punked Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 I never thought of reserve hospitals. There is at least one in Manitoba, jointly funded and operated by the province and the reserve. I thought all things like that on reserve land had to be funded by the Feds. I know the schools are which is why I said it. Quote
William Ashley Posted April 18, 2011 Author Report Posted April 18, 2011 (edited) There are no military hospitals in Canada. There are health Facilities --- Stephen Harper shut down the ACTUAL CFHS (Military Hospitals) in 2008 - one of his many UNSEEN UNREPORTED cuts to vital military services. Edited April 18, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted April 18, 2011 Author Report Posted April 18, 2011 I thought all things like that on reserve land had to be funded by the Feds. I know the schools are which is why I said it. Its the Indians money not the Feds money. Quote I was here.
punked Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 punked, it's not my math and the 15% number is addressed in the quotes and links provided. It doesn't look like fuzzy math at all. What is questionable about the numbers is that they don't take into consideration the amount of federal transfers vs provincial portions from the persepctive of the provinces. The federal government site just says, bam! Here's the total amount of money transferred and this is the total amount of money put in by all the provinces combined. So, although the federal government dumps in 40% of the funding for healthcare in Canada as a whole (which only amounts to 70% of total health care costs, since people pay out of pocket for roughly 30% of expenses), I want to know what that looks like province by province. Does the federal government pay closer to 100% of costs in New Brunswick, while paying 15% in Alberta? Again your number includes a large chuck of "money" which isn't money at all but is the hypothetical money the Feds gave the provinces power to raise through certain taxes. Again that is fuzzy math. You are welcome to read all about it though. I am sure you will come to the same conclusion as I do. That if the Feds think this is help they are crazy people. http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp450-e.htm Quote
punked Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 Its the Indians money not the Feds money. Fair enough but I thought the Feds oversaw the running of these places. Quote
Smallc Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 I thought all things like that on reserve land had to be funded by the Feds. I know the schools are which is why I said it. The hospital isn't only used by the reserve, so the province puts in money. Actually, looking at it, I'm not sure if the hospital is in the reserve, of the adjacent community. In Manitoba, many reserve schools are managed by a provincial school division, even if they are federally funded. Quote
Smallc Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 Oh, there is a hospital in Norway House too....the province also puts in some money there. Quote
William Ashley Posted April 18, 2011 Author Report Posted April 18, 2011 (edited) Fair enough but I thought the Feds oversaw the running of these places. Does Harper make sure you tie your shoes the right way? It all depends on how bossy Indian Affairs is. Generally the idea is to administer allocated funds due to them for best usages, based on their requests. It is like a trust fund. But no not always they are expected to pay for their own stuff. Only some of the money is managed in concert. But Indian Affairs is suppose to coordinate with the natives. The Federal Government has "duties" to the natives - legal obligations - they arn't just giving the stuff away for free.. you are probably standing on land that is native title right now if not for agreement with the crown. Well as much as land "ownership" exists. We both know it doesn't but it keeps things going. Genocide and civil war is generally not sought in modern societies. If its not rule of law, it is rule by force. 100-200 years is a long time in Canadian History, it is not in world history --- that is the gap between law and force in this part of the world between natives and Europeans. Canada is relatively lucky that most breaches of the peace have been minor and able to be dealt with by gendarme type forces. Edited April 18, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Scotty Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 If the Liberals were so terrible to health care in Canada, I'm not disagreeing that they were, then what has the Conservative Party done to repair the damage they caused? I'll tell you what they did: nothing. They just continued along with the program already set up by the Liberals. What would you have them do in a minority government? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 Well it seems to me the solution to the problem is very simple. Universal healthcare is a brainchild of the NDP. So therefore you vote for the NDP and let the professionals of public healthcare resolve any problems that have accumilated. A good example would be taking your car to be fixed to an electrician or a plumber as opposed to a certified mechanics shop. WWWTT That is a good example given most mechanics are thieves who will rob you blind. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 None of the parties are doing or have done what I would like to see, for example allow for the introduction of user fees for those who can afford it. None of the opposition parties would allow anything like that. They'd vote the government out if they tried. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
cybercoma Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 Again your number includes a large chuck of "money" which isn't money at all but is the hypothetical money the Feds gave the provinces power to raise through certain taxes. Again that is fuzzy math. You are welcome to read all about it though. I am sure you will come to the same conclusion as I do. That if the Feds think this is help they are crazy people. http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp450-e.htm The ITPs are still a way for the federal government to give the provinces money. You can reply as many times as you want saying this isn't the case, but you'll still be wrong. Example, I'm a small business. I have to collect 13% HST from my clients. The government gives me tax room of 3%. In essence, the federal government just gave me an additional 3% on my revenues. Otherwise, that money would have gone to the federal government directly and they would have simply paid it back per capita to the provinces. Why handle the money twice? Quote
punked Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 None of the opposition parties would allow anything like that. They'd vote the government out if they tried. In a second as they should. "Those who can afford it" already pay more for their health care in terms of a progressive tax system. Why should we tax them twice? Quote
cybercoma Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 What would you have them do in a minority government? I would expect them to fix it, if they felt it was such a big deal. I find it hard to believe the opposition would block any bill to increase funding to healthcare. That would be political suicide. Quote
punked Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 The ITPs are still a way for the federal government to give the provinces money. You can reply as many times as you want saying this isn't the case, but you'll still be wrong. Example, I'm a small business. I have to collect 13% HST from my clients. The government gives me tax room of 3%. In essence, the federal government just gave me an additional 3% on my revenues. Otherwise, that money would have gone to the federal government directly and they would have simply paid it back per capita to the provinces. Why handle the money twice? Because as the writing I linked shows the Feds over estimate how much they give in tax point transfers by a whole hell of a lot. Quote
Scotty Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 In a second as they should. "Those who can afford it" already pay more for their health care in terms of a progressive tax system. Why should we tax them twice? Because what we're doing is not working, and we need to try something new. Some of the Europeans appear to provide better, faster health care than we do, have universal coverage, and yet still have private health insurance and private providers. I say we find out which of them is the most efficient, throw out the Canada Health Act, and adopt their methods wholesale. And if that includes private health care payments then I'm okay with that. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
cybercoma Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 Because as the writing I linked shows the Feds over estimate how much they give in tax point transfers by a whole hell of a lot. The link you posted above has to do with the CHST, which doesn't exist anymore. Quote
punked Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 Because what we're doing is not working, and we need to try something new. Some of the Europeans appear to provide better, faster health care than we do, have universal coverage, and yet still have private health insurance and private providers. I say we find out which of them is the most efficient, throw out the Canada Health Act, and adopt their methods wholesale. And if that includes private health care payments then I'm okay with that. Here is something new stop panicking look at the numbers and realize this is a boomers trend we all need to breath. Yes for the next 20 years Healthcare is going to suck up ALOT of resources and we will have to make tough choices (should we really fight a war for 10 years, should we up the GST, should we cut back funding to other sectors such as University funding) however we need to also realize we are going to bury this problem with the Boomers. Canadian Healthcare will be fine if we can get past this trend I am willing to fight for that. Quote
Scotty Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 I would expect them to fix it, if they felt it was such a big deal. I find it hard to believe the opposition would block any bill to increase funding to healthcare. That would be political suicide. We have been increasing funding to health care pretty steadily for years now with no improvement. We cannot continue to increase health care funding the extent we have been. The provinces are already paying more than half their budgets into it. What do we do when it's 90%? We need to get control of costs AND improve service at the same time. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
punked Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 (edited) The link you posted above has to do with the CHST, which doesn't exist anymore. But even in CHT tax point transfers make up a third of government "transfer" payments. Not to mention because the Transfers make up a third that third is unevenly spread out. EI provinces which have a higher GDP get more in the Transfers then those on the other end of the scale. Edited April 18, 2011 by punked Quote
Scotty Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 Here is something new stop panicking look at the numbers and realize this is a boomers trend we all need to breath. Yes for the next 20 years Healthcare is going to suck up ALOT of resources and we will have to make tough choices (should we really fight a war for 10 years, should we up the GST, should we cut back funding to other sectors such as University funding) however we need to also realize we are going to bury this problem with the Boomers. Canadian Healthcare will be fine if we can get past this trend I am willing to fight for that. The oldest of the boomers are only about 65. Lots of them are only 55. You're dreaming if you think they're all going to be dead in 20 years Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
punked Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 The oldest of the boomers are only about 65. Lots of them are only 55. You're dreaming if you think they're all going to be dead in 20 years Not all of them just half of them. That is all we need to fix our system. It is over loaded by an uneven age distribution once that comes back in line the system will be fixed. Quote
WWWTT Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 That is a good example given most mechanics are thieves who will rob you blind. And the conservatives and liberals are not thieves? WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
cybercoma Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 We have been increasing funding to health care pretty steadily for years now with no improvement. We cannot continue to increase health care funding the extent we have been. The provinces are already paying more than half their budgets into it. What do we do when it's 90%? We need to get control of costs AND improve service at the same time. I'm not claiming healthcare funding should be increased. However, if people are criticizing the Liberals for slashing funding, then implementing the 6% increase, but are not equally as critical about the Conservatives for continuing along with that plan, then they being dishonest with themselves. I'm well aware that increasing funding has massive benefits only up to a certain point, after which the benefits fall off dramatically for every dollar spent. The current levels of spending are more than adequate. We need to focus on programs that improve health by mitigating environmental hazards and unhealthy lifestyle choices. So, don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming we need to put more money in the system. It seemed as though others were criticizing the system put in place by the Liberals, while not criticizing the Conservatives for keeping it there. Quote
capricorn Posted April 18, 2011 Report Posted April 18, 2011 I find it hard to believe the opposition would block any bill to increase funding to healthcare. That would be political suicide. Why is it that when there is a problem with a program the usual solution proposed by the left is to throw more money at it. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.