Its due to the governments defunding public healthcare in order to 'strangle it then save it'. You defund it, make people say 'it doesnt work', then say that "We need to privatize it."
Its de facto privatization method used since Reagan/Thatcher. Same method is being used in any country that ends up with a 'privatizing' government.
This is the same conclusion I came to. Many Canadians are now against immigration due to their housing crisis. What they don’t realize is that Canada has been hit with a demographic bomb in the 1970s that other countries are now only starting to experience. Ie without immigration, the retired elderly will soon outnumber working age adults who contribute to the economy and tax revenue
They only have two choices now:
* increase or keep immigration at the same rate
* decrease or eliminate benefits like socialized healthcare and social security
Increase productivity (per capita output), increase taxes, specifically pursue high income society development paths (including on who you allow to immigrate, such that high income immigrants promptly become high tax contributors).
Canada is more or less already doing this. They'll likely just have to boost taxation further.
You’re not wrong, but increasing productivity is not easy especially in a place that is both highly regulated and highly taxed. Your most productive and talented workers tend to move south due to both the higher pay and lower cost of living.
You’re right about the other two either already happening or inevitable.
More and more, I continue to be shocked that countries in this position didn't end up letting covid run its course. Seems like after some initial difficulties, it could have helped balance their demographics a lot.
No? Sweden had quite a strong COVID response including an entry ban for a while. The government got quiet draconian when cases spiked, but where more targeted than many countries.
They did. With not locking down early, claiming that it was 'nothing', not providing them support during the lockdown, then reopening early. All for the sake of the stockmarket and 'the economy'.
Yes it is. I live in Ontario. The provincial (conservative) government literally froze the wages of nurses and other public sector workers in 2019 (see Bill 124), creating a massive exodus of nurses and a severe staff shortage. The provincial government doesn't have money to pay nurses, but it has enough money to build a useless highway (see Highway 413) that just so happens to go through land owned by the Premier's friends and business associates; or to give out millions in license plate rebates just before an election. That's also the same provincial government that intentionally didn't spend about $2.7 billion of federal COVID-19 relief funds (which could have, you know, funded healthcare).
Lastly, Canada's population isn't shrinking. It's growing, thanks to a sensible immigration policy (well, mostly sensible; not recognizing the credentials of healthcare professionals is pretty dumb).
Public healthcare is only difficult to find when your government's priority is to personally engorge on a gravy train powered by corruption. All of the issues facing the Ontario healthcare system are intentionally self-inflicted.
> Yes it is. I live in Ontario. The provincial (conservative) government
Sure, just be a socialistic/communist government and be able to finance the pension system while depending on US money (because there isn't any good alternative), once you go too much into debt and deal with IMF, and be sure not to defund important services (like medicine) when they ask you causing bank runs and bankrupcy. Easy, no?
Oh, and make sure there is no corruption that would cause funds to be mismanaged.
> Sure, just be a socialistic/communist government and be able to finance the pension system while depending on US money (because there isn't any good alternative)
Why the hell would they depend on US money if they become a socialistic/communist government that channels its GDP to its people instead of channeling it to tax breaks for the rich.
> corruption
No problem - they can just legalize it under the name 'lobbying' like how US did it.
Indirectly, because they depend on petroleum/oil/gas. Sure your glorious government has to import energy or other fuel derived products. Not to mention imports don't magically teleport to your location, they also depend on oil to get shipped.
> No problem - they can just legalize it
That's just papering over the issue. Akin to saying we solved drunk driving by setting alcohol in blood to 50%.
It is hard if the population is shrinking because the two shrinking parts of the population, children & working adults, are essential for GDP and tax revenue; while the growing numbers of retired seniors just put even more strain on the system. There’s a threshold when taxes get too overwhelming.
You’re still down to some major choices:
* End immigration and end public benefits like healthcare
* Keep immigration and keep healthcare for now. Then pray that someone finds a solution someday to a shrinking population because immigration will only slow it down.
* Drastically increase taxes. This isn’t really a viable long term solution because in most places that have a lot of socialized benefits the taxes are already very high.
I’m having trouble finding the original statscan article, but according to their projections even if you drastically increase immigration even higher than it is today Canada will still eventually face a population decline. Immigration only slows down the decline. I can’t help but think that the world is experiencing a more subtle and slow version of Children of Men
Its due to the governments defunding public healthcare in order to 'strangle it then save it'. You defund it, make people say 'it doesnt work', then say that "We need to privatize it."
Its de facto privatization method used since Reagan/Thatcher. Same method is being used in any country that ends up with a 'privatizing' government.