Flaherty: Healthcare to be tied to GDP growth

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
It's the '90s all over again in health care

Anyone who's had the misfortune to have a loved one spend time in hospital recently knows only too well that our health-care system is on the ropes.

Hospitals can't ask patients to pay for vital health services, so they ding them for everything else--from parking to extra services like semi-private wards.

Now federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has put the provinces on notice that they won't be getting the 6% annual increase in health funding to which they're addicted.

Both the feds and Ontario are running massive deficits. If they want to wrestle those under control, they'll have to attack the big-ticket items--such as health.

In future, Flaherty indicated, the increase will be tied to GDP growth.

This has provincial Health Minister Deb Matthews in high dudgeon.

"There are a lot of demands on the healthcare system," Matthews told reporters Tuesday. "Every day there's a conversation about what more we need to be doing, not what less we need to be doing."

She said when the publicly funded healthcare system started, it was envisioned it would be paid for with a 50:50 cost sharing split with the federal government.

The federal figure's now at 23%, she said.

Except, hold on a second. If you look back to 2004, when Liberal Paul Martin was prime minister, you'll find the provinces were making similar claims.

Back then, though, the claim was that the feds were funding only 16 cents on the dollar for health.

That claim about 50:50 cost sharing? Never happened, according to a Martin-era web page.

"The federal government never cost-shared 50% of all provincial health-care spending, and since 1977 has provided block-funding support to provincial health care and post-secondary education spending through a combination of cash and tax transfers," says a 2004 posting on the federal finance ministry website.

Martin's a Liberal. Would he lie? Oh, right. During the 1990s, Martin and his predecessor, Jean Chretien, scaled back funding to the provinces.

They slashed $6 billion in transfers--and Mike Harris and Ernie Eves were slammed by provincial Liberals for "taking an axe to health care." What option did they have?

Tory health critic Christine Elliott (who, ironically, is Flaherty's wife) agrees that 6% increases are unsustainable.

She said the indications are that economist Don Drummond, whom the provincial government has commissioned to find ways to cut its spending, will say as much when he releases his report in January.

"We're not getting good value for our healthcare dollars right now. If we innovate, we will be able to find those savings and we should be able to keep the increases lower than 6%," Elliott told reporters.

So, let's all take a deep breath and consider:

Our health system is under pressure. We need to find ways to put money into it--apart from gouging patients and visitors every time they park.

What Martin, Chretien, Harris and Eves did in the 1990s was brutal, but it saved us from the kind of debt crisis Europe is facing now. The health system cannot be all things to all people.

We must find other sources of revenue for health care, other running up more big deficits or hitting up the overstressed taxpayer. We must decide which services are truly important and which ones we are prepared to give up.

Tough choices, sure.

If you want the alternative, though, look no farther than Greece.

It's the '90s all over again in health care | Christina Blizzard | Columnists | Comment | London Free Press
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
It's the '90s all over again in health care

Anyone who's had the misfortune to have a loved one spend time in hospital recently knows only too well that our health-care system is on the ropes.

Hospitals can't ask patients to pay for vital health services, so they ding them for everything else--from parking to extra services like semi-private wards.

Now federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has put the provinces on notice that they won't be getting the 6% annual increase in health funding to which they're addicted.

Both the feds and Ontario are running massive deficits. If they want to wrestle those under control, they'll have to attack the big-ticket items--such as health.

In future, Flaherty indicated, the increase will be tied to GDP growth.

This has provincial Health Minister Deb Matthews in high dudgeon.

"There are a lot of demands on the healthcare system," Matthews told reporters Tuesday. "Every day there's a conversation about what more we need to be doing, not what less we need to be doing."

She said when the publicly funded healthcare system started, it was envisioned it would be paid for with a 50:50 cost sharing split with the federal government.

The federal figure's now at 23%, she said.

Except, hold on a second. If you look back to 2004, when Liberal Paul Martin was prime minister, you'll find the provinces were making similar claims.

Back then, though, the claim was that the feds were funding only 16 cents on the dollar for health.

That claim about 50:50 cost sharing? Never happened, according to a Martin-era web page.

"The federal government never cost-shared 50% of all provincial health-care spending, and since 1977 has provided block-funding support to provincial health care and post-secondary education spending through a combination of cash and tax transfers," says a 2004 posting on the federal finance ministry website.

Martin's a Liberal. Would he lie? Oh, right. During the 1990s, Martin and his predecessor, Jean Chretien, scaled back funding to the provinces.

They slashed $6 billion in transfers--and Mike Harris and Ernie Eves were slammed by provincial Liberals for "taking an axe to health care." What option did they have?

Tory health critic Christine Elliott (who, ironically, is Flaherty's wife) agrees that 6% increases are unsustainable.

She said the indications are that economist Don Drummond, whom the provincial government has commissioned to find ways to cut its spending, will say as much when he releases his report in January.

"We're not getting good value for our healthcare dollars right now. If we innovate, we will be able to find those savings and we should be able to keep the increases lower than 6%," Elliott told reporters.

So, let's all take a deep breath and consider:

Our health system is under pressure. We need to find ways to put money into it--apart from gouging patients and visitors every time they park.

What Martin, Chretien, Harris and Eves did in the 1990s was brutal, but it saved us from the kind of debt crisis Europe is facing now. The health system cannot be all things to all people.

We must find other sources of revenue for health care, other running up more big deficits or hitting up the overstressed taxpayer. We must decide which services are truly important and which ones we are prepared to give up.

Tough choices, sure.

If you want the alternative, though, look no farther than Greece.

It's the '90s all over again in health care | Christina Blizzard | Columnists | Comment | London Free Press

A mix of Public / Private plans is coming - The rate of growth is not sustainable.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
This one is moving fast..

Flaherty accused of reneging on health-care funding promise

TORONTO — Ontario is accusing Finance Minister Jim Flaherty of reneging on an election promise to maintain the federal government's annual increases in health-care funding to the provinces.

Ontario Health Minister Deb Matthews says anything less than the six per cent annual increase promised by the federal Tories will have a major impact on Canada's most populous province.

The Conservatives vowed during the election campaign to maintain annual increases of six per cent until 2016 -- two years after the current deal with the provinces expires.

Flaherty's also said during the election campaign that he'd keep that six per cent escalator for the duration of any new agreement with the provinces.

But a report suggests that Flaherty plans to link any future funding increases to growth in the economy, which is currently forecast at about two per cent a year.

Ottawa provides 23 per cent of Ontario's health-care funds, while the province absorbs the rest of the costs, accounting for nearly half of every dollar it spends.

Ontario's governing Liberals, who are grappling with a $16-billion deficit this year, are planning to slow its spending increases on health care to three per cent a year.

The elements that drive health-care spending -- an aging population, new technologies and a demand for higher levels of service -- have nothing to do with economic growth, said federal Liberal Leader Bob Rae.

"I think we all recognize that health care needs to be brought under control, but to tie the federal government's contribution to an artificial concept like economic growth is frankly just wrong, because it's not what it is," he said.

 

The Old Medic

Council Member
May 16, 2010
1,330
2
38
The World
The bottom line is, as many Americans have been saying for a very long time, the Canadian Medicare system is simply not sustainable.

No single payer system in history has been able to withstand the massive increases in costs that medicine entails. So, you either go the rout of Great Britain, which as public medicine for the poor/lower middle class, and private medicine for everyone that can possibly afford it.

Or, you go the route of Germany, where the government simply mandates Insurance coverage be provided for all employees and their families, with the government picking up the costs of insurance for those that can not work or be self-sustaining. The government mandates what MUST be covered in all policies, and the companies compete to see who will offer more to their customers (the same amount is paid for each and every person, regardless of age, infirmity, etc.).

Everyone has excellent coverage for hospitalization, medical visits, and a LOT more, but all payment is through private insurers. People have the right to change doctors, or insurers, at will (which keeps EVERYONE on their toes).

Of course, you could also go the American route.
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
Push more of the funding on the private sector. I already have a health plan provided by my employer, in addition to core services provided by OHIP. Take it a step further and allow them to provide the whole thing, give the employers tax credits or something in return. For the unemployed, disabled etc, nothing would change, same coverage provided by the government.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
As the world has been saying, American healthcare is stupid.

Agreed approx 20 % of the economy.Problem with ObamaCare is they did not lower the levels of malpractice suits - That sucks up a lot of cash - Insurance companies & Laywers are grand.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Canada, Provinces Head For Possible Health-Care Showdown In Weekend Meeting

OTTAWA (Dow Jones)-Canada's Finance Minister Jim Flaherty meets with his provincial counterparts starting Sunday for a two-day event that could turn into a political ruckus over how to preserve the country's vaunted health-care system.

Federal-provincial conflict is commonplace in Canada's federalist system of government, as the 10 provinces frequently demand additional cash from Ottawa to help deliver the key front-line services they are responsible for - most notably education and health care.

Tensions have escalated ahead of the meeting, set in the scenic British Columbia capital of Victoria, with published reports suggesting Flaherty will inform provincial finance ministers that, starting in 2016, the Canadian government would limit year-over-year growth in health-care transfers, set to hit C$27 billion (US$26 billion) this year. Instead of transfers climbing annually at a 6% rate, as they have been since 2004, reports indicated the Conservative government wants to link future increases to advances in the country's gross domestic product.

The Bank of Canada recently estimated the country's medium-term potential output -- or the amount of growth that can be sustained without triggering inflationary pressure -- stands at 2.2%.

"A cap tied to growth in the economy implies significant reduction in accessibility and the quality of health care in this country," Dwight Duncan, finance minister for Canada's largest province, Ontario, said in an interview. "I think this will become a major political issue if this represents the view of the government of Canada."

An irate Duncan wrote to Flaherty on Wednesday, asking for a special one-on-one meeting to discuss the Conservative commitment to health-care funding.

So far, Flaherty has declined to address reporters about possible changes in federal health funding. A spokesman for the Prime Minister's Office said the federal Conservative government would continue to boost health-care payments to the provinces in a "balanced and sustainable" way.

During the national election earlier this year and under pressure from his political opponents, Prime Minister Stephen Harper pledged to keep increasing health transfer at 6% a year until 2016. Under the Canadian system, the federal government sets the criteria and conditions for insured services and extended health-care services the provinces and territories must fulfill. In return, provinces receive financial assistance from the federal government in the form of health-care transfer payments.

Public finances at Canada's federal level of government are in relatively sterling shape, but the provinces are under pressure to get their debt-laden balance sheets into better shape as the aging population delivers a double whammy of a smaller tax base and increased demand for health-care.

That crunch, observers say, will inevitably be felt in Canada's taxpayer-funded, universal health-care system, which accounts for roughly 40% of total outlays of Canadian provincial governments.

The health system is the closest thing to a sacred cow in Canadian politics. Provincial spending on health care across Canada has grown at an average of 6.9% a year over the last decade, or a pace that far exceeds revenue growth.

Finn Poschmann, vice-president of research at the C.D. Howe Institute, a Toronto-based think-tank, said the Canadian government may be sending signals to the provinces that they should brace for less federal help. Flaherty is also trying to get the federal budget back to balance, by fiscal 2016, through spending reductions of up to C$4 billion a year.

"The provinces are going to have to take a hard look at their priorities, because if they want to protect health care they will have to clip ever more sharply elsewhere," he said. "The provinces will have to adjust."

Canada, Provinces Head For Possible Health-Care Showdown In Weekend Meeting - WSJ.com
 

Nuggler

kind and gentle
Feb 27, 2006
11,596
140
63
Backwater, Ontario.
No one should be surprised. Flatulance is still trying to find his ass. Ontario is still "trying to adjust" from the era of Flatulance and Mike Harass.
 

grunt

New Member
Oct 1, 2011
22
1
3
Do not cut services and/or increase taxes all you have to do is cut the looting. While you are at it may be you can stop the tailoring of services to suit personal needs for some. But before anybody gets their knickers in a twist and starts mindlessly regurgitating the BS they have been fed about baby boomers and other nonsense; consider this (there are more):
1- Baby boomers were NOT a fluke mutation that nobody saw coming or knew about. Every bloody person knew when and how it is going to impact things. Instead of planning for the future governments mismanaged everything, intentionally.
2- There were plenty of funds; what did they do? They squandered the money as if there is no tomorrow. You could see people going to emergency rooms for a cut in their fingers. No one is answering for that. Again the blame goes to the flock of sheep, the people. While governments that decided what was allowed and what was not are completely blameless!!!!!
How many times have we gone through that route of cutting and increasing and where did it take us? It is and endless road. The best analogy to this is a water system consists of a tank (reservoir), a pipe that brings water at certain rate and a tap for water use. If the integrity of the system is good it will work fine with may be infrequent adjustments here and there. But if water is taken out secretly by drilling a hole in the bottom of the tank the system will fail. You can increase the in flow rate or turn down the tap to reduce out flow or even shut it off completely it will not help as long as this drainage exist and holes are widened or new ones are drilled. What is astounding is that everybody knows about these holes but no one wants to do anything or even talks about it. They want to go with the same old stuff and come up with a new result, really!!!!!! Some have huge interest in the failing of the system.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Was the "baby boom" a boom in the true sense of the word? Or was it just a postponement of babies that would have been born from 1940-1945 had the virile young men not been away fighting war?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,893
11,177
113
Low Earth Orbit
Was the "baby boom" a boom in the true sense of the word? Or was it just a postponement of babies that would have been born from 1940-1945 had the virile young men not been away fighting war?
Yes! Post WWII food production skyrocketed which lowered the cost from 40% of income to 10%, it made raising a family dirt cheap in the cities as it was for the agrarians.