Mulroney on Harper

[On Guard for Thee]

That's not what it says. It eliminates tax point funding calculations and goes to a purely per capita system. It changes the growth to Canada's Nominal GDP growth or 3%, whichever is greater. It also ensures that no province will lose funding.

Nfld. get's screwed, Alta does well. The rest are somewhere in between

[cybercoma]

Perhaps. On the other hand, per capita has always been the main past of the calculation.

It has. I'm just making the observation that sometimes per capita isn't appropriate, at least on its own. There are broader considerations to be made. When we're talking about federal funding, these are the kinds of considerations that would be tough for the provinces to cover and should be where the federal government offers subsidies, imo.

[Smallc]

Do you were wrong and you can't admit it.

[cybercoma]

rather than your free pass offering, why not challenge the Argus to step-up and state what significant accomplishments his boy Harper has realized?

Because it's not relevant to what we were saying. He wasn't claiming Harper had significant accomplishments.

[On Guard for Thee]

What was wrong with Martin's 6% annual increase. Sounds a bit simplistic in some ways but it kept pace with inflation. The one problem with it of course is population shift such as from NL to AB.

[Smallc]

The problem with it is that it outstrips economic growth and so is unsustainable.

[cybercoma]

The problem with it is that it outstrips economic growth and so is unsustainable.

It's not supposed to be permanent, but cutting back on the amount you're increasing healthcare funding at a time when healthcare costs are rising substantially is a phenomenally dumb idea. Of course we need to spend more on healthcare. More people are using it as the population ages. The funding needs to keep pace with the demand for healthcare services as the baby boomers flood into the system. It sucks, but that's the reality we need to deal with here.

[Smallc]

The increase is still more than the average health budget increase of the provinces.

[On Guard for Thee]

It's not supposed to be permanent, but cutting back on the amount you're increasing healthcare funding at a time when healthcare costs are rising substantially is a phenomenally dumb idea. Of course we need to spend more on healthcare. More people are using it as the population ages. The funding needs to keep pace with the demand for healthcare services as the baby boomers flood into the system. It sucks, but that's the reality we need to deal with here.

My fear is that privatization loom's in the shadows if Harper is left to his devices.

[cybercoma]

The increase is still more than the average health budget increase of the provinces.

It doesn't matter. The provinces may not be appropriately funding healthcare to keep up with the demand. In fact, I suspect they're not.

[Bryan]

cutting back on the amount you're increasing healthcare funding at a time when healthcare costs are rising substantially is a phenomenally dumb idea.

I think you have the relationship backwards. Reducing the rate of increase needs to be done because the provinces just keep ramping up spending to match (or exceed) whatever they get. Like most things government run, the solution is not more funding -- it's less spending.

My fear is that privatization loom's in the shadows if Harper is left to his devices.

I wish. My fear is that no matter how long Harper is in office, he'll never get around to doing it.

[cybercoma]

I think you have the relationship backwards. Reducing the rate of increase needs to be done because the provinces just keep ramping up spending to match (or exceed) whatever they get. Like most things government run, the solution is not more funding -- it's less spending.

That is a stupid solution, period. The proportion of the population that is elderly is increasing. There is an increasing burden on the healthcare system as a result of this. Your solution is for them to spend LESS on healthcare in that context? That's absurd, not to mention dangerous and unethical.

[Bryan]

What's unethical, is thinking that just spending more money is any sort of solution. The focus is on the wrong thing.

Yeah, the population is getting older, they always are. There are also more new younger tax payers. That's why the funding is linked to population.

[Argus]

That is a stupid solution, period. The proportion of the population that is elderly is increasing. There is an increasing burden on the healthcare system as a result of this. Your solution is for them to spend LESS on healthcare in that context? That's absurd, not to mention dangerous and unethical.

One of the things we need to do is get seniors out of hospitals and into proper senior care buildings. Every hospital is jammed with them, and it's costing a fortune.

[Argus]

nice free pass you're giving the Argus!!! I haven't been following this thread... didn't realize his Chretien bashing and Harper ass-covering had extended into yet another thread!

So you've decided to follow me around and snivel again that I'm being mean to your hero, Jean Chretien, the man who ought to be in prison now?

Shows what kind of standards YOU have!

You continue to invent accomplishments for Chretien while whining about Harper, a man entirely similar to Chretien other than not being as corrupt. You're just a bitter hypocrite Wallie.

[waldo]

So you've decided to follow me around and snivel again that I'm being mean to your hero, Jean Chretien, the man who ought to be in prison now?

Shows what kind of standards YOU have!

You continue to invent accomplishments for Chretien while whining about Harper, a man entirely similar to Chretien other than not being as corrupt. You're just a bitter hypocrite Wallie.

standards??? Like I said, I hadn't been following this thread... I take a peak and lo and behold, you've carried your standards, your Chretien vitriol, into yet another thread! I don't have to invent anything - I gave you a short sampling. You're just pissed cause I've highlighted your charade... you know, where your kid gloves 'supposed' criticism of your boy Harper gets completely overshadowed by your, 'but the Libs, but the Libs', decade+ passed screeching"!

[On Guard for Thee]

What's unethical, is thinking that just spending more money is any sort of solution. The focus is on the wrong thing.

Yeah, the population is getting older, they always are. There are also more new younger tax payers. That's why the funding is linked to population.

You wanna' talk unethical, OK. Ever heard of the National Citizens Coalition, they are a group that for one thing is vehemently opposed to government funding of healthcare. It was founded by a man by the name of Colin M Brown, bet you can't guess what business he is in. Oh yeah, the private insurance business. Guess who was the president of the NCC from 1998-2002. How about a fella by the name of Stephen Harper. Now, how hard is it to put 2+2 together when you see the same Mr. Harper gutting provincial healthcare to where private funding may be the only way of picking up the slack, and not see Unethical with a capitol U?

[waldo]

Guess who was the president of the NCC from 1998-2002. How about a fella by the name of Stephen Harper.

firewall! firewall! Oh, sorry... am I going back too far?

[Bryan]

You wanna' talk unethical, OK. Ever heard of the National Citizens Coalition, they are a group that for one thing is vehemently opposed to government funding of healthcare. It was founded by a man by the name of Colin M Brown, bet you can't guess what business he is in. Oh yeah, the private insurance business. Guess who was the president of the NCC from 1998-2002. How about a fella by the name of Stephen Harper. Now, how hard is it to put 2+2 together when you see the same Mr. Harper gutting provincial healthcare to where private funding may be the only way of picking up the slack, and not see Unethical with a capitol U?

Harper did not gut provincial healthcare funding. You're thinking of the Liberals under Chretien and Martin. Harper has and continues to increase the funding. So, no, nothing even remotely unethical there.

And yes, based on his past affiliations, many Conservatives DID expect that Harper would expand private healthcare. It's quite disappointing that he hasn't, and very disheartening to realize that he never will.

[On Guard for Thee]

Harper did not gut provincial healthcare funding. You're thinking of the Liberals under Chretien and Martin. Harper has and continues to increase the funding. So, no, nothing even remotely unethical there.

And yes, based on his past affiliations, many Conservatives DID expect that Harper would expand private healthcare. It's quite disappointing that he hasn't, and very disheartening to realize that he never will.

36 billion over ten years if he gets his way I'd call "gutting". Why would we want to go to a private system and get, like the US has, less quality for more cost?

[waldo]

Harper did not gut provincial healthcare funding.

the PBO report suggests otherwise: Ottawa’s overhaul of health-care funding has left enormous ‘fiscal gap’ for provinces, PBO warns

the following article extract speaks further on the changes/$36 billion gap OGFT spoke of earlier:

The 2014 federal budget takes yet another run at Medicare. The Harper government is eliminating the equalization portion of the Canada Health Transfer (CHT) and replacing it with an equal per capita transfer.

“This means that less populous provinces with relatively larger and more isolated populations will have more and more difficulty delivering more expensive universal services,” McBane (director of the pro-medicare Canadian Health Coalition) wrote in an article published in The Hill Times in February.

“Likewise, provinces with a relatively larger proportion of older residents will also be hampered in delivering universal quality care. The move to an equal per capita cash transfer will widen the gap between the have and the have-not provinces and make it impossible to maintain national standards in health care.”

The premiers have estimated that this one budgetary move will create a funding gap of $16.5 billion over the next five years for have-not provinces. Not surprisingly, given that the Conservatives are setting the rules, the only province to benefit is, you guessed it, Alberta, with its younger, growing population.

Nor is that all. Another regressive change is to occur in 2017 when the six per cent annual increase for the health transfer will be replaced with a formula that links the health transfer to economic growth.

This is positively perverse. It means that in times of high unemployment and economic downturn, when Canadians need access to care the most, the federal transfer will be reduced. This measure alone cuts $36 billion from federal health care funding over the next decade.

McBane says the shrinking level of federal health funding will be matched by the withdrawal of federal enforcement of national standards contained in the Canada Health Act.

“The use of the spending power to establish national standards is common in all OECD countries, he continues. “National Medicare will clearly not survive this ‘cut and run’ course. Instead, it will fragment into 14 separate pieces where access to essential care will depend on where you live and your ability to pay.”

[Bryan]

36 billion over ten years if he gets his way I'd call "gutting". Why would we want to go to a private system and get, like the US has, less quality for more cost?

Each year they are paying more money than the last. It's an increase by any definition.

[eyeball]

And yes, based on his past affiliations, many Conservatives DID expect that Harper would expand private healthcare. It's quite disappointing that he hasn't, and very disheartening to realize that he never will.

Why? You're still just as perfectly free to pay for private healthcare in the US as you've always been.

[Bryan]

Why? You're still just as perfectly free to pay for private healthcare in the US as you've always been.

More choices at home benefits everyone. The cost of choosing private delivery is lower because we don't have to factor in travel costs, and the quality of care for the public system improves because with less people using it, there is more to go around for those who do.

[On Guard for Thee]

More choices at home benefits everyone. The cost of choosing private delivery is lower because we don't have to factor in travel costs, and the quality of care for the public system improves because with less people using it, there is more to go around for those who do.

Oh yeah? go check what healthcare costs on average in the US compared to Canada. Not even close. And of course God help you if they can prove it was a pre-existing condition as a way to leave you high and dry, as you die. No thanks.