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 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 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 11:38 am    Post subject: Family Coalition Party on health care reform Reply with quote

When I ran for the Family Coalition Party in the last Ontario provincial election I explained this policy on a radio show and the Green Party candidate told me during commerical that she thought it was a great idea. If the Green Party and FCP can agree on something it must have merit. Here is the jist of their health policy...

4.2 Medical Savings Accounts
The Family Coalition Party will gradually introduce the Medical Savings Account system (MSA) in Ontario. The health care commitments promised by the government to seniors will continue to be honored.

- $2,000 per year is earmarked in an MSA account for every adult person in Ontario,

- Money from the MSA account will be transferred to hospitals when healthcare services are actually used by this person (up to $2,000),

- $1000 per year is earmarked for each dependent child,

- The money in the MSA account cannot be spent or used by the individual, until the end of the year, when any amount leftover in the MSA is rolled into the individual's locked-in, non-transferable RRSP, at which time the RRSP rules take over, with the exception that these funds may not be withdrawn until age 65.

- If the MSA amount is exhausted, then no amount is rolled over into the individual's RRSP.

- The government will pay premiums for a High-Deductible Health Insurance (HDHI) with a $2000 deductible for each individual and $1000 deductible for its dependent children,

- Each individual can choose to replace the government insurance with his own Insurance, with equal or greater coverage than the one provided by the government,

- (in both cases…) Insurance premiums for basic care (standard amount) are paid by the government through general revenue.

You can read about the rest of it here...

http://www.familycoalitionpart.....htm#health
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really like that idea. I NEVER get sick, and never go to the doctor. Too many people abuse our free health care system by running to the doctor every time they get the sniffles.
Donald Hughes





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

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you create increased sensitivity to relatively small costs while shielding people from catastrophic or chronic costs then you may create perverse incentives within the system and actually trend towards high-cost outcomes. This may be especially true for seniors. In your plan seniors would essentially get a $2,000 income supplement dug out of the current health expenses. For many seniors it is conceivable that they would be cautious to use this money on things like doctors visits and limited medication in a way that might more easily throw them over into a very high cost patient category within years. You can always exempt things like testing and a visit or two, like Gratzer pushes, but the more things you push into social insurance the less we are really talking about market prices. And if the whole project is to build up market prices in a way that leads to efficiency, then the more covered by social insurance the less efficient things will be. Except that they will be at a whole new level of inefficiency because you just included more things like profit, insurance bureaucracies, payment and collection services, maybe even advertising, etc. So the whole project depends on the belief that the least expensive parts of the system are the most inefficient, using rhetoric that denies the logic of public health while retaining the core of the system at least in theory, and is really nothing more than a veiled excuse to include more corporate control of care.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the idea....

I could definitely retire on that hehehe
Donald Hughes





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

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh and another thing, let's think about the cost for a second. Ontario's population is about 12.5 million. Let's say that 80% of these people count as "adults" under this program and the rest "children." Let's also assume that all of those people are eligible, which seems fair due to universality, portability, population growth and basic costs of implementation. Okay, well the cost of the medisave payments alone would be equal to $22.5 billion. Let's be clear here: $22.5 billion only for the basic medisave expenditure. By comparison, all current funding for hospitals in Ontario from the provincial government will total about $12.5 billion this year.
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 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
Oh and another thing, let's think about the cost for a second. Ontario's population is about 12.5 million. Let's say that 80% of these people count as "adults" under this program and the rest "children." Let's also assume that all of those people are eligible, which seems fair due to universality, portability, population growth and basic costs of implementation. Okay, well the cost of the medisave payments alone would be equal to $22.5 billion. Let's be clear here: $22.5 billion only for the basic medisave expenditure. By comparison, all current funding for hospitals in Ontario from the provincial government will total about $12.5 billion this year.


Faulty math.

1. Children are not included in this plan. It says adults.
2. The program will be fazed in.
3. The money doesn't disappear. It is invested - which means much of it will find its way back into the system vis-a-vis lower interest rates and higher capital availability.
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 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
For many seniors it is conceivable that they would be cautious to use this money on things like doctors visits and limited medication in a way that might more easily throw them over into a very high cost patient category within years. You can always exempt things like testing and a visit or two


Somehow I doubt that would more than offset the appropriately cautious use of the medical system by the general population. Besides, user fees tend to discourage this more than rebates. Up front costs scare people away more than getting money they never had.

But for the sake of argument - we could modify the plan to exclude people over 65. Put in place a modified version of the program for them.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Per-Capita Provincial Government Health Spending, by Age Group
Ontario, 2002, Current Dollars
Age Group Spending Per Person ($)
<1 6,472.20
01-4 936.5
5-14 735.2
15-44 1,280.30
45-64 2,055.00
65+ 7,723.40
65-74 5,203.40
75-84 8,929.80
85+ 17,052.30
Total 2,238.90
Sources: Canadian Institute for Health Information and Ontario Ministry of Finance.


http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/engli.....tr.html#l4
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/engli.....hi061.html

Current stats - notice the age distribution, and projections...
Donald Hughes





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

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Faulty math.

1. Children are not included in this plan. It says adults.
Quote:
- $1000 per year is earmarked for each dependent child
...
Quote:
2. The program will be fazed in.
Irrelevant.
Quote:
3. The money doesn't disappear.
Again, irrelevant.
Donald Hughes





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

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
we could modify the plan to exclude people over 65. Put in place a modified version of the program for them.
As has been posted, seniors cost much more in health care than everyone else for obvious reasons. Their costs also tend to be the most catastrophic and chronic, that is covered by high-deductible insurance. You are arguing for a market except in any place it might matter.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

.......... Still standing by two-tier...
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 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
Quote:
Faulty math.

1. Children are not included in this plan. It says adults.
Quote:
- $1000 per year is earmarked for each dependent child
...
Quote:
2. The program will be fazed in.
Irrelevant.
Quote:
3. The money doesn't disappear.
Again, irrelevant.


The program will be fazed in therefore the cost you quoted will not seem as great in 10 years when it is completely implemented. I guess you are against the Liberal universal childcare program then since it will cost $80 billion per year once fully implemented??? Or is that "irrelevent" too?

But I won't waste my time debating someone who thinks they don't need to bother explaining their "reasoning".
Donald Hughes





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

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The program will be fazed in therefore the cost you quoted will not seem as great in 10 years when it is completely implemented.
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. I simply contrasted this with total spending on hospitals to give a sense of how inefficient it is to organize things in this way. It has nothing to do with phasing in a program, which can be assumed and is therefore irrelevant.
Quote:
I guess you are against the Liberal universal childcare program then since it will cost $80 billion per year once fully implemented??? Or is that "irrelevent" too?
Please show that the Liberal childcare program would cost $80 billion per year once implemented.
Quote:
But I won't waste my time debating someone who thinks they don't need to bother explaining their "reasoning".
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.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
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