Turning point Canada

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Provincial boundaries are arbitrary and meaningless.
Most of rural British Columbia is more conservative than Alberta. It will be the wealth producing regions declaring their sovereignty from the populous wealth consuming regions all across the country.

[Landdownunder]

You ain’t going to love the barrage of posts coming

you want me to unignore not a chance

[sumdumguy]

The time of reckoning is on the horizon.

[TSIPP]

you want me to unignore not a chance

I don’t need an ignore button I just ignore 90 % of chuck by free choice.

[chuckChuck]

You all seem to have forgotten that the NDP got 44% of the vote and won all the cities in Alberta.

And Danny is screwing healthcare and education up big time.

[furrowtickler]

Healthcare and education has been screwed up tremendously be mass immigration the past decade

[chuckChuck]

Blame the immigrants? LOL

You mean all the nurses and doctors who immigrated to work in healthcare?

But you don't seem know anything about the impact of the baby boomers on healthcare and an ageing population?

[chuckChuck]

Here Furrow educate yourself a little!

Here is the most important part to understand:
"In 1976, Canada’s 23.5 million people, with only 9 per cent over 64, generated the demand of 32.2 million under-50 patients. By 2024, the country’s headcount increased to 41.3 million. If the senior share had stayed at 9 per cent, demand would equal 56.7 million under-50 equivalents.

But with nearly one in five Canadians now over 64, demand has climbed to 75.6 million. Aging added the equivalent of 18.9 million more younger patients, over and above population growth.

Run these age-adjusted pressures through provincial budgets, and the result is stark. Holding today’s spending patterns constant but swapping in the 1976 age distribution, most provinces would move from deficit to surplus. With Ontario’s aging-related medical costs now exceeding $22 billion annually, that would be enough to flip $15-billion in red ink into $8-billion in the black.?"


Politicians ignore the fiscal firestorm an aging population threatens

Paul Kershaw ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/authors/paul-kershaw/[/url])
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published September 19, 2025

Federal Conservative LeaderPierre Poilievre calls younger Canadians “generation screwed” ([url]https://x.com/KirkLubimov/status/1963250408593494401[/url]) because they can’t afford homes and face high unemployment. He’s not wrong, but I prefer “squeezed.” If you’re screwed, there’s no hope. If you’re squeezed, you can still squeeze back.

Turning lemons into lemonade requires recognizing that pressures on younger Canadians run deeper than Mr. Poilievre admits. Even as millennials and Gen Z struggle in housing and labour markets, governments also conscript them to subsidize boomer retirements, especially their medical care.

It’s time politicians confronted this reality and its consequences for both personal and public finances. While leaders spar over housing and immigration, few acknowledge how boomer aging has become the decisive force behind provincial and federal deficits. Younger taxpayers must not only manage their own costs in tough times, but are also obliged to backfill their parents’ and grandparents’ medical bills – predictable pressures governments failed to prepare for decades ago.

Managing debt: Snowball vs. avalanche, consolidation, bankruptcy and more ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/article-get-better-managing-money/[/url])

I began sharing the arithmetic in my last column ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/article-how-younger-canadians-end-up-paying-more-for-boomers-medical-care/[/url]). Data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information ([url]https://www.cihi.ca/en/national-health-expenditure-trends[/url]) reveal that Canadians under 50 on average use about $3,000 annually in publicly funded medical care. By the early 70s, average costs exceed $10,000. By age 90, they approach $37,000. Altogether, a typical senior roughly consumes more care than four Canadians under 50 combined.

Knowing this ratio lets us compare medical demand when boomers were young versus today, accounting for both population growth and aging. The idea is simple: count how many under-50s it would take to match the medical spending generated by the population’s age distribution in any given year.

In 1976, Canada’s 23.5 million people, with only 9 per cent over 64, generated the demand of 32.2 million under-50 patients. By 2024, the country’s headcount increased to 41.3 million. If the senior share had stayed at 9 per cent, demand would equal 56.7 million under-50 equivalents.

But with nearly one in five Canadians now over 64, demand has climbed to 75.6 million. Aging added the equivalent of 18.9 million more younger patients, over and above population growth.

Run these age-adjusted pressures through provincial budgets, and the result is stark. Holding today’s spending patterns constant but swapping in the 1976 age distribution, most provinces would move from deficit to surplus. With Ontario’s aging-related medical costs now exceeding $22 billion annually, that would be enough to flip $15-billion in red ink into $8-billion in the black.

Canada’s population growth slows to a crawl after moves to curb immigration ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-canada-population-growth-slows-temporary-residents-decline/[/url])

Quebec shows a similar swing. Its aging costs also approach $22-billion, flipping what would have been a $10-billion surplus under the 1976 age structure to the $11-billion deficit budgeted for 2025. Smaller provinces follow the same pattern: in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI and Newfoundland, aging costs more than account for today’s deficits, often several times over.

British Columbia is a partial exception, since its per-capita deficit is much larger than Ontario’s or Quebec’s. Aging explains only about three-quarters of B.C.’s shortfall.
More stories below advertisement


















By contrast, Saskatchewan’s slim $12-million deficit reflects a population that hasn’t aged as sharply. Its ratio of working-age adults per senior fell from 5.3 in 1976 to 3.4 today. This is significant, but less dramatic than Ontario (7.0 to 3.5), Quebec (8.2 to 2.9), or B.C. (6.3 to 3.2).

The takeaway is clear: the fiscal footprint of aging now drives provincial balance sheets. Unlike other drivers of deficits, such as poor policy decisions or trade wars, this one was both predictable and preventable.

How the world became obsessed with naming – and blaming – the next generation ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/article-millennials-gen-z-boomers-naming-generations/[/url])

None of this is about blaming people for growing old. I’m 51 myself. The failure lies with provincial governments decades ago, which ignored repeated warnings to prepare for boomer medical care, even as Ottawa modernized the Canada Pension Plan so that boomers prepaid more for their pensions. That asymmetry is why today’s younger taxpayers already contribute 20 to 40 per cent more of their income taxes ([url]https://www.gensqueeze.ca/tax_trends_report[/url]) to seniors’ benefits than boomers did at the same age. They do so while earning less (after inflation), paying more for housing, and facing costs of climate adaptation.

Politicians who dodge this reality fail both young and old. Without new revenue, provinces will remain stuck in deficits, wait times will lengthen, and pressure for two-tier care will intensify.

Universal medical care is one of Canada’s proudest achievements. Its survival now depends on today’s leaders summoning the courage to redesign revenue systems so that financially secure retirees contribute more to protect the dignity of all seniors, while easing the load on their children and grandchildren. Otherwise, frustration about access will harden into resentment, and the very legacy Canadians cherish could unravel.
?

[blackpowder]

Now we know who you quoted in an earlier post on this subject.
Yes, all govts have kicked the can on health care and education.
Again, your solution is summarized in the last paragraph. An overly simplistic idea that will drive more money away. Try an original thought with broader coverage.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Its survival now depends on today’s leaders summoning the courage to redesign revenue systems so that financially secure retirees contribute more to protect the dignity of all seniors, while easing the load on their children and grandchildren.

It doesn't matter what the problem is, the solution for socialists like Chuck is more wealth redistribution.