Conservatives cut healthcare funding after 2018

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Provinces slam feds over health funding

'Unilateral' plan would slash billions from future transfers

VICTORIA -- Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was accused Monday of imposing a new federal health funding plan on the provinces and territories during what six provinces -- including Manitoba -- said were unprecedented, one-sided meetings.

Flaherty said Ottawa's plan to continue increasing health transfer payments at six per cent annually for the next six years before tying the transfer dollars to the rate of economic growth and inflation offers the provinces and territories certain and stable health funding.

But the majority of provincial and territorial leaders said the deal amounted to a take-it-or-leave-it offer that was slapped on the table without any chance of discussion.

"Obviously, there was some concern about having the opportunity to digest the figure we put before them," said Flaherty at a news conference following the day-long meeting.

Flaherty said the health transfer payments increases will never fall below three per cent. He said by 2018, the increases will be tied to the rate of nominal GDP, which is the measure of economic growth including inflation.

The majority of the provincial and territorial ministers said they were astonished with Flaherty's approach, even though Ottawa signalled before the meetings it was considering a transfer formula tied to the nominal GDP.

"I do not want to stand back quietly," said a visibly angry Stan Struthers, Manitoba's finance minister. "I'm open to any discussion on any angle in terms of the whole ball of wax of transfers -- equalization, health, social transfers. I'm open to speaking with the minister on any of that. We didn't have that today. This was very unilateral."

Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan said he also expected to be involved in health funding negotiations that addressed the formula, but that wasn't the case. "We thought we'd come and hear that sort of thing again, and then get an invitation to work together on these things, recognizing the challenges that all of us face."

Struthers and Duncan were joined at a post-meeting news conference by the finance ministers from Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia who all blasted the new transfer arrangement.

"I don't ever recall six finance ministers, representing, I've got to believe it's about 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the Canadian population, standing up together like this and just angry," said Duncan.

He said tying health transfers to the nominal rate of economic growth starting in 2017-2018 effectively removes $21 billion from health-care funding across Canada.

"It's no present at all," said Duncan. "It's a lump of coal."

Duncan said his colleagues were all shocked at Ottawa's unilateral decision.

"He put the document in front of us and said this is how it's going to be." Flaherty said the new health spending investments amount to $178 billion over five years.

He said his provincial and territorial counterparts were briefed about Ottawa's plans at a dinner last night. "We do need to talk about the way forward in terms of being fiscally responsible, not only at the federal level but across the country, all the governments," said Flaherty.

"We all realize that public finances relate to revenues and we can't pretend that we can spend money that we don't have."

Provinces slam feds over health funding - Winnipeg Free Press
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Please explain how lowering the annual increase in spending is a "cut" Is this the new math that came out after I graduated?
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Please explain how lowering the annual increase in spending is a "cut" Is this the new math that came out after I graduated?

It's less than what we would have received.

We would have received x amount. We now receive x less y amount.

Y represents the amount cut from x.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
It's less than what we would have received.

We would have received x amount. We now receive x less y amount.

Y represents the amount cut from x.

That is unions math. Cutting means that this year you get less than last year. Same as a cut in taxes means you pay less this year than last year, not a little more instead of a lot more.

Also it only applies if Harper is still in power 6 years from now.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
That is unions math. Cutting means that this year you get less than last year.

In 2018, the provinces will get less than they did the prior year.

Hence, cut.

Also it only applies if Harper is still in power 6 years from now.

Well then you better hope your booties:

A) He's not

or

B) He decides to actually negotiate something more reasonable with provinces.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Provinces slam feds over health funding

'Unilateral' plan would slash billions from future transfers

VICTORIA -- Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was accused Monday of imposing a new federal health funding plan on the provinces and territories during what six provinces -- including Manitoba -- said were unprecedented, one-sided meetings.

Those who are balking at Mr. Flaherty's announcement might help him out by pointing out a source of funding that he is obvioiusly missing! :smile:
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Those who are balking at Mr. Flaherty's announcement might help him out by pointing out a source of funding that he is obvioiusly missing! :smile:

Guys, guys.. It's okay if you don't have the funding to live a healthy life cuz of ze socialist lefty equalization payments!
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
In 2018, the provinces will get less than they did the prior year.

Hence, cut.



Well then you better hope your booties:

A) He's not

or

B) He decides to actually negotiate something more reasonable with provinces.

That is not what the article said. It said the annual increase would be cut. That means there is still an increase just not as big. That is not a cut.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
That is not what the article said. It said the annual increase would be cut. That means there is still an increase just not as big. That is not a cut.

It's a smaller increase which is less than the expected increase.

The amount removed from expected to smaller is the amount cut.

And in our case, that amount is at least $21 Billion.

Just enough to fund some jets.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
It's a smaller increase which is less than the expected increase.

The amount removed from expected to smaller is the amount cut.

And in our case, that amount is at least $21 Billion.

Just enough to fund some jets.

Absolutely, as those who can read and figure can easily understand! :lol:
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Provinces slam feds over health funding

'Unilateral' plan would slash billions from future transfers

VICTORIA -- Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was accused Monday of imposing a new federal health funding plan on the provinces and territories during what six provinces -- including Manitoba -- said were unprecedented, one-sided meetings.

Flaherty said Ottawa's plan to continue increasing health transfer payments at six per cent annually for the next six years before tying the transfer dollars to the rate of economic growth and inflation offers the provinces and territories certain and stable health funding.

But the majority of provincial and territorial leaders said the deal amounted to a take-it-or-leave-it offer that was slapped on the table without any chance of discussion.

"Obviously, there was some concern about having the opportunity to digest the figure we put before them," said Flaherty at a news conference following the day-long meeting.

Flaherty said the health transfer payments increases will never fall below three per cent. He said by 2018, the increases will be tied to the rate of nominal GDP, which is the measure of economic growth including inflation.

The majority of the provincial and territorial ministers said they were astonished with Flaherty's approach, even though Ottawa signalled before the meetings it was considering a transfer formula tied to the nominal GDP.

"I do not want to stand back quietly," said a visibly angry Stan Struthers, Manitoba's finance minister. "I'm open to any discussion on any angle in terms of the whole ball of wax of transfers -- equalization, health, social transfers. I'm open to speaking with the minister on any of that. We didn't have that today. This was very unilateral."

Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan said he also expected to be involved in health funding negotiations that addressed the formula, but that wasn't the case. "We thought we'd come and hear that sort of thing again, and then get an invitation to work together on these things, recognizing the challenges that all of us face."

Struthers and Duncan were joined at a post-meeting news conference by the finance ministers from Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia who all blasted the new transfer arrangement.

"I don't ever recall six finance ministers, representing, I've got to believe it's about 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the Canadian population, standing up together like this and just angry," said Duncan.

He said tying health transfers to the nominal rate of economic growth starting in 2017-2018 effectively removes $21 billion from health-care funding across Canada.

"It's no present at all," said Duncan. "It's a lump of coal."

Duncan said his colleagues were all shocked at Ottawa's unilateral decision.

"He put the document in front of us and said this is how it's going to be." Flaherty said the new health spending investments amount to $178 billion over five years.

He said his provincial and territorial counterparts were briefed about Ottawa's plans at a dinner last night. "We do need to talk about the way forward in terms of being fiscally responsible, not only at the federal level but across the country, all the governments," said Flaherty.

"We all realize that public finances relate to revenues and we can't pretend that we can spend money that we don't have."

Provinces slam feds over health funding - Winnipeg Free Press

I'm for reduced spending, so I see no issue with it per se. However, the government should allow total two-tiered, maybe Swedish-style or something of the sort, so as to remove pressure from wealthier Canadians on the public system.

Also, if we're going to have any kind of publicly funded health care, raise taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, high-chjolesterol products and the like. That way at least it's somewhat more user-pay. I don't want my tax dollars going towards a smoker's lung cancer or a McDonnald's dieter's heart operation without knowing they also made their fair contribution to their own self-inflicted illness.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Absolutely, as those who can read and figure can easily understand! :lol:

Thank you JLM.

It's good to know that we at least have some sane conservatives on this board.

I'm for reduced spending, so I see no issue with it per se. However, the government should allow total two-tiered, maybe Swedish-style or something of the sort, so as to remove pressure from wealthier Canadians on the public system.

Well, they should have negotiated a more reasonable rate with the provinces instead of tying our healthcare to GDP growth - which is the silliest idea anyone could come up with.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
It's a smaller increase which is less than the expected increase.

The amount removed from expected to smaller is the amount cut.

And in our case, that amount is at least $21 Billion.

Just enough to fund some jets.

So when the government unions only get a 5% raise instead of the 15% they were demanding does this mean they took a pay cut?
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
12,440
1,396
113
60
Alberta
Gee I watched the Minister's speech yesterday and it was my understanding that he was increasing transfer payments to the Provinces who, in turn allocate their own healthcare cost, so how did the Conservatives cut funding to healthcare?
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
SO then the Conservatives haven't cut health care spending after 2018 as the thread says only a raise cut.

But in essence, the raise is part of the new salary, so yes it is a pay cut.

Either way, you're getting way too touchy about reduced spending (or cutting as I like to call it).