Canada and other countrys health care

Brown Swiss

Well-known Member
So the post down below made me wonder what kind of health care people really have in other Countries! I have seen the Micheal Moore Sicko, so not knowing what other countries do for there health care and this is a well informed group. Please fill me in, is the feller lying about it or what? Best way to know is to ask real people, not that you all live in a mud hut! lol
 
I just know that the Swedes love theirs. No long lines like some predict with socialized medicine. It's the law that you have to be seen within a certain amount of time. Not sure how long that is,but it ain't much.
The one thing that blows them away when they come here and see the over the counter drugs available. NOTHING is over the counter there. Got a headache? Need an aspirin? You have to go to a doctor and get a prescription for it. Seems odd to us,but to them it's as normal as the sunrise.
 
I know lots of Canadians who are very happy with their system. The thing that bothers me is we Americans spend twice as much for our health care as anyone else in the developed world, and yet our life expectancy is two years less. We are getting $crewed by the insurance companies!
 
My Mothers parents, my grandparents moved to Ontario Canada in 1980 because they had "Free" health care. Well..........When you have to go on a waiting list for things like, cadarac surgery, knee replacement surgery, heart bypass surgery, it is not so good.

Yes, my grandparents needed all the things I mentioned above and my grandfather basically went blind cause he could not get the eye surgery he needed. My grandmother needed Knee replacement surgery....she came back the to the USA for it cause she did not want to wait many months.
Going on a waiting list for procedures and surgeries is the real down fall (and quality of care) of the Socialist medicine.
If you want to reduce the cost of medical in the USA, reduce the number of lawsuits allowed or cap the death benefits, whatever.

Bottom line........too many lawyers wreck it for everybody.
My grandparents died several years ago.
 
The biggest problem here is corruption ( false billing, unnecessary test, and charging for things not given).. There needs to be caps on medicine and simpler forms to fill out.
 
I have a friend who was travelling in Sweden. She fell and broke her arm.

She was really worried about how it would all go, being from the states. In the end, they set her arm, treated her well, and gave her a bill for about $50.

If it weren't for her family, she would have moved there!
 
A+ acute care system. You get hit by a car you get airlifted and into emergency surgery MRI CAT scan etc no cost.

B- for chronic care of common easy to id stuff, 1-4 month wait.

D to F for difficult to diagnose diseases. Wait times of years. If you have money you head to the US.

Not every thing is free, drugs once you leave the hospital are your responsibility, even if you have to enter hospital again as soon as you stop taking them. Plus side is drugs are cheap up here for some reason.
 
There are no long lines, that is just pure BS. The system works on a triage basis, those the most in need, are see to first. And no one is denied care , even if they have prexisting conditions.Which is very different than private insurance.Bruce
 
I've talked to Thoger about it. He said it's not that hard to do. It's easier I guess if you can prove lineage there. (Which wouldn't be a problem for me)
He said you can get a long term visitors visa and it will allow you to get in to the free health care system. He said the only thing you can't get in to is their Social Security system to draw any kind of retirement. He said you have to come with enough money to live on. Unless you can get a job to support yourself of course.
 
As a Canadian, all I can say is, it isn't perfect (and the current gov't is making it worse), BUT it is still pretty darned good and measurably better than the U.S. system. HPH
 
"Come with enough money to live on" should be a policy adopted here in the US!!!!!!!!!

Last time we were in Canada harvesting one of the crew members got an infected hair you know where. I really felt sorry for him, couldn't sit down for a week after the surgery to carve it out. Anyway the hospital he went to looked like our US hospitals did years ago, meaning not as fancy. I liked it. Here in the US so darned much money is spent to make a hospital look like the Hilton but the care is no better.

When Marilyn and i were in Finland i ran out of Tylenol. We happened to be in Estonia at the time. The lady and husband we were staying with went to the drug counter in a store and had to ask for it. They didn't need a prescription but they still had to ask for it over the counter. Why were we in Estonia? Because liquor is a lot cheaper in Estonia than it is in Finland and both countries belong to the EU so crossing from one country to the other is about as easy as crossing state borders here. Jim
 
The big difference is that US is a for profit health care, most other countries, the health care workers are government employees. We have a great system if you have enough cash, sucks if you do not.
 
(Not wishing any disrespect to any American!)

Australian system is similar to the Canadian system. It works well, well trained doctors and good hospitals.

I have lived in USA and Canada. The Canadian and Australian systems are better overall. Excellent health care and much cheaper.
 
(quoted from post at 18:21:29 09/14/14) So the post down below made me wonder what kind of health care people really have in other Countries! I have seen the Micheal Moore Sicko, so not knowing what other countries do for there health care and this is a well informed group. Please fill me in, is the feller lying about it or what? Best way to know is to ask real people, not that you all live in a mud hut! lol

Canadian health care is paid for the middle and upper middle class. The amount of tax taken from the paycheque to pay for healthcare is more than US healthcare insurance premium.
US healthcare if you have good insurance is superior to Canadian healthcare.
Now if you are working part time, getting paid minimum wage, getting paid cash, out of work, don't want to work.
Canadian healthcare may look pretty good to low end persons getting free healthcare.

The SOB's politicians to purchase votes from liberals and low income people. They have already taken over $15,000 of Mrs B&D's paycheque by the end of August and over $23,000 of my paycheque by July 1st.
That buys a lot of health insurance.
 
You're being rather disingenuous about how health care is paid for here. It remains as it's been since the start, largely paid for by provincial governments which raise the funds through consumption taxes... ie the former provincial sales tax or their portion of the HST today.
In NS it was originally labeled the health services tax and from what I remember was about 10% as far back as I can remember...
So the way I look at it... it's paid for by pretty well everyone unless you happen to live the hermit life in a tar paper shack in the woods.. Granted, some pay more than others but I don't feel too bad about that. If a lot of us made the income you had to pay that kind of tax we probably wouldn't have much to complain about.

Rod
 
I watch broadcast-only stations when I do watch TV. A couple of weeks ago, we suddenly picked up two new stations. One of them plays mostly old movies and the other one I haven't watched enough to know what it really broadcasts.
Anyway, both of these stations mostly have commercials by lawyers. These lawyer commercials want you (the viewer) to go after anybody and everybody. I've seen commercials where they want you to go after bad hip replacements, General Motors (if you've had an accident because of all their recalls), dozens of prescription medicines and even some lawyer wanting to go after Grecian Formula for Men (yes, the hair dye. It seems some people get acid burns from using it). Does anybody here really think that all these lawyers do not add to our healthcare cost?
 
I don't see how he would be lying as he talked to people in other countries, patients and doctors. From what I understand the health care system in some of the other countries rewards the doctors if people are healthier or get healthier. Here it seems they want you to be sick or they cant make money on you. What gets me is companies being able to lobby with dollars to get what they want and politicians willing to accept it. I don't believe we will ever get decent affordable health care in this country because of (I hate to say it) capitalism and corruption. When companies are allowed to control your life or death for profit not much good can come of it. A government run system may not be the whole answer either but who do the insurance companies and health care system answer to? When my mom and I were in the hospital in the early 1970s the bill for nearly a week was $400 for each of us. Dad wrote a check for it. That wouldn't be possible for most people now days. Milking cows paid a lot of bills back then.
 
I heard about the acid burn lawsuits as well. It is crazy. Maybe one day we will see ads... "Have you been injured or suffered distress from a lawyer? You may be entitled to compensation..." ;)
 
Not sure medical reasons is major cause for bankruptcy, especially after the 2008 housing crash.

Those in the US, people without anything to loose rack up credit card debt, then file for bankruptcy. Yes some without insurance rack up medical bills and then try to get out of paying for them by filing bankruptcy. Filing bankruptcy was so bad, they even changed the bankruptcy laws. It was too easy for people to get out paying their bills.

I just turned 65. I had no choice, I was put on medicare. I pay for part B and D, less than $200/mo. It's hard for many to believe, but medicare costs me less than my private insurance and my private insurance was mostly paid for by my employer.

I still have to wait up to 2 months to see a specialists, then up to another 2 months to have some tests run. Doesn't take very long to see family DR. No waiting if I go to a clinic.
George
 
(quoted from post at 20:05:00 09/14/14) I don't see how he would be lying as he talked to people in other countries, patients and doctors. From what I understand the health care system in some of the other countries rewards the doctors if people are healthier or get healthier. Here it seems they want you to be sick or they cant make money on you. What gets me is companies being able to lobby with dollars to get what they want and politicians willing to accept it. I don't believe we will ever get decent affordable health care in this country because of (I hate to say it) capitalism and corruption. When companies are allowed to control your life or death for profit not much good can come of it. A government run system may not be the whole answer either but who do the insurance companies and health care system answer to? When my mom and I were in the hospital in the early 1970s the bill for nearly a week was $400 for each of us. Dad wrote a check for it. That wouldn't be possible for most people now days. Milking cows paid a lot of bills back then.


Alan, except for those who wish to believe most of moore's work has been discredited. We are talking about the guy who said he'd give up his fortune is the us would become a communist nation. The crud has an agenda. Think about it. He claimed medical care that medical care in Cuba was superior to that in the US. All the while Castro was going to foreign nations for cancer treatments. Basically if it's nationalized health care as far as moore is concerned it's better than the US. While you were watching his mockumentery people from all over the world were flying to the US if they could afford it to get medical treatment for cancer, rare diseases, brain and heart surgery. There is a lot of info on the net. The free systems are costing taxpayers through the nose. Look at how fanatically stable France and England are. Big reason, social programs and heat care is about the biggest cost.

Rick
 
Our health care system does work well IF you have the money. But...when CEOs of hospitals and drug companies are getting rich, who do they answer to? Like you said people from all over the world were flying to the US "if they could afford it". Yet some here fly to other countries because they can afford an operation there, but not here. I do agree, what was stated below, SO much is spent more on appearance of a hospital than the care its self. Other countries do pay ALOT in taxes. It is cost shifting. We don't pay nearly as much in taxes but pay for our care. They don't pay for their care but pay a lot in taxes.
 
(quoted from post at 19:21:29 09/14/14) So the post down below made me wonder what kind of health care people really have in other Countries! I have seen the Micheal Moore Sicko, so not knowing what other countries do for there health care and this is a well informed group. Please fill me in, is the feller lying about it or what? Best way to know is to ask real people, not that you all live in a mud hut! lol

No, "Sicko" is not accurate anymore than anything else Moore ever did. It's all his view, his opinion, his dramatization of how things are.
 
(quoted from post at 21:02:58 09/14/14) A+ acute care system. You get hit by a car you get airlifted and into emergency surgery MRI CAT scan etc no cost.

B- for chronic care of common easy to id stuff, 1-4 month wait.

D to F for difficult to diagnose diseases. Wait times of years. If you have money you head to the US.

Not every thing is free, drugs once you leave the hospital are your responsibility, even if you have to enter hospital again as soon as you stop taking them. Plus side is drugs are cheap up here for some reason.

With all due respect Ken, nothing in the Canadian healthcare system is "free". You are paying for it with your very high taxes. The costs are substantial and among the highest int he developed world according to some studies. Not saying that's good or bad, just pointing out nothing in this world is free.
 
Take a drive to any beach were lots of average americans congregate and you will see that our low ranking on life expectancy ISN'T due to our healthcare system!

Diet and exercise play a key role.
 
No one likes paying for healthcare. That is a fact. Beyond that, opinion seems to rule the day. If the US wants "free" (taxpayer funded) healthcare as the single payer advocates dream of, then you have to figure the top 50% of the workers and probably a lot of retirees are going to foot the bill for 1/5 of our nations GDP. You have a labor force where only 60% of the people who can work do, where less than 50% of the workers actually pay into the income tax system. So for our 320 million citizens you only have about 65-70 million, probably less, that would actually foot the bill, ie- you and me. Does anyone really think that if healthcare were "free", as so many people like to coin it, that costs would go down? No, of course not. So consider that we'd end up doing just what most socialized nations do- limit care. We'd probably end up limiting a lot of other stuff like what you're allowed to eat and do. Look around and see how much freedom we've lost already and tell me you think the Feds wouldn't either outlaw or heavily tax a lot of your lifestyle choices (you smoke, drink, cut firewood, hunt, water ski, ride an ATV or horse, play contact sports, watch a lot of tv, eat bacon, don't exercise enough, whatever). Is that really the direction we want to go?

The answer IMO is to put the responsibility for a persons healthcare (and a lot of other stuff) where it belongs- on the individual. Health savings plans and actual health insurance, as opposed to health CARE plans, would be a start. And make them tax deductible. Yeah, you can go with tort reform and some other tweaks that make it so healthcare providers aren't playing CYA more than they are treating illness too. We could alter the healthcare plans to reward the healthy. And you can not expect the healthy to pay for those who ignore obviously poor decisions- illegal drug use, risky behavior where STDs are an issue, smoke, drink too much, etc. If you want to do that stuff, fine, but you have to pay for your own choices. At the moment we seem to expect our neighbors to foot the bill for our stupid decisions We could change the system if we wanted to. But the problem is no one wants to pay their own way anymore. So the other alternative is to nationalize all healthcare. You simply don't have private doctors or hospitals anymore. You get what the gov gives you and that's that. Sounds great, huh? Those are your choices. Either way you are going to pay. 60% of the population isn't going to contribute a solitary dime no matter what, so you figure it out boys. You either pay out of your pocket directly or you figure another 25-30% of your net income going to pay for it. We'd be just like a lot of other countries where 60-70% of your pay is gone before you ever see it.

Not many choices guys. I'm pretty sure we're headed for that socialized deal where we pay a lot more and get a lot less.
 
I too heard the most prevalent reason for bankruptcy is medical bills. It could be true but i don't believe much of what i hear unless i can see solid facts. Jim
 
(quoted from post at 22:16:11 09/14/14) You're being rather disingenuous about how health care is paid for here. It remains as it's been since the start, largely paid for by provincial governments which raise the funds through consumption taxes... ie the former provincial sales tax or their portion of the HST today.
In NS it was originally labeled the health services tax and from what I remember was about 10% as far back as I can remember...
So the way I look at it... it's paid for by pretty well everyone unless you happen to live the hermit life in a tar paper shack in the woods.. Granted, some pay more than others but I don't feel too bad about that. If a lot of us made the income you had to pay that kind of tax we probably wouldn't have much to complain about.

Rod

You are welcome .
We spent the time and money for education and training while you were getting beered up with your buddies. Now you can coast along with a minimum of effort and responsibility . While we who work to pay your way.
 
So you would rather goverment bureaucrats get rich while doctors make what bus drivers make? Do you really want the guy who is going to perform your bypass to say "it was medical school or garbage collector...."

Actually the tax rate in the US is near the highest in the world (all taxes considered) and if anyone thinks having the government run anything will result in lower costs and higher efficiencies they must have been in a coma the last 70 years.
 
That would be how I would cover it. My oldest son has epilepsy and I am on several forums with other parents that have children with epilepsy. Basically the form my son had would have been a near death sentence in the UK or Canada.

Parents there ask ME for information to give their doctors because they are limited on visits and treatment options. The one that shocked me was how few KETO Diet options there were in England. Only 4 hospitals in the entire UK can administer the diet - while there were 6 hosptials in the state of Kansas that could.
 
I understand that, its just the term we use. I'll say free from service
charges health care.

I'd be ok with a pay per use, lot of snotty nosed kids clogging up
doctors time.
 
In some cases. Part of it is simply size, we are the numbers of the state of california spread out over a landmass bigger than the US. Centres in cities have top notch specialists.

Near us about 4 hours drive is a world class childrens hospital with amazing doctors. They do all the stuff the US speciality centres do but you have to travel to get there and pay hotels etc.

The rural provinces like mine just don't have enough people to support that. 850,000 people spread out over huge area. Biggest city is 100 K or so. Emergency services access means lots of small hospitals spread out, less efficiency of scale.
 
I don't think you really get it. You and a lot more... I probably have as much education as you. I simply choose to not work in an environment where my paycheck comes at the expense of the public t!t... or should I excuse myself and say formerly public t!t. I listen to people complain about how hard they work for their 100k salary and how much tax they have to pay when some of us live on what you pay in tax... and provide the food you eat.. and you complain about the price of that too. So no, I don't feel sorry for you. Around here we call civil servants... snivel servants because all they do is complain about how hard they got it with their 80-100k salaries and sit on their asses all day doing squat.
You ought to remember that it's the rest of us that don't work in snivel service jobs (the ones that produce something) that pay for the rest of the leaches, not the other way around, regardless of how much money you pay in tax.

Rod
 
The reason that universal health care would never work in the US is because half of you are adamantly opposed to the idea regardless of any number of facts presented to you.
While I don't pretend that our system is perfect I can tell you that on a per capita basis is costs roughly 1/2 what the US system costs to operate... Again, I say roughly as it's a while since I looked at the stats on that.
The main problem we have in our system is an entrenched attitude that resists change or progress of any type or any creative thinking to control costs... and the whole damn thing is subject to political intervention at any time. I think if everyone simply got on the bandwagon such as they are in northern Europe... and quit the debate about private-for profit vs public care and simply focused on making the public system better... it would be a lot better and a lot cheaper.
The notion that public underwriting of health is somehow going to force people into different lifestyle choices holds no merit with me. That's already going on in the US with private for profit underwriting to a MUCH GREATER EXTENT than it happens here. The form it takes here is a doctor pressuring you to do something, not an insurance company... All in all, to me it adds up to the same thing... and I like that no more than you do.

Rod
 
(quoted from post at 12:40:11 09/15/14) I don't think you really get it. You and a lot more... I probably have as much education as you. I simply choose to not work in an environment where my paycheck comes at the expense of the public t!t... or should I excuse myself and say formerly public t!t. I listen to people complain about how hard they work for their 100k salary and how much tax they have to pay when some of us live on what you pay in tax... and provide the food you eat.. and you complain about the price of that too. So no, I don't feel sorry for you. Around here we call civil servants... snivel servants because all they do is complain about how hard they got it with their 80-100k salaries and sit on their asses all day doing squat.
You ought to remember that it's the rest of us that don't work in snivel service jobs (the ones that produce something) that pay for the rest of the leaches, not the other way around, regardless of how much money you pay in tax.

Rod


Interesting what you will tell yourself to justify your lack of ambition and planning.
You don't seem to have any problems spending my money.
 
Don't care about him for the most part. Not the point of my post. It was comparing health care in other countries and talking to citizens there about it......unless they were paid actors lol. When the government here tells you that you don't want that type of system, do you honestly believe they have your best interest at heart...or theirs.
 
That is a good point. "subject to political intervention at any time". If you have the government controlling costs then that goes against capitalism, yet a lot of the smaller hospitals have been bought up by larger ones which limits a persons choice. Part of the problem is a lot of the larger companies and government has become a separate entity from the people.
 
I don't believe a government run system is or would necessarily be better, but our system in some cases doesn't work for the better of people. If you can afford it things are fine, if you cant they're not. Dont you think government bureaucrats are getting rich now from lobbyists and "donations"? Or the CEOs of insurance companies and some hospitals?
 
Just to add a funny, politicians have "government" health care and Im sure they are very satisfied with it lol. ;)
 
Its great you have a good 100K+ household income to support yourselves, but calling everyone else lazy and accusing them of stealing from you? Bad form.
What about cancer patients? Are they using an unfair share driving up your taxes? How about old people? People that smoked before enough tax was collected to help pay for their increased health costs?

Not everyone can make 100K+ a year regardless how much they work or how smart they are. If they are lucky they might but it requires a lot of things to align over a long period of time.
 
(quoted from post at 13:40:08 09/15/14) Its great you have a good 100K+ household income to support yourselves, but calling everyone else lazy and accusing them of stealing from you? Bad form.
What about cancer patients? Are they using an unfair share driving up your taxes? How about old people? [b:5dd053363f] People that smoked before enough tax was collected to help pay for their increased health costs?[/b:5dd053363f]

Not everyone can make 100K+ a year regardless how much they work or how smart they are. If they are lucky they might but it requires a lot of things to align over a long period of time.
I smoke already for 45 years, i have not been in a hospital or needed a doctor for the last 30 years.
I think i'm paying the rip off taxes to pay for all the overweight peoples health troubles. :roll:

Just saying.
 
(quoted from post at 16:40:08 09/15/14) Its great you have a good 100K+ household income to support yourselves, but calling everyone else lazy and accusing them of stealing from you? Bad form.
What about cancer patients? Are they using an unfair share driving up your taxes? How about old people? People that smoked before enough tax was collected to help pay for their increased health costs?

Not everyone can make 100K+ a year regardless how much they work or how smart they are. If they are lucky they might but it requires a lot of things to align over a long period of time.

I didn't say all. I'm talking about the unmotivated who could have and didn't. The one's who are quick to complain about healthcare and yet pay little to nothing into healthcare. The ones that think rich people have it easy and the wealthy owe them healthcare + other free benefits.
You can't find an honest person in the past 60yrs that won't say smoking is dangerous.
 
>The answer IMO is to put the responsibility for a persons healthcare (and a lot of other stuff) where it belongs- on the individual.

Bret, you may recall we already tried that. And we ended up with a health care system that cost more and gave poorer care than that of any other industrialized nation.

Now, like it or not, we are in the middle of an experiment, and that experiment is going to be the way things are for the rest of this decade, if not longer. ACA will not be repealed for at least three years, and it will take another three years or more to transition to whatever comes next. You might as well get used to it.

Speaking of what might come AFTER ACA, here's an observation for you: Roughly half the congressmen up for election are campaigning on a platform that includes repeal of ACA. That's about 230 candidates total, most of whom are pretty sharp individuals. Yet not a single one of these candidates has come up with any concrete proposal as to what they would replace ACA with.
 

When the health care debate started several years back I became curious how other countries handled health and how the USA compared. I selected a book; The Healing Of America written, by T.R. Reid. My choice was decided on the fact the author actually traveled to the various countries and interviewed people and doctors.

The book outlines the various health care systems (there are four) and provides costs, quality of care rankings and other comparisons of health around the world. The final chapters are more specific to USA and provide recommendations.

I found the book very informative.
 
You can spare me your condescending crap about my lifestyle. I owe nobody anything for what I have.
The way I look at it... healthcare and such things are the price you pay for having a big salary. You're still a lot better off than many. There's a lot of people in this world who would gladly pay their own way if they were paid a decent wage... but they're not paid a decent wage.. and in a lot of cases are not because the preponderance of power is not in their favor. Any time steps have been taken to change that fact those in power squeal like stuck pigs that they must now pay more...
The simple reality is that the social welfare system is what keeps the peace today. If it didn't exist, open revolution would... and if you think crime is out of control now, try turning off the tap.
There is a segment of society that does not fit in today. They never will. They have nothing of use to offer modern industry... their skills are not up to any minimum standard that can be applied usefully... and in most cases that's not a matter of training or their lifestyles. It just is what it is. So your options are to look after them or lock them up and look after them after they steal from you. Probably cheaper to just look after them...

Rod
 
To some degree they need to be separate... if you want to be ruthless in terms of cost control you can't be too concerned about the political consequences of your decisions.
There's a lot of big ticket items in the system that would be better off situated in regional centers instead of every whistle stop town (within reason)... yet you see decisions being made based on envy and not much else.
We're in a situation in this area where they don't have the resources to operate ER's in every one of the old town hospitals but reality is that the resources that are being spent trying to maintain them could be a LOT more effectively laid out in properly operating one central unit with a bit more in terms of advanced care paramedics... but every time they try to do what should be done there's a bloody uprising. So instead they maintain four ER's for an area that could be served by one and the three that are on the fringes are closed half of the time anyway because they don't have staff. That's what happens when management of the system is too close to the politicians...

Rod
 
When Clinton first took office they look at a national health care system something like Canada's. They figured at that time, everyone who held a job in the US would have to pay, without refunds, about 1/2 of their weekly income in taxes to support it. They knew the American people would never stand still for taxes like that and dropped it.

The only way to fix our current system doesn't meet constitutional muster. And that would be the strict regulation of the health care industry and caps of tort law. Years past your local community hospitals paid their bills by what they took in, local donors and if in the red at the end of the year government subsidies. way back when people started yelling about farm subsidies they started looking at others that they could cut too. medical was one, egged on by investors who thought they could run for profit hospitals. That is when medical care cost went through the roof. Then tort law got crazy and you started seeing multi million dollar settlements. Until the government tried to fix things we were OK. Sense they stopped the subsidies most locally supported hospitals are gone, now owned by a managed health care system.

As far as taxes goes, the US individual tax rate is one of the lowest, not highest, of developed nations. It's on line, you can look it up. some nations are bumping 60% for their free health care.

Rick
 
As far as the people moore interviewed: There are many people in the world who don't like the US. And many of them are misinformed as are many Americans. A good example is people who believe everything they hear about how rich Americans never pay any tax and the tax burden is only carried by working class American's. Easy to disprove with a little internet research but some people take it as gospel. The same is true in other countries. They here how bad and expensive health care is in the US so they think that their system is better. So you just cherry pick the people you interview or simply only show the interviews where people say what you want to hear. And presto you have yet another moore muckumentry. Most of his work has been discredited. About the only thing he's done that I approve of was his harassment of the wacko's protesting soldier funerals.

Rick
 
Personally... I don't believe our taxes are any higher, overall.
While our nominal rates for income tax may be higher... and most places have a sales tax... what amazes me about the US is the number of user fees and tax on property that doesn't even exist here. Also, if you want to make a fair comparison you'd also need to add in what you pay in health insurance premiums or pay for use fees for care that we don't have to pay.
I think if you look in totality you'd find that net disposable income is probably higher here... not by a lot, but some.
It's also hard to get fair studies or comparisons because everyone doing a 'study' has an axe to grind.
Our system is just very in your face with taxes; yours nickel and dimes you to death (literally) with user fees.

Rod
 
I agree with the big ticket items not needing to be in all of the hospitals. That is what my dad always had a complaint with, a person could go in to the local doctor, he does some tests then sends you to a bigger place/other specialist and they do the same tests...again. I cant blame a place for wanting to test and not basing their reputation on someone else's work for fear of lawsuits, but a test should be a test. All the hospitals and doctors offices seem to be spending more money and more money to get a few "new" tools and loads of eye candy so everything looks nice from the parking lot and waiting room. Remodeling is done every few years it seems.
 
(quoted from post at 20:20:02 09/15/14) I agree with the big ticket items not needing to be in all of the hospitals. That is what my dad always had a complaint with, a person could go in to the local doctor, he does some tests then sends you to a bigger place/other specialist and they do the same tests...again. I cant blame a place for wanting to test and not basing their reputation on someone else's work for fear of lawsuits, but a test should be a test. All the hospitals and doctors offices seem to be spending more money and more money to get a few "new" tools and loads of eye candy so everything looks nice from the parking lot and waiting room. Remodeling is done every few years it seems.

Alan, that's where the legal side comes in. You go in, doc does a test and decides, for liability reasons you need to see a specialist. Lets say for flat feet. So he sends you to see a podiatrist. He repeats the tests to cover himself incase your doc's test were bad. They really are not doing it to be able to charge you more. They are doing it to protect themselves against malpractice suits. We have gotten to be a sue happy society. And every lawyer that's chasing an ambulance is looking for that big payday. So they do their best to get a huge settlement or judgment. Malpractice insurance is very high because of the payouts. Well that insurance is paid for by added cost to the patient.

Rick
 
Rod: Canadian tax rate: 50% + Surcharge taxes (Varies) (15%-29% federal + 5%-21% provincial + $0–$900CDN Health Premium + Surcharge Taxes

US tax rate: 55.9% (max of federal+state+local) 10%-39.6% (federal) +
0%-13.3% (state)+
0%-3% (local)

Both the rates are max. My rate is about 15% FED, 10% STATE (INCLUDING SALES TAX) and about the 3% for LOCAL. Works out to about 28%.

Now last time I was in Canada the sales tax was unbelievable! The exact same item 20 miles south of the border was 1/2 the price! You are paying the taxes but don't see it. I'm paying 6.5% sales tax in my state. I think this is a case of what you have heard, not necessarily what's actually happening. The only folks paying that 55.9% are people making in the excess of 600,000 dollars a year. That's a far cry from the about 28% I'm paying.

Rick

Rick
 
(quoted from post at 21:03:41 09/15/14) >The answer IMO is to put the responsibility for a persons healthcare (and a lot of other stuff) where it belongs- on the individual.

Bret, you may recall we already tried that. And we ended up with a health care system that cost more and gave poorer care than that of any other industrialized nation.

Now, like it or not, we are in the middle of an experiment, and that experiment is going to be the way things are for the rest of this decade, if not longer. ACA will not be repealed for at least three years, and it will take another three years or more to transition to whatever comes next. You might as well get used to it.

Speaking of what might come AFTER ACA, here's an observation for you: Roughly half the congressmen up for election are campaigning on a platform that includes repeal of ACA. That's about 230 candidates total, most of whom are pretty sharp individuals. Yet not a single one of these candidates has come up with any concrete proposal as to what they would replace ACA with.

Look back into how the whole healthcare plan thing started and why. Believe it or not it was Henry Kaiser back around the start or just before WW2 trying to work a way around FDRs wage freezes to entice people to work for him. That's how healthcare started and today that outfit is Kaiser-Permanante (sp). By the mid 60's only some large businesses and some public institutions had health care plans. It was a "perk" or "bennie" you got for an otherwise low paying job. Somewhere along the lines doctors and hospitals figured out the healthcare plans would pay more than the average out of pocket Joe could afford, so the costs suddenly jumped for those folks. As costs went up, more and more people wanted someone else to pay the bill. Of course the welfare system came into the mix with all those people on the public dole wanting "free" care. Then low wage earners wanted their share too and they got their subsidized or "free" care. Big medicine bought out little medicine and doctors figured out they could keep more of their own money if they hid behind a corporation. Laws changed and pharmaceutical companies that did decades of research and poured millions into R+D and testing suddenly found they had but 7 years to make their costs back before the generics could be sold. So what might have been payed of over 10-20 years now had to be payed for in 7. Costs went up again. Somewhere along the line it was decided that the gov't should stick it's fingers further into the pot and mandate that those with poor health shouldn't be put in a higher risk pool...another huge jump. Now our gov't has the ability to force us to purchase healthcare or face fines and eventual imprisonment. The employer mandate has been illegally stalled several times and when that finally does go into play I think all sorts of people are going to see major, major changes in their income levels and cost of living.

Personally, I think this is all engineered to make single payer look like an answer from heaven. The sheeple who are seeing their paycheck shrink will grab at it like a drowning man grabs a rope. The employers that are looking at general strikes and violent protests will do the same. Municipalities that are faced with books in the red due to Medicaid costs and a shrinking tax base will see it as mana from God and jump at it. At that point you can kiss your ability to choose what healthcare you get goodbye along with your privacy. Once Big Brother has control of your healthcare and you are part of the pool then information sharing among agencies (IRS, Health, various sales tax agencies, DMV, BATFE, etc.) along with data mining by quasi gov't operatives (think GOOGLE) and domestic surveillance (you really think it isn't done?) will all combine to give a whole new meaning to "land of the free". Doesn't matter, at this point at least, if you vote D or R, both sides like the idea of vast new levels of power and taxation.

So, you tell me, at this point in the game what do you think is going to be done? Without a vibrant economy there is no way to pay for public healthcare and there is no way the working man can afford to foot the bill himself. No politician is going to get up and say that out loud. We could change it to a system where you have a health savings account and true catastrophic insurance, but that requires personal accountability and wouldn't answer for the 60-75% of people who have zero interest in paying their own way. And whats more, even though the states could do their own plans, like Mass did under Romney, no one is interested in that either. No one wants to pay for their healthcare, so the shrinking tax paying base is going to pay for it. It doesn't surprise me at all that no one is getting up and talking alternatives. They don't talk alternatives to SS either. Why? Because it puts the responsibility on the individual and we just "don't do that" anymore.
 
What I'm saying is that our nominal rates of tax are quite similar on income.
We have a 15% sales tax here... and in this province, that sales tax is basically what pays for our health care. There is no other premium for health unless you go out and buy a private insurance plan for drugs/dental.
What irked me about at least some places in the US, from what I understand... you pay property tax on all the equipment you own every year. Here we pay tax on real property but not on mobile equipment as such. There is 15% sales tax on all that equipment (up front) but if you're a registered business that collects/remits tax, then you simply get a refund of that tax at the end of the quarter or whatever filing system you're on. The 15% sales tax is revenue neutral to registered businesses. We have to collect tax on taxable items we sell and remit it... but that's balanced against the tax we pay on items we buy... so typically for a farm, we pay a lot out and collect very little because most farm products are 'zero rated' for tax (not taxable)... so we simply collect a refund at period end. So back to property tax.. that kind of surprised me that all that stuff was taxable, at least in some locales... We pay 2.50/1000 assessed value here on land/buildings but ag land is exempt. Forest land is 25 cents per acre, etc. It's minimal. But due to assessment we get whacked pretty good on our buildings. Somewhere in the vicinity of 5k/year for us.
In terms of personal tax, I usually don't pay any. Between basic exemptions, investment tax credits for farm business and volunteer fire fighter tax credits (3k federal and 500 provincial), that covers me most times...

Also keep in mind that a lot of the items you see cheaper on your side of the border have more to do with exchange rates than taxes. Even when our dollar was at par we were paying upwards of 20% more for parts because CNH likes to profit on the exchange... Other things like fuel have a road tax built into the price that you pay instead in tolls...

Rod
 
In Texas there's no state income tax,no sales or personal property tax on farm equip, no personal property tax on vehicles. I do pay property,fed income,fuel & state sales taxes on non ag purchases.
 
(quoted from post at 07:13:01 09/16/14) What I'm saying is that our nominal rates of tax are quite similar on income.
We have a 15% sales tax here... and in this province, that sales tax is basically what pays for our health care. There is no other premium for health unless you go out and buy a private insurance plan for drugs/dental.
What irked me about at least some places in the US, from what I understand... you pay property tax on all the equipment you own every year. Here we pay tax on real property but not on mobile equipment as such. There is 15% sales tax on all that equipment (up front) but if you're a registered business that collects/remits tax, then you simply get a refund of that tax at the end of the quarter or whatever filing system you're on. The 15% sales tax is revenue neutral to registered businesses. We have to collect tax on taxable items we sell and remit it... but that's balanced against the tax we pay on items we buy... so typically for a farm, we pay a lot out and collect very little because most farm products are 'zero rated' for tax (not taxable)... so we simply collect a refund at period end. So back to property tax.. that kind of surprised me that all that stuff was taxable, at least in some locales... We pay 2.50/1000 assessed value here on land/buildings but ag land is exempt. Forest land is 25 cents per acre, etc. It's minimal. But due to assessment we get whacked pretty good on our buildings. Somewhere in the vicinity of 5k/year for us.
In terms of personal tax, I usually don't pay any. Between basic exemptions, investment tax credits for farm business and volunteer fire fighter tax credits (3k federal and 500 provincial), that covers me most times...

Also keep in mind that a lot of the items you see cheaper on your side of the border have more to do with exchange rates than taxes. Even when our dollar was at par we were paying upwards of 20% more for parts because CNH likes to profit on the exchange... Other things like fuel have a road tax built into the price that you pay instead in tolls...

Rod

I only pay property tax on real property. Any purchase of farm items is tax exempt. You have a value added tax in some provinces that we don't have. And I only know one state that used to tax personal property. Don't know if they still do.

Rick
 
I forget what state(s) do but it's something I've read on other forums... Mabey it's a very isolated thing. Have no idea. It just surprised me when I read it.

Rod
 
Huge debate here in the USA...mostly along party lines, but one fact is clear. Americans pay more for healthcare than other industrialized nations, sometimes twice as much, (as a percent of our GDP), but we have a shorter average life expectancy. Most Americans have no experience with healthcare systems in other nations so they base all their beliefs on stories told by others.

I wonder if we paid twice as much for gasoline, or food or housing than in other countries, if we would defend that distribution system as vigorously?

Because we have direct relationships with our doctors, we frankly have a serious case of "Doctor worship"....but alas... we all still die.
 
Fact: Son had an emergency Appendecomy last Dec 2013, old healthcare system. He had good insurance thru his employer.
He was in the hospial from 5PM Friday until noon next day...19 hours. No complications. Bill was over $40,000. Insurance co and hospital in a big fight, insurance refusing to pay. He is on the hook (maybe). This is the wonderful old system at its best.
 
(quoted from post at 14:03:47 09/16/14) Huge debate here in the USA...mostly along party lines, but one fact is clear. Americans pay more for healthcare than other industrialized nations, sometimes twice as much, (as a percent of our GDP), but we have a shorter average life expectancy. Most Americans have no experience with healthcare systems in other nations so they base all their beliefs on stories told by others.

I wonder if we paid twice as much for gasoline, or food or housing than in other countries, if we would defend that distribution system as vigorously?

Because we have direct relationships with our doctors, we frankly have a serious case of "Doctor worship"....but alas... we all still die.


Ever think it's because they charge us more? We go, get seen, get the bill and pay it or insurance dose.

Rick
 
I've heard good and bad about other countrys health care systems. Think like anything this complicated there are times it sucks and other times its a lifesaver.

But I will tell you this with every fiber of my body straining to convince you....we are getting screwed. By the pharmy corps, working in tandem with the docs....and by the insurance corps.

And it won't stop until the people of this country demand a change..the lobbyists promoting medical devices that aren't proven out..crippling people. The fraud...billions...

Do you really think that if a company doing r & d on cancer research happens across a cure, for say oral cancer...that they will throw that out on the market..IF they have millions in stores of drugs for treating, but not curing the illness?
 
(quoted from post at 17:03:47 09/16/14) Huge debate here in the USA...mostly along party lines, but one fact is clear. Americans pay more for healthcare than other industrialized nations, sometimes twice as much, (as a percent of our.


How do you figure twice as much ?
 
I know it isn't in this case for your son but that was a reason for the high cost of health care...to pay for those who didn't have insurance. Now since everyone is supposed to have insurance...now what is the excuse?
 
If you want to see the cost per capita and percent of GDP just Google:

List of countries by total health expenditure (PPP) per capita
 
Bret, you need not worry about single payer coming to the US in our lifetimes. The insurance, health care and pharmaceutical industries are far too powerful to let that happen.

Here is my prediction for how things will shake out: ACA will continue along for the next three years. There will be plenty of problems, some self-inflicted (e.g. the website fiasco) and some not (the innumerable court challenges). In 2017 it may be mathematically possible to repeal ACA. That is not going to happen for three reasons: First, the political landscape will have shifted, and the idea of repealing ACA will be much less popular than it is today. Second, although they will have had three more years to think about it, the opponents of ACA will still have no idea what to replace it with. It's much easier to criticize something when you're not on the hook to come up with something better. Third, any repeal or replacement of ACA will almost certainly be much more expensive. So what will happen is there will be some changes to ACA, maybe major, maybe minor, but it will continue to roll along. For better or worse, the system created by ACA is what we will know for the rest of our lives.

A few corrections to your history:

Although Kaiser was a early implementer of employee health insurance, it was hardly the first. The first employee health insurance plans were created for teachers in the thirties.

'all those people on the public dole wanting "free" care' You are of course referring to Medicare/Medicaid, the primary recipients of which are the elderly, the blind and the disabled, not able-bodied people on public assistance.

Pharmaceutical patents are good for 20 years, although the patent holder gets exclusive rights to produce the drug for only seven years. But the pharmaceutical companies have come up with novel ways to insure continued profits in spite of these limits.
 
(quoted from post at 18:28:00 09/16/14) Fact: Son had an emergency Appendecomy last Dec 2013, old healthcare system. He had good insurance thru his employer.
He was in the hospial from 5PM Friday until noon next day...19 hours. No complications. Bill was over $40,000. Insurance co and hospital in a big fight, insurance refusing to pay. He is on the hook (maybe). This is the wonderful old system at its best.

Edd, the reason the bill is so high is because the hospital is trying to pay for all the freeloaders, all the malpractice insurance, all the union contracts and retirees, doctors fees and insurance, all the fancy parking, waiting rooms, new offices, etc. They will hash it out, their lawyers will make money, the bill will be paid at a much lower rate and the costs passed on to the people in the pool at the insurance group and the hospitals costs onto the next guy in line where the same thing will happen. What did his actual care cost? Real hard to find out and probably no where near what he was charged. BUT- what is the alternative? We have a great big can of worms that's not going to be easy to untangle. "Free" healthcare isn't fee at all. So ask yourself if you want 25 to maybe 40% less in your net pay (because that's what "free" healthcare is going to end up costing) or would it have been better for your son to have had a health savings plan, tax deductible, and catastrophic insurance? Right now if he has insurance (healthcare plan actually, it's not insurance at all) his employer is probably already paying 1/3-1/2 of his salary into that (I judge that on what we're paying our local employees, it's going to vary). If you son had that $ to put in his HSA it would be a pretty fair nest egg and it could have been put in an interest bearing account. Just a thought.

(quoted from post at 07:08:56 09/17/14) Bret, you need not worry about single payer coming to the US in our lifetimes. The insurance, health care and pharmaceutical industries are far too powerful to let that happen.

Here is my prediction for how things will shake out: ACA will continue along for the next three years. There will be plenty of problems, some self-inflicted (e.g. the website fiasco) and some not (the innumerable court challenges). In 2017 it may be mathematically possible to repeal ACA. That is not going to happen for three reasons: First, the political landscape will have shifted, and the idea of repealing ACA will be much less popular than it is today. Second, although they will have had three more years to think about it, the opponents of ACA will still have no idea what to replace it with. It's much easier to criticize something when you're not on the hook to come up with something better. Third, any repeal or replacement of ACA will almost certainly be much more expensive. So what will happen is there will be some changes to ACA, maybe major, maybe minor, but it will continue to roll along. For better or worse, the system created by ACA is what we will know for the rest of our lives.

A few corrections to your history:

Although Kaiser was a early implementer of employee health insurance, it was hardly the first. The first employee health insurance plans were created for teachers in the thirties.

'all those people on the public dole wanting "free" care' You are of course referring to Medicare/Medicaid, the primary recipients of which are the elderly, the blind and the disabled, not able-bodied people on public assistance.

Pharmaceutical patents are good for 20 years, although the patent holder gets exclusive rights to produce the drug for only seven years. But the pharmaceutical companies have come up with novel ways to insure continued profits in spite of these limits.

Kaiser was the first to come up with "healthcare" in the form we know it today, not that it really matters.

Medicaid is what I was referring to. It's the largest single cost on our tax base locally and from what I read it's the same everywhere across the nation. Medicare is another issue altogether and differs greatly from Medicaid. I do recognize that Mediaid does cover some percentage that is blind, disabled, etc. of working age, but what percentage is that do you think? 10%? 15%? It also covers a lot of young kids with major issues, and some not so major, like speech therapy. Still, what percentage is that compared to the whole? My Google-fu is on the fritz because several minutes looking for that info got me zilch. The numbers say almost 1/3 of our population is on public assistance, 35.4%, that's more than the number of people working. Some of those people are actually in need of assistance and I would never deny then that- the infirm, ill, disabled (the TRULY disabled!), the elderly that qualify (being old does not mean you qualify- Warren Buffet is pretty old). But how many don't even try? I don't know where you live, but in my area being on multiple forms of public assistance is common. A good deal of these people don't try and never tried. Those are the people that scream loudest when any talk of change comes along and those are the people I was aiming at. If you feel 20 and 30 somethings that have never done anything other than sit and drink beer their whole lives are worthy of your tax dollars, have at it. I think my tax dollars should go to help people trying to help themselves.

I don't think external_link is going to last. Maybe I'm wrong, wouldn't be the 1st time. Either way, it's going to end up costing a lot more than ever imagined (per the CBO) and it's a huge power grab. And either way, I don't things getting better as far as costs, care (rationing is already in play), privacy or in solving the base issue which was people falling through the so called "safety net". We already have states issuing or talking of issuing healthcare to illegal aliens. How is that sustainable?
 
(quoted from post at 07:08:56 09/17/14) Bret, you need not worry about single payer coming to the US in our lifetimes. The insurance, health care and pharmaceutical industries are far too powerful to let that happen.

Here is my prediction for how things will shake out: ACA will continue along for the next three years. There will be plenty of problems, some self-inflicted (e.g. the website fiasco) and some not (the innumerable court challenges). In 2017 it may be mathematically possible to repeal ACA. That is not going to happen for three reasons: First, the political landscape will have shifted, and the idea of repealing ACA will be much less popular than it is today. Second, although they will have had three more years to think about it, the opponents of ACA will still have no idea what to replace it with. It's much easier to criticize something when you're not on the hook to come up with something better. Third, any repeal or replacement of ACA will almost certainly be much more expensive. So what will happen is there will be some changes to ACA, maybe major, maybe minor, but it will continue to roll along. For better or worse, the system created by ACA is what we will know for the rest of our lives.

A few corrections to your history:

Although Kaiser was a early implementer of employee health insurance, it was hardly the first. The first employee health insurance plans were created for teachers in the thirties.

'all those people on the public dole wanting "free" care' You are of course referring to Medicare/Medicaid, the primary recipients of which are the elderly, the blind and the disabled, not able-bodied people on public assistance.

Pharmaceutical patents are good for 20 years, although the patent holder gets exclusive rights to produce the drug for only seven years. But the pharmaceutical companies have come up with novel ways to insure continued profits in spite of these limits.

Kaiser was the first to come up with "healthcare" in the form we know it today, not that it really matters.

Medicaid is what I was referring to. It's the largest single cost on our tax base locally and from what I read it's the same everywhere across the nation. Medicare is another issue altogether and differs greatly from Medicaid. I do recognize that Mediaid does cover some percentage that is blind, disabled, etc. of working age, but what percentage is that do you think? 10%? 15%? It also covers a lot of young kids with major issues, and some not so major, like speech therapy. Still, what percentage is that compared to the whole? My Google-fu is on the fritz because several minutes looking for that info got me zilch. The numbers say almost 1/3 of our population is on public assistance, 35.4%, that's more than the number of people working. Some of those people are actually in need of assistance and I would never deny then that- the infirm, ill, disabled (the TRULY disabled!), the elderly that qualify (being old does not mean you qualify- Warren Buffet is pretty old). But how many don't even try? I don't know where you live, but in my area being on multiple forms of public assistance is common. A good deal of these people don't try and never tried. Those are the people that scream loudest when any talk of change comes along and those are the people I was aiming at. If you feel 20 and 30 somethings that have never done anything other than sit and drink beer their whole lives are worthy of your tax dollars, have at it. I think my tax dollars should go to help people trying to help themselves.

I don't think external_link is going to last. Maybe I'm wrong, wouldn't be the 1st time. Either way, it's going to end up costing a lot more than ever imagined (per the CBO) and it's a huge power grab. And either way, I don't things getting better as far as costs, care (rationing is already in play), privacy or in solving the base issue which was people falling through the so called "safety net". We already have states issuing or talking of issuing healthcare to illegal aliens. How is that sustainable?
 
(quoted from post at 07:08:56 09/17/14) Bret, you need not worry about single payer coming to the US in our lifetimes. The insurance, health care and pharmaceutical industries are far too powerful to let that happen.

Here is my prediction for how things will shake out: ACA will continue along for the next three years. There will be plenty of problems, some self-inflicted (e.g. the website fiasco) and some not (the innumerable court challenges). In 2017 it may be mathematically possible to repeal ACA. That is not going to happen for three reasons: First, the political landscape will have shifted, and the idea of repealing ACA will be much less popular than it is today. Second, although they will have had three more years to think about it, the opponents of ACA will still have no idea what to replace it with. It's much easier to criticize something when you're not on the hook to come up with something better. Third, any repeal or replacement of ACA will almost certainly be much more expensive. So what will happen is there will be some changes to ACA, maybe major, maybe minor, but it will continue to roll along. For better or worse, the system created by ACA is what we will know for the rest of our lives.

A few corrections to your history:

Although Kaiser was a early implementer of employee health insurance, it was hardly the first. The first employee health insurance plans were created for teachers in the thirties.

'all those people on the public dole wanting "free" care' You are of course referring to Medicare/Medicaid, the primary recipients of which are the elderly, the blind and the disabled, not able-bodied people on public assistance.

Pharmaceutical patents are good for 20 years, although the patent holder gets exclusive rights to produce the drug for only seven years. But the pharmaceutical companies have come up with novel ways to insure continued profits in spite of these limits.

Kaiser was the first to come up with "healthcare" in the form we know it today, not that it really matters.

Medicaid is what I was referring to. It's the largest single cost on our tax base locally and from what I read it's the same everywhere across the nation. Medicare is another issue altogether and differs greatly from Medicaid. I do recognize that Mediaid does cover some percentage that is blind, disabled, etc. of working age, but what percentage is that do you think? 10%? 15%? It also covers a lot of young kids with major issues, and some not so major, like speech therapy. Still, what percentage is that compared to the whole? My Google-fu is on the fritz because several minutes looking for that info got me zilch. The numbers say almost 1/3 of our population is on public assistance, 35.4%, that's more than the number of people working. Some of those people are actually in need of assistance and I would never deny then that- the infirm, ill, disabled (the TRULY disabled!), the elderly that qualify (being old does not mean you qualify- Warren Buffet is pretty old). But how many don't even try? I don't know where you live, but in my area being on multiple forms of public assistance is common. A good deal of these people don't try and never tried. Those are the people that scream loudest when any talk of change comes along and those are the people I was aiming at. If you feel 20 and 30 somethings that have never done anything other than sit and drink beer their whole lives are worthy of your tax dollars, have at it. I think my tax dollars should go to help people trying to help themselves.

I don't think external_link is going to last. Maybe I'm wrong, wouldn't be the 1st time. Either way, it's going to end up costing a lot more than ever imagined (per the CBO) and it's a huge power grab. And either way, I don't things getting better as far as costs, care (rationing is already in play), privacy or in solving the base issue which was people falling through the so called "safety net". We already have states issuing or talking of issuing healthcare to illegal aliens. How is that sustainable?
 
Bret, yours was a very thoughtful and disciplined reply to the discussion. I certainly agree with your assessment of ACA. It is easy to criticize, especially by those that do not (or can not) provide an alternative. The old healthcare sysem in America was broken, and it is easy to lose sight of that in the heat of political wrangling.

After several serious illnesses and hospitalizations (mine and my family) I have sadly come to the conclusion that "for profit"
healthcare is a very flawed system.

Healthcare is not easily shopped or selected.

I can not look for the best price on the sign---like gasoline, or eat chicken when beef seems too expensive. I can not refuse a pacemaker for my mother, like I can a transmission overhaul for my old truck. When an emergency happens, the closest provider gets the business.

If healthcare was not profitable, why would the hospitals be such big advertisers for more business.

The profit vultures in the healthcare industry know this and they exploit it to the hilt. Once you have seen them pile on the profit for a dying senior citizen and charge it all to medicare, the light bulb comes on.
When our local Hospice brags about their dedication to the sick and dying of our community, then bills $80 for a sponge bath, charges $52 million to medicare and pays their local city executive $400,000/yr you realize that charity begins at the cash register.
 
I would assume he's referring to macro economic data in terms of what the nation's healthcare system costs, per person, regardless of the payment source...
Last I looked, ours was somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3 the cost of their system..

Rod
 
Huh. I had 2 other replies here this AM that are gone now. Must be not PC enough?

Yup, just checked and there are several replies missing. Must be you can't have a discussion without the PC police making sure you don't badmouth the entitlement class.
 
(quoted from post at 10:54:45 09/17/14) I would assume he's referring to macro economic data in terms of what the nation's healthcare system costs, per person, regardless of the payment source...
Last I looked, ours was somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3 the cost of their system..

Rod

Actually Rod, Canada has one of the most expensive healthcare programs among developed nations according to the Fraiser Institute based on 2009 numbers. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=18232 In gross numbers yours runs about 13% GDP and ours runs about 17% GDP using 2012 numbers. I'm also seeing numbers that say your system is running a half billion dollar deficit at least. I understand Alberta alone has a projected billion dollar deficit. That is no more sustainable than any other program stuck in a deficit.
 
So... I guess 12% of GDP is still just about somewhere in that range of 50%-65% cheaper than 17% of GDP?

Beyond that... the Fraser Institute is nothing more than a neo-con think tank. That's kind of like a abundant think tank, just with opposite and equally incorrect agenda's. The Fraser Institute has a long history of producing studies on a wide range of subjects, done in a manner that suggest that anything other than a complete and open free market in every sector is completely evil. So I don't trust too much of what they produce... no more than I trust any of the other so called think tanks.
As far as our system running a deficit.. perhaps I should ask how it could run a deficit? It's not administered as anything other than a department of the provincial government in nova scotia... which is presently projecting about a 1/4 B deficit for the fiscal year for the entire budget on top of a 14B net debt. Not too much of that debt is directly attributable to healthcare. Most of it IS attributable to asphalt politics and corrupt economic development schemes... that included over a billion dollars in propping up a steel mill and close to half a billion more on the eventual cleanup of the site when it did close.
I don't know where you get this half billion number or what it refers to. If it's the federal budget for the year... then that's basically a rounding error.
In terms of Alberta... a billion dollar deficit on an economy of that size really isn't a big deal. Stop and consider for a moment that this is perhaps the only province/state in the developed world that actually had a significant amount of money in the bank up until the past couple years. Ie. they have no debt. Their present problem likely stems from the fact that they've been pouring money into the infrastructure they've neglected to invest anything in for a very long time... and they're now finding that catch up is a b!tch.. Combine that with a government founded over 40 years ago by the blue eyed sheik... seems to be going off the rails at a remarkable rate.. it's not a big surprise that they're running a bit of a deficit when their primary source of revenue, oil royalties... are not what they were circa 2007.

At the end of the day, they way I look at it, our system is a lot cheaper than the US system which is a net benefit to our economy. Whether or not it's the cheapest system, I really don't know.
I do know it could be improved... but I think the debate needs to be about how to make improvements rather than abolishing it for something else that has a track record of costing a lot more.

Rod
 
Conservatives tend to describe socialized medicine in absolute moral terms rather than relative economic terms. It's easy enough to describe something as "bad" or better yet "evil", but those arguments tend to fall apart when you ask the question "compared to what?". And the "what" in this case is the most expensive yet arguably the least effective health care system of any industrialized country.
 
Very good point. I had watched a program on the PIVOT channel called "Doctored". VERY informative on how patience are viewed by the medical community. As was stated before on here, the drug companies get the doctors to push pills to keep people on them. It is a money making scheme for the drug companies. The program mentioned if a cure for cancer was found it more than likely wouldn't be made. If you cure someone your money stops, if you have a drug they have to depend on it doesn't disrupt your cash flow. Makes a person angry.
 
(quoted from post at 23:25:50 09/17/14) Conservatives tend to describe socialized medicine in absolute moral terms rather than relative economic terms. It's easy enough to describe something as "bad" or better yet "evil", but those arguments tend to fall apart when you ask the question "compared to what?". And the "what" in this case is the most expensive yet arguably the least effective health care system of any industrialized country.

And liberals tend to completely ignore the actual costs as long as the program "feels good" and they aren't having to pay for it themselves.

A better system? Health savings accounts, tax deductible, and true catastrophic insurance would be a start. Consider that healthcare packages can cost up to half your actual salary or more, ie- what your employer is actually paying you, not just what you see. If that money were to be put into an HSA instead of a corporate plan it would be a significant nest egg. I know our town employees medical costs are 2/3 their actual wage. It's an option. At least then people would be seeing the actual costs for what they want and what they do. It's an option.

The only real alternative I see if you want socialized care is to have the gov simply take over healthcare and run it like the military does. All dr's and hospitals are Federal employees and that's it. You want a specialist they don't offer, you go out of country. I don't see any sustainable paradigm outside of those choices. No matter the system the taxpayer is going to take it in the shorts as medicine becomes more and more socialized. Who pays for it? The same 40% of tax payers that are paying for it now.
 
(quoted from post at 21:19:44 09/17/14) So... I guess 12% of GDP is still just about somewhere in that range of 50%-65% cheaper than 17% of GDP?

Beyond that... the Fraser Institute is nothing more than a neo-con think tank. That's kind of like a abundant think tank, just with opposite and equally incorrect agenda's. The Fraser Institute has a long history of producing studies on a wide range of subjects, done in a manner that suggest that anything other than a complete and open free market in every sector is completely evil. So I don't trust too much of what they produce... no more than I trust any of the other so called think tanks.
As far as our system running a deficit.. perhaps I should ask how it could run a deficit? It's not administered as anything other than a department of the provincial government in nova scotia... which is presently projecting about a 1/4 B deficit for the fiscal year for the entire budget on top of a 14B net debt. Not too much of that debt is directly attributable to healthcare. Most of it IS attributable to asphalt politics and corrupt economic development schemes... that included over a billion dollars in propping up a steel mill and close to half a billion more on the eventual cleanup of the site when it did close.
I don't know where you get this half billion number or what it refers to. If it's the federal budget for the year... then that's basically a rounding error.
In terms of Alberta... a billion dollar deficit on an economy of that size really isn't a big deal. Stop and consider for a moment that this is perhaps the only province/state in the developed world that actually had a significant amount of money in the bank up until the past couple years. Ie. they have no debt. Their present problem likely stems from the fact that they've been pouring money into the infrastructure they've neglected to invest anything in for a very long time... and they're now finding that catch up is a b!tch.. Combine that with a government founded over 40 years ago by the blue eyed sheik... seems to be going off the rails at a remarkable rate.. it's not a big surprise that they're running a bit of a deficit when their primary source of revenue, oil royalties... are not what they were circa 2007.

At the end of the day, they way I look at it, our system is a lot cheaper than the US system which is a net benefit to our economy. Whether or not it's the cheapest system, I really don't know.
I do know it could be improved... but I think the debate needs to be about how to make improvements rather than abolishing it for something else that has a track record of costing a lot more.

Rod

Rod, the Fraser Institute may be a "neo-con" (whatever that means) think tank, but I can't find anyone disputing their assertions. Their studies are referenced by everyone from Forbes to the Huffington Post to the National Center for Policy Analysis. No one is saying they are wrong, but a lot of them use terms like, "In spite of the costs Canadas system is good...". So at this point I have to stick with the idea that your system, while good, is expensive.

Your debt figures don't jibe with what I'm seeing. Speaking specifically to Nova Scotia, you seem to be ignoring the $18B in federal debt. http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/6066-debt-clock.html Maybe I'm misunderstanding something there. The $500b deficit I cannot find that specific reference now. What I can find are numerous references to deficit spending among the provinces on healthcare, including Albertas near billion dollar deficit for healthcare and the provinces massive input to wipe that debt out. I also find numerous references to the "gray tsunami" and the reality that healthcare costs are not going to go down and revenue isn't going to rise any time soon. That's not to say that I don't admire the fact your people (mine in a way since half my family emigrated here from Nova Scotia) are working on the issue. At least your folks are recognizing the problems and trying to fix it rather than attempting to fight the issue with gobs of money and no thought to the cost like ours are. But then, Canadas fiscal policy has usually been far more conservative than ours over the last 50 years or so. That's part of why your banks are run much more responsibly than ours. Mindset.

In the end, you have a very expensive public system and we have an even more expensive public/private system. Both are too expensive IMO. Coming up with a good solution is the problem. Your people want improvements and lower costs. So do ours. You have a system in place that is workable in your socialized economy. We have a giant mess. I imagine yours will be hashed out long before ours is.
 
Canada is running somewhere north of 600B net debt at the Federal level, but none of that is directly attributed to the provinces as such. The debt had been as low as about 400B before the financial crisis. Back in the early 90's w had been running slightly over 500B. The conservative government of the day introduced the 7% goods and services tax that raised significant revenue towards wiping out the 40B annual deficit. With the change in government in 1993, the incoming liberals brought forward significant austerity measures and cut spending across the board. That eventually brought them to 30-40B surpluses by the late 90's which were followed by some tax cuts, increases in basic income tax exemptions and debt payments that brought the debt down into the 400B range. Since that time the recent conservative government has been cutting more taxes and wiping out the surplus... which brought us into the 2008 crisis.... where they again ran upwards of 40B in deficit spending annually to 'stimulate' the economy... This spring's budget has finally come back to near balance. It projected a slight deficit, but in reality when one considers the margin of error in the forecasts it will probably end up being a slight surplus...
Nova Scotia's situation, I can assure you... is dire. Our net debt stands at slightly more than 14B. That may not be widely available information on Google... but there was a press release on the budget update this week so the numbers are as fresh as you can get. IIRC, we're running a 247M deficit forecast for this year.

AS far as you suggesting that any of these deficits are the result of healthcare... that's just patently incorrect. Health is funded as a line item in the budget, from general revenue... and the deficits you quote are budget totals. While we have taxes that originally intended to pay for health, at this point everything goes into general revenue and is paid from general revenue. It's not like there's a specific fund set aside for health. There is for employment insurance and Canada pension plans... but not for health. So it can't really be in deficit... it's funding is what's established in the budget... unless they overspend their budgets. Which often happens. That's when you start hearing about bed closures in hospitals, cancellations of elective surgeries, etc.

As far as the Fraser Institute goes... they may sometimes trade in actual numbers.... or they may not. It's a while since I looked at anything they did. I have looked in the past at stuff they've done on our supply managed dairy/poultry/egg industries... and the 'facts' they used were either blatantly incorrect or they applied their twisted assumptions to numbers in such a way that no factual information could be drawn from it. Believe me, they have an agenda, and they will twist the 'facts' to make the outcome fit their agenda. Abolishing universal health care is one of their agenda's. It has been for a long time. Removing supply management from our 5 major commodity groups is also on their agenda even though that can't provide one shred of evidence where anyone would benefit from it. That's the Fraser Institute. They're just as big a bunch of kooks as their counterparts at the 'Center for Policy Alternatives', the left wing version of idiocracy in Canada.

If you want to know why health care costs are rapidly increasing in this country... I can tell you why. There's one main reason. They're called nurses. They have powerful unions. They expect year over year increases in salary that are in the 5% range, just for showing up... and nobody dare oppose the poor nurses. One interesting thing here... as civil servants, their salaries are made public. Lots of them are turning over 100k per year. One here took home just about 250K last year due to the overtime that she worked. For a point of reference, that was MORE than the health authority CEO...
Not too many jobs you can get that turn over 100k a year on 4 years school. Doctors turning over 300k + too. I can see them getting more than the nurses.... Teachers all taking in 60-100K per, again with big increases every year.
That's why our spending is out of control. We're paying increases to all of these people that are running more than twice what core inflation is running. You can't expect to do that and not have a deficit. If anywhere there ought to be some personal responsibility, it ought to be in the minds of those getting those increases... and realise that this trend can not continue. I don't think that is a problem that is isolated to Nova Scotia or Canada generally either.

Rod
 
So what you have is more or less what I mentioned to Mark- the gov't takes over healthcare entirely. I don't picture Americans being on board with that idea.
 
It may be in a different sense, but for all purposes the drug companies, insurance companies, and parts of the government (paid by lobbyists) control a persons health care now.
 
(quoted from post at 10:06:03 09/18/14) Canada is running somewhere north of 600B net debt at the Federal level, but none of that is directly attributed to the provinces as such. The debt had been as low as about 400B before the financial crisis. Back in the early 90's w had been running slightly over 500B. The conservative government of the day introduced the 7% goods and services tax that raised significant revenue towards wiping out the 40B annual deficit. With the change in government in 1993, the incoming liberals brought forward significant austerity measures and cut spending across the board. That eventually brought them to 30-40B surpluses by the late 90's which were followed by some tax cuts, increases in basic income tax exemptions and debt payments that brought the debt down into the 400B range. Since that time the recent conservative government has been cutting more taxes and wiping out the surplus... which brought us into the 2008 crisis.... where they again ran upwards of 40B in deficit spending annually to 'stimulate' the economy... This spring's budget has finally come back to near balance. It projected a slight deficit, but in reality when one considers the margin of error in the forecasts it will probably end up being a slight surplus...
Nova Scotia's situation, I can assure you... is dire. Our net debt stands at slightly more than 14B. That may not be widely available information on Google... but there was a press release on the budget update this week so the numbers are as fresh as you can get. IIRC, we're running a 247M deficit forecast for this year.

AS far as you suggesting that any of these deficits are the result of healthcare... that's just patently incorrect. Health is funded as a line item in the budget, from general revenue... and the deficits you quote are budget totals. While we have taxes that originally intended to pay for health, at this point everything goes into general revenue and is paid from general revenue. It's not like there's a specific fund set aside for health. There is for employment insurance and Canada pension plans... but not for health. So it can't really be in deficit... it's funding is what's established in the budget... unless they overspend their budgets. Which often happens. That's when you start hearing about bed closures in hospitals, cancellations of elective surgeries, etc.

As far as the Fraser Institute goes... they may sometimes trade in actual numbers.... or they may not. It's a while since I looked at anything they did. I have looked in the past at stuff they've done on our supply managed dairy/poultry/egg industries... and the 'facts' they used were either blatantly incorrect or they applied their twisted assumptions to numbers in such a way that no factual information could be drawn from it. Believe me, they have an agenda, and they will twist the 'facts' to make the outcome fit their agenda. Abolishing universal health care is one of their agenda's. It has been for a long time. Removing supply management from our 5 major commodity groups is also on their agenda even though that can't provide one shred of evidence where anyone would benefit from it. That's the Fraser Institute. They're just as big a bunch of kooks as their counterparts at the 'Center for Policy Alternatives', the left wing version of idiocracy in Canada.

If you want to know why health care costs are rapidly increasing in this country... I can tell you why. There's one main reason. They're called nurses. They have powerful unions. They expect year over year increases in salary that are in the 5% range, just for showing up... and nobody dare oppose the poor nurses. One interesting thing here... as civil servants, their salaries are made public. Lots of them are turning over 100k per year. One here took home just about 250K last year due to the overtime that she worked. For a point of reference, that was MORE than the health authority CEO...
Not too many jobs you can get that turn over 100k a year on 4 years school. Doctors turning over 300k + too. I can see them getting more than the nurses.... Teachers all taking in 60-100K per, again with big increases every year.
That's why our spending is out of control. We're paying increases to all of these people that are running more than twice what core inflation is running. You can't expect to do that and not have a deficit. If anywhere there ought to be some personal responsibility, it ought to be in the minds of those getting those increases... and realise that this trend can not continue. I don't think that is a problem that is isolated to Nova Scotia or Canada generally either.

Rod

Loss of government revenue and resulting debt is from the loss of manufacturing and exports.
The Canadian dollar went from in the 80 cents to over par with the US dollar. There went the exports .Then ontario the economic engine of Canada had the price of electricity raised due to the Ontario abundant's green energy act.
Demand used to be 25,000-27,000MW . Now we barely break the 20,000MW level.
 
Yeah, the government pretty much runs healthcare here... there's elements of local control through the health authorities but ultimate control rests with government.

The problem in the US is that you have no history of making anything run by government perform as it should. The nature of your political process, in my opinion, does not allow it to begin with. AS I've also said in the past... the focus here is becoming one more of trying to make the system work rather than a debate about what system is right. That I think is what you see in Europe... the system is accepted so any debate that exists is about how to make real improvements vs completely deconstructing the system in favor of something else that doesn't work any better. The every man for himself and to hell with everyone else attitude that prevails in the US really doesn't set the scene for making a universal healthcare system work.

Rod
 
....and ironically enough our dollar rose in value against the US dollar largely because of our improved fiscal situation, which then led to the loss of exports.
Personally I think your electricity deregulation played the biggest part in the cost increase of electricity... Everyone likes to harp about how much we pay here... but you pay more from the numbers I've seen.

Rod
 
(quoted from post at 10:17:15 09/19/14) ....and ironically enough our dollar rose in value against the US dollar largely because of our improved fiscal situation, which then led to the loss of exports.
Personally I think your electricity deregulation played the biggest part in the cost increase of electricity... Everyone likes to harp about how much we pay here... but you pay more from the numbers I've seen.

Rod

It started with a classic case of corporate raiding when the utility was split up to provide "completion" . The seven horsemen of the apocalypse showed up. The US military nuclear experts who run 1 or 2 reactors per installation. They were given free rein to operate eight unit civilian utility stations.
Then that greenie Gerald Butts who is tied into the Siera Club. He's the son of a abundant Senator and went to school with and even managed Justin Trudeau's campaign . For a while Gerald Butts was also secretary to the Ontario abundant Party. He pushed the green energy platform from Europe and Mcguinty plus the inner circle bought into it. Of course some major corporations like the carbon credit part of the green emerg act that few people talk about .
Power from the generators supplied to Hydro One runs from zero to 6 cents a Kw. Solar is paid up to 80.2 cents, wind up to 14.5 cents and Natural Gas turbines up to 16.5 cents .
Guess who makes up the difference ? My last power bill averaged 19 cents a Kw and 77% of my useage was during the lowest evening and weekend rates.
 
Ouch....
Our nominal 'rate' here is 10.5 c/kwh for residential use. If you have a thermal electric heating system they'll put you on a smart meter with time rates for off peak hours that are probably around 6 cents at night and 12 cents during peak hours... or something like that. We're just on standard rate... Then there's a base charge of 60 odd bucks per period (2 months)... so depending on how much one uses we average out around 15-16 cents per kwh total. I'd hardly call us economical... usage is usually 40-45 kwh per day.
At 19 cents you must have one of the highest rates in the country?

As far as I know we don't have any amount of solar in nova scotia other than a bit of residential in-feed. There's getting to be quite a bit of wind now... but IIRC, they still will only pay them the same rate as they assign cost to their thermal plants. They have some jet turbine back up's but those seldom get used. I heard a figure for cost there... and I forget what it was exactly... mabey 45 cents or so. Thermal I think the deem around 4.5 or something. They may pay a bit more for wind at times if they're using it for peaking. I not really sure how those contracts are written.
The only real scam they have here is a community infeed tariff (COMFIT) and for that they pay 17.5 cents... but that's a pretty limited thing with the odd digester here and there, a steam plant fired by hog fuel at Hawkesbury and the odd small wind turbine. Our hydro resources are pretty limited in NS... mabey 400 MW at most.
We're just waiting for the cable to cross the gulf now. That's going to bring about 500 MW and I suspect will close their primary thermal plant the day after it arrives.


Rod
 
(quoted from post at 11:10:58 09/19/14) Yeah, the government pretty much runs healthcare here... there's elements of local control through the health authorities but ultimate control rests with government.

The problem in the US is that you have no history of making anything run by government perform as it should. The nature of your political process, in my opinion, does not allow it to begin with. AS I've also said in the past... the focus here is becoming one more of trying to make the system work rather than a debate about what system is right. That I think is what you see in Europe... the system is accepted so any debate that exists is about how to make real improvements vs completely deconstructing the system in favor of something else that doesn't work any better. [b:72b34f6988]The every man for himself and to hell with everyone else attitude that prevails in the US really doesn't set the scene for making a universal healthcare system work.[/b:72b34f6988]
Rod

See, I don't see that at all. I don't know anyone that is advocating let the elderly, kids, the truly poor die in the streets which is how it's offered by the lefties. I don't think what the right is asking for is "everyman for himself". I think what we're looking for is an economy and tax structure that makes it possible for people to buy the healthcare plan they want, if they even want a plan. Finding a way to do that is the problem. If we can find the way, it may make a lot more sense to you in the end than what you have now. If we can't, then I imagine we'll wind up with a truly awful gov't run healthcare program that costs 50X as much as any other countries.

Yeah, I got a lot of faith in our gov't. :roll:
 
No, nobody's advocating that people be left in the street... but when it comes to somebody paying to look after them... nobody's volunteering for that either. You can call that what you want but from where I sit, in the US... I basically see it as nobody really giving a hoot.
Personally I don't see why it matters is something is run by government or a large corporation. Both tend to have entrenched bureaucracies. The difference is in how they are governed and hence differ in terms of those expectations upon management. In one you have a profit centered business; the other a bunch of thieves elected by voters looking to enrich their own lot by electing the thief that will best serve their interests. The way I see it, if we elected people who worked to improve the system and make good decisions instead of pandering to voters with their own money... then you might see things move ahead. That is an endemic problem throughout government that is not limited to healthcare.
As I've said before, I don't think the US political system is really set up to operate or manage anything for the simple reason that it is too close to the voter. One critical distinction we have in our system is that once we elect the devils we're stuck with them for up to 5 years... so if they play their game right they can do all their dirty work in the first couple years and then have a couple years for people to forget what they did... and if it works out by the end of the term, they might have the chance to say they did something right and have people believe them.
You live in a constant state of election of some sort so nobody really dares to do anything knowingly unpopular.

Rod
 
You hit on the problem back in the start of your last post. No one wants to pay for anything, but a lot of people want someone else to pay their way. That's why we fight this stuff. Not that we wouldn't like a good system that actually worked and was publicly funded, but because we have seen what happens every time we let the Feds, and often the States, take over a system. Doesn't matter what it is, highways, education, land use, whatever, the results always, always, ALWAYS end up costing many times the projected costs, are over regulated to the point that they become unworkable, end up conflicting with numerous other entities and never seem to work in the end. So why would so many of us willingly jump onto the band wagon for healthcare? We're the ones paying for it. Only 60-some % of our working age population works and 50% of those pay no effective Federal Income Tax. So you have about 30% of the population paying for the majority of the Federal programs. Well, actually we are paying the interest on the debt on the money borrowed to run the programs because 30% of the people footing the bill isn't near enough. So, short of tearing the whole system down and going socialist (the plan of the current regime and the left) all we can do is fight to retain what we have left.

As far as the election thing, yeah, it sickens me that so many of our pols use tax dollars to keep themselves in office. Sickens me more that so many of my fellow taxpayers can't see exactly what they are doing! That is the answer IMO- getting the taxpayer to see whats really going on.
 

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Back
Top