Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Zach Paikin

GET UPDATES FROM Zach Paikin
 

Harper's Looming Health Care Fiasco

Posted: 01/31/2012 8:47 am

2012-01-29-BobRaeVancouver010.JPG

In a speech given this past weekend in Vancouver, Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae took aim at Stephen Harper's approach to Canadian federalism, citing the issue of health care as one example in which Harper's Conservative government has adopted a non-collaborative approach.

Rae's comments are timely, particularly as our country's health care system is at a vital crossroads.

Harper's government recently announced that it would unilaterally set the levels of federal-provincial health care transfers through 2024. Supporters of this policy hold that it puts the messy debate over funding aside and allows for the issue of health care reform to be addressed more centrally -- all while respecting the constitutional jurisdictions of both the federal and provincial governments.

Critics -- and I am one of them -- counter with two important facts:

First, the unilateral offer promises increases in federal funding that are unsustainable. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's plan allows for the automatic six per cent annual increase in size of the transfer to continue for three years beyond the end of the current federal-provincial health accord in 2014.

This offer is in line with the Harper government's promise not to reduce transfers to individuals and to the provinces in order to get Canada's fiscal house in order. The result is that it is going to take longer for the feds to balance the books while the overall debt of both Ottawa and the provinces will continue to climb. The Chrétien-Martin war on the deficit was won very quickly (taking only three budgets, 1995-97) in part due to sizable reductions in the size of transfers to the provinces.

The fact that it is going to take longer to get back into the black has already been announced as the Tories have backtracked on their election promise to balance the books by 2014-15. Our gross debt-to-GDP ratio has already climbed to 84 per cent.

The feds' unsustainable offer has another negative consequence: With such generous funding assured for the provinces through 2017, the latter have less of an incentive to reform their health care systems at the pace necessary.

With health care set to eat up 80 per cent of provincial budgets by 2035 if no substantial reforms are implemented, and with a labour shortage set to hit our economy following the end of the recession due to the retirement of the baby boomer generation, failure to begin reforming our health care system will have serious consequences for the ability of provinces to spend on departments other than health care.

Second, despite the claim that the federal government's offer allows for the issue of reform to be addressed front-and-centre, the fact remains that the feds haven't provided much leadership or much of a vision when it comes to how the system could actually be reformed.

Supporters of Harper claim that health care is a provincial responsibility. Without question, one must admit that the provinces have a distinct role to play in advancing health care reform. Indeed, it was provincial experiments such as those of Tommy Douglas's CCF government in Saskatchewan that led to the eventual adoption of a national, universal, publicly-funded health care system and the Canada Health Act.

Health care delivery may be a provincial responsibility according to Section 92 of the Constitution, but the issue of health care as a whole isn't -- it's an issue of national importance.

Our federal government needs to find innovative ways to reduce spending and acquire additional revenue -- all while insuring a competitive economy -- so that it has the fiscal capacity to address major long-term issues such as reducing our public debt, addressing economic inequality and climate change, and dealing with the rise of revisionist powers around the world.

On the health care reform front, whether these spending reductions and revenue increases are achieved through innovation in our public health care system, the introduction of private health insurance plans, or both remains to be seen. Mr. Harper's government has been tight-lipped on the issue. And that's the problem.

No matter what, health care reform is going to require a federal government that has a vision and that is willing to work with the provinces. Mr. Harper's "watertight compartments" approach to federalism demonstrates neither of these qualities. Bob Rae's comments in Vancouver this weekend were spot on.

 

Follow Zach Paikin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@zpaikin

FOLLOW CANADA POLITICS
In a speech given this past weekend in Vancouver, Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae took aim at Stephen Harper's approach to Canadian federalism, citing the issue of health care as one example in which...
In a speech given this past weekend in Vancouver, Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae took aim at Stephen Harper's approach to Canadian federalism, citing the issue of health care as one example in which...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
sonoffestus
Got smart & got out!
11:27 AM on 02/01/2012
This Conservative government simply wants to kill healthcare as we know it. Privatization comes to mind, increased costs and those doing without..................watch and learn.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:46 PM on 01/31/2012
This blogger views hisotry devoid of any Liberal record of governance, and that the Libs are the only ones to trusted to maintain the social contract.

He wants you to forget between 1995-2005, Martin cut Health Care 25 billion dollars, and despite promising in 97 to implement National Pharmacare, the Libs reneged. In 2005. Martin, pressed by Jack Layton to restore the cuts, and commit to signing a pledge to halt Medicare privatization, refused. These facts are easily verifiable.

The Liberals got "in the black", all right, but via via vicious 15% cuts to the public service and stealing 54 Billion dollars from EI. Tthe Supreme Court ruled generally in the government's favor, but found Chretien and Martin acted illegally in taking funds for the period 2001-2002, and 2005, ordering the government to pay the fund back. They didn't.

In his speech, Rae cited supposed government inability to successfully complete infrastructure projects on Aboriginal lands. He argued favoring triple Ps. Given the experience with French 3P water privatization, and the US experience, the only sure thing will be Rae as PM will bring more taxpayer rip-offs by private corporations, and higher.

This blogger simply is selling the same old Liberal "progressive" canard; as always, the Libs hope no one remembers. Don't give them another chance to run left and govern right. If you want more of the same, this young fellow has it bagged and ready. Don't buy it! Don't forget, and vote NDP.
04:26 PM on 01/31/2012
We are all getting older and living longer. Well most of us are. Large government expenditures on health care and pensions are just going to get larger. New procedures and new medications are allowing us to live longer and with most of our faculties. More people are living in retirement residences and nursing homes. Governments have to limit their costs or as Zach says, healthcare will consume up to 80% of the provincial budgets. That is not sustainable.
Whether we like it or not, the pensionable age is going to have to be adjusted. Many peope do not have the resources to retire at 65 and have to continue to work. At least those who are well and able to do so. Supplemental payments to poor senior citizens including those unable to work will have to be adjusted to allow them to live in dignity. Something has to change and the current government with a majority is in the position to attempt a reasonable change to the current system.
Similarly with healthcare. The current increase in costs is unsustainable. People are living longer, more baby boomers are contributing to increasing health costs. As in the past some services deemed unnecessary will become delisted. Perhaps we are all going to have to get supplemental insurance a la USA with basic costs paid by government and catastrophic costs covered by insurance or even a co-pay system. Conservative government is correct to begin discussions on both topics.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Maria Korovessis Sewell
To decimate is to reduce by one tenth.
03:57 AM on 02/01/2012
I wouldn't characterize it as "beginning discussion". It's rather more disingenuous than that.