Finance Ministers Conference

[Topaz]

The Finance Ministers of the provinces and Canada are meeting in B.C. and are talking about health care transfers , pensions etc. Not sure good things are going to come out of this and I still think the Feds are going to cut back on health care transfers after 2016 and put the money elsewhere like the military. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/12/19/finance-ministers-meet.html

[olp1fan]

They upped the transfers now until 2017

lol

[Topaz]

The latest news now is that the Fed. Finance Minister told the provincial ministers this is what you are going to get and not a penny more, you're on your own in heath care. When Health care was first created, it was 50/50 and now is 20/80 and they want to take it down more, based on GDP. I'd say that a losing proposition for Canadians, Yes, they are giving back 6% but then they are going down to 3%, what kind of health care will Canada have or should I say what kind of health care will provinces be able to deliver?

[Michael Hardner]

what kind of health care will Canada have or should I say what kind of health care will provinces be able to deliver?

Healthcare thread is here.

[Keepitsimple]

The latest news now is that the Fed. Finance Minister told the provincial ministers this is what you are going to get and not a penny more, you're on your own in heath care. When Health care was first created, it was 50/50 and now is 20/80 and they want to take it down more, based on GDP. I'd say that a losing proposition for Canadians, Yes, they are giving back 6% but then they are going down to 3%, what kind of health care will Canada have or should I say what kind of health care will provinces be able to deliver?

You should understand that as the proportion changed, Ottawa gave up "tax points" to the provinces - in other words, the Feds taxed less so the Provinces could tax more - and that makes up for the reduction in Federal Health Care Payments. It made sense - since the responsibility for delivering healthcare rests with the Provinces - they rightly should be able to raise most of their own funding and not go cap-in-hand to the Feds. Conveniently, when times are tough, the usual suspects forget about the transfer of tax points.

Secondly, what shape would your household budget be in if your expenses went up 6% every year but your income only rose by 2 or 3%. That's a sure road to bankruptcy - or to the severe austerity that European countries have woken up to.

[dre]

The latest news now is that the Fed. Finance Minister told the provincial ministers this is what you are going to get and not a penny more, you're on your own in heath care. When Health care was first created, it was 50/50 and now is 20/80 and they want to take it down more, based on GDP. I'd say that a losing proposition for Canadians, Yes, they are giving back 6% but then they are going down to 3%, what kind of health care will Canada have or should I say what kind of health care will provinces be able to deliver?

Its makes perfect sense to me. If they can sabatauge the health system, it would be a usefull step towards private health care, or two tier healthcare. Its a smart move for the CPC.

[Evening Star]

This article suggests that public health care may be perfectly sustainable after all. Seems credible to me so far:

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Leading-Economist-Shatters-Myth-That-Public-Health-Care-is-Unsustainable-Pins-Blame-1277755.htm

[jacee]

Public health care beats private hands down.

Economies of scale and administration savings are huge, and no need for profit margin.

Support among Canadians for public over private health care is very solid.

And the boomers aren't as 'tory' as older seniors.

It's gonna be interesting!

(grabs popcorn)

[dre]

Public health care beats private hands down.

Economies of scale and administration savings are huge, and no need for profit margin.

Support among Canadians for public over private health care is very solid.

And the boomers aren't as 'tory' as older seniors.

It's gonna be interesting!

(grabs popcorn)

Public health care beats private hands down.

The problem is, that regardless who the payer is, inflation adjusted healthcare costs are increasing. That cannot go on indefinately. At some point we are going to have to make some tough choices. We will need to open up the market to global competition, or we will needs to more carefully evaluate the level of care thats reasonable.

[CPCFTW]

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2011/ch2h.html#c2_secH_chart23

$47.6B is spent on healthcare in Ontario by the provincial government per year (38% of government spending).

There are 13.3 million Ontarians.

That is $3578 per Ontarian.

Would you opt out of Ontario health care for a $3578 cheque per year? I sure as hell would. I go to the Doc maybe twice a year for less than 30 minutes and I usually diagnose myself and just ask the doc to write me a prescription. Last I checked, doctors don't make $3500 per hour.

Health cards need to have a usage limit. For example, after the age of 10, you shouldn't be able to go to a health clinic more than 6 times per year (without paying).

Or give me my $3500/yr and let me opt out of the health care program (and make room for private health clinics). I will invest around $3000/yr of that money and have over $100-200k saved up for private treatment by the time I'm in my 60s and actually need to use that health care money. My capital gains and dividends can be taxed to generate more revenue for the people that want to remain in the system.

Costs need to come down. They are ridiculous.

If there's one thing all people will be greedy about, it is their health. Free health care is not sustainable.

Edited December 20, 2011 by CPCFTW

[olp1fan]

My health issues cost more than 3578 a year.. I'd be totally screwed in private healthcare

[olp1fan]

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2011/ch2h.html#c2_secH_chart23

$47.6B is spent on healthcare in Ontario by the provincial government per year (38% of government spending).

There are 13.3 million Ontarians.

That is $3578 per Ontarian.

Would you opt out of Ontario health care for a $3578 cheque per year? I sure as hell would. I go to the Doc maybe twice a year for less than 30 minutes and I usually diagnose myself and just ask the doc to write me a prescription. Last I checked, doctors don't make $3500 per hour.

Health cards need to have a usage limit. For example, after the age of 10, you shouldn't be able to go to a health clinic more than 6 times per year (without paying).

Or give me my $3500/yr and let me opt out of the health care program (and make room for private health clinics). I will invest around $3000/yr of that money and have over $100-200k saved up for private treatment by the time I'm in my 60s and actually need to use that health care money. My capital gains and dividends can be taxed to generate more revenue for the people that want to remain in the system.

Costs need to come down. They are ridiculus.i

Why do we insist on babysitting idiots? If people are too stupid to save

that is fine for right now but you will either get cancer or have another medical emergency at some point

then what? you got 70 000 lined up for that?

man things you dont forsee could happen to your saved up money

Edited December 20, 2011 by olp1fan

[CPCFTW]

that is fine for right now but you will either get cancer or have another medical emergency at some point

then what? you got 70 000 lined up for that?

I would if I collected $3500 x my age. My family would also assist in that case.

Cancer is horrible, and it's certainly possible that I will get it at some point in the future. But it shouldn't be society's burden to bear. I could also get a health plan which covers cancer and medical emergencies for far cheaper than $3500/yr.

I'm sure cancer charities would also exist.

Worst case, start a Canadian cancer group insurance scheme where every Canadian is insured for a certain percentage of cancer expenses (lets say 90%) up to a limit. This way, if you need to dump $1 million for treatment that will give you a 5% chance of survival, you'll at least have to muster up 100k yourself.

People are mortal, no amount of money will make that go away.

Edited December 20, 2011 by CPCFTW

[olp1fan]

I would if I collected $3500 x my age. My family would also assist in that case.

Cancer is horrible, and it's certainly possible that I will get it at some point in the future. But it shouldn't be society's burden to bear. I could also get a health plan which covers cancer and medical emergencies for far cheaper than $3500/yr.

what if you get in a serious car wreck the day or months after you collect that cheque?

your family has 150 000 to lend you?

good luck finding a reliable health plan then

Edited December 20, 2011 by olp1fan

[CPCFTW]

what if you get in a serious car wreck the day or months after you collect that cheque?

your family has 150 000 to lend you?

good luck finding a reliable health plan then

You're missing the point, I would have had a reliable health plan already. And I would already have well over 100k saved up from that $3500/yr. Not to mention my parents would have a sizable amount banked.

Hell, you could even force Canadians to hold those 50% of those funds in a "RHSP" (registered health savings plan) and only allow them to withdraw it for health purposes. Then pass any remaining assets onto dependents into their own "RHSPs".

Just throwing ideas out there because the current model is unsustainable.

Edited December 20, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Michael Hardner]

This article suggests that public health care may be perfectly sustainable after all. Seems credible to me so far:

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Leading-Economist-Shatters-Myth-That-Public-Health-Care-is-Unsustainable-Pins-Blame-1277755.htm

Their main point seems to be that pharma and technology is driving cost increases, and I don't think that's disputed in the CIHI report. But paying for such things is part of public healthcare, so how does it help to point this out ? What can be done about these things, other than passing the costs on directly ? Is that what they want ?

Also, we should note that this perspective comes from an advocacy group.

[Michael Hardner]

Or give me my $3500/yr and let me opt out of the health care program (and make room for private health clinics). I will invest around $3000/yr of that money and have over $100-200k saved up for private treatment by the time I'm in my 60s and actually need to use that health care money.

That plan will never happen. More people will use that money to get by than to save, and when they get sick they will turn to the state for assistance.

[Michael Hardner]

Healthcare thread is here.

Also, once again the healthcare thread specifically talks about healthcare costs - lots of good information there.

[cybercoma]

Ottawa gave up "tax points" to the provinces ... and that makes up for the reduction in Federal Health Care Payments. ... Conveniently, when times are tough, the usual suspects forget about the transfer of tax points.

The tax-points are calculated in the amount of funding the provinces get. They don't "forget" about the tax-points. Ottawa doesn't hand the provinces an envelope overflowing with money. They give them a combination of tax-points and cash.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The Finance Ministers of the provinces and Canada are meeting in B.C. and are talking about health care transfers , pensions etc. Not sure good things are going to come out of this and I still think the Feds are going to cut back on health care transfers after 2016 and put the money elsewhere like the military. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/12/19/finance-ministers-meet.html

The way I read the article, all that is really defined is the current plan. We are talking about the transfer of funding to the provinces. The problem is that the provinces will have to raise their taxes for every reduction in federal taxes. The fed share is designed to shrink, to what level is not clear. In my view that is simply a fine solution. Given that the responsibility of health care is known to be provincial not federal. The provinces own this, always have and always will.

[Topaz]

I can see many problems for the provinces on this. First of all, the province of B.C. would end up have the most people to cover when retirees move there from across the country. The poorer provinces would be lucky to have basic care, when they are still paying tax dollars to the provinces or to the Feds. Those provinces would have to layoff nurse and doctors, close some hospital, probably in smaller rural regions and only God is going to help those with diseases like cancer. As far of Canadians paying for health insurance, they don't spend the money to heal the patient they are there to make MONEY and if its anything like the US HMO, you or the doctor don't get a choice of health care, you take what they offer. The next point how are most Canadians going to afford paying for the private insurance? They can't! If the feds are in trouble money wise its THEIR fault, and its always ends up the tax payers who get the death sentence. The Tories are going for private health care, a Tory senator even brought it up in a committee meeting I watched a few days ago while talking to two health minsters from Manitoba and Nova Scotia. There another point to be make, the finance minister says Canada can't afford our health care , so IF we can't afford it then why are they spending money on jails and jets?? Let's face it, I bet all those MP's go to a private clinic, and they don't have to wait in line and they don't have to worry about money because they are sucking Canadians tax payers dry. If any of you think I'm going over board with this, you should hear what others are saying in the coffee shops.

[cybercoma]

The way I read the article, all that is really defined is the current plan. We are talking about the transfer of funding to the provinces. The problem is that the provinces will have to raise their taxes for every reduction in federal taxes. The fed share is designed to shrink, to what level is not clear. In my view that is simply a fine solution. Given that the responsibility of health care is known to be provincial not federal. The provinces own this, always have and always will.

The fed has overspent already. They're behind the 8-ball. If this was a matter of the fed reducing its taxes, while allowing the provinces to raise theirs, the discussion would not be had. Those are called income-tax transfer points (ITPs). They're actually calculated as part of the money sent to the provinces, although they're not actually "sent" there per se. It sort of in a roundabout way allows the provinces to raise taxes, while the feds lower them, without the taxpayer noticing the difference. There would not even be an issue if that were the case. The problem is that the feds will not be lowering taxes. In fact, I would not be surprised to see them increase taxes by either freezing the personal tax exemption base rate (I can't imagine they would lower it) or cancelling some of the credits they put into place. That's in conjunction with requiring the provinces to raise their taxes as well. Make no mistake about it, the Conservative Government is a monstrous tax and spend government.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Of course there will be problems for the province! Its their programs not the feds. Tax dollars staying in the province should make you at least consider the real net impact. The transfer of power to the province will come with a price.

Lets be realistic for a minute. To fix health care, which by the way means different things in different places, It is a "local" problem, not a national one. You can only fix the problems one by one in place after place. Each so called problem is really some citizen needing some form of care. There is no legislative blanket to cure all of our ills within the system. That is because costs exceed funding, its a game of dollars and common sense make no mistake about it. Its complicated and there are no easy solutions.

It may be time to step outside of the box and seek new ways to solve our problems. A good start I think would be to convince the citizens that every dollar the government taxes is a dollar removed from a consumers pocket. That consumer is the real driving force of the economy, and a reduction in that spending impacts all citizens. So government spending actually detracts from the citizens ability to consume products and services. It puts the interests of business in opposition to that of the government. Its no wonder we find ourselves at this point.

[cybercoma]

the finance minister says Canada can't afford our health care , so IF we can't afford it then why are they spending money on jails and jets??

Jails, jets, gazebos in Clement's riding, flights to hockey games, helicopter rides, hundreds of millions on G8/G20 security, a fake lake for a photo op, a second Remembrance Day party to honour the vets from Libya, more cabinet ministers with their golden parachutes, more seats in parliament, billions in tax-cuts to businesses, expensive european hotels, and tickets to the grey cup. All on the taxpayers' dime. And you know who, ironically, is the biggest critic of Conservative spending? That's right, the Canadian Taxpayer Federation. We would have never known about Peter Mackay living the high life if the CTF didn't use the Access to Information Act to find out about it.

[Keepitsimple]

I can see many problems for the provinces on this. First of all, the province of B.C. would end up have the most people to cover when retirees move there from across the country. The poorer provinces would be lucky to have basic care, when they are still paying tax dollars to the provinces or to the Feds. Those provinces would have to layoff nurse and doctors, close some hospital, probably in smaller rural regions and only God is going to help those with diseases like cancer.

While it's never perfect, this is what equalization payments protect against. They transfer money from "haves" to "have not" provinces so that services like Healthcare can be maintained at a level that approximates the average of all the provinces. Canada is really fortunate to have these adjustment levers - and there are many more in play that we don't see. It always boils down to "you can't please all of the people all of the time"......but when you compare Canada to just about any other country, clearly - we are pleasing most of the people most of the time. Canada will always be a work in progress.