Hi Alan,

No, it makes no sense to me. I was abrupt with my original answer and perhaps I should elucidate.

I believe that society has an obligation to take care of those who lack the ability to take care of themselves. I have absolutely no problem with universal catastrophic healthcare for folks, for example, and no problem with schools being paid for by uniform property taxes.

However, when folks who would be able to pay for their own insurance are overtaxed and forced into a system where they have far fewer rights and options - I have a problem. When old folks are forced to sell their family home because of the continuously rising property taxes - I have a problem.


>>Depends.
>>
>>What about the healthy couple with no kids? Why are they paying for what they don't use?
>
>Are you suggesting that the education system benefits only those who have children? Does that mean that since you [probably] didn't have any part in raising Grace Hopper or Alan Turing that you get no benefit from their work?
>
>Everybody benefits from a good education system whether you have children or not.
>
>Ok then, let's introduce a system whereby those with no children do not pay for the education system. Then it's only fair that when someone with a good education invents something of great benefit to society, those who didn't pay for the education system should be barred from those benefits.
>
>This makes sense to you?
>
>>
>>>>I think I'd be pretty embarrassed as a Canadian liberal by what the gov't hasn't done with that amount of funds. What the heck are they doing with that money?
>>>
>>>Quality education and healthcare aren't cheap, but I think they are worth it.