Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Locke

Essentially this.

Also, I dont think we really want Premiers dealing with this. These are people that have little to no medical training or expertise.

Honestly have more faith in my Premier here in Manitoba to make sure programs are run effectively than I do with any federal elected official that cares little for the needs of the people in Manitoba.

But hey, that is just me.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Azure

Honestly have more faith in my Premier here in Manitoba to make sure programs are run effectively than I do with any federal elected official that cares little for the needs of the people in Manitoba.

But hey, that is just me.

And Honestly I dont have faith that my Alberta Premier is competent enough to run a Lemonade stand.

Healthcare shouldnt be a Political Football. Setup an independent Public Service and let them run it...away from any party or partisanship.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

Honestly have more faith in my Premier here in Manitoba to make sure programs are run effectively than I do with any federal elected official that cares little for the needs of the people in Manitoba.

But hey, that is just me.

And if your province elected Danielle Smith's second cousin, would you feel the same? Who knows who you get in the next election. Not worth leaving it up to that.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Because there's only so money to go around. You'd have to tax a lot more like in Scandanavia. Even in the current system, there are quotas, a doctor can only charge to see this many patients, a surgeon can only do this many surgeries. Some specialists fill their annual quota then go do research for the rest of the year.

Sure, but now we're paying for some people to see those doctors, find out what they need to solve their issue, and then not be able to afford that solution. How is that sensible?

And yeah, I know it costs money, but the thing is "we" fund a lot of things that the government shouldn't be involved in, or that should be a lesser concern on the list of priorities than the health and welfare of our citizens. When you see the government basically posing with a giant novelty cheque, you can almost surely mark that down as something that should fall behind things like this.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure, but now we're paying for some people to see those doctors, find out what they need to solve their issue, and then not be able to afford that solution. How is that sensible?

And yeah, I know it costs money, but the thing is "we" fund a lot of things that the government shouldn't be involved in, or that should be a lesser concern on the list of priorities than the health and welfare of our citizens. When you see the government basically posing with a giant novelty cheque, you can almost surely mark that down as something that should fall behind things like this.

It's a pie right? You have this much funding and right now, governments choose to put into medicare and exclude pharmacare (let's use these terms to keep it simple). The federal government in increasing that to include birth control and diabetes medication, about 40 billion per year. Alberta wants the money but not the program.

Another option is to raise taxes and add more funding obviously. Another option is to put more quotas on doctors and surgeries and shift that money towards expanded pharmacare. I believe a family doctor can charge to see a maximum of 40 patients a day in Alberta? I think BC has no limit but measures on time spent? Anyways, what if this was lowered to like 20 so that the other half could be used to fund pharmacare. We have a family doctor shortage already so the system is already very very stretched. There's just not enough money in the system.

Alberta UCP believe that two-tiered healthcare solves this. What if only the lower tier got doctor and pharmacare and the upper tier has to pay for everything? That's up for debate.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

It's a pie right? You have this much funding and right now, governments choose to put into medicare and exclude pharmacare (let's use these terms to keep it simple). The federal government in increasing that to include birth control and diabetes medication, about 40 billion per year. Alberta wants the money but not the program.

Another option is to raise taxes and add more funding obviously. Another option is to put more quotas on doctors and surgeries and shift that money towards expanded pharmacare. I believe a family doctor can charge to see a maximum of 40 patients a day in Alberta? I think BC has no limit but measures on time spent? Anyways, what if this was lowered to like 20 so that the other half could be used to fund pharmacare. We have a family doctor shortage already so the system is already very very stretched. There's just not enough money in the system.

Alberta UCP believe that two-tiered healthcare solves this. What if only the lower tier got doctor and pharmacare and the upper tier has to pay for everything? That's up for debate.

If that's the case, why not bypass the messyness of that system and just have progressive taxation, so those that make more, pay more. It's a wild thought, I know.


But you speak of increasing costs, and I'd invite anyone who cares to read through the report, as this work has all been done.



https://www.canada.ca/en/health-cana...al-report.html

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Because there's only so money to go around. You'd have to tax a lot more like in Scandanavia. Even in the current system, there are quotas, a doctor can only charge to see this many patients, a surgeon can only do this many surgeries. Some specialists fill their annual quota then go do research for the rest of the year.

That's right. If we want it, and we think it's the right thing to do, then realize that it doesn't come free. When the end of April comes around, be prepared to pay for it in taxes.

Also, realize that it's a constant battle between the provinces and the feds to come up with enough money to pay for what we have now, without adding more costs. IMO the sustainability of the system we have now is already under question.

I see GPs walking away from their practice, and can't get anyone to come in and take over. I wonder if the small business GP model is not providing enough incentive for young doctors these days. Perhaps doctors are realizing with the cost of their time and money to get their degree, the cost to purchase their equipment, office rental, staff salary, etc., not to mention the risk they take in being exposed to sick people, leaves them wondering if they can save enough for a adequate pension. I recall one of the GPs I had back in the 80s was really happy that he had managed to save up $100,000. for retirement. I lost track of him and often wonder how he is today.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

There's not enough money in the system without doing something to increase revenue. We've tried nothing, and there's nothing we can do!!!!!

[Azure]

Would be really interesting what people think should be cut from spending, because how the Liberals are spending money right now is not sustainable if our economy is not growing, and that is creating issues with things like funding pharmacare and even just health care.

NATO 2% of GDP spending is also becoming a huge issue.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If that's the case, why not bypass the messyness of that system and just have progressive taxation, so those that make more, pay more. It's a wild thought, I know.


But you speak of increasing costs, and I'd invite anyone who cares to read through the report, as this work has all been done.



https://www.canada.ca/en/health-cana...al-report.html

Progressive taxation? Sure, if you want to continue losing elections. Sad state of affairs this doing everything to win elections is.

Even the GST issue. Mulroney brought it in, Chretien wanted to AXE THE TAX! but never did, instead he harmonized it. Harper lowered it and Trudeau has ignored it.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Progressive taxation? Sure, if you want to continue losing elections. Sad state of affairs this doing everything to win elections is.

Even the GST issue. Mulroney brought it in, Chretien wanted to AXE THE TAX! but never did, instead he harmonized it. Harper lowered it and Trudeau has ignored it.

Conservatives have made it toxic to even suggest raising taxes ever again. We can't even talk about it anymore. So...uh, thanks?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Because there's only so money to go around. You'd have to tax a lot more like in Scandanavia. Even in the current system, there are quotas, a doctor can only charge to see this many patients, a surgeon can only do this many surgeries. Some specialists fill their annual quota then go do research for the rest of the year.

You tax more but individuals' personal expenditures go down. It's a sensible insurance scheme that smooths things out across the board...most people will pay more in premiums (or taxes in this case) than they ever benefit, but similar to car insurance there will probably be a time or two in their lives where it saves you from needing a few thousand dollars (or more) in a hurry.

If we've learned nothing else, it's that extra money in pockets pretty much never ever goes in to emergency funds. It sucks to pay for something you don't need, but that's offset by the wonderful luck to not need expensive meds (or a car accident or home insurance claim)

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I see GPs walking away from their practice, and can't get anyone to come in and take over. I wonder if the small business GP model is not providing enough incentive for young doctors these days. Perhaps doctors are realizing with the cost of their time and money to get their degree, the cost to purchase their equipment, office rental, staff salary, etc., not to mention the risk they take in being exposed to sick people, leaves them wondering if they can save enough for a adequate pension. I recall one of the GPs I had back in the 80s was really happy that he had managed to save up $100,000. for retirement. I lost track of him and often wonder how he is today.

Currently in Alberta it makes no sense to invest deep roots in an unpredictable and hostile climate. Just as you should be wary to set up a business in a Banana Republic where everything can be wiped out with the stroke of a corrupt bureaucrat's pen.

[Monahammer]

Raising the GST 2% in the middle of the inflation/affordability crisis is just politically impossible though. It's a death sentence, as there's no way to argue you haven't just made everything 2% more expensive. You can offer rebates and the like but voters are dumb (as previously established in thread) and don't understand how the rebates offset the rising costs. Plus they're too stressed from getting f'd on every bill they have to think about it.

Our corporate tax rate decreases are a joke, that's where we need to start. Leave the small business decreased, 9%, but ratchet the general back up to 19 (2009 level) from 15. I imagine that would provide a pretty substantial boost.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Raising the GST 2% in the middle of the inflation/affordability crisis is just politically impossible though. It's a death sentence, as there's no way to argue you haven't just made everything 2% more expensive. You can offer rebates and the like but voters are dumb (as previously established in thread) and don't understand how the rebates offset the rising costs. Plus they're too stressed from getting f'd on every bill they have to think about it.

Our corporate tax rate decreases are a joke, that's where we need to start. Leave the small business decreased, 9%, but ratchet the general back up to 19 (2009 level) from 15. I imagine that would provide a pretty substantial boost.

Obviously raising the GST now is a bad idea, but it should have been done in Trudeau's first term.

Its only political suicide if done leading up to an election.

Also, most of the taxation issues in Canada are related to who controls most of the money. The boomers. Also the same people benefiting from our housing crisis.

Fuzz just to lash out at 'those filthy conservatives' to make himself feel better.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Raising the GST 2% in the middle of the inflation/affordability crisis is just politically impossible though. It's a death sentence, as there's no way to argue you haven't just made everything 2% more expensive. You can offer rebates and the like but voters are dumb (as previously established in thread) and don't understand how the rebates offset the rising costs. Plus they're too stressed from getting f'd on every bill they have to think about it.

Our corporate tax rate decreases are a joke, that's where we need to start. Leave the small business decreased, 9%, but ratchet the general back up to 19 (2009 level) from 15. I imagine that would provide a pretty substantial boost.

Originally Posted by Azure

Obviously raising the GST now is a bad idea, but it should have been done in Trudeau's first term.

Its only political suicide if done leading up to an election.

Also, most of the taxation issues in Canada are related to who controls most of the money. The boomers. Also the same people benefiting from our housing crisis.

Fuzz just to lash out at 'those filthy conservatives' to make himself feel better.

I just want to say that I appreciate the sentiment that this needs to be done, and folks (including but not limited to the above quoted, they were just the two most recent) are debating how and whether or not we should.

Until I found out what these medications cost, I was obvious. I assumed that it'd be maybe a couple of hundred a year if not covered. But holy sweet merciful Jackson Pollak the cost of some medications is insane.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Would be really interesting what people think should be cut from spending, because how the Liberals are spending money right now is not sustainable if our economy is not growing, and that is creating issues with things like funding pharmacare and even just health care.

That's really not true at all. In 2023, federal expenditures were 20.6% of GDP. That's lower than at any point from 1970 to 1998 (except for 1973) or 2008 to 2022 (with 2013 being the lone exception). So there was really only a 10-year period in the last half century where federal expenditures were lower than they are now relative to the size of the economy.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That's really not true at all. In 2023, federal expenditures were 20.6% of GDP. That's lower than at any point from 1970 to 1998 (except for 1973) or 2008 to 2022 (with 2013 being the lone exception). So there was really only a 10-year period in the last half century where federal expenditures were lower than they are now relative to the size of the economy.

You conveniently cut out a part of my post that I intentionally posted because it will be an issue going into the future.

2% of GDP on defense spending is going to add approx $20 billion per year in spending, including lots of long-term spending which as we see with the F-35s is extremely costly.

Start adding that into things like increasing health care costs not just now, but going into the the future were more obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular issues are going to create an even bigger strain on the system, plus now pharmacare as well and its clearly not a sustainable path.

Plus, our economic growth is very sluggish right now, and with continued immigration issues, housing etc, social services issues, not sure how anyone looks at our country and thinks things are okay compared to previous years.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

You conveniently cut out a part of my post that I intentionally posted because it will be an issue going into the future.

2% of GDP on defense spending is going to add approx $20 billion per year in spending, including lots of long-term spending which as we see with the F-35s is extremely costly.

Start adding that into things like increasing health care costs not just now, but going into the the future were more obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular issues are going to create an even bigger strain on the system, plus now pharmacare as well and its clearly not a sustainable path.

Plus, our economic growth is very sluggish right now, and with continued immigration issues, housing etc, social services issues, not sure how anyone looks at our country and thinks things are okay compared to previous years.

If only we had a way to get certain things to people to keep them from needing the hospital. Maybe to treat the disease with drugs, or something? And we could find an efficient fair way to do that across the whole country? Hrmmm, well I'm out of ideas...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If only we had a way to get certain things to people to keep them from needing the hospital. Maybe to treat the disease with drugs, or something? And we could find an efficient fair way to do that across the whole country? Hrmmm, well I'm out of ideas...

Are you a drug rep? Peddling more drugs for some that should be treated with a healthy lifestyle?

Just kidding, I know you know better.

And I get your point.

I'm 100% in agreement with subsidized pharmacare. I just don't agree on the delivery model. Time will tell what comes of it.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Azure

You conveniently cut out a part of my post that I intentionally posted because it will be an issue going into the future.

2% of GDP on defense spending is going to add approx $20 billion per year in spending, including lots of long-term spending which as we see with the F-35s is extremely costly.

Start adding that into things like increasing health care costs not just now, but going into the the future were more obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular issues are going to create an even bigger strain on the system, plus now pharmacare as well and its clearly not a sustainable path.

Plus, our economic growth is very sluggish right now, and with continued immigration issues, housing etc, social services issues, not sure how anyone looks at our country and thinks things are okay compared to previous years.

But that's more of a revenue problem. As I pointed out, current federal spending is low by historical standards. Unfortunately, so is the revenue.

Most people point to the Chretien Liberals as the best fiscal managers of Canada in the last half century. But they mostly achieved that through maintaining strong government revenues while simultaneously cutting expenses. From 1995-2005, the federal government averaged about 23-25% of GDP in revenue.

Right now, largely due to ill-advised tax cuts and an international race to the bottom, Canada's federal government is only bringing in about 20.4% of GDP in revenue. When our government is bringing in ~15% less revenue relative to the size of the economy, is it really surprising that services seem to be getting worse while we're running deficits?