an interesting fact...

when 65 was introduced as the retirement age, it was also the average life expectancy. so, if you think 67 is bad, keep in mind that if the original logic of retirement held, it would be increased to 82.

that says a lot about the medical advancements we've achieved since then, though, doesn't it?

as a younger person, i want to chime in that we need to find creative ways to cut costs while maintaining proper levels of services, merely than just throw money at it. i don't want to sound bitter, but the baby boomers have not, broadly, made the kind of compromises that their parents or grandparents made. they were and remain the 'me' generation. they're going to demand anything and everything; and i've personally had a hard time explaining the economics of the situation to the older people that i know. how wages have not kept up with inflation, for example. they don't get it.

we're not going to get to an answer by taxing much less wealthy young people to pay costs for far more wealthy older people. i don't want to become a wage slave to the health care system, and watch the economy collapse under high tax rates to install jacuzzis into old folks home. rather, i might suggest that, because they have all the wealth, and they've sat on it, and they won't pass it down, it's going to fall to they themselves to fund the bulk of the costs. government's role needs to be to direct the boomer's own wealth into their own care arrangements, rather than pass the costs down. they haven't passed their wealth down.

and, understand that i'm presenting this in rational and reasonable terms. the angry twenty-something that's living under a bridge, squeezed between student loan payments and old folks taxes in a stagnant economy, is not going to be so clear-headed.

i think it's important that the system do what is required to adjust. the values of the canada health act are important to me.

but, i think it's equally important that the economic reality be approached head-on, and that the burden of this demographic problem not fall squarely on the laps of younger people, who are already facing decreased opportunities and higher debt loads, due largely to the decisions that the boomers made.

creative ways to reduce costs would include things like home care, low-rent retirement homes and perhaps more specialized elderly care operations, that take the issues out of the primary care stream. the parties have come up with some alright ideas already. i'm not an expert, here; my suggestions are of limited value. studying the issue would be a good idea.

but, a very bad approach is to expect young people to simply carry the tax burden. the outcome of such an approach will create serious economic and social problems. it's a non-starter.

i would support an "elderly health tax" that is something like a tobin tax. but the main thrust of thought needs to be to find ways to channel the boomers' own wealth into their own health care costs.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tom-mulcair-ndp-health-plan-demographic-bomb-1.3259569