Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
We are talking about absolute, simple costs. If you want to give that much money to people through medisave accounts on an annual basis then it will cost you at least $22.5 billion a year for Ontario.


Ummm. Last time I checked most people used the health care system. Therefore, as I stated above, your math is bad. If nobody used the system then yes it would cost $22.5 billion BUT GUESS WHAT we would then be able to afford it because nobody would be using the health care system. Everytime someone uses the system it is deducted from their health account.

Quote:
Actually, you have demonstrated that you have limited knowledge of both the taxation / budgeting system and the health care system. Yet you seem confident enough to run in an election with radical planks on both fronts. It would suggest it is dangerous for you to accuse others of hubris.


See above :roll:

Simple logic buddy. You missed the boat on this one. You should think things through before accusing others of having "limited knowledge". I'll state it again in case you missed it...

Ummm. Last time I checked most people used the health care system. Therefore, as I stated above, your math is bad. If nobody used the system then yes it would cost $22.5 billion BUT GUESS WHAT we would then be able to afford it because nobody would be using the health care system. Everytime someone uses the system it is deducted from their health account.

It is very pleasing to expose the ignorance of someone accusing others of ignorance :lol: Your calculations were simplistic and lacked an understanding of the policy.

BTW: this policy idea is absolutely centrist compared with some of the hmmm, how should I put this, stuff I've heard you propose.
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Ummm. Last time I checked most people used the health care system. Therefore, as I stated above, your math is bad. If nobody used the system then yes it would cost $22.5 billion BUT GUESS WHAT we would then be able to afford it because nobody would be using the health care system. Everytime someone uses the system it is deducted from their health account.
The point is that you are going to need to finance high-deductible core public insurance and any other health expenditures in addition to the $22.5 billion annual payment to medisave accounts. As I suggested, the simple fact is that the vast majority of public health expenses are related to catastrophic or chronic care. So you would be financing a $22.5 billion grant in addition to essentially the core of the public system as it stands. There may be distortions in other ways, like you are likely to raise savings and expenditures at the margins of the health system by already relatively healthy people, which may be useful in various ways. But as I suggested the additional inefficiencies associated with the system probably far outstrip any benefits. Especially because almost none of the more substantial market-based arguments will have full play.

These are just suggestions, though, because I thought it might be rude to ask you for solid estimates of the costs and character of the high-deductible insurance. It may also be rude to ask how you intend to eliminate the income tax and introduce such a policy.
Quote:
Your calculations were simplistic and lacked an understanding of the policy.
Well, anecdotally, I became a more right-libertarian about six years ago I spent a fair amount of time reading and writing about medisave policies. I first joined a conservative party (the Alliance in early 2000) because I thought they might advance such a policy. My first encounters with politicians around this time tended to involve me asking them about medisave accounts. I remember Manning told me he favoured letting provinces experiment with them. I remained fairly support of a liberal interpretation of medisave accounts, that is to help cover the large share of existing out-of-pocket expenses, up until about two years ago. You may recall that in mid-2004 the Ontario Liberal Minister of Health George Smitherman released a trial balloon concerning the idea of a $150 personal health account. This was one of the reasons I felt comfortable leaving the Conservatives for the Liberals in later 2004, in addition to the fact I thought McGuinty was being slagged for things that were actually the pragmatic policy (tax rises, raising electricity prices, etc.). Of course, I have changed my mind on a great deal since then.

Edit: It may be useful to remember that there are already medical tax credits, of course, that help defray out-of-pocket expenses for Canadians paying any substantial amount of income tax. In their case the only real effect a medisave account would have is to mandate savings in situations where they might otherwise choose to spend. That is, there is not much of a tax reason why they would choose medisaving over RRSPs because they could just withdraw from their RRSP and then take the health deduction in the same year if they needed it. The health deduction affects about the first $5,000 or so of qualifying health expenses.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
These are just suggestions, though, because I thought it might be rude to ask you for solid estimates of the costs and character of the high-deductible insurance. It may also be rude to ask how you intend to eliminate the income tax and introduce such a policy.


Nobody knows what the savings would be given the incentive NOT to use the system. So an accurate costing is impossible. I would be willing to wager that the savings associated with what effectively amounts to a reverse user fee would be sufficient to cover a large portion of what might otherwise be viewed as a very progressive tax credit (something you should support). I'm no expert on the HDHI side of things so perhaps you can explain how that would result in an increased cost given that the government currently pays 100% of the cost.

EDIT: And I'm no expert on FCP policies. I jumped in as their candidate at the last minute when I learned I would not have a prolife candidate to vote for.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2

Goto page Previous  1, 2  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Family Coalition Party on health care reform

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB