New Bush Health plan same as Harpers Mentor/Advisor...

pastafarian

Electoral Member
Oct 25, 2005
541
0
16
in the belly of the mouse
I agree that if your work kicks in for premiums and you're not ever seriously ill, the speed and competence of health care delivery in the US is second to none.

I'd say that a bigger problem than the massive administrative costs in the US system (peanuts compared to Iraq, for example) is the constant threat of having one's premiums sky-rocket after a claim or two, or even that of being denied coverage. Since more and more insurance companies (and workplaces) are pushing to allow DNA testing of prospective employees/clients, the pool of the uninsured is likely to grow.

There seems to be more and more hostility in the corridors of US power to funding Medicaid. This, combined with an aging population and increased health risks from climate change, which even the Pentagon has acknowledged, makes for a pretty grim future.
 

the caracal kid

the clan of the claw
Nov 28, 2005
1,947
2
38
www.kdm.ca
Agreed pasta,

- private insurance will increase your premiums if you are of higher risk or higher cost.
- what of the most effective way to solve the aging population issue for the US gov is to take actions that ultimately decrease life expectancy?
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Ahhh screw it. We will just continue to send half our incomes to Ottawa to mismanage a system we don't use so the Liberals/NDP can continue to pretend they champion so called Canadian values.
 

pastafarian

Electoral Member
Oct 25, 2005
541
0
16
in the belly of the mouse
nomore wrote:
I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion, because the structure of the system, has nothing to do with who offers the services. U.S companies can offer it, Canadian companies can offer it, Mexican...who cares, because they would all still be bound by the rules and regulations set out by OUR system, and OUR system would not be anything like the U.S

Wrong. They would be bound by the provisions of the NAFTA agreement. You need to educate yourself on the implications of Chapter 11 so that you can understand why people are so apparently hysterical.
Here's a start.

Remarkably, NAFTA also provides foreign investors the ability to privately enforce their new investor rights. Called "investor-to-state" dispute resolution, this extraordinary mechanism empowers private investors and corporations to sue NAFTA-signatory governments in special tribunals to obtain cash compensation for government policies or actions that investors believe violate their new rights under NAFTA. If a corporation wins its case, it can be awarded unlimited amounts of taxpayer dollars from the treasury of the offending nation even though it has gone around the country's domestic court system and domestic laws to obtain such an award.

the fact that the fully funded public system is not sustainable, etc.

This is just a myth. Period. There's no evidence for this oft-repeated assertion whatsoever. In fact the Romanow report shows in excruciating detail what a sustainable system would look like.

As to the "freedoms in a free-market society", that phrase, even if there were any true purely capitalist societies, is laughable. It translates to freedom for the rich and well-connected and no freedom for the poor.

The bottom line is either you believe all people have a right to decent medical care, or only the rich do. Either you believe that a moral society is one in which all members contribute based on their means, to ensure that all members get necessities or that it's everyone for themselves and we have no civic responsibilities apart from respecting other peoples' right to own lots of stuff.

The above is a moral issue and at the heart of the capitalist/socialist dichotomy, IMO.

Personally, I think people should have the right to as much stuff as they can afford, but not at the expense of others' health or safety.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
I don't understand why people think the Canadian health system is unsustainable. It is cheaper than the American system. We spend less money per person and less on administrative costs, so why is it so unsustainable?

As far as health savings accounts... They can be great. My health plan already allows one. The problem is you either use it or lose it in one year, so it's only really good for people who have known expenses each year. If you're like me, health costs are unforseen so I have no real incentive to use an HSA. I think they are really beneficial to some people, so I support them. They aren't a cureall, but they do some good nonetheless.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Back to the Chapter 11 thing....you would have to agree with my position on the day care issue. Why would the Liberals do something like that when it would be challenged by Chapter 11?
 

pastafarian

Electoral Member
Oct 25, 2005
541
0
16
in the belly of the mouse
I suppose my question is why would the liberals propose something that is going to be under the same challenges from Chapter 11?

I think this touches on one of the few things we agree on, Jay.

Namely that the Liberals will promise anything to anybody as long as they think it will get them elected. Whether they keep their promises or not is decided after the fact. The notion that the Liberals care about the social programs they support rather than power is perhaps the only illusion that the NDP is immune to.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Harris said (when governing Ontario) that if things continue along the same path, the Ontario budget will be 50% healthcare. That isn't sustainable.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
pastafarian said:
I suppose my question is why would the liberals propose something that is going to be under the same challenges from Chapter 11?

I think this touches on one of the few things we agree on, Jay.

Namely that the Liberals will promise anything to anybody as long as they think it will get them elected. Whether they keep their promises or not is decided after the fact. The notion that the Liberals care about the social programs they support rather than power is perhaps the only illusion that the NDP is immune to.


Excellent.

But I wonder if we are wrong...do the Liberals know something we don't, namely Chapter 11 isn't the issue public healthcare pushers say it is?

This is what I want to know. Any Liberals out there who wanna tackle that? :)
 

the caracal kid

the clan of the claw
Nov 28, 2005
1,947
2
38
www.kdm.ca
but how are those numbers reached, jay?

for an example take a look at the following (i looked it up because Ralphy from Alberta is the loudest on this issue):

The truth about health spending in Alberta
Much has been said over the past few years about health care costs. Here in Alberta, both the government and the Mazankowski commission have argued that costs are increasing by 10 percent a year and that health spending will soon consume half the provincial budget. Based on these figures, the government says that Medicare is "unsustainable."

But the truth is that the sky is not falling. The figures presented by the government are misleading because they don't account for factors such as inflation and population growth. When these adjustments are made, it becomes clear that for most of the past ten years spending has been flat or declining. In fact, despite our province's obvious wealth, we have been spending less on health care (sometimes significantly less) than the national average.

The records show that health spending in Alberta hit bottom in the mid-90s at the height of the so-called Klein Revolution and basically stayed there until 1999. Spending over the past two years has grown, but this is largely the result of efforts by Alberta's regional health authorities to catch-up for years of under-funding. After years of deep cuts, the RHAs are finally investing in long-over due capital projects. They are also hiring nurses and other health workers to bolster staff levels, which had fallen below the national average.

The bottom line is that health spending has increased only gradually - so it is a gross exaggeration to say costs are "spiraling out of control." The real spending trends simply do not justify the radical actions being proposed by the government.

If the Alberta government is really having trouble balancing its books (and given our province's recent history of huge surpluses, that's a big "if") it has more to do with bad decisions on revenue collection than any increases in spending.

For example, the provincial flat tax - which gives a huge tax break to people earning more than $150,000 a year and a tiny decrease for average working families - has resulted in a $1.5 billion annual loss to the provincial treasury. This comes on top of the billions of revenue lost as a result of corporate tax cuts and the relatively low rate of royalty fees charged to petroleum companies extracting Alberta's oil and gas resources.

These cuts to revenue are the real reason the government is seeking to slash health spending. Unfortunately, the Albertans have never been asked which they prefer: deep cuts to health care or a reversal of bad tax decisions. The Klein government seems to have made up its mind on this question - and they've decided to turn the health system on its head.


Medicare Facts:
Even after increasing spending over the past two years to make up for years of deep budget cuts, Alberta still spends only about 5 percent of its provincial GDP on health care, the lowest proportion of any province in the country. This figure has remained stable for the past 20 years - proving again that costs are not spiraling out of control. It also shows that while health spending has increased, so has our ability to pay.
Real per capita government spending on health care in Alberta increased by a modest 6.3 percent between 1990-91 and 2000-01, with all of the increase coming in the last two years. Despite this jump, Alberta still spends about 4 percent less per person on health than the national average (compared to 16 percent less than the national average in 1995-96, when the Klein cuts were at their deepest).
Claims that health spending will soon consume half of the provincial budget are not borne out by the evidence. About 35 percent of the Alberta budget currently goes to health care, up from about 25 percent in 80s. But this jump has more to do with declining spending in other program areas than actual spending increases in health care.
Even using the government's own figures, the cost of our health care system translates into only about $6.50 a day for each Albertan - a figure that most people in the province would probably feel comfortable with given the importance of health care.
http://www.afl.org/campaigns-issues/health/health-spending.cfm
 

pastafarian

Electoral Member
Oct 25, 2005
541
0
16
in the belly of the mouse
Harris is (was) and always will be a lying sack of Shih tzus. He'd say anything to help his corporate buddies and to dump on social programs. Try again.

As to the daycare thing, it so happens that when we had our first child in daycare, the BEST one of five was a corporate daycare chain, whose head office is in the US. We decided that my mate would stay at home with our second child, which she did while running a home daycare. To the extent that a valid comparision can be made on that basis, I have some pretty definite ideas about daycare options.

I expect that if the government decided to implement a publicly-funded system, Mini Skool (the chain I mentioned above) and probably several others would launch a Chapter 11 challenge. And they'd win.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
It isn't going to go down, and it isn't the responsibility of the Ontario government to spend 40% of its budget on healthcare. Its job is to govern.
 

Freethinker

Electoral Member
Jan 18, 2006
315
0
16
RE: New Bush Health plan

This is also provincial spending and the main item the provinces must pay for has always been health care. Is there something better the provinces should be doing with revenue?
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Re: RE: New Bush Health plan

Freethinker said:
This is also provincial spending and the main item the provinces must pay for has always been health care. Is there something better the provinces should be doing with revenue?

"Has always?"
 

pastafarian

Electoral Member
Oct 25, 2005
541
0
16
in the belly of the mouse
Mine and yours.

Which is an opinion based on political ideology. Some of us believe that healthcare is a right that should be available to all people, because we can afford it and despite what the government would have us believe, it is OUR tax money. From Jay's link:

The economy can afford health-care spending
Government health-care spending is not outpacing growth in the GDP (gross domestic product or total of goods and services produced), despite government claims. In fact, it is consuming a reduced share of provincial GDP (from 5.8% to 5.4%). The economy can afford to cover the costs of health care.

IF the Canadian people were to vote against a public, single payer health insurance, then we'd have to let it go because that's democracy.

But the fact is, Canadians overwhelmingly want our current system, but in a form that provides timely access to services.

Jay, in a democracy, our rights are precisely what the majority of us say they are.

Lies about unsustainability and unmanageable costs are simply anti-democratic propaganda.

The system is sustainable if we want it to be so.
 

the caracal kid

the clan of the claw
Nov 28, 2005
1,947
2
38
www.kdm.ca
jay,

no response to my post showing how Ralphy's claims of healthcare costs consuming an increasing percentage of gov costs is attributable to cuts in other areas?

if the gov only spent on healthcare, healthcare would be 100% of the budget, but that does not mean that it is unsustainable. These numbers need to be looked at in context.