Taxes

pbfoot · 07-10-2007, 08:33 PM

Nothing is perfect but that was a Supreme Court Decision tou cited and wait times was a addressed and is still being addressed. I know of only one older guy that opted to seek help in the states in fact you'd be surprised to find out americans come to Canada for surgery. When my mother became ill with ALS I was impressed she was in for all the tests right away. Please understand if you are sick you are well taken care of for , some elective procedures have a wait time but we are addressing that. In our system there are priorities but I don't have to fight an insurance company. A misconception about our system is that presriptions are covered except for the folks 65 and older . Here is the link for wait times in Ontario where i live
Wait Times in Your Area

mkloby · 07-10-2007, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Nothing is perfect but that was a Supreme Court Decision tou cited and wait times was a addressed and is still being addressed. I know of only one older guy that opted to seek help in the states in fact you'd be surprised to find out americans come to Canada for surgery. When my mother became ill with ALS I was impressed she was in for all the tests right away. Please understand if you are sick you are well taken care of for , some elective procedures have a wait time but we are addressing that. In our system there are priorities but I don't have to fight an insurance company. A misconception about our system is that presriptions are covered except for the folks 65 and older . Here is the link for wait times in Ontario where i live
Wait Times in Your Area

My mother recently had surgery for a type of stomach cancer. Again - it cost our family nothing because she has insurance through her employer. She had to wait 3 days to have the surgery with the doctor she chose for his schedule to open. This was at Sloan-Kettering, one of the best cancer hospitals in the northeast.

I ran the search on that webpage you provided, and I'm not totally familiar with the results. For Toronto, it had a provincial target of 84 days wait, with a provincial wait time of 46 days. I am guessing that the aforementioned is a goal, and the latter the actual wait. Below, it listed a couple dozen hospitals, each with their own wait time.

The individual wait times are greatly varied. Do you get assigned to a specific hospital, or can you choose? They ranged from 20 days to 100 days. The page also said if you have a long wait time, you can ask to see another doctor or go to another hospital. It's not your choice?

pbfoot · 07-10-2007, 09:33 PM

I can opt for any Dr I choose or hospital , this website is new as people were getting upset with times so the goverment or elected officials will have to improve or get bounced out. My neighbour was diagnosed with Lympnoid cancer and was operated on within 3 weeks . If your more urgent your taken care of. It isn't quite as portrayed in the US you sadly get some misinformation on it , its not some evil magic it works not perfectly but it does.

FLYBOYJ · 07-11-2007, 12:51 AM

Having lived in Canada I have to agree to a point.

Is it worth paying 20 - 35% income taxes (as stated in other discussions)? Those of us in the US looking at Canada's system have to decide this...

mkloby · 07-11-2007, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Having lived in Canada I have to agree to a point.

Is it worth paying 20 - 35% income taxes (as stated in other discussions)? Those of us in the US looking at Canada's system have to decide this...

I'll be on the side opposing it until the day I die. It's one of my great fears for the 2008 election. I'm actually terrified of Hillary Clinton... terrified...

Njaco · 07-11-2007, 09:01 AM

I'm with ya there MK. But don't stop at Hillary. If BamBam gets in, watch if someone racists idiot doesn't try a LHO.

And the Healthcare issue. Not too scared. They tried it 1993 or 94 with Clinton waving a credit card like Chamberlain and I'm still waiting.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-11-2007, 09:21 AM

I see it like this. I prefer to be in the shoes that mkloby is talking about and having more money out of my paycheck and having an employer that gives me health coverage.

Now having said that I dont think that some of these situations in other areas are that bad. In Germany you pay a very high ammount of taxes depending on the bracket that you are in. Out of those taxes though you get full coverage and the German doctors are great. You dont have to pay for your meds, and if you have children you get paid Kinder Geld which is about 200 Euros a month for each child until they turn 18. You have 4 kids you get paid 800 Euros a month extra to help pay for the child. My parents were smart and put the money into a savings account and when I turned 18 all that money was mine. You do the math...

As for me I have allways been all my life in the same boat as mkloby. Growing up in a military family and then being in the military I got free health coverage (but I used the German side because I had it as well and well the military doctors over here in Germany are not very good

).

On top of it I only paid federal taxes, I never have paid state taxes and I dont think I ever will because where I am moving to there are on state taxes.

Njaco · 07-11-2007, 10:08 AM

I too have benefits cause I work for a government and have the coverage. I'm not well versed on international healthcare around the world and I 've heard its a good system and in some places very well done. But what are the costs? It has to filter down somehow. Are taxes very high to cover these costs?

I'm on board with some type of healthcare here in the States I'm just afraid its gonna be like Shop class in school - put two notches in it and it becomes an ashtray. They'll mess it up somehow.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-11-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Njaco

I too have benefits cause I work for a government and have the coverage. I'm not well versed on international healthcare around the world and I 've heard its a good system and in some places very well done. But what are the costs? It has to filter down somehow. Are taxes very high to cover these costs?

I'm on board with some type of healthcare here in the States I'm just afraid its gonna be like Shop class in school - put two notches in it and it becomes an ashtray. They'll mess it up somehow.

Yeah it is quite high. Depending on the bracket you pay between 25 and 49 percent. Like I said I prefer to be in the system that I am in now and mkloby is talking about but some of the systems out there that other countries have is not all that bad. You pay a lot but you get a good return.

Parmigiano · 07-11-2007, 12:41 PM

The point is not 'health insurance covered by Public Administration' vs 'health insurance covered by an insurance Company paid either by you or your employer'

In equally devloped Countries the balance is roughly equal.

The big difference is if something happens when you are not covered in the 'private' system, i.e. when you are between jobs. If your HI is maybe a contribution of $150 when you work for a big Company, it rises to 500-600 if you have to insure yourself as individual: too much for the less wealthy to afford.
(this was tha case of my wife in 2006 in the US: she was unemployed for 2 months and that was the price to pay)

A public healthcare system protects equally ALL his citizens, and I think it is a more civilized approach.

Then, mismanagement, misppropriation and cheating exist either if you have to deal with a PAdmin or insurance Company...

pbfoot · 07-11-2007, 02:31 PM

If anybody in the US noticed the Big 3 are dumping the benefits they pay to there employees off on the Union (UAW) . The benefits package are the largest single expense that the Big 3 have . In the same vein watch as the Big 3 will now attempt to have new employees on a separate pay scale and benefit package then the older employees . This is a harbinger of things to come in the US .

mkloby · 07-11-2007, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

If anybody in the US noticed the Big 3 are dumping the benefits they pay to there employees off on the Union (UAW) . The benefits package are the largest single expense that the Big 3 have . In the same vein watch as the Big 3 will now attempt to have new employees on a separate pay scale and benefit package then the older employees . This is a harbinger of things to come in the US .

I recall statistics going back several years that showed the avg US autoworker received twice the amount of compensation as the Japanese autoworker - when you factor in wages, bonuses, and benefits. People wondered why many of the foreign cars undercut American vehicles by thousands of dollars.

I don't know how these stats compare now, though.

I did a little poking around:

Supposedly benefits packages cannot be blamed for the recent failure of US automakers. Some reports state that the compensation of US workers is roughly equivalent to Toyota's compensation. If you transfer Toyota's comp package to FoMoCo, the company apparently still is a disaster. Obviously Toyota is paying their workers somewhat comparable compensation and doing VERY WELL.

I recently had seen a statistic showing the average hours to build each vehicle for several automakers. Toyota was the lowest about 28 or so hours, with I believe Honda and GM trailing by 2 hours or so. Ford was up there about 35 hours I believe...

The US automakers have several problems - incompetent leadership for Ford under Bill Ford Jr was probably their biggest issue.

I don't know how these stats compare now, though.

Njaco · 07-11-2007, 04:31 PM

The benefits package was an issue this winter here in Jersey. One of the lawmakers wanted to reduce the benefits package for state workers to more inline with private business. Great idea.

I wrote one of them and said that that would be a nice idea, kinda keep it in line with Goldman/Sachs... stock options, $200 million bonus, hefty severance package. Then I suggested that if they were really onboard with this, they should be the first to sacrifice their benefits.

never got a reply.

pbfoot · 07-11-2007, 05:44 PM

Just a point of interest I have a little knowledge on this as a good friend of mine is a Union Negotiator and we talk about this
"Government* spending on healthcare was $500 dollars less per person in Canada than the USA, and yet Canada had higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality. The industries pay higher taxes in Canada, but their savings in healthcare(since the union would demand it in the US anyways) more than make up for it. It's several hundred dollars a car cheaper in Canada"
Now this might have changed recently as your dollar has really tanked 3 years ago it $1 cdn equaled .65 US it is almost par now

mkloby · 07-11-2007, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Just a point of interest I have a little knowledge on this as a good friend of mine is a Union Negotiator and we talk about this
"Government* spending on healthcare was $500 dollars less per person in Canada than the USA, and yet Canada had higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality. The industries pay higher taxes in Canada, but their savings in healthcare(since the union would demand it in the US anyways) more than make up for it. It's several hundred dollars a car cheaper in Canada"
Now this might have changed recently as your dollar has really tanked 3 years ago it $1 cdn equaled .65 US it is almost par now

Where do you get this figure for US gov't expenditures on healthcare, and what exactly does it include?

Yup - 1USD = 1.05CAD currently

It's all well and good to point to figures like total infant mortality or life expectancy. That is just randomly picking two stats that don't portray the whole reality of the different systems in Canada and the US. First off, in reality - the US statistics as a whole are no doubt degraded by the individuals that do not have adequate health care due to the choices that they made in life. The statistics for those individuals that procure insurance to cover themselves and their family I'm sure are much more favorable than overall numbers - I can't find statistics for that just yet, though.

Keep in mind - Canada has an unemployment figure about 2% higher than the US and per capita income in the US is $9,000 (USD) higher than Canada.

Also, at the extreme ends of the equity scale, the percentage of the population that fall into the top/bottom 10% of the income scale according to the last figures released (which are dated by now Canada's from 94 US from 97):

Top 10% Income Can- 23.8% US- 30.5%
Bot 10% Income Can- 2.8% US- 1.8%

The US economy has a real growth rate for 2006 of 3.2% opposed to 2.7% for Canada. Draw your own conclusions. Contrary to what lefties would lead you to believe, the US economy is not one of impending doom... well, as long as the dems don't get the white house in 08.

Draw your own conclusions.