Baby Boomers destroy the Health Care System

[marsvolta]

Oh God! Where to begin with this drivel! Paul Kershaw, Ph.D, is the sole author and the sole proponent for “Generation Squeeze”. The document is not peer reviewed and I see holes right from the start, beginning with Table two, where the analysis is “normalized” somewhat arbitrarily using the age group 25-29. But most glaringly obvious is the fact that “Boomers” must draw down their registered savings accounts (RRIFs) beginning age 71. The nominal rates of taxes on this forced drawdown are massive and unavoidable. I’ve done the actuarial tax modelling.

Since some here are wailing the shit out of us boomers, just an observation: while still working I couldn’t help but notice many of the younger employees abusing the system, taking full advantage of sick days, and when that was spent going on disability for some claimed mental health crisis. But heaven forbid I say anything lest it damage their fragile self esteem! I retired with two years—yes more than two years of unused sick time that I lost on retirement. And quite rightly so. It’s there for those who need it. And I never used EI. And when I turn 71, I will see my OAS payments entirely clawed back because of the forced drawdown on my RRIF. Meanwhile, I continue to support adult children financially because of their poor life choices and failing to follow my carefully offered advice on life. My first mortgage was 12.25% and I struggled just as hard as any of you dealing with making payments.

Sorry if this comes across as harsh, but I didn’t start this thread!

…formerly employed in quantitative sciences…

B

The E<50 framework is a demand-weighting tool, not a forecast or a tax model. The normalization to ages 25–29 is pretty conventional... you can pick something else similar, it might affect the scale but not the results.

The analysis is based on realized demographic and expenditure data. Uncertainty is not going to budge this stuff. but i think you know that already. if you are in possession of some uncertain parameter that is going to materially change the results then please state it.

meanwhile, your post seems biased toward anecdotal evidencece for the solution.

lets not have RRIF taxation conflate spending drivers with revenue instruments. of course it deserves some sympathy. while strong profit centres (ie the rich) shoulder the majority of the tax burden they do not shoulder the majority of the tax pain. the middle class does that. so yeah, i feel for you on that front.

the boomers are still politically powerful and could wake up and vote to fix this system structurally and financially at any time. and it doesn't involve people who did what they were told they were supposed to do their whole lives being taxed more. it involves going after the big money that doesn't pay any taxes at all.

 

[bothro]

The E<50 framework is a demand-weighting tool, not a forecast or a tax model. The normalization to ages 25–29 is pretty conventional... you can pick something else similar, it might affect the scale but not the results.

The analysis is based on realized demographic and expenditure data. Uncertainty is not going to budge this stuff. but i think you know that already. if you are in possession of some uncertain parameter that is going to materially change the results then please state it.

meanwhile, your post seems biased toward anecdotal evidencece for the solution.

lets not have RRIF taxation conflate spending drivers with revenue instruments. of course it deserves some sympathy. while strong profit centres (ie the rich) shoulder the majority of the tax burden they do not shoulder the majority of the tax pain. the middle class does that. so yeah, i feel for you on that front.

the boomers are still politically powerful and could wake up and vote to fix this system structurally and financially at any time. and it doesn't involve people who did what they were told they were supposed to do their whole lives being taxed more. it involves going after the big money that doesn't pay any taxes at all.

Uncertainty absolutely has EVERTHING to do with the issue! He hasn’t incorporated it. It does mean it would “budge this stuff”. It just demonstrates the naivety of his analysis. And your lack of understanding.

WRT the RRIF: it has nothing to do with sympathy or the political power of boomers. It has everything to do with funding his stated healthcare deficits. The unwinding of registered accounts will result in a windfall of 100’s of billions of dollars in tax revenue for the government, and the author doesn’t mention this In his treatise. In my case alone, I estimate unwinding my RRIF in my lifetime will contribute a minimum of $450,000 in taxes. I’m ok with that but, it’s not insignificant and can easily cover off mine and others healthcare costs. Kershaw never mentions the subject of RRIFs in his treatise.

Kershaw’s treatise smacks of blatant ageism.

B

 

[Larry's Torch]

 

[marsvolta]

Uncertainty absolutely has EVERTHING to do with the issue! He hasn’t incorporated it. It does mean it would “budge this stuff”. It just demonstrates the naivety of his analysis. And your lack of understanding.

WRT the RRIF: it has nothing to do with sympathy or the political power of boomers. It has everything to do with funding his stated healthcare deficits. The unwinding of registered accounts will result in a windfall of 100’s of billions of dollars in tax revenue for the government, and the author doesn’t mention this In his treatise. In my case alone, I estimate unwinding my RRIF in my lifetime will contribute a minimum of $450,000 in taxes. I’m ok with that but, it’s not insignificant and can easily cover off mine and others healthcare costs. Kershaw never mentions the subject of RRIFs in his treatise.

Kershaw’s treatise smacks of blatant ageism.

B

again, feel free to identify that independent variable which when modelled will materially change the outcomes.

is it ageism when one identifies that the elderly cost the health care system more money? i think you're just not liking the finger pointing and i appreciate that.

given the $450k that your RRIF is providing to tax revenues... then you'll only be shorting the health system $74k + all the other societal costs you incur!

 

[bothro]

…If ignorance is bliss, it’s folly to be wise!

Marsvolta: I have mentioned that I was employed in quantitative science and that I developed models designed to explore uncertainty in biological systems. These models explored the probability of a particular outcome given the data. If a variable is improperly estimated, what the consequence of that error might be. Can I ask your background? Perhaps your background exceeds my own and if so, I bow to you sir.

B

 

[Pumped]

Another reason we're losing doctors: bureaucracy.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/artic...sunami-is-driving-family-doctors-to-burn-out/

 

[Larry's Torch]

(snip)
If a variable is improperly estimated, what the consequence of that error might be.
(snip)

In blue collar parlance:

Angular Deviation of 1/8 Inch Over 500 Feet
If a wall or structure is laid out with an angular error equivalent to 1/8 inch over 1 foot, the cumulative deviation grows linearly with distance.

• Error rate: 1/8 inch per foot = 0.125 inches/foot
• Over 500 feet:
  Total Error=0.125in/ft×500ft=62.5inches

Result:
A small angular misalignment of 1/8 inch over 1 foot results in a 62.5-inch (over 5 feet) deviation at the end of 500 feet.

Data is data.
Starting points are important.

 

[Larry's Torch]

There were some references to CPP in this thread.
A little additional info:

Enhanced CPP
The enhanced Canada Pension Plan (CPP), introduced in 2019, increases retirement, disability, and survivor benefits by raising contribution rates and expanding the portion of earnings covered.

• Goal: Replace one-third (33.3%) of average work earnings (up from 25%) for those who contribute after 2019.
• Maximum benefit increase: Up to 50% higher for workers who contribute at enhanced rates for 40 years.
• Phased implementation:
  • 2019–2023: Contribution rates rose from 4.95% to 5.95% (split equally between employees and employers).
  • 2024–2025: Introduction of a second earnings ceiling (YAMPE), allowing additional contributions on income above the base limit (YMPE).

Enhanced benefits apply only to contributions made in 2019 or later. Workers nearing retirement will see smaller increases, while younger workers benefit most.

OMG! The younger generation will take an even larger toll on the system than the boomers! ! !













Canada Pension Plan enhancement

 

[marsvolta]

There were some references to CPP in this thread.
A little additional info:

Enhanced CPP
The enhanced Canada Pension Plan (CPP), introduced in 2019, increases retirement, disability, and survivor benefits by raising contribution rates and expanding the portion of earnings covered.

• Goal: Replace one-third (33.3%) of average work earnings (up from 25%) for those who contribute after 2019.
• Maximum benefit increase: Up to 50% higher for workers who contribute at enhanced rates for 40 years.
• Phased implementation:
  • 2019–2023: Contribution rates rose from 4.95% to 5.95% (split equally between employees and employers).
  • 2024–2025: Introduction of a second earnings ceiling (YAMPE), allowing additional contributions on income above the base limit (YMPE).

Enhanced benefits apply only to contributions made in 2019 or later. Workers nearing retirement will see smaller increases, while younger workers benefit most.

OMG! The younger generation will take an even larger toll on the system than the boomers! ! !



Canada Pension Plan enhancement

maybe another thread for this? but, i don't really get what your point is... not sure what "toll" on the system you are talking about. its a fund that gets paid into and invested. its a completely different funding model than what happens for health care.

but yeah, lots of boomers on here who don't like the idea of paying for their health care.

 

[Pumped]

but yeah, lots of boomers on here who don't like the idea of paying for their health care.

and many of them can't afford to pay for their health care: https://www.biv.com/news/real-estat...ruggle-with-poverty-and-homelessness-11855176

 

[Larry's Torch]

maybe another thread for this? but, i don't really get what your point is... not sure what "toll" on the system you are talking about. its a fund that gets paid into and invested. its a completely different funding model than what happens for health care.
(snip)

I was replying to this:

(snip)
They also did not contribute enough to CPP as a generation and are getting a high return on their contributions vs the benefit received compared to what younger generations will receive. We are indeed footing the bill for boomers in terms of medical care and CPP income.
(snip)

My bad for not quoting it, sorry.

I was being facetious about "taking a toll" as some of the posts in this thread are suggesting that boomers are somehow cashing in at the expense of everyone else. Not everyone born in that time frame bought a house in Vancouver for $150,000 and then sold it decades later for 6 mil. Ever notice how many boomers are living on the street? The lucky ones are living in a car. Too many generalizations of an entire generation. If I were doing the same thing about all the younger 'Gens' I'd get "OK Boomer."
Hypocritical double standards.

In reply to this:

but yeah, lots of boomers on here who don't like the idea of paying for their health care.

Not sure why you'd post that. Health care comes out of our taxes. CPP and OAS payments are considered income. Sometimes it can be difficult paying for meds etc. if you don't have additional coverage. Even with Fair Pharmacare you're still responsible for the first $800 to start. Difficult for many.

 

[marsvolta]

and many of them can't afford to pay for their health care: https://www.biv.com/news/real-estat...ruggle-with-poverty-and-homelessness-11855176

really scary. we are a society that can't seem to get our shit together to house seniors who are homeless.

people don't like to believe it but life is mostly luck. there will always be people who didn't get any luck and thus are still renting when they are old... and subsequently get squeezed out of the rental market after that.

 

[Pumped]

Another problem with the health care system: https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/false-asylum-claims-refugee-health-care-program-price-tag

 

[ButtsRBest77]

Another problem with the health care system: https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/false-asylum-claims-refugee-health-care-program-price-tag

Hopefully the fraud will be exposed one day. It will be staggering and it's by design.

 

[bothro]

and many of them can't afford to pay for their health care: https://www.biv.com/news/real-estat...ruggle-with-poverty-and-homelessness-11855176

Another problem with the health care system: https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/false-asylum-claims-refugee-health-care-program-price-tag

Ahhh! Yes! Both published by two fine bastions of unbiased journalism!

B

 

[Noob888]

Even with the current model, I dont know why doctors even bother working in Canada. I did not go to medical school, but some of my friends did. They now earn high 6, low 7 figures, in the US, but didnt earn anything until their mid to late 30s.

We absolutely need to incentivize foreign doctors to come here and make the process easy for them. We also need to step it up with medical schools and residency placements. We need to empower nurses, pharmacists, and paraprofessionals. So many of these folks are just doing medical esthetics because its so much more profitable and less stressful than emergency or primary care.

Get a grip.

Many patients report that newly accredited in BC foreign-trained doctors from India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Uganda, or Ethiopia are transitional, using BC as a stepping stone.

Appointments run two minutes or less. There is no compassion, no genuine listening, gaslighting is the status quo and complex cases are often denied. Critical thinking is absent, and population-based guidelines are treated as strict rules, ignoring individual care. Good luck in having them email you the Lifelabs requisition. They'll send it directly to them. When you arrive after waiting weeks for a scheduled appointment, there's no record of it.

And another example, a diabetic patient developing peripheral diabetic neuropathy with an A1c of 6.9 is considered “fine” because the guideline target is 7; modifying treatment aren’t implemented until it crosses 7, by which point damage is done, typically irreversible. Care is rigidly binary, prioritizing legal protection over patient-specific judgment. Long-term patient-doctor relationships and actually not desired and are largely ignored; visits are treated as tasks by the doctor to complete before moving on to meet their patient quota as quickly as possible.

If you want to pay for an MD privately, no can do. They're limited to what they can do and treat. What's needed is user fees and private medical clinics that'll spend more than 60 seconds with you.

 

[Larry's Torch]

(snip)
I read a stat that us boomers will use health care resources more in the last 5 years of life than our entire life.
(snip)

Actually I'd say that everyone will use health care resources more in the last hours, days, weeks, years of our lives. It's the LAST of our lives. Age is a factor but not the only one. An 18 year old in a bad car accident can be in ICU for weeks before passing. Yeah, kind of a morbid thought; but I'd say accurate