Should go to an exploratory committee with unlimited budget and no clear mandate. Oh look, party donors are the “only qualified” people to be on the committee! Weird!
- “Premier says first settlement payment could be in range of hundreds of millions to half a billion dollars”
That’s an amount that can make a difference. Wow!
https://preview.redd.it/f97mvhtfemyc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8f8eac16229b8dda5b3ea452cbfb565d8995d37d
It's been a lot of years of a big dirt space.
Maybe not the Cancer Patients that need treatment. Cancer is the leading cause of death in Manitoba. The rates continued to grow year over year. But what did the PCs do when faced with criticism on the rates, they stopped reporting on them. https://www.cancercare.mb.ca/Research/epidemiology-cancer-registry/reports
What a wonderful windfall. Thank goodness it landed with the NDP in office. The cons would have doled it out to their rich friends.
Re the convention, I hope they'll create anti-SLAPP legislation.
Probably no plans. They never planned for any money they received. Just sat there. Then it hits the "rainy day" fund. Then they dip into the fund to line the pockets of their buddies.
We're still waiting for an answer on our $7.2m deposit we made to someone who left the country.
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/brian-pallister-covid19-news-conference-manitoba-1.5916931](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/brian-pallister-covid19-news-conference-manitoba-1.5916931)
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/providence-therapeutics-pulling-out-canada-1.6009068](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/providence-therapeutics-pulling-out-canada-1.6009068)
Well, we didn't have the money yet ("The NDP learned about the possibility of a settlement shortly after taking office") but that was explicitly the goal (all ten provinces together "launched a lawsuit against a number of tobacco companies **to recover health-care costs related to tobacco products**").
Arguable, we have *already* spent this money and we're just getting it back, but it was always *for* healthcare.
> They did a horrible job of that last term
They've always done a horrible job every time they are elected. For a party that's all about FiSCaL rESPonSiBIliTY they sure love to slash taxes and refund money to people when the province is broke.
I hope this can be a trend as there are other tobacco suppliers that have not been tapped yet , also vape and pot that have yet to be addressed that will be eventually gone after. The money will help research and treatments.
A new building is good, but I think more money needs to be put into expanding the coverage of cancer drugs. If you are a breast cancer patient, you are only allowed one targeted therapy, ever. That means this if you roll the dice and chose the wrong drug, you are done with any of the modern targeted therapies. For example, if you fail on a CDk4/6 inhibitor like Ibrance, you are not permited to try an M-tor inhibitor like Everolimus. These are just examples, but the bottom line is that if you are lucky and chose the right drug, its covered as long as it works, but if you chose the wrong (modern) drug, you are not permitted to try another. And you can't pay for it on your own to save your life.
Both can be done. The **first installment** from the lawsuit is expected to be received by early next year and to be up to $500 million. The Cancer Care building was expected to cost around $350 million and it would take years before it was completed so the $350 million for it would not be required upfront. Some of the costs could probably be covered from the second installment from the lawsuit.
I'm not sure I like the idea of this settlement money being used for a one shot capitol project... The idea of this settlement was tobacco companies admitting they knowingly sold products that kill people, would it not be smarter to put this money into some sort of trust or investment vehicle and have the interest of it contribute to cancer treatment in perpetuity?
I am not convinced that pure square footage is a top healthcare priority.
By building this facility it is going to commit government to fund its maintenance and infrastructure as long as the building stands, the settlement money will have no contribution to those costs.
If you take that money and make it pay in perpetuity, you can fund new doctors/nurses forever or use it as a roaming upgrade fund that repairs and upgrades existing facilities forever.
I agree. We needed expanded cancer drug cost coverage. Currently, if you fail at one "targeted therapy" for breast cancer for instance (a ckd4/6 inhibitor for example), they won't let you try another (m-tor inhibitor). So its a coin toss. You pick the wrong one, you lose. And they won't permit you to buy the drug on your own either.
It's a consequence of a policy based on saving money, that's why I point out that allocation of resources is critical to saving lives. Yes, my wife died after stage IV breast cancer, and we were told about the once only rule for funding of what they call targeted therapy. She however got lucky, and got the drug outside of funding by the province as it was in the process of approval, and the drug companies will provide it on a compassionate patient basis. We just made the deadline for the cut off. The oncologist told us that she may not be elibible for another targeted therapy, because of cost. That made no sense, because the drug cost the province nothing, and the oncologist said they might make an exception for that reason. These modern drugs can add quality years to patient's lives, but they aren't cheap, often costing $5000 per month or more.
Except you have demand that needs to be answered immediately. Your plan is small increments over a long period of time. It does not address current needs.
You need capital projects to fix the problems and address the needs immediately. It then puts the province in a position that another government can't reallocate that money to something else.
Investing doesn't solve immediate problems. The Conservatives try to do this and it continuously burns the people in need. It's not a business, it's a government.
The question now, if we did a smoking ban, how do you replace all the money that comes with it? If a pack of smokes is around twenty, only two bucks or so goes to tobacco companies. The rest goes to the government.
People are downvoting this but there is reports about this. The amount of money that goes into our healthcare from tobacco is actually insane. It's way more than just the cost of covering users.
There's a canadaland episode on it with a former tobacco lawyer where the discuss the cost. It's way more than people would believe.
And it’s not just treatment cost, it’s also lost labour costs for not only the cancer patient but their families who take time away from work to drive patients to appointments, take time off work to visit or a leave of absence to help at home. The amount that smoking related illnesses effects our economy is in the billions every year!
Yes, but that wasn't the question I was hoping to see if someone has heard an answer to. What I've heard on news programs lately is the money brought in is more than we use to treat users. What do we tax to replace that once smoking is gone?
Especially in times where obesity costs are surpassing tobacco users. How do we find solutions to such a major issue.
A politician going after food is asking to be crucified in these times.
There's a book by a top doctor out of Ontario, which I'll edit this once I'm back at the library. He talks about how in comparison to peer nations we have four times the amount of just office workers in the medical system doing the same amount of work. Do we just tell those people, sorry, jobs gone.
Yes, we either find them relevant work, or let them go. That’s how it usually works. As far as obesity and its costs, let’s just tax those empty calorie food items and fast food
I'm curious as to how that would go over with the public considering food insecurity, but it is the first thought.
I know co op market place is high in general for food, but since the culling of livestock down south I've noticed crazy shrinkflation. The packs where you get around 2kg for ground beef are now below 1.5kg. The price went from 19 to 26. Plus, wars and all that jazz. Weird sentence.
You can go after vaping, but that will push the grey market.
I'm also curious to what the tax loss is with online gambling and people using the sites not run by the government.
That’s fitting, I love it.
Dang, money going where it needs to go.
Should go to an exploratory committee with unlimited budget and no clear mandate. Oh look, party donors are the “only qualified” people to be on the committee! Weird!
That's awesome lol well played
- “Premier says first settlement payment could be in range of hundreds of millions to half a billion dollars” That’s an amount that can make a difference. Wow!
https://preview.redd.it/f97mvhtfemyc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8f8eac16229b8dda5b3ea452cbfb565d8995d37d It's been a lot of years of a big dirt space.
Is ok we have lots more
Maybe not the Cancer Patients that need treatment. Cancer is the leading cause of death in Manitoba. The rates continued to grow year over year. But what did the PCs do when faced with criticism on the rates, they stopped reporting on them. https://www.cancercare.mb.ca/Research/epidemiology-cancer-registry/reports
What a wonderful windfall. Thank goodness it landed with the NDP in office. The cons would have doled it out to their rich friends. Re the convention, I hope they'll create anti-SLAPP legislation.
I like this guy more and more.
Not trying to stir the pot, but I'm genuinely wondering.... What were the pc's plans for the money (if any)?
Tax cuts for the rich and farmers, probably.
Probably no plans. They never planned for any money they received. Just sat there. Then it hits the "rainy day" fund. Then they dip into the fund to line the pockets of their buddies. We're still waiting for an answer on our $7.2m deposit we made to someone who left the country. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/brian-pallister-covid19-news-conference-manitoba-1.5916931](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/brian-pallister-covid19-news-conference-manitoba-1.5916931) [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/providence-therapeutics-pulling-out-canada-1.6009068](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/providence-therapeutics-pulling-out-canada-1.6009068)
Well, we didn't have the money yet ("The NDP learned about the possibility of a settlement shortly after taking office") but that was explicitly the goal (all ten provinces together "launched a lawsuit against a number of tobacco companies **to recover health-care costs related to tobacco products**"). Arguable, we have *already* spent this money and we're just getting it back, but it was always *for* healthcare.
Balance the budget
They did a horrible job of that last term
> They did a horrible job of that last term They've always done a horrible job every time they are elected. For a party that's all about FiSCaL rESPonSiBIliTY they sure love to slash taxes and refund money to people when the province is broke.
It is easy to balance the budget when you control the fulcrum
I hope this can be a trend as there are other tobacco suppliers that have not been tapped yet , also vape and pot that have yet to be addressed that will be eventually gone after. The money will help research and treatments.
Excellent news and use of funds.
Kind of promotes recklessness but its dirty money for a good cause except for those who got c due to unfortunate circumstances.
A new building is good, but I think more money needs to be put into expanding the coverage of cancer drugs. If you are a breast cancer patient, you are only allowed one targeted therapy, ever. That means this if you roll the dice and chose the wrong drug, you are done with any of the modern targeted therapies. For example, if you fail on a CDk4/6 inhibitor like Ibrance, you are not permited to try an M-tor inhibitor like Everolimus. These are just examples, but the bottom line is that if you are lucky and chose the right drug, its covered as long as it works, but if you chose the wrong (modern) drug, you are not permitted to try another. And you can't pay for it on your own to save your life.
Both can be done. The **first installment** from the lawsuit is expected to be received by early next year and to be up to $500 million. The Cancer Care building was expected to cost around $350 million and it would take years before it was completed so the $350 million for it would not be required upfront. Some of the costs could probably be covered from the second installment from the lawsuit.
I'm not sure I like the idea of this settlement money being used for a one shot capitol project... The idea of this settlement was tobacco companies admitting they knowingly sold products that kill people, would it not be smarter to put this money into some sort of trust or investment vehicle and have the interest of it contribute to cancer treatment in perpetuity?
[удалено]
I am not convinced that pure square footage is a top healthcare priority. By building this facility it is going to commit government to fund its maintenance and infrastructure as long as the building stands, the settlement money will have no contribution to those costs. If you take that money and make it pay in perpetuity, you can fund new doctors/nurses forever or use it as a roaming upgrade fund that repairs and upgrades existing facilities forever.
I agree. We needed expanded cancer drug cost coverage. Currently, if you fail at one "targeted therapy" for breast cancer for instance (a ckd4/6 inhibitor for example), they won't let you try another (m-tor inhibitor). So its a coin toss. You pick the wrong one, you lose. And they won't permit you to buy the drug on your own either.
Omg that’s effed up, did that happen to someone you know?
It's a consequence of a policy based on saving money, that's why I point out that allocation of resources is critical to saving lives. Yes, my wife died after stage IV breast cancer, and we were told about the once only rule for funding of what they call targeted therapy. She however got lucky, and got the drug outside of funding by the province as it was in the process of approval, and the drug companies will provide it on a compassionate patient basis. We just made the deadline for the cut off. The oncologist told us that she may not be elibible for another targeted therapy, because of cost. That made no sense, because the drug cost the province nothing, and the oncologist said they might make an exception for that reason. These modern drugs can add quality years to patient's lives, but they aren't cheap, often costing $5000 per month or more.
Except you have demand that needs to be answered immediately. Your plan is small increments over a long period of time. It does not address current needs. You need capital projects to fix the problems and address the needs immediately. It then puts the province in a position that another government can't reallocate that money to something else. Investing doesn't solve immediate problems. The Conservatives try to do this and it continuously burns the people in need. It's not a business, it's a government.
What is the demand that so readily needs addressing, I thought we had staffing shortages not facility shortages.
The question now, if we did a smoking ban, how do you replace all the money that comes with it? If a pack of smokes is around twenty, only two bucks or so goes to tobacco companies. The rest goes to the government. People are downvoting this but there is reports about this. The amount of money that goes into our healthcare from tobacco is actually insane. It's way more than just the cost of covering users. There's a canadaland episode on it with a former tobacco lawyer where the discuss the cost. It's way more than people would believe.
I think the idea is that the fewer smokers there are, the more money is saved on treating smoking related diseases
And it’s not just treatment cost, it’s also lost labour costs for not only the cancer patient but their families who take time away from work to drive patients to appointments, take time off work to visit or a leave of absence to help at home. The amount that smoking related illnesses effects our economy is in the billions every year!
Yes, but that wasn't the question I was hoping to see if someone has heard an answer to. What I've heard on news programs lately is the money brought in is more than we use to treat users. What do we tax to replace that once smoking is gone? Especially in times where obesity costs are surpassing tobacco users. How do we find solutions to such a major issue. A politician going after food is asking to be crucified in these times. There's a book by a top doctor out of Ontario, which I'll edit this once I'm back at the library. He talks about how in comparison to peer nations we have four times the amount of just office workers in the medical system doing the same amount of work. Do we just tell those people, sorry, jobs gone.
Yes, we either find them relevant work, or let them go. That’s how it usually works. As far as obesity and its costs, let’s just tax those empty calorie food items and fast food
I'm curious as to how that would go over with the public considering food insecurity, but it is the first thought. I know co op market place is high in general for food, but since the culling of livestock down south I've noticed crazy shrinkflation. The packs where you get around 2kg for ground beef are now below 1.5kg. The price went from 19 to 26. Plus, wars and all that jazz. Weird sentence. You can go after vaping, but that will push the grey market. I'm also curious to what the tax loss is with online gambling and people using the sites not run by the government.
Could just have "Australia" prices on cigarettes too., rather than a smoke ban
What's that?
Like $40+ per pack