<p>barrons, it seems that everyone who is against the Canadian system has these little anecdotes, and, as I said, they are always individuals who have health insurance. We’ve had experiences in both countries, with all kinds of health issues, including a life-threatening one for the past two years, and I can assure you that the anecdotes you and others have heard are not the universal truth. </p>
<p>I also know doctors who have left Canada, two of them are relatives of mine. Every one that I know of who has done this, including my two relatives, have left because of the almighty $. This, of course, is their prerogative. However, to attribute some altruistic reasoning to their decision to leave is just a little irritating and it gets tiresome. Yes, some individuals have to wait for some kinds of treatment but the waiting times that you hear about are, in our experience, greatly exaggerated and almost always have more to the story than is reported. </p>
<p>zoosermom, I think you’d find a variety of different groups who are uninsured but I don’t have any statistics. Are you implying that there aren’t millions who are uninsured? If you’re right, that would be good news indeed! :)</p>
<p>I agree zooser, however the stats can be skewed whichever way you want them. No one in US is refused emergency care and physicians I know treat indigent in their offices, work out payment plans, write off bills (for which our dear gov’t gives no tax break) and volunteer hours in free clinics.</p>
<p>Back to Canada, I know my cousin was there on business, fell seriously ill, and did receive wonderful care–all free (though the Canadian taxpayers paid dearly for it). It is the people who need bypass surgery, have chronic diseases, need joint replacements, etc that have tremendous waits. The people I see here won’t wait until tomorrow for a sore throat–they run to the ER. Do you think they will live with gall stones or a herniated disc for weeks or months waiting their turn patiently----heck, Americans won’t wait in line patiently at the post office ;).</p>
<h1>1. My wife is a nurse. Specifically, a hospice nurse. She works in the one part of the U.S. health care system that works well - 100% U.S. government funded health care.</h1>
<p>That part works very well in Canada too.</p>
<h1>2. Don’t talk to me about wait times. I have what is considered the best health care in Washington State. My d. was unable to get the knee operation she needed for 9 months! We went to get an MRI, and all the machines were broken. We went a second time, and they had to deliver it out of a mobile van.</h1>
<p>So you didn’t drive to Seattle? Was an MRI necessary? In Canada you might have to go into Vancouver or another city just to get one. The Canadian system limits resources, so even if the location you chose had a broken machine (a temporary thing) it still had one. Would you want the government to decide a maching wasn’t necessary in the first place? </p>
<h1>3. The buses going to Canada for life-saving prescription drugs leave every week two blocks from my office.</h1>
<p>In total agreement here. The difference? Foriegn governments limit profit margins on drugs. I’d love to see that here, but that also goes aganist the American market system. I would also like to see patent protection end at 7 years and more encouragement for generic meds. </p>
<h1>4. Failed 10th grade math? You don’t deserve health insurance. There’s almost 50 million people in the U.S. that can tell you that, or similar. They aren’t waiting for health care; for the most part, they don’t get it until they end up in the emergency room, and even then it is iffy.</h1>
<p>? I think I understand your point, but did you know our state has cost assisted health programs that are free or near free for alot of these people? The problem becomes some still don’t use them because they aren’t sick and so they wait and crowd the emergency rooms just like you say. 2% of each premium dollar collected goes towards helping the uninsured in WA. I am interested in how I think it’s Mass. required Health care goes. You either buy health insurance or they tax you for not having it. for the poor they provide vouchers so they can get it for free and they allow for high deductibles for those who don’t want or feel the need for first dollar health care. If it works I could other states taking it on. </p>
<p>Not trying to go to a war of words with you, but some things are going on right now to help people that aren’t all bad.</p>
<p>A relative of mine had 2 month waiting period for brain surgery so she came to america where her surgery was paid in cash-total wait of 3 days.</p>
<p>Look its really a matter of logic. If you people do not like anecdotes. Get on the web and look at avg wait times for certain medical procedures. Or look at the figure for imaging equipment per person. Your little story about ur daughter in washington st, seems a little ridiculous. There are much more MRI’s than one. In canada by contrast, where by thw way i have lived, resources are limited and the govt allocates them so there are less neceesary machines. You simply are stick in the sick liberal mental state where you feel everything should be free and on the burden of the rich man, just look at the facts about healthcare. People in Canada SUED for the right to have private insurance.</p>
We have a flat tax. Actually, we have a tax system which is tilted slightly to the advantage of the wealthy. From an annual income of $40K a year up to about $300K the average actual take home - at all income levels - is about 72%. For the top 1%, with average incomes of $1M/yr the average takehom is about 76%. Those numbers are based on the actual overall percentages of income paid in combined income and FICA taxes per IRS.</p>
<p>On the other hand, as I noted before, if you look at the actual benefits from Governmental actions, the wealthy get a lot more than the working poor. A lot of the common perception of who pays more and who benefits more is simply skewed, in my opinion.</p>
<p>Maybe I’m using the wrong term. I consider a flat tax the exact same percentage rate for everyone. And I don’t think you can say take home is 76% or 72%–I know we are not taking home anywhere near that–one does have to take into account FICA and state or local taxes out of that gross pay.</p>
<p>My H watched an uninsured little girl die because her family couldn’t afford a heart transplant.</p>
<p>I would like to think that every child in the US should be able to have their life saved if it is medically possible, not only those who have insurance and don’t fall between the cracks.</p>
<p>I’m willing to wait for things for myself to make that happen. I think we’re rich enough, and good enough, to make sure that all children get the lifesaving care that is available.</p>
<p>Kluge think–the rich benefit more from sunshine because they have more time and money to spend in better climates.</p>
<p>Your argument is totally circular–the rich have more therefore they must benefit more. Maybe they just are better at taking advantage of the open opportunities in the system. Were the Google founders rich before they got rich?? What aspects of government did they take advantage of that were not out there for everyone??</p>
<p>The US cannot afford every life extending care that there is out there–neither can Canada, England or any other country. They cut people off more ruthlessly than many in the US would accept.</p>
<p>Zoosermom–my H worked far more than 60 hours a week when he was a doctor. Actually, as a teacher, he still does. He never had an income like you seem to, but he never thought he was owed it, either.</p>
<p>A doctor who leaves Canada because of salary issues is in the wrong field, anyway. All the best doctors I know are in favor of single payer system (do you know how much time and money they spend because of all the different insurance systems, especially because of the ascendency of HMOs? all wasted health care dollars which could’ve gone to those who are not as fortunate as us insured folk.)</p>
<p>“Zoosermom–my H worked far more than 60 hours a week when he was a doctor. Actually, as a teacher, he still does. He never had an income like you seem to, but he never thought he was owed it, either.”</p>
<p>Maybe he doesn’t get overtime because he’s a professional and I’m not? Owed? I hope that wasn’t directed to me because if it was, you haven’t read my posts. I don’t feel “owed” anything and that is very clear from all of my posts. I feel grateful to have a job and consider it my duty to work hard for the lifestyle I choose for my family.</p>
<p>well, you are lucky you make above minimum wage to support your family</p>
<p>those that work at walmart- well no insurance and the get just about minimum wage and that billion dollar company teaches it employees how to sign up for medicare…so I am subsidizing Walmart?</p>
<p>how does a person making minumum wage pay for insurance>?</p>
<p>Barrons: this was highlighted by the bogus Prop. 90 scam that fortunately failed here in California. When the taxpayers build a freeway, the largest beneficiary of that is the landowner who can now develop that land because it has infrastructure. Same thing with water projects and pretty much every other infrastructure project that’s funded by taxpayers. Land ownership is still a major source of wealth in this country - and the poor don’t have it. Heck, the middle class only has a touch of it. All those tax dollars benefit the wealthy more than anyone else. Of course, the wealthy also benefit from the breathable air, drinkable water etc. like everyone else, but they gat a much bigger piece of the rest of the pie. This is true on every level of government - a lot of what government does is simple making business more profictable, and the assets of the wealthy more valuable. Our government is in the wealth redstribution business, and has been for a long time. Except it redistributes wealth upwards, not downwards.</p>
<p>MKM - my figures include FICA but exclude sales tax (which is regressive) and state income taxes, which vary from state to state, of course. And what I’m saying is that without the nominally progressive income tax our overall tax structre would be even more regressive than it is. Personally, I think taxes should be somewhat progressive - that is, if your have more wealth and income you should pay a slightly higher percentage of that income and taxes than people who have less room for error in their budgets. Right now it’s actually the other way around for most people.</p>
<p>It’s not a matter of luck. I see nobody forcing anyone to work at Wal Mart or any other company. Typically in any inner city they open in they get 10 applicants for every job. Same in small towns.
Would you rather have them working and paying for some of their insurance or getting welfare and paying all their costs???
NPR had a very interesting report the other day on those who were forced into work by welfare reform. A third were doing very well including many who started at fast food and similar jobs. Some got ahead by becoming managers at those same places. Others made some contacts or got more education and were hired into better jobs. About one third were just doing OK and a third were hard cases and about unemployable.</p>
<p>“those that work at walmart- well no insurance and the get just about minimum wage and that billion dollar company teaches it employees how to sign up for medicare…so I am subsidizing Walmart?”</p>
<p>How do you feel about the treatment by employers of illegal immigrants? How do you feel about that group depressing wages and causing native-born blacks to be unemployed? Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to target one class of employer and not another?</p>
<p>"Land ownership is still a major source of wealth in this country - and the poor don’t have it. Heck, the middle class only has a touch of it. "</p>
<p>Kluge, I totally agree. That’s a lot of what I was trying to say. Income and wealth aren’t necessarily the same thing and having a high income doesn’t always make one wealthy.</p>
<p>I agree, too. Which is why I am in favor of taxing assets and investment income at a (much) higher rate. </p>
<p>So Zoos - who should pay for the Republican boondoggle - you? your kids? the rich? none of the above? Someone’s going to pay - who should it be?</p>
<p>So now you narrowed it down to highways and water. I believe I get to drive on all those many highways and streets built by the many who went before me and everyone benefits from a good infrastructure–otherwise Africa would be doing better. Yes there is always some windfall to some lucky farmers and others who own the land in the path of progress. There are also the lucky few who got Google at $85 or so. The roads we build allow commerce to flow efficiently which benefits both the companies that locate there and the employees.</p>