Why Canadian healthcare is better than in the US (income, taxes)

[Badger]

Originally Posted by dramamama

THE BAILOUT, BY REPUBLICAN STANDARDS, IS NOT A DONE DEAL. THEY'RE STILL ARGUING ABOUT THE WAY TO FIX IT ALL. IT'S A RIDICULOUS MESS THAT BOTH SIDES ARE GUILTY OF PERPETUATING. I'M STILL ON THE FENCE ABOUT IT ALL--I PERSONALLY THINK THOSE IDIOTS IN WALL ST. SHOULD TAKE THE FALL BUT AT WHAT COST TO THE AVERAGE JOES IN THE COUNTRY--CAUSE IT WILL HURT THEM -- WE'LL SEE--MAYBE DOING NOTHING IS THE BEST WAY TO GO... BUT HEALTH CARE IS AN ONGOING COST--NOT A ONE TIME SHOT--LIKE THE WAR--AND SORRY--I SUPPORT IT UNTIL WE ARE ASSURED THAT OUR COUNTRY WILL NOT BE ATTACKED BY ZEALOTS AGAIN.

I WROTE IN CAPS BECAUSE I WANTED TO SEPARATE MY ANSWERS FROM YOUR POST--NOT YELLING--JUST TOO LAZY TO DO MULTIPLE QUOTES--

yes, you believe the banking industry should've been regulated now, just like John McCain believes it should be regulated NOW after decades of stark de-reg support. Everyone believes it should've been regulated now. I wish you people would tell us which stocks to buy.

Bill Clinton had a repub controlled congress, he couldn't do anything against that, you know, the balance of powers.

I never said, nor do most anybody believe that UHC is free, but take what the avg. Canadian pays in (that dirty word) "taxes" and then take what the avg. American pays in yearly deductibles, co-pay, and the 80/20% rule, out of network, specialist up-charge fees and I guarantee you it's MORE than the "taxes" a Canadian pays yearly. And the difference is that you don't walk out of the hospital loosing your home or declaring bankrupcy. There are many people who have 2,000, 4,000 and 6,000 yearly deductibles and refuse to use their "health insurance" because it's so expensive. So not only do we have about 47million uninsured but many millions more who don't use their insurance because it's too expensive to get through the yearly deductible , something they don't have in Canada. But they have higher "taxes" in Canada to support thier socialistic health care system.


Things like waiting lists and horror stories people like you like to portray are the stuff of fear-mongering that's been a staple of republican tactics for years in this country. Don't vote for us-- the terrorists are gonna win, they'll come here and keel us in our own homes if you vote for those liberals. The Dems will raise your taxes, "tax and spend" , which persidents have spent more than Reagan and Bush 1 and 2? Non-discretionary spending too, not just military spending. Clinton inherited record deficeits from Bush 1 and gave Bush 2 record surplusses and what to the "fiscally responsible" Republicans do? Spend, Spend, Spend, but the Dems will raise your taxes, we can't have basic medical care for all in the richest country in the world? There's no excuse.

[ionlife]

Originally Posted by Badger

yes, you believe the banking industry should've been regulated now, just like John McCain believes it should be regulated NOW after decades of stark de-reg support. Everyone believes it should've been regulated now. I wish you people would tell us which stocks to buy.

Bill Clinton had a repub controlled congress, he couldn't do anything against that, you know, the balance of powers.

I never said, nor do most anybody believe that UHC is free, but take what the avg. Canadian pays in (that dirty word) "taxes" and then take what the avg. American pays in yearly deductibles, co-pay, and the 80/20% rule, out of network, specialist up-charge fees and I guarantee you it's MORE than the "taxes" a Canadian pays yearly. And the difference is that you don't walk out of the hospital loosing your home or declaring bankrupcy. There are many people who have 2,000, 4,000 and 6,000 yearly deductibles and refuse to use their "health insurance" because it's so expensive. So not only do we have about 47million uninsured but many millions more who don't use their insurance because it's too expensive to get through the yearly deductible , something they don't have in Canada. But they have higher "taxes" in Canada to support thier socialistic health care system.


Things like waiting lists and horror stories people like you like to portray are the stuff of fear-mongering that's been a staple of republican tactics for years in this country. Don't vote for us-- the terrorists are gonna win, they'll come here and keel us in our own homes if you vote for those liberals. The Dems will raise your taxes, "tax and spend" , which persidents have spent more than Reagan and Bush 1 and 2? Non-discretionary spending too, not just military spending. Clinton inherited record deficeits from Bush 1 and gave Bush 2 record surplusses and what to the "fiscally responsible" Republicans do? Spend, Spend, Spend, but the Dems will raise your taxes, we can't have basic medical care for all in the richest country in the world? There's no excuse.

THEY ARE TRUE STORIES--happened to people I know. THEY ARE NOT FEAR MONGERING.

And I never wanted deregulation--but obviously you're so convinced you're right based on what, experience with the system? I don't know YOU NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION I ASKED.

So you're convinced you're right--I should say very left-- and that is fine. I'm not going to waste my time trying to share the facts if you are unable to sit back and really examine them.

Go ahead--have universal health care here--get rid of defense spending-- go for it--heck, I voted straight ticket democrat in the last election to see what a democratic lead congress (hello pelosi?) would do for my country -- they promised a lot. They didn't deliver.

NONE OF THEM DID. And, though this is about HEALTH CARE, not BANK DEREGULATION, I can say that there was bill floated about 6 months or so ago to take care of the situation we are in as a nation but no one, democratic or repubican, wanted to deal with it proactively. so it died. and now we are in this situation with a potential bail out of 700billion dollars that I am still not sure is the right solution at all.

But all this also makes me wonder that if our gov't can't get quit bashing their chests and posturing about this and that (both sides of the fence) then how in the heck can I trust any of them to manage health care?

Again, HAVE YOU EXPERIENCE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FIRST HAND/???

[eastidahomom]

Originally Posted by dramamama

I am NOT being melodramatic. I am STATING THE FACTS AS I KNOW THEM TO BE TRUE. And I KNOW THERE ARE BAD DOCTORS HERE. But, hey, SUNSHINE, I DO READ THE NEWS AND THEY CAN BE SUED A LOT EASIER IN A COUNTRY WHERE ONE PAYS FOR THE HEALTH CARE THAN IN CANADA.

I am not living under a rock, sunshine.

I've noticed that the consensus here is that if someone points out why something won't work based ON FACTS, certain people just get rude.

I've always said, you get what you pay for... look around and see how good it really is on that side of the fence and you might get exactly what you deserve here in the USA --NO DOCTORS AT ALL, POOR CARE, LACK OF BEDS FOR SURGERY, NO RECOURSE, AND THE LIST GOES ON.

And I am NOT a Republican conservative naysayer. I am smack dab in the middle and I THINK about the issues--but hey, if I disagree with those too far to the left or right, suddenly I am condescended to by the people who disagree.

Off to get some SUNSHINE.

Sheesh

Yeah Sheesh is right! I have several friends in Canada and they love the healthcare system there. The only complaint they have is that sometimes they have to wait three to six months for specialized care. We have to wait that long here. I don't know what fantasy world you are in, or maybe you've never had a major surgery here, and more than likely, you've never had a loved one who was near death, WITHOUT insurance. But wake up already, this is ridiculous. I can name at least 12 people (personal friends) who live in Canada who can tell you that you're wrong.

[ionlife]

Originally Posted by eastidahomom

Yeah Sheesh is right! I have several friends in Canada and they love the healthcare system there. The only complaint they have is that sometimes they have to wait three to six months for specialized care. We have to wait that long here. I don't know what fantasy world you are in, or maybe you've never had a major surgery here, and more than likely, you've never had a loved one who was near death, WITHOUT insurance. But wake up already, this is ridiculous. I can name at least 12 people (personal friends) who live in Canada who can tell you that you're wrong.

ditto

[eastidahomom]

Originally Posted by dramamama

ditto

I think you're blowing smoke out your hiney. You can't make your point because with every point you make, we can point out the same problems in the US. You want to vote against it and you're trying to find whatever means you can to justify it. But it doesn't work when people know the real story. Nice try though.

[eastidahomom]

Here's France's system, maybe that will make you happy.France's model healthcare system - The Boston Globe

It's even better then Canada's and people are actually cared for. How anyone can be opposed to a system that doesn't pick and choose who they will provide care for, escapes me.

[ionlife]

And again, I say "ditto" because this is the way you are handling my points. For every story you trot out saying it is so wonderful, I can bring out a story saying it isn't so great and there's got to be another way or a better way.

Ah, therein lies the rub.

But at least I try not to assume you aren't trying to think things through, eastidahomom. It's pretty presumptious to assume that I have never watched someone suffer and/or die due to inadequate health care because the funds weren't there to help that person. I watched a very good man wait 2 years for lifesaving heart surgery, but he coulndn't get a bed because he wasn't paying directly for his treatment. So he waited and surgeries were scheduled and canceled and rescheduled, till finally before he was too sick, he got that surgery. And thank goodness survived... but then he went through it again with an abdominal aneurysm. It was discoved by his insistence to check it out at and then the powers that be told him to wait till it was about the size of a cantaloupe before they'd operate. So he waited, with a ticking time bomb, for that surgery. And finally he had it, but because he had to wait so long, his other arteries were failing. So 2 years later, another aneurysm and he had no future of a normal life... and it happened in Canada and it happened to MY DAD!

And I've thought about this issue a lot. I am against GOVERNMENT MANAGED UNVERSAL HEALTH CARE. I am not against care for all that can be managed through private industry. Just getting rid of pre-existing conditions as preventing people from leaving deadend jobs to go elsewhere would be great for all Americans.

And, yeah, we could spend a lot less on defense--I say we pull out of Western Europe, let's not help Poland out at all, and let all these other nations take care of their own military needs. Yeah, we'd save a lot of money cause we wouldn't be putting our potential new money for health care into helping them. Yeah, then they'd have to deviate some of their funds for health care over to defense if they didn't want a repeat of -- hmmm-- WW2?

And good news, we wouldn't be bashed for being such bullies--till they needed us again.

We could do that or we could send anyone believing gov't managed unversal health care is a great idea to the Netherlands for their deliveries and colonoscopies. Neither procedure comes with general anesthia--fun times.

Never assume--never presume--and no, I a not afraid to stand up for myself.

[ionlife]

Originally Posted by eastidahomom

I think you're blowing smoke out your hiney. You can't make your point because with every point you make, we can point out the same problems in the US. You want to vote against it and you're trying to find whatever means you can to justify it. But it doesn't work when people know the real story. Nice try though.

I could care less who you vote for--that's your decision. But this discussion is about the pros and cons of universal health care. Had my father, an engineer, worked for a company in the states as my husband does with good/decent medical insurance, he wouldn't have to wait for a bed to get surgery for 2 years plus. He could have been proactive and gotten it a lot sooner like good ol' Arnold in CA did. And maybe by not waiting he'd have avoided the other problems that followed (and cost the Canadian Taxpayers a lot more to fix).

Vote for who you want. Go for it... I'm still on the fence--neither party or candidate has a solution or given me any reason to vote for them.

It'll be a write in year or a coin toss again--

I think that's the difference between centrist thinkers who see all sides of the picture/both sides of the coin: we aren't trying to change anyone's minds, we're just stating what we know and where we are concerned and why. And then people all the way to the left accuse us of being heartless and people all the way to the right accuse us of being bleeding hearts.

We are in the middle, the swing voters, the ones the candidates try to win over year after year after year, and we are the true losers in these debates because we're trying to be reasonable and not insult people. Like Badger saying I was for deregulation until it hurt me--was--again--another presumptive statement and another wrong one. But being insulting works when people don't agree with what they're reading I guess.

[ionlife]

Just read the article about the French system: nice system. And could work here except for two points that would have to be seriously looked at: the no pay for school point and the no torte point. If we can do that, then the doctors will maybe accept making less money because they didn't start practice with a large debt and they don't have to worry about malpractice insurance premiums.

We'd have to take in factors like: difference in population sizes, cost to taxpayers and rural vs urban areas (they are much larger and more vast here in the USA and might be hard to calculate costs). Also, will the lawyers really give up their lucrative mal practice industry? That's another area we'd have to legislate and regulate... wonder how all those lawyers up in Capital Hill feel about that?

Looks good... article is 1 year old, based on data from 7 years ago. Anything new out there to support it?

[eastidahomom]

Originally Posted by dramamama

I could care less who you vote for--that's your decision. But this discussion is about the pros and cons of universal health care. Had my father, an engineer, worked for a company in the states as my husband does with good/decent medical insurance, he wouldn't have to wait for a bed to get surgery for 2 years plus. He could have been proactive and gotten it a lot sooner like good ol' Arnold in CA did. And maybe by not waiting he'd have avoided the other problems that followed (and cost the Canadian Taxpayers a lot more to fix).

Vote for who you want. Go for it... I'm still on the fence--neither party or candidate has a solution or given me any reason to vote for them.

It'll be a write in year or a coin toss again--

I think that's the difference between centrist thinkers who see all sides of the picture/both sides of the coin: we aren't trying to change anyone's minds, we're just stating what we know and where we are concerned and why. And then people all the way to the left accuse us of being heartless and people all the way to the right accuse us of being bleeding hearts.

We are in the middle, the swing voters, the ones the candidates try to win over year after year after year, and we are the true losers in these debates because we're trying to be reasonable and not insult people. Like Badger saying I was for deregulation until it hurt me--was--again--another presumptive statement and another wrong one. But being insulting works when people don't agree with what they're reading I guess.

You assume a lot. I vote independently. I don't do R's and D's. I vote for the person and who/what they represent.

If your father really did go through all of this because of Universal Healthcare and he's still alive, then I'd say that should mean a lot. But then he's not my father.