Trudeau government and health care funding

mark_alfred wrote:

Interesting article on Rabble that outlines many interesting facts about the Trudeau government.  This is one on health care (emphasis mine):

Quote:

The Canadian Press reports, "Quebec's health minister says the federal government has indicated it plans to let the annual increase in provincial health transfers fall to half its current level by the end of the year. ...Federal Health Minister Jane Philpott would only say that the transfer provides a stable funding base and that any additional cash would be focused on priority areas like home care and mental health." Trudeau's first budget, delivered in March 2016, stated that health transfers would increase by 2.8 per cent in 2017-18, which is below the 3 per cent minimum promised by the Conservatives.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/brent-patterson/2016/07/trudeau-popular-...

Because the Liberals are planning to negotiate an agreement that will have strings attached.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeaus-smooth-provincial-...

Annie Donolo, a spokesperson for Mr. Morneau, said in an e-mail that Ottawa’s focus is on “transformative actions” that will make the health-care system more efficient and produce better health outcomes.

“Once agreement is established on how the priorities will be achieved, decisions on targeted federal funding in support of these priorities will be made,” she said.

Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins, who chairs the federal-provincial health talks, said he remains hopeful Ottawa will announce a transfer increase at some point soon.

“This is an important issue and we’re hoping to see an expression of commitment – including financial commitment – by the feds in the near future,” he said.

Some provinces, primarily those in the east with a higher proportion of older Canadians, also want the federal transfer formula to take demographics into account. That proposal could divide the provinces, given that it would be of less benefit to Western Canadian provinces with younger populations.

“The first criteria should be demographics,” said Dr. Barrette, Quebec’s Health Minister. “I don’t want to start an east-west war. That’s not the idea. The idea is that when it comes to health, above all else, we should be objective. And objectively, there’s no argument against the fact that the main factor in health costs is tied to age and demographics.”

Cindy Forbes, president of the Canadian Medical Association, said all provinces should receive a transfer increase to address the aging population but that provinces facing the most pressing challenges should receive more.

“Seniors’ care is the paramount health issue in our health-care system right now,” Dr. Forbes said.

What are you trying to prove? The NDP has some progressive policies and some not so progressive policies. Same goes for the Liberals. Now that the Liberals are in power the NDP has to offer an alternative different enough to prompt voters to change government sooner rather than later. Right now they are nipping at his heels like a newborn puppy. That won't work.

I don't believe it's a secret, but just to be on the safe side I'll let quizzical or someone else tell you (or not).

But meanwhile, play detective!  Does quizzical remind you of any other babbler?

I can't recall from memory whether this babbler might also have participated at EM, and sadly EM has been borked for so long now that you can't even Google stuff from there.

Quote:

I think I'll have to rely on my recollection of past posters political standing and style of posting... nudge my mind a bit .... jog the memory... give the cue.... prompt the mind .... put in remembrance.... bring to recollection...

I read and re-read this and I suspect you may have a very good guess. :)

I think it is unclear where the Liberals will go with health spending. By keeping money out of the general basket (which goes to acute care) and putting it into homecare and long term care they might actually achieve more. On the other hand if the whole thing is underfunded there would be less. There is time to wait since we will see a direction before an election.

The problem we all are somewhat aware of, is that with parts of the system in the public sector and parts out of it you have decisions that cost the public and compromise the quality of care as acute care gets funding and loses it due to the inefficiency of underfunded sectors becoming less accessible to the public who do the only thing they can which is lean on the public system no matter how inappropriate and inefficient that may be. And this may come as an avoidable emergency.

Mental health, dentistry, eye care, community care, home care, pharma care and long term care all have been shortchanged in funding and focus. The result is that the spending on acute care is forced to be less efficient as individuals seek or are forced to use the public acute system to address shortfalls elsewhere. I would suggest that even holding back acute care spending but bringing in programs in these other areas, could leave the population with better coverage at reduced cost even if the health accord (as presently defined) is prevented from growing. The reality is that we have known since the days of TC Douglas that the present model was not an adequate solution. Health care spending is enough of the budget that it has to get more efficient and the present model with entire sectors solely in the private sector is a major untenable burden on the public sector.

It is not a stretch to say the Liberals know this, because everyone knows this. What exactly they plan to do to fix it is less clear. Their approach, more than rhetoric, will really define just how far left or right they are planning to go. Either you starve acute care and let the private sector eat more of it or you take some pieces from the private sector in order to allow an expanded public sector to provide better care and more efficient cost. All this has to be done by negotiation with the provinces.

Many of us have fought those who say that the healthcare system is unsustainable but the answer is that it is and isn’t. The ability of the public to cover health is sustainable but the present split with the private sector is not. It is that general fact that is the starting place for both those who want a strategic expansion to find efficiencies and deliver a better continuum of care and those who want to privatize what is presently public.

In this context we cannot measure just what the government does with this accord, we have to factor in what they do in all sectors – including support for health research (applied and discovery research).

I presume the Liberals know that blowing this file would be fatal for their government.

Is it just me, or does it seem that the most dangerous advancements towards for-profit happen under the watch of Liberal governments and not Conservative ones?

quizzical wrote:

health care cuts coming  under the Liberals are what my mom has carried on about since they won.

she says it happens everytime.

Voting Liberal remains a triumph of hope over experience.

ETA: A little like going outside in December in a t-shirt. You want it to be warm but deep down you know it won't be.

jjuares wrote:

Trudeau " misremembers" position on health care funding. Now " misremembers" is a generous term.
http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/12/19/trudeau-mis-remembers-platfo...
Now, now, there is a lot of truthiness in such a generous term, none the less.