Healthcare talks

[Topaz]

I'm just listing to the provincial health ministers and they are giving the feds a warning before going into the meeting, they are not going to take it anymore and they say Canadian NEED and  expect better care. I think the Tories would be in the same spot the Liberals find themselves too. Thoughts?

[Argus]

19 minutes ago, Topaz said:

I'm just listing to the provincial health ministers and they are giving the feds a warning before going into the meeting, they are not going to take it anymore and they say Canadian NEED and  expect better care. I think the Tories would be in the same spot the Liberals find themselves too. Thoughts?

Reforming health care in Canada is not a simple task. It is a long, complicated job which will take many years and anger a lot of people. For that reason, none of the last several federal governments have had any interest in doing so. They all look for quick, easy solutions which bring them immediate rewards in terms of things they can brag about for the upcoming elections. The Trudeau Liberals have not shown themselves to be any different. Further, they are too ideologically bound to the existing Canada Health Act to make the kinds of changes needed. Change will only come with a Conservative government, one with more bravery and long-term an outlook than the last one.

[TimG]

22 minutes ago, Topaz said:

I'm just listing to the provincial health ministers and they are giving the feds a warning before going into the meeting, they are not going to take it anymore and they say Canadian NEED and  expect better care. I think the Tories would be in the same spot the Liberals find themselves too. Thoughts?

It makes no difference how much the provinces "need" healthcare funding if there is no money available. If the provinces want more money they should be clear about what programs they want to see cut to pay for it. Without such clarity they are just whiners.

[Ash74]

If the current prime minister was not afraid he would ruin a photo op he could fix health care in this country. He has the popularity and the trust to pull it off. 

Last year it was the end of the world because Ontario didn't get the money it deserved and yet JT is offering the same deal with some more for his pet projects (not complaining. These are important issues). 

The current federal government should use its popularity and work with the provinces towards a fee based system or other system that will eliminate the waste and may free up much needed funds

 

[Topaz]

The ministers said they need 30B  and the feds are taking  50 out?  Is that true? Seems to me someone in Canada may creating a situation for  private health care to expand. That's all we need along with high hydro bills, increase property taxes etc. etc.

[drummindiver]

With eHealth at 8 billion and counting the cash needed for a Canadian wide overhaul is never going to be there.  Just a constant down grade of benefits till we are just paying maintenance on old buildings.

[Smallc]

4 hours ago, Topaz said:

The ministers said they need 30B  and the feds are taking  50 out?  Is that true? 

No - that isn't true.

[Omni]

12 hours ago, Argus said:

Reforming health care in Canada is not a simple task. It is a long, complicated job which will take many years and anger a lot of people. For that reason, none of the last several federal governments have had any interest in doing so. They all look for quick, easy solutions which bring them immediate rewards in terms of things they can brag about for the upcoming elections. The Trudeau Liberals have not shown themselves to be any different. Further, they are too ideologically bound to the existing Canada Health Act to make the kinds of changes needed. Change will only come with a Conservative government, one with more bravery and long-term an outlook than the last one.

The previous conservative government simply chose to cut back on transfers to healthcare. That's tough on an ageing population. At least the current federal government doesn't mind to sit down with the premiers, unlike Harper. It may take more meetings than one. 

[Bryan]

7 minutes ago, Omni said:

The previous conservative government simply chose to cut back on transfers to healthcare. That's tough on an ageing population. At least the current federal government doesn't mind to sit down with the premiers, unlike Harper. It may take more meetings than one. 

The Conservatives increased health transfers. They did not cut them.

Contrary to what the provinces are trying to claim, Trudeau is not cutting them now either. His proposal is a 3% increase, which is exactly what the Conservative plan for 2017 was.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Bryan

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Bryan said:

The Conservatives increased health transfers. They did not cut them.

Contrary to what the provinces are trying to claim, Trudeau is not cutting them now either. His proposal is a 3% increase, which is exactly what the Conservative plan for 2017 was.

Harper proposed to cut the xfers from 6% to 3% by next year. Then he got voted out.

[Smallc]

Actually, his proposal was a firm 3.5% (the current is a minimum of 3% that can go up more with nominal GDP growth of about 3%).  Harper in fact extended the 6% increases for 2 (or was it 3?) more years.  No one decreased the transfers, and saying so is completely dishonest.

[Smallc]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

Harper proposed to cut the xfers from 6% to 3% by next year. Then he got voted out.

The way you phrase that makes it untrue.  He proposed to cut the escalator.  Transfers would continue to grow every year.

[Omni]

Just now, Smallc said:

The way you phrase that makes it untrue.  He proposed to cut the escalator.  Transfers would continue to grow every year.

He based the escalation on GDP with a minimum set at 3% as opposed to what was in place i.e. 6% annually set out by Paul Martin which ends next year.

[Smallc]

Actually, what Paul Martin set out ended in 2014 or 2015.  Harper extended the 6% increase until 2017, and then the escalator comes down.

The provinces are actually growing their own spending at 3% or less every year.  In affect, Ottawa is rewarding them for a lack of investment.

[Omni]

7 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Actually, what Paul Martin set out ended in 2014 or 2015.  Harper extended the 6% increase until 2017, and then the escalator comes down.

The provinces are actually growing their own spending at 3% or less every year.  In affect, Ottawa is rewarding them for a lack of investment.

I certainly agree that health care must be one of the most complicated files in the folder. We have a province like BC who has currently the strongest gdp growth in the country along with a relatively young population, and Nfld. which has a rather weak economy with an much elderly population. Trying to square that circle in terms of transfers has to be difficult. Hopefully we can come to an agreement where we take care of each other no matter which coast we live on. It's the Canadian way.

[Smallc]

I thought that Ottawa would want to meet them in the middle - that would have meant another $5B over 10 years, but, I guess not.

[Bryan]

18 minutes ago, Omni said:

Harper proposed to cut the xfers from 6% to 3% by next year. Then he got voted out.

He definitely did not  propose to cut health transfers -- not ever. Slowing the rate of increase is still an increase.

If I give you $1000 today, another $1060 next week, and then $1091.80 the following week, at no point did the amount you received do anything other than go up.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Bryan said:

He definitely did not  propose to cut health transfers -- not ever. Slowing the rate of increase is still an increase.

If I give you $1000 today, another $1060 next week, and then $1091.80 the following week, at no point did the amount you received do anything other than go up.

And since it goes up by possibly half the previous rate, that's a cut.

[Bryan]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

And since it goes up by possibly half the previous rate, that's a cut.

It's not a cut by any definition. It's an increase.

[Omni]

Just now, Bryan said:

It's not a cut by any definition. It's an increase.

Reducing the increase is a cut. 

[Bryan]

What Chretien did prior to Martin's deal, now THAT was a cut. The provinces actually got less than they were previously getting.

[Omni]

Just now, Omni said:

Reducing the increase is a cut. 

Healthcare payments will carry on, but they could go as low as 3% from the previously guaranteed 6%. That's quite obviously a cut. Perhaps the 6% across the board wasn't the correct approach, but the math speaks for itself.

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, Bryan said:

What Chretien did prior to Martin's deal, now THAT was a cut. The provinces actually got less than they were previously getting.

Martin's deal was plus 6% each year, each province.

[Bryan]

7 minutes ago, Omni said:

Healthcare payments will carry on, but they could go as low as 3% from the previously guaranteed 6%. That's quite obviously a cut. 

It absolutely is an increase. They are getting more money than before, no matter how you count it. That is an increase.

7 minutes ago, Omni said:

Martin's deal was plus 6% each year, each province.

After 2004, yes, but only for ten years. Then they stopped.
Prior to 2004, the Liberals made substantial cuts to transfers. actual cuts where the provinces got much less. 
Neither Harper, nor Trudeau made any cuts at all to health transfers, only increases.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Bryan said:

It absolutely is an increase. They are getting more money than before, no matter how you count it. That is an increase.

After 2004, yes, but only for ten years. Then they stopped.
Prior to 2004, the Liberals made substantial cuts to transfers. actual cuts where the provinces got much less. 
Neither Harper, nor Trudeau made any cuts at all to health transfers, only increases.

The 6% runs out next year. Then certain provinces that don't have the best of GDP's could drop to 3%. There should be a better yardstick.