Discussion:
Explain to us why Alberta needs $1 Billion in federal health transfers . . . .
(too old to reply)
(=_=)Раиса
2014-06-18 19:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Which is a 38% increase over past years . . . when the other provinces
are getting only a 3% increase . . . .

Harper is into playing politics big time. With OUR tax dollars. No
bloody wonder Kathleen Wynne was able to get past a Con candidate in the
Ontario election.
______________________________________

Here's the bragging part:


Calgary Herald - June 17, 2014

Alberta GDP growth expected to lead Canada: Conference Board
More than 3% economic growth for fifth consecutive year

CALGARY - Alberta’s economy this year is expected to grow by more than
three per cent for the fifth consecutive year, according to the
Conference Board of Canada.

The conference board is forecasting Alberta’s economy will grow by 3.5
per cent in 2014, which is the best in the country. And the forecast is
for 3.1 per cent growth in 2015 - also topping all provinces.

Nationally, the Canadian economy is expected to grow by 2.1 per cent in
2014 and 2.6 per cent in 2015, according to the board's Provincial
Outlook: Spring 2014 report released on Tuesday.

Todd Crawford, senior economist with the Conference Board, said the
story about Alberta’s economy has not changed much over the last few years.

“The basics are that it is very strong and of course it continues to be
fuelled by the development of the energy sector,” said Crawford. “That’s
important. But the other important thing, the other side of that, is
because things are going so well in Alberta that makes the risks
especially high as well because you have more on the line to lose.

“We know the labour markets are getting increasingly tight. We’re seeing
wage gains in the province again although not yet out of control. But
are still substantially above what we’re seeing elsewhere in Canada. And
while wage gains are a good thing for workers, sure, they can be a
negative for employers. It means a couple of things. When wage gains are
surging that means it’s easy for people to find jobs. So worker
retention is very difficult. Keep in mind also that wages paid are good
for the worker, they’re a cost to the employer.”
[. . .]
The report said the population surge has not eased the strain on labour
markets, however. Despite the influx of new workers, the provincial
unemployment rate was estimated at 4.6 per cent for the first quarter of
2014.

“The weekly wage is projected to rise 3.9 per cent this year and job
vacancy rates are already the highest in the country,” it said. “This
suggests that labour demand remains strong, which bodes well for
consumer spending in the province.

“While exports and consumer spending are forecast to remain strong
heading into 2015, a second consecutive year of slower investment will
cause real GDP to moderate to just 3.1 per cent growth next year.
Immigration is expected to return to more normal levels, and that will
weigh heavily on the residential market, where growth is projected to
slow to just 1.1 per cent. Still, job creation will be strong and the
province’s unemployment rate will trend down, falling to 4.5 per cent by
year end.”

The conference board’s positive economic outlooks mirrors an RBC
Economics report, which was released last week, saying Alberta’s economy
is in a class by itself and head and shoulders above the other provinces.
________________________________

Here's the irony - and slap in the face to Ontario and other provinces:

Published February 11, 2014

Alberta gets bulk of new health transfers in federal budget

Alberta will swallow up more than half of all new health transfers to
the provinces in 2014-2015.

Ottawa is increasing the Canada Health Transfer to provinces by $1.8
billion next fiscal year but more than $1 billion of that will go to
Alberta.

Ottawa advertises that it is increasing health transfers to the
provinces by six per cent. In fact, the increase is an average of three
per cent for every province, except Alberta.

Alberta’s increase is 38 per cent.

The disproportionate jump is due to the government changing the transfer
formula. Ottawa previously took income level into account in deciding
how much money each province should get.

Starting in 2014-2015, the government will dole out health transfers
purely by population. That means a boon for Alberta at the expense of
all other provinces.

Nova Scotia would have received a further $40 million to pay for health
care under the old formula. Instead, it will receive an increase of just
$17 million.

Provinces rely heavily on the Canada Health Transfer to pay for growing
health-care expenses. Next year, Nova Scotia will receive a total of
$682 million in health funding.

Taking out income level as a factor hurts Atlantic Canada more than the
rest of the country. Health transfers to the region will rise by less
than two per cent.

Newfoundland and Labrador should actually see $13 million less under the
new formula.

But because Ottawa promised transfers would not go down, Newfoundland’s
funding will stay identical for the coming year — $490 million.

Alberta’s health transfer will rise by $1.03 billion to a total of $3.75
billion.

Health experts have argued Alberta is getting equal per-capita funding,
despite their costs not being equal.

“You’ll have more money flowing to Alberta, and yet it faces the
youngest population of any province in Canada,” said University of
Regina professor Greg Marchildon in an interview last year.

Marchildon and his colleague Haizhen Mou proposed a formula that takes
into account factors of geography and population age. Under this system,
Nova Scotia would receive more for its elderly population. Provinces
with large rural areas like Saskatchewan would also benefit.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty surprised the provinces when he announced
the per-capita formula in December of 2011. Despite protests by every
province except Alberta, Flaherty refused to preserve the old formula
past 2013-2014.
Alan Baker
2014-06-18 23:47:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by (=_=)Раиса
Which is a 38% increase over past years . . . when the other provinces
are getting only a 3% increase . . . .
"Starting in 2014-2015, the government will dole out health transfers
purely by population. That means a boon for Alberta at the expense of
all other provinces."

Isn't that the way it's supposed to be in a system where all medical
care is socialized?
Post by (=_=)Раиса
Harper is into playing politics big time. With OUR tax dollars. No
bloody wonder Kathleen Wynne was able to get past a Con candidate in
the Ontario election.
______________________________________
Calgary Herald - June 17, 2014
Alberta GDP growth expected to lead Canada: Conference Board
More than 3% economic growth for fifth consecutive year
CALGARY - Alberta’s economy this year is expected to grow by more
than three per cent for the fifth consecutive year, according to the
Conference Board of Canada.
The conference board is forecasting Alberta’s economy will grow by 3.5
per cent in 2014, which is the best in the country. And the forecast is
for 3.1 per cent growth in 2015 - also topping all provinces.
Nationally, the Canadian economy is expected to grow by 2.1 per cent in
2014 and 2.6 per cent in 2015, according to the board's Provincial
Outlook: Spring 2014 report released on Tuesday.
Todd Crawford, senior economist with the Conference Board, said the
story about Alberta’s economy has not changed much over the last few years.
“The basics are that it is very strong and of course it continues to be
fuelled by the development of the energy sector,” said Crawford.
“That’s important. But the other important thing, the other side of
that, is because things are going so well in Alberta that makes the
risks especially high as well because you have more on the line to lose.
“We know the labour markets are getting increasingly tight. We’re
seeing wage gains in the province again although not yet out of
control. But are still substantially above what we’re seeing elsewhere
in Canada. And while wage gains are a good thing for workers, sure,
they can be a negative for employers. It means a couple of things. When
wage gains are surging that means it’s easy for people to find jobs. So
worker retention is very difficult. Keep in mind also that wages paid
are good for the worker, they’re a cost to the employer.”
[. . .]
The report said the population surge has not eased the strain on labour
markets, however. Despite the influx of new workers, the provincial
unemployment rate was estimated at 4.6 per cent for the first quarter
of 2014.
“The weekly wage is projected to rise 3.9 per cent this year and job
vacancy rates are already the highest in the country,” it said. “This
suggests that labour demand remains strong, which bodes well for
consumer spending in the province.
“While exports and consumer spending are forecast to remain strong
heading into 2015, a second consecutive year of slower investment will
cause real GDP to moderate to just 3.1 per cent growth next year.
Immigration is expected to return to more normal levels, and that will
weigh heavily on the residential market, where growth is projected to
slow to just 1.1 per cent. Still, job creation will be strong and the
province’s unemployment rate will trend down, falling to 4.5 per cent
by year end.”
The conference board’s positive economic outlooks mirrors an RBC
Economics report, which was released last week, saying Alberta’s
economy is in a class by itself and head and shoulders above the other
provinces.
________________________________
Published February 11, 2014
Alberta gets bulk of new health transfers in federal budget
Alberta will swallow up more than half of all new health transfers to
the provinces in 2014-2015.
Ottawa is increasing the Canada Health Transfer to provinces by $1.8
billion next fiscal year but more than $1 billion of that will go to
Alberta.
Ottawa advertises that it is increasing health transfers to the
provinces by six per cent. In fact, the increase is an average of three
per cent for every province, except Alberta.
Alberta’s increase is 38 per cent.
The disproportionate jump is due to the government changing the
transfer formula. Ottawa previously took income level into account in
deciding how much money each province should get.
Starting in 2014-2015, the government will dole out health transfers
purely by population. That means a boon for Alberta at the expense of
all other provinces.
Nova Scotia would have received a further $40 million to pay for health
care under the old formula. Instead, it will receive an increase of
just $17 million.
Provinces rely heavily on the Canada Health Transfer to pay for growing
health-care expenses. Next year, Nova Scotia will receive a total of
$682 million in health funding.
Taking out income level as a factor hurts Atlantic Canada more than the
rest of the country. Health transfers to the region will rise by less
than two per cent.
Newfoundland and Labrador should actually see $13 million less under
the new formula.
But because Ottawa promised transfers would not go down, Newfoundland’s
funding will stay identical for the coming year — $490 million.
Alberta’s health transfer will rise by $1.03 billion to a total of
$3.75 billion.
Health experts have argued Alberta is getting equal per-capita funding,
despite their costs not being equal.
“You’ll have more money flowing to Alberta, and yet it faces the
youngest population of any province in Canada,” said University of
Regina professor Greg Marchildon in an interview last year.
Marchildon and his colleague Haizhen Mou proposed a formula that takes
into account factors of geography and population age. Under this
system, Nova Scotia would receive more for its elderly population.
Provinces with large rural areas like Saskatchewan would also benefit.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty surprised the provinces when he announced
the per-capita formula in December of 2011. Despite protests by every
province except Alberta, Flaherty refused to preserve the old formula
past 2013-2014.
=_=
2014-06-19 00:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
"Starting in 2014-2015, the government will dole out health transfers
purely by population. That means a boon for Alberta at the expense of
all other provinces."
Isn't that the way it's supposed to be in a system where all medical
care is socialized?
Not if most of the 'population boom' is foreign workers.

Ontario's population went up hugely - likely much more than Alberta's
because they're not relying on temporary foreign workers like the greedy
Albertans are.
Why was THEIR tranfer payment cut, instead of increased?

Could the fact that Harper is from Alberta - and maintains a permanent
home there - have anything to do with it?

Save yourself a reply to me - unless you address it to the newsgroup.
You are not worth the time to debate anything with. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Alan Baker
2014-06-19 01:20:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by =_=
Post by Alan Baker
"Starting in 2014-2015, the government will dole out health transfers
purely by population. That means a boon for Alberta at the expense of
all other provinces."
Isn't that the way it's supposed to be in a system where all medical
care is socialized?
Not if most of the 'population boom' is foreign workers.
Where is it stated that there has been a population boom of any kind in
Alberta, let alone of foreign workers?
Post by =_=
Ontario's population went up hugely - likely much more than Alberta's
because they're not relying on temporary foreign workers like the
greedy Albertans are.
Cite?
Post by =_=
Why was THEIR tranfer payment cut, instead of increased?
What's happening is a shift from providing funds based on how rich each
province's populations are to one that is based solely on population.
That can result in changes in transfer payments--up or down--without
any change in the population at all.

Oh, and BTW: Ontario's population is up 4.32% over 4 years (2009 -
2013) and Alberta's is up 9.40% over the same period.

And unlike you, I know what I'm talking about:

<http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo02a-eng.htm>

Oh and for a bit more perspective on your bigoted outlook, the number
of temporary foreign workers in Alberta in 2012 was 68,319. If growth
there was consistent with growth in Canada from 2012 to 2013, then
there were about 71,700 temps in Alberta in 2013. That's less than 2%
of the population. That hardly fits in with your claim that the 38%
increase is due to their presence, does it?

<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/foreign-worker-admissions-spike-in-2013/article15130667/>


<http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2012-preliminary/04.asp>
Post by =_=
Could the fact that Harper is from Alberta - and maintains a permanent
home there - have anything to do with it?
Save yourself a reply to me - unless you address it to the newsgroup.
You are not worth the time to debate anything with. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I've never done anything BUT reply via the newsgroup, Karen.

Oh, and here you are...

...debating...

...and losing...

...as usual.

:-)
M.I.Wakefield
2014-06-19 01:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by =_=
Post by Alan Baker
"Starting in 2014-2015, the government will dole out health transfers
purely by population. That means a boon for Alberta at the expense of
all other provinces."
Isn't that the way it's supposed to be in a system where all medical
care is socialized?
In other words, "We will stop short-changing Alberta"
Post by Alan Baker
Post by =_=
Not if most of the 'population boom' is foreign workers.
Where is it stated that there has been a population boom of any kind in
Alberta, let alone of foreign workers?
Post by =_=
Ontario's population went up hugely - likely much more than Alberta's
because they're not relying on temporary foreign workers like the greedy
Albertans are.
Cite?
Post by =_=
Why was THEIR tranfer payment cut, instead of increased?
There will be no cite, because Ontario's transfer payments increased.

From http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp#Ontario

Canada Health Transfer
2013: $11.925 billion
2014: $12.335 billion

An increase of $410 million.

Canada Social Transfer
2013: $4.704 billion
2014: $4.835 billion

An increase of $131 million.
Post by Alan Baker
Oh, and here you are...
...debating...
...and losing...
...as usual.
She might do better if she relied on actual facts, as opposed to the kind
she keeps pulling out of her ass.
(ಠ_ಠ) РаОса
2014-06-19 21:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I.Wakefield
She might do better if she relied on actual facts, as opposed to the
kind she keeps pulling out of her ass.
I DO rely on facts, Dobranski. But you have to look them up for
yourself because you're such a nasty little misanthrope.
Stats Canada has all sorts of population data. Get YOUR ass in gear and
look the facts up for yourself.
You can help out your little MCP pal 'Baker' if you feel the need.
There certainly is a need . . . . (^_^)
Alan Baker
2014-06-20 02:53:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ) РаОса
Post by M.I.Wakefield
She might do better if she relied on actual facts, as opposed to the
kind she keeps pulling out of her ass.
I DO rely on facts, Dobranski. But you have to look them up for
yourself because you're such a nasty little misanthrope.
Stats Canada has all sorts of population data. Get YOUR ass in gear
and look the facts up for yourself.
You can help out your little MCP pal 'Baker' if you feel the need.
There certainly is a need . . . . (^_^)
Riiight.

Which is why you haven't replied to my post full of facts on this topic!
(ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
2014-06-21 23:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by (ಠ_ಠ) РаОса
Post by M.I.Wakefield
She might do better if she relied on actual facts, as opposed to the
kind she keeps pulling out of her ass.
I DO rely on facts, Dobranski. But you have to look them up for
yourself because you're such a nasty little misanthrope.
Stats Canada has all sorts of population data. Get YOUR ass in gear
and look the facts up for yourself.
You can help out your little MCP pal 'Baker' if you feel the need.
There certainly is a need . . . . (^_^)
Riiight.
Which is why you haven't replied to my post full of facts on this topic!
I’m sorry, I’m a little busy. Can I ignore you later?
Alan Baker
2014-06-22 02:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
Post by Alan Baker
Post by (ಠ_ಠ) РаОса
Post by M.I.Wakefield
She might do better if she relied on actual facts, as opposed to the
kind she keeps pulling out of her ass.
I DO rely on facts, Dobranski. But you have to look them up for
yourself because you're such a nasty little misanthrope.
Stats Canada has all sorts of population data. Get YOUR ass in gear
and look the facts up for yourself.
You can help out your little MCP pal 'Baker' if you feel the need.
There certainly is a need . . . . (^_^)
Riiight.
Which is why you haven't replied to my post full of facts on this topic!
I’m sorry, I’m a little busy. Can I ignore you later?
Apparently not...

(ಠ_ಠ) РаОса
2014-06-19 22:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Unfortunately that doesn't take the average age of the population into account.
Atlantic Canada has a relatively high median age because so many young people
move away.
Alberta has a relatively low median age because so many young people move
there.
BC has a relatively high median age because so many people move there from
places like Alberta to retire.
Older folks require more medical services.
The Harper government doesn't care. He's out to pad his home province
with even more money than ever before.
Because he knows he'll be moving home from Ottawa pretty soon - and he
wants to be welcomed with open arms by the oil industry and the hospital
industry - because he will need on-going care for his asthma.

He is going strictly by population increases, and he's using Alberta's
influx of temporary workers to bolster the healthcare transfer to them.
Like I said, Ontario's population numbers increased to an almost
identical degree, but he REDUCED their transfer payments.
The man is a biased, rightwing ass. He needs to be sent back to his
greedy, rightwing province.
Alan Baker
2014-06-20 02:54:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ) РаОса
Unfortunately that doesn't take the average age of the population into account.
Atlantic Canada has a relatively high median age because so many young people
move away.
Alberta has a relatively low median age because so many young people move
there.
BC has a relatively high median age because so many people move there from
places like Alberta to retire.
Older folks require more medical services.
The Harper government doesn't care. He's out to pad his home province
with even more money than ever before.
Because he knows he'll be moving home from Ottawa pretty soon - and he
wants to be welcomed with open arms by the oil industry and the
hospital industry - because he will need on-going care for his asthma.
He is going strictly by population increases, and he's using Alberta's
influx of temporary workers to bolster the healthcare transfer to them.
Like I said, Ontario's population numbers increased to an almost
identical degree, but he REDUCED their transfer payments.
The man is a biased, rightwing ass. He needs to be sent back to his
greedy, rightwing province.
Where are your FACTS, Karen?

Population statistics are easy to come by
M.I.Wakefield
2014-06-20 03:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by (ಠ_ಠ) РаОса
He is going strictly by population increases, and he's using Alberta's
influx of temporary workers to bolster the healthcare transfer to them.
Like I said, Ontario's population numbers increased to an almost
identical degree, but he REDUCED their transfer payments.
Except that you're completely wrong, and transfer payments went up ...

Canada Health Transfer
2013: $11.925 billion
2014: $12.335 billion

An increase of $410 million.

Canada Social Transfer
2013: $4.704 billion
2014: $4.835 billion

An increase of $131 million.

... just like they have every year since at least 2006/07.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp#Ontario
(ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
2014-06-21 23:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Except that you're completely wrong, and transfer payments went up ...
Canada Health Transfer
2013: $11.925 billion
2014: $12.335 billion
An increase of $410 million.
Canada Social Transfer
2013: $4.704 billion
2014: $4.835 billion
No one asked you for national numbers.
Try comparing Health transfers between Alberta and Ontario. For
2013-2014 years.
Then note what the criteria was: population

Harper purposely screwed over Ontario because it's been Liberal governed
for years.
And he purposely gave health transfers to Alberta when Alberta is
rolling in money - or so they tell us.

Try again, Dobranski. But stay on topic this time.
(ಠ_ಠ)РаОса
2014-06-21 23:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Where are your FACTS, Karen?
Population statistics are easy to come by
I’m sorry, I’m a little busy. Can i ignore you later?
Loading...