Ottawa warns current health transfers unsustainable

[Vendetta]

The crime bill will save us a lot of money.

http://www.danieldickin.ca/2011/12/real-costs-of-bill-c-10.html

Wow! This is the new "STUPIDIEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD".

[TimG]

So it's not that the money isn't there. You just want the responsibility shifted more to the provinces.

No. The money is not there. Shifting it to be provinces would put an end to the figure pointing that allows politicians to evade taking responsibility for controlling costs.

[cybercoma]

It's the current rate of automatic 6% per year increases that is unsustainable. The only plan on the table right now for health transfers is to tie future increases to the rate of inflation. The cuts are going to be 5-10% across the board to federal departments.

And what if healthcare costs are outpacing the general rate of inflation using the CPI?

[TimG]

Do we instead want to raise taxes to take care of a generation who has helped make Canada great?

You mean the generation that did not pay enough for the services/pensions that they expect to recieve and are now demanding that the younger generation pay for benefits that younger generation will never receive?

The fact is labour costs are the biggest component of the health care cost explosion and any funding increases will simply be spent on paying even more in wages and benefits. It is a bottomless pit. So I do not buy the argument that more money will solve the problems. What we have are structural issues which must be resolved before we talk about raising taxes to fund the system.

[cybercoma]

I would love to read that link could you repost.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20027&view=findpost&p=743660

That's the link to his post. It didn't say age wasn't a factor, rather it's a modest factor behind technology changes.

[Michael Hardner]

You "think" so ? You can read the link and "know" so !

Edit: here it is again

Reposting my link again.

[CPCFTW]

The real problem here when people like Harper or our own posters say things like "Health care is unsustainable at the current rate" is that they can't see the forrest through the trees. No one is saying Healthcare should get 6% increases forever but what we are saying is this is a problem that will be buried with the Boomers. The problem will solve itself as the older generation dies off but for right now if we don't increase health care funding to fit the need of an older population what will happen is a failing of health care to that generation.

The real question is "Do we want to either cut else where (military jets, prisons etc.) and have a healthy population? Do we instead want to raise taxes to take care of a generation who has helped make Canada great? Or do we want to see them wait in health care lines to die because we are pretending there is some sort of false problem. Health care does not need to be increased at 6% forever but it does over the next decade to meet a need.

When you say it is unsustainable no one is disagreeing but no one in there right mind thinks these cost wont go down as the boomers die off. You are using a demographic problem to create a healthcare one and that just isn't right.

Another decade? Canadian boomers are 45 to 65 years old. Get your facts straight.

The real issue here is an entitled generation that already bankrupted Europe and the US. If a Canadian province wants to bankrupt themselves so that boomers (who already escaped the harsh realities of life through protectionism and borrowing from China) can go out with unlimited costs, then they are free to do so.

And why do we keep talking about the HST? Last I checked provinces had income taxes too.

[Scotty]

Remember the Ontarian Tory that said create a crisis so you can change things, well this may be what the Tories are doing now. Harper has his plan and now that we all know what it is, provinces funding it with little help from the Feds, then whoever votes for them in 2014, will be passing up health care in Canada as we know it today and they will be back saying Canadians wanted us to do this.

The Conservatives have been calling for stiffer sentences for decades. That is bedrock conservatism, and doesn't have to be invented for political strategizing.

[Scotty]

Yah nope. 78 million is the Federal portion the provincial portion is somewhere between 500 million to 1 billion a year. I would call you a liar but I don't know if you are lying on purpose or if you are just so misinformed on all subjects that you truly don't understand.

And I have previously posted cites which show that the stimated cost of crime in Canada is between $50 billion and $100 billion. And that this estimate is conservative. Much of this cost is from repeat offenders. In fact, the bulk of crime as well as the bulk of prison and court costs are from repeat offenders. It seems logical that locking them up longer would actually save quite a bit of money. It might not save tax dollars, but it wills ave Canadians money, and all our money comes from the same source - us.

This is a university of Ottawa study.

Cost of crime to Canadians $47 billion

This does not include the costs of courts or police or prisons. It also doesn't include the $11,000,000,000 spent each year in Canada on security - which is of course, because of criminals.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Scotty

[Scotty]

Wow! This is the new "STUPIDIEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD".

Nice contribution to the debate, guy. It's clear you put a lot of thought, effort and research into it.

[Scotty]

You mean the generation that did not pay enough for the services/pensions that they expect to recieve and are now demanding that the younger generation pay for benefits that younger generation will never receive?

Funny, I was just listening to the radio and the guy was going on about how the baby boomer generation doesn't plan on leaving any money to their kids. Most of them plan to use up their money traveling, enjoying life, and then, wait for it... they plan to move in with their kids. And they'll have to, because the boomer generation hasn't really put a lot of effort into saving money, and with current life expectancies they're not going to have enough to support themselves in their old age. Especially after they finish partying.

[cybercoma]

And I have previously posted cites which show that the stimated cost of crime in Canada is between $50 billion and $100 billion. And that this estimate is conservative. Much of this cost is from repeat offenders. In fact, the bulk of crime as well as the bulk of prison and court costs are from repeat offenders. It seems logical that locking them up longer would actually save quite a bit of money. It might not save tax dollars, but it wills ave Canadians money, and all our money comes from the same source - us.

You know what Texas says about repeat offenders? That Harper is going to create more of them with his new bill.

[Scotty]

You know what Texas says about repeat offenders? That Harper is going to create more of them with his new bill.

I don't see how given the bill merely strengthens sentences for certain crimes. They were already crimes, and anyone breaks them is already an offender. That they aren't caught, or that they aren't punished doesn't change that.

[Vendetta]

Nice contribution to the debate, guy. It's clear you put a lot of thought, effort and research into it.

Yeah and I didn't even take the time to spell check it! "stupidiest"? Too ironic.

Still not as stupid as claiming that incarcerating more people for longer times for less serious crimes will "save us money".

[Michael Hardner]

One thing I got out of this thread was that punked seemed to agree that 6% increases can't/shouldn't/neededn't continue forever. Am I correct in that assessment ?

For those of you/us who champion socialized healthcare - what constraints would you put on increases in costs ? Inflation ? Inflation plus a certain factor ? Or would you do it differently ?

[TimG]

For those of you/us who champion socialized healthcare - what constraints would you put on increases in costs ? Inflation ? Inflation plus a certain factor ? Or would you do it differently ?

I think the more important question is: what will you accept as a way to control costs if the need outstrips the available money (whatever thay is)? Edited December 18, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I think the more important question is: what will you accept as a way to control costs if the need outstrips the available money (whatever thay is)?

Yes, that is the most important question but first I'd like to see if there is even acknowledgment that costs need to be controlled, believe it or not.

If the prime drivers of costs are indeed new technologies, methods, and drugs then that's a certain kind of problem. We can be luddites and reject change altogether, or we can adopt every new advance that there is. Of course, we'll be somewhere in the middle and we should address your question as a question of process, IMO.

[cybercoma]

One thing I got out of this thread was that punked seemed to agree that 6% increases can't/shouldn't/neededn't continue forever. Am I correct in that assessment ?

For those of you/us who champion socialized healthcare - what constraints would you put on increases in costs ? Inflation ? Inflation plus a certain factor ? Or would you do it differently ?

It can't necessarily be inflation because the cost of the new technology may outpace inflation. That's the problem. Understandably it may be increasingly more difficult to pay for healthcare; however, we have the most rapidly increasing income gap in the developed nations. Obviously, our taxation system is not working the way it should. No conversation about any social services can occur without a serious discussion about the fairness and effectiveness of all of the various forms of taxes we have. At the same time, we need a serious discussion of prevention, not only how can we encourage people to be healthier, but also how we can work to keep people from getting sick or injured. The fact of the matter is that there comes a certain point where dumping more money into healthcare doesn't actually create any significant increase in the common metrics (infant mortality, life expectancy, etc.)

So, dumping money directly into healthcare may not be the best answer, but dumping money into other things related to healthcare might give us more bang for our buck. For instance, I posted Dr. Wilkinson's TED lecture not too long ago and he showed how a growing income gap actually adversely affects infant mortality at all income ranges, although it had a greater impact on those who were poorer. That means exactly what it suggests. A lower income gap actually improves infant mortality across the board. The poor see a much greater improve, while the rich don't see as much of a gain, but they see a gain nonetheless. These are all things that need to be considered, rather than just writing it off and saying the provinces need to take care of it. There is a very good reason for transfer payments. Someone that's transferred from their job in Regina to an office in St. John's ought to be able to expect the same level of care if they go to the hospital.

[Michael Hardner]

It can't necessarily be inflation because the cost of the new technology may outpace inflation. That's the problem.

Well the agreements usually have a cap, but yes I understand your point.

We may need to have public dialogue about new drugs and procedures, and a dialogue about the costs/benefits. But there isn't really a good forum for such discussions today.

No conversation about any social services can occur without a serious discussion about the fairness and effectiveness of all of the various forms of taxes we have.

You have to have those conversations separately, though, because they are two huge areas of discussion. The same goes for the conversation about income inequality.

At the same time, we need a serious discussion of prevention, not only how can we encourage people to be healthier, but also how we can work to keep people from getting sick or injured. The fact of the matter is that there comes a certain point where dumping more money into healthcare doesn't actually create any significant increase in the common metrics (infant mortality, life expectancy, etc.)

Yes, but we do that today. We could treat such funding as an investment and tie it to overall improvements, and lower costs.

In terms of mortality figures, and so on, the new technologies increase quality of life as well.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The health care issues we currently have are not insurmountable. All it will take is sufficient political will to tackle the problem. That will is created by the citizens themselves.

[TimG]

we have the most rapidly increasing income gap in the developed nations. Obviously, our taxation system is not working the way it should.

Nonsense. The gap between the rich and the poor is NOT a measure of the effectiveness of the tax system. In fact, the "gap" itself is meanless statistic. What matters is the median income. If that is growing then things are generally good.

At the same time, we need a serious discussion of prevention, not only how can we encourage people to be healthier, but also how we can work to keep people from getting sick or injured.

90% of prevention: don't drink or do drugs, don't smoke, exercise regularily and eat right. Most people already know this but choose to ignore the advice. Any savings that would come from further government programs would be marginal at best.

A lower income gap actually improves infant mortality across the board.

Infant mortality is 0.52% in Canada. It is not something we really need to worry about.

[cybercoma]

Nonsense. The gap between the rich and the poor is NOT a measure of the effectiveness of the tax system. In fact, the "gap" itself is meanless statistic. What matters is the median income. If that is growing then things are generally good.

You're wrong and I've already posted extensively about it here.

90% of prevention: don't drink or do drugs, don't smoke, exercise regularily and eat right. Most people already know this but choose to ignore the advice. Any savings that would come from further government programs would be marginal at best.

Simple. Why isn't everyone doing it? What about workplace injuries? What about mental health issues?

Infant mortality is 0.52% in Canada. It is not something we really need to worry about.

And that's higher than Japan, Sweden, Norway, France, Denmark, Switzerland, and Germany. All countries that have lower income gaps than Canada. But, I guess you don't need to worry about that.

[TimG]

You're wrong and I've already posted extensively about it

I see nothing that indicates a causal relationship between those effects and "income inequality". In fact, it makes no sense that there would be a causal relationship. I think social cohesion and no under acheiving minorities explains a lot of those so called effects.

Simple. Why isn't everyone doing it?

Because people make choices. Government cannot stop them. It is naive to assume that government can.

And that's higher than Japan, Sweden, Norway, France, Denmark, Switzerland, and Germany. All countries that have lower income gaps than Canada. But, I guess you don't need to worry about that.

Yet Singapore has the lowest infant mortality and it has a higher income inequality than the US. You are obessing about a single statistic that likely has no causal relationship with any of the criteria that you list. I think absolute increases in median income are a much better predictor of the progress of a society.

[cybercoma]

I see nothing that indicates a causal relationship between those effects and "income inequality". In fact, it makes no sense that there would be a causal relationship. I think social cohesion and no under acheiving minorities explains a lot of those so called effects.

Sounds like something the Third Reich would say. If only we didn't have minorities, we would have greater social cohesion and less problems. Except the fact is Wilkinson has done extension research that shows social cohesion is destroyed by greater income inequality and not racial disparity. There is no greater stratification in society than income. Race, ethnicity, and gender are other forms of stratification, but when you control for them, nothing is more detrimental than income stratification. In fact, it is usually racism or bigotry that leads the "outsiders" into a position of economic inequality, which results in the problems already listed. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that racists and bigots can point to and say there's something wrong about them because of their race or ethnicity.

To prove my point, Wilkinson's other work was a longitudinal study of a Chicago ghetto. It always had the same problems with income inequality compared to the rest of the city and suffered the same social/health issues that Wilkinson identified in his TED lecture. What's more is that it didn't matter whether it was the Polish living there at the turn of the century, Blacks through the middle of the century, or Latinos that live there towards the end of the century to today. Their ethnicity did not play a factor, but the same problems still remained.

What you've done here is shown that you have a racist and bigoted bias. You assumed a conclusion that has not been proven, based on your own personal feelings about people of different races and ethnicities. You seem to believe their race or ethnicity won't allow them "integrate" into society, so this leads them to commit crimes and have poorer health problems. Your racist and bigoted fallacy also presumes that minorities are criminals for no other reason than because they're minorities, failing to take into account their economic situation.

It's good to know what kind of person I'm dealing with.

Because people make choices. Government cannot stop them. It is naive to assume that government can.

No one said anything about the government forcing anyone to do anything. Why do people make unhealthy choices when the benefit to making healthy choices is that you will live longer and be healthier?

Yet Singapore has the lowest infant mortality and it has a higher income inequality than the US. You are obessing about a single statistic that likely has no causal relationship with any of the criteria that you list. I think absolute increases in median income are a much better predictor of the progress of a society.

That was one small example of the myriad information presented in the discussion. An outlier does not show that this is how the nations perform as a group. The correlation between income gaps in the industrial world and health/social problems is incredibly high for social science. The problem is you point to a single example of a country with a lower IMR and higher GINI, while I can point to Japan, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands all having lower income inequality and lower infant mortality rates than USA, the UK, and New Zealand, just to name a few. But beyond that, you can even compare income inequality and infant mortality between states within the US and the same correlation still exists. So, if you would accept the wrong conclusion based on what you observe about Singapore, you must reject that conclusion and accept the opposite to be true, given that there are many, many more examples of that one. I don't expect you to do that though. It doesn't really fit with your disproven racist and bigoted bias.

[TimG]

Except the fact is Wilkinson has done extension research that shows social cohesion is destroyed by greater income inequality and not racial disparity.

Not all minorities are equal. In Canada, East Asians and South Asians do quite well and may actually pull up the average. I doubt that Wilkinson looked into such complexity.

What's more is that it didn't matter whether it was the Polish living there at the turn of the century, Blacks through the middle of the century, or Latinos that live there towards the end of the century to today. Their ethnicity did not play a factor, but the same problems still remained.

Inequality is not a problem. The issue is whether there is social mobility. Where there are problems it is because of barriers to social mobility. Inequality is a red herring.

That was one small example of the myriad information presented in the discussion. An outlier does not show that this is how the nations perform as a group.

But it does undermine your premise that there is a causal relationship between income inequality and the other outcomes which you point to. All you have presented is a "correlation" - a "correlation" that could easily indicate that the positive cultural attributes that lead to the positive outcomes you suggest also leads to a society with less income disparity. You have presented no evidence that simply reducing income disparity will have any of the positive effects you claimed.

Keep in mind the absurdity of your premise. You are basically saying a society where everyone is equally poor is better off than a society where everyone is richer but there is a large gap between the rich and the poor. This makes no sense.

Edited December 20, 2011 by TimG