The Defence Budget [superthread]

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Trudeau had better be careful on how he stickhandles this. If he vacillates on the defence budget, and Trump finds his efforts wanting, he could impose trade restrictions or other sanctions that could see a drop in Canada's GDP that would effectively cost the country more than it would have had to spend to bring defence up to the 2% recommended minimum. To say nothing of lost jobs and business revenues due to diminished trade opportunities with the US. And if we think the Canadian dollar is almost in the toilet now...

The West German government did the same thing to great effect back in the late 1970s when they told Trudeau Sr 'no tanks, no trade', thus forcing him to buy the tanks he didn't want to buy and station some of them in Germany to boot, at a time when he was in the midst of drastically downgrading Canada's NATO commitments in Germany.

But you don't understand, Eland: That is the second way to achieve our defence target.

You can double the defence budget or ... you can halve the country's GDP  ;D

Problem solved!  :nod:

 

[jollyjacktar]

Given that the inflation escalator applies to capital - meaning that it whittles down the amount of equipment that can be purchased - but, at the same time most of the Canadian budget goes into bodies and infrastructure I will continue to argue that the solution is to whittle down the number of bodies on the full time pay roll and make better use of both technology and the reserves.

I will continue to argue for 50 man crews for the navy, two man crews for the cavalry and 8 man batteries for the artillery.

Close Combat Forces (Special or Regular) need to be maintained at some useful level but that majority of manpower can be held, after effective training, on the shelf at minimal cost with only an annual refurbishment.

For the Regular forces, outside the CCF types, the emphasis has to be on technical management of equipment rather than man-management.

The thing with a major combatant vessel, Chris, is that crew size gets really important when the shit hits the fan, unless you're considering the ship and crew to be an expendable asset.  You need to have the manpower available to conduct damage control/propulsion operations, to keep the vessel in the fight and moving so that those Ops Room folks can concentrate on punching the lights out of whomever they're engaging.  Technological advances are not at the Star Trek phase for AI to take over things and keep systems running or at least with Zumwalt levels of smart valves etc.  We're too fucking cheap and broke to afford that.  Hell, even the USN can't afford to really ramp up the smart valve tech etc.  Until then, you're going to need more meat interfaces or consider the equipment to be more or less single use only.  With the trade amalgamation that is happening in the marine engineering trades,  and the watering down of training as well the time will come in the not too far distant future where we won't have the detailed skill sets to save ourselves easily.  The RN have come to that conclusion, finally, and are now in the process of reversing course, whereas we're full speed ahead, off the cliff...

 

[Kirkhill]

The thing with a major combatant vessel, Chris, is that crew size gets really important when the shit hits the fan, unless you're considering the ship and crew to be an expendable asset.  You need to have the manpower available to conduct damage control/propulsion operations, to keep the vessel in the fight and moving so that those Ops Room folks can concentrate on punching the lights out of whomever they're engaging.  Technological advances are not at the Star Trek phase for AI to take over things and keep systems running or at least with Zumwalt levels of smart valves etc.  We're too fucking cheap and broke to afford that.  Hell, even the USN can't afford to really ramp up the smart valve tech etc.  Until then, you're going to need more meat interfaces or consider the equipment to be more or less single use only.  With the trade amalgamation that is happening in the marine engineering trades,  and the watering down of training as well the time will come in the not too far distant future where we won't have the detailed skill sets to save ourselves easily.  The RN have come to that conclusion, finally, and are now in the process of reversing course, whereas we're full speed ahead, off the cliff...

I'm not considering the crew expendable.  I am considering that the ship should be expendable.  And regardless of the magic number the drive should be to get the job done with the least number of bodies possible.  Especially given that you can't seem to hire enough bodies for the berths that you have.

This is not a new discussion.  It is one that I have had on various shop floors over the last forty years.  It's one that by and large has gone to the side of the smaller shift, the smaller crew, in every case.  And the capital cost is not significantly higher to automate with feed back than it is to provide manual control and supervision.  An additional benefit is that installations can be much more compact and modularized so that, like a tank engine, units can be swapped rather than repaired.

Another personal mantra of mine revolves around the number three.  I love having three of everything.  Then I can dog along at 66% of capacity with all three running but still get the job done when one drops off line.  Or maybe I just put up with doing a bit less for a while until I can bring all units back on line.

Why do you lot insist on looking to stuff 200 bodies that you don't have into 15 hulls you don't have?

 

[jollyjacktar]

There's the rub.  When the CPF came along they just dropped the crew size of the classes they were replacing, the Steamers, and carried on.  To be fair, they now realize that this as a mistake and are trying to not commit the same error in the new ships. 

Some technology does exist, like smart valves which are on the Zumwalt class, which allows the ship autonomy to some degree.  But, the costs are at present, too high for the USN to roll that out everywhere, as much as they would desire to.  For us, it's out of the question.  We cannot afford those options, hell, we cannot even afford all the ships we need...

So, until we automate,  I respectfully suggest 50 is too small for a combatant, unless it's a Corvette or MTB.

 

[Kirkhill]

JJT - how can smart valves be considered a high price option when they have been on the factory floor for at least the last two decades?

Or is there some secret new technology of which I am unaware. 

For me a smart valve is a valve tied into a bus, with its own onboard solenoid or other electric actuator and positioning feed back to indicate that the valve is fully open, closed or throttled.

I have mom and pop food processing plants with that technology.  Coupled with VFDs and PLCs. 

http://www.alfalaval.com/products/fluid-handling/automation/control-unit/thinktop/

This is one system that I am reasonably familiar with.  Burkert, Asco, Festo, GEA, MAC, SPX and many many more make them. 

Are we talking different languages here?

 

[jollyjacktar]

As I understand, these valves all communicate with each other and are attuned to what is happening in their respective ring mains.  The can detect a drop in pressure due to damage or a breach, for example and on their own isolate, reroute and continue to provide coverage for whatever systems feed off the ring main.  I believe these valves at about $40K a pop.  That gets very expensive on a ship where there are hundreds of valves.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://ir.colfaxcorp.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=458062

April 12, 2010
Colfax Supplies $25 Million in SMART Technology Systems for New U.S. Navy Destroyers

RICHMOND, Va., April 12, 2010 /PRNewswire via COMTEX News Network/ -- Colfax Corporation (NYSE: CFX), a global leader in fluid-handling solutions for critical applications, announced it will supply $8 million in SMART technology valve systems and $17 million in magazine fire-suppression systems and SMART pump controllers, including engineering design services and hardware, for the first two DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers being built at the Bath Iron Works shipyard in Bath, Maine, for the U.S. Navy. The shipyard is a subsidiary of General Dynamics Corporation (NYSE: GD).

Colfax has already begun shipping components manufactured by its Portland Valve business in South Portland, Maine, and its Fairmount Automation business in Newtown Square, Penn. Shipments for the two destroyers will continue through 2010.

"SMART fluid-handling technologies are an increasingly important part of our business in a variety of applications, and we're proud our systems were selected to help protect Zumwalt-class destroyers, the Navy's newest class of surface combatants," said Clay Kiefaber, president and CEO of Colfax.

The company won the contract through a competitive bid, using its Colfax Business System(R) customer-focused process, which synthesizes strategic-planning and lean-manufacturing principles.

Colfax businesses have more than 100 years of fluid-handling application expertise in the defense industry.

ABOUT COLFAX CORPORATION - Colfax Corporation is a global leader in critical fluid-handling products and technologies. Through its global operating subsidiaries, Colfax manufactures positive displacement industrial pumps and valves used in oil & gas, power generation, commercial marine, defense and general industrial markets. Colfax's operating subsidiaries supply products under the well-known brands Allweiler, Fairmount Automation, Houttuin, Imo, LSC, Portland Valve, Tushaco, Warren and Zenith. Colfax is traded on the NYSE under the ticker "CFX." Additional information about Colfax is available at www.colfaxcorp.com.

ABOUT COLFAX DEFENSE SOLUTIONS - Colfax Defense Solutions serves militaries around the world with fluid-handling solutions that deliver precision performance for demanding conditions. Colfax Defense Centres of Excellence - located in Mumbai, India; Tours, France; and Warren, Massachusetts, USA - have specialized staff, engineering support, advanced software, fabrication facilities and testing equipment tailored to meet the specific needs of the defense industry.

ABOUT PORTLAND VALVE - Portland Valve delivers unique skills in the close-tolerance precision machining, welding and fabrication of valves, actuators, components and subassemblies. Located in South Portland, Maine, Portland Valve is a prime contractor for the U.S. Navy and a major subcontractor for all naval and private shipyards, as well as a manufacturer for Army weapons systems and select commercial applications.

ABOUT FAIRMOUNT AUTOMATION - Fairmount Automation develops innovative control solutions for mission- and safety-critical processes and machinery in the harsh environments of the worldwide military, transportation and industrial automation markets. Founded in 1996, and known for technologically superior products that minimize cost of ownership, Fairmount created the rugged multiloop process controller that serves today on more than 25 percent of the U.S. Navy's surface ships.

I'm not seeing any gee-whiz stuff there.  The system will be self-regulating and will take advantage of automated valves with feed back, coupled with pressure, flow and temperature sensors (I can throw in pH, conductivity, and turbidity as well if you want).

And $8,000,000 in valves (4 apiece for each system) - well, all I can say is that that is my conventional order of magnitude and that is in an industry with a margin of around 3%.

 

[jollyjacktar]

The info I was told about the smart valves came from someone from the CSC PMO, as he was explaining to me how and what, where and why they're being used by the USN.  At $4M a pop (in 2010 dollars) that isn't chump change when you're funding a 300+ ship fleet.  I have to go with what he said re: costs and benefits and why the American's believe it's too expensive for all ships to be converted.

And to have valve(s) that will reroute themselves instantaneously, is Buck Rogers stuff, in my eyes.  We'd love it too but it is considered too expensive to pursue in our new and current fleet.  Like I said we're going to be lucky to get the full number of ships promised as costs escalate for what we're getting.

 

[Kirkhill]

JJT - how much does it cost to hire a sailor, train him, support him and his family throughout his service, thank him for his service, send him to school, compensate him for any injuries, provide him a lifetime pension and medical benefits and provide a military funeral?

The ancillary costs of hiring, especially in the US, is astronomical. 

And I don't begrudge the benefits.  That is not my point.  The point is that the personnel budget burden needs to be given a good hard look when making capital and operating budget decisions.  And I continue in my belief that the CF is mired in making sure that Admiral Nelson has a decent number of sideboys for his funeral.

Meanwhile, in civilian practice, a handful of operators will be responsible for using hundreds of valves, dozens of motors, sensors and vessels, all controlled via PLCs, to convert tens of ingredients and materials into hundreds of different varieties of products in assorted containers.

Long ago, when I was a Sea Cadet in Peterborough and fascinated by technology, particularly hovercraft, I came across a book called Janes Surface Effects Ships and Skimmers.  A centre piece of the publication was a Canadian Boat/Ship - HMCS Brador.  You'll know her I'm sure.  More particularly interesting was an accompanying article on the future fleet envisaged by DeHavilland Canada (the builders) and the RCN.  The concept was to create a flotilla, if not a fleet, of bluewater gunboats.  The boats would be 100 ton displacement, crew of 14, cruise speed of 10 knots (convoy speed) and sprint speed of 50 kts.  The vessel was envisaged as carrying 8 tonnes of weaponry (57mm and a Vulcan, or missiles and a Vulcan) or a VDS system, torps and a Vulcan.  The roles were patrol, convoy escort and ASW (employing sprint and drift tactics).  The little boats performed well in high sea states due to the stabilizing effect of the hydrofoils.

I am well aware of the problems that the Brad had, and more generally the hydrofoils had, but I continue to believe that there have been many instances where opportunities to exploit technology have been missed.

 

[McG]

Given that the inflation escalator applies to capital - meaning that it whittles down the amount of equipment that can be purchased - but, at the same time most of the Canadian budget goes into bodies and infrastructure I will continue to argue that the solution is to whittle down the number of bodies on the full time pay roll and make better use of both technology and the reserves.

Should we cut the force to fit it inside a 1% budget, or should we give-up the lie that a 1% budget affords the standard of military that Canada ought to have?

 

[Kirkhill]

Should we cut the force to fit it inside a 1% budget, or should we give-up the lie that a 1% budget affords the standard of military that Canada ought to have?

MCG:  I would love to see you have the 2% budget.  But it hasn't happened yet.  And to be honest, even when the CF had more money it always felt it was insufficient and continued to draw up plans based on the money it would like to have rather than the money it had.

And I've been watching this since the Bras d'Or was in the water and we were going to keep the Russians out of Norway.

In a "peace-loving" country like Canada I seem to keep circling around to off-loading "para-military" capabilities into civilian agencies so that the "defence" budget, as constrained as it is, can be focused on pointy end stuff.

For example - National Surveillance - spread that around amongst the Space Agency, CSE, Coast Guard, Mounties but give DND a place to sit to watch all the inputs.  The DND then needs to maintain a lethal response capability to back up the civilians in overwatch or, when the politicians decree, act.  I also believe that a Canadian Government Transport Service could provide domestic support and international humanitarian support but also be available to the CF when necessary.  It would be in addition to the current CF transport capabilities.  The public gets to see Red Maple Leafs doing good stuff  (out of the 0.7% of GDP supposedly budgeted for foreign aid as well as being financed by domestic disaster relief programmes). 

Meanwhile the CF focuses its dollars on the things the civilians can't/won't do.  And again, in that regards, Regs drive motors.

If I have to hire 4 guys is it more effective to stick all four into one vehicle with one gun or put them into two vehicles with two guns?

 

[jmt18325]

Our Budget will be interesting. Trump is telling every countries leader to pay up.

Thankfully, Germany has told him where to go. 

 

[jmt18325]

It ~ equipping the "right sized" forces with the right equipment is perfectly sustainable IF one has a sensible funding model for defence. The typical, government, "one-size-fits-all" model is not sensible ... popular but insane, by Einstein's definition.

That's a completely different topic.  Sustained growth in any government department that is above the growth in government revenue is completely unrealistic.

The health care funding issue is different ~ that is a statist, even Stalinesque model that was imposed by temrinally silly people with zilch, zero, nada economic sense ...

I take it you missed the point, and decided to go on a rant instead (Canadians certainly don't share your opinion here, nor do they have to).  There is nothing statist about single payer healthcare.  In fact, there is probably nothing more statist than a military (and that's not in any way a critical view).

 

[ballz]

That's a completely different topic.  Sustained growth in any government department that is above the growth in government revenue is completely unrealistic.

We can sustain growth in the DND budget if we cut spending elsewhere. We can also sustain growth if we decide that of "x growth %" in government revenues, the DND budget will grow by "x% + y" while the rest will only grow by "x% - z." Your world of "absolutes" is not realistic.

I take it you missed the point, and decided to go on a rant instead (Canadians certainly don't share your opinion here, nor do they have to).  There is nothing statist about single payer healthcare.  In fact, there is probably nothing more statist than a military (and that's not in any way a critical view).

First of all, thanks for deciding on behalf of Canadians what we all think. I wonder why I even have to worry about critical thinking when I have people like you that will gladly decide for me. According to this, only 42% of Canadians agree that “on the whole, the system works pretty well and only minor changes are needed,” so I guess you're just plain wrong. And where did E.R. Campbell say everyone had to agree with him? You're being quite arrogant, pump the brakes.

Secondly, "there is probably nothing more statist than a military" is simply not true. Most "small-government" types, classical liberals, or minarchist, believe that one of the only legitimate roles of the state is to provide security of national sovereignty through... you guesses it... an armed force.

On the spectrum of "pure statism / authoritarianism ---------- pure anarchism," healthcare and other social programs would cleary be more towards the statism/authoritarianism side than an armed force or state-run police force. Authoritarianism is less about what is enforcing the rules and more about what the rules are. A state than employs a private military and private police force to enforce its rules about how you live, and has very strict rules about how you will live, is much more "statist" than a state that employs a public military / police force and has very few rules about how you must live.

The Canada Health Act was Trudeau Sr's backdoor way of seizing the the province's constitutionally defined authority to run healthcare by seizing control of almost all of the revenue generation for healthcare and trapping province's into administering healthcare the way the federal government of the day wanted it done. If that's not statist, I don't know what is.

 

[jmt18325]

We can sustain growth in the DND budget if we cut spending elsewhere. We can also sustain growth if we decide that of "x growth %" in government revenues, the DND budget will grow by "x% + y" while the rest will only grow by "x% - z." Your world of "absolutes" is not realistic.

Your world of putting defence on a pedestal is completely unrealistic, actually.

First of all, thanks for deciding on behalf of Canadians what we all think.

You're very welcome.  Of course I don't decide those things - Canadians do.  Canadians have time and again put their first payer health system above pretty much anything else.  We like it, we want it.  It doesn't always work the way we want, but we want it.  That's not true of everyone, but, hey, democracy, right?

I wonder why I even have to worry about critical thinking when I have people like you that will gladly decide for me. According to this, only 42% of Canadians agree that “on the whole, the system works pretty well and only minor changes are needed,” so I guess you're just plain wrong. And where did E.R. Campbell say everyone had to agree with him? You're being quite arrogant, pump the brakes.

According, to what, exactly?  You didn't cite anything.  You also didn't state the other options and their respective percentages, nor the methodology

Secondly, "there is probably nothing more statist than a military" is simply not true. Most "small-government" types, classical liberals, or minarchist, believe that one of the only legitimate roles of the state is to provide security of national sovereignty through... you guesses it... an armed force.

It's an armed organism of the state.  It's statist. 

On the spectrum of "pure statism / authoritarianism ---------- pure anarchism," healthcare and other social programs would cleary be more towards the statism/authoritarianism

I'm a lot closer to a banana than I am to a rock.  I'm not really close to either.  You've simply presented a false dichotomy.

The Canada Health Act was Trudeau Sr's backdoor way of seizing the the province's constitutionally defined authority to run healthcare by seizing control of almost all of the revenue generation for healthcare and trapping province's into administering healthcare the way the federal government of the day wanted it done. If that's not statist, I don't know what is.

That's actually not true.  The provinces are free to pull out at any time.  Nothing was seized.

 

[ballz]

We like it, we want it.

According, to what, exactly?  You didn't cite anything.  You also didn't state the other options and their respective percentages, nor the methodology

Oops, sorry, I forgot to add the source. https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/HCC_CMWF_Bulletin_8_Eng.pdf page 10 "Overall views"

Apparently up to 58% of us don't like it the way it is.

It's an armed organism of the state.  It's statist. 

I never said it's not statist. The only thing that is not statist is pure anarchism. On a continuum, however, it is not very statist. It is one of the first things those in favour of small government would support as a legitimate role of government. Using the military / police to tell people how to live (aka... you will use and support the single payer tax system or you will go to jail) is statist, and by comparison, far more statist than simply having a military who's only purpose is to defend national sovereignty.

I'm a lot closer to a banana than I am to a rock.  I'm not really close to either.  You've simply presented a false dichotomy.

Actually at this point I'm convinced you're closer to a rock than anything else.

That's actually not true.  The provinces are free to pull out at any time.  Nothing was seized.

Just $36 billion dollars of tax revenue taken at the federal level from the citizens of their province.

There is no "pulling out." The Canada Health Act is federal legislation, it is in effect whether the provinces like it or not. They can choose to not administer health in the way the Canada Health Act stipulates, but they don't get "pull out" and keep the $1028/per person that the federal government robs from that province's citizens.

 

[ballz]

Your world of putting defence on a pedestal is completely unrealistic, actually.

Never said anything about "putting it on a pedestal," although there are obvious examples where it has been. Simply pointing out your assertion that you cannot grow military spending at a rate faster than the government revenues are growing is a 2 + 2 = 5 assertion. It is simply not true.

 

[George Wallace]

The Canada Health Act was Trudeau Sr's backdoor way of seizing the the province's constitutionally defined authority to run healthcare by seizing control of almost all of the revenue generation for healthcare and trapping province's into administering healthcare the way the federal government of the day wanted it done. If that's not statist, I don't know what is.

Ewwww!  The trend continues, and their true colours may be on the verge of being exposed:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Pallister defiant, unbowed after Ottawa threatens to kill $60M Winnipeg research facility
By: Mia Rabson
Posted: 03/15/2017 11:31 AM | Last Modified: 03/15/2017 5:25 PM

OTTAWA — Premier Brian Pallister says he will not be intimidated by the federal government into signing a health-care deal he feels is fundamentally bad for Manitoba, regardless of any threats Ottawa makes.

"We will stand up for ourselves and we will be heard," he said during question period Wednesday.

His remarks followed a Free Press report earlier in the day about Ottawa's threat to end $60 million in promised funding for the Winnipeg's new Factory of the Future research facility unless Manitoba capitulates and agrees to the health-care deal the other provinces and territories have all signed.

"That’s not something you bring into a negotiation, if you have strength of character," Pallister said.

The threat is referenced in a letter sent Monday to Richard Maksymetz, chief of staff to Finance Minister Bill Morneau, by Michael Richards, Manitoba's deputy minister of intergovernmental affairs.

Richards rejected the demands outright and said they are "completely unacceptable to my government."

He wants Ottawa to confirm its commitment to Factory of the Future and lift the hold placed on the ongoing site selection process.

The letter indicates Ottawa also made demands for Manitoba to finally agree to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s national climate-change framework.

Factory of the Future is a project of the previous Conservative government to build a new $60-million National Research Council facility in Winnipeg focused on aerospace, automotive and agricultural equipment-manufacturing research.

Progress on the project has been slow as the NRC struggles to find an appropriate parcel of land.

The $60 million was in this year’s budget but it will lapse at the end of this month unless Morneau and Trudeau agree to extend it into the next budget, which Morneau will table next Wednesday.

A senior federal official said Ottawa has not given a firm deadline for Manitoba to have a health deal in place and said the mention of Factory of the Future wasn't — specifically — a threat.

"We just pointed out it is going to lapse in three weeks," he said, referring to the funding commitment.

He agreed he could see how Manitoba would take that as a threat.

"It's also factually correct. It is going to lapse in three weeks," he said.

He said there are a several outstanding issues between Manitoba and Ottawa and the federal government is just trying to "wrap them all up at the same time."

He also said Pallister is the one who first linked the health-care deal to the climate-change framework when he refused to support the latter at the first ministers' meeting in December. Pallister said his support for the framework would depend on Trudeau agreeing to a first ministers' meeting on health care and to putting a better deal on the table for health-care funding.

Pallister had hoped other premiers would stand with him on that, but none did. The premiers initially joined forces in an effort to get a better health deal, but the unity was short-lived; Manitoba stands alone without a health agreement.

Pallister acknowledged Wednesday he made a link between Manitoba’s support for the climate-change pact and his desire to see the prime minister improve the health-care deal, but said it was a "request."

"I never threatened Ottawa," he said.

The health agreement signed in the rest of the country raises the Canada Health Transfer by at least three per cent a year for a decade, and splits $11.5 billion over 10 years for home care and mental-health programs.

In addition to the money already on offer, Manitoba wants another $60 million over a decade to deal with chronic kidney disease. Richards’ letter indicates Manitoba is also seeking $5 million to address the opioid overdose crisis.

Both British Columbia and Alberta secured some additional funding for the drug battle in their deals.

Ottawa has not yet said whether Manitoba’s share of home care and mental-health money for 2017-18 will be taken off the table if the province doesn’t sign on before Wednesday's budget.

Ottawa told the unsigned final four that it wanted everyone on board by March 10. Ontario, Alberta and Quebec agreed last Friday.

However the federal government does not have the same level of political influence over Manitoba as it did with other premiers such as B.C.’s Christy Clark, who is facing re-election this spring, or Ontario’s Kathleen Wynne, whose poll numbers are the lowest in the country and has to seek re-election no later than June 2018.

Pallister, on the other hand, was elected less than a year ago with a huge majority, and with opposition parties in Manitoba struggling to rebuild, he is enjoying an extended honeymoon period and has political capital to spare.

mia.rabson@freepress.mb.ca

More on LINK.


Federal Government use of INTIMINDATION to get what they want?

This will have some repercussions in Wednesday's Budget, and likely be an indicator as to what to expect as to what Defence will be getting within that Budget.

 

[jmt18325]

Oops, sorry, I forgot to add the source. https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/HCC_CMWF_Bulletin_8_Eng.pdf page 10 "Overall views"

Apparently up to 58% of us don't like it the way it is.

That actually doesn't speak to Canadians wanting a less 'statist' solution.  From your link:

Canadians’ views about the health care system have grown
more positive in the past decade. Today, 42% agree that
“on the whole, the system works pretty well and only minor
changes are needed,” double the 22% who felt this way
in 2004.

Canadians that do want changes don't generally want to change a way from a less universal system - they simply want it to work better.

I never said it's not statist. The only thing that is not statist is pure anarchism. On a continuum, however, it is not very statist. It is one of the first things those in favour of small government would support as a legitimate role of government. Using the military / police to tell people how to live (aka... you will use and support the single payer tax system or you will go to jail) is statist, and by comparison, far more statist than simply having a military who's only purpose is to defend national sovereignty.

It's not statist to provide universal coverage (not care) in a democratic country.  In fact, with Health, Ottawa is only paying (some of) the bill.  With the military they actually own the entire system of delivery.  The second is a more statist circumstance.

There is no "pulling out." The Canada Health Act is federal legislation, it is in effect whether the provinces like it or not. They can choose to not administer health in the way the Canada Health Act stipulates, but they don't get "pull out" and keep the $1028/per person that the federal government robs from that province's citizens.

The federal government has federal taxation power.  The provincial governments have provincial taxation power.  The provincial governments have given up some of their constitutional responsibility for health in exchange for a piece of federal taxation power.  Being wrong and not liking the way things are doesn't make you right.

 

[ballz]

That actually doesn't speak to Canadians wanting a less 'statist' solution.  From your link:

Canadians’ views about the health care system have grown
more positive in the past decade. Today, 42% agree that
“on the whole, the system works pretty well and only minor
changes are needed,” double the 22% who felt this way
in 2004.

Canadians that do want changes don't generally want to change a way from a less universal system - they simply want it to work better.

Wow, 58% of people don't feel that "on the whole, the system works pretty well and only minor changes are needed" and somehow you are trying to spin that into a positive.

I never said anything about "universal." You were talking about the "single payer system." It's you that is speaking to one thing and one thing only.

It's not statist to provide universal coverage (not care) in a democratic country.  In fact, with Health, Ottawa is only paying (some of) the bill.  With the military they actually own the entire system of delivery.  The second is a more statist circumstance.

You don't know what statism means, obviously. "A political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.

Unless the military is being used to influence (enforce) social and economic policies, it really has nothing to do with whether or not the country is "statist." What makes a country "statist" is, as the definition points out, whether the state is exercising control over social and economic affairs. With the Crown centralizing control of healthcare at the federal level (both social from a social services perspective and economic from a taxation perspective), this healthcare system is almost a walking talking definition of a statist policy. We can debate the merits of it, but you really can't argue that 2 + 2 = 5 when it in fact, happens to equal 4. The Canada Health Act, and Canada's healthcare system in general, is statist.

The provincial governments have given up some of their constitutional responsibility for health in exchange for a piece of federal taxation power.

No, they didn't. They had that decision made on their behalf by the federal government through the Canada Health Act. Stop trying to make this sound like it was voluntary and everybody agreed, or that it was some big favour the federal government did to the provinces. This was a loophole Trudeau Sr found in order to further their belief in a heavily centralized way of governing, exactly opposite of what the provinces had in mind when they signed into Confederation.

There are plenty of people who favour a two-tier healthcare system. Alberta would have one already if it wouldn't be taken out at the knees by the Canada Health Act. They probably favour it because they've seen that every single OECD healthcare system that ranks above Canada's has a mixture of private and public healthcare.