i hate american medical system :(
 

ugh such a headache

if i was poor i would get free medical :/

got to love it here

1. get blood work done
2. get xrays
3. get mri done
4. get cat scan
5. stay over in the hospital for 5 days

pay $0

you silly Canadians :(

it cost me 168$ to find out i have to pay 1392$

Wow, so you make so little money your healthcare is free? Congrats, I guess. :Oh crap

NOTHING is Free. You pay for it one way or another.

you've never had to pay for any of that here.

yes it comes out of your taxes in the long run.

Yes, but when you make over the poverty level you have to pay in to the medical system through our MSP. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's not that much but it's also not a tax.

I paid 40 dollar copay for my testicle implants

Pretty sweet deal there juice man.

the vibrating ones?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

no the vibrating ones arent FDA approved yet , btw that was 40 total NOT 40 per testicle :helpme

Your taxes are 47% higher than the average G7 country. Your total tax burden is
about 75%, meaning that for every dollar you earn, the government takes 75 cents
of it via one tax or another. So let's see, assume you make $100,000. You then
pay $75,000 of that to the government. So really:

Compare with, for example, the US, a country working to make their system better.
I pay about $3,000 / year for pretty good health insurance, and have a total tax burden
closer to 45%. So if we both make $100,000, I spend $48,000 on taxes and medical,
while you pay $75,000. The US system, which is perfect, still costs me TWENTY
SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS less every year. Over 50 years, you'll pay 1.3 MILLION
dollars more than I will in order to have the government make your health care
decisions for you. Of course, they only pay about 71% of the cost on average.
With your system you're still stuck with 29% of the bills.

Overall, last year, the average Canadian taxpayer spent over $10,000 on government
medical and it's bureaucracy, nearly three times I spend in the US, for the the exact
health coverage that I choose. I'd rather spend $3,000 than be forced to spend $10,000
like Canadians are, and I'd rather have the freedom to choose whether or not to pay for
coverage that includes "therapuetic massage" and such crap.

I am not sure those number are right.

The beauty of nationalized heath care is that the population gets a much better deal through purchasing power.

Well thought out and written, raymor.

Yes I too hate having NO LINES and COMPLETE CONTROL... really sucks. Anyone that thinks government providing healthcare makes sense must have missed some important economics lessons in school.

45%

Madness.

The funny thing is, that is perfectly OK with people.

I'd like to know where you got that 75% figure...

"In 2008, the average Canadian family paid total taxes equaling 43.9 per cent of its income... The Canadian Consumer Tax Index calculates the total tax bill of the typical Canadian family by adding up the various taxes that the family pays to federal, provincial, and local governments. These include direct taxes such as income taxes, sales taxes, Employment Insurance and Canadian Pension Plan contributions, as well as ?hidden? taxes such as import duties, excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol, amusement taxes, and gas taxes."

Also, lets say you had a child born with an illness you would quickly learn that "pretty good health insurance" is sometimes far from enough...

And yet, according to Republicans, Canada's medical system is akin to going to some Third World hospital.

I'm totally going to emigrate. Think they could make room for me in BC? I don't drink or smoke, and I recycle=)

I can't get coverage if I have a pre-existing condition.

The system in America is broken. Health care is a right not a privilege.

The truth is, everyone is going to get sick at some point, and the older you get the more expensive private health care costs. When you are young, even if you are a smoker, private health care is relatively cheap -- as only a small percentage of those young people paying into the fund are using the services. As you get older, the chances of getting sick increase, and so do premiums. If you get really sick -- the health insurers will look for ways of not paying out on the insurance, as paying out (for bone marrow transplant, etc.) eats into the profitability of the entire operation. Their obligation is to their shareholders, not the people they insure.

My wife has had two children in the Canadian health care system. We had private rooms for each birth, with 1-on-1 nursing and top notch obstetrics doctors. We also have the kids going to a pediatrician for all there regular check-ups, and when we have had the misfortune to have to take one fo the kids to the hospital -- they have been seen with virtually no delay by dedicated emergency pediatric doctors at the pediatric emergency clinic. The only money that passed hands when our kids were born, was a donation we made to premature birth unit.

How is it a "right?"

how many Candians come to the US for surgery each year
how many Americans go to Canada for surgery each year

you can spin it how you want, but BOTH systems have major issues.

Same as any "right", because people have fought and died to live in a humane and civilized society.

If a child is born with a medical illness he/she should have the right to health care.


I guess you agree with Rep. Wamp that health care is a privilege.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/05/...are-privilege/



Illegal immigrants don't go to the hospital because they are afraid they will be deported.

rights are granted by men and guaranteed by law. they are not granted by God or aliens or spider monkeys or unicorns.

Damn you are lucky that would cost me like $50,000 :(

If you have at least one other person working with you, you can do a group
plan, which has no pre-existing condition limitations. That's what we did.
You _might_ need to have some formal business structure such as a
C corp, but a C corp is a real good idea anyway because of the tax savings,
limited liability, etc.

One nation under God. :1orglaugh

The idea that Christians even "need" healthcare is laughable from the get go. Doesn't it say in the bible if you pray, your prayer WILL be answered. There's no catch. So if you have cancer you should be able to pray your cancer away. Therefore, religious people don't need healthcare. TADA.

Spidermonkey lizard illuminati run the world.

it's a simple statement of fact. show me a baby that was born ill that didn't get the proper care it needed? Octomom couldn't even get her own kids released to her without her proving to the hospital that she could provide them with proper care.

all these kinds of bizarre arguments are just made up fantasy with no basis in reality.

Insurance companies negotiate prices with health care providers using
"purchasing power". Governments spend $640 on a toilet seat.
Think about it - Fris is paying $10,000 a year in Canada. I'm paying
$3,000 a year in the US. How exactly is he getting "a much better deal"?
He's not, he's just wasting $7,000 on government inefficiency and waste.

I am saying men fought wars so they could live in a society humane and civilized where rights are written into law by other men. What the fuck are you on about with the Santa Claus stuff?!?

there is another case now where christian parents are trying to heal their kid with prayer and alternative medicine. he only has cancer. the courts have ordered treatment or they will lose custody.

the whole "faith" thing is very interesting because its irrational at every turn. particularly in religion. people pray... but can explain a negative or positive outcome. god answered the prayers, or god has a plan, god is testing their faith etc... but people explain everything away and keep going because they need to believe. that's not just religion.. i mean a fat girl argues that her problem is genetic while she's mainlining double stuff oreo's and snorting fried cheese sticks.

my wife's mom pushes my wife to believe in all kids of meta physical bullshit. they hate talking to me because they can't stand the fact that i bring rational thought to the picture. it literally pisses them off to throw a fact at them that they can't dispute... simply because it threatens their belief system, not because reason has anything to do with their beliefs.

Your numbers are all mixed up I'm afraid. You're trying to compare what you spend as an individual versus what the Canadian goverment spends on Fris's behalf.

In order to get an accurate picture you need to look at actual healthcare spending per capita.

For the United States:

- Health Care spending as a percentage of GDP is projected to grow 16.0% of GDP in 2006 to 19.5% of GDP in 2017.
- Average health care spending per capita was $7026 in 2006 and will grow to $7868 in 2008
- The U.S. has by far the highest health care spending as a percentage of GDP.
http://www.chcf.org/documents/insura...areCosts08.pdf

For Canada:

- Health care spending as a share of GDP is expected to reach 10.3% for 2006
- Total health care spending per capita is expected to reach $4,548 in 2006
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/58214.php

"Child has Leukemia" Single round of chemotherapy is approximately $150000. Whole treatment millions.
Raymor is paying $3000 a year in the US. It is a "great deal". Private company, very efficient and hates to waste.
He gets $0, Raymor is broke.

Short answer is no it does not.

You like it your way I like it our way

nuff said

I think you are a bit confused regarding this.

Try getting health care for $3k a year when you are 55, or 65, or 75, or 85.

You may be paying $3k per year right now -- but as you get older they will be charging you more, as it will become increasingly likely that you will become sick and need medical care.

That's because you don't know the brazilian system...

We were getting sweet coverage from my wife's job with the State of Ca. We have Kaiser and it's good.

Starting here at DTI Cash. They transferred the same account same account # to their carrier.

DTI Cash pays it all 100%. For my kid too. Dental ,Vision all that. Its saving us a lot of money for sure.

So its even better. So I'm gonna push porn :)

Were that true, there would be no such thing as "rights", the word
would have no meaning. I also wonder where you think Americans
get their rights from, because neither the constitution nor any other
major government document even purports to grant you any rights.
Let's think about that for say, 60 seconds.

The first amendment protects the right to free speech, correct?
It says that the government may not make a law "abridging the freedom of speech",
to quote it exactly.
In general, the majority, through the government, can make any law they want,
but rights are the exception - what makes something a "right" is that the majority
may not violate the rights of the minority. So even if the majority doesn't like your
site, you can still make it because of your right to free speech.
Do we agree so far?

I assume we agree that as the constitution states, government is barred from
infringing your human rights. Generally too, other men may not infringe your
human rights. Clearly anything granted to you by the government can be taken
away by the government. Anything granted by men can be taken away by men.
But men may not take away your rights. Therefore your human rights were not
given to you by men, but are part of your humaness. You have certain rights
because you are human, not because you were born in a certain place. Now the
Chinese governtment may indeed violate the human rights of some of it's people,
but those are indeed VIOLATIONS of their human rights, and are recognized as
such internationally. China cannot simply refuse to grant human rights and make
it OK. Why? Because human rights don't come from the government, but are
part of the nature of being human.

Governments can of course grant benefits, such as social security, and since it
granted those privileges choose NOT to grant them. If the government also granted
rights, and could therefore choose to NOT grant them, then a right would be the
same thing as a privilege and the word "right" would have no meaning.

The framers expressed the idea that certain rights are yours by virtue of your being
human by saying "We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".
Don't get hung up on the word "Creator", as it means something different to just
about everyone who reads it. You'll probably interpret it to mean that all of the framers
were thinking of some fairy tale old man in the sky with a long beard, which you think
is silly because it is. That's not actually what any of them had in mind, mostly people
would draw a picture of an old man as a METAPHOR, but the important thing is that
they said all men are ENDOWED with certain rights upon their creation, whether that
creation be by birth or other means is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the the
founding documents do not have a single sentence granting you any rights. Rather,
the constitution and other documents only recognize the "self evident" truth that you
already have these rights, and prohibit the government from infringing on the your rights.

I've laid out my reasoning pretty clearly, so if you think I missed anything important
and got the wrong conclusion please tell me exactly where I'm wrong. If my analysis
is wrong, I'd also be very interested to know what you think your right to free speech
is and where you think it comes from. The plain language of the Bill of Rights is that
it does not grant you any new rights, but simply bars the government from infringing
rights that it assumes you already had.

Don't forget about free or almost free college education, day care, after school care for kids that is covered in Canada in Europe. Plus 4 weeks of paid vacation, and national pension plan for all. Add the cost of that plus cost of private health insurance and USA tax rate is closer to 70% or more. 2009 World's 20 Best Places To Live - none of US cities made it due to low quality of life, but plenty of Canadian, European and Australian places - coincidentally all with national health insurance.

simply pointing out in a humorous manner, that you don't seem to know what a "right" is. healthcare in the US is not a "right" in all cases until the law says it is.

Honolulu made the list, I think.

Excellent question. So what is the answer?

Nope, not in top 20. But 3 Canadian cities are there. Way to go :-) Hope more people see Michael Moore's "Sicko" It is an eye opening movie.

Rights are not "granted" because granting them presumes they can be revoked, many of the rights enumerated by our constitution are now recognized merely as privileges bestowed on us by our government. These rights have been summarily revised by those who believe they can exchange their rights for security.

While our healthcare system is in fact broken, it is not a right, you never have any "right" to take money out of someone elses pocket and redistribute it in any way.

the answer lies not in more government and fewer rights, the answer lies in more rights and less government.

Laws do not "grant" rights they recognize them and prevent them from being abridged. Laws grant privileges

Michael Moore's Sicko was pretty scary.

That would be around 500$-750$ around here to be hospitalised for 5 days, and the fees (out of your own pocket) for the MRI scans and stuff...

but,

Tax charges on employment are in excess of 50% in Belgium (55.4%), Germany Hungary and France. In contrast, the US recorded 29.1% acording to OECD.