Is Canada's socialist system on the brink

Search

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
Our costs cover dental too BTW. Don't know if yours do.
$20 for a six monthly checkup/cleanup/polish/fillings blah blah.
Two bridges (one full bridge one half bridge) set me back $300.
I'm employed. Unemployed get it free.

We've got socialised AND private.

So YOU CAN CHOOSE.

You've yet to get socialised healthcare in the USA so your population ain't got a friggin' clue about it.
And the private healthcare industry is desperate to keep it that way :>Grin>

Its also one of the main reasons for personal bankruptcy in the US.
Without employer schemes(which are declining), most Americans would be totally fooked.

"In 2003-2004, about 85 million Americans were uninsured for some period of time."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55301-2004Sep27.html

As far as healthcare is concerned one word sums up Americans.

Suckers

---------------------------------

BTW its also a major reason why the US is not viewed as a good place to emigrate/retire by other Westerners looking for a sunnier climate.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
eekster


You and I both agree that the state of healthcare in the U.S. is abhorrent, but I am curious as to why you characterise it as "private" when you know fully well that it isn't? This just makes you like a snobby socialist version of Came-face dude.


Phaedrus
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
I'll keep it simple just for you P.

Private healthcare can make you bankrupt.

It is impossible for social healthcare to bankrupt a citizen.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Phaedrus said:
eekster


You and I both agree that the state of healthcare in the U.S. is abhorrent, but I am curious as to why you characterise it as "private" when you know fully well that it isn't? This just makes you like a snobby socialist version of Came-face dude.


Phaedrus

Do you believe the US system would be "better" if were entirely socialised and treated as a natural monopoly, rather than this mixed hodge-podge you have at the moment?

("Better" in quotes so that you can define improvements as you like.)
 

CURATOR / MEMBER EMERITUS
Joined
Dec 21, 1999
Messages
3,061
Tokens
It is impossible for social healthcare to bankrupt a citizen

no, just the whole country...
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
no, just the whole country...
As it is now, we save 5% GDP per annum over the American system.
(And the gap will get wider as your private system implodes.)

Don't forget. We have BOTH systems here.

The population knows which is the better system, year on year, generation after generation, the costs are borne more evenly by the general wealth creating population on an ability to pay basis.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
xp

It is shameful but true: outright, overt socialisation of the American medical industry would be better than than the current system of attempting to please everyone. The figures do not lie, and eek is certainly fond of quoting them. But you are speaking of "better" in the same sense that I might say I would "rather" die in a motorcycle accident than of lung cancer, since at least in the former case I'd be likely enjoying the hell out of myself up until the last moment. The fact that I would be dead sort of overrides that pleasure unfortunately, but given the choice I'd take the bike wreck.


Phaedrus
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
P:

.... which then takes us to the inevitable fubar of the whole thing: in societies like ours, with our vast wealth and general 'neighbourliness', some version of socialised medicine will take root. It is abhorrent to most people that someone die a preventable death simply because they didn't have the money for treatment. I know we've discussed whether or not health care is a right, and the discussion still holds some ideological merit, but at the end of the day, the humanitarian nature of our societies will insist upon county hospitals, tax breaks for employers to fund health care, or some such state intervention in the system.

That in mind, I will take my socialised version over the American hodge-podge any day of the week, regardless of its inevitable shortcomings (though they are largely due to the for-profit system we are competing with down south.) Your dream of an entirely private system isn't a likely one, unless national bankruptcy forces the issue.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
3,742
Tokens
Without for profit will there ever be new medicines brought to market? NO!

How about life saving procedures?
Name the last drug Canada or Cuba brought to market?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
5,412
Tokens
I like Canada...so much so, that I'm thinking of moving back there...

Lots of hard-working people who don't mind having 40% of their salary stolen from them -- all I have to do is make sure I'm a beneficiary of that and not a contributor and I'm getting a HUGE positive EV. Clean and safe streets, decent schooling, health care and social services, a high standard of living and low taxes if you can make sure your official income is low enough.

If I were a high ranking exec or some high paid specialist doctor I'd be a fool to live there, but since I'm basically a bum I'll just enjoy the fruits of other people's labor, sit back and enjoy a few cold ones as I watch my kids grow up and continue the family tradition! :drink:

It's a good deal if you ask me!
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
3,742
Tokens
Has Canada brought any new cutting edge medicines to market lately? I would think such a great system would be producing all sorts of great things or is it much like a soviet clinic?
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
GAMEFACE said:
Has Canada brought any new cutting edge medicines to market lately? I would think such a great system would be producing all sorts of great things or is it much like a soviet clinic?

I haven't a clue. I don't pay much attention. Though I do recall WildBill touting the discoveries made in Sweden, who are much more socialised than we are. Furhter, the pharmaceutical industry in Canada isn't state-owned. We have Pfizer Canada and blah blah. I suspect that if Pfizer Canada comes up with something, credit is given to the US head office.

The difference between Canadian and US taxes is often exaggerated.

Total taxes amounted to 35.8% of GDP in Canada in 2000 compared to 29.6% in the US. This is a gap of 6.2 percentage points. Note, however, that the gap was 9.2 percentage points in 1990.

The Canada-US tax gap closed in the 1990's because US taxes rose significantly. And, US taxes rose because personal and corporate tax revenues jumped by a full three percentage points of GDP, from 12.1% to 15.1%, mainly because of the deficit-cutting policies of the Clinton Administration. In 1993, the US added two new high income tax brackets of 36% and 39.6% on top of the previous tax rate of 31%, and also removed the upper earnings limit on the Social Security payroll tax.

The Canada-US tax gap was closing, particularly for high income earners, even before Mr. Martin began cutting Canadian income taxes.

Note that Canadian tax revenues are higher than American taxes as a share of GDP mainly because of taxes on goods and services (sales taxes) which are four percentage points higher as a share of GDP. In 2000, taxes on income and profits were 17.5% of GDP compared to 15.1% in the US. And, personal taxes plus social security contributions paid by employees were just about the same at 15% of GDP.

It will surprise many to learn that personal taxes for most workers are actually no higher in Canada than in the US according to the OECD. Their annual calculations compare the ‘gross’ and ‘net’ incomes of workers at three different income levels and in different kinds of families in different countries. After-tax income is calculated as wages plus benefits delivered through the tax system, minus income taxes and social security contributions paid by workers.

In 2000, an average single Canadian worker paid 26.6% of their income in taxes, just a bit more than the 25.6% paid by an average worker in the US. And, a ‘higher paid’ worker — someone making 67% more than the average wage of a full-time production worker, or $60,000 per year in Canada — actually paid slightly less than in the US. The differences are also very small for single low income earners, and for married couples with children at all three income levels. Note that only the very first stage of the Martin tax cuts was effective in 2000.

Tax comparisons are very difficult because provincial and state income taxes vary, and because the Canadian and US tax systems treat people very differently on the basis of their family circumstances. Still, it is just not true to say that average and marginal personal taxes are lower in the US for lower, average and higher paid workers.

What about very high income earners? Following the Martin tax cuts, the top rate of federal income tax is 29% on incomes of more than $100,000 (with the threshold set to rise to $113,000 by 2004). There is no higher tax bracket.

When the Bush tax cuts of 2001 are fully implemented, the US federal income tax rate will be 28% on incomes of $63,550 - $132,600, 33% on incomes of $132,600 to $288,350, and 35% on incomes of more than $288,350. (The latest proposals don’t change this, but speed up the implementation of the new brackets.) Those who call for tax cuts for high income Canadians routinely ignore the fact that marginal federal income tax rates in the US are much higher.

To be sure, high income Canadians will likely pay more in provincial income taxes than Americans do in state taxes. Federal taxes on income and profits are a slightly higher share of GDP in the US than Canada (12.5% vs. 11.3% in 2000), reflecting the greater role of the US federal government. State and local taxes on income and profits are much smaller in the US (2.5% vs. 6.2% of GDP).

State income taxes range from zero, to an average of about 5% of income, to a high of about 11% of income. Some cities levy income taxes as well. For example, New York City levies a 3% income tax. A 2000 study by Jonathan Kesselman (“Flat Taxes, Dual Taxes, Smart Taxes,” Policy Matters, www.irpp.ca) found that, while income and payroll taxes combined tended to be a bit higher in Canada for single ‘upper middle’ income earners, they were just about the same in most states for two-earner couples. And, that was in the very early stages of implementation of the Martin tax cuts.

High-income Americans who live in low-tax states will pay less tax than Canadians — and likely pay to live in gated communities and to send their children to private schools. However, high-income Americans who live in states and cities which levy income taxes can be just as ‘heavily’ taxed as comparable Canadians.

http://clc-ctc.ca/web/menu/english/...A_EX_Session=5531169ceed25d7b52eb01c8dd6e6b5f

You should also note that we have no deficit and have carried a surplus for several years now. Can't boast that can you, Game?
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
5,412
Tokens
XP,

Don't know if you're a bum or not...I was speaking for myself mainly...but if you are, cheers bro! :toast:
 

"I got my ass kicked by a superior BLUE state"
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
169
Tokens
Don't forget sales tax in those equations.
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Darryl Parsons said:
XP,

Don't know if you're a bum or not...I was speaking for myself mainly...but if you are, cheers bro! :toast:

Bro?

Cujo: that was my point in an earlier post to Game.

We pay more in taxes, yet we get more out our system. I can't even imagine living in your system, and not because of its aversion to socialised policies, but because it pretends that it is founded on the principle of smaller gov't, which is patently not true. Where you spend billions on being able to obliterate anyone who looks at you sideways (how many defence departments do you guys have, exactly) we spend our money on the health and welfare of the individuals living within our borders. Yes, we benefit from your wild military spending, but you also benefit from our wild social spending. Canadians interested in the pursuit of the almighty dollar are free to head to the US after receiving a top-notch Canadian education at a fraction of the cost in the US. Like doctors, for example.

At the end of the day, our being socialised affects you guys hardly one whit, yet your being pseudo-capitalist makes maintaining our system very challenging. So can I have my bîtching rights back, please? ;)
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,810
Messages
13,573,492
Members
100,872
Latest member
ninja_coder
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com