Mulroney on Harper

[Bryan]

Bob is almost as confused as you are. There are no cuts at all. None. Only increases. All of the money earmarked for 2017 will also be earmarked for 2018, with an additional 3-4% added on top of that. At no time does the amount of money being transferred get smaller.

[On Guard for Thee]

The 6% annual increase under the current scheme Paul Martin introduced ENDS in the 2017/18 year. This is the part you don't seem to get. The increases after that depend on gdp and population. As of today the increase would be about 4%. The Harper budget guarantees it won't go below 3%. So 6% reduced to a posible 3% is a cut. Plain and simple. The automatic 6 is gonzo.

[Bob Macadoo]

Bob is almost as confused as you are. There are no cuts at all. None. Only increases. All of the money earmarked for 2017 will also be earmarked for 2018, with an additional 3-4% added on top of that. At no time does the amount of money being transferred get smaller.

Keep telling yourself that when your hospital can't afford 2 MRI machines so you have to wait twice as long on that MCL tear. Nice warm blanket your trollism will be.

[waldo]

The 6% annual increase under the current scheme Paul Martin introduced ENDS in the 2017/18 year. This is the part you don't seem to get. The increases after that depend on gdp and population. As of today the increase would be about 4%. The Harper budget guarantees it won't go below 3%. So 6% reduced to a posible 3% is a cut. Plain and simple. The automatic 6 is gonzo.

h e s t i l l d o e s n ' t g e t i t!

[Argus]

h e s t i l l d o e s n ' t g e t i t!

No, I suspect he merely has a better grasp of the English language. A 'cut' to funding means it will be less than it was. If it was 100 it will be 99 or less. What you are complaining about is that the yearly increases will not be as large as they have been. The funding will continue to grow, but not as quickly.

[waldo]

No, I suspect he merely has a better grasp of the English language. A 'cut' to funding means it will be less than it was. If it was 100 it will be 99 or less. What you are complaining about is that the yearly increases will not be as large as they have been. The funding will continue to grow, but not as quickly.

another guy who doesn't read... step up and show that the traditional 6% continues on past 2017/18

[jacee]

No, I suspect he merely has a better grasp of the English language. A 'cut' to funding means it will be less than it was. If it was 100 it will be 99 or less. What you are complaining about is that the yearly increases will not be as large as they have been. The funding will continue to grow, but not as quickly.

And that amounts to a cut in services funded.

.

[On Guard for Thee]

And why is it so tough for some not to get that? Or is it just a desperate way for Harper lovers to try and deflect.?

[cybercoma]

You now understand that is not true, which is good. But don't claim you never said it.

That is true. Harper is cutting funding increases from 6% back down to 3%. Well, actually, Paul Martin is cutting them back down to 3% because his legislation is set to expire. Harper's choosing to let it happen.

[overthere]

the traditional 6%

It's a tradition, like Christmas or the Leafs losing?

How quaint of you to put it like that after a few years.

[Argus]

another guy who doesn't read... step up and show that the traditional 6% continues on past 2017/18

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

[Argus]

And that amounts to a cut in services funded.

.

No, it doesn't, in any way, shape or form, except in your imagination, which I assume is quite vivid.

[Argus]

And why is it so tough for some not to get that? Or is it just a desperate way for Harper lovers to try and deflect.?

I'm no Harper lover. In fact, I've criticized them for their do-nothing approach to health care.

But I do understand basic, common English. Perhaps the issue here is that you guys don't.

[Bob Macadoo]

I'm no Harper lover. In fact, I've criticized them for their do-nothing approach to health care.But I do understand basic, common English. Perhaps the issue here is that you guys don't.

Would you semantical nitwits move on?

It is the expectation that 6% increases will be needed, hence 3% is a cut to need.....not your obvious proficiency at use of an abacus.

Can we now progress? Do you feel with the state of your province's healthcare budget, coupled with any exodus of young vs. increase per capita of old, that everything's hunky dory and leaving that 3% extra on the table is no big deal?

Now ignore this and argue about how 3% <> 6%.

[Argus]

Would you semantical nitwits move on?

It is the expectation that 6% increases will be needed, hence 3% is a cut to need...

Nonsense. If the increase had been 7% then the 'expectation' would be that 7% was needed. If it was 12% that would be the 'expectation'.

Can we now progress? Do you feel with the state of your province's healthcare budget, coupled with any exodus of young vs. increase per capita of old, that everything's hunky dory and leaving that 3% extra on the table is no big deal?

Absolutely not which is why I'm so dissatisfied with the federal government on this issue. They've done nothing, too frightened of miring themselves in the necessary controversy in a messy remake of the current system.

For anyone who IS satisfied, they might want to have a look at this from today's Post.

http://life.nationalpost.com/2014/09/12/jane-macdougall-better-sit-down-for-this-assessment-of-our-ailing-health-care-system/

[Accountability Now]

It is the expectation that 6% increases will be needed, hence 3% is a cut to need....

Do you have something to back up the claim that 6% is needed? Stats Can shows that the overall CPI hasn't been above 3% for years with many years being around 1%.

[Bob Macadoo]

Nonsense. If the increase had been 7% then the 'expectation' would be that 7% was needed. If it was 12% that would be the 'expectation'.

Perhaps. I am unsure of the formula that produced the 6%, may have been by dartboard. I think though it can be agreed more and more is needed.

Absolutely not which is why I'm so dissatisfied with the federal government on this issue. They've done nothing, too frightened of miring themselves in the necessary controversy in a messy remake of the current system.

For anyone who IS satisfied, they might want to have a look at this from today's Post.

Read this article many times before.....are you saying you are in favour of legislating health behaviour? I am torn....sometimes I'm too libertarian for my own good.

[Bob Macadoo]

Do you have something to back up the claim that 6% is needed? Stats Can shows that the overall CPI hasn't been above 3% for years with many years being around 1%.

Healthcare costs are driven by more than inflation, which I'm sure you know. Beyond CPI its a budgetary grey...per capita cost, demographic, R&D, capital EOL, etc. I'm willing to hear arguments other than glorious leader must be right.

[Argus]

Perhaps. I am unsure of the formula that produced the 6%, may have been by dartboard. I think though it can be agreed more and more is needed.

Read this article many times before.....are you saying you are in favour of legislating health behaviour? I am torn....sometimes I'm too libertarian for my own good.

There are a number of points the article makes. The one you're referring to is that a huge amount of health care costs are associated with people doing stupid things like smoking or overeating and not exercising. I'm uncertain about legislation on this issue. On the one hand I don't have much doubt society would be far healthier if all fast food restaurants were banned. On the other hand, what right to I have to refuse people the right to eat slop? I would suggest a tax on slop would be in order due to the statistically certain damage its influence has on public health care costs.

But the aging of the population is another growing problem and the feds like the provinces, have done nothing to prepare for it. The system can barely cope with the number of elderly we have now. What do we do in twenty years when the number has doubled? We need more than yearly increases in funding. The funding will never be able to keep up at this rate and we'll eventually have no money for anything BUT health care.

[Accountability Now]

Healthcare costs are driven by more than inflation, which I'm sure you know. Beyond CPI its a budgetary grey...per capita cost, demographic, R&D, capital EOL, etc. I'm willing to hear arguments other than glorious leader must be right.

Is the 3% not intended to cover increases in operational costs? R&D and capital costs wouldn't be included here...no?

[Accountability Now]

A quick google search lead me to the Canadian Institute for Health Information page where I found this quote:

October 29, 2013—Canada will spend roughly $6,000 per person on health care this year. Indeed, the country’s expenses in this area are continuing to rise but at a slower pace, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI).

Total health spending growth has slowed each year since 2011. It is expected to rise by 2.6% in 2013—less than half the average growth of 7% per year between 2000 and 2010.

“After a period of significant growth in the last decade, we’re starting to see things slow down,” said Christopher Kuchciak, CIHI’s manager of health expenditures. “Spending continues to increase across the board, but at a slower pace than in previous years. This trend is due in large part to Canada’s modest economic growth and government efforts to balance budgets.”

http://www.cihi.ca/CIHI-ext-portal/internet/en/Document/spending+and+health+workforce/spending/RELEASE_29OCT13

Maybe....just maybe...the government sees that 6% is not needed based on current trends and is actually doing their fiduciary duty by controlling costs in areas that don't need the extra money?

[Argus]

Canada's spending on health care is higher than the UK, and not far distant from what France, Denmark and Germany spend.

We don't get the same results, however.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country

[cybercoma]

Canada's spending on health care is higher than the UK, and not far distant from what France, Denmark and Germany spend.

We don't get the same results, however.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country

Canada is also a much larger country with a spread out population. I mentioned in another thread that population density has a lot to do with healthcare costs. People in remote areas still need medical services. You can have less hospitals per person when there's a higher population density. Those same services are sometimes repeated when you have to provide for fewer people in more remote areas. That's obviously not the only reason, but it's one of the reasons healthcare costs more here.

Edited September 14, 2014 by cybercoma

[Argus]

Canada is also a much larger country with a spread out population. I mentioned in another thread that population density has a lot to do with healthcare costs. People in remote areas still need medical services. You can have less hospitals per person when there's a higher population density. Those same services are sometimes repeated when you have to provide for fewer people in more remote areas. That's obviously not the only reason, but it's one of the reasons healthcare costs more here.

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.

[Bob Macadoo]

A quick google search ... l

October 29, 2013—Canada will spend roughly $6,000 per person on health care this year. Indeed, the country’s expenses in this area are continuing to rise but at a slower pace, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI).

Total health spending growth has slowed each year since 2011. It is expected to rise by 2.6% in 2013—less than half the average growth of 7% per year between 2000 and 2010.

“After a period of significant growth in the last decade, we’re starting to see things slow down,” said Christopher Kuchciak, CIHI’s manager of health expenditures. “Spending continues to increase across the board, but at a slower pace than in previous years. This trend is due in large part to Canada’s modest economic growth and government efforts to balance budgets.”

...

Maybe....just maybe...the government sees that 6% is not needed based on current trends and is actually doing their fiduciary duty by controlling costs in areas that don't need the extra money?

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.