Ottawa warns current health transfers unsustainable

[cybercoma]

It's strange how there's all this money out there for new prisons, fighter jets, summits that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, secret spending in Clement's riding, helicopter rides from fishing trips, corporate tax cuts, a reduction in the GST, etc.... yet there's not enough money to have a serious discussion about environmental initiatives, for healthcare, for postal workers' retirement security, or for a national day-care program to help poor single-mothers get off welfare.

[Evening Star]

I definitely agree about the tax cuts and prisons. Why were we not hearing this when the GST and corporate taxes were cut?:

The money is not there. A deficit means the amount of available funds is a negative number. Taxes are an unfortunate necessity. No one likes it, but they have to be done.

(And, yeah, you're probably right that it's silly to give the CPC credit for simply following through with an arrangement set up by the previous government.)

[cybercoma]

I definitely agree about the tax cuts and prisons. Why were we not hearing this when the GST and corporate taxes were cut?:

(And, yeah, you're probably right that it's silly to give the CPC credit for simply following through with an arrangement set up by the previous government.)

I considered giving them credit for not cutting it, but when I thought about it, their tax cuts and overspending would be the primary reason they would need to do that. My hunch is that they didn't axe it sooner because the taxpayers would have blamed the problem on them for cutting the GST and it would almost certainly result in a non-confidence motion with a minority government.

We can only wait and see what happens. This is a couple years away yet. A lot can change in that time.

[Jack Weber]

I considered giving them credit for not cutting it, but when I thought about it, their tax cuts and overspending would be the primary reason they would need to do that. My hunch is that they didn't axe it sooner because the taxpayers would have blamed the problem on them for cutting the GST and it would almost certainly result in a non-confidence motion with a minority government.

We can only wait and see what happens. This is a couple years away yet. A lot can change in that time.

I'm sure the friends of the Harper Government in the cabal of money grubbing scum,known as the insurance industry,are licking there collective chops over the prospect of cutting health care funding...

[jbg]

With an aging population, this is going to be a disaster. The following government, whether it's the Conservatives or someone else is not going to be able to do a thing. They're playing with fire here. Provinces like NB are completely unable to sustain their healthcare system on their own. Middle-aged people leave the province, so there's less people footing the revenues that are being used by the elderly. Stripping the health transfers is going to be a nightmare.

Didn't someone ever tell Canadians that Santa Claus lives in the hearts of adults, not children?

[TimG]

yet there's not enough money to have a serious discussion about environmental initiatives, for healthcare, for postal workers' retirement security, or for a national day-care program to help poor single-mothers get off welfare.

All of the issues you list are huge big ticket items cost far more than the conservative spending that you complain about. The idea of a national day care program is a sick joke. The last thing this country needs is yet another entitlement program that will have to be cut in the future.

As for healthcare: the system is unsustainable. There is simply not enough money that can fund unlimited care with no questions asked. The weaker provinces will obviously be the first to hit the wall but all provinces are heading towards it. Throwing more money at the system simply delays the inevitable. At some point we are going to have to have to decide how to deny access to free health care in the most human way possible.

Edited December 18, 2011 by TimG

[Scotty]

Maybe the next election cycle boomers will be smart enough to elect a competent government... Nope, couldn't say that with a strait face.

Would that be like the last Liberal government, which, despite years of immense surpluses, let the health care system waste away for lack of money because, quite frankly, they just didn't give a damn?

[Scotty]

What BS that statement is, the LIBERALS increased healthcare funding th

The Liberals decreased health care funding as part of their deficit fighting efforts. Then, after the economy turned around they did nothing to restore that funding. As the population increased over the years, and the health care system continued to deteriorate, they continued to do nothing because they felt no political need to act, given their high place in the polls Only near the end of their rule, when the polls turned around and they began to feel threatened did they suddenly discover a deep and abiding care for the state of our health care system and move to address it.

[Scotty]

They're working on crafting public opinion. They'll talk for the next 4 years about how health care transfers are unsustainable,

I don't suppose you've paused long enough to consider the fact that they're right?

No, of course not.

[Scotty]

By the bye, that plan came out of the Romanow Commission... also not a Conservative... which was called for on the advice of Jean Chretien.... also not a Conservative.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/hhr-rhs/strateg/romanow-eng.php

Perhaps if it was led by a Conservative, it wouldn't have spend months and millions and come up with a singular answer to all our health care problems.

Just spend more money!

That was it. The only recommendation to come out of the inquiry. All problems solved. Just keep spending more money!

Ah, the brilliant economics of the Left.

[Scotty]

Didn't someone ever tell Canadians that Santa Claus lives in the hearts of adults, not children?

Left wing Canadians.

[Scotty]

As for healthcare: the system is unsustainable. There is simply not enough money that can fund unlimited care with no questions asked.

Correct. But the necessary reform has been kicked down the road again and again because of the complexity involved, and the need to get eleven provinces to agree with the feds on a new system. The Liberals felt no particular political pressure to do anything. They're often expressed love for social programs seems more than enough to please the sheep which follow them. The Tories, unfortunately, have not shown the courage to take on the herculean task of major reform. In part, that's because they feel so vulnerable to the oft-expressed charge that they're trying to bring in an American system. Any major moves away from the current system would have the Liberals and NDP screaming it from the top of their lungs. And such a change is not something which happens overnight. The organization and discussions will take years, the implementation more years, the benefits more years to be seen. Clearly they don't want that hanging around their necks in the next election. Yet if not them, who? Certainly the Liberals won't do anything. The NDP? They'll just double taxes and beam around at everyone, waiting to bask in admiration at their 'generosity'.

[cybercoma]

All of the issues you list are huge big ticket items cost far more than the conservative spending that you complain about. The idea of a national day care program is a sick joke. The last thing this country needs is yet another entitlement program that will have to be cut in the future.

As for healthcare: the system is unsustainable. There is simply not enough money that can fund unlimited care with no questions asked. The weaker provinces will obviously be the first to hit the wall but all provinces are heading towards it. Throwing more money at the system simply delays the inevitable. At some point we are going to have to have to decide how to deny access to free health care in the most human way possible.

I'm not interested in having a discussion with someone so uninformed about what he criticizes that he's little more than a caricature. Healthcare is not "unlimited ... no questions asked." They don't pay for dentistry, optometry, most cosmetic surgery, or pharmaceuticals. The national day care program has nothing to do with a "sense of entitlement" and was actually shown in studies to save taxpayers money by allowing people to find work, thus reducing government expenditures by taking them off welfare and increasing government revenues through the taxes that they pay. There are many valid arguments you could make against both of these things, but the ones you do make are utter nonsense.

[cybercoma]

Would that be like the last Liberal government, which, despite years of immense surpluses, let the health care system waste away for lack of money because, quite frankly, they just didn't give a damn?

So the healthcare system wasted away due to a lack of funding; it has now been brought back up to standard, but you believe we should cut its funding back again like the LPC did. That doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense.

[Evening Star]

All of the issues you list are huge big ticket items cost far more than the conservative spending that you complain about.

I'm not convinced about this yet. Do you have figures on the cost of Tory tax cuts (throw in the TFSA as well) vs the cost of sustaining health care funding? (And what is the cost of "discussing environmental initiatives"?)

[TimG]

Healthcare is not "unlimited ... no questions asked." They don't pay for dentistry, optometry, most cosmetic surgery, or pharmaceuticals.

All "medically necessary" treatment is covered - no questions asked. Seniors have their drugs paid for - a expense that is expoding over time. So unless you are talking about adding numerous 'medically necessary' treatments to the list of exlusions then you are simply creating a smoke screen to avoid acknowledging the problem.

The national day care program has nothing to do with a "sense of entitlement" and was actually shown in studies to save taxpayers money by allowing people to find work, thus reducing government expenditures by taking them off welfare and increasing government revenues through the taxes that they pay.

Right. And what happens when they have employment no longer qualify for the 'free darecare'? They go back on welfare? Sounds to me like your are creating an entitlement that creates an incentive for single mothers to go on welfare for so they can get the 'lifetime entitlement to free childcare'.

[Evening Star]

Right. And what happens when they have employment no longer qualify for the 'free darecare'? They go back on welfare? Sounds to me like your are creating an entitlement that creates an incentive for single mothers to go on welfare for so they can get the 'lifetime entitlement to free childcare'.

Thought public day care was meant for people who do work?

[Scotty]

So the healthcare system wasted away due to a lack of funding; it has now been brought back up to standard, but you believe we should cut its funding back again like the LPC did. That doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense.

First: The health care system hasn't been brought up to 'standard' which, I take it, you mean an acceptable condition of efficiency and effectiveness. It is still in deep trouble.

Second: They are not cutting funding, they are suggesting the rate of increase is unsustainable.

[TimG]

I'm not convinced about this yet. Do you have figures on the cost of Tory tax cuts (throw in the TFSA as well) vs the cost of sustaining health care funding?

If provinces need money for healthcare they are free to raise the province sales taxes. It is not the federal government's problem. That is why tax cuts are not really the same as spending decisions. Edited December 18, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

Thought public day care was meant for people who do work?

Cybercoma tried to claim a national daycare program that is only for welfare mothers would recover its costs. I was just pointing out the contradictions in such an argument.

[Guest Manny]

The system needs to be constantly maintained, but has been sustainable up until now. Why suddenly with this government do we hear these threats about it no longer being sustainable?

Meanwhile we are paying more and more in taxes. I don't mind to pay my fair share but I expect they should take very good care of the tax money, not waste it on stupid expensive ventures that don't provide any real value for Canadians, like the overpriced fighter jets.

But I knew this government was going to be a big big problem, yet Canadians voted for them and finally gave him his majority. Because our democracy depends on stupid voters who know nothing about the politics that's on the table, they only vote for a personality. We get the government we deserve.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Health care and its compatriot education are the two big ticket items on the block. In addition the government seeks a ten percent overall reduction in expenditures, that's their plan, austerity leads to prosperity. From my point of view the feds have nothing to do with healthcare, its a provincial responsibility. The feds set a standard, and they provide some funding. The funding formula is a political football, nothing more.

That football needs to be passed to the provinces.

[Michael Hardner]

double post

[Michael Hardner]

triple post

[Michael Hardner]

The system needs to be constantly maintained, but has been sustainable up until now. Why suddenly with this government do we hear these threats about it no longer being sustainable?

Because the funding agreement will be expiring soon, and costs can't continue to grow faster than inflation.

Meanwhile we are paying more and more in taxes. I don't mind to pay my fair share but I expect they should take very good care of the tax money, not waste it on stupid expensive ventures that don't provide any real value for Canadians, like the overpriced fighter jets.

If we're already making "either/or" decisions with regards to other spending - and defense is just one example - then doesn't that mean we need to look more closely at ways to stop healthcare spending increases ?

But I knew this government was going to be a big big problem, yet Canadians voted for them and finally gave him his majority. Because our democracy depends on stupid voters who know nothing about the politics that's on the table, they only vote for a personality. We get the government we deserve.

We also need to talk about paying for services, not just getting services.

So the healthcare system wasted away due to a lack of funding; it has now been brought back up to standard, but you believe we should cut its funding back again like the LPC did. That doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense.

It would be better if we had a common understanding of where the increases are going and what we can do about that. In order to have that understanding, we have to have productive dialogue.

Health care and its compatriot education are the two big ticket items on the block. In addition the government seeks a ten percent overall reduction in expenditures, that's their plan, austerity leads to prosperity. From my point of view the feds have nothing to do with healthcare, its a provincial responsibility. The feds set a standard, and they provide some funding. The funding formula is a political football, nothing more.

That football needs to be passed to the provinces.

The Federal government oversees national standards and can tie transfer payments to better practices in terms of cost control and accountability.

---------------------

If we want to have a productive dialogue, it is essential to focus on the facts IMO.

For facts, there is no better source in Canada than the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

Read THIS: CIHI Healthcare Cost Drivers over the past decade