It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canadian doctor makes anti-Obamacare senator look like a buffoon

page: 18
36
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   

bluesilver

macman
reply to post by bluesilver
 


How is it cheap exactly???

It is paid for via extra taxes, taken from people. And I am sure it is a sliding scale of taxation, so there are people that are paying higher percentages then most.


It works out around £85 per month, if I was earning £25,000 per year. Like I said before. How much do you pay per month?


I am not in the habit of disclosing personal finances on the interweb.

Enough to be taxed more then many. And when I do earn more, I have a higher percentage stolen from me.
So, when I worked 40hr work weeks, say I had 15% taken from me.
When I worked 60 work weeks, I would have say 20% taken.
Now, working 18 hour days, 7 days a week, I have close to 30% taken.

So yeah, excuse me while I get peeved about working harder to provide for my family, only to have a larger chunk stolen from my wallet.

Oh, and I guess that as I ascend the higher tax brackets, I use the services more that I the taxes go to. With higher pay I must in turn use police/fire services more, I must then use welfare more, I must use more of the military and so on.




posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   

bluesilver

macman
reply to post by deadcalm
 


Well, you have a solid point. We are taxed greatly, with little to show for it. Does that maybe show that Govt, when allowed to grow, encroaches on every aspect???


And it really troubles me that you are fine with people being taxed higher, just because they earn more.

Guess that taxes are punitive in nature and you are fine with that.


That would depend on whether you think your Govt is broken, which if it is, it is up to you to fix it. Maybe then you'd be less cynical about our way of life. We are happy, you really don't seem to be.

With regard to taxes, I guess it is a different ethos - everything is proportionate. Why would someone earning £10,000 pay the same tax as someone who earns £100,000? Maybe in our nations we have an outlook of looking after eachother,where you want to live in a nation that everyone looks after number one. That doesn't seem to be working out too great for you though.


The thing is, not all Canadians are happy with your system. Here's one:



Brett J. Skinner is the Director of Bio-Pharma, Health, and Insurance
Policy at the Fraser Institute. He has a Ph.D. from the University of
Western Ontario (London) where he has taught courses in both the
Faculty of Health Sciences and the Department of Political Science.
He earned a BA (Hon.) from the University of Windsor (Ontario) and
an MA through joint studies at the University of Windsor and Wayne
State University (Michigan).


Let's look through is paper:



It is true that Canadian governments promise universal
health insurance coverage for all medically necessary care. But governments
define “medically necessary” according to what they are willing to
pay for. Increasingly, Canadian governments are reducing the real, practical
economic value of public health insurance benefits. In terms of delivering
actual access to medical goods and services, the Canadian system is not
really doing a much better job at universalizing effective health insurance
coverage than the American system. Access to a wait list is not the same
thing as access to medical care.
Canadian health care is neither as good as its advocates say it is, nor is
American health care as bad as its critics have asserted. Indeed, there are
many unsubstantiated myths about the American system that are nevertheless
regularly cited by advocates of government-run health insurance
in both Canada and the United States, and are unquestioningly repeated
by the media. These myths are easily dispelled by the facts.





However, Ferguson (2002a) analyzed the relative growth of per-capita
health spending in Canada and the US, separately from the relative growth
of per-capita GDP in Canada and the US, from 1960–1998. Ferguson’s
analysis showed that total health spending in the US and Canada grew at
roughly similar paces until the late 1980s. However, GDP in the US grew
slower than in Canada during much of the 1970s and early 1980s.
This, according to Ferguson, is why health spending, when measured
as a percentage of GDP, appeared to grow faster in the US than in Canada
during this period. If the different growth rates of GDP are not accounted
for, it creates the illusion that Canadian public health insurance was better
at cost control during this period. Ferguson (2002a: 25) further showed
that if Canadian GDP had grown at the same rate as GDP in the US,
Canada would have been spending an even higher percentage of its GDP
on health care during the 1970s and 1980s than the US. According to
Ferguson (2002a), Canada’s spending rank relative to the US would only
have improved when governments began to restrict the scope of public
health insurance benefits, impose price controls, and ration health spending
in Canada during the late 1980s and early 1990s. The truth is that
Canada’s alleged success at cost control during the 1970s and 1980s was
an illusion created by different growth rates in GDP between Canada and
the US. Since the late 1980s, Canada’s relative success at cost control has
been achieved from government rationing, not a more efficient allocation
of medical resources.





Canada’s particular approach to health care has significant
hidden costs that are not usually acknowledged by the advocates of singlepayer
health care. The hidden costs of Canadian health care include:
l significant unfunded liabilities and a financial sustainability crisis
facing governments because of the uncontrolled growth of public
health care spending;
Introduction 9
www.fraserinstitute.org | Fraser Institute
l shortages of medical resources, especially for high technology and
the most advanced medical treatments;
l significant numbers of people who lack actual effective access to
publicly insured and medically necessary health care;
l significantly delayed access to the relatively fewer medically
necessary goods and services that are available;
l government-imposed restrictions on the incomes of health
professionals at levels below market value; and
l disincentives for medical innovation.
It is, of course, true that compared to Canadians, Americans spend more
of their incomes on health care, but it is equally true that Americans get
faster access to more and often better medical resources in return for the
money they spend.5




Number of practicing physicians per million population in
2006 (Numbers are US then Canada. Cut and paste from PDF)
2,400 2,100 OECD (2008)
Number of practicing nurses per million population in 2006 10,500 8,800 OECD (2008)
Number of MRI units per million population in 2006 26.5 6.2 OECD (2008)



We don't even have this next issue:



Estimated percentage of the population legally prohibited
from directly buying local necessary medical services when
uninsured or “effectively” uninsured
0.0% 83.5% [2] Flood & Archibald
(2001); Statistics
Canada (2007)
Estimated percentage of the population legally prohibited
from buying private insurance for necessary medical services
0.0% 89.8% [3] Flood & Archibald
(2001); Statistics
Canada (2007)





Average age (years) of hospital facilities in 2003
(Ontario as proxy for Canada)
9 40 OHA (2003)

So older facilities (by ten times) with half the people to staff them.




The American debate about health care has been influenced by controversial
research (Himmelstein et al., 2009) claiming to show that nearly two
thirds of personal bankruptcies in the United States result from uninsured
medical expenses or loss of income due to illness. An earlier edition of this
research (Himmelstein et al., 2005) claimed that just over half of personal
bankruptcies were due to these “medical causes.” The authors of these
studies have argued that the problem of “medical bankruptcies” would
be solved by the adoption of a government-run health insurance system
like Canada’s. The medical bankruptcy myth is also frequently raised in
the Canadian health care debate and is regularly cited by the media north
of the border. Yet the medical bankruptcy study has been soundly refuted
by several researchers.
To begin, the idea that large numbers of Americans are declaring bankruptcy
due to medical expenses is a myth. For example, Dranove and
Millenson (2006) critically analyzed the data from the 2005 edition of
the medical bankruptcy study. They found that medical spending was a
contributing factor in only 17% of US bankruptcies. They also reviewed
other research, including studies by the Department of Justice, finding
that medical debts accounted for only 12% to 13% of the total debts among
American bankruptcy filers who cited medical debt as one of their reasons
for bankruptcy.
Second, the notion that greater government involvement in health
insurance will reduce bankruptcy can be tested by comparing personal
bankruptcy rates in the United States and Canada. Unlike the United
States, Canada has a universal, government-run health insurance system.
Following the logic of Himmelstein and colleagues, we should therefore
expect to observe a lower rate of personal bankruptcy in Canada compared
to the United States.
Yet the evidence (Skinner and Rovere, 2009) shows that in the only
comparable years, personal bankruptcy rates were actually higher in
Canada. Personal bankruptcy filings as a percentage of the population
were 0.20% in the United States during 2006 and 0.27% in 2007. In
Canada, the numbers are 0.30% in both 2006 and 2007. The data are taken
from government sources and defined in similar ways for both countries,
covering the time period after the legal reforms to US bankruptcy laws in
2005 and before the onset of the 2008 economic recession.

Bankruptcy myth.

Access to physicians:



According to the Canadian Community
Health Survey conducted by Statistics Canada in 2003, it was estimated
that more than 1.2 million Canadians (about 5% of the 2003 Canadian
population aged 12 years and older) were unable to find a regular family
physician (or general practitioner) (Statistics Canada, 2004a). More
recently, an update to the survey found that access to primary care physicians
might be getting worse over time:





Another way to assess the supply of physicians is to compare Canadian
data internationally. Table 9 shows that in 200625 there were 2.1 practicing
physicians per 1,000 people in Canada (OECD, 2008). Canada’s supply of
physicians was below the 3.1 per 1,000 person average of the other OECD
countries in 2006. The number of physicians per population among all 30
OECD countries ranged from 5.0 to 1.6 per 1,000 people. The median ratio
was 3.3 per 1,000 people. Table 9 also shows that Canada ranked in the
bottom third at 26th among the group of 30 OECD countries in 2006 in
terms of the national availability of physician human resources.


Shortage of technology:


The data show that in terms of the availability
of CT scanners, Canada ranked 22nd of 29 OECD countries with available
data. Canada ranked 18th of 29 for MRIs, 23rd of 24 for lithotripters,
9th of 22 for mammographs, and 10th of 27 for radiotherapy equipment.


Long waits:


According to the Esmail, Hazel, and Walker (2008), a relatively low
availability of advanced medical technologies in Canada is suspected to
be a key factor in producing long waits for diagnostic procedures. The survey
showed that in 2008, the averaged median wait for a CT scan across
Canada was 4.9 weeks (roughly equal to the 4.8 weeks recorded in 2007).
The averaged median wait for an MRI across Canada was 9.7 weeks (down
from 10.1 weeks in 2007). Finally, the averaged median wait for ultrasound
was 4.4 weeks (up from 3.9 weeks in 2007) across Canada. To verify the
validity of their survey results, Esmail, Hazel, and Walker (2008) compiled
data from the provincial wait times websites for comparison. According
to the data they collected in the four provinces where matching comparisons
could be made with their own survey data, the aggregate average
median32 wait times published by provincial sources were: 6.0 weeks in
Alberta; 6.0 weeks in British Columbia; 6.1 weeks in Saskatchewan; and
12.6 weeks in New Brunswick.

Fascinating article. There is lots more information.
www.... fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/CanadianHealthPolicyFailures.pdf



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by deadcalm
 


Oh good hell. When did I say what you guys do up there is wrong??

It is fine for you. Keep it. That is great.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   

bluesilver


That would depend on whether you think your Govt is broken, which if it is, it is up to you to fix it. Maybe then you'd be less cynical about our way of life. We are happy, you really don't seem to be.

When Govt can take from me to give to someone else I would say that yeah, it is broken.



bluesilver
With regard to taxes, I guess it is a different ethos - everything is proportionate. Why would someone earning £10,000 pay the same tax as someone who earns £100,000?

Because it is someone funding another.
I ask it to you in reverse. Why wouldn't someone making X pay the same as some making Y?
The wealth person must pay more simply because they earn more??
If that is the case then it isn't about funding the Govt at all. It is about Social Justice and Wealth redistribution.


bluesilver
Maybe in our nations we have an outlook of looking after eachother,where you want to live in a nation that everyone looks after number one. That doesn't seem to be working out too great for you though.

So, you equate what you have to looking out for your neighbor.

Funny..........I don't need the Govt to do that for me. I can do that on my own.

Guess some people must have a parent their whole life, telling them what and what not to do.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by bluesilver
 


You forgot to add "Not sustainable".

It may be cheap now. But it seems national debt is increasing of those countries.

www.debtbombshell.com...

www.nationaldebtclocks.org...



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   

deadcalm


You can direct your ire to me for that....I hadn't realized that there was some huge controversy over it. I was using it in the context of Canadian healthcare...we look after each other...hence we are our brothers keeper. I thought it was appropriate...perhaps I was mistaken.

I really don't like religion at all so I won't be burying my nose in a bible any time soon.





It is very simple.

Cain told Abel his brother. And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. 9Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" And he said, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?"


So, using it in the context of you are there to take care of people doesn't exactly fit. It is a misused quote, usually towards people of Christian Faith, in an attempt to have them think the bible states we are to take care of everyone.

It is very Ironic that it is used in that manner, and when looked at the true meaning, would lead to the person stating that, that they had just murdered the person they are supposed to care for.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   


Is your Govt encroaching on certain rights/freedoms?
Are you okay with said encroachment?
reply to post by macman
 


Our right to privacy is one that has come up recently. But as I have stated....this has more to do with pressure from the US to conform to their security doctrine than anything else.

No, I'm not at all ok with this encroachment. It sparked a huge national debate however...I suspect there will be a number of changes to law to make sure that the Canadian Gov doesn't skirt the law by using one of our allies to spy on us.

Other than that....I can't think of anything.

If you wish me to answer a question...yes. It would be helpful if you stated it as such...otherwise I'll assume it is a statement and not a question.




And you think it is fair that someone foots the bill for this crap? Basically so someone else can fund others lives.


We ALL foot the bill for this "crap". Everyone pays taxes guy. I don't look at it as funding others lives...because it's not what we do. We help each other out....like good neighbors do. Some of us are able to pay more....some less...some none at all. But we all benefit from it.




You might want to review what roll your Country/Govt has in regards to the wars. Seems Canadian Forces are/were there with others.


I am painfully aware of our role in Afghanistan and what it has cost us....much to our collective national shame. We were asked by our allies (the US) to help out....so we did. We thought we could help the people of Afghanistan...turns out we were wrong. But in terms of dollars spent...our involvement in Afghanistan didn't put us 5 TRILLION in the hole.




So, just have the Rich foot the bill?


Nope...we all have to pay taxes commesurate to what we can afford to pay. As I have stated...we all benefit from it as a society....that money gets spent on us and programs that are important to us.




A Govt that provides can take away.
Sounds very much like you are fine being dependent upon your Govt.


A Government that takes away...can find itself out of a job. Quickly. Programs get cut if we can't afford it...beyond that our social programs don't get cut unless they are ineffectual.

Nope...the fact is that my government is reliant on us. It has no money of it's own and they work for us, they get their marching orders from us....not the other way around.

I don't think you are ever going to get it. Our viewpoints are light years apart it would seem.

I guess time will tell which system worked better for it's people.

Best of Luck!

edit on 19America/Chicagopm192014-03-19T14:27:31-05:00pmWednesday03 by deadcalm because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   

macman
You forgot to add "Not sustainable".

It may be cheap now. But it seems national debt is increasing of those countries.

Canada's federal debt woes have very little to do with healthcare.
2nd



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by bluesilver
 


So, why do you have a Govt agency needed for this? It should then be just a funding agency.
www.huffingtonpost.ca...
www.fraserinstitute.org...
www.fraserinstitute.org...

Seems that the budget short falls and high yearly tax is just awesome.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

peck420

macman
So much for everyone paying their "fair" share.

"Fair" in Canada, in regards to taxation, is defined by equal burden, not equal rates.
2nd.


So, wealth redistribution.

"fairness"..

And how it is that you get to determine what is a burden to someone?
Without being totalitarian and all.

edit on 19-3-2014 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   

bluesilver

Ok...deep breath......

WE CHOOSE TO HAVE THIS SYSTEM.... At this point I'm tempted to start doing diagrams if it helps you understand..?

I'll try it again...

We have a choice because we CHOOSE to have this system. It is what we want. It is what we would fight for. Everyone in the country wants it.

So, since you want it, and all want it, why do you need the Govt to require everyone to do so? I mean, if you really want it, why not just do it.

I want to play with my kids. I don't need a Govt mandate to enforce me to do this.




bluesilver

If a GOVT tried to take it away there would be riots.

Says a lot about how people think.
They would riot if their Govt required benefit was taken away.
That sounds funny when stated out loud. Maybe try it.




bluesilver
Why do you think so many countries HAVE this sytem?

Because most don't have a choice. Since it is, after all, a Govt mandate.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

macman
And how it is that you get to determine what is a burden to someone?
Without being totalitarian and all.

Mathematics.

Now, are you asking how it should be done, or how it is done?



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


From what I can see in your post, no one called you a "Buffoon". My exact words were anyone who thinks the ACA is socialist healthcare, is a buffoon. Judging from your post, you are calling it fascist. Which clearly, that is not Socialist now is it? So why so defensive?

But allow me to clear this up anyway... Corporatism is defined as:


the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction


In other words, it is a merging of Corporation and State. The Insurance companies wrote it, the IRS enforces it. If that is not a marriage made in hell then I dont know what is. Take into account that we have more people from the business sector who work for these huge, big time, major corporations taking political seats in Office of various degrees.

Call it Fascism if you wish, I call it Corporatism, which is really just a few small steps away from Fascism. So do you really wish to debate how far this Country has fallen or can simply agree it has fallen and is no longer a Republic or Democratic Republic?



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   


It is about Social Justice and Wealth redistribution.
reply to post by macman
 


Ponder this then....you are seeing, and have been seeing for the last 30 years....the biggest wealth redistribution in HISTORY in the US........but you have nothing to show for it.

No...wait...you have 17 TRILLION dollars of debt to show for it....and that grows by almost 3 TRILLION a year.

6 people in the US have more wealth then HALF YOUR COUNTRY.

I'd say the transfer of your tax dollars to the top 1% of earners in the US is a serious problem....very serious. It is going to have implications for your society as a whole...increased crime and poverty go hand in hand....so does massive civil unrest. History has shown time and time again that whenever you have this level of wealth inequality....EVERYBODY LOSES IN THE END.

So, perhaps our socialist system seems repugnant to you....but it works for us...and in the end....thats all that matters.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   

deadcalm


Our right to privacy is one that has come up recently. But as I have stated....this has more to do with pressure from the US to conform to their security doctrine than anything else.

So, Canada can't stand up for itself?? The big mean USA is forcing your Gov to do these things to its people??
Seems like the Govt you guys keep stating as being you the people, is kind of ignoring the people. But don't worry, as I am sure that your Govt will stop there and won't go any further.

Just like all the other Govts in the world.


deadcalm



We ALL foot the bill for this "crap". Everyone pays taxes guy. I don't look at it as funding others lives...because it's not what we do. We help each other out....like good neighbors do. Some of us are able to pay more....some less...some none at all. But we all benefit from it.

So again, some pay nothing, but are able to use the system in the same manner as someone that foots the large portion of the bill.
I guess as long as you guys are fine with that, more power to you.

Here in the US that is called many things. Theft comes to mind.....Wealth redistribution is another one as well.




deadcalm

I am painfully aware of our role in Afghanistan and what it has cost us....much to our collective national shame. We were asked by our allies (the US) to help out....so we did. We thought we could help the people of Afghanistan...turns out we were wrong. But in terms of dollars spent...our involvement in Afghanistan didn't put us 5 TRILLION in the hole.

So, your country/Govt has had a role in this.
Interesting.......very interesting.



deadcalm
Nope...we all have to pay taxes commesurate to what we can afford to pay. As I have stated...we all benefit from it as a society....that money gets spent on us and programs that are important to us.

But above you stated some will pay more then others, yet have the same access to the system.

Which is it?

If the wealthy pay more, then they are in fact...........paying the majority.



deadcalm

A Government that takes away...can find itself out of a job. Quickly. Programs get cut if we can't afford it...beyond that our social programs don't get cut unless they are ineffectual.

You clearly haven't been paying attention to World Govts.
They can take it away.
Or course you guys would riot, but it can be taken away.



deadcalm
Nope...the fact is that my government is reliant on us. It has no money of it's own and they work for us, they get their marching orders from us....not the other way around.

So, you guys print your money??? Or does your Govt print the money??
And it seems that taxes aren't by your choice either, because if they were, you could pay what you wanted.



deadcalm
I don't think you are ever going to get it. Our viewpoints are light years apart it would seem.

I guess time will tell which system worked better for it's people.


And you guys can keep your system.

Just please, keep it above the southern border.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


How so???

Oh, I guess it is "different" right??

Debt doesn't really mean anything when what you are doing with the money makes you feel good and is the compassionate thing to do.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   


They would riot if their Govt required benefit was taken away.
reply to post by macman
 


The only things we riot over in Canada are hockey and maple syrup shortages...that can really chafe a Canuk let me tell you.

You seem not to understand...living in your totalitarian police state as you do....the Government isn't GIVING us anything. We give to them and they spend the money we give them on programs that WE have chosen.

If we don't like a law....for instance the National Gun Registry...we get rid of it. Simple as that.

That is what it is like in a functioning democracy.

I forgive you if you have forgotten what thats like....it's been quite some time since the US has had a fuctional democracy....and it just seems to be getting worse all the time.

Your President can actually have you assasinated if you are out of the country without the protections guaranteed by your Constitution if they think you are a domestic terrorist without any evidence having to be shown....he's done it 4 times already....and is looking to make it number 5. Worse...your family would never be able to find out why because everything is a damn secret....secret laws, secret courts that issue secret rulings....

I'd say you have far bigger issues to tackle in the US than just healthcare.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   

peck420

macman
And how it is that you get to determine what is a burden to someone?
Without being totalitarian and all.

Mathematics.

Now, are you asking how it should be done, or how it is done?


Not the math behind it.

It basically allows the Govt to decide who must pay what and how much.


Sounds very democratic in nature.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by deadcalm
 


Oh, you must have not seen where I have stated that crap, corporate welfare and the tax structure is wrong as well.

I love your last line though. that is works and that is all that matters.
I guess it doesn't matter really that some are paying more for others. Because, it just works.



posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


"So, using it in the context of you are there to take care of people doesn't exactly fit. It is a misused quote, usually towards people of Christian Faith, in an attempt to have them think the bible states we are to take care of everyone. "

But those who do believe in the "I am my brother's keeper", Jesus gave comfort.

Matthew 5:7 Blessed are the merciful, since they will be shown mercy.

He gave His life to give us life and trained his disciples to go out two by two.




top topics



 
36
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join