And "wait times" is used wrong all the time. You are right when you say that making an appointment and seeing a doctor isn't going to be much different between private vs. socialized medicine. The real issue is wait times for surgery and major procedures (chemo etc.). Wait times for Americans who can afford it are practically nonexistent except for procedures that require a donor. On the other hand socialized countries often have to wait 6 months to 2 years for most major procedures, which is why middle class and wealthy canadians come to America for many procedures.
Bullshit. Median wait time here, from first booking an appointment with an oncologist to referral by the oncologist to chemo to receiving chemo is 2 weeks.
Is it too much to ask that people in this thread not pull random numbers out of their fucking ass?
Can you just make an appointment with an onc there, or do you have to be referred to one by a GP first? I'd imagine that to be the case, since a GP would have to tell the person, "Huh, maybe you have cancer." How much time does that add?
I've never actually had cancer myself, so I don't really know if you just call one up or not. I'd assume based on experience with other specialists that you could, but given that I doubt there are a lot of cancer self-diagnoses, most people probably see an onc through referral regardless.
I could walk in and see a GP today if I wanted and didn't my heart set on seeing "my family doctor" or whomever, so I doubt the extra wait time for a referral is likely to significantly effect the round trip time. Diagnosis time would certainly inflate things, but that's separate from wait times.
Well, if you think it's slow in the US, come and see how it is in Canada. If you go to an ER or a medical clinic waiting for 2-3 hours or more in the waiting room is pretty commonplace, unless your life is at risk of course. And specialized treatments or operations for non life-threatening issues can have waiting times of multiple months, even sometimes close to a whole year.
Sigh. Again. It's called Triage. If your not dying, you can wait behind the people who ARE.
And wait times, as was stated earlier, are on average 4.5 weeks.
Triage results when there are not enough resources to meet the demand of people who need treatment. These people are put into a queue like lemmings. This happens because socialism doesn't work and when cost is not an issue resources become one.
Because walking around with severe pain for a month and destroying your liver due to daily intake of painkillers is totally cool since you're not dying.
Equally crappy health-care for everyone!
So wait since Canada doesn't have enough doctors which raises wait times, socialized health care doesn't work?
They don't have enough doctors because they all came to the united states where they actually make a good living.
Doctors are among the highest-paid professionals in this country you right-wing fuckwit
Less the taxes the Canadian government takes out of their paychecks of course....
And "wait times" is used wrong all the time. You are right when you say that making an appointment and seeing a doctor isn't going to be much different between private vs. socialized medicine. The real issue is wait times for surgery and major procedures (chemo etc.). Wait times for Americans who can afford it are practically nonexistent except for procedures that require a donor. On the other hand socialized countries often have to wait 6 months to 2 years for most major procedures, which is why middle class and wealthy canadians come to America for many procedures.
Bullshit. Median wait time here, from first booking an appointment with an oncologist to referral by the oncologist to chemo to receiving chemo is 2 weeks.
Is it too much to ask that people in this thread not pull random numbers out of their fucking ass?
Can you just make an appointment with an onc there, or do you have to be referred to one by a GP first? I'd imagine that to be the case, since a GP would have to tell the person, "Huh, maybe you have cancer." How much time does that add?
I've never actually had cancer myself, so I don't really know if you just call one up or not. I'd assume based on experience with other specialists that you could, but given that I doubt there are a lot of cancer self-diagnoses, most people probably see an onc through referral regardless.
I could walk in and see a GP today if I wanted and didn't my heart set on seeing "my family doctor" or whomever, so I doubt the extra wait time for a referral is likely to significantly effect the round trip time. Diagnosis time would certainly inflate things, but that's separate from wait times.
Yeah, from my experience with OTHER specialists, if you know where to find one, you can sometimes contact them directly. They might see you directly, or they might demand a referral so their sure you actually NEED a specialist and your not wasting their time.
Otherwise, just go to a GP and get a referral. Doesn't take that long. Most people do it this way out of pure convenience/laziness/don't know any other way.
They are still taking up resources for check in procedures. It took me almost an hour to talk to the receptionist because I was sitting behind people with crying babies. Also, people who are carted in on an ambulance are given priority no matter what even if they don't need it.
The check in procedure is not the bottleneck, though. It doesn't matter whether the check in is five minutes or an hour, because the doctor won't be able to see you for two unless blood is pouring out of your jugular. And in cases where someone walks in dragging a severed limb behind them, they sorta push them to the front of the line.
Doctors are the weak link here, not administrative procedures.
They also ask you what your "pain level" happens to be to determine your priority. Most people lie and just say 10 since that ensures treatment ASAP.
If you say 10 and you're not actually at 10, they'll know you're lying, because 10 means "the worst pain you've ever had". If your pain level is 10, you're going to barely be coherent.
In the United States they usually don't send you away for any reason because if they assume one thing and tell you to gtfo and there is legitimately something wrong with you they are looking at 2 years in court. They generally can't make a call unless a doctor actually looks at you since he's supposedly the only person qualified to determine this. That takes up more resources.
No, the ER will not turn you away. They will just make you wait for 40 hours because your boo-boo is not more important than the other guys with real problems. If you leave because you finally realized that you were a tard for coming in, it doesn't waste resources. And if the ER is finally dead enough that they can bring in the dolts who are there for non-emergency procedures, then they're also not wasting too many resources, because it basically means the doctors didn't have anything better to do than look at your dumb ass.
They might bill these people but they are still not obligated to pay. They can come back in a month and do the exact same thing and still escape payment. This is part of the reason why ER's are going bankrupt.
Okay, but that has nothing to do with wait times, which is what you were ranting about.
The suggested solution people have around here of turning our health care system into a giant HMO is totally insane.
Please explain which part of creating a national health coverage provider that people can choose for free in lieu of paying for private insurance is "totally insane". Particularly, explain how it will have much of an effect on actual health care, since it will basically just add a carrier to the long list already in existence.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
To create a working health services requires a few things...
i) Universal access to facilities (A human right, people who are sick and dying cannot improve their lives and ever become productive community members if you don't help make them well)
ii) Reward people who take steps to improve their own health and well being (Obesity and poor health costs make up a vast percentage of the amount of money you put into a health care service since they often require ongoing treatment over many years)
iii) Reward health care providers who take steps to lower prices while maintaining quality of care (Removing an appendix (which requires the attention of say, 2 1st year surgeon man hours, and a 20 nurse hours, and 1 bed for 48 hrs alongside a few pence worth of non branded painkillers and anti-biotics) should not cost $30000. If you paid for it yourself and had a choice, you would say this cost is not representative of the services received)
Looking at say, the US system, it lacks the first part completely and the other two to a significant extent. A socialist system on the other hand has the first completely and lacks the other two parts completely.
A good suggestion I heard was a socialised system where everyone was covered for as much health care provision as they wanted. However each person got an allowance of (say) $2000 each year which they had to spend first. If you spent more than $2000 then you could go on having treatment etc, but if you spent less than $2000 over the year on healthcare costs then the leftover money was given to you as a tax credit or something.
This would give universal healthcare, while encouraging people to be frugal in their use of it, and to be discriminatory in how much they paid for a service. And, as I said earlier, this has to be the goal of any successful health service. Looking at the UK health service you see what happens wen you have universal health care without personal responsibility for health or finance. People do not take steps to improve their health, and demand ever more expensive medicines even when it can be clearly demonstrated that giving them those medicines would in fact be a waste of resources and cause more deaths.
They might bill these people but they are still not obligated to pay. They can come back in a month and do the exact same thing and still escape payment. This is part of the reason why ER's are going bankrupt.
Okay, but that has nothing to do with wait times, which is what you were ranting about.
Well it's partially to blame because if they are hemoragging money it hurts their budget which prevents them from needed personnel expansion. There is a correlation. I would think more doctors, receptionists, nurses and beds in a hospital would go towards improving wait times for everyone regardless of severity.
Which are approximately equal to the taxes the American government levies unless you are super-rich? Yes, dipshit look it up.
It's possible because we don't fund a ridiculously large military.
The national rate is comparable to the US but unless my google search is lying your lowest provincial rate is equal to our highest state rate. Some states don't even have income taxes which translates into a ballpark 17% tax decrease for a doctor moving from Nova Scotia to Florida. I realize the progressive rate isn't a flat rate but I'm estimating.
And I understand it's possible (I don't think it's ideal) because your federal budget is much lower than ours and you'll get no argument from me that the US military spending is completely out of control. That's another thread however but I will mention that many Americans who want nationalized healthcare also have no desire to reduce our military spending so I pose the question of how we are supposed to actually pay for it.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Which are approximately equal to the taxes the American government levies unless you are super-rich? Yes, dipshit look it up.
It's possible because we don't fund a ridiculously large military.
OECD 2005 Data:
Income tax paid by a household earning the country's average wage
Country Single Married, 2 kids
Canada 31.6 21.5
US 29.1 11.9
I just looked it up, now what?
BTW, that's only income tax, not total tax burden.
Wait, seriously? Holy fucking shit.
Fuck those fucking married assholes. Twelve percent? No wonder all the anti-fucking-tax Evangelicals are popping out kids like it's going out of style.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Which are approximately equal to the taxes the American government levies unless you are super-rich? Yes, dipshit look it up.
It's possible because we don't fund a ridiculously large military.
OECD 2005 Data:
Income tax paid by a household earning the country's average wage
Country Single Married, 2 kids
Canada 31.6 21.5
US 29.1 11.9
I just looked it up, now what?
BTW, that's only income tax, not total tax burden.
Wait, seriously? Holy fucking shit.
Fuck those fucking married assholes. Twelve percent? No wonder all the anti-fucking-tax Evangelicals are popping out kids like it's going out of style.
To be fair that's an average and we were comparing top earners. And yeah I agree with you for once thin being married or having kids shouldn't give you a tax cut.
Regardless state taxes in the US are significantly less than those in canadian provinces:
The OECD collects data on 30 member countries and annually calculates what it calls the tax "wedge" for each -- the combined effects of personal income tax, employee and employer social security contributions, payroll taxes and cash benefits.
Those percentages aren't reflective of just income tax.
Senjutsu on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Fuck those fucking married assholes. Twelve percent? No wonder all the anti-fucking-tax Evangelicals are popping out kids like it's going out of style.
Umm... married couples pay less because marriage is correlated with certain things that are eligible for tax breaks, like having kids and owning homes. If the only difference between two couples is that one is married, the married couple will pay more.
So instead of railing against married couples, rail against mortgage deductions and child tax credits.
Also, it's not like the child tax credit makes having a child a net profit. The $2000/year you save doesn't really offset the $10k+ a year it costs to raise the little bugger. In other words, those inclined to pop out kids would still do it without the tax break.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Fuck those fucking married assholes. Twelve percent? No wonder all the anti-fucking-tax Evangelicals are popping out kids like it's going out of style.
Umm... married couples pay less because marriage is correlated with certain things that are eligible for tax breaks, like having kids and owning homes. If the only difference between two couples is that one is married, the married couple will pay more.
So instead of railing against married couples, rail against mortgage deductions and child tax credits.
Also, it's not like the child tax credit makes having a child a net profit. The $2000/year you save doesn't really offset the $10k+ a year it costs to raise the little bugger. In other words, those inclined to pop out kids would still do it without the tax break.
I can attest to the bolded portion.
As for kids, you can expect families with them to pay less. They get, if nothing else, standard deductions for 3 or 4 people, with only 1 or 2 (or maybe 1.5) incomes. Are you saying that children shouldn't be entitled to a standard deduction, or that children should have to work?
Obviously it gets more complicated when itemized, but the concept is the same...more people, no more wage earners. To the coal mines, kids!
Ok, I just went to the Fraser Institute website and apparently based on age, income, province, and having no kids I have total tax rate over 47%.
According to the Fraser institute, Liberals eat children.
I'm not saying they don't have an agenda, but their hard numbers are generally fairly solid.
I wasn't trying to derail the thread, but when I saw that "Canadians and Americans pay the same taxes" bit, I wanted to correct it. For those outside of Canada, somebody put out a report stating the above. Yes, it considered only federal income tax and ignored all forms of taxation.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Ok, I just went to the Fraser Institute website and apparently based on age, income, province, and having no kids I have total tax rate over 47%.
According to the Fraser institute, Liberals eat children.
In Canada? That's about what I'd assume. With two kids, my tax burden is about 30% once you figure in things like sales tax.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Yup, that looks to be in line from Ontario and west, aside from Alberta which is at 40%. The don't blink or you'll miss them provinces out east are a touch higher and if I was in Quebec I'd be paying 52%.
Now back to health care, I believe in socialized medicine, but not communized medicine. There are certain ways in which the private sector can help. Technically, private MRI clinics are illegal, but politicians rarely complain because they help to keep wait times down without touching the public purse. This is the type of tweaking the Canadian system could use.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Fuck those fucking married assholes. Twelve percent? No wonder all the anti-fucking-tax Evangelicals are popping out kids like it's going out of style.
Umm... married couples pay less because marriage is correlated with certain things that are eligible for tax breaks, like having kids and owning homes. If the only difference between two couples is that one is married, the married couple will pay more.
So instead of railing against married couples, rail against mortgage deductions and child tax credits.
Also, it's not like the child tax credit makes having a child a net profit. The $2000/year you save doesn't really offset the $10k+ a year it costs to raise the little bugger. In other words, those inclined to pop out kids would still do it without the tax break.
I can attest to the bolded portion.
As for kids, you can expect families with them to pay less. They get, if nothing else, standard deductions for 3 or 4 people, with only 1 or 2 (or maybe 1.5) incomes. Are you saying that children shouldn't be entitled to a standard deduction, or that children should have to work?
Obviously it gets more complicated when itemized, but the concept is the same...more people, no more wage earners. To the coal mines, kids!
So, is this retarded tangent over yet?
I wasn't objecting to the existance of a tax break; I was objecting to the extent of it.
Ok, I just went to the Fraser Institute website and apparently based on age, income, province, and having no kids I have total tax rate over 47%.
According to the Fraser institute, Liberals eat children.
I'm not saying they don't have an agenda, but their hard numbers are generally fairly solid.
Not really. They're notorious for their distortions. And it's impossible to claim solidity in something as nebulous as "average total tax burden".
For what it's worth their "Personal Tax Freedom Day calculator" claims I'm at 40%
But then again, it says,
The Personal Tax Freedom Day calculator, like Tax Freedom Day, includes all taxes from all levels of government that Canadians pay. This includes: income & sales taxes; liquor, tobacco, amusement & other excise taxes; automobile, fuel, & motor vehicle licence taxes; CPP/QPP and EI contributions, medical & hospital taxes; property taxes; import duties; profit taxes; and natural resource levies.
Yup, that looks to be in line from Ontario and west, aside from Alberta which is at 40%. The don't blink or you'll miss them provinces out east are a touch higher and if I was in Quebec I'd be paying 52%.
Now back to health care, I believe in socialized medicine, but not communized medicine. There are certain ways in which the private sector can help. Technically, private MRI clinics are illegal, but politicians rarely complain because they help to keep wait times down without touching the public purse. This is the type of tweaking the Canadian system could use.
Honestly, I don't think truly socialized medicine could succeed in the U.S. I just think we need a public insurance system competing with the private one. This will force the private companies to be more efficient, more competitive, and less douchebaggy.
Yup, that looks to be in line from Ontario and west, aside from Alberta which is at 40%. The don't blink or you'll miss them provinces out east are a touch higher and if I was in Quebec I'd be paying 52%.
Now back to health care, I believe in socialized medicine, but not communized medicine. There are certain ways in which the private sector can help. Technically, private MRI clinics are illegal, but politicians rarely complain because they help to keep wait times down without touching the public purse. This is the type of tweaking the Canadian system could use.
Honestly, I don't think truly socialized medicine could succeed in the U.S. I just think we need a public insurance system competing with the private one. This will force the private companies to be more efficient, more competitive, and less douchebaggy.
The problem with that is a large portion of the savings you get from UHC is from the lack of administrative overhead. This is because EVERYONE is covered under the same plan. For most stuff anyway.
Yup, that looks to be in line from Ontario and west, aside from Alberta which is at 40%. The don't blink or you'll miss them provinces out east are a touch higher and if I was in Quebec I'd be paying 52%.
Now back to health care, I believe in socialized medicine, but not communized medicine. There are certain ways in which the private sector can help. Technically, private MRI clinics are illegal, but politicians rarely complain because they help to keep wait times down without touching the public purse. This is the type of tweaking the Canadian system could use.
Honestly, I don't think truly socialized medicine could succeed in the U.S. I just think we need a public insurance system competing with the private one. This will force the private companies to be more efficient, more competitive, and less douchebaggy.
Theoretically it'll eventually turn into a single payer system. Youve got a large gov backed, non-profit insurer that theoretically won't fuck people over by denying necessary procedures, like the for-profits do all the time.
Yup, that looks to be in line from Ontario and west, aside from Alberta which is at 40%. The don't blink or you'll miss them provinces out east are a touch higher and if I was in Quebec I'd be paying 52%.
Now back to health care, I believe in socialized medicine, but not communized medicine. There are certain ways in which the private sector can help. Technically, private MRI clinics are illegal, but politicians rarely complain because they help to keep wait times down without touching the public purse. This is the type of tweaking the Canadian system could use.
Honestly, I don't think truly socialized medicine could succeed in the U.S. I just think we need a public insurance system competing with the private one. This will force the private companies to be more efficient, more competitive, and less douchebaggy.
The problem with that is a large portion of the savings you get from UHC is from the lack of administrative overhead. This is because EVERYONE is covered under the same plan. For most stuff anyway.
I think the end result would most likely end up as everyone except the exceedingly wealthy getting treated under the government's insurance, and the current medical insurance industry turning into a supplemental insurance industry, instead.
Yup, that looks to be in line from Ontario and west, aside from Alberta which is at 40%. The don't blink or you'll miss them provinces out east are a touch higher and if I was in Quebec I'd be paying 52%.
Now back to health care, I believe in socialized medicine, but not communized medicine. There are certain ways in which the private sector can help. Technically, private MRI clinics are illegal, but politicians rarely complain because they help to keep wait times down without touching the public purse. This is the type of tweaking the Canadian system could use.
Honestly, I don't think truly socialized medicine could succeed in the U.S. I just think we need a public insurance system competing with the private one. This will force the private companies to be more efficient, more competitive, and less douchebaggy.
The problem with that is a large portion of the savings you get from UHC is from the lack of administrative overhead. This is because EVERYONE is covered under the same plan. For most stuff anyway.
I think the end result would most likely end up as everyone except the exceedingly wealthy getting treated under the government's insurance, and the current medical insurance industry turning into a supplemental insurance industry, instead.
You realize this degrades the quality of care received by a majority of the middle class right? How do you reconcile that?
Not really. They're notorious for their distortions. And it's impossible to claim solidity in something as nebulous as "average total tax burden".
For what it's worth their "Personal Tax Freedom Day calculator" claims I'm at 40%
Like any think tank, they put out the numbers that best suit their case, but the numbers themselves are usually pretty good. The key is to understand what the number they give actually means. Many people, unfortunately, lack this ability which should be used almost as much as breathing.
Of course I know I don't pay the exact amount that was listed, but it's not hard to say that $x was paid by BC residents in tobacco taxes and apply that. Even if you rent instead of own, you're paying property taxes indirectly.
The Personal Tax Freedom Day calculator, like Tax Freedom Day, includes all taxes from all levels of government that Canadians pay. This includes: income & sales taxes; liquor, tobacco, amusement & other excise taxes; automobile, fuel, & motor vehicle licence taxes; CPP/QPP and EI contributions, medical & hospital taxes; property taxes; import duties; profit taxes; and natural resource levies.
About half of which don't apply to me.
Come on Senj, light up. You'll be doing your part to pay for health care.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Yup, that looks to be in line from Ontario and west, aside from Alberta which is at 40%. The don't blink or you'll miss them provinces out east are a touch higher and if I was in Quebec I'd be paying 52%.
Now back to health care, I believe in socialized medicine, but not communized medicine. There are certain ways in which the private sector can help. Technically, private MRI clinics are illegal, but politicians rarely complain because they help to keep wait times down without touching the public purse. This is the type of tweaking the Canadian system could use.
Honestly, I don't think truly socialized medicine could succeed in the U.S. I just think we need a public insurance system competing with the private one. This will force the private companies to be more efficient, more competitive, and less douchebaggy.
The problem with that is a large portion of the savings you get from UHC is from the lack of administrative overhead. This is because EVERYONE is covered under the same plan. For most stuff anyway.
I think the end result would most likely end up as everyone except the exceedingly wealthy getting treated under the government's insurance, and the current medical insurance industry turning into a supplemental insurance industry, instead.
You realize this degrades the quality of care received by a majority of the middle class right? How do you reconcile that?
You know what else degrades the care of the middle class? Having to declare bankruptcy and become the lower class because, in spite of their insurance, they can't afford medical care. Not only that, but once they become actually, really sick, they get laid off, and then they lose their insurance, so they become the poor.
Not to mention that the middle class will have access to the aforementioned supplemental insurance.
Yup, that looks to be in line from Ontario and west, aside from Alberta which is at 40%. The don't blink or you'll miss them provinces out east are a touch higher and if I was in Quebec I'd be paying 52%.
Now back to health care, I believe in socialized medicine, but not communized medicine. There are certain ways in which the private sector can help. Technically, private MRI clinics are illegal, but politicians rarely complain because they help to keep wait times down without touching the public purse. This is the type of tweaking the Canadian system could use.
Honestly, I don't think truly socialized medicine could succeed in the U.S. I just think we need a public insurance system competing with the private one. This will force the private companies to be more efficient, more competitive, and less douchebaggy.
The problem with that is a large portion of the savings you get from UHC is from the lack of administrative overhead. This is because EVERYONE is covered under the same plan. For most stuff anyway.
I think the end result would most likely end up as everyone except the exceedingly wealthy getting treated under the government's insurance, and the current medical insurance industry turning into a supplemental insurance industry, instead.
I guess I figure, why bother with the middle step then. Canada uses a UHC + supplemental insurance system.
Also, how does it degrade care for the middle class again?
The Personal Tax Freedom Day calculator, like Tax Freedom Day, includes all taxes from all levels of government that Canadians pay. This includes: income & sales taxes; liquor, tobacco, amusement & other excise taxes; automobile, fuel, & motor vehicle licence taxes; CPP/QPP and EI contributions, medical & hospital taxes; property taxes; import duties; profit taxes; and natural resource levies.
About half of which don't apply to me.
Come on Senj, light up. You'll be doing your part to pay for health care.
Canadian Health Care: let's smoke our way to success!
Yup, that looks to be in line from Ontario and west, aside from Alberta which is at 40%. The don't blink or you'll miss them provinces out east are a touch higher and if I was in Quebec I'd be paying 52%.
Now back to health care, I believe in socialized medicine, but not communized medicine. There are certain ways in which the private sector can help. Technically, private MRI clinics are illegal, but politicians rarely complain because they help to keep wait times down without touching the public purse. This is the type of tweaking the Canadian system could use.
Honestly, I don't think truly socialized medicine could succeed in the U.S. I just think we need a public insurance system competing with the private one. This will force the private companies to be more efficient, more competitive, and less douchebaggy.
The problem with that is a large portion of the savings you get from UHC is from the lack of administrative overhead. This is because EVERYONE is covered under the same plan. For most stuff anyway.
I think the end result would most likely end up as everyone except the exceedingly wealthy getting treated under the government's insurance, and the current medical insurance industry turning into a supplemental insurance industry, instead.
You realize this degrades the quality of care received by a majority of the middle class right? How do you reconcile that?
You know what else degrades the care of the middle class? Having to declare bankruptcy and become the lower class because, in spite of their insurance, they can't afford medical care. Not only that, but once they become actually, really sick, they get laid off, and then they lose their insurance, so they become the poor.
Not to mention that the middle class will have access to the aforementioned supplemental insurance.
I don't like the fact that health care is tied to people's jobs anymore than you do. Which is why I think the tax code should be equalized so individuals and families can actually afford to buy insurance directly instead of through their employer. I also don't think that ideas like MSA's are without merit and should be considered.
And this fear-mongering claiming that people are going bankrupt left and right because of medical costs is completely ridiculous.
Yup, that looks to be in line from Ontario and west, aside from Alberta which is at 40%. The don't blink or you'll miss them provinces out east are a touch higher and if I was in Quebec I'd be paying 52%.
Now back to health care, I believe in socialized medicine, but not communized medicine. There are certain ways in which the private sector can help. Technically, private MRI clinics are illegal, but politicians rarely complain because they help to keep wait times down without touching the public purse. This is the type of tweaking the Canadian system could use.
Honestly, I don't think truly socialized medicine could succeed in the U.S. I just think we need a public insurance system competing with the private one. This will force the private companies to be more efficient, more competitive, and less douchebaggy.
The problem with that is a large portion of the savings you get from UHC is from the lack of administrative overhead. This is because EVERYONE is covered under the same plan. For most stuff anyway.
I think the end result would most likely end up as everyone except the exceedingly wealthy getting treated under the government's insurance, and the current medical insurance industry turning into a supplemental insurance industry, instead.
I guess I figure, why bother with the middle step then. Canada uses a UHC + supplemental insurance system.
Also, how does it degrade care for the middle class again?
Because dealing with a mandatory wait time because my injury isn't considered severe enough is totally unacceptable to me when I can get same day care now for a small co-pay and/or deductible payment through my insurance.
(which criticizes the way the calculations used by the Fraser Institute), you find that the Fraser Institute is grossly overestimating the total taxes paid because of underestimation of total family income. According to that, a family the Fraser institute says is paying 47% in total taxes is probably paying closer to 31%.
Also, how does it degrade care for the middle class again?
Because dealing with a mandatory wait time because my injury isn't considered severe enough is totally unacceptable to me when I can get same day care now for a small co-pay and/or deductible payment through my insurance.
And all it takes is that 40M people are uninsured.
Canadian Health Care: let's smoke our way to success!
I'll drink to that!
I think the two biggest changes the American heath care system needs are to get everyone into the risk/coverage pool and to decouple employment from coverage.
The first does a few things. First, it gets every working person to put cash into the system which, you know, helps pay for things. Secondly, people who have been paying into the system can't lose coverage when they get sick. Thirdly, people who lost their jobs due to illness wind up needing other government support which the working folk pay for anyway, never mind the cost to the economy.
People lacking coverage wind up costing the taxpayer a good chunk of change. It makes a lot of sense to pay for coverage for all instead of paying for it on the back end.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Posts
So you have any actual evidence to back up this from a socialized health care state?
I could walk in and see a GP today if I wanted and didn't my heart set on seeing "my family doctor" or whomever, so I doubt the extra wait time for a referral is likely to significantly effect the round trip time. Diagnosis time would certainly inflate things, but that's separate from wait times.
Less the taxes the Canadian government takes out of their paychecks of course....
Did you eat paint chips as a child?
Yeah, from my experience with OTHER specialists, if you know where to find one, you can sometimes contact them directly. They might see you directly, or they might demand a referral so their sure you actually NEED a specialist and your not wasting their time.
Otherwise, just go to a GP and get a referral. Doesn't take that long. Most people do it this way out of pure convenience/laziness/don't know any other way.
It's possible because we don't fund a ridiculously large military.
The check in procedure is not the bottleneck, though. It doesn't matter whether the check in is five minutes or an hour, because the doctor won't be able to see you for two unless blood is pouring out of your jugular. And in cases where someone walks in dragging a severed limb behind them, they sorta push them to the front of the line.
Doctors are the weak link here, not administrative procedures.
If you say 10 and you're not actually at 10, they'll know you're lying, because 10 means "the worst pain you've ever had". If your pain level is 10, you're going to barely be coherent.
No, the ER will not turn you away. They will just make you wait for 40 hours because your boo-boo is not more important than the other guys with real problems. If you leave because you finally realized that you were a tard for coming in, it doesn't waste resources. And if the ER is finally dead enough that they can bring in the dolts who are there for non-emergency procedures, then they're also not wasting too many resources, because it basically means the doctors didn't have anything better to do than look at your dumb ass.
Okay, but that has nothing to do with wait times, which is what you were ranting about.
Please explain which part of creating a national health coverage provider that people can choose for free in lieu of paying for private insurance is "totally insane". Particularly, explain how it will have much of an effect on actual health care, since it will basically just add a carrier to the long list already in existence.
i) Universal access to facilities (A human right, people who are sick and dying cannot improve their lives and ever become productive community members if you don't help make them well)
ii) Reward people who take steps to improve their own health and well being (Obesity and poor health costs make up a vast percentage of the amount of money you put into a health care service since they often require ongoing treatment over many years)
iii) Reward health care providers who take steps to lower prices while maintaining quality of care (Removing an appendix (which requires the attention of say, 2 1st year surgeon man hours, and a 20 nurse hours, and 1 bed for 48 hrs alongside a few pence worth of non branded painkillers and anti-biotics) should not cost $30000. If you paid for it yourself and had a choice, you would say this cost is not representative of the services received)
Looking at say, the US system, it lacks the first part completely and the other two to a significant extent. A socialist system on the other hand has the first completely and lacks the other two parts completely.
A good suggestion I heard was a socialised system where everyone was covered for as much health care provision as they wanted. However each person got an allowance of (say) $2000 each year which they had to spend first. If you spent more than $2000 then you could go on having treatment etc, but if you spent less than $2000 over the year on healthcare costs then the leftover money was given to you as a tax credit or something.
This would give universal healthcare, while encouraging people to be frugal in their use of it, and to be discriminatory in how much they paid for a service. And, as I said earlier, this has to be the goal of any successful health service. Looking at the UK health service you see what happens wen you have universal health care without personal responsibility for health or finance. People do not take steps to improve their health, and demand ever more expensive medicines even when it can be clearly demonstrated that giving them those medicines would in fact be a waste of resources and cause more deaths.
Well it's partially to blame because if they are hemoragging money it hurts their budget which prevents them from needed personnel expansion. There is a correlation. I would think more doctors, receptionists, nurses and beds in a hospital would go towards improving wait times for everyone regardless of severity.
The national rate is comparable to the US but unless my google search is lying your lowest provincial rate is equal to our highest state rate. Some states don't even have income taxes which translates into a ballpark 17% tax decrease for a doctor moving from Nova Scotia to Florida. I realize the progressive rate isn't a flat rate but I'm estimating.
And I understand it's possible (I don't think it's ideal) because your federal budget is much lower than ours and you'll get no argument from me that the US military spending is completely out of control. That's another thread however but I will mention that many Americans who want nationalized healthcare also have no desire to reduce our military spending so I pose the question of how we are supposed to actually pay for it.
OECD 2005 Data:
Income tax paid by a household earning the country's average wage
I just looked it up, now what?
BTW, that's only income tax, not total tax burden.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Fuck those fucking married assholes. Twelve percent? No wonder all the anti-fucking-tax Evangelicals are popping out kids like it's going out of style.
Is that federal, provincial/state, combined...? You have a link?
Ok, fine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Canada
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
To be fair that's an average and we were comparing top earners. And yeah I agree with you for once thin being married or having kids shouldn't give you a tax cut.
Regardless state taxes in the US are significantly less than those in canadian provinces:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/individuals/faq/taxrates-e.html
http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/ind_inc.html
That also excludes VAT which I think are lower in most US states as well.
Chased three links to get to:
Those percentages aren't reflective of just income tax.
Umm... married couples pay less because marriage is correlated with certain things that are eligible for tax breaks, like having kids and owning homes. If the only difference between two couples is that one is married, the married couple will pay more.
So instead of railing against married couples, rail against mortgage deductions and child tax credits.
Also, it's not like the child tax credit makes having a child a net profit. The $2000/year you save doesn't really offset the $10k+ a year it costs to raise the little bugger. In other words, those inclined to pop out kids would still do it without the tax break.
So the OECD numbers aren't just personal income tax, nor total tax burden.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I can attest to the bolded portion.
As for kids, you can expect families with them to pay less. They get, if nothing else, standard deductions for 3 or 4 people, with only 1 or 2 (or maybe 1.5) incomes. Are you saying that children shouldn't be entitled to a standard deduction, or that children should have to work?
Obviously it gets more complicated when itemized, but the concept is the same...more people, no more wage earners. To the coal mines, kids!
So, is this retarded tangent over yet?
Correct. Whoever cited that msn article on Wiki misunderstood or misrepresented what the chart from that article reflected.
I'm not saying they don't have an agenda, but their hard numbers are generally fairly solid.
I wasn't trying to derail the thread, but when I saw that "Canadians and Americans pay the same taxes" bit, I wanted to correct it. For those outside of Canada, somebody put out a report stating the above. Yes, it considered only federal income tax and ignored all forms of taxation.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
In Canada? That's about what I'd assume. With two kids, my tax burden is about 30% once you figure in things like sales tax.
Now back to health care, I believe in socialized medicine, but not communized medicine. There are certain ways in which the private sector can help. Technically, private MRI clinics are illegal, but politicians rarely complain because they help to keep wait times down without touching the public purse. This is the type of tweaking the Canadian system could use.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Not really. They're notorious for their distortions. And it's impossible to claim solidity in something as nebulous as "average total tax burden".
For what it's worth their "Personal Tax Freedom Day calculator" claims I'm at 40%
But then again, it says,
About half of which don't apply to me.
The problem with that is a large portion of the savings you get from UHC is from the lack of administrative overhead. This is because EVERYONE is covered under the same plan. For most stuff anyway.
Theoretically it'll eventually turn into a single payer system. Youve got a large gov backed, non-profit insurer that theoretically won't fuck people over by denying necessary procedures, like the for-profits do all the time.
You realize this degrades the quality of care received by a majority of the middle class right? How do you reconcile that?
Like any think tank, they put out the numbers that best suit their case, but the numbers themselves are usually pretty good. The key is to understand what the number they give actually means. Many people, unfortunately, lack this ability which should be used almost as much as breathing.
Of course I know I don't pay the exact amount that was listed, but it's not hard to say that $x was paid by BC residents in tobacco taxes and apply that. Even if you rent instead of own, you're paying property taxes indirectly.
Come on Senj, light up. You'll be doing your part to pay for health care.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Not to mention that the middle class will have access to the aforementioned supplemental insurance.
I guess I figure, why bother with the middle step then. Canada uses a UHC + supplemental insurance system.
Also, how does it degrade care for the middle class again?
I don't like the fact that health care is tied to people's jobs anymore than you do. Which is why I think the tax code should be equalized so individuals and families can actually afford to buy insurance directly instead of through their employer. I also don't think that ideas like MSA's are without merit and should be considered.
And this fear-mongering claiming that people are going bankrupt left and right because of medical costs is completely ridiculous.
Because dealing with a mandatory wait time because my injury isn't considered severe enough is totally unacceptable to me when I can get same day care now for a small co-pay and/or deductible payment through my insurance.
That would be more in line with what I'd expect here, too.
If you look at
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/National_Office_Pubs/2005/tax_freedom_day.pdf
(which criticizes the way the calculations used by the Fraser Institute), you find that the Fraser Institute is grossly overestimating the total taxes paid because of underestimation of total family income. According to that, a family the Fraser institute says is paying 47% in total taxes is probably paying closer to 31%.
And all it takes is that 40M people are uninsured.
I'll drink to that!
I think the two biggest changes the American heath care system needs are to get everyone into the risk/coverage pool and to decouple employment from coverage.
The first does a few things. First, it gets every working person to put cash into the system which, you know, helps pay for things. Secondly, people who have been paying into the system can't lose coverage when they get sick. Thirdly, people who lost their jobs due to illness wind up needing other government support which the working folk pay for anyway, never mind the cost to the economy.
People lacking coverage wind up costing the taxpayer a good chunk of change. It makes a lot of sense to pay for coverage for all instead of paying for it on the back end.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.