Harper's foreign and social policy vs. fiscal

Ricki Bobbi · December 29, 2006

I stand corrected. It's 70%, not 60%.
Feel free to make comments on what geoffrey linked to when you are capable of finding information on your own. His point on the administrative costs (which make up 1/5) of all health care costs in the US is quite valid, your ignoramus comments are not..

You do understand that your unsubstantiated facts don't really hold water.

Like where do you get this 1/5 figure from? I thought you said earlier that it was 20%. :lol:

Ignoramus? Isn't that a type of dinosaur? :lol:

Saturn · December 29, 2006

Ignoramus? Isn't that a type of dinosaur?

******

Ricki Bobbi · December 29, 2006

Ignoramus? Isn't that a type of dinosaur?

******

At least you aren't spreading anymore unsubstantiated *facts*.

All in all this is probably your most insightful post of the night. :lol:

Wilber · December 29, 2006

When I go to a GP or a specialist, I go to a private clinic operated by the doctors who work there. Privately operated clinics that bill the province for services to their patients. They are business men who are in business to make a profit. We have always had private, for profit medical services in this country. The only difference between my doctor and my dentist or veterinarian is who writes the cheque. The issue for consumers is who pays the bills, not who provides the service.

After living in this town for nearly twenty years with the promise of getting a new hospital from three different governments ever since we came here, we are finally getting one. It's a P3 project. I could care less who builds it and runs it as long as it provides the needed service and is paid for by public funds.

mikedavid00 · December 29, 2006

All your providing is leftist rhetoric which does absolutely nothing other than making bold statements with nothing to back them up.

I agree.

It's sad too that people actually by into lefty 'idealism'. Treudau, Rae, Ignatieff, etc. They all have one thing in common; they act on hunch, not experience, and dictate their bright ideas onto us. Of course, this is not a very good way to run a country. Maybe a small business that will eventually fail, but not an entire country.

mikedavid00 · December 29, 2006

In addition 30% of health care in Canada is private money.

I just love it.. lol..

jbg · December 29, 2006

It's sad too that people actually by into lefty 'idealism'. Treudau, Rae, Ignatieff, etc. They all have one thing in common; they act on hunch, not experience, and dictate their bright ideas onto us. Of course, this is not a very good way to run a country. Maybe a small business that will eventually fail, but not an entire country.

At least Chretien admitted that his "gut" lead him to recommend Kyoto and ram it through Parliament.

madmax · December 29, 2006

Total health expenditure, in current dollars, was estimated at $131.4 billion in 2004[/u][/b], and is forecast to have reached $139.8 billion in 2005 and $148.0 billion in 2006.

Thanks for providing Canadian Figures and estimates that are more current then the figures I came across earlier in this thread.

Saturn · December 29, 2006

Total health expenditure, in current dollars, was estimated at $131.4 billion in 2004[/u][/b], and is forecast to have reached $139.8 billion in 2005 and $148.0 billion in 2006.

Thanks for providing Canadian Figures and estimates that are more current then the figures I came across earlier in this thread.

You're welcome. Unfortunately, providing information usually kills the thread because the screamers on the other side realize they are out of ammunition.

Ricki Bobbi · December 29, 2006

You're welcome. Unfortunately, providing information usually kills the thread because the screamers on the other side realize they are out of ammunition.

Who is screaming? You still haven't substantiated your 60% higher costs in the US with any of your posts.

Saturn · December 29, 2006

You're welcome. Unfortunately, providing information usually kills the thread because the screamers on the other side realize they are out of ammunition.

Who is screaming? You still haven't substantiated your 60% higher costs in the US with any of your posts.

I was kind enough to provide you with sources seeing that you cannot find your way around the internet. Now it turns out that you refuse to/cannot read. Until you read up and educate yourself on the issue so that you don't sound like an ignorant hick, kindly shut up.

Canadian Blue · December 29, 2006

I was kind enough to provide you with sources seeing that you cannot find your way around the internet. Now it turns out that you refuse to/cannot read. Until you read up and educate yourself on the issue so that you don't sound like an ignorant hick, kindly shut up.

So anybody that disagree's with your opinion is an ignorant hick. Nice one.

:rolleyes:

Saturn · December 30, 2006

I was kind enough to provide you with sources seeing that you cannot find your way around the internet. Now it turns out that you refuse to/cannot read. Until you read up and educate yourself on the issue so that you don't sound like an ignorant hick, kindly shut up.

So anybody that disagree's with your opinion is an ignorant hick. Nice one.

Anyone who refuses to read the facts from the some of the most authoritative sources on a subject and continues to recite nonsense and twist my statements is just that indeed - ignorant.

Ricki Bobbi · December 30, 2006

So anybody that disagree's with your opinion is an ignorant hick. Nice one.

Opinion presented as fact without any support.

Saturn · December 30, 2006

Repeat

http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp...AR31_2006high_e
Highlights
*Total health expenditure, in current dollars, was estimated at $131.4 billion in 2004, and is forecast to have reached $139.8 billion in 2005 and $148.0 billion in 2006.

* After adjusting for inflation, health care spending grew at an average annual rate of 3.8% between 1975 and 1991. From 1991 to 1996 total spending on health care edged up by the rate of 0.8% per year. It increased by 5.0% from 1996 to 2004. Real growth is expected to have been 3.7% in 2005 and 2006.

* Total health expenditure per capita was estimated at $4,109 in 2004 and is expected to have been $4,333 in 2005 and $4,548 in 2006.

* Total health care spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product was 10.2% in 2004; the ratio is forecast to have remained to be 10.2% in 2005 and is expected to have been 10.3% in 2006.

* The private sector share peaked in 2002 at 30.4%. It is expected to decrease to 29.7% in 2006.

* The category of drugs ranks second after hospitals in terms of its share of total health expenditure. In 1997, expenditure on drugs overtook spending on physician services. The share of total spending accounted for by drugs grew from a low of 8.4% in the late 1970s to 16.6% in 2004. In 2006, drugs are expected to remain ranked second with a share of 17.0%.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

In 2004 (the latest year data are available), total national health expenditures rose 7.9 percent -- over three times the rate of inflation (1). Total spending was $1.9 TRILLION in 2004, or $6,280 per person (1). Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

US health-care per capita in 2004 cost 52.8% more than health-care in Canada. Now, factor in the exchange rate and you are looking at a difference of 70%. You should read the two websites thoroughly and carefully before you come back with any comments.

Figleaf · December 30, 2006

I find it fascinating that conservatives are willing to be so publicly blatant in their campaign to make health care a privilege of the wealthy. Do you think the 70% of people who will be harmed by a privatization policy can't see it for what it is?

It's your very liberal idealisms that got us in this mess.

If by "mess", you mean the fact that unlimited demand (peoples' wish for top-flight health care) cannot be matched by limited resources, I assure you, liberal ideas did not create that problem.

Now there's no choice but for the poeple who are willing to pay to leave the system in order to give our public system more breating room ...

But that's a fantasy. If the resource is finite, private services will merely reallocate the resource to those who will bid higher. It will do nothing to alleviate the overall demand.

It's your very wild, wacky, Liberal idealism that got us here.

It's difficult to have an intelligent discussion if you cannot separate the drastically different concepts of liberal and Liberal.

Private healtchare cooperation is PROVEN to work for both rich and poor,

Hooey.

But to you, these are the heroes that make up our country and do nothing but good.

Who?

They do good for you - they vote Liberal; the immigrant party of Canada who are the majority of people that elected them in the last election.

You Rightwingers and your sillly assumptions! I'm not a Liberal, and I believe our immigration policies need to be reformed.

Wow you just really aren't savvy or well read are you?

I'll go head to head with you on those points any time.

Figleaf · December 30, 2006

The advocates that suggest private paid care will alleviate pressure on the public system, however, are gravely mistaken, as it would really simply reallocate the available resource along the lines of ability to pay rather than need.

Idealism.

Economics. You should study it sometime, it's very informative.

You are emotionally charged over an abstract idealism of 'the rich guy gets the healthcare the poor guy don't!' so your letting those emotions cloud your judgement.

Your ideology is preventing you from paying attention to relevant information. If ability to pay becomes the criterion for obtaining health care, the price will go up, and the number of people serviced will decline.

(beleive me, I was the exact same way when I was a teen, now i'm older and understand things in life.

:lol: This would be even more funny if your benightedness ran in a less harmful direction.

madmax · December 30, 2006

If by "mess", you mean the fact that unlimited demand (peoples' wish for top-flight health care) cannot be matched by limited resources, I assure you, liberal ideas did not create that problem.

The Liberals under Jean Chretian, and Paul Martin as finance Minister, did not prioritize health care. The Liberal Government ran Surplusses year after year after year, yet their contribution to the provinces transfer payments under the CHA and their proportion of Provincial/Federal ratio declined.

Even if the demand of the people exceeded the resources available, there is plenty of evidence that the Liberals on exacerbated the problem by strangling the provinces.

Actually, yes, I am going to say the Liberals are quite responsible for the problem and they were responsible for dealing with the problem, large surpluses, and little was done. The Liberals made choices but these choices weren't to carry their share of the Canada Health Act.

No Need for a Liberal Apologist here. Liberals were government liberals were responsible.

Liberals did not enact any recommendations of the Kirby Report or the Romanov Report.

Criticise these reports if you like, but there are good recomendations in them, and the Liberals Enacted Nothing, nor if they disagreed with these reports, did they do anything else.

Problem with Health Care.

Liberal Inaction didn't do anything to help. It's why liberals are on the sidelines.

Saturn · December 30, 2006

What's up, RB? Done your reading yet?

http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp...AR31_2006high_e
Highlights
*Total health expenditure, in current dollars, was estimated at $131.4 billion in 2004, and is forecast to have reached $139.8 billion in 2005 and $148.0 billion in 2006.

* After adjusting for inflation, health care spending grew at an average annual rate of 3.8% between 1975 and 1991. From 1991 to 1996 total spending on health care edged up by the rate of 0.8% per year. It increased by 5.0% from 1996 to 2004. Real growth is expected to have been 3.7% in 2005 and 2006.

* Total health expenditure per capita was estimated at $4,109 in 2004 and is expected to have been $4,333 in 2005 and $4,548 in 2006.

* Total health care spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product was 10.2% in 2004; the ratio is forecast to have remained to be 10.2% in 2005 and is expected to have been 10.3% in 2006.

* The private sector share peaked in 2002 at 30.4%. It is expected to decrease to 29.7% in 2006.

* The category of drugs ranks second after hospitals in terms of its share of total health expenditure. In 1997, expenditure on drugs overtook spending on physician services. The share of total spending accounted for by drugs grew from a low of 8.4% in the late 1970s to 16.6% in 2004. In 2006, drugs are expected to remain ranked second with a share of 17.0%.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

In 2004 (the latest year data are available), total national health expenditures rose 7.9 percent -- over three times the rate of inflation (1). Total spending was $1.9 TRILLION in 2004, or $6,280 per person (1). Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

US health-care per capita in 2004 cost 52.8% more than health-care in Canada. Now, factor in the exchange rate and you are looking at a difference of 70%. You should read the two websites thoroughly and carefully before you come back with any comments.

Ricki Bobbi · December 31, 2006

What's up, RB? Done your reading yet?

Yup, your 60% claim isn't provable. But I'm not wasting my time typing out an illustration on the board.

All you did was post some random links. We both know you are wrong.... :lol:

madmax · December 31, 2006

Yup, your 60% claim isn't provable. But I'm not wasting my time typing out an illustration on the board.

There is nothing wrong with the information.

Ricki Bobbi · December 31, 2006

There is nothing wrong with the information.

The information doesn't prove the 60% claims.

You spend the time crunching the numbers from the data dump provided and type it up in a presentable form.

It took me long enough to wade through that crap to figure it out. Not wasting anymore time on that.

Something tells me that you and Saturn both lack the technical skills necessary to even go through those numbers accurately.

Figleaf · December 31, 2006

It took me long enough to wade through that crap to figure it out.

Yeah, sure.

What did you discover? (With details, please.)

Ricki Bobbi · December 31, 2006

Yeah, sure.
What did you discover? (With details, please.)

You clearly didn't read my post.

If you or anybody points out a detailed analysis on how it *proves* Saturn's point I will gladly take the time to disprove. But until then, no I'm not going to put out the effort otherwise.

All Saturn did was post a couple links to convoluted information. It took me a while to wade through it but I did. So if anybody else puts in the effort to provide details I will take place.

P.S. this also applies to anybody who can credibly prove the term "destruction of wealth" is commonly used in the financial industry

Figleaf · December 31, 2006

Yeah, sure.
What did you discover? (With details, please.)

You clearly didn't read my post.

I assure you I did. You said you'd crunched through those numbers, and so, I want to know what you found. What's the problem?

It took me a while to wade through it but I did.

What did you find out, specifically?

P.S. this also applies to anybody who can credibly prove the term "destruction of wealth" is commonly used in the financial industry

As we all know, I provided numerous links proving you'd revealed your deep ignorance on that topic. If you wish to revisit it, please go ahead.

If you or anybody points out a detailed analysis on how it *proves* Saturn's point I will gladly take the time to disprove. But until then, no I'm not going to put out the effort otherwise.

But ... but.... you said you had already put out the effort and reached a conclusion. Why not just share your efforts with us.

Unless .... unless ... you're ... full of crap???