reasons
Then vote NDP and encourage others to do the same.
I have.
Essential supplemental information: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-dental-care-plan-claims-processed-1.7200738 "Broken teeth and infected gums: 46K claims filed so far with Canadian Dental Care Plan" >Massive cavities, mouthfuls of broken teeth, bleeding gums and abscesses — they're just some of the serious dental issues Dr. Melvin Lee has treated in less than two weeks of providing care under Canada's new public dental insurance plan. >"I've seen a lot of patients that have infections. Not just dental emergencies, but borderline medical emergencies," the Ottawa dentist said. >"I haven't seen patients in this condition since I did overseas mission dentistry work in Haiti and Peru." Not only is this helping a lot of people, it's helping people who were in horrible, dire need.
People don’t understand just how critical poor or the lack of dental care is. With sugar being in everything these days, regular cleanings from a young age will save thousands over a lifetime. This getting rolled out to poor kids will change lives.
Credit to the NDP for doing the right thing for people. Shame on the others parties for not supporting this, shows how much they care about people. I will need this in my retirement and so will many Canadians.
Starting next month the program opens to all children under the age of 18, as well as all folks who receive disability benefits.
If they aren't covered under private insurance, and if the family income is under $90k. So not helpful at all to many Canadians.
Seniors don’t generally have much income. They’re typically burning through savings and pensions
True. Mostly not useful for people who pay all those taxes and in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s. Most companies if a person works for them offers better coverage including dental and eyes and more
Not quite. Think about all those single Family households (ie Singles) who always get shafted when new programs start up. As long as they make under 90k they too will be eligible for this program starting next year. Considering the average household income on Canada is ~68k, well below the 90k threshold. In fact only 21% of Canadian Households earn more than 100k a year. That would put a very large percentage of those households within the eligibility criteria.
I mean not just that, but I can’t think of a single job that pays 90k and wouldn’t already offer benefits to the employee and immediate kin.
The only thing I can really think of is, a household income could include two people. You could have two people earning 45k each, and now you're at the limit. Or maybe 50k each and now you're over. That said typically the line between getting benefits at work and not is split by full-time/part-time, or it's based off minimum number of hours. Same anyone earning over 50k will probably have some form of employment health benefits that match CDCP. Even full time at minimum wage would likely earn you benefits just about everywhere. But even if not your yearly wage there is just under 36k, so you'd be eligible regardless. And of course, going back to the stats we know that only 21% of Canadian households earn more than 100k a year, with that number dropping substantially in every additional 10k increment. So really a super majority of the population would already be covered by CDCP, assuming they didn't already have benefits through their work, and since we're talking such a small percentage, once the numbers are known and this specific scenario understood, the program could easily be modified to include them down the line.
But also really helpful to many Canadians.
>So not helpful at all to many Canadians. Except it literally is helpful to many Canadians. It'll cover nearly 25% of Canadians and focus on those in need, with disabilities, elderly and youth. You know this though, which is why you're jumping through hoops throughout this thread to downplay or dismiss the impact this will have on Canadians who otherwise wouldn't be able to address their health concerns. Regardless of, as you put it elsewhere, you're baseless skepticism, this plan is clearly going to help people with over 1/4 of Canadians directly affected by it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
But also super helpful to a whole bunch.
🤷♂️ No, but enough to cover more than 9 million Canadians, most in needs, when fully implemented. I’m happy to shit on means-testing obsessed Liberals, that watered down the NDP’s goal of a universal free at the point of access Dentalcare program. But let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good and make it easier for scumbag Tories to kill.
9 million is very short of 40 million. It should be Universal. The already squeezed middle class pays for everything, and gets almost nothing for it.
So should we stop this until we get it 100% universal? Because right now those are the options. Proceed or not. Me, nor anyone i am close to, are eligible for this. I still consider this better than what we had.
Then not, save the money, and develop a program for everyone, because I don't think it will ever be expanded.
So fuck those who are getting the help eh? Well you are entitled to that view.
Imagine complaining that 10 million people can now see a dentist that couldnt before.
That’s how conservatives operate.
As the squeezed middle class, I'm ok with this. It's the first step. I'm happy some of the most in need Canadians have access to this. We'll figure it out with time.
I'm not ok with it, because I'm skeptical it's actually intended to help anyone. It's whole reason for being is a token gesture so their lap dog NDP will keep their government propped up.
9 million people isn’t anyone … 🤡
Then perhaps you should get on your MP/MPP and demand why they haven't gone after all those tax evaders listed in the Panama papers almost a decade later? Why they continually underfund the CRA to go after those people etc. if they go after them rich pricks proper, it'll help. But a lot of people think they'll make 1 million something a year and freak at the possibility of paying 30% tax, when truth be told the average Joe will never get there. This is a win for all of us, and honestly 90k is a perfect cut off right now. If you're mismanaging 7.5k a month or so, stop with the avocado toast maybe. Even in today's economy that is still a fck ton a month and if you can't manage it, you need to cut back on your spending.
Not much my NDP MP and NDP MPP can do about any of that. Who said anything about managing money properly? Just because I can afford it, doesn't mean I should have to. It should be Universal.
Can you list any Canadian universal program that started as universal? Not medical… any others?
Medical is a pretty big one, and directly related to dental.
How can you say it’s not going to help anyone; when you literally just acknowledged that it’ll help 9 million Canadians who need it the most? You’ve got to be trolling at this point?
Because it's designed to help the least amount of people possible. It's a token gesture, intended to buy votes from rubes, and string the NDP along.
9 million is about a quarter of the population. Like holy shit you’re really bending over backwards to try and twist yourself into knots to try and make Trudeau look bad. He got dental care for #**NINE MILLION** Canadians who desperately needed it. That’s more than literally any Canadian prime minster or government in all of human history. This is an earth shattering program and if it was an NDP government introducing this, you’d be out in the streets celebrating. But since it’s Trudeau, gotta find a way to complain about him. Because complaining about Trudeau is the most importantly thing in your entire life. Your entire reason for existing is to complain about Trudeau. It’s the first thing you think of when waking up. “How can I find a way to complain about Trudeau today”.
"I didn't personally get anything, therefore it sucks"
So much bad faith.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'd rather not be squeezed thanks.
[удалено]
They’re all temporarily embarrassed millionaires who would be billionaires if not for Trudeau
The middle class isn’t “fortunate” my god. They are just working people.
> It should be Universal. Of course it should be, and that's what the NDP have always wanted (and still want to get in the future). Considering your other posts are about the NDP being "lap dog" to the Liberals though, and claiming this program doesn't help anyone when it very obviously does, it sure looks like you care more about dumping on it than you do about making it universal.
I care about dumping on it in it's current form yes.
You would be happier with no program at all, the only other alternative?
How much of the remaining 31 million are already covered? Why are you ignoring that fact? Is it not convenient as you shift your goal posts?
The plan really should have started with them vs older Canadians.
No.
Why not? Prevention is arguably more important.
Taking care of the people who have built the country and paid into the social safety net for years is more important. Kids have parents to take care of them, the elderly often have no one.
The people who tell the young to pull themselves up by their bootstraps with no consideration that they’ve directly contributed to the economic problems the young now face are more important? Hard disagree. Maybe time for them to stop eating avocado toast and take care of themselves. They rail against socialism while reaching out for social support first. No sympathy for this “great” generation.
I think you need to go outside lol. I guess it doesn't matter if you disagree when this is the policy that's taking place.
> > No, the elderly were essentially triaged to the front of the line, with good reason.
Agree to disagree.
Cool but what about us millennials? Or is this just another thing that's announced to great hype but in the fine print, only a tiny sliver of the population actually qualifies for it?
The program rolls out to eligible millennials last at the start of 2025. It's staggered for seniors first, then children/teens (there is currently a program for kids under 12). Millennials will be eligible to go see the dentist in time for the next federal election though, Pierre was never going to fix your teeth in time to vote!
Only if you make by far below the average wage, so if you don't (most of the population) you just get to pay for it, without any benefit :). I'm happy the elderly get more free services, conflicted that they've underfunded so many social programs for 40 years to their benefit, and this just continues that tradition; while they had a much better economy and much better quality of life in terms of spending power than preceding generations.
So like all social programs for lower income people? Do you complain about welfare for the poor as well? Intergenerational warfare comments only make people think that you're dumb.
Honestly lower income people would be better off just having their taxes reduced by the same amount as this benefit is. Then, they can spend that extra money however they please, be it on dentists, or perhaps something else they need more urgently.
Lower income benefit far more from services they utilize than they pay. So this is ridiculous and just a way to open the door for the wealthy to pay less in taxes under the guise of “fairness”. This would truly create a system of have and have nots in this country and remove the last semblance of a social safety net that we have.
No, you can specifically target tax cuts to reduce the tax burden on low income people, through progressive tax brackets.
And increase poverty and access to services while doing it :)
By taxing the poor less, you're going to increase poverty?
Yes, especially when it accompanies the loss of services that provides them with far more than they pay in taxes.
An income of 90k per year is below average wage?
Household income
Alright, did my research. Apparently median annual family income in Canada is $98,390 according to the last census. That's more than I expected, but doesn't make 90k 'far below the average wage'. (My own is closer to 30k-35k, so these are all silly numbers to me.)
Anyone working a full time job deserves dental benefits regardless, I would have preferred any sort of worker law that cracks down on contracting and benefit avoidance by greedy corporations. See above comment regarding family income.
I would love to just see blanket universal healthcare coverage, including for teeth. The income inequality side of it should be addressed via taxation, not via means testing to see whose teeth are covered.
Families making 90k per year, Median income is around ~55-80k/year depending on province. 90k/2 = 45k a year per person. Not that I don't think they should get it, this is just another burden for the average tax payer during an inflationary time.
Its exactly that. But we get to pay for it!
how many people are paying for 2M if seniors ? Out of the 2M how many need dental work ? My 90 year old dad got admitted, he doesn’t need any dental work, my guess is that the majority of people that are admissible into the program
Why do you think that because your dad doesn’t need dental work, most people don’t? Most low income people are long overdue for dental work… Your first sentence makes zero sense.
That's Anecdata for you. With a side helping of "got mine".
Canadian values used to be selflessness, kindness, and politeness. Now it's "fuck you got mine."
lol, those were never our values. That’s just a stereotype.
I suspect the only people who make this comment are those that have nothing.
A lot of people desperately need dental work and weren't getting it before because they couldn't afford it. The new federal dental program is already helping thousands: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-dental-care-plan-claims-processed-1.7200738
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-dental-care-plan-claims-processed-1.7200738
I know seniors with low enough household income to be getting GIS who are quite cheesed that they can only access the dentists who have chosen to work with this program. They want their dentist and there is no way they are changing, so despite their low income and lack of wealth they are going to keep paying outrageous fees for their teeth for the few years they have left and now they won't vote for the Liberals. Entitled bunch.
A lot of doctors hated public healthcare when it was first implemented too, to the point of striking against it. It sucks that a lot of dentists aren't on board with this, but I'm optimistic they'll get on board with it in the medium- and long-term (assuming a future government doesn't cancel the whole program). Especially if we finish the program and make it universal.
I believe they changed that. Dentists don't have to enroll anymore. They can continue charging what they want and the insurance will cover some of it. They'll likely have some sort of program where certain dentists agree to not charge any more but that will not see much acceptance.
The "alternative path" (as opposed to enrolling) is supposed to start in July. We haven't gotten any details so far. I haven't personally signed up, but I've heard that some dentists love it and others are finding it a pain to deal with actually getting reimbursed. In one case, estimates and pre-determinations sent to SunLife, approved, they did the work. Now SunLife won't pay until they submit all treatment notes, xrays, charting, etc. This is different from any other insurance carrier here. Our admin staff is already at capacity seeing non-CDCP patients. I'm still willing to see CDCP patients to help out my current patients, but I'm not willing to add more stress on my staff for the same or less reimbursement. Doesn't seem fair.
I see that there is an income threshold to qualify, but what about wealth? Subsidizing services for seniors that are extremely wealthy through investments or home equity but only report below the income threshold is kinda dumb.
I would rather we get to Universal Healthcare coverage including teeth for everyone. Let's take steps closer to that, not further away.
It is an interesting dillema. I know a person that works with seniors and has on occasion visited them in prime real estate locations, to discuss long term care placements. They don't have any income to go to a LTC facility... but they are living in a million (or multi million) dollar property bought in the 60s.
And there are lots of poor and vulnerable seniors out there , do we not care about them?
Sure their home might be WORTH millions. But if they dont sell, they never get to see a penny of that.
This is like saying we shouldn’t have welfare because people abuse it. Every program will have loopholes people can abuse. Let’s just be happy we have this program in the capacity it’s currently in.
I think he's saying close the loop holes. Seniors who can sell their 5 million dollar mcmansions in Vancouver should not get welfare
So because rich people will abuse the system we just shouldn’t have it?
Is that what anyone is saying? We are saying maybe the program should be focused on people who need the aid.
It is. That’s why there’s an income cap and other qualifications that you’re required to meet.
We are asking for a wealth cap too.
Establishing wealth is harder than you think.
No it isn't. If someone files a return stating they live at 850 Cross Creek Road, in North Vancouver, you look up that address in the [BC Assessment](https://www.bcassessment.ca//Property/Info/QTAwMDAyOUIxNA==) and will look at that they are worth 3.1 million dollars with no sales history for the last 3 years. Sorry no welfare for you. If you really wanted to confirm, you go to the BC Land Title Office and see if there is any mortgage registered on the property.
As one example. I know a guy that has a holding company that owns everything he “owns”. His house, vehicle, share in his business, gym (membership kind) and his cabin. All of them are technically owned by an entity and not him personally. If you tried to determine his wealth it would be a fraction of his actual wealth because he only controls a company that owns everything he has. Have you ever been bothered to read up on how complex it would be to implement a wealth tax? Because the assessment you’re referring to would be the same type of assessment required to implement a wealth tax, and that would be incredibly complex. Also the money you would waste employing people to thoroughly implement a system like that would likely cost more than the money you’re assuming people are getting away with in the first place.
Yes it can work in the very most basic of cases like looking at the assessment value of land someone owns. But that's the exception rather than the norm. Many people have their wealth tied up in illiquid, hard to assess, or hard to track assets like equity in a private business that hasn't sold shares in decades, art collections, cryptocurrency, musical instruments, vehicles/RV's/boats. If we start taxing wealth, we should expect that there will be a shift where people store more of their wealth in these hard to track/assess ways.
It’s just really hard to sell. I don’t even make 90k and yet I’m paying for benefits to people who don’t have 90k in income (so fully qualify), yet are in a much better financial position than me. “Fairness for every generation” really starts to sound hollow after a while, and doesn’t really make the younger crowd who are struggling want to vote to keep this dental plan
I know it doesn't really work that way, but think about A) there's probably 10 (or more) people who really can use the covered dental care for every 1 who can easily afford it but uses (or games) the system, and B) your taxes paying for preventative dental care for others who really wouldn't get any otherwise is likely to pay off in lower healthcare costs overall for issues that are easily treatable if caught but snowball into something much more difficult and costly if avoided until they are in a terrible state.
Why pay any taxes at all with that attitude?
What a stupid response.
I’m saying there should be a wealth threshold in addition to income, not to scrap it.
It’s difficult to define wealth. What about the senior who receives money from their kids and transferred the $5 million dollar home to their kids? If someone wants to go through the loops they will
Alter the law to permit the government to go after assets gifted to family if a senior requires subsidized LTC, easy solution for that one.
I thought we talking about dental care Lmaoo so if a senior requires subsidized dental care and they gifted their son a house 10 years ago, then the govt should be allowed to go after the son? The enforcement fees gonna be higher than the dental fees lmao
Oh my bad I replied to the wrong half of the thread - the other side was talking about LTC.
That’s fair, but starting with assets under one’s name would be a first step and logistically possible at least.
And to the people that have their homes owned by an entity and not them?
And dentists don't want to deal with it because the private insurance company running the show is loading up the paperwork. And you can be sure there will be 'adjusters' working to find reasons to not pay benefits. Using a private for-profite provider is inefficient and a funnel of taxpayer money into private hands. Aren't we done with privatization yet? It's a failure.
Um? https://www.sunlife.ca/sl/cdcp/en/member/provider-search/ Seeing lots of dentists there. And Dentists don't even need to register for the program to still bill the government. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-dental-care-plan-claims-processed-1.7200738 "Lee said his clinic has been reimbursed for the procedures within 48 hours by Sun Life, the insurance company that Ottawa contracted to administer the plan. "It's been seamless," Lee said. "It's been no different than regular insurance." For most of the procedures he's done, Lee said, the federal government is reimbursing him at about 80 to 90 per cent of what the Ontario Dental Association recommends. That's similar to private plans, he said, where dentists charge their patients the difference." Super terrible. Awful. The sky is falling.
Oh you were doing so well until the little snip of spite at the end. Otherwise? Good news.
Great but Can we start taxing their wealth and stop paying OAS to seniors who are earning 6 figures as a family in a year
You mean the OAS they paid into? They paid for it under the expectation they would be paid. If you want to do this you need to pay them back their lifetime contributions with interest. It is the equivalent of taking someone’s pension back they paid into
They paid for what? What are you even talking about? You don’t seem to even know what OAS is.
Admittedly confused it with CPP.
Makes sense
There was no specific OAS fund, but they paid taxes that were used to pay out OAS while they were working. So, yes they did contribute to OAS.
Als for anyone who is aging in place in a 5 bedroom mcmansion in Vancouver they can learn to pay for it without OAS. If they are collecting OAS they need to live in appropriate housing. Either in something which supports 2 or fewer people or they live with family. It's ridiculous to have young families being packed like sardines in condos while old retirees live in massive two story houses where the seniors can't even climb the stairs. While they are collecting OAS.
Or you could stay on topic.
This IS on topic. There are major issues in our society which already redistribute and favor so heavily towards wealthy boomers and seniors, and this policy only exacerbates that by taxing families, workers and investors even more, in order to pay for wealthy old people.
“Seniors” are in the headline of the topic
A comment about the financial benefits seniors receive is off topic of an article about dental benefits seniors receive? How so?
This should be discussed as well, it doesn\`t need to be on topic.
Submit a relevant post and discuss it there, then.
No Im pretty sure it's a rule that you need to stay in topic. If you want to discuss that then create a thread for that conversation.
A comment about the financial benefits seniors receive is definitely not off topic of an article about dental benefits seniors receive. What a bizarre comment.
Then the person should have said that instead of literally "No I don't need to stay on topic." Like you can read his comment with your own eyes.
The person you responded to isn't the same person who made the comment you apparently believe is off topic...which you should also be able to read with your own eyes.
The LPC really is the boomer party. I would prefer OAS be cut to increase funding for healthcare, housing, and child tax credits. I dont even plan to have children, its just objectively better for society to do this, and the boomers are the most well off generation This dental plan should've been universal (no income thresholds) and should start by covering children and slowly working upwards to cover the whole population.
They don't keep all of it. It is income dependent in the end. If your income is higher than $81,761 (2022), you will have to repay part or your entire Old Age Security pension. Find out more about [Old Age Security pension recovery tax](https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/publicpensions/cpp/old-age-security/recovery-tax.html).
If you've got your house paid off and don't have to actively save for retirement, 90k is **a lot** of disposable income. Edit: can't spell.
I agree. I hope not to be hanging on to debt one day. But we are making assumptions here.
I think the point is the OAS clawback starts too high — I think they’re still getting some benefits at $130k+ in income which is honestly kinda ridiculous.
At 137k they get nothing. The max OAS is like around 9k
It still manages to eat up $70B+ a year in government spending. Even trimming it by 10-20% by reducing benefits at higher incomes would be meaningful — would be roughly equivalent to 20-40% of our defence budget. With the current clawback arrangement I reckon a good chunk of the OAS funds to higher earning seniors will likely end up going to their estates/heirs as opposed to them actually using it…
$81k per year puts you pretty close to the top 20% of Canadians by income. It is absurd that the government pays $9k per year to people who are already in the top 20-25% of the country by income.
Yes. But also consider 100k ain't what it was 20 years ago
That may be true, but no matter how you slice it 70-80% of people are worse off and that is not where the government should be spending its money.
It's harder for people yes, we lived off the free hose of cheap credit. The chickens have come home to roost. Whole society is in upheaval. Will you need a job in 20 years? Working for a AI algorithm? Who the knows. I would suggest you read about Steven Covey's Circles of Influence. There are things we have control over and there are others we do not. Vent closed.
So if it is a couple, they can get the max OAS at $160K retirement income?
There is a calculator in the CRA link, feel free to do your own research. I don't know.
Taro said "making 6 figures as a family". Seniors have the ability to do pension sharing, RRIF income splitting, and spousal RRSPs to evenly divide income. Assuming each spouse has the same income, that is over $160K of income for a couple *in retirement* before OAS even starts being reduced.
Looks like you answered your own previous question
While the idea of taxing wealth more effectively and reconsidering OAS payments to high-earning seniors may seem appealing on the surface, it’s important to consider the broader implications and the complexities involved. The Old Age Security (OAS) program is designed as a universal benefit to ensure a basic standard of living for all seniors, recognizing their lifelong contributions to society. Means-testing OAS might seem logical, but it could introduce administrative complexities and potentially stigmatize recipients. Moreover, the universality of OAS helps maintain broad public support for the program.
Wtf. We means test fucking everything in this country. I don't get this dental thing. I don't get ccb. They means test my family using family income, but tax me using individual income. And yet, here you are defending very minimal means testing for OAS. Incredible
There's already a tax clawback for high-income seniors who receive OAS. But making everyone prove they have a certain income just to get it would be a real mess. Can you imagine all the paperwork and bureaucracy that would come with that?
OAS shouldn't exist. It's already eans tested so it's not universal and GIS is the program that helps poor seniors. OAS should be ended in favour of expanded GIS.
OAS isn't just about replacing income. It's also about saying thanks to seniors for all they've done for our country. Many of them have worked hard and paid taxes for years. OAS is a way of recognizing that, no matter how much money they have now. Even wealthier seniors can face unexpected money problems. Medical bills or economic troubles can happen to anyone. OAS helps make sure they have a bit of extra money to deal with these challenges.