From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Joseph Quesnel

“Our healthcare system is a monopoly installed at every level with the culture inherent to monopolies, whether public or private. The culture is based on regulation and budgetary controls, closed to the outside world, impermeable to real change, adaptation and innovation. It is a culture that favours inefficiency.”

Why is the Globe and Mail afraid of healthcare reform that works?

The Globe and Mail editorial board seems to find healthcare innovation “scary.”

On Sept. 3, it published an editorial called “Danielle Smith has a scary fix for healthcare,” criticizing the Alberta Premier’s idea to introduce competition in the province’s health system. Premier Smith’s plan involves third-party leasing of underperforming hospitals while the government retains ownership and continues funding.

Let’s be clear: the real problem isn’t Smith’s proposal – it’s the current state of healthcare across Alberta and Canada. Sticking with the status quo of underperformance is what should truly alarm us. Rather than attacking those trying to fix a broken system, we should focus on much-needed reforms.

So, what exactly is Smith proposing? Contrary to what you may have heard, she isn’t dismantling Alberta’s universal healthcare or introducing an American style system. Yet the public sector unions – and certain media outlets – seem to jump into hysterics any time innovation is proposed, particularly when it involves private-sector competition.

Predictably, groups like Friends of Medicare, with their union ties, are quick to raise the alarm. Yet media coverage often fails to disclose this affiliation, leaving readers with the impression that their views are impartial. Take Global News’ recent coverage, for example:

In late August, Global News reporter Jasmine King presented a story on potential changes to Alberta’s healthcare system. She featured a spokesperson from Friends of Medicare, who predicted that the changes would be detrimental to the province. However, the report failed to mention that Friends of Medicare is affiliated with public sector unions and has a history of opposing any private sector involvement in healthcare. The news segment also included a statement from the dean of a medical faculty, who was critical of the proposed changes. Missing from the report were any voices in favour of healthcare innovation.

Here’s the real issue: Canada is an outlier in its resistance to competition in healthcare. Many European countries, which also have universal healthcare systems, allow private and non-profit organizations to operate hospitals. These systems function effectively without the kind of fear-mongering that dominates the Canadian debate.

Instead of fear-based comparisons to the U.S., let’s acknowledge the success stories of countries that have embraced a mixed system of healthcare delivery. But lazy, fear-driven reporting means we keep hearing the same tired arguments against change, with little context or consideration of alternatives that are working elsewhere.

It’s ironic that The Globe and Mail editorial aims to generate fear about a health care policy proposal that could, contrary to the alarmist reaction, potentially improve efficiency and care in Alberta. The only thing we truly have to fear in healthcare is the stagnation and inefficiency of the current system.

Claude Castonguay, the architect of Quebec’s Medicare system, released a report in 2008 on that province’s health system, calling for increased competition and choice in healthcare.

“In almost every other public and private areas, monopolies are simply not accepted,” he wrote. “Our healthcare system is a monopoly installed at every level with the culture inherent to monopolies, whether public or private. The culture is based on regulation and budgetary controls, closed to the outside world, impermeable to real change, adaptation and innovation. It is a culture that favours inefficiency.”

The fear of competition is misguided, and Canadians are increasingly open to the idea of paying for private treatment when the public system falls short.

Let’s stop demonizing those who propose solutions and start addressing the real issue: a system that is no longer delivering the care Canadians need. The future of healthcare depends on embracing innovation, not clinging to outdated models and misplaced fears.

Joseph Quesnel is a Senior Research Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

Several wealthy and successful industrialized countries (Switzerland, New Zealand, Singapore) and several U.S. states (including Texas, Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming) impose no capital gains taxes. Of course, Alberta competes with these U.S. states for investment.

Earlier this year, the Trudeau government increased the inclusion rate on capital gains over $250,000 for individuals and on all capital gains realized by corporations and trusts. This tax hike will almost surely have a negative impact on investment and entrepreneurship, but the Smith government can lessen the blow in Alberta.

In simple terms, capital is money invested in an asset—e.g. a business, factory, intellectual property, stock or bond—to create economic benefit. A capital gain occurs when that investment is sold for more than its original purchase price.

Prior to the tax hike, half the value of a capital gain (50 per cent) was taxed by the government. Trudeau increased this “inclusion rate” to 66 per cent—and that has real economic consequences.

Why? Because capital gains taxes impose comparatively large costs on the economy by reducing the reward from productive activities such as savings, investment, risk-taking and entrepreneurship, which are essential for strong economic growth. Capital taxes are among the most economically damaging forms of taxation for this very reason—they reduce the incentive to innovate and invest.

Take an entrepreneur, for example, who’s deciding whether or not to risk their own capital to provide (and profit from) a new technology, product or service. The higher the capital gains tax, the lower the potential reward from this investment, which means they will be less inclined to make the investment or perhaps undertake the investment elsewhere (another country, for example) in a more tax-friendly environment. Less investment means less innovation, job creation, wage growth and ultimately lower living standards. In other words, Trudeau’s capital gains tax hike will not only hurt Canadians with capital gains but other Canadians who benefit from the knockoff effects of investment.

Largely due to this problem, several wealthy and successful industrialized countries (Switzerland, New Zealand, Singapore) and several U.S. states (including Texas, Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming) impose no capital gains taxes. Of course, Alberta competes with these U.S. states for investment.

Previous federal governments also understood the disincentive that comes with capital gains taxes. In 2000, the Liberal government of Jean Chretien meaningfully reduced the tax rate applied to capital gains stating that we must “introduce tax measures that encourage entrepreneurship and risk taking.”

Today, fortunately, the Smith government can take action.

When governments tax your capital gain, they include a share of the gain in your personal income and it is taxed at your personal income tax rate. The Alberta government could simply add a step in the tax return process for Albertans to remove capital gains from the provincial income tax calculation. As a result, the capital gains tax would only apply to the federal portion of your income taxes.

The Alberta government doesn’t have to sit back and accept Trudeau’s capital gains tax hike. Eliminating capital gains taxes from the provincial income tax in Alberta would send a powerful message to potential entrepreneurs, investors and businessowners that the province is open for business—and that benefits all Albertans.

Author:

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute