Mulroney on Harper

[Bob Macadoo]

It's, at best, a minor reason. The government provides hospital beds on a per capita basis regardless of whether people are in a rural or urban area. No, there are a lot of things wrong with our system, starting with it being duplicated thirteen times, while most European nations only have one. Imagine the cost savings if we had one ministry of health, and one health insurance program. Imagine how quickly decisions could be made. Imagine being able to point to one government and say "You're responsible" and them not being able to point over their shoulder at anyone else.

I could go along with that but like most else people believe we're one big happy family.....which we have never been. Like our neighbours we're a loose collective of cousins who see each other at Christmas every year just to get our gift from grandma/grandpa and drive home as soon as we can.

[jbg]

Again, you appear to have a poor gasp of the English language. You are attempting to redefine the term 'traditional' behind its actual definition.

He may not speak English well. He's writing in Canada's native language, Canadian.

[Accountability Now]

Your argument is we've spent less due to the economic turn down so we must not need anymore than that? How's your healthcare performance been the last 4 years? Trending up I guess. Alberta here I come.

No...but nice try. The lower costs we're recorded in 2013....three years after the recession.

PS....I see you glossed over my question asking you to prove the costs were at 6% or higher. Didn't want to touch that?

PPS....I'll send the welcoming committe for you.

[Bob Macadoo]

No...but nice try. The lower costs we're recorded in 2013....three years after the recession.

PS....I see you glossed over my question asking you to prove the costs were at 6% or higher. Didn't want to touch that?

PPS....I'll send the welcoming committe for you.

You keep saying costs....its lower spending, not costs....there is more than a semantical difference. So yes spending was down in 2013....again after a downturn you don't go and spend money on infrastructure if you're only budgeted to keep operating costs alive.

I did answer your question by the way, so sorry you didn't care for it. Notice you didn't answer mine about your healthcare....hmmmm.

[Accountability Now]

You keep saying costs....its lower spending, not costs....there is more than a semantical difference.

Please explain how its more than a semantical difference. You spend money on costs. Pretty simple in my mind

So yes spending was down in 2013....again after a downturn you don't go and spend money on infrastructure if you're only budgeted to keep operating costs alive.

You keep talking about infrastructure which is a captial cost. The 3% is designed only for operational costs as was the 6%.

I did answer your question by the way, so sorry you didn't care for it.

You certainly did not. You have yet to show in any case that 6% is actually needed. Your only response to my two posts was this:

Your argument is we've spent less due to the economic turn down so we must not need anymore than that? How's your healthcare performance been the last 4 years? Trending up I guess. Alberta here I come.

Please outline where in that statement you prove that we actually need the 6% and not with your opinion but actual facts.

Notice you didn't answer mine about your healthcare....hmmmm.

Your question was clearly rhetorical but if you truly want an answer then I would say health care is the same as its always been. Its not great but not bad. Of course why would my 'opinion' of this matter? I could tell you its all roses and would that change the discussion?

The reality is that my question to you was based on objective fact. Prove that 6% is needed. No opinions...prove it with facts.

[Argus]

He may not speak English well. He's writing in Canada's native language, Canadian.

Have you decided to emulate Bush Cheney's smarmy tone as well as his politics?

[Argus]

I could go along with that but like most else people believe we're one big happy family.....which we have never been. Like our neighbours we're a loose collective of cousins who see each other at Christmas every year just to get our gift from grandma/grandpa and drive home as soon as we can.

Regardless of our familiar relationship it would save oodles of money and make enormous sense to give health care to the federal government. When it was first assigned to the provinces, health care involved very little beyond a few public health officers to watch for the spread of diseases. It's now grown beyond their ability to manage, consuming half of provincial budgets in some cases.

[guyser]

It's, at best, a minor reason.

The fact this country is so huge is merely a blip on the economics of providing healthcare.

Lets see....

Austria, the size of Maine...which of course is really small.

Denmark?

Gr Britain?

France?

Germany?

....all smaller than Ontario. Density wise, over the top.

And that doesnt make a whit of difference in healthcare delivery? Of course it does.

[waldo]

No opinions...prove it with facts.

you're speaking to facts??? It seems your "facts" are predicated upon a most generalized CIHI reference that speaks to nothing more than a 2 year forecast (2012, 2013). 2 years, that's it! Nothing beyond 2013. Perhaps you can help clarify your claimed facts: I can't find the actual spending growth rates for 2012 & 2013 anywhere; on the CIHI website or... anywhere. The CIHI '1975-2013 Trends' reference is exactly that... a document reference that stops at 2013 (and, again, only includes forecasting (not actual) spending growth for 2012/2013), notwithstanding it is woefully lacking in precise methodology. Facts?

I find it quite revealing that you (that Harper Conservative supporters in this thread), choose to completely ignore the PBO reference I've provided. C'mon... Kevin Page is gone and Harper has his "own guy" in there now! It's remarkable how Harper Conservative supporters have a most selective perspective on the PBO... that it's not the resource/analysis vehicle for Parliament (for the Finance Dept., for the Standing Committee on Finance (FINA), etc.) to leverage; rather, it's simply the area that keeps "messin with Harper"!

your strawman "prove 6% is needed" is so transparent. I don't read anyone saying the 6% figure must continue. What I read is resource material that states the forecasted provincial spending growth will not match federal transfers per the new Harper Conservative formula... the one that was imposed on the provinces by Harper Conservatives who refused to meet with provincial Premiers to negotiate and agree to a new/extended Health Accord.

[Accountability Now]

you're speaking to facts??? It seems your "facts" are predicated upon a most generalized CIHI reference that speaks to nothing more than a 2 year forecast (2012, 2013). 2 years, that's it! Nothing beyond 2013. Perhaps you can help clarify your claimed facts: I can't find the actual spending growth rates for 2012 & 2013 anywhere; on the CIHI website or... anywhere. The CIHI '1975-2013 Trends' reference is exactly that... a document reference that stops at 2013 (and, again, only includes forecasting (not actual) spending growth for 2012/2013), notwithstanding it is woefully lacking in precise methodology. Facts?

I find it quite revealing that you (that Harper Conservative supporters in this thread), choose to completely ignore the PBO reference I've provided. C'mon... Kevin Page is gone and Harper has his "own guy" in there now! It's remarkable how Harper Conservative supporters have a most selective perspective on the PBO... that it's not the resource/analysis vehicle for Parliament (for the Finance Dept., for the Standing Committee on Finance (FINA), etc.) to leverage; rather, it's simply the area that keeps "messin with Harper"!

your strawman "prove 6% is needed" is so transparent. I don't read anyone saying the 6% figure must continue. What I read is resource material that states the forecasted provincial spending growth will not match federal transfers per the new Harper Conservative formula... the one that was imposed on the provinces by Harper Conservatives who refused to meet with provincial Premiers to negotiate and agree to a new/extended Health Accord.

Waldingo....as per previous discussions I have noted that you are the most dishonest person on this forum and I have repeatedly told you that I will not engage in further conversation. I did note that another member in this very thread called you out for your dishonest ways as well as shown below.

Translation: Waldo got caught lying as usual, but thinks that as long as he doesn't stop typing, nobody will notice.

Carry on with your dishonesty but don't expect me to respond with any conversation other than a reminder of why I won't deal with you.

[waldo]

Waldingo....as per previous discussions I have noted that you are the most dishonest person on this forum and I have repeatedly told you that I will not engage in further conversation. I did note that another member in this very thread called you out for your dishonest ways as well as shown below.

Carry on with your dishonesty but don't expect me to respond with any conversation other than a reminder of why I won't deal with you.

dishonest? How so... you mean by highlighting your "facts"... arent'? But hey, no problem... I'll take the free shots anytime! I neither need or expect you to respond to anything; highlighting your continued nonsense/failings will suffice. As for you mentioning Bry, he's MIA ever since finally getting it! Carry on...

[cybercoma]

It's, at best, a minor reason. The government provides hospital beds on a per capita basis regardless of whether people are in a rural or urban area. No, there are a lot of things wrong with our system, starting with it being duplicated thirteen times, while most European nations only have one. Imagine the cost savings if we had one ministry of health, and one health insurance program. Imagine how quickly decisions could be made. Imagine being able to point to one government and say "You're responsible" and them not being able to point over their shoulder at anyone else.

Also a good point. And just to be clear, it's more than 13 times because NB has it written into the Charter that they have parallel systems for the French and English, which is a major beef of mine with this province.

[On Guard for Thee]

waldo, on 15 Sept 2014 - 10:11 AM, said:

Do you think he finally got it? I hope so.

[Charles Anthony]

Guys,

Some of you need to grow up. Stop the personal nitter-nattering and discuss the topic.

Ch. A.

[On Guard for Thee]

Mulcair once again rocks Harper back on his heels right off the top in QP. He points out from a direct quote with regard to employing Canadian Forces abroad that is in total contradiction to what he is actually doing now in Iraq. Harper replies with the same old same old. "Mr Speaker I have been very clear" and fails to answer anything. It used to be fun to watch him squirm but now it's getting a bit boring.

[waldo]

per the Parliamentary Budget Office report reference that I linked to previously:

With few exceptions, projected average growth in [Harper Conservative federal government] CHT cash transfers by province and territory is less than projected growth in health spending... In only one instance – Alberta – does projected growth in CHT cash transfers exceed projected growth in health spending under all the real GDP per capita growth rates considered

notes:

- provincial and territorial government health spending growth rate projections are provided under 3 alternative Real GDP Per Capita growth assumptions (1.4, 0.9 and 0.4 % annually)

- the PBO's 2011 Fiscal Sustainability Report projected Real GDP Per Capita to grow at 0.9 per cent annually, on average, over 2012 to 2023

- the 0.9 per cent annual Real Per Capita GDP growth projection reflects upon the Dept of Finance's 'Baseline Reference' within a baseline/high/low range of average annual growth, per cent, for the impact of alternative assumptions on Nominal GDP and Real GDP Per Capita growth. For that same baseline, 3.8% Nominal GDP is the equivalency to the 0.9% Real GDP Per Capita.

[PIK]

Guys,

Some of you need to grow up. Stop the personal nitter-nattering and discuss the topic.

Ch. A.

Ban then all Charlie.

[jbg]

Have you decided to emulate Bush Cheney's smarmy tone as well as his politics?

Neither of the above. There are limits on personal attacks. I do not wish to breach those.