More Political Banter (BC)

[nULL]

Yes, Mulroney, who left the country hugely in debt which resulted in the following Liberal government having to make huge sacrifices in order to prevent the country from going into an economic tailspin.

...and they say conservatives are fiscally responsible. Bull****!

It kind of reminds me of the old BC NDP government, which left the province's economy in tatters. The Conservative Liberal government made huge tax cuts to ensure a crushing victory, and has spent the last 2 years shutting down hospitals and slashing jobs in order to balance the books.

Perhaps instead of lawyers become politicians, they should elect accountants. Bitchy ones, like on tv.

 

[Infanteer]

Yes, Mulroney, who left the country hugely in debt which resulted in the following Liberal government having to make huge sacrifices in order to prevent the country from going into an economic tailspin.

What we must remember is that Mulroney inherited that large debt from Trudeau, who seemed determined to piss away gains made in previous good years on idyllic domestic and foreign strategies.
Not to let Mulroney off the hook though; he was a bum in his own right, doing nothing to help the situation....

The Conservative Liberal government

What the hell is that? 

It kind of reminds me of the old BC NDP government, which left the province's economy in tatters. The Conservative Liberal government made huge tax cuts to ensure a crushing victory, and has spent the last 2 years shutting down hospitals and slashing jobs in order to balance the books.

While I am not Gordon Campbell's biggest fan, I do think much of the bad press he is getting just comes from trimming away surplus fat that the BC NDP seemed to gorge itself on.  While many may seem apt to point out the struggle with the HEU, a large public sector health care union, as the BC Liberal's effort to squander away the weath of the Province, I would fully say it was justified in order to cut back the unrealistic notion of someone being payed $19.00 plus grand benefits to sweep a hallway.  I was a little disapointed that he let the union get away with as much as it did, and I hope the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's libel suit on behalf of patients kicks these asshole union bosses in the nuts.

I seem to remember that Ralph Klein had to do the same thing in Alberta.  Prior to being "King Ralph", he was despised for his cost cutting measures, which today have earned him accolades as one of the most effective premiers.  Not saying that Campbell is of the same caliber though....

 

[nULL]

"Conservative Liberal Government" was kinda vague, I guess. How about "right-wing-Liberals"?

While paying somebody $19 to change bedsheets is quite excessive, I don't think Campbell has taken under consideration the fact that with lower wages come higher turnover, and in a hospital setting, proper attention to hygenic standards are paramount. Is some 18 year old being paid $9 really going to stay with the job long enough to become efficient and professional about it?

When I was a janitor earning LESS than minimum wage (f*cking union!) I won't say I did a BAD job, but making sure that all the shit was off the wall wasn't something I was too, too concerned with.

More worrisome are the shutdown of hospitals in the BC interior, hospitals which service smaller communities in order to ensure timely medical treatment. While they may be a drag financially, government is not supposed to be a money making venture - it's supposed to be FOR the people. They could have raised stumpage fees to make up the loss - though that's a different can of worms.

Raph Cline was much different from Campbell anyway - the fruits from his cost cutting measures were actually re-invested in the province. What has Campbell done? I mean, as glad as I am that we have the games, they're a hugely inconvenient venture that is going to cost BC through the next decade, at least.

Anyways, enough of me.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The discussion is about Canada's sub capability, not Canadian politics. While it's involved in a way, it's not what the question is about. Get back on topic please.

 

[Infanteer]

I thought I'd split this off from the submarine thread for obvious reasons.   You gotta love the mod functions.

Anyways, in response to nULL;

"Conservative Liberal Government" was kinda vague, I guess. How about "right-wing-Liberals"?

I think you're letting yourself confuse political terms with Canadian political party names.   Right-wing Liberals is a bit better, but the Liberal Party of Canada has long been a centrist party; a right-wing or conservative leaning Liberal is therefore possible.   As well, as I am sure you understand, the British Columbia Liberals and the Canadian Liberals are two completely different beasts.

While paying somebody $19 to change bedsheets is quite excessive, I don't think Campbell has taken under consideration the fact that with lower wages come higher turnover, and in a hospital setting, proper attention to hygenic standards are paramount. Is some 18 year old being paid $9 really going to stay with the job long enough to become efficient and professional about it?

When I was a janitor earning LESS than minimum wage (f*cking union!) I won't say I did a BAD job, but making sure that all the shit was off the wall wasn't something I was too, too concerned with.

Did I ever imply that hospital staff should be payed minimum wage?   Please don't assume things.

However, the fact that the HEU is a public sector union has led to an abberation in it levels of pay, of course this was facilitated by a union-happy NDP party returning kindness to its traditional support-base.   I am pleased to see our taxdollars can so easily become a source of government largesse to preferred groups.

To see that the HEU makes excessive demands, look at a Fraser Institute study of wages in comparable jobs in the late 1990's, comparing the (unionized) Public Health sector and the (unionized) Hotel sector.   If you wish to dismiss the report for ideological reasons due to it coming from the Fraser Institute, then go ahead, but I believe the figures speak for themselves:

Worker              Hourly Hospital Wage ($)             Average Hourly Hotel Wage ($)
Cleaner                            15.93                                                 12.51
Laundry Aide                    16.67                                                 12.40
Storekeeper                     17.46                                                 12.83
Cook                               16.88                                                 13.10
Maintenance Worker          18.04                                                 13.89
Electrician                         24.58                                                 15.08
Plumber                           23.88                                                  15.21
Painter                             21.83                                                 13.37
Switchboard Clerk              16.31                                                 12.85

On average, the report found that wage difference averaged about $3.94 more for an HEU employee that performed the same task as a private sector employee.   The report further worked out that paying private sector wages could lead to savings of about 115 million dollars per year for the province.   All that is required is to pay employees for the (proper) value of their work.

More worrisome are the shutdown of hospitals in the BC interior, hospitals which service smaller communities in order to ensure timely medical treatment. While they may be a drag financially, government is not supposed to be a money making venture - it's supposed to be FOR the people. They could have raised stumpage fees to make up the loss - though that's a different can of worms.

This is probably due to the perverse incentive that publically managed healthcare provides to administrators to cut back on services in order to meet budgetary requirements, regardless of effects for local health delivery.   The NDP in BC ran amok with the budget for 10 years; unfortunately for Campbell inherited a dirty playpen.

You are right, the government is not supposed to be a money making venture.   As Jane Jacobs has pointed out, Guardian institutions are not supposed to assume the moral characteristics of Commercial institutions, both developed different structures to fulfill different roles in society.   That being said, you are right on the second count as well, Government is supposed to be FOR the people.   Just as government is not to be a profit making venture, it should act in the interests of the people, not spending the public purse willy-nilly on various extravegences and inefficiencies.

A responsible government is to be held to account in properly administering the tax dollars that are a portion of our hard work.

Raph Cline was much different from Campbell anyway - the fruits from his cost cutting measures were actually re-invested in the province. What has Campbell done? I mean, as glad as I am that we have the games, they're a hugely inconvenient venture that is going to cost BC through the next decade, at least.

I'd agree with you there in someways, although I hope the Games can help to spur Vancouver's sadly inadequate system of mass transportation and road networks.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Ah, who created the debt?

Figures are from 88-7E "Federal Deficit - Changing Trends" (from 2000 forward, they are estimates).   I have inserted federal election results where applicable with dates taken from the Library of Parliament web site.

"Surplus" is either deficit (-) or surplus (+).

"Operating surplus" is net (revenue-expenses), without debt charges (think of it as your monthly budget without the credit card interest - if any).

Net public debt is as described.

A positive operating surplus means a government pulled in more revenue than it budgeted to spend, without considering debt charges.   A government that recorded a positive operating surplus can claim to have balanced the budget, but that is like claiming you have a balanced budget while ignoring the interest on your credit card.

Year (ending 31 March)     Surplus     Operating Surplus     Gross Debt Charges      Net Public Debt

[25 June 1968: Liberal majority, Trudeau]
1970-71                        -1,016              871                         1,887                   20,293
1971-72                        -1,786              324                         2,110                   22,079
[30 October 1972: Liberal minority with NDP support, Trudeau]
1972-73                        -1,901              399                         2,300                   23,980
1973-74                        -2,211              354                         2,565                   26,191
[08 July 1974: Liberal majority, Trudeau]
1974-75                        -2,225           1,013                         3,238                   28,416
1975-76                        -6,205          -2,235                         3,970                   34,620
1976-77                        -6,896          -2,188                         4,708                   41,517
1977-78                      -10,879          -5,348                         5,531                   52,396
1978-79                      -13,029          -6,005                         7,024                   65,425
[22 May 1979: Conservative minority, Clark]
[18 February 1980: Liberal majority, Trudeau]
1979-80                      -11,967          -3,473                         8,494                   77,392
1980-81                      -14,556          -3,898                       10,658                   91,948
1981-82                      -15,674             -560                       15,114                 107,622
1982-83                      -29,049        -12,146                       16,903                  136,671
1983-84                      -32,877        -14,800                       18,077                  169,549
[04 September 1984: Conservative majority, Mulroney]
1984-85                      -38,437        -16,044                       22,393                  207,986
1985-86                      -34,595          -9,173                       25,422                  242,581
1986-87                      -30,742          -4,074                       26,668                  273,323
1987-88                      -27,794           1,159                       28,953                  301,117
[21 November 1988: Conservative majority, Mulroney]
1988-89                      -28,773           4,379                       33,152                  329,890
1989-90                      -28,930           9,859                       38,789                  358,820
1990-91                      -32,000         10,588                       42,588                  390,820
1991-92                      -34,357           6,817                       41,174                  425,177
1992-93                      -41,021          -2,196                       38,825                  466,198
[25 October 1993: Liberal majority, Chretien]
1993-94                     -42,012           -4,030                       37,982                  508,210
1994-95                     -37,462            4,584                       42,046                  545,672
1995-96                     -28,617           18,288                      46,905                  574,289
1996-97                      -8,897            36,076                      44,973                  583,186
[02 June 1997: Liberal majority, Chretien]
1997-98                       3,478            44,409                      40,931                  579,708
1998-99                       2,884            44,278                      41,394                  576,824
1999-00                             0            44,500                      41,500                  576,800
[27 November 2000: Liberal majority, Chretien]
2000-01                             0            46,000                      42,000                  576,800
2001-02                             0            46,500                      41,500                  576,800

Things to note in the period covered:

1) Trudeau governments never gripped the deficit (although the early 70's saw balanced operating budgets) and went on a spending spree from 1975 onward.

2) Mulroney governments gripped the operating budget quickly, but the public debt had already ballooned to a point where, combined with high interest rates, debt charges created a deficit.

3) Chretien governments were able, with dramatic spending cuts and lower interest rates, to eliminate the deficit.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Some things I conclude from the above:

1) We are still sensitive to interest rates.  Deficit elimination has been hard-won (spending cuts) and it would be a shame to see all that effort wasted if interest rates rise.  The best safeguard against deficit is elimination of debt (ie. retire it, don't increase program spending with surpluses).

2) As the economy "grows", government revenues tend to grow.  Provided we resist the temptation to increase spending, we should be able to accelerate the size of the surplus in succeeding years to more quickly eliminate debt.  This means we should avoid policies which tend to restrict economic growth or promote economic contraction.

3) Government should not mortgage our future to subsidize the salaries of public employees.

 

[Infanteer]

Excellent post Mr Sallows.

 

[Freight_Train]

BC, where politics are a blood sport!  Good post Infanteer.  I think most people would acknowledge that if the BC NDP had done even a passable job of managing the economy during what were the greatest economic times (90's) we have ever seen, we would not be having this discussion right now.  I imagine the NDP would still be in power though...shudder.  The Conservatives in Alberta made most of their cuts and adjustments back in the early 90's prior to the boom years and they are now reaping the rewards, huge oil and gas revenues don't hurt either.
The BC Liberals not only inherited a huge mess in government, they have not really had the best of luck as they have had to deal with SARS, the softwood dispute, 9-11 (and the resultant recession), avian flu, etc since taking office.  One thing you can give them credit for is staying the course and mostly doing what they said they were going to do.  The economy is rebounding and they will hopefully start re-investing soon as there is an election coming up in May of 2005.
Hospital closures now can actually be blamed on the old health and social service transfer payments of years gone by.  The Federal Government used to match Provincial health funding dollar for dollar.  When the Federal Liberals took over, they needed to make some changes and balance their books.  Unfortunately they did this by balancing them on the backs of the Provincial governments by slashing the transfer payments.  I believe most Provinces have reduced the number of hospitals they have.
I had the opportunity to work as a cleaner in a health care institution in the late 80's and I can tell you the work I did was not hard and that I was overpaid to do it...not that I complained at the time.  There are not many jobs where you can walk in with grade 10 or less receive several days of training and make that kind of dough.
One question Infanteer, what did you mean by incentive in this sentence?
â Å“This is probably due to the perverse incentive that publically managed healthcare provides to administrators to cut back on services in order to meet budgetary requirements, regardless of effects for local health delivery.â ?
Greg

 

[Infanteer]

As well, it is obvious that we must reallocate funds to increase spending on certain programs like defence.  Where do you take the billions from in order to make these increases?

Here is some 2001-2002 data that can give one an objective look on where the money comes from and goes (I got them from the book Tax Me, I'm Canadian

Revenues to all Governments - $463,107,000,000
Personal Income Tax: $141,798,000 - 30.6%
Social Security Taxes: $59,476,000 - 12.8%
Sales Tax: $56,645,000 - 12.2%
Corporate Income Taxes: $38,900,000 - 8.4%
Property Taxes: $37,002,000 - 8.0%
Sales of Goods and Services: $34,383,000 - 7.4%
Investment Income: $32,920,000 - 7.1%
Other Consumption Taxes: $13,557,000 - 2.9%
Miscellaneous: $13,281,000 - 2.9%
Gas and Fuel Taxes: $11,988,000 - 2.6%
Payroll Taxes: $7,988,000 - 1.7%
Alcohol and Tobacco Taxes: $6,842,000 - 1.5%
Other Income Taxes: $4,388,000 - 0.9%
Capital Taxes: $3,939,000 - 0.85%

And where does this money go?

Total Expenditures of All Governments - $454,038,000,000
Social Assistance: $96,246,000 - 21.2%
Health: $76,937,000 - 16.9%
Debt Charges: $53,404,000 - 11.8%
Elementary and Secondary Education: $36,351,000 - 8.0%
Protection: $33,980,000 - 7.5% (Defence Spending is included in this figure)
Post Secondary Education: $24,111,000 - 5.3%
Other Social Services: $23,389,000 - 5.2%
Gov't Employee Pension/Equality: $20,404,000 - 4.5%
Transport/Communication: $17,877,000 - 3.9%
Other: $17,647,000 - 3.9%
Resource Conservation and Industrial Devlopment: $15,536,000 - 3.4%
General Government Services: $14,647,000 - 3.2%
Recreation and Culture: 10,687,000 - 2.4%
Environment: $9,224,000 - 2.0%
Other Education: $3,674,000 - .80%

 

[Infanteer]

One question Infanteer, what did you mean by incentive in this sentence?
â Å“This is probably due to the perverse incentive that publically managed healthcare provides to administrators to cut back on services in order to meet budgetary requirements, regardless of effects for local health delivery.â ?

In a book on Health Care Reform, Dr. David Gratzer identifies a key problem with both ours and the American health care system, a break in the doctor patient relationship with regards to health care as a commodity.  Like the other essentials such as food or shelter, health care is a service in which the patient is a consumer and the doctor is the provider.  This occurs when the cost of health care is removed from the consumer and provider (patient and doctor) and taken up by a large bureaucracy removed from the relationship; in the US most Americans are covered by large HMO's while in Canada we have 10 huge HMO's (the provincial governments).  Grazer is keen to point out that our beloved system today cannot even provide the five pillars of Health Care set out in the Canada Health Act; those being quality, timeliness, cost effectiveness, patient oriented, and universally accessible.

With a centrally managed and subsidized system, the responsibilites for proper supply and demand are distorted, leaving perverse incentives for patients, doctors, administraters, and politicians to abuse the system, resulting in the gasping, wheezing system we have inherited today.

Patients can abuse the system by overusing services since they have no concern for the cost the public bears.

Doctors can abuse the system by encouraging return visits and to overservice patients with unrequired procedures (there is documented cases of this); they essentially have the power to right their own paycheck without any input from those providing the payment, the patient, who bears no direct payment.  As well, there are incentives to leave Canada to other, more lucrative areas to practice (the brain drain)

Administrators can abuse the system through fighting for pieces of the budget pie and increase the global budget they must spend in order to justify further financing.  They look up rather then down when taking the dollars and cents of health care into consideration.

Politicians can abuse the system through turning what ought to be a simple procedure (go and get your problem dealt with) into a complicated political issue.  Health Care is big bucks; with a large portion of the public purse dedicated to Health, you see various interests begin to take hold and ultimately political matters become as important as the health of citizens when decisions are made.  Look at the latest federal election for proof; all parties were willing to dump millions more into health care, but no one really seemed to care if dumping it was akin to "trying to fix a leaky hose by pumping more water through it".

Mark Milke makes a intersesting observation of the way we choose to run our health.
If governments ran grocery stores, bureaucrats in Ottawa and the provincial capitals would determine how many boxes of Corn Flakes were to be available in Halifax, Sarnia, and Kamloops.  Government unions would argue that because food is so vital for human survival only they should be allowed to run farms, grocery stores, and the transportation system that surrounds the provision of foodstuffs.  Lobby groups would spring up to decry the encroachment of "two-tier foodcare" where some rich folks could buy cavier while the rest of us make due with hamburger.  If Canada's governments controlled retirement in the manner that health care is regulated, retirees would not be allowed to save for their retirement outside of the Canada Pension Plan and the government would determine how many Winnebagos and trips to Florida could be bought every year.
The great accomplishment of Canada's health care system is that it is universal; the great failure is that funding decisions are forced through bureaucrats and politicians.

Ultimately, the decision on how you manage your personal health should belong to you and you alone.  In a private matter between the doctor and the patient, the decision should be free should be free of politics and bureaucratic entanglement.  The government's role should be to ensure abuses do not occur and that everyone has access to the advanced care available within a modern state.

 

[Freight_Train]

Excellent post Infanteer!  I think we need to add another category to the Gratzer list, drug costs!  â Å“Total expenditures on drugs was an estimated 16.7 billion in 2001, and is forecast to have reached $19.6 billion in 2003.  The share of drugs in total health expenditures was 9.5% in 1985.  It gas increased each year thereafter to reach 15.7% in 2001, and is forecast to have grown to 16.2% in 2003.  since 1997, among major categories of health expenditure, drugs have accounted for the second largest share, after hospitals.  In 2001, drug expenditure was equivalent to over 50% of the amount spent on hospitals, and exceeded the amount spent on physicians' services.â ?  http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=AR_80_E&cw_topic=80  No wonder the Premier's were so quick to recommend that the Federal government take over the pharmacare program!
Cheers,
Greg

 

[Infanteer]

A little more on health care reform.  The idea's can be found in Dr David Grazer's book Code Blue: Reviving Canada's Health Care System"

I would prefer the private delivery of health services if possible.  This can help Canada's system of health care because:

1) It eliminates the cost of managing a hospital and the large bureaucracy that is needed to do so

2) It gets the governments away from disputes with large public sector health unions. These are big-money, big-power unions that have guys sweeping floors for $18.00 an hour.

3) It allows doctors the abilty to deliver care as they see fit. One of the biggest reasons for our "brain-drain" is government meddling in what the doctor can and can't do in treating his patient. This meddling is an effort to curb costs that unfortunatly reduces service.


The main issue that faces both American and Canadian citizens is that there is no consumer/provider relationship in terms of cost. In the United States, most people are insured by their employer, who pays a large HMO to run their health care, while in Canada, we just have an even larger HMO, the provincial government, running ours. Neither is up to doing a good job. This dissatisfaction with HMOs is probably why some states are going to public delivery of service; however the divide between the patient and the doctor still exists.

The key to the consumer/producer issue is that health care can be prohibitivly expensive. That is why I believe in a universal safety net for all Canadians. However, it must be managed by the people, not the bureaucrats. It is a system used in Singapore and by some corporations in the US called the Medical Service Account (MSA).

A simple way of explaining it for us would be this. Every Canadian is covered for hospital stays that cost over $2000 dollars. If you get cancer, get run over by a bus, or need a new organ, the public fund will pay for this. For any routine visits to the doctor, breaks, perscriptions, dental visits (alot of things are medically related, but not covered under the Canada Health Act) every Canadian has an account with a MSA Card. The government deposits $1,000 into that account every year. If you want to go to the emergency room for a sprain, fine, pay $150 instead of $30 at a drop in clinic out of your MSA. The decision rests with the patient on which doctor and which medical services he or she feels are neccessary. You are the manager of your health funds.

The incentive for good use of our health care resources is that at the end of the year, a person can use any available funds in the MSA as he or she sees fit. You can leave it in the account to have a larger "pot" saved away for health care expenses, or you could elect to pay the taxes and withdraw it, gaining some expendable income; or you can transfer it to an RRSP to contribute to your private retirement fund, since the average return on CPP contributions for Canadians gets smaller and smaller every year with the changing demographics.

In an MSA system, it wouldn't matter if the hospital was public or private, because you have the choice of spending your money where you want to. Private clinic charges too much? They don't get business and have to drop prices or it would go under.

Well, you can tell you've tickled an issue with me. I mentioned this system of health care to my MP (a Conservative) and he brushed it aside and ignored me. Unfortunatly, I think it is good economic reforms like this that are needed to save our Health Care System. However, if I advocated a reform like this, I would just be attacked for wanting to "Americanize our Healthcare" system. This is what has been done to Ralph Klein, and I don't see any justifiable reason. Canadians just don't want to learn that their socialist system doesn't work, and they are willing to put up with mediocrity (long waits, poor and old machinery, fewer and fewer doctors and nurses) to sustain that belief.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[Freight_Train]

Good post Infanteer, I had heard about the MSA system awhile ago but hadn't had much chance to research it.  Couple of quick con's; Because people are "spending" their own money are they going to put off going to the Doctor thereby increasing the chance that the illness has a chance to really grab hold before they do anything about it?  Singapore is a much smaller country than we are, at least geographically and therefore they can concentrate services.  We have to spread our healthcare around a pretty large, sparsely populated country which probably means we have health services available in sizes that are not really efficient according to economy of scale.
What are your thoughts on some sort of nominal user fee, such as what we pay for physio and chiropractic?  I know that it goes against the Canada Health Act, but obviously the Act needs to be renewed.  Quick stats for JUST services provided by general practitioners in BC where in 2001/02 there were 22,786,171 visits.  Even if there was a $5 user fee, this would generate $113,930,855.00 in revenue.  Now if you included all services provided by all physicians in BC, where in 2001/02 there were 58,993,650 services provided.  Multiplying that by $5 would generate $294,968,250.00 in income!  Multiply that across the country and we are talking some big numbers.