Conservatives cut healthcare funding after 2018
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Now, lets do a lovely calculation:
Projected Federal spending on health care if increased at 6% per year:
2008-09 36.5 Billion Dollars
2020-21 73.0 Billion Dollars
2027-28 109.5 Billion Dollars
2032-33 146.0 Billion Dollars
2036-37 182.5 Billion Dollars
2039-40 221.9 billion Dollars
Do a little math, and it becomes VERY obvious that a 6% increase every year is financial suicide.
Simply ridiculous.
Reality strikes...........
Projected Federal spending on health care if increased at 6% per year:
2008-09 36.5 Billion Dollars
2020-21 73.0 Billion Dollars
2027-28 109.5 Billion Dollars
2032-33 146.0 Billion Dollars
2036-37 182.5 Billion Dollars
2039-40 221.9 billion Dollars
Do a little math, and it becomes VERY obvious that a 6% increase every year is financial suicide.
Simply ridiculous.
Reality strikes...........
So, which is it then.. Does an annual increase in federal funding to the provinces still qualify as a decrease via union metrics?
Health care is a Prov area. You cannot keep on increasing at that rate unless people are prepared for major tax increases. Tax rates would be comparable to Denmark, Sweden etc.
Draw two lines on a graph with positive but different slopes. The two lines start at the same point, but diverge more and more as time moves forward. If these are funding regimes, and you move from the higher sloped line to the lower sloped line, then that is a decrease in funding...it's pure mathematical ignorance to suggest otherwise. It doesn't matter that the funds still go up each year. It's on a lesser curve than it was previously. Try the math. See what the total funding is by adding the year before and the year after, under the old funding regime. See what the funding is under the new funding regime for the year before and after the switch. The total will be smaller in the calculation which includes the lesser curve.
That's a decrease. This really should go without saying. If they government is looking to reduce spending costs...
That's a decrease. This really should go without saying. If they government is looking to reduce spending costs...
We already spent $180 billion in 2009.
And as boomers start dying off, you can expect costs to rise.
An infant under the age of one costs an estimated $8,239 per person. Between age one and age 64, spending averaged less than $3,809 per person.
Among seniors, per capita spending jumped to :
- $5,589 for those aged 65 to 69.
- $7,732 for those 70 to 74.
- $10,470 for those 75 to 79.
- $17,469 for those 80 and older.
Let's hope we stop shagging like hillbillies as that highest rates other than death are those for birth.
Reality bites.
There you go again with your union math. :roll:
No, it's not a decrease.
A decrease would be less than before, this is a lesser increase.
Of all the people on here, I'm stunned that you are arguing a point completely opposed to what your training (should have) taught you.
I guess politics really does blind people to reality, and make them forget what they already know.
Measuring only 2 variables in this equation is not representative of the overall picture. AT very least, add a third line into this graph that represents the base-line funding from the feds. In this case, both of the 'original' 2 lines will represent an increase relative to base-line.
WTF!
Yes, $180 Billion IN TOTAL of which the Feds spent $36.5 Billion.
Try to focus on the subject at hand, which is the federal contribution..........
Of course costs are going to rise, which is why the federal contribution will continue to rise........but NOT at the UNSUSTAINABLE 6% per year.
A decrease can also be less than what is expected.
What's unsustainable is a 3% baseline which is less than provincial spending.
They were supposed to negotiate somewhere in the middle, not tie it to our stupendous IMF-endorsed economy which only grows at a rate of 2%.
Last edited:
With that kind of flawed logic then fuel and power companies are justified in raising their rates on everyone just because we had a mild winter or a cool summer and they didn't make what they expected.
That's not a premise anyone should be promoting, i.e., it's not for the greater good.
It's pure social ignorance to go spouting off about lines on graphs (I took calculus years ago too), easier just to compare the weight in our hip pocket from one year to the next! :smile:
No, the rates would have to be negotiated, which was what I stated in my post.
It could be that some provinces deserve less than they spend because they do not make the effort to generate enough revenue or they spend needlessly. It could be that other provinces deserve more than they spend because they have no opportunity to spend less or create revenue.
Either way, every province needs to be looked at separately based on a variety of factors because this is a complex issue.
The government has basically said that they don't want to do any work and just tie it to GDP growth and that will truly suck for a province like PEI who's healthcare system actually depends on federal transfers.
In the meantime, Alberta and B.C. have lots of black oil they can pump even if the federal transfers are not enough.
Last edited:
Sure it is. Year after year is still more money (regardless of which funding regime we use) but if you add the liability year after year under the old and new funding regimes, the total is smaller for the new funding regime. The government will now pay less in the future than they would have if they changed nothing. It's equally as valid to consider the long-term funding of the social systems we have.
Undeniably, we will now be paying less from tax revenues to the provinces than we would have otherwise.
Yes, well that's the beauty of math. We can examine more than just one year to the next. We can evaluate two different funding regimes and project future costs, and one will pay less than the other. That's a decrease.
So, let's be clear, I'm not saying it's less funding year after year. I'm saying that over the long-term, the new funding regime pays out less to the provinces than would have under the current spending regime.
I'm simply looking at the bigger picture rather than the year after year total, which obviously has to grow. I never claimed otherwise.
It's not politics. I'm one of those Canadians who would like to see more private insurance. I don't buy the fear mongering about private insurance covering core services.
Easier doesn't mean more valid.
That's called bribing for votes.
Doesn't work out to well when your respect for taxpayers and gravy stopping ad campaign falls to shambles just one year after you were elected into office... not that this happened to any one politician in particular.. *cough* *cough*
*lung hack*
Ford.. Rob...
*collapse*
Harper stated he was leaving it to the Provinces to change the way service is provided. We all knew it was coming, we all know it has to change.
3 % is the minimum even if inflation / growth rate is lower.
Some prov had their hands tied by the Feds - AB in particular - private health care has been available in Ontario for a number of years.
Salary increases have been the major driver for cost increases. That and add in the Boomer's who live longer, more services etc.
Time to get busy I would say.