Is the Government (Liberals) hurting kids? | GTAMotorcycle.com

Is the Government (Liberals) hurting kids?

-D-

Banned
* disclaimer, I did not research this item thoroughly therefore I can be way off base. I also don't care about parties BUT when the Liberal party touts a mantra about protecting families and children then you do something to hurt them...there is a serious problem here.


I briefly saw a piece on the news (volume was down on tv) where it appears the government is pulling funding for kids over the age of 7 with autism. I saw a lot of parents in tears and even the Minister in the House standing crying.
It appears they just posted the changes in the website catching all these people off guard.
What happened to transparency?

I turned up the volume to hear a mother say their family (4 people) now have to move into a 1 bedroom apartment in order to afford care for the child with autism.

So they have a BILLION $$$ to blow on NOT building a power plant, another BILLION or something like that for the Ring of Fire project (lacks details). Money to burn on a bunch of other crap e.g. rebates for expensive electric cars etc...

Now someone defend how this is the Canadian thing to do, to pull funding for the children with medical needs.

I hope those parents don't take this lying down and protest the hell out of the government in a very very PUBLIC way.
Shame on all of us, if we fail to protect kids and seniors...some of you will have kids/grandkids and ALL of you will become seniors.
This will be you, just a matter of time.

Go Liberals !!!!..............................(cliff)
 
For a "nanny state" government that does seemingly everything from a "won't somebody think of the children?!?!" perspective, their handling of this affair is surprisingly -- even for them -- abysmal.

At the very least grandfather in kids already on the waiting list and phase this in over time. How incredibly stupid can Liberal governance be?
 
For a "nanny state" government that does seemingly everything from a "won't somebody think of the children?!?!" perspective, their handling of this affair is surprisingly -- even for them -- abysmal.

At the very least grandfather in kids already on the waiting list and phase this in over time. How incredibly stupid can Liberal governance be?

I guess their stupidity knows no bounds. What does that say for those that voted them in (again) ?
 
I guess their stupidity knows no bounds. What does that say for those that voted them in (again) ?

NIMBY

Not my kid, not my problem.

Close the door. I'm in.

Etc.

"Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Martin Niemoller
 
At the very least grandfather in kids already on the waiting list and phase this in over time. How incredibly stupid can Liberal governance be?

^ is the absolutely astounding part. Hopefully someone with a brain adds in a less harsh cut-off.

Full disclosure - my son is Autistic & 14. We were on waiting list after waiting list and just finally said screw it and paid for all testing/treatment on our own. We were fortunate that we could afford it, but a lot of families could've been helped much more in the last 10-12 years of Liberals passing the buck on Autism care.
 
Hudak was a perfectly sensible alternative. Unfortunately, sensibility doesn't win elections.
 
Hudak was a perfectly sensible alternative. Unfortunately, sensibility doesn't win elections.

Did I miss the sarcasm font? Most politicians fudge the numbers after an election. He did it before.

Ontario: A Titanic looking for an iceberg.
 
Hudak had it won, he just needed to stop talking, at least out loud. When you say you'll clean 100,000 or so civil servants off the payroll and miss the fact that with fireman, nurses, the garbage and plow guys about 30% of the population has a job tied to gov't payroll, you don't get to be Premier. His campaign genius (his wife) should have whispered, STFU.
 
Hudak had it won, he just needed to stop talking, at least out loud. When you say you'll clean 100,000 or so civil servants off the payroll and miss the fact that with fireman, nurses, the garbage and plow guys about 30% of the population has a job tied to gov't payroll, you don't get to be Premier. His campaign genius (his wife) should have whispered, STFU.

This is the correct answer.



Also, in the event that no one is worth voting for, what can be done to call a 'do-over' ? or 'we don't like any of the choices, give us new choices'?
 
It seems kind of convoluted.
"The best outcome of IBI is defined as a child who achieves average cognitive functioning[2]. Research has consistently demonstrated that children’s responses to IBI vary: Some children show positive outcomes, others demonstrate limited or no gains at all, while some get worse[3]. Unfortunately, not all children respond to IBI. "
Some kids respond others don't. Therapy is for 20-40 hours per week. It doesn't look like IBI has been around for very long, and I can't find any mention of when treatment would cease, beyond it being determined that there is no further progress at an assessment that occurs every six months.

So, I'm thinking that to do it right. 40 hours per week for the same therapist at 10 years per child. It's going to cost around a half a million dollars per child for that.

What are the minimums that we could get away with?

Should we treat fewer children, for longer and more intensely; and then give up on, or leave the rest to their own resources?
 
It seems kind of convoluted.
"The best outcome of IBI is defined as a child who achieves average cognitive functioning[2]. Research has consistently demonstrated that children’s responses to IBI vary: Some children show positive outcomes, others demonstrate limited or no gains at all, while some get worse[3]. Unfortunately, not all children respond to IBI. "
Some kids respond others don't. Therapy is for 20-40 hours per week. It doesn't look like IBI has been around for very long, and I can't find any mention of when treatment would cease, beyond it being determined that there is no further progress at an assessment that occurs every six months.

So, I'm thinking that to do it right. 40 hours per week for the same therapist at 10 years per child. It's going to cost around a half a million dollars per child for that.

What are the minimums that we could get away with?

Should we treat fewer children, for longer and more intensely; and then give up on, or leave the rest to their own resources?

Valid points but what about relapse? I don't know that much about autism however I would think if you give less treatment from 40 hours/wk to 20 hours then does that kid regress.

So if we spend $500k for a kid and they turn out to be productive "tax payers" then isn't that worth it vs. we the tax payer covering them for a lifetime.
This just seems to have put these families through a lot of suffering. The Govt. sure does look stupid and incompetent on the way they rolled this out.

Let's see what other surprises will be revealed.
 
Valid points but what about relapse? I don't know that much about autism however I would think if you give less treatment from 40 hours/wk to 20 hours then does that kid regress.

So if we spend $500k for a kid and they turn out to be productive "tax payers" then isn't that worth it vs. we the tax payer covering them for a lifetime.
This just seems to have put these families through a lot of suffering. The Govt. sure does look stupid and incompetent on the way they rolled this out.

Let's see what other surprises will be revealed.

Sure it would be worth it. If we can afford the initial investment, and gain a return, or small loss.

If there was a study. Would you volunteer your child for the 20 hours? I believe that an "expert" probably said "x is best" or "x to y is best", so everyone is going with that number/range.

Who should pay for it? The parents? The local community? The city? The province? The country? The world?

Don't forget that there are autistic children throughout the world/country/province/city, who are just abandoned.
What makes one child more special than any of these others?

If funding is limited. Do you give a little to everyone, or a lot to some?

Can we train up 10-20,000 therapists quickly? What are the checks and balances? Will money be squandered?

Has the treatment been proven? How long has it been around? What is the success rate? Are there some too far down the spectrum? Too far up the spectrum? Are there better treatments that we're ignoring for this one?

Are there other children who would be more successful with the funding? e.g. A.D.H.D. O.D.D., Asperger's, Rett's, missing limbs, etc.

I still have lots of questions.
 
Last edited:
Curiosity question and not meant to offend in anyway. If I have a kid that turns out to be autistic, what are my choices with dealing.
Is there a state run institution I can send him to?
Do I HAVE to keep him and deal with it myself?
What if I don't want to, can I just drop him off at some government place? Can they legally force me to care for him against my wishes?

I'm really curious what are all the options for the parents.
 
Sure it would be worth it. If we can afford the initial investment, and gain a return, or small loss.

If there was a study. Would you volunteer your child for the 20 hours? I believe that an "expert" probably said "x is best" or "x to y is best", so everyone is going with that number/range.

Who should pay for it? The parents? The local community? The city? The province? The country? The world?

Don't forget that there are autistic children throughout the world/country/province/city, who are just abandoned.
What makes one child more special than any of these others?

If funding is limited. Do you give a little to everyone, or a lot to some?

Can we train up 10-20,000 therapists quickly? What are the checks and balances? Will money be squandered?

Has the treatment been proven? How long has it been around? What is the success rate? Are there some too far down the spectrum? Too far up the spectrum? Are there better treatments that we're ignoring for this one?

Are there other children who would be more successful with the funding? e.g. A.D.H.D. O.D.D., Asperger's, Rett's, missing limbs, etc.

I still have lots of questions.

What about fetal alcohol/drug syndrome or other inflicted conditions? What about the ones that fry their own brains? The range of care options would run from "No person turned away" to the Nazi "Final solutions"

Robp asks if a parent can just walk away and I think the answer is basically "Yes" by putting them up for adoption. You obviously can't just drop them off at a government building with a note pinned to their jacket.
 
When you say you'll clean 100,000 or so civil servants off the payroll and miss the fact that with fireman, nurses, the garbage and plow guys about 30% of the population has a job tied to gov't payroll

Let's not forget that all civil servants are very very important people. Normally I would suggest that civil servant wages should be tied to the average private sector wage in some equitable and sensible fashion while not forgetting the incredibly valuable and very very important work these fine folks do. That's normally.
 
The amazing part to me is the rise of autism/add and similar health issues in people today vs. 30 years ago.

30 years ago it was odd to hear about someone with ADD/ADHD/Autism etc. Today it seems to be the norm where almost everyone knows someone affected. So much of the media and buzz is fixated on the symptoms, but not the root cause.

Call me a nutter, but I think it has a lot to do with food and diet (and the lack there of) in today's general population. This isn't necessarily associated with the ones named above, but I mean it in a grander sense.
 

Back
Top Bottom