« Old Keynesian vs New Keynesian fiscal policy | Main | Toasted Pumpkin Seeds or, Waste is a Value Judgement »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I know this might be a stupid question but are you comparing like with like when you look at total expenditure on health care as a % of GDP? There is no "total expenditure" method of calculating GDP. There is a "final expenditure" method but that is a different concept. It looks like healthcare and social care together are less than 7% of GDP measured by the output measure of GDP.

The trends over the long term may be the same, but there also a lot of trends within GDP measurements too.

I don't suppose there's any way to attribute health dollars to specific age groups, is there? Given that older Canadians are known to be the target of the vast majority of health care spending, it would be interesting to adjust for the changing demographics in order to identify how the spending on comparable individuals is changing over time.

CCPA did a BC centric review of the same data pool.

Austerity comes to BC’s health care system
by - Marc Lee

I agree that there are a lot more measurement issues when it comes to GDP and health spending especially prior to 1960. However, a health spending to GDP ratio is a pretty standard way of looking at the "size" of health spending.
Health spending is broken up by age group by the CIHI. You can go to their site and get the report and see the current breakdown. Per capita spending is essenti ally u-shaped with respect to age. Very high under age 5, then comes down, is flatfor a while and starts to rise with age with larger increases after age 65.
Internet Stranger:
Thank you for the reference.

Thx. I still worry that if you added up all types of spending as a % of GDP you'd get to 200%. Just because something is "a standard way" doesn't mean it's right. Ask Nick Rowe about monetary policy for a start! I thought you might at least have a look. No matter.
Just in case, here's the link: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/gdps04a-eng.htm

That gives an interesting perspective on the provincial kvetching about the Harper government's proposal to cap health care transfers at the rate of growth of nominal GDP (which, presumably will be reversed by the Justin Bieber government so that federal transfers continue to grow at 6% a year).

I would venture that at some point in the next couple of years, the era of recent declines in real per capita spending will eventually come to an end and spending growth will resume.

I'm a lot more pessimistic on that, I expect the USA is going to head into recession within 12 months. I know a lot of people will bag me out on that, but the "recovery" has been weak and seems like there's a fair bit of mal-investment out there. China has a chunk of bad debt to clear out of the system and they are stubbornly resisting it, Europe are still in the grip of ridiculous Keynesian tomfoolery. Put this together and the resource supply countries aren't going to have a whole lot of customers in the near future.

Yes, I do understand that Canada is more than just resources, I'm told you guys have a software industry... diversity is great, you will be needing that.

Tel: I was just curious.

Tel and Bob: you two are wandering waaaay off-topic. Job Guarantee is just on-topic, since it's (a hybrid of) fiscal (and monetary) policy. And it's sorta Keynesian, if we stretch "keynesian" a bit.

Oooops! Ignore my above comment, it's TOTALLY off-topic. Posted it on the wrong thread.

I forgive you Nick... and it's likely I've gone about as far communicating with Bob as anyone is ever likely to.

Hey, speaking of health spending, don't forget to give a review of Bob Murphy's new book. He really values your opinion, you might even shake a free copy out of him.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

Blog powered by Typepad