FutureCare: PLP Suggests ‘Balanced Approach’
The PLP hopes the Government will consider the impact of their recent decision on FutureCare and rethink their position, Shadow Health Minister Zane DeSilva said.
Last week Health Minister Patricia Gordon-Pamplin announced that the Government will combine the FutureCare Phase 1 premium of $385 per month, with the Phase 2 and 3 premium of $635 per month to create a single rate of $440. “We recognise this premium will be an increase for some; however it will be a decrease for those on Phase 2 and Phase 3 of Futurecare,” the Minister said.
Mr DeSilva said, “The recent decision to increase premiums on our most vulnerable seniors has been met with shock, outrage and disappointment. I have been swamped with calls, emails and been stopped on the street by seniors who have seen their premiums skyrocket by more than 10% and their financial burden increased.
“We hope that the OBA will consider the impact of this decision and rethink their position. The PLP suggests a more balanced approach. If premiums must increase, than the support our seniors receive for prescription drugs should increase also.
“For some seniors, the prescription benefit is too low to meet their needs and with the premium increase adding to their expenses, may be forced to forgo their medication.
“Historically many of our seniors use up the $2000 benefit long before the time for replenishment arrives. We suggest raising the prescription benefit from $2000 to $3000 per year as well as using generic medication where possible, to address this problem.”
3…2….1 Till the OBA supporters start talking about seniors need to shut up and pay because the PLP had 14 years to…….
Do you think it was fair that one set of seniors were paying 65% more than other seniors for the same benefits?
As far as a balanced approach, I think this is probably more fair as it brings down the cost for 2/3 of the seniors future care effects. It’s difficult to please everyone, but I think in implementing this costing procedure it balances better and makes it fair. As for the shadow minister mentioning the use of generic drugs, I think there would need to be a more stringent board or group dedicated to making sure we are getting quality prescription drugs, rather than the “value for money” approach.
The PLP might actually retain some credibilty if they admitted how they screwed this issue up in the first place. Even a 5 year old child could have figured out that charging different people different amounts depending on when they signed up was not fair. So stick it where the sun don’t shine PLP. You are the cause of this problem with your incredible stupidity and incompetence.
You people were voted out because you made too many idiotic uninformed decisions that to any normal sane person would be obviously wrong.
You deserve all you get – you are finished and it happened because of your own stupidity.
RIP PLP
Why is it that every PLP response to a Government program or action calls for spending more money?
Does the PLP not understand that until the revenue issue is solved, at the margin, each dollar of spending is a new dollar of debt?
The issue isn’t whether or not to cut spending, but rather, where to cut spending. This point seems lost on the PLP.
EW
Sorry – but how was a two-tier scheme in which those joined later paid $150 more, a ‘balanced approach’?
Wasn’t a generic distribution Company set up by Mr. Commissiong and Dr. Brown last year or so? Wasn’t it Mr. Desilva who rushed to pass through new legislation to allow for the setting up of this Company? Wasn’t that Company set up after Dr. Brown visited India, on our dime, with the Indian individual who he was pictured with in the local papers? Wasn’t the trip purported to be to increase Indian based tourism along with a promise of the filming of a Bollywood flick (which never came to fruition)? Interesting coincedences I imagine.
Mr. Desilva have any of the numerous seniors (including my relatives), that were in the higher Futurecare bracket, emailed you to say that the recent change has reduced their monthly burden by $195 or 31% and as such as reduced their financial burdens not only on themselves, but also on family members in these tough times? If not why just focus on the individuals who are now paying only $55 or 14% more a month for the same benefits.
Didn’t the PLP make an argument about treating all seniors the same when the OBA wanted to eliminate the TCD fee for cars over a certain size and still allow the smaller cars owned by seniors not to have to pay the licence fee. if they want all seniors to be treated equally then what is the problem because they will all be paying the same price for health care.
Will someone share with Zane The Rocket Scientist DeSilva that it cannot get more balanced than everyone paying the same rate? Why do they print the stuff that these fools say?
I feel the new rate for all is a fair decision