Harper's foreign and social policy vs. fiscal

[Figleaf]

Mikedavid, you have an amazing facility with unsupported, unlikely assertions.

We can all go into shades of grey and chase our tails. But things don't get done like this. It's a positive to have a firm stance on things.

Not if your stance is wrong.

Isreal is the only democratic country in the area that does not want to wipe other poeple off the face of the earth.

Nonsense. Lots of countries in the area have no intention of wiping anyone out... Egypt, Jordan, Lebannon, Kuwait, Iraq,...

...There's nothing Canada can do about this but openly condemn this terrorism and support the state of Isreal.

It would be better to support real moves toward peace rather than become cheerleaders for Greater Israel.

Gays have all the equal rights that straight people do under marriage.

In that they are free to get married.

It's a civic duty as a Canadian residing in Canada to vote on Canadian issues.

You have no valid claim to define other Canadians' duties or interests for them.

So you are telling me that you work for a large company with 200 working people people, are in BC, that hate Harper, yet they are all white Canadians? [That sounds very suspect indeed.

Why? because Harper is the 'White' choice?

Why should we be neutral? Yes I understand that 'one persons terrorist is another persons freedomfighter argument. It doesn't hold much weight.

Then you actually don't understand it.

Isreal does not want trouble, they want peace.

This assertion is belied by Israel's history -- E.g. building settlements on someone else's land.

Why is there a stadium packed with 30,000 people, mostly second generation to see a bollywood actor from India?

What do you think that proves?

[mikedavid00]

As for wait times, what do you propose we do, pump more money into the system, create two tiered health care, or find a middle road so as to free up spaces for those who need life threatning operation's.

They aren't garunteeing wait times becuase they know they can't lessen them. They might create a new efficiencey, and reduce the 9 month wait time by 3 days, but that's it.

We spend 100B on healtchare a year.

I'm suggesting, to fix this porblem, we need to spend 300B, or allow private insurance and hospital corperations in Canada to get an immediate offload.

I'm also suggesting, that Canada is not 'rich' enough to fix healthcare. We would need to be taxed at 70% total (from the 50% we're at now) to fix our system. That's what i'm suggesting. That is not possible becuase people would then loose their homes, cars, jobs, etc. There's only so much you can tax.

Thus, healthcare cannot be fixed. What we need to do, is top people who are not even LIVING in Canada from scheduling their triple bypass surgeries in Canada.

We need to basically stop letting people into the system who have not paid into it. This has devistated our system 'beyond repair' as one gov't report said about Samoli's taking advantage of our welfare system.

[Figleaf]

We spend 100B on healtchare a year.

I'm suggesting, to fix this porblem, we need to spend 300B, or allow private insurance and hospital corperations in Canada to get an immediate offload.

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?

I'm also suggesting, that Canada is not 'rich' enough to fix healthcare. We would need to be taxed at 70% total (from the 50% we're at now) to fix our system.

I wish private health proponents would explain why they think its better to have to pay premium prices privately rather than lower costs through taxes.

We need to basically stop letting people into the system who have not paid into it.

Like those freeloading babies and children.

This has devistated our system 'beyond repair' as one gov't report said about Samoli's taking advantage of our welfare system.

That's "devastated" and "Somalis".

[geoffrey]

I wish private health proponents would explain why they think its better to have to pay premium prices privately rather than lower costs through taxes.

Choice creates competition which creates both efficiency and quality.

There is also no evidence that lower prices are paid through taxes. Sure the Americans pay more, but some other private jurisdictions pay less, say England. So what up?

I think we're going to find the best balance somewhere between the two systems, public insurance and private delivery.

[Figleaf]

I wish private health proponents would explain why they think its better to have to pay premium prices privately rather than lower costs through taxes.

Choice creates competition which creates both efficiency and quality.

I think that's the only valid argument in favor of private-paid care. Efficiency-improving competition could be included even in single-payer systems.

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.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think that the way to "fix the system" is through redesigning the infrastructure utilization policies and tackling the bureaucracy issues.

Given that care received in emergency rooms costs many time more than it does at the family docors office it would seem that the first priority in researching the problem would be to examine the case loads of these emergency centres. I am willing to bet that a vast majority of treatment services delivered to citizens in these facilities could have been provided elsewhere at less cost. Availability of services is the likely cause of this problem, but that needs to be documented. With this in mind I think it prudent to consider alternative means of service delivery to reduce costs.

The other side of the equation is asset utilization. How many public facilities have horrific utilization curves. Between public schools, libraries and community centres we would probably see less than a fifty percent utilization should we be bright enough to ook into it. When you consider these assets being idle at great public cost you begin to get the picture. Its a planning function of government that needs to be carefully examined. While the conversion of existing assets may prove expensive, there is no doubt that it would be cheaper to expand infrastructure in this manner than constructing entirely new low usage facilities.

How many administrative cluster ***** do we currently have? Lets see, a federal department, a provincial department, a regional department and finally a facility locally administered! How much money could be saved through administrative reductions?

A little outside of the box thinking could cure the system without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[madmax]

[PS: For some reason the quote feature is f%$ked.

Just hit edit, and go searching for the missing tag.

I have had to do this a few times myself. I have realized that leaving it unblocked, does make it hard for an outsider to follow who is saying what.

Give it another try, see if you can clear it up.

[madmax]

We spend 100B on healtchare a year.

I'm suggesting, to fix this porblem, we need to spend 300B, or allow private insurance and hospital corperations in Canada to get an immediate offload.

How are you are going to find 200 Billion in taxes?

[madmax]

With regards to the posts on Health Care in Canada. I have seen pro private, pro public, and pro Euro Socialist, along with Pro British, Pro American in this thread.

It is all good discussion.

I have one question, as many of these very issues are brought forth in two reports within the last 5 years.

Has anyone read, either the Romanov or the Kirby report?

These commissions are very thorough, and cover most of the issues here.

[mikedavid00]

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. 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 in order to treat more poeple who are not living in Canada and arriving in the country on a daily basis.

It's your very wild, wacky, Liberal idealism that got us here. Private healtchare cooperation is PROVEN to work for both rich and poor, but NOTHING will work when you have 300,000 sick, ailing, people entering the country with no job prospects, no plans to stay in Canada after they get their perminant residents, and who just are here to use our systems and place the MOST concern on bringnig over more of their relatives.

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

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.l

I wish private health proponents would explain why they think its better to have to pay premium prices privately rather than lower costs through taxes.

We need to basically stop letting people into the system who have not paid into it.

Like those freeloading babies and children.

You just don't get it do you. Their births and hospital fees cots us tax payers money. Their schooling cost us money for something that they never paid into.

Wow you just really aren't savvy or well read are you? If you can't under stand the simpelest, basic, basic, concept of how a social system works, then there's no hope for you and you shouldn't be discussing these sorts of things, you should be reading about the fundementals of how taxes are gathered and spent.

[mikedavid00]

I think we're going to find the best balance somewhere between the two systems, public insurance and private delivery.

Either way, as long as people are using the system that have not paid into, nothing will save us. The only thing that would save us is maybe if I got employed and got a healthcare plan. Then I wouldn't have to wait.

Only 12% of the US's expendatures is on healthcare. Some provinces spend up to 40% of its money on healthcare from what I heard on the radio.

[mikedavid00]

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. And those staff resources are not owned by the state. I wouldn't be suprised if the hospitals will pay LESS money to these doctors in exchange for much better working conditions. It will be good for the feds to realize they have a problem beyond repair and need to rethink their immigration policies.

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.

(beleive me, I was the exact same way when I was a teen, now i'm older and understand things in life. The first life lesson is people who manage programs are not there becuase of there mangement skills, but because of other reasons they hold these powerful positions ( could be a boss at work etc ). They have power to ruin things beyond repair due to their lack of talent and will do so much of the time. This is what has happened with healthcare and previous gov't that were managing this program. They weren't talented and failed at this. I accept this and learn from these things. You hold a teen-age like emotional attatchment that it's 'not fair' when the best we're trying to do is fix a broken mess. Yes private healtchare is the only way. No the white collar welfare health Canada jobs will never stop. We have to accept this and fucos on soltuions that are proven to work elsewhere, not idealisms.

[madmax]

Wow you just really aren't savvy or well read are you? If you can't under stand the simpelest, basic, basic, concept of how a social system works, then there's no hope for you and you shouldn't be discussing these sorts of things, you should be reading about the fundementals of how taxes are gathered and spent.

Mike, there are alot of people on this forum with a good grasp, whether I agree with them or not, on how a "social system" works. There are some excellent people here whom have given me great information on how our taxes are gathered and spent.

But then I get to your posts.

[madmax]

Only 12% of the US's expendatures is on healthcare. Some provinces spend up to 40% of its money on healthcare from what I heard on the radio.

Sources National Coalition for Health Care, Washington D.C.

Canadian Institute for Health Information

This document is also available as a printable .pdf file.

Health Insurance Cost

Facts on the Cost of Health Care

Introduction

By several measures, health care spending continues to rise at the fastest rate in our history.

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).

In 2006, employer health insurance premiums increased by 7.7 percent - two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $11,500. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,200 (3).

In 2001, Canada spent about 9.4% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health care. In 1998 (the latest available international comparisons), Canada spent 9.3% of GDP on health care, more than all but three other OECD countries. Total public and private health care spending in Canada was $102.5 billion (forecast) in 2001. On average, that's about $3,300 per Canadian.

About 73% of total health care spending (just under $2,400 per Canadian) came from public sector sources in 2001 (forecast). The rest came from private sector sources, such as insurance companies and out-of-pocket payments. Most private spending was for drugs and dental care.

What you heard on the radio was a figure. If you were to use the figure of 40% and follow through with the spending and inflation of health care costs in the US that figure would be close to 80% or even more, since they could never afford it, and the interest on the debt would bankrupt them.

The figures in the study suggest

Health care accounts for a larger share of provincial/territorial government expenditures than 25 years ago. In 2000, it was almost a third (32%) of total expenditures including debt charges, up from 27% in 1975.

The rate of inflation of health care spendng here, could concievable put it near 40%, but I never trust the radio.

That said, regardless of the cost of the Province, it still comes down to the individual when footing the bill.

Add up the Canadian Public/private comparison $3,300

Add up the US Public/Private comparison $6280

On top of this all Canadians are covered. And 40 Million US residents aren't.

Look at those employer premium rates. 7.7% increase. They need a solution just as quick as we do.

[madmax]

Choice creates competition which creates both efficiency and quality.

There is also no evidence that lower prices are paid through taxes. Sure the Americans pay more, but some other private jurisdictions pay less, say England. So what up?

I think we're going to find the best balance somewhere between the two systems, public insurance and private delivery.

Well let's hope it's not this choice:

From Wikpedia

Main article: Health care in the United States

The overall performance of the United States health care system was ranked 15th by the World Health Organization.[89] The United States far outspends (combined private and public expenditures) any other nation in healthcare, measured in terms of both per capita spending and percentage of GDP. [90]However, spending has not correlated with a high ranking in many public health metrics. Information provided by the CIA World Factbook indicate that the United States had a higher infant mortality rate and slightly lower life expectancy than other post-industrial western nations such as Sweden,[91] Germany[92] or France.[93][94] The average salary of a physician in the US is the highest in the world.[95] Obesity is also a public-health problem, which is estimated to cost tens of billions of dollars every year.[96]

Unlike in many Western countries, the healthcare system is not fully-publicly funded but is a mix of public and private funding. In 2004, private insurance paid for 36% personal health expenditures, private out-of-pocket payments were 15%, while federal, state, and local governments paid 44%.[97] In 2005, there were 41.2 million people in the U.S. (14.2 percent of the population) who were without healthcare insurance for at least part of that year.(ibid) However, approximately one-third of these without insurance live in housholds with an income over $50,000, with half of these having an income of over $75,000.[98] Also, one third are people who are eligible for public health insurance programs but have not signed up for them. Health insurance in the United States is traditionally a benefit of some kinds of employment. However, emergency care facilities are required to provide service regardless of the patient's ability to pay. Medical bills are the most common reason for personal bankruptcy in the United States.[99] The nation spends a substantial amount on medical research, mostly privately-funded. As of 2000, non-profit private organizations funded 7% (such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute), private industry funded 57%, and the tax-funded National Institutes of Health funded 36% of medical research in the U.S.[100]

There's some sobering thoughts

1/3 of that 41 Million are households with income of over $50,000 US .

Medical Bills are the most common reason for personal Bankruptcy.

[madmax]

Idealism. And those staff resources are not owned by the state. I wouldn't be suprised if the hospitals will pay LESS money to these doctors in exchange for much better working conditions.. Yes private healtchare is the only way. No the white collar welfare health Canada jobs will never stop. We have to accept this and fucos on soltuions that are proven to work elsewhere, not idealisms.

Private Hospitals pay doctors less money? Not in the US where health marketing choice is the greatest.

[hiti]

Private Hospitals pay doctors less money? Not in the US where health marketing choice is the greatest.

Let's look at the evidence. Private health insurance is more expensive. America's private health "system" costs 50 per cent more than Canada's and delivers worse health outcomes for its population. Forty-eight million Americans have no health insurance and that number is raising.

More generally, a study of industrialized countries by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found private health insurance correlates with higher health spending per capita. The study found that moving to private insurance actually increased costs for the public system in France. When looking at the Australian example, the Canadian Institute for Health Information found that adding a parallel private health insurance scheme did not even reduce public spending on health care; private premiums were so expensive that the government had to subsidize them in order to convince people to enroll.

The evidence is no better on wait lists. OECD studies reveal that shorter wait lists do not correlate with countries that have private health insurance. Creating a parallel private health system siphons doctors out of the public system, worsening wait times (doctors, as skillful as they are, cannot be two places at once). And the wait times for those 48 million Americans are infinitely long.

Alberta's public solutions to wait lists are working well when it moved to to a more public system, not a more private one, with clinic's set up to handle specific problems such as hip and knee replacements, greatly reducing wait times.

[jbg]

Has anyone read, either the Romanov or the Kirby report?

These commissions are very thorough, and cover most of the issues here.

Don't know about the Kirby Report. The Romanov Report suggests shoveling an impractically large amount of money into the problem. Given that the health care is "free" the demand for it is unlimited, so there would inevitably be another go-round of reports and funding increases after the first one.....

[jdobbin]

Don't know about the Kirby Report. The Romanov Report suggests shoveling an impractically large amount of money into the problem. Given that the health care is "free" the demand for it is unlimited, so there would inevitably be another go-round of reports and funding increases after the first one.....

You should read the Kirby report then. Many Liberals agreed with that report.

[Saturn]

Don't know about the Kirby Report. The Romanov Report suggests shoveling an impractically large amount of money into the problem. Given that the health care is "free" the demand for it is unlimited, so there would inevitably be another go-round of reports and funding increases after the first one.....

Does the Romanow report suggest shoveling 60% more money into the problem - roughly $60 billion annually? Because that's what privatizing health care will do.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Does the Romanow report suggest shoveling 60% more money into the problem - roughly $60 billion annually? Because that's what privatizing health care will do.

You know this how?

[Saturn]

Does the Romanow report suggest shoveling 60% more money into the problem - roughly $60 billion annually? Because that's what privatizing health care will do.

You know this how?

Simple. You want American health-care - it costs 60% more than ours.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Simple. You want American health-care - it costs 60% more than ours.

Because you say so?

[White Doors]

The choice is not between what we have now for health care and what the states is. There are many hybrid solutions that work very well in Europe. I think we should be looking at the best solution and not simply refuse to change because of the USA healthcare rhetoric which is all so common with the 'status quo' people.

Our healthcare system is sick.

[Ricki Bobbi]

The choice is not between what we have now for health care and what the states is. There are many hybrid solutions that work very well in Europe. I think we should be looking at the best solution and not simply refuse to change because of the USA healthcare rhetoric which is all so common with the 'status quo' people.

Our healthcare system is sick.

Agreed. A healthcare policy that has some private options is not necessarily U.S.-style. But it is much easier for the left to summon the evil American demon than to actually come up with forward-thinking options that will save our health care system.