http://makeashorterlink.com/?A37D22B75

Governments even more than people need to learn to live within their means. Sure you can adjust taxes right up until you're booted out of office and then the debt moves on to the next generation.

quote:

---

The debt in Canada is going to get even worse when all the baby boomers retire.

---

The logic behind this is that the baby boomers represent a 'bulge' in the population. As this report shows, there is in fact a larger aging population on the way:

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/pop/agingpop.pdf

quote:

---

If you are a homeowner and have a mortgage, you are most likely a debtor. If you take out loans for education, you are most likely a debtor. Thus, it is safe to say the most people's budgets are not balanced. Why should government be any different?

---

I hate to sound like your mother, but if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you too?!? hehe

The gov't should be different because it's not an individual. When a homeowner borrows money to buy the home, he/she is inflicting themselves with debt, for what they consider to be a good reason. When a gov't borrows money, its often inflicting the next generation of taxpayers with that debt. And that's less fair. Further, the homeowner has an asset out of it - the house. The gov't usually just provides services, and the money borrowed is gone.

It is probably as foolish to say 'never run a deficit' as it is to say 'always run a deficit'. The truth is, it should be a rare occurance. However, gov't income is like business income - it fluctuates with the times. There should be some cash reserves to cover minor fluctuations, but it would be silly to hold LARGE cash reserves sitting around doing little for years. Therefore, it's logical that your stratagy should be that under more or less normal times you run a small surplus. During a downtime, spend the surplus and borrow as needed - also taking the time to tighten the financial belt slightly. By that I mean reduce unneccesary expenditures but don't severely impact programs offered. Tighten the belt, but don't go buy a corset if you will. When times get good, run a slightly higher surplus and pay off the shortfall as quickly as possible. Then increase spending back to its former (adjusted) level.

Obviously i'm simplifying a slightly more complex stratagy, but you get the idea. This is good fiscal management. We shouldn't on average need to run a deficit more than about 2 -3 years for every 8-10. That's manageble.

There's nothing idealogical about it. The medical costs alone are staggeringly higher. Often they will require 24 hour care. This isn't theory, it's reality. And while some may continue to earn, they still cost more than they did, and are taxed at a lower rate. The majority will stop working tho, or at least stop working full time.

This is something we plan for, we adapt to, and we DON'T get surprised by. Then it's manageable. This isn't some sort of slight against old people. We're ALL going to be there sooner or later. No one's suggesting we abandon them. But sticking our heads in the sand and not planning for it just guarantees that when the time comes we'll get clobbered.

The oldest boomers are now only in their late fifties. They have been working and contributing more (I speak strictly quantitatively, of course, since that seems to be the chosen turf of the neo-con voices here) for longer than any generation before (and more than any foreseeable).

If there aren't resources to care for them, then I might agree that someone has been mismanaging things. In fact, I think we make political and moral and practical decisions all the time about what we will and won't support, and decent health care for all should never be in doubt.

One thing that puzzles me deeply about the neo-cons:

In theory, all insurance schemes are supposed to work the same way: everybody contributes all the time, but only some are taking money out at any given time. That's how the payments are affordable.

Neo-cons always make it sound as though one should be taking out INSTANTLY whatever one has just put in, or one is being ripped off.

If that were true, I don't see how any insurance scheme for anything could ever work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Neo-cons always make it sound as though one should be taking out INSTANTLY whatever one has just put in, or one is being ripped off.

---

Maybe it's that 'selfishness gene' some of them are so fond of?

Funny thing, my familial eugenics managed to breed that out. In fact, my whole family seems to have always felt the cooperation and putting in extra to help others was just the way things ought to be. I guess we are some sort of anomoly...

Still funnier, is that the people in my family who reared me this way lived through the supposed 'good old days' when - as the Neocons tell us - people were 'fiscally responsible' and hadn't been taken in by the insidious pandering of the socialist hordes with their Utopias and their funny ideas about the possibilities of human compassion...Sometimes you even give when you don't really have because someone needs it and this is considered the highest form of giving...

You will never in your life make contributions, monetary or otherwise, to equal what they have given to Canadian society.

For one thing, the people in nursing homes right now are not the boomers: they are the last of the generation that sentimental hypocrites like to call the "heroic generation," the vets who went off to the Second World War. You should visit a nursing home to see how your attitudes are playing out in the treatment they get. Och, yes, on Remembrance Day the neo-cons get all teary-eyed about how noble the old folks were ... So why are you happy to see them mistreated in their last months of life? Why are you carping about how much they cost?

(NB: Look at the stats. Twenty-four-hour nursing almost always occurs only in the last weeks of life. Even people needing years of care, like Alzheimer patients, are not getting nursing care most of that time.)

They paid for your delivery into this world. They paid for your schooling. They paid for city and nation-wide infrastructure that your generation of voters are apparently willing to see peel and rot and collapse before our eyes.

I don't know much about 'neo-cons', but neither health care or the canada pension funds are 'forward funded'. They are all current-funded only.

Now that makes a tiny bit of sense for health care, although that too is debatable, but it is pure lunacy for cpp.

In other words - it currently works the same as the 'neo-con' stratagy that you describe. For someone today to recieve CPP for example, Someone else must put up the money today. All the money that recipient put into the system was used to pay other people long ago. Same of course with medical. So it's not insurance, it's group-funded current expenditure. There's a huge difference.

Further, insurance only works by looking at the 'threat rate' for a group, and charging accordingly. For example, life insurers know that of all males in canada age 35, 10 of 1000 will die (i'm making that up). Therefore, they know that in order to pay at each death a sum of 100 dollars, they must collect 1 dollar from everyone. Now - lets say the death rate for 65 year old males is 100 out of 1000. You'd have to charge THEM a different rate to pay out the 100 dollars for each death. That is how ALL life insurance works, regardless of the complexity of the plan.

So the gov't system is not really insurance. They collect what's needed today from the people of today based on their income, not their risk. Their needs will be paid by the people of tomorrow.

Seems fair - and it would work just fine on the whole. Except when you get a bulge in the population. Look at the following example:

Lets say that when the baby boomers were around 35, there were 10 older people for every 90 boomers. further, lets say that an old person costs 50 dollars per year in these benefits, and boomers cost 10 dollars.

The average per person in expenditures for these programs is 14 dollars - and that has to be collected from the wage earners. So assuming the older people are retired, that's a cost of 15.50 each.

Now lets say that ratio changes to 30 older people for every 70 young. This happens because the boomber bubble gets old, and they are living much longer than they were 30 years ago.

So now - assuming costs stay the same - we need 22 dollars per person - and there are only 70 wage earners, meaning a cost of 31.40 per wage earner.

That is the danger of using current-funded models with a non-uniform age distribution. A better idea would have been to have CPP paid by the boomers be what they collect as they grow older.

quote:

---

Foxer, I know some people who are getting twenty-four-hour care right now, and I can guarantee you:
You will never in your life make contributions, monetary or otherwise, to equal what they have given to Canadian society.

---

Talk to me when my life is over. You can't make that statement before then. Or are you suggesting I shouldn't try.

quote:

---

For one thing, the people in nursing homes right now are not the boomers:

---

Yeah, I know. The point was made it'll get WORSE WHEN they boomers hit. You seem to think i'm somehow slagging old people - i don't know what i said that gives you that idea. You may be reading a little into it I think.

quote:

---

So why are you happy to see them mistreated in their last months of life? Why are you carping about how much they cost?

---

Skdadl - are you hearing voices to day or something? Cut and paste where I was happy to see current aged people mistreated, or where I carped about how much they cost. Geez dude, i never even came close to saying anything like that! You sure you read MY post?

quote:

---

NB: Look at the stats. Twenty-four-hour nursing almost always occurs only in the last weeks of life.

---

WHAT! - what the hell stats are you looking at? What do you think an intermediate care facility is?!?! Do you think everyone goes home at night? they may spend the last 10 YEARS of their life in a facility like that! and there are a LOT of facilities like that.

quote:

---

(I am thinking about calling you an ungrateful wretch. I haven't done it yet, but I'm thinking about it.)

---

hehehe well hold your fire bud. I can all but guarantee i've donated more time to the elderly than you have (although admittedly much of it was rather at the 'suggestion' of my mother, who tends to be persuasive). I've got well over a thousand hours of volunteer time in at care facilities, and taking them shopping at christmas, to the pne - even doing theatrical performances and endless dances. That's when i'm not fixing, shovling, or hanging something.

One does not do an injustice to the aged by looking at the costs. One does an injustice by NOT thinking about the costs.

Carrière, Yves. 2001. “The Impact of Population Aging and Hospital Days: Will There be a Problem?” in Gee, Ellen M. and Gloria M. Gutman, eds. The Overselling of Population Aging: Apocalyptic Demography, Intergenerational Challenges, and Social Policy. Toronto: Oxford University Press. pp. 26-44.

Here's a good one about intergenerational transfers, and the costs of old folks.

Stone, Leroy O, Carolyn J. Rosenthal, Ingrid Arnet Connidis. 1998. Parent-Child Exchanges of Supports and Intergenerational Equality. Statistics Canada, cat no 89-557-XPE. Ottawa: Ministry of Industry.

I know you need one that compares the costs of education (oy!), etc, etc for young people to health care, etc for older people. I've heard of one somewhere and if I find it I'll post it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foxer:
Josh -

The gov't should be different because it's not an individual. When a homeowner borrows money to buy the home, he/she is inflicting themselves with debt, for what they consider to be a good reason. When a gov't borrows money, its often inflicting the next generation of taxpayers with that debt. And that's less fair. Further, the homeowner has an asset out of it - the house. The gov't usually just provides services, and the money borrowed is gone.

---

Let's start there. Contrary to common wisdom, business lives on current deficits -- at least as far as large business operations go. Major businesses can either borrow directly from a lender (less common) or issue corporate bonds (more common). By doing this, a 5 (or 3 or 10 or 20) year bond allows for a hunk of money to be received up front that gets repaid with interest over the 5 (or 3 or 10 or 20) years to follow.

This IS the situation that governments typically are in -- like homeowners, governments ARE left with assets to show for their spending. A government does NOT "usually just provides services" -- hospitals, roads, community centres, airports, and thousands of other things are built entirely or primarily with state funds.

Should taxpayers be expected to pay for the cost of expanding an airport in the year it is built? No more than a homeowner shold be expected to pay for her house in the year she has it built. In other words, "Sure if you have the cash at hand -- but it's no sin to go into debt for an asset that will last for years to come."

Having said that, folks on the Left too often talk as if deficit spending is inherently good. It's not. The folks that are hurt most by increased debts tend to be the folks most dependent on state spending -- in that the inevitable demands of cutting the accummulate almost always debt fall onto the shoulders of those who can least afford it.

WAC Bennett used to claim his government never ran a deficit. He accomplished this by offloading capital improvements to Crown Corporations (e.g. BC Hydro), to keep the reasonable long-term financing of such assets off the books of current operations.

While I hardly think of Bennett as a model to emulate, in this case, his approach made sense. Make it clear what spending is for "operations" and what spending is for "assets", and then ask the state to justify its spending and revenue decisions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foxer:
Skdadl -

I don't know much about 'neo-cons', but neither health care or the canada pension funds are 'forward funded'. They are all current-funded only.

Now that makes a tiny bit of sense for health care, although that too is debatable, but it is pure lunacy for cpp.

In other words - it currently works the same as the 'neo-con' stratagy that you describe. For someone today to recieve CPP for example, Someone else must put up the money today. All the money that recipient put into the system was used to pay other people long ago. Same of course with medical. So it's not insurance, it's group-funded current expenditure. There's a huge difference.

---

All of this matters not a whit if we take into account broader values than just fiscal 'responsibility'. Skdadl's point about the expenditure of past generations into infrastructure and programs that were 'current funded' is not damaged by your retort. They made our comfort possible, and if we have to struggle a little more to make their last days more comfortable, so be it. Grow up and take responsibility without thought for your own self was an 'old days' value, which has been altered by conservatives-come-lately to concern only the self-interested. Moreover, much of the upper and upper-middle classes who are the fountainhead of this neo-con strategy made their profits in the era when these people were working their asses off - on assembly lines, in offices, etc. - on their behalf. Sorry if they might have to sell the other cottage in the Kawarthas to help take care of the folks who made them what they are....

Feh. A plague on all your greedy self-centred houses...

[ 04 August 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]

quote:

---

WHAT! - what the hell stats are you looking at? What do you think an intermediate care facility is?!?! Do you think everyone goes home at night? they may spend the last 10 YEARS of their life in a facility like that! and there are a LOT of facilities like that.

---

Foxer, I spend five to six hours of every day in what in modern biz-English we so disgustingly call a "long-term care facility" -- ie, a nursing home.

First of all, almost no one in those homes is receiving twenty-four-hour nursing care. They are cared for by careworkers, who are a different group. There may be one RN per shift on a floor of up to eighty or ninety residents. That is reality, Foxer.

Twenty-four-hour nursing is palliative care. That means people are dying; it means that doctors can tell they are dying, will die within weeks, if not sooner. Talk to any private insurer: most people who have private insurance have coverage for that care, but not for long-term care (careworkers) -- and twenty-four-hour care usually tops out at about six weeks.

The careworkers are there to change people, to help to feed them, and to alert the nurse or a doctor on call if something goes wrong. The careworkers are overworked and underpaid. Many are also here with troubled immigration status. This is a complex problem.

In Ontario, anyone who is staying in a long-term "care facility" (ugh -- such language: you wanna die in a "facility"?) is paying about $2,000/month for a private room.

As for the rest - (havent' read the second one - i'll hunt it down one of these days), you're correct, that enters an area where we could be spreadsheeting forever. And it misses my point a bit. My point was not that old people should be shot because they are drains on society and have contributed nothing - my point was that caring for the aging population as a cost is going to go up considerably - which was the ORIGINAL point of the poster who broght it up - "its only going to get WORSE.."

Right now, the largest money we spend of our provincial budget is health care. 41 Percent of every provincial dollar. It's been climbing every year as a percentage for many years. Several studies (i posted one somewhere around here - too many damn catagories to look for old posts under) have noted that pharmacudical costs represents a significant portion of that - and noted that while rising drug costs are partly to blame, it's also the growing percent of elderly, who consume drugs at a much higher level.

No one is saying they don't deserve it. No one is saying they shoulnd't get the best care. What I AM saying is it's going to be expensive. For a while. A generation from now that bulge will be gone. But we have to plan for it!

All of this intergenerational accounting stuff was constructed ideologically to detract from the real problems young people face in a liberalised job market with nothing but contingent jobs. It is usually a way of making unionised jobs with decent pay and job security the culprit for the effects of unmitigated neoliberalisation.

An aside about the costs of 24h-a-day care - isn't a lot of this because of medical heroics? Keeping people "alive" and suffering on machines because doctors don't want to "lose" a case, and because of a culture that extols suffering and life at any cost?

[ 04 August 2003: Message edited by: lagatta ]

[ 04 August 2003: Message edited by: lagatta ]

Even in 2020, the total dependency ratio (comparing the old and young to the 'working'-aged population) won't be as high as it was in the 1950s.

The argument that old people will cost more ignores the fact that caring for the young is generally unpaid, and certainly was in the 1950s.

We got throught that ok, so no need to hit the panic button now, and start privatizing/cutting back, freaking out, etc.

But it sure is a seductive argument, though. Now that we have a surplus, and could presumably put money into social programmes, we should start thinking about scaling them back, because they will be too costly in the future, and run us back into deficit.

People in long-term care facilities pay about $2,000/month to be there.

I repeat because Foxer seemed to be pretending that that wasn't so, and I didn't emphasize that contribution enough in my earlier post.

We are seriously dying before we cost much publicly.

[ 04 August 2003: Message edited by: skdadl ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:

An aside about the costs of 24h-a-day care - isn't a lot of this because of medical heroics? Keeping people "alive" and suffering on machines because doctors don't want to "lose" a case, and because of a culture that extols suffering and life at any cost?

---

To be fair, lagatta, I think this is not much true. There may be a grain of truth in it.

In my experience, the doctors will advise against truly "heroic" measures if they can anticipate that that is what will be required.

Cancer care is probably an exception. It seems to me that we currently pursue cancer treatments through long and costly procedures, and the results are iffy. That may be because the research and development is going so fast, and improvements do appear.

From what I've seen, though, it is only emergency doctors who are absolutely required (because they don't have someone who can give instructions) to deliver the cardio-pulmonary shocks to revive someone whose heart has stopped. Most other patients are given a chance to waive such treatment, and doctors tend to nudge nudge towards the waiving ...

[ 04 August 2003: Message edited by: skdadl ]

quote:

---

First of all, almost no one in those homes is receiving twenty-four-hour nursing care. They are cared for by careworkers, who are a different group.

---

You are splitting hairs there. There are careworkers who recieve a paycheque there to ensure their needs are met. You couldn'd do without them. You could not have those people live where there is NOT carestaff on duty. (in older times any nursing duty was refrered to as nursing - there was less distinction between registered nurses and other supporting caregivers. Its' all nursing in one form or another.

quote:

---

The careworkers are overworked and underpaid. Many are also here with troubled immigration status. This is a complex problem.

---

yes - and perhaps deserving of it's own thread. but irrelevant to this particular discussion.

quote:

---

In Ontario, anyone who is staying in a long-term "care facility" (ugh -- such language: you wanna die in a "facility"?) is paying about $2,000/month for a private room.

You thought they got washed for free, Foxer?

---

And as you know THAT is not cut and dry either. Some of that money may be coming out of CPP or OAS, and doesn't cover the cost of the services provided by a long shot.

quote:

---

PS: Stats in NAmerica generally over a very long time consistently show that, on average, we all represent a major cost to the health-care system only in the last six months of life.
That's an average. You may be one of the lucky few, Foxer, who gets hit by a bus, or has a massive stroke or heart attack and doesn't get attended to quickly. I wouldn't count on it, though. Most of us are pretty sick when we die.

---

You mean the MOST major cost. That the last six months are VERY VERY expensive. That's believable.

But it rather proves MY point than yours - old people's medical expenses are high.

Look - this isn't rocket science. We cost more medically when we are older. And we earn less. Considering that we have a 'pay as you go' funded health care - it's an issue.

You're also of course right that it will be expensive. But, I'm guessing it might not be as expensive as other things that come down the pipe. The deficits of the 80s were hugely exacerbated not by expensive social programmes but by recession, reduced revenue, high interest rates, etc.

My point is that even if you're not doing this, too often this coming expense is used as an excuse to cut costs. One study (UK & Can), jointly sponsored by CD Howe, made a direct link to the need to restore 'flexibility' in the labour market in order to keep labour costs down, in response to a coming shortage (a slightly different issue, I know).

quote:

---

So, if your point is that it will be expensive, well, yeah.

---

yeah, that' was my only point. I don't quite know how it got so misconscrued. We must plan for and adapt to it. It's only a temporary imbalance - a small bubble that will pass given time. But we dont' want to get caught short.

quote:

---

But, I'm guessing it might not be as expensive as other things that come down the pipe.

---

You may be right. Which of course brings us back to our original discussion - is deficit spending wise?

quote:

---

Some of that money may be coming out of CPP or OAS, and doesn't cover the cost of the services provided by a long shot.

---

Well, duh. Where do you think old people get their money?

Two thou a month is more than most seniors earn. Even with a healthy private pension, it is the whole thing, or close to the whole thing.

At the moment, since few spouses will have anything but public pensions of their own, that means family collapse if the earner has to go into a home. It usually means that a spouse is left living on less than $500/mo. (Foxer, do you have any idea how tiny CPP and OAP are?)

Do I think that $2,000/mo should be covering the costs of services provided in the homes I know (and I do know them plural)? Yep.

I've seen the private ones. They make profits off of not much more.

quote:

---

If, as I say, medical expenditures will go up and, as you say, that may not be the worse thing we face, then even MORE than ever it's important to spend within our means today and develop surpluses for the future.

---

quote:

---

People in long-term care facilities pay about $2,000/month to be there.

I repeat because Foxer seemed to be pretending that that wasn't so, and I didn't emphasize that contribution enough in my earlier post.

We are seriously dying before we cost much publicly

---

Next time you're in the facility, ask to look at the books. You'll see that for a, say 65 bed facility, they collect about 130k per month based on your 2k per person. Then look at the actual operating budget in total for the year. Then come back and talk to me about how their paying their way.

At best they offset the costs a bit.

quote:

---

Our health-care system is NOT "pay as you go."
I have been paying into that system since 1963, and I have cost it hardly anything at all so far. Talk to me when you can match that record, Foxer.

---

Do you know how much of your money is left right now?

NONE! ZILTCH! ZERO! NADA! It's ALL been spent! IT's GONE! No more left! Bye Bye! IT was SPENT when it was collected!!!

It IS a pay as you go system - we Collect the money and spend EVERY CENT. That's pay as you go! We don't have 'insurance' -we add up the costs and split the bill amongst taxpayers!

Not a single penny of what you have paid is still left. Not a drop! So if you were to stop earning today, and then needed medical expenses tomorrow - OTHERS would have to pay your bill! Period! This is soo amazingly simple - You Do Not Pay Into A Fund. There is no 'health care savings'.

Regardless of how much the old people have paid in their lives, NEW MONEY will have to be raised to foot their bills! Do you not think it's a good idea for us to think about setting some money aside for that? Or are you the type who prefers the 'oh, we haven't got it. Too bad old people' approach when we get there?

If we don't think about it now - there will be a lack of funds then. This is SO INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS!

quote:

---

If we don't think about it now - there will be a lack of funds then. This is SO INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS!

---

So let me try this version:

Foxer, it will be there if you want it to be there.

Really, it is that simple.

Agree to pay for my chemotherapy, Foxer, or I will say very mean things to you. I will hurt your feelings, Foxer.

(NB: I'm not sure I believe in chemotherapy for m'self, actually, although I know people who have lived because of it. Who knows till we get there?)

[ 04 August 2003: Message edited by: skdadl ]

quote:

---

But the federal and most provincial budgets have been in surplus for years now. You want bigger surpluses? How big is enough?

---

Lance - I never said that. What is WITH people today? The discussion was 'are deficits a good/bad idea'. I said that fiscally it's responsible to run a small surplus and build reserves most of the time, and allow deficits when times are temporarily challenging. If any gov't is doing that today, then they're doing what I thought was a good idea. I didn't suggest anyone who IS doing it should run LARGER surpluses.

quote:

---

I think 'pay-as-you-go' refers to systems in which funding and payments happen concurrently

---

this is what we have in canada right now. Today, funds will be raised to pay for today's expenses. We do not draw from a fund or savings.

We as a group pay today for the groups expenses today. (ok, we add it all up at the end of the year, but same thing). Your money is gone.

quote:

---

Foxer, it will be there if you want it to be there.

Really, it is that simple.

---

I don't see how you can make that statement. Its' there if we can afford it. We can afford it if we plan and ensure sufficient revenues. If there are not sufficent revenues, we will have to borrow the money or we will have to go without. If we borrow - we're asking FUTURE generations to pay for our current bills, never mind current ones.

How is this sad? Seriously - it's neither sad nor glad nor any of the major emotions. It just is, so we plan we budget and we pay for it. But we don't pretend it wont' cost anything.

quote:

---

Agree to pay for my chemotherapy, Foxer, or I will say very mean things to you. I will hurt your feelings, Foxer

---

this is a truely baffling statement.

If you are in need of chemo - then of course I will be paying for it. We all will. And it doesn't matter if you can contribute or not - or if you have in the past - we will pay for it today. Not out of any savings, but from money I and all other income earners will pay today.

quote:

---

Nothing will be obvious at all until and unless you provide some actual facts and figures, instead of CAPS and exclamation points. Do some research and report back to us. Take your time, as at the moment you betray no particularly good understanding of health-care funding, the pension system, or anything else.

---

http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/default.htm

show me in there the 'health care savings account'. I can show you the expenditures lines.

If you are under the delusion that we don't have any savings for health care, then you're stunningly poorly informed. If you don't believe health care costs will go up if a larger percentage of our population is older, then you have done no research of your own.

If you believe pretending that the health care system doesn't work the way it does, and older people dont' cost more, then you doom them to a pretty pathetic existance as we WON'T be able to afford it.

Note in the documenation provided - health care is 41 percent of our expenditures.

quote:

---

Our health-care system is NOT "pay as you go."

I have been paying into that system since 1963, and I have cost it hardly anything at all so far. Talk to me when you can match that record, Foxer.

---

Sounds nice and all but you never paid enough. To be sure you haven't paid your share and will be passing that debt on to the backs of the generations that follow you.

Either they will work at paying off your share or they too will pass it along.

As for those who served in wartime, which I have a number of in my family, there is a pension from the armed services as well as other special services that only vetrans are entitled to.

quote:

---

Now - seeing as you opened your mouth about what i don't know, lets see some stats from you disproving what i've said. I assume you have some, and aren't just mouthing off about things you know nothing about.

---

Let's start again.

Pathe Eton Hogg originally said:

quote:

---

The debt in Canada is going to get even worse when all the baby boomers retire.

---

Neither he nor you nor anyone else has explained why.

That health-care costs may increase is one claim. They're certainly increasing now -- more as a result of increasing drug costs than for any other reason. But that has nothing to do with the debt, as such.

Government debt, whether provincial or federal, is simply the cumulative total of past deficits, plus interest. The federal government, to my knowledge, has been running surpluses rather than deficits since 1994 or so. So the federal debt has only been decreasing.

The same is true of most of the provinces (though several have had deficits more recently than 1994, of course). One exception is British Columbia, which for reasons known only to a few in Cabinet -- if even them -- has chosen to cut taxes to the extent that it is now running up record deficits, thereby adding to, rather than decreasing, the provincial debt.

Now: I await an explanation as to why government debts in Canada should get worse as the baby boomers retire. Selective figures, i.e. propaganda, from BC government websites simply won't do.

[ 04 August 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]

http://www.premiersadvisory.com/pdf/factors.pdf

quote:
Age has an impact on health care costs. Currently, people over 65 make up about 12.5% of thepopulation and consume 45% of health care expenditures. People aged 45 – 64 consumes an additional 21% of health care resources. By 2026/27, when seniors make up about 21% of the population, about 60% of health spending could be devoted to caring for people in this age group.

http://www.premiersadvisory.com/pdf/factors.pdf
quote
Age composition of population and implications for long-term care - - The group 85+ uses
dramatically more residential long-term care than either the 65-74 or 75-84 groups. Over the next
decade, the number of people over age 85 will grow by 61%, as compared to 21% for the population
age 65+.

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/pop/agingpop.pdf

quote
In constant dollar terms (i.e. removing the effects of inflation), this translates to a 23
per cent real increase in health care spending. Of this, approximately two thirds
was due to the demographic factors of aging and an increasing population.

Why will increasing health-care costs make "the debt in Canada... even worse"?

(emphasis added)

[ 04 August 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]

I think that calling the provincial budget 'propaganda' is a little unfair.

And the other stats I post from gov't sites are from official gov't records. I can't imagine what you'd consider to be 'less bias'. And As i post the whole document - "select stats" is a little unfair as well.

But, to address your point..

All else being equal, when the baby boomers retire 2 things will happen - 1) the number of tax payers as a percent of the population will go down. This is shown in the stats i've posted describing the anticipated age ratios. and 2) costs of services, especially health care, will likely go up.

this certanly supports the statement that if we are accumulating govt' debt now, we are even more likely to in the future, all else being equal. Fewer earners - more costs.

The federal gov't has been running surpluses of late, but the fact is most of that has not been going to debt reductions. Some has. And the only way many provinces have been able to generate surpluses is to control spending on such things as health care. While it would be inaccurate to say that one could GUARANTEE that we will rack up more debt, it's certanly supported by evidence that the boomer bubble could easily threaten both our ability to reduce debt (which thanks to interest means it goes up) and our ability to return positive budgets.

Hey, anything could happen. Maybe the provinces will privatize the whole health care system and take it off of their books. Technically that would eliminate that factor. But i think his statement was fair in that at the very least our costs will go up and our number of revenue earners will go down.

quote:

---

One exception is British Columbia, which for reasons known only to a few in Cabinet -- if even them -- has chosen to cut taxes to the extent that it is now running up record deficits, thereby adding to, rather than decreasing, the provincial debt.

---

perhaps you'd care to provide hard numbers to demonstrate that the tax cuts actually resulted in this deficit. Remember you'd have to include all tax increases as well, and demonstrate that the tax cuts actually went into savings for a lot of people. Those without jobs and those companies not earning a profit would have had no benefit of course.

quote:

---

The federal gov't has been running surpluses of late, but the fact is most of that has not been going to debt reductions. Some has. And the only way many provinces have been able to generate surpluses is to control spending on such things as health care. While it would be inaccurate to say that one could GUARANTEE that we will rack up more debt, it's certanly supported by evidence that the boomer bubble could easily threaten both our ability to reduce debt (which thanks to interest means it goes up) and our ability to return positive budgets.

Hey, anything could happen. Maybe the provinces will privatize the whole health care system and take it off of their books. Technically that would eliminate that factor. But i think his statement was fair in that at the very least our costs will go up and our number of revenue earners will go down.

---

quote:

---

Why will increasing health-care costs make "the debt in Canada... even worse"?

---

As costs increase so to will taxes to cover those costs. As the population of taxpayers begins to decrease slightly until the echo enters into the higher tax brackets in sufficient numbers to absorb the extra burden, the more the government will have to borrow to meet demands. As the economy experiences a downturn, which it will, more will become a burden on the social safety net and even fewer will be in a position to pay the high tax rates. As interest rate rise, so to will the debt.

Not like we are paying it down much in these times of plenty, and they are times of plenty.

quote:

---

As costs increase so to will taxes to cover those costs. As the population of taxpayers begins to decrease slightly until the echo enters into the higher tax brackets in sufficient numbers to absorb the extra burden, the more the government will have to borrow to meet demands.

---

All right -- so you're suggesting that from their present conditions of surplus (except for BC), government budgets will become break-even, then go into deficit, adding to the debt.

OK -- how serious is this problem? How rapidly will this happen, how big will the deficits get, how much will taxes have to rise to prevent them (though according to you, nothing will prevent them)? I want numbers, dammit, and numbers I can have confidence in, else I shan't get alarmed by what I suspect is just another aria in that old, old opera composed specifically to panic people into supporting privatization of public services.

quote:

---

As interest rate rise, so to will the debt.

Not like we are paying it down much in these times of plenty, and they are times of plenty.

---

Then what's with all the surpluses? Where are they going?

What is the debt (say, federally), and how rapidly would you like to see it paid down? If it's being paid down at all, and these are "times of plenty," i.e. of growing GDP, then surely as a proportion of GDP it's getting smaller at an even more rapid rate than it is in absolute terms? So I remain unconvinced that we should be as worried as you suggest.

[ 04 August 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foxer:
Therefore, it's logical that your stratagy should be that under more or less normal times you run a small surplus. During a downtime, spend the surplus and borrow as needed

---

This is precisely the Keynesian prescription. You're not the first to point out that government spending should essentially be countercyclical.

quote:

---

I don't know much about 'neo-cons', but neither health care or the canada pension funds are 'forward funded'. They are all current-funded only.

Now that makes a tiny bit of sense for health care, although that too is debatable, but it is pure lunacy for cpp.

In other words - it currently works the same as the 'neo-con' stratagy that you describe. For someone today to recieve CPP for example, Someone else must put up the money today. All the money that recipient put into the system was used to pay other people long ago. Same of course with medical. So it's not insurance, it's group-funded current expenditure. There's a huge difference.

---

What's heresy about running health care and the CPP and EI on a pay-in/pay-out basis annually?

I have no big problem with it, and in any case since governments generally run on the cash basis of accounting for current expenditures it's the only sensible way to do this.

Governments can't really "save" money in the sense that us humans do. For them it's cash in, cash out. And in large degree this is legitimate because the government spends money to cover current expenses and current societal needs.

The only basis for actuarial soundness in the CPP is that revenues cover the needed expenditures. If CPP goes technically insolvent the government just "fills the pot" by transferring in money from general revenue. The money's gonna be there. Stop carping like it's gonna be the end of the world or something. I really hate that Chicken Little bullshit.

Onto deficits.

The financing of all future deficits should be handled by instructing the Bank of Canada to purchase government securities in the necessary amount at interest rates fixed by the government.

In short, by printing money.

Now before you all get all lathered up about inflation, may I make the point that there is much that this money can be used which would add, indirectly, to business capital investment and in this way boost production in order to easily offset any inflationary potential?

Permit me to explain.

We have much in this country that is in need of fixing - a health care system that must be put right so workers of all ages can be healthy, fit and capable of working to their full potential; a road infrastructure that needs upgrading to transport goods all across this country (and in the process enhancing the postal network, which is especially important given the rising importance of web-site ordering of goods for shipment to one's door); an education system that needs enormous new sums of money to help expand and enhance the existing skills of the working population - you know, the skilled people businesses allegedly are willing to pay top dollar to and desperately need and so on ad nauseam; the list of what needs to be done to bring Canada past world-class status and into universe-class status is simply endless.

We will not get it done by shoehorning ourselves into straitjackets made by people who are terrified of the notion that government can be a positive force in bringing out the potential in each and every one of us.

[ 04 August 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
When many of the baby-boomers retire (I won't be able to until I'm 80 or so ) won't that also free up a lot of jobs for younger people?

---

Foxer at one point above says that what he's doing is "basic math." (Actually, I think he means "basic arithmetic," but we'll let that pass.)

Trouble is, neither is true. He is playing with statistics, and that ain't basic, neither arithmetic nor math. It all depends on context, and here is an example of the kind of trick he seems to want to play (or, who knows, maybe he just fell for someone else's trick):

Foxer says (or quotes):

quote:

---

The group 85+ uses dramatically more residential long-term care than either the 65-74 or 75-84 groups.

---

Now, y'see, he's gotta tell us what he means by "uses dramatically more." In relation to what?

The proportion of the population over 65 that is also over 85 yrs old has not changed in over two hundred years. It doesn't matter how many people we have over 65: those over 85 will always be the same (small) proportion.

Most people don't believe me when I tell them that we have those stats (and that is both Western Europe and North America, since the late C18) -- but we do. Talk to your local statistician, and he will convince you.

So I assume that when Foxer says, so foggily, that 85-yr-olds cost "dramatically more," he just means that those (relatively) few people who both live beyond 85 and live in nursing homes live there longer than most -- ? Or something meaningless like that.

quote:

---

The proportion of the population over 65 that is also over 85 yrs old has not changed in over two hundred years. It doesn't matter how many people we have over 65: those over 85 will always be the same (small) proportion.

---

Quite right. Life expectancy at birth has gone up considerably, in North America, in the last century. Life expectancy at, say, 40 hasn't changed significantly.

People are not only living longer, but they are also living longer without major disability.

That's just one more reason I'm against tax exemptions. It's a major tool used by our venal governments to funnel money from the working class to the rich.

In the business world, according to the business people, it makes sense to go into deficit for capital projects, and most large companies always carry a certain amount of debt.

It would seem that the conservatives are the ones who run us into debt. Witness Mulroney here, Reagan and Bush the younger to the south.

Interestingly enough, when the economy took off a while back, the right wing came out with the idea of tax cuts, which stopped us from making serious inroads on the debt.

Seems to me that the grass roots conservatives are being duped by their own leaders into a situation of permanent servitude to debt.

The left should adhere to the sound principles of borrowing money in bad times to maintain the physical and human infrastructure of the nation, and making repayment of that debt and a cushion besides a high priority in good times.

Anything departing from that either creates too much hardship for the ordinary citizen, and/or too much public money flowing to the banks.

Lance -

quote:

---

If all that is true, what do you propose be done about it?

---

I'll deal with this in my next post - it deserves a post of it's own.

Doc -

quote:

---

You're not the first to point out that government spending should essentially be countercyclical.

---

Dammit! so now I can't patent it can i?
hey, it's not rocket science. It's an old idea and it works if done right.

quote:

---

What's heresy about running health care and the CPP and EI on a pay-in/pay-out basis annually?

---

Health care and EI i have less problem with. In fact almost no real problem wiht. There's a bunch of issues around health care, but the argument is very long and doesn't actually wind up in a definitive position, so lets let that slide for now.

CPP on the other hand. You're just providing cash, and at a known time in the future. And to a degree at a known amount, for a fixed population. It's the kind of thing that really lends itself to 'planning' rather than reaction or pay as you go. The chances of a future generation being in a position to NOT be able to pay for some reason is too high, and that's not very fair to those who have paid all their lives. Better to set aside what they've paid and not touch it, and use it to fund the majority of what they get in the future. It helps with little age blurps like the baby boomers.

quote:

---

Governments can't really "save" money in the sense that us humans do. For them it's cash in, cash out.

---

not quite true - they maintain proper arms length accounts for thier workers pensions, which are savings, not pay-as-you-go.

Additionally, they maintain contingency funds for any number of things. Including EI as i recall.

quote:

---

Stop carping like it's gonna be the end of the world or something. I really hate that Chicken Little bullshit.

---

Hey - all i said is a little work now and there'll be more bread for everyone later - i'm doing a 'little red hen' more than a chicken little

quote:

---

Now before you all get all lathered up about inflation,

---

I got a little lathered, but I tried my best to control it.

Ok, as to your question...

First, as mentioned, this is not a disaster of biblical proportions which should have us all wailing and gnashing our teeth - it's a relatvely temporary blip and it's a managable increase.

So, the best ways to deal with it effectively are three fold:

1) examine methods of care for elderly people. For example, already there has been much success with cost savings AND increases in lifestyle quality by keeping people in their homes longer thru community based care. A more agressive and effective move towards beefing up those concepts now should see most of the bugs worked out and systems in place widespread for our boomers. Other geriatric issues should be examined as well. This all helps to improve efficiency of the system and adapt more to fluctuations in the aging population. And it results in better lifestyle for them anyway.

2 - something has to be done about drugs. Something fair - you can't just say 'give us your biotech research' without compensation - a lot of money goes into developing drugs, and development is more expensive than it used to be. But one of the biggest costs of the aging is drugs. We have to create a way to reduce those costs overall. Further, doctors must be encouraged to work with their clients a little better to avoid drugs where possible. we all know doctors are just a little 'prescription happy' sometimes.

3 - restructuring of non-geriatric medical services is important as well. Too many people use the emergency rooms as 'after hours clinics' rather than for true emergencies. There are many ways we can improve how we deliver services to reduce costs and increase service. This helps reduce the cost of medical services all over.

the final step - as we discussed - focus on reducing and eliminating debt as a policy priority. The federal gov't has to spend more of it's surplus revenues on provincial health care, and expecially health care infrastructure. PPP's can be effective for some equipment or facility upgrades. (if done carefully).

quote:

---

E.I. money has been and regularly is stolen from workers to pay off debt, much of said debt incurred from non collection of taxes from corporations.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The group 85+ uses dramatically more residential long-term care than either the 65-74 or 75-84 groups.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, y'see, he's gotta tell us what he means by "uses dramatically more." In relation to what?

---

I thought the language was quite plain. In relation to the other groups.

the point of that particular quote posted was that the 85+ is increasing in size and is expensive.

quote:

---

Over the next
decade, the number of people over age 85 will grow by 61%, as compared to 21% for the population
age 65+.

---

quote:

---

The proportion of the population over 65 that is also over 85 yrs old has not changed in over two hundred years.

---

Well it looks like it's changing NOW, doesn't it. If that stat is correct, your statement will not be true in the near future. That was rather the point.

Skdadl - arguing that older people do not require on average more health care than younger people not only flies in the face of the known facts - it also flies in the face of basic common sense. And while people may argue over how LARGE of a difference it is, i've never seen a document that suggests the money we spend on say a 35 year old on average is the same or more than we'd spend on a 70 year old.

quote:

---

I think there are stats somewhere, actually, showing that people who live past 85 become astonishingly unlikely ever to live in nursing homes. It figures, actually. One can never know about those people except by (relative) hindsight, of course.

---

even if this were true (and it seems not to be according to the docs i actually posted) it STILL doesnt account for perscription, doctor and other medical costs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foxer:
I really have to think about this 'print more money' concept of yours. Considering we're de-linked to gold it might be plausable. But, didn't I read somewhere that it costs like 1.25 for every buck we make?

---

In the United States I think it costs about 4 cents to print a dollar, so the BoC probably has about the same cost associated with the plates, holograms and ink.

Loonies and toonies are very durable, and in point of fact I don't think I've seen very many later-than-2000 coins being circulated from those denominations.

quote:

---

tommie -

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. money has been and regularly is stolen from workers to pay off debt, much of said debt incurred from non collection of taxes from corporations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

when? From where?

---

Even though the law says the EI fund is untouchable, Paul Martin and John Manley have been routinely grabbing EI money to bulk up the surplus because only about 35% of those people who become unemployed actually qualify for EI due to the restrictions on the hours worked and the denial of EI for quitting without cause unless you can prove it was sexual harassment or the like.

[ 04 August 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

In the United States I think it costs about 4 cents to print a dollar, so the BoC probably has about the same cost associated with the plates, holograms and ink.

---

you could be right. We'll have to discuss this further, i've lost touch with the money making process.

quote:

---

Even though the law says the EI fund is untouchable, Paul Martin and John Manley have been routinely grabbing EI money to bulk up the surplus because only about 35% of those people who become unemployed actually qualify for EI due to the restrictions on the hours worked and the denial of EI for quitting without cause unless you can prove it was sexual harassment or the like.

---

Here's another, even older one.

quote:

---

Skdadl - arguing that older people do not require on average more health care than younger people not only flies in the face of the known facts

---

I have never argued any such nonsense. I have argued only that you have a very shaky grasp of the numbers of people who are/will be involved at each stage.

Although I am in favour of serious homecare plans, homecare as it operates at the moment in Ontario is "efficient" for one reason only: it relies mainly on the unpaid labour of a family member (usually a woman), who receives minimal help from outside workers (usually, again, underpaid, overworked, and with shaky immigration status).

Roy Romanow recognized that homecare is not going to work well until primary caregivers are somehow compensated for loss of income, which includes what happens to CPP when people take entire years off of paid labour. As far as I can tell, the Finance Dep't and the provincial premiers oppose those aspects of his report.

Of course free labour looks "efficient" to the Finance guys and guys like Tony Clement.

quote:

---

We have much in this country that is in need of fixing - a health care system that must be put right so workers of all ages can be healthy, fit and capable of working to their full potential; a road infrastructure that needs upgrading to transport goods all across this country (and in the process enhancing the postal network, which is especially important given the rising importance of web-site ordering of goods for shipment to one's door); an education system that needs enormous new sums of money to help expand and enhance the existing skills of the working population - you know, the skilled people businesses allegedly are willing to pay top dollar to and desperately need and so on ad nauseam; the list of what needs to be done to bring Canada past world-class status and into universe-class status is simply endless.

---

So this somehow forces people to eat a proper diet, and get the right amount of excersize? While they have the ability to do that right now yet they don't for the most part, even come close.

This is a clear example of how blindly throwing money around leads to waste. If a $5 hamburger taste pretty good then a $50 hanburger must taste ten times better.

Why is it that those least interested in doing the work are most interested in spending the money?

[ 05 August 2003: Message edited by: Pathe Eton Hogg ]

While some prattle on about how we SHOULD just pour more money into public coffers nothing is mentioned about any accountability or regulation other than the good nature of people we can see acted out daily on the news.

Sure what cost $2000-$3000 now could cost $6000-$8000 if we just dump the money in.

Just how many CEOs do you know that think that when they are old and frail, the government will be quick to provide all the little day to day needs along side the well maintained residence staffed by caring and well educated medical proffesionals and caregivers?

You have to be pretty stupid to think the government can let alone would provide anything more than the basic needs if that for anyone.

Those people are the same who sit bitching about the way the government screws them while waiting in line for the next public sector ass-master to come along.

[ 05 August 2003: Message edited by: Pathe Eton Hogg ]

quote:

---

Just how many CEOs do you know that think that when they are old and frail, the government will be quick to provide all the little day to day needs along side the well maintained residence staffed by caring and well educated medical proffesionals and caregivers?

You have to be pretty stupid to think the government can let alone would provide anything more than the basic needs if that for anyone.

Those people are the same who sit bitching about the way the government screws them while waiting in line for the next public sector ass-master to come along.

---

You do realize, PEH, don't you, that you do an excellent impression of an ignorant thug?

quote:

---

You do realize, PEH, don't you, that you do an excellent impression of an ignorant thug?

---

Maybe Lance, but one things for sure, you won't find me or my family crying the blues because life isn't fair and the government isn't everything I failed to be.

On a personal note, you do a pretty good impression of hiding from the truth all while you wretch on about how it's being kept from you. But that's just an observation and not meant to roust you from your slumber. Just rest your plonkity plonkin head and wait for the inevitable.

quote:

---

you won't find me or my family crying the blues because life isn't fair and the government isn't everything I failed to be.

---

quote:

---

I have never argued any such nonsense. I have argued only that you have a very shaky grasp of the numbers of people who are/will be involved at each stage.

---

Well i could see how you feel that way considering i never SAID how many people there will be by number, all I've ever said is that a) the percentage of old people is growing and b) old people cost more. And you have made several attempts to try to suggest otherwise. Need I remind you:

quote:

---

In Ontario, anyone who is staying in a long-term "care facility" (ugh -- such language: you wanna die in a "facility"?) is paying about $2,000/month for a private room.

---

quote:

---

PS: Stats in NAmerica generally over a very long time consistently show that, on average, we all represent a major cost to the health-care system only in the last six months of life.

---

That was you arguing that old people aren't really expensive - it's just the last few months that are. (whereas my point was they start to climb at 55).

quote:

---

I repeat because Foxer seemed to be pretending that that wasn't so, and I didn't emphasize that contribution enough in my earlier post.

We are seriously dying before we cost much publicly.

---

Same point - but you felt i hadn't got the idea that old people don't cost money until they're on their deathbed.

Then you suggested that the money used for older people is from their contributions - that we don't fund it now.

quote:

---

Our health-care system is NOT "pay as you go."
I have been paying into that system since 1963,

---

In fact, reading back I don't see a whole lot of quibbling over the fact that there will be MORE people entering old age from you. There was just one post you made about the ratios staying the same for 200 years - with no supporting docs or sources - which was in conflict with the actual documents I'd posted which argued that a change WAS coming.
Now - maybe I misunderstoon your intent, but I think an independant casual observer would tend to agree that it APPEARS as tho you're arguing about costs more and numbers a lot less. What was your point about the numbers?

quote:

---

Although I am in favour of serious homecare plans, homecare as it operates at the moment in Ontario is "efficient" for one reason only: it relies mainly on the unpaid labour of a family member (usually a woman), who receives minimal help from outside workers (usually, again, underpaid, overworked, and with shaky immigration status).

---

I hadn't heard that - ontario medicine isn't my expertise. That's kinda crappy. In sweden they were forced to do that kind of thing, I believe they actually made it law that you had to assist in looking after your elders.

As I said - a good idea in need of improvement and fine tuning. Our problem here is that we've moved towards that, then away, then towards, etc. It's like that cheap 3d effect from SCTV It's something that needs to be focused on and worked out. People are happier in their homes anyway - keeping them there as long as possible as often as possible while still providing good care is a good thing.

quote:

---

Lance -
Ok, as to your question...

First, as mentioned, this is not a disaster of biblical proportions which should have us all wailing and gnashing our teeth - it's a relatvely temporary blip and it's a managable increase.

So, the best ways to deal with it effectively are three fold...

---

OK. Glad to see that you don't think the sky is falling, and that you do look to the continuing existence of public health care. (Not everyone does). And your three big suggestions, above, sound sensible to me.

But I'd like to know what in particular this means:

quote:

---

But yes, shifting the burden to the family without providing financial and other resources is unsustainable.

---

Are you suggesting that the burden should be shifted to the family with the provision of financial and other resources? That private individuals should be paid, for example, for taking care of their relatives?

quote:

---

OK. Glad to see that you don't think the sky is falling, and that you do look to the continuing existence of public health care. (Not everyone does).

---

Naturally i'm concerned about health care, and it has some challenges to face. I think it could be in real trouble if we do the WRONG things or pretend that we don't have issues to address, but i don't believe it's a foregone conclusion that it's going to fly apart at the seams by any streach.

One thing I have noticed is that 'sudden' crisis tend to lead to radical and often misdirected actions on the part of those involved - based presumably on the need to 'DO something about the crisis'. My observations have been these 'crisis' situations are little more than bad planning and temporary situations manifesting themselves, but the whole world seems to come apart and 'new plans' are dropped into place with little time to examine their ramifications. The ripples from this seem to spread over huge timeframes, and contribute to the next 'crisis'. I can give many examples, and you can't blame any one gov't for it, it seems to be an issue across the spectrum.

Based on THAT - I believe that the 'baby boomer' bubble potentially could have reprocussions out of proportion to the scale of the problem if the issues aren't addressed resonably prior to the situation growing to 'crisis' proportion. But it's not keeping me up at nights - there is some positive movement on the medical front.

quote:

---

But I'd like to know what in particular this means:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But yes, shifting the burden to the family without providing financial and other resources is unsustainable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you suggesting that the burden should be shifted to the family with the provision of financial and other resources? That private individuals should be paid, for example, for taking care of their relatives?

---

If you mean do i think people should recieve a paycheque for taking care of their elderly, LORD no. I have seen more family 'abuse' of elderly people's money and care than I would have believed possible. And it doesn't make any sense - you have a huge lower trained unmotivated workforce providing services that a highly trained well paid smaller workforce could do far better. How is that efficient?

No - i was rather referring to resources that allow families to participate in the caregiving while minimizing the impact on their ability to function. Here's a few off the cuff examples:

Mr & Mrs brown live together and are growing old. Mr brown begins to develop alzheimers or some form of mild dementia. It will be quite some time before it is acute, so it's not really necessary for him to live in a dedicated intermediate care facility. But - he cannot be left alone for long periods, and is often a 'real handfull' for Mrs brown to look after. Day in and day out she looks after him and the stress and burden, combined with dealing with watching a loved one go thru this becomes unbearable.

Current solution - intermediate care facility. Expensive, removes the person from their home, is believed to accelerate the dementia process by removing familiar surroundings.

Better solution - a daytime care drop off facility which has trained staff, funded so it is easily affordable a few days a week.

Benefits

- no beds, nighttime staff, or dedicated medical facilities, but nurses and caregivers on staff, so safety is maintained quite well, but at a fraction of the cost and size of a care facility.

- Social interaction for Mr brown in a controlled environment.

- Nurses and staff can still see mr brown regularly, and can look for any indications of worsening condition or other medical problems which mrs brown might miss (including signs of abuse. Sometimes that happens).
Further, they can help advise her when his condition truley warrents permanent care, or perhaps another service like in-home caregivers.

- provides a meeting place for support groups, training and other information sources for mrs brown. She can talk to others going thru this with their loved ones, ask advice to deal with circumstances she finds herself in, and so on. Special events can take place in the evenings.

- Provides Mrs brown with desperately needed time to herself. She can go shopping, she can clean her house in peace, she can visit friends or go to a social event. She can get a break knowing her husband is in good hands and without guilt. Which leaves her FAR better equipped to provide for him the rest of the time.

Net net - the facility costs a fraction of a full care facility, and because it's only a few days a week, a facility one quarter the size (no beds and such) can actually handle twice the number of participants (each there 2 or three days of a week instead of 7). Fewer staff are required, and less specialty staff (full time cooks would likely not be needed for example), so for the same budget a lot more facilities can be opened. (see - efficiency doesn't necesarily mean fewer employed people, it can mean the same number achieving a lot more) This means that many communities can have a facility, reducing travel times and allowing for placement in even small rurral communities.

That's just one example. There are dozens of others. That's what I mean by a little money and resources making it FAR easier for the family to take care of their own for a lot longer.

"Since 1975, health care expenditures in both nominal and constant dollars have shown increases on a per capita basis, with a “stall-out” from 1990 to 1996. These years were marked by substantial cutbacks federally and provincially in the interest of curbing budgetary deficits as well as recession and a slow recovery. Since 1996 the per capita health care expenditures in Canada have resumed their upward climb in nominal and constant-dollar terms, but it is apparent that six years of zero growth in per capita health care spending during a time when drugs have risen in cost has placed serious strains on the ability of the various provincial health plans to provide basic coverage, hospital insurance, and subsidize the cost of drugs, especially when doctors are likely to prescribe the brand name versus the generic version.

In regard to drug costs specifically, in nominal-dollar terms the average cost of brand-name drug prescriptions rose from just over $30 in mid-1992 to $50 in 2000. Adjusting the 2000 value to 1992 constant dollars reveals that for brand-names the cost was $43.47, so this reveals that even in real terms, the cost of brand-name drugs has risen. Generic prescription costs have remained relatively stable, at a nominal-dollar value of $18 for the entire seven-and-a-half year period. Therefore, restating the $18 cost of a prescription in 2000 in 1992 constant dollars shows that the cost was $15.63 – a slight fall in real terms.

http://www.hlth.gov.bc.ca/msp/legislation/pdf/bluebook2002.pdf

Unless you think a hospital is getting a 'paycheque', hehehe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foxer:

I hate to sound like your mother, but if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you too?!? hehe

The gov't should be different because it's not an individual. When a homeowner borrows money to buy the home, he/she is inflicting themselves with debt, for what they consider to be a good reason. When a gov't borrows money, its often inflicting the next generation of taxpayers with that debt. And that's less fair. Further, the homeowner has an asset out of it - the house. The gov't usually just provides services, and the money borrowed is gone.

It is probably as foolish to say 'never run a deficit' as it is to say 'always run a deficit'. The truth is, it should be a rare occurance. However, gov't income is like business income - it fluctuates with the times. There should be some cash reserves to cover minor fluctuations, but it would be silly to hold LARGE cash reserves sitting around doing little for years. Therefore, it's logical that your stratagy should be that under more or less normal times you run a small surplus. During a downtime, spend the surplus and borrow as needed - also taking the time to tighten the financial belt slightly. By that I mean reduce unneccesary expenditures but don't severely impact programs offered. Tighten the belt, but don't go buy a corset if you will. When times get good, run a slightly higher surplus and pay off the shortfall as quickly as possible. Then increase spending back to its former (adjusted) level.

Obviously i'm simplifying a slightly more complex stratagy, but you get the idea. This is good fiscal management. We shouldn't on average need to run a deficit more than about 2 -3 years for every 8-10. That's manageble.

If we SAVED money for public works projects instead of BORROWING it, (or at least all of it) we could afford to do a lot more.[/QB]

---

I am quite familiar with the intricate workings of debt and financing with regards to large orgs and mega projects.

And if you do a little reading you'll find that most of the fiscal troubles that killed so many big businesses in the last 4 years (and has threatend so many of our remaining ones - air canada, telus, gt, at&t canada, etc etc) revolve around that debt stratagy you think business thrives on. It's not their income, it's their debt servicing that's killing them.

Now read what I said very carefully - did I REALLY say never run debt for any reason and have tonnes of cash laying around?

quotes:

"It is probably as foolish to say 'never run a deficit' as it is to say 'always run a deficit'."

"but it would be silly to hold LARGE cash reserves sitting around doing little for years. "

"We shouldn't on average need to run a deficit more than about 2 -3 years for every 8-10. "

"If we SAVED money for public works projects instead of BORROWING it, (or at least all of it)"

Apperently you're unfamiliar with the terms "contingency fund, cash reserve, operating capital".

I never said we shouldn't borrow money. Further, I never said we should always pay every public works project out of cash only. And I most certanly never said we should have a few trillion kicking around doing nothing.

What I DID say is that we should not run deficit budgets to cover normal operating expenses in a normal economy. And I said we should try to save money to use for public works, at least offsetting the amount needed to be borrowed. And I said it should be a priority to pay off whatever IS borrowed in a reasonably expedient fashion.

We KNOW we're going to need to fix our roads and upgrade them. That is a given. Some roads and works are on a major scale. Putting aside a fund for that is not only prudent - it USED to be common practice in many businesses. For example, if you ever own an apartment, some of your strata fees will inevitably go to the 'new roof' fund. That's because they know that they're going to need to buy a new roof - sooner or later. They try to guess when, and budget accordingly. IF it happens sooner than expected, they raise the shortfall another way, but they've at least offset that need.