Conservatives cut healthcare funding after 2018

[mentalfloss]

Two tier health care!!!

OMG that's how the conservatives want to turn Canada into the US!!!

A good two-tier system is around 80% public and 20% private.

But tying healthcare funding to GDP growth seems as insidious as having a fully privatized system. It will basically favour the provinces that produce more economic growth. Unfortunately, in our country, economic growth is not really based on hard labour, but instead on how fortunate you are to have natural resources (eg. oil) in your territory.

That means Alberta and B.C. will be getting more funding because the people standing inside those borders are just.. lucky to live there.

 

[Colpy]

Not sustainable.

If you look at Sweden and Norway (who are rated highest amongst healthcare these days), they have a two-tier system with spending at around 9% of GDP. Considering they've already forecasted GDP growth at 2%, we will have to settle for the baseline payment amount of 3% once this new system takes place.

That's a pretty huge cut from 6%.

You really should do some study on the English language.

If I give you more money each and every year that is NOT a cut.

Simple concept, really.

It may be less of an increase, but calling it a "cut" is disingenuous at best, and dishonest at worst.

 

[captain morgan]

Six percent is NOT the portion of the budget eaten up by health spending..........six percent is the amount health spending INCREASES each year until sanity prevails in 2018.

That means in 2018 the provinces will get 140 percent of what they get this year. Then Mr. Flaherty will limit increases each year, tying them to the increase in GDP. NOTE: it is ALL increases each and every year.

In 2008-09, Health Transfers in cash and tax credits to the provinces cost the Federal Government 36.5 billion dollars out of a 237.4 billion dollar total budget. That is 15.3 percent.....NOT 6%.

So far, all we've talked about is the Federal component of the healthcare costs. Add in what each province pays and that number (fiscal and percentage) grows dramatically.

 

[Colpy]

A good two-tier system is around 80% public and 20% private.

But tying healthcare funding to GDP growth seems as insidious as having a fully privatized system. It will basically favour the provinces that produce more economic growth. Unfortunately, in our country, economic growth is not really based on hard labour, but instead on how fortunate you are to have natural resources (eg. oil) in your territory.

That means Alberta and B.C. will be getting more funding because the people standing inside those borders are just.. lucky to live there.

WOW!

Ahhh.....the increase in Health Transfer payments is to be calculated on the NATIONAL increase in GDP plus inflation....NOT calculated individually for each province.

 

[CDNBear]

HEY HEY HEY!!!!! I stole that line first. Go steal your own line!!

You're wrong again, not the first time, won't be the last...

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/c...-just-another-liberal-scandal.html#post642446

A good two-tier system is around 80% public and 20% private.

Similar to Sweden. Do you like the same user fees too?

But tying healthcare funding to GDP growth seems as insidious as having a fully privatized system.

Is that insidious like Darth Sidious, or insidious like Darth Harper?

It will basically favour the provinces that produce more economic growth. Unfortunately, in our country, economic growth is not really based on hard labour, but instead on how fortunate you are to have natural resources (eg. oil) in your territory.

That means Alberta and B.C. will be getting more funding because the people standing inside those borders are just.. lucky to live there.

Ummm...

Ahhh.....the increase in Health Transfer payments is to be calculated on the NATIONAL increase in GDP plus inflation....NOT calculated individually for each province.

Thanks Colpy.

 

[JLM]

Actually that is not a bad idea, healthcare consumes far too many of our tax dollars and 6 years gives people a chance to change their lifestyles (which according to a doctor I had) contributes to about 50% of healthcare costs. The level we are currently paying out for helathcare is friggin' ridiculous! :smile:

 

[mentalfloss]

WOW!

Ahhh.....the increase in Health Transfer payments is to be calculated on the NATIONAL increase in GDP plus inflation....NOT calculated individually for each province.

Ah, I see. My bad.

Okay, thankfully it doesn't favour provinces.

I still have a problem with it being tied to GDP though because we won't grow beyond 2% so we'll only receive the baseline of 3% which is a reduction (or cut) from the 6% growth the provinces get so far.

 

[CDNBear]

Ah, I see. My bad.

Okay, thankfully it doesn't favour provinces.

I still have a problem with it being tied to GDP though because we won't grow beyond 2% so we'll only receive the baseline of 3% which is a reduction (or cut) from the 6% growth the provinces get so far.

You never did tell me if you liked Sweden's user fees.

 

[mentalfloss]

You never did tell me if you liked Sweden's user fees.

I don't live in Sweden. What are the fees like?

 

[CDNBear]

I don't live in Sweden. What are the fees like?

You said to look at Swedish health care. I did.

You mean you didn't?

 

[mentalfloss]

You said to look at Swedish health care. I did.

You mean you didn't?

Not in terms of user fees, no. Why, is that an issue for you?

 

[taxslave]

Ah, I see. My bad.

Okay, thankfully it doesn't favour provinces.

I still have a problem with it being tied to GDP though because we won't grow beyond 2% so we'll only receive the baseline of 3% which is a reduction (or cut) from the 6% growth the provinces get so far.

Still trying to use union math I see. Any increase over the previous year is not a cut or a reduction. It is an increase plain and simple. And it comes out of the paycheques of those of us that work for a living. Worse it is not based on usage but paid by all wether you use any medical services or not.

 

[TenPenny]

Six percent is NOT the portion of the budget eaten up by health spending..........six percent is the amount health spending INCREASES each year until sanity prevails in 2018.

That means in 2018 the provinces will get 140 percent of what they get this year. Then Mr. Flaherty will limit increases each year, tying them to the increase in GDP. NOTE: it is ALL increases each and every year.

In 2008-09, Health Transfers in cash and tax credits to the provinces cost the Federal Government 36.5 billion dollars out of a 237.4 billion dollar total budget. That is 15.3 percent.....NOT 6%.

If you read back in the thread, you'll see where one of our well-informed posters has commented that health spending has gone down from 80% to 6%. That's what I was referring to.

 

[petros]

Six percent is NOT the portion of the budget eaten up by health spending..........six percent is the amount health spending INCREASES each year until sanity prevails in 2018.

Sanity? They are going to finally fund mental health? My old lady worked Christmas. Most of you would **** bricks if you saw the OT on her pay cheque and what that is costing you thanks to under staffing problems.

 

[mentalfloss]

Still trying to use union math I see. Any increase over the previous year is not a cut or a reduction. It is an increase plain and simple.

It's semantics, plain and simple.

A lower increase is still a cut (or reduction) from a higher increase.

 

[captain morgan]

A lower increase is still a cut (or reduction) from a higher increase.

And an increase is still an increase.

 

[petros]

Has health funding ever been in worse shape?

 

[mentalfloss]

And an increase is still an increase.

Obvious post is obvious.

 

[Colpy]

If you read back in the thread, you'll see where one of our well-informed posters has commented that health spending has gone down from 80% to 6%. That's what I was referring to.

As close as I can figure, the feds covered 28% of provincial health care costs in 2010.

 

[captain morgan]

Has health funding ever been in worse shape?

The strategy of throwing more money at the problem has only resulted in the public getting bumps and bruises from the heavy wads of cash hitting them in the face.

I think that it is fair to say that a different solution (possibly along with more funding) has to be developed.

Obvious post is obvious.

WTF!?!