Annie wrote:
Originally, Medicare was a shared responsibility between the federal government and provinces and territories, with each part contributing 50 per cent of the funding - FACT.
Over time, the federal government’s contribution has declined. - FACT
An easy thing to do when the babyboomers were all young and healthy and health care treatments more limited and simple then they are today. Today, people over 80 consume 75% of the health budget. Most of these expenses are end of life care that generally extends a persons life for a few months. I don’t know how ethical it is to deny people with months to live expensive treatments, but unless we do the baby boomers are going to send healthcare spending through the roof.
Annie wrote:
When the accord expired in 2014, the Conservative government refused to meet with the provinces and territories. - FACT
Instead of negotiating a new agreement, they unilaterally changed the Canada Health Transfer from a needs-based model to a per capita one. Health-care funding is now strictly based on population, and excludes rates of illness, demographics or rural access. - FACT
The funding formula will change again in 2017. Moving from fixed annual increases of six per cent, the rate of growth of the CHT will depend on each province’s gross domestic product. - FACT
Harper never meets with the provinces, which it terrible optics, but the right thing to do. All that has ever happened at these meetings is the provinces gang up on the federal government and demand money. There are only two possible outcomes from this. Give them what they want, or deal with them all denouncing you for being “unwilling to cooperate” and becoming their scapegoat for everything wrong in their province. Paul Martin got hammered in the press going to these meetings every year.
Your better to just tell these guys “Here’s what I’ll give you, manage your taxes and spending accordingly”. Basing it on GDP makes sense. If the pie grows, theres more pie. If not, then we sorta can’t give what we don’t have, so find another way to cover the bills.
Annie wrote:
This means that provinces with a larger population and higher economic growth will get larger funding increases, while less populated, poorer provinces with slower economic growth will have lower rates of health transfer growth. - FACT (All provinces except Alberta will receive less funding under this new model.)
I think this is incorrect. It will be based on GDP across Canada, not by province. So provinces with below average GDP growth would see their propoertion of health spending increase more then those with above average growth. This would seem logical to me, correct me if I am wrong.
Annie wrote:
These changes reduce the federal share of health funding from 20 per cent to 12 per cent. - FACT
Yes, because it assumes that the provinces do NOTHING to reign in out of control health spending. If I agree to give you 20% of the cost to run your house, say $10,000 a year, and then over the years you decide to install a pool, add skylights, and leave all the windows open in the winter, suddenly that $10,000 might only cover 15%. Am I a scrooge for not giving you more money? I’d be an idiot to pay for your mismanagement.
Annie wrote:
That the Conservatives would have indeed reduced (aka 'cut') funding by $36 million nationally was released by the premiers in the 2012 Report of the Council of the Federation Working Group, a report written by provincial and territorial finance ministers. - FACT
It’s also a fact that those guys are manipulating numbers to paint a picture that serves their interests, just like I called you out on before. Two wrongs don’t make a right. - FACT.
I know being “all of the provincial and territorial finance ministers” gives a serious shot of credibility to what may be claimed, but these people all have one thing in common. They have expenses they want someone else to pay for because making cuts or raising taxes is politically unpopular for them personally. Much better to make a devil out of the federal government for refusing to shoulder the burdens caused by their refusal to control costs.
Just wait. Justin’s gonna take this election, and he’ll do exactly what Dalton did in Ontario. He will give money to anyone who demands it to keep everyone happy. Things will be all rosy and there will be peace across the land as the deficits slowly pile up. Then a recession will hit 10-15 years down the line, and suddenly all the rot they build up over the years will come to bear and they’ll have no leg to stand on. That’s when the sh*t hits the fan and they are forced to make drastic cuts and tax hikes to keep things going. That’s exactly what his father did, and it exactly what happened in 1995 when the reality of deficit spending couldn’t be avoided any longer.