Health care cutbacks NF

[FrankTheRabbit]

 

Did you notice the year? Starting in 2017-18! It hasn't happened yet? We have a new government now. The transfer payments for 2017-18 will be set by Trudeau's government; not Harper's. How can you use Harper's planned 2017-18 budget as an excuse for cuts by the Wynne government?

 

As for no one whispering a peep; I have heard far more complaints about Harper reducing the rate of increase from 6% to 3% than I did about the Liberals actually cutting health and social transfers by 34%. At least they were still going up under Harper instead of going down like they did under the previous Liberal government.

 

Three percent annual increases is way better than what the provinces got while Chretien was in power. McGuinty & Wynne have had very generous transfer payments compared to the cuts that Rae and Harris had to deal with.

 

Did you notice the original question to all of this? I questioned why the double standard. A Conservative Gov't decides to put forth cuts for reduced spending Con supporters are in favour. When the Liberal Gov't does the same thing, there's a raucous. After all, isn't reduced spending one of the goals of Conservative supporters? As it currently stands, nothing is being changed and we are on due course for Flaherty's proposal to happen in 2017.

 

Hypothetically speaking, if Trudeau goes about and reverses the proposed reduced health transfers starting 2017, will you be supporting that decision or be up in arms about increased spending under a Liberal gov't?

Edited August 9, 2016 by FrankTheRabbit

[hunteronwheels]

I need to go fishing.

lets go lol

[SirCranksalot]

Forget Dr's and teachers. We need to pay pro athletes a lot more!!!

[Pickeral eater]

Hey guys what did I miss??

[FrankTheRabbit]

Hey guys what did I miss??

A pickerel fish fry?

[glen]

Lol.

 

Read though it and throw your thoughts in.

[NANUK]

Forget Dr's and teachers. We need to pay pro athletes a lot more!!!

Let us not forget the poor lawyers ?

[adempsey]

The biggest issue is with the administration. Most of them are ineffective and unqualified for their jobs. There is absolutely no accountability which gives them free reign to do whatever they want with their "free" money. If this never gets addressed the province will continue to bleed money until it dies.

 

Physician salaries are insignificant and appears to be becoming a scapegoat for our governments complete lack of corporate governance.

[NANUK]

The biggest issue is with the administration. Most of them are ineffective and unqualified for their jobs. There is absolutely no accountability which gives them free reign to do whatever they want with their "free" money. If this never gets addressed the province will continue to bleed money until it dies.

 

Physician salaries are insignificant and appears to be becoming a scapegoat for our governments complete lack of corporate governance.

Very true !

The same applies to hydro, postal service, school boards etc

[Headhunter]

The biggest issue is with the administration. Most of them are ineffective and unqualified for their jobs. There is absolutely no accountability which gives them free reign to do whatever they want with their "free" money. If this never gets addressed the province will continue to bleed money until it dies.

 

Physician salaries are insignificant and appears to be becoming a scapegoat for our governments complete lack of corporate governance.

Agreed... but what you neglected to also mention is that all those administrative types also receive full benefits and an indexed pension. Take a look at some jurisdictions in the US... the pensions negotiated in the past have come back to haunt those places as the pension commitment absorbs most of their tax dollars.

Cops riding buses to crime scenes in Detroit because they don't have the money to pay for cars or gas. Strong vibrant neighbourhoods abandoned because they can't afford law enforcement in an entire town.

HH

[Pickeral eater]

Lol.

 

Read though it and throw your thoughts in.

I tend to stay away from these conversations! I firmly believe there are good and bad in all occupations. It's too bad actions of some cause an entire profession to be called out.

[scuro2]

 

Did you notice the original question to all of this? I questioned why the double standard. A Conservative Gov't decides to put forth cuts for reduced spending Con supporters are in favour. When the Liberal Gov't does the same thing, there's a raucous. After all, isn't reduced spending one of the goals of Conservative supporters? As it currently stands, nothing is being changed and we are on due course for Flaherty's proposal to happen in 2017.

 

Hypothetically speaking, if Trudeau goes about and reverses the proposed reduced health transfers starting 2017, will you be supporting that decision or be up in arms about increased spending under a Liberal gov't?

 

Exactly.

[Dutch01]

 

Exactly.

That's gotta be your shortest post ever, scuro2 ?

[John Bacon]

 

Did you notice the original question to all of this? I questioned why the double standard. A Conservative Gov't decides to put forth cuts for reduced spending Con supporters are in favour. When the Liberal Gov't does the same thing, there's a raucous. After all, isn't reduced spending one of the goals of Conservative supporters? As it currently stands, nothing is being changed and we are on due course for Flaherty's proposal to happen in 2017.

 

Hypothetically speaking, if Trudeau goes about and reverses the proposed reduced health transfers starting 2017, will you be supporting that decision or be up in arms about increased spending under a Liberal gov't?

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

There are a number of factors working against the Liberals. They tend to campaign as the protector of social spending, telling us not to vote for the big bad Conservatives because they will destroy health care, etc. So, when they actually start making cuts they expose their hypocrisy. The Liberals aren't supposed to make cuts; so when they do, people cut upset.

 

There is also the issue of waste. Billions were wasted on eHealth, Ornge, Pan Am games, gas plants, etc.; now they have to make cuts to basis operating costs.

 

To top that off, this board has a more conservative leaning than the general population. In other sources I see more people blaming cuts on Harper.

 

To me, a cut means a year over year decrease in spending. By that definition, the Conservatives have not cut funding; nor were they planning to. Health transfers increased by 6% a year. They were scheduled to reduce that to a minimum of 3% a year. But they would still be increasing, just increasing at a slower rate. Even 3% annual increases are far, far more generous than the funding from the previous Liberal government.

 

The Liberals on the other hand have actual cut funding year over year. I don't have the link handy; but recently there was a ~$90 million increase in year over year federal transfer payments to Ontario and a ~$50 million increase in total healthcare spending in Ontario. That means that Wynne actually reduced the provinces share of funding by ~$40 million. Harper didn't reduce nor plan to reduce year over year funding for healthcare.

 

So, to answer your question about the double standard. It was the Liberals, not the Conservatives who actually made year over year cuts to funding. The only thing Harper did was plan to reduce the rate of increases in funding.

 

I actually see the double standard as the opposite of the way you do. The federal Liberals absolutely gutted health and social transfers in the 90s; cutting them from $18.9 billion in 1993 to $12.5 billion in 1997. But Harper is the bad guy for only increasing transfer payments by 3% per year. Wynne actually made year over year decreases in spending; but Harper is the bad guy for only giving them a 3% increase in funding.

 

You claim that Wynne has work with the hand that was dealt to her; but she got a pretty sweet had compared to the ones dealt to Rae and Harris. She got 6% annual increases in transfers that may drop to only 3%; but Rae and Harris had to deal with a 34% decrease in transfers. And the Liberals have delisted services that were previously covered when the PCs were in power.

 

Health and social transfers increased by a measly 1% between 1993 and 2003. Not 1% each year; 1% for the entire decade! ($18.9 billion in 1993 to $19.1 billion in 2003). But Harper is the bad guy for reducing the annual increase from 6% to 3%.

 

Yes, there is a double standard. There is hardly a peep when Liberals slash spending while people complain about perceived cuts that never even really happened under the Conservatives.

 

As for your other question about whether I would support Trudeau reverting back to 6% annual increases, that would depend on his long term plans. The only funding formula that is indefinitely sustainable is one where funding increases are tied to the growth in GDP.

 

Funding can increase by more than GDP growth on a temporary basis. But doing so means that healthcare funding will continually become a larger and larger portion of the annual GDP and annual budgets. Eventually there will be a point where someone will have to put their foot down and say that if cannot get any bigger (as a % of budget).

 

I can support a short term increase of 6% a year if there is an understanding that this is temporary measure to bring funding up to a higher level. But to have my support for such a move, he would have to communicate the long term plan of how to fund this and what percent of the budget it will be capped at.

 

Canada has not seen any sustained growth in GSD at 6% annually since the 30s. The general trend has been a reductiuon in percentage annual GDP. So we are unlikely to see sustained 6% growth in the future. Like it or not, 6% annual increases cannot continue forever. A responsible government needs to make that clear.

 

Even 3% annual growth (or higher depending on GDP) in funds will not be indefinitely sustainable. They are just sustainable for longer than 6% annual increases.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2016 by JohnBacon

[dave524]

 

To top that off, this board has a more conservative leaning than the general population. In other sources I see more people blaming cuts on Harper.

 

 

 

Seriously, this board is seems like a liberal/democrat love fest compared to most of the outdoorsman hunting /fishing groups I belong to.

[SirCranksalot]

 

Seriously, this board is seems like a liberal/democrat love fest compared to most of the outdoorsman hunting /fishing groups I belong to.

Yeah, take a peek in at OFAH and you'll see the contrast!

[dave524]

Yeah, take a peek in at OFAH and you'll see the contrast!

 

No thanks , I gave up my OFAH membership after 30 years because of the FUDDS. Sold gunowners out with their " if it ain't a hunting firearm it should be banned mentality ", you can thank them for the semi auto 5 round restriction.

 

edit : http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fudd

 

Learned a new word. zumbo works too : http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Zumbo

Edited August 12, 2016 by dave524

[dave524]

 

 

Learned a new word. zumbo works too : http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Zumbo

 

I subscribed to "Outdoor Life " for years, moved on to Shooting Times and Guns and Ammo " before this asshat Jim Zumbo, Jack O'Connor and Jim Carmichael were the men

[Old Ironmaker]

Frank the Rabbit. Unfortunately my quote feature here is no longer do able for me. But I must ask what in Heavens name is that pie chart that you put up on post # 42 supposed to represent. The sub text explaining the chart has to be referring to a different pie. I never wanted an Accounting degree nor was very good at it but if one of our Accountants presented that I would have to question him or her then send them to rehab. What is it supposed to show me?

 

As far as a few comments here I may not agree however some are concise, presented in a clear and civil manner, logical, well thought out, appear not to be a cut and paste made to look as an original opinion, made without malice towards the opposition. So unfortunately a career in Politics is an impossibility for those persons. One such author here is John Bacon. Good work John. I might not agree with the way the numbers are put out there but I appreciate your input.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Old Ironmaker

[FrankTheRabbit]

Frank the Rabbit. Unfortunately my quote feature here is no longer do able for me. But I must ask what in Heavens name is that pie chart that you put up on post # 42 supposed to represent. The sub text explaining the chart has to be referring to a different pie. I never wanted an Accounting degree nor was very good at it but if one of our Accountants presented that I would have to question him or her then send them to rehab. What is it supposed to show me?

 

As far as a few comments here I may not agree however some are concise, presented in a clear and civil manner, logical, well thought out, appear not to be a cut and paste made to look as an original opinion, made without malice towards the opposition. So unfortunately a career in Politics is an impossibility for those persons. One such author here is John Bacon. Good work John. I might not agree with the way the numbers are put out there but I appreciate your input.

 

The chart I put up wasn't suppose to show you anything, but it was in reply to Cliff's situation. I'm unsure of the point you're trying make, aside from tipping your hat towards John, regarding "concise, presented in a clear and civil manner, logical, well thought out, appear not to be a cut and paste made to look as an original opinion, made without malice towards the opposition."

 

 

 

 

There are a number of factors working against the Liberals. They tend to campaign as the protector of social spending, telling us not to vote for the big bad Conservatives because they will destroy health care, etc. So, when they actually start making cuts they expose their hypocrisy. The Liberals aren't supposed to make cuts; so when they do, people cut upset.

 

There is also the issue of waste. Billions were wasted on eHealth, Ornge, Pan Am games, gas plants, etc.; now they have to make cuts to basis operating costs.

 

To top that off, this board has a more conservative leaning than the general population. In other sources I see more people blaming cuts on Harper.

 

To me, a cut means a year over year decrease in spending. By that definition, the Conservatives have not cut funding; nor were they planning to. Health transfers increased by 6% a year. They were scheduled to reduce that to a minimum of 3% a year. But they would still be increasing, just increasing at a slower rate. Even 3% annual increases are far, far more generous than the funding from the previous Liberal government.

 

The Liberals on the other hand have actual cut funding year over year. I don't have the link handy; but recently there was a ~$90 million increase in year over year federal transfer payments to Ontario and a ~$50 million increase in total healthcare spending in Ontario. That means that Wynne actually reduced the provinces share of funding by ~$40 million. Harper didn't reduce nor plan to reduce year over year funding for healthcare.

 

So, to answer your question about the double standard. It was the Liberals, not the Conservatives who actually made year over year cuts to funding. The only thing Harper did was plan to reduce the rate of increases in funding.

 

I actually see the double standard as the opposite of the way you do. The federal Liberals absolutely gutted health and social transfers in the 90s; cutting them from $18.9 billion in 1993 to $12.5 billion in 1997. But Harper is the bad guy for only increasing transfer payments by 3% per year. Wynne actually made year over year decreases in spending; but Harper is the bad guy for only giving them a 3% increase in funding.

 

You claim that Wynne has work with the hand that was dealt to her; but she got a pretty sweet had compared to the ones dealt to Rae and Harris. She got 6% annual increases in transfers that may drop to only 3%; but Rae and Harris had to deal with a 34% decrease in transfers. And the Liberals have delisted services that were previously covered when the PCs were in power.

 

Health and social transfers increased by a measly 1% between 1993 and 2003. Not 1% each year; 1% for the entire decade! ($18.9 billion in 1993 to $19.1 billion in 2003). But Harper is the bad guy for reducing the annual increase from 6% to 3%.

 

Yes, there is a double standard. There is hardly a peep when Liberals slash spending while people complain about perceived cuts that never even really happened under the Conservatives.

 

As for your other question about whether I would support Trudeau reverting back to 6% annual increases, that would depend on his long term plans. The only funding formula that is indefinitely sustainable is one where funding increases are tied to the growth in GDP.

 

Funding can increase by more than GDP growth on a temporary basis. But doing so means that healthcare funding will continually become a larger and larger portion of the annual GDP and annual budgets. Eventually there will be a point where someone will have to put their foot down and say that if cannot get any bigger (as a % of budget).

 

I can support a short term increase of 6% a year if there is an understanding that this is temporary measure to bring funding up to a higher level. But to have my support for such a move, he would have to communicate the long term plan of how to fund this and what percent of the budget it will be capped at.

 

Canada has not seen any sustained growth in GSD at 6% annually since the 30s. The general trend has been a reductiuon in percentage annual GDP. So we are unlikely to see sustained 6% growth in the future. Like it or not, 6% annual increases cannot continue forever. A responsible government needs to make that clear.

 

Even 3% annual growth (or higher depending on GDP) in funds will not be indefinitely sustainable. They are just sustainable for longer than 6% annual increases.

 

 

 

 

 

John, we can go on and on till forever which gov't is more corrupt and no one will ever come out on top. I've acknowledged the fact that the Liberals are not innocent and they've had a nice thick file of documented instances of wasteful spending.

 

What you've mentioned the Liberals have done, the Cons are no saints other. Harper's fear mongering tactics of a Liberal gov't are well documented. How about the fancy "fake" pool during the G20 summit that cost a nice cool $1mil and didn't the entire thing cost over $1bil when compared to other host nations that spent a fraction of that? Or how about Tony Clement getting a $50mil G8 funding approval to splash around his riding?

 

On a whole, and I agree with you John, Canada's health care has seen a nice boost year after year. The general salaries of our physicians also indicate that. The one thing that I would be cautious is the annual increases that are tied to GDP. Think about that one...if a province has a lower GDP, they will not receive the 6%. A lower GDP usually can be associated with an aging population...people who are retired. So, is that fair that health increases should be tied with their GDP? I'll be the first to tip my hat towards that aging demographic and I feel that they would get the short end of the straw if those annual increases are tied to their GDP.

Edited August 12, 2016 by FrankTheRabbit

[SirCranksalot]

if one of our Accountants presented that I would have to question him or her then send them to rehab. What is it supposed to show me?

 

 

 

I was likewise baffled as to what that chart was trying to show.

[FrankTheRabbit]

 

I was likewise baffled as to what that chart was trying to show.

 

 

The attached image was in a reply to Cliff to show him the average salary of Cardiologists in Canada. The pie chart itself shows a breakdown of how they acquire their income. The link I included provides a detailed profile of Canadian cardiologists. It was just to show where I'm getting the information from and it wasn't just off the top of my head.

[John Bacon]

 

The chart I put up wasn't suppose to show you anything, but it was in reply to Cliff's situation. I'm unsure of the point you're trying make, aside from tipping your hat towards John, regarding "concise, presented in a clear and civil manner, logical, well thought out, appear not to be a cut and paste made to look as an original opinion, made without malice towards the opposition."

 

John, we can go on and on till forever which gov't is more corrupt and no one will ever come out on top. I've acknowledged the fact that the Liberals are not innocent and they've had a nice thick file of documented instances of wasteful spending.

 

What you've mentioned the Liberals have done, the Cons are no saints other. Harper's fear mongering tactics of a Liberal gov't are well documented. How about the fancy "fake" pool during the G20 summit that cost a nice cool $1mil and didn't the entire thing cost over $1bil when compared to other host nations that spent a fraction of that? Or how about Tony Clement getting a $50mil G8 funding approval to splash around his riding?

 

On a whole, and I agree with you John, Canada's health care has seen a nice boost year after year. The general salaries of our physicians also indicate that. The one thing that I would be cautious is the annual increases that are tied to GDP. Think about that one...if a province has a lower GDP, they will not receive the 6%. A lower GDP usually can be associated with an aging population...people who are retired. So, is that fair that health increases should be tied with their GDP? I'll be the first to tip my hat towards that aging demographic and I feel that they would get the short end of the straw if those annual increases are tied to their GDP.

 

I agree that the Harper government has its share of issues. But on the topic of healthcare transfers, I think they have been pretty good.

 

As for tieing healthcare transfers to GDP. I was thinking of the federal growth in GDP. From the mid thirties to present, there has been a general downward trend in annual GDP growth. I think it average about 2.5% annual growth under Harper. Most of the projects for the next couple of years that I have seen have been less than 2%.

 

It would be nice to just keep giving the provinces a 6% more each year; but the money has to come from somewhere. If the GDP growth is less than the annual increases, the we will eventually run out of money. It is not a question of if; it is a question of when. I think that a responsible government needs to be open with the public about these realities.

[Old Ironmaker]

Frank I include you in the "some" reports being civil and informative. Not like the childish antics of our Parliamentarians and far from the carryings on by both the GOP and DNC down there. It's shameful to think prospective leaders as well as sitting Politicos would act like that.