Welcome

We like to discuss everything. Everything includes current events, law, politics, economics, sports, religion and philosophy. There are plenty of websites and blogs all over the internet where these issues are discussed; however, we are attempting to create one where opposing arguments are displayed together and the point of view is not already predetermined. On this blog we will make an attempt to allow the reader to form his/her own opinion. Comments and discussion are encouraged as we believe that friendly debate is the best way to learn. The goal of such conversations, therefore, should be to educate oneself rather than to prove others wrong. So enjoy the posts and let's discuss, not argue.
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Australian vs. American Healthcare Systems

This is a great article from John Hempton's blog Bronte Capital called, Health Care Reform and Single Payer- an Australian Perspective. There is some great insight as the author offers his perspective as an Australian who has experienced both systems. He covers an overview of how the Australian system works, the pros (savings and results), the cons (wait times, doctor salaries), and also how these observations apply to the United States.

One point that I found interesting was in the section on why Australia's system would not necessarily work in the States, at the end of the article.

The outcomes in Australia are surprisingly good – but they depend at least
in part on the fact that Australia is small. Australia can shave margins for
research driven medical products to very low levels because the research is not
funded from Australia. If the US were to push margins too low they would crimp
medical research.

This makes me wonder how much the healthcare systems of places like Canada, the U.K., and Australia are in a way subsidized by the U.S. system. If these countries are able to have the results that they enjoy in part due to research done in the U.S. where there are better profit incentives, what would happen if the U.S. no longer provided those incentives? Hempton does point out that, from an investing perspective (Bronte Capital is primarily an investment blog) the medical industry would be hurt from such reform. He says of the Australian system, "suppliers in general get squeezed." Canada would be even more interesting to look at from this angle as they are so close to the United States. So there may be drugs and treatments not as easily available in Canada as in the States. Thus, a Canadian could go south of the border and the Canadian system sees the savings of not having to spend on the treatment (while the drug company will still see the profits). As a specific example, I know of a Breast Cancer treatment drug called Herceptin which has not been approved by Health Canada. So Canadians for whom this treatment is necessary must seek treatment in the U.S.

Some other points of interest from the article and the Australian system are the inability to discriminate against pre-existing conditions or age. Also the private insurance in Australia,

was originally and remains almost entirely community rated. That means that
a private health insurance company charges the same amount to a 31 year old as a
75 year old... and it is still not age rated provided you took out private
health insurance before you were 30 and you maintain it continuously. If you
took it out for the first time at 35 you will pay a “five year surcharge” for
the rest of your life.

Also, somebody pointed out in the comments, reiterated in the post, the problem with the U.S. tort system and the costs that those impose. Hempton says, "Insurance premiums are MUCH cheaper for Australian doctors and that benefit is passed on to patients."

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Do your part for the economy: stay home, do not spend

Families in debt must face up to financial reality: they are in a debt danger zone and should ignore politicians and businesses urging them to go and spend in order to boost the faltering economy. They should spend a bit less, save a bit more, and pay down some old debt.

This message comes from a Canadian economist, Roger Sauvé. He recently released a report entitled "The Current State of Canadian Family Finances," an annual review he has written for the Ottawa-based Vanier Institute of the Family for the past 10 years.

Among its key findings:

Average Canadian household debt rose to $90,700 in 2008. Total household debt now amounts to 140 per cent of disposable income. That ratio is at a record high. In 1990, before the last recession, the figure was 91 per cent.

Consumer and mortgage debt last year equalled 127 per cent of disposable income in the average family. This is about the same as the U.S. rate in 2006 "just before the bubble burst," the report notes. "The recession will likely push many more Canadians over the edge."

Spending and debt have risen much faster than incomes. Between 1990 and 2008, average household income rose 11.6 per cent, while spending increased 24 per cent and debt grew sixfold. At the same time, annual savings shrank to 3 per cent of disposable income, down sharply from 13 per cent in 1990.

Average net worth (wealth), which had been on the rise, fell in 2008 as a result of plunging stock markets and housing prices and the accompanying rise in debt.

Year-over-year consumer insolvencies (including bankruptcies and proposals) jumped almost 25 percent in October. Of particular concern, he adds, is the gradual climb for those age 55 and older, who are traditionally among the least debt-laden.

Laurie Campbell, executive director of Toronto credit counselling agency Credit Canada, said families should heed Sauvé's warnings and ignore pleas to help the economy by buying.
In theory, encouraging people to spend during a recession makes sense if they have the means to do it, she said. But not this time. "When we have savings at all-time lows and debt levels at record highs, there is absolutely no wiggle room."

Monday, January 26, 2009

How a US Housing Slump spreads the pain to Canada

Today Canadian Transport Minister John Baird, whose responsibilities include federal infrastructure, announced a planned $7 billion in infrastructure spending over the next two years, with emphasis on job-rich public works projects that can be started this year.

The $7-billion in new infrastructure funding also includes a $2-billion fund to support repairs and maintenance and accelerated construction at colleges and universities across Canada, and a $1-billion Green Infrastructure Fund.

The past week has seen an unprecedented series of budget previews, beginning last week when Harper's office indicated the country will run deficits totalling $64-billion over two years. And yesterday the Human Resources Minister Diane Finley announced that the budget will include $1.5-billion in training funds for laid-off workers.

In the wake of a coalition threat to topple the minority Conservative party last November, efforts at openness have taken place within the federal government. Individual provinces have put forward hundreds of ideas over the past few months for how to spend the multibillions the government plans to make available for roads, bridges, water-treatment plants, broadband initiatives and the like. The premiers also met with the Prime Minister and made suggestions on how to reform Employment Insurance and spend money on retraining.

It was a far cry from last year when Mr. Flaherty advised international investors that Ontario was one of the worst places in the world to invest.

But whether the Prime Minister can rebuild trust quickly is still a question. The government reconvenes today and the budget is presented tomorrow. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has said he will meet with his advisors after learning the contents of the budget and make a decision whether to support it or not within 24 hours.

Excerpts from an article in the Globe and Mail:

Looking through the blizzard of economic statistics, one stands above all else as a reliable barometer of where the Canadian economy is headed.

And it isn't even Canadian - it's U.S. housing starts.

When a backhoe digs into the ground in Phoenix or Peoria, starting work on a new home, it sets off a chain reaction of purchases that ripples through the North American economy.
Each new home generates hundreds of thousands of dollars in purchases ranging from labour, cement and lumber all the way to chandeliers and big-screen TVs.

Unfortunately for Canada, this great economic engine is still gearing down. At the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Americans were breaking ground on new homes at a rate of more than two million a year. In December, housing starts fell to a new postwar annual low of 550,000, according to figures released yesterday.

Recessions have little regard for national boundaries - least of all the 49th parallel.
"Canada can't insulate itself," said Craig Alexander, deputy chief economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank. "It's going to go along for the ride."

It all starts with Canada's heavy reliance on exports to its southern neighbour. The percentage has slipped over the past decade, but nearly 80 per cent of Canadian goods exported still go to a single foreign customer: the United States. And those exports contributed roughly 22 per cent of economic activity. Add in services, and the U.S.-centric orbit of the Canadian economy is even more pronounced.

Americans aren't just buying fewer homes: it's cars, computer software, potash and a whole lot else.

U.S. businesses are retrenching at an alarming rate, buying less and demanding lower prices.

Exports aren't the only conduit for the radiating U.S. economic pain. As the world's largest consumer, the United States helps set the price of the major commodities that Canada depends on for much of its wealth: oil, forest products, minerals and agricultural products.

The price of oil has plummeted to roughly $40 (U.S.) a barrel from more than $147 as recently as six months ago. Other commodity prices have also fallen, though not as sharply.

With the eastern part of the country already in recession, the commodity price collapse brought down the West, according to TD's Mr. Alexander. This year, the economy is expected to shrink in every province, except Saskatchewan.

"We didn't feel the effect of what was going on in the U.S.," said Stéfane Marion, chief economist at National Bank Financial Inc. in Montreal.

The root problem is that U.S. banks and their consumer customers took on too much debt, Mr. Marion explained. That isn't the case in Canada, but it's still our problem.

"We are in the second phase of the recession," Mr. Marion said. "The second wave is coming from the auto industry and the drop in commodity prices."

The U.S. problems have also migrated northward through the credit markets, upon which companies on both sides of the border rely to finance their operations. Tighter credit in the U.S. quickly led to the same in Canada.

"To a large extent, the Canadian economy is integrated north-south, not east-west," Mr. Alexander said. "The Canadian economy gets hit from all of these channels."

If you look back over recent decades, the correlation between U.S. and Canadian economic cycles, it's a virtual perfect match, said BMO Nesbitt Burns economist Sal Guatieri.
"It's almost impossible to avoid the U.S. fate," he said.

Canada suffered more than the United States during the recessions of the early 1980s and 1990s, weighed down by higher interest rates and government deficits.

The good news now is that economists don't expect Canada's slump to be as bad.

"The Canadian recession will be half as bad and half as long as the U.S. recession," Mr. Guatieri predicted.

Another bonus for Canada is that it's about to get what amounts to a double dose of economic stimulus.

There's Mr. Harper's plan, and then there's Mr. Obama's $800-billion-plus (U.S.) package.
It hardly matters how all the money is spent because the same channels that spread this made-in-USA recession to Canada will eventually carry the next economic expansion northward.