Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sunday past I watched an historic vote in the House of Representatives in the United States where Obama’s presidency was finally able to muster up enough support to pass health benefits to those who did not have health benefits. They did not worry about the cost as the driving factor. They worried about the principles of rights to make sure people were covered.
The problem we’re dealing with here now is that the Department of Health and Social Services has not identified the actual cost to delivering those types of rights to the people we have defined as the working poor. Would the Minister tell this House immediately how much it would cost to cover the working poor, that has constantly been referred to as the group that’s been left without, in order for this House to have a full and reasonable debate on this topic?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the Member really thought about that question, and I don’t mean to be, I mean this in a very, no disrespect. If the Member really thought about this question, he would know that he’s asking me to project what a health expense will be of our residents. How could anybody do that? For example, myself, I’m quite healthy. I don’t see doctors very well. I mean very much. I am a pretty low-cost NWT resident in terms of health care right now. Tomorrow I could develop an illness. I could have a heart attack. Who knows? I don’t know what I’m going to cost the health system. I do not know that. I could tell you what I contribute financially to the GNWT. Remember, to say how much it would cost to bring everybody in is not a question anybody can answer.
On the other hand, we have provided the Members of the committee and Members of this House and the general public about in general how many people are going to benefit from the changes we are proposing. We know, and it’s on the website, that at least 2,299 people, who right now have either no benefit under supplementary health, or limited benefit, will gain access. Two thousand two hundred ninety-nine people. I can’t tell you how much that’s going to cost us because somebody may just have limited dental benefits or prescription glasses or a $2,000 drug cost. Somebody could develop a disease tomorrow and that could cost us $500,000.
We need to be reasonable about the level of information that we need to make an important public policy decision that is really aimed at and designed and is proven to help those who really need it.
I’m glad we have a low-maintenance Minister over there on our health system. I think the Minister answered the question herself. She has basically said that we’ve identified 2,299 people. How do you know that the messing around of the system will cover those 2,299 people? Tinkering with the system has not guaranteed anything. That’s the whole point of where I’m going with this. With all of these studies, analyses and changes, somebody should be able to give us context of what a projected cost of this would be. There’s been zero analysis on that to date.
The point I’m making is we have a butcher in charge of this policy, not the skills of a surgeon, going through this item by item. What is stopping the Minister from taking the time to direct her staff to do a thorough and complete analysis of what this would estimate out to be?
What is stopping the Minister? Nothing is stopping the Minister. I have a proposal right here. It’s on the website in colour. There’s no messing about. Certainly it’s far from zero analysis. We have not had more in-depth analysis of what our residents’ income profiles are and what level of claims they have been filing. The Member has right in front of him a proposal that would help the working poor. I don’t understand why he’s saying go back and do something that would help the working poor. This proposal right in front of him shows that 2,299 stand to benefit under this program who do not benefit right now.
I’m not sure what the Minister’s doing over there because if she can’t project what 2,299 people will cost, how do they project what a budget costs for the Department of Health? Why do we even bother with a budget for the Department of Health? Why do we even bother trying to earmark costs for supplementary health benefits? If we have no idea what’s happening over there, why do we even bother having anyone manage it? It’s kind of confusing.
Those are the type of things we have experts who can predict costs for, who are able to follow through and find some reasonable assumptions. We make them all the time when people do estimating, budgeting and planning. The Minister says there’s nothing stopping her. Why doesn’t the Minister stop, order an analysis as to what this will cost, and bring that for full and reasonable and thorough debate in this House?
The issue here before us is that the extended health benefits as they are set up are not fair or equitable. We have statistical information that shows that the income spread of our residents are such that it has no boundary between ages or whether they’re sick. Our program right now covers by age or by specified condition. We are saying that all of our information shows that’s not the most fair and equitable way. We have tons of analysis that is on the website that we are sharing. What we are saying is, can we not change the criteria so that we look at one’s ability to pay? What we are proposing is such that anybody whose income is $50,000 to $150,000 would have 100 percent coverage. After that our residents will be asked to pay a little bit out of their own ability to pay. Nobody’s going to fall off right at that point. It’s just that people who can afford to contribute will be asked to pay some.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the beginning of this process when this side of the House and the champions in our communities came forward to say that this was completely wrong, this approach, there was a promise of a clean slate, the removal of an income means test as the philosophy, and yet that did not come forward. The Minister continues to say that the saving grace of this Supplementary Health Benefits Plan is to take from Peter to pay Paul.
What is stopping the Minister from doing a thorough analysis when we constantly hear about how much data and work they’ve done today? The one thing that can be the true factor for all of the basis of this discussion is the analysis of what it would cost to include this additional group called our working poor. No one wants that to happen. Why does the Minister keep defending every other topic under the moon, under the sun, under the heavens, other than dealing with that one question of why don’t we do that analysis and get it before this House so that we can have a true and thorough debate? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, all the information is there for the Member to say whether he supports an approach that would make the program more fair and equitable and extend the coverage to those who need it the most. This is not a situation of taking money out of Peter and paying Paul. This is a situation where we are trying to increase Peters. We are trying to make more Peters; we’re not trying to take money from Peter to pay Paul. We want to expand the number of Peters. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
