Right. That's my point, that your health care is not free, it is covered by your higher taxes. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have health care available to everyone I'm the first person that thinks all humans deserve equal access to healthcare.

But don't fool yourself into thinking that it's free. That money certainly has to come from somewhere, and there is no way to do it without everyone sharing in the burden.

Canadians pay for their social services in the same way that we do. More social services = higher taxes.

You also have HUGE sales taxes. anywhere from 5-15%, with 5% only being in alberta. The average is about 13%.

Nothing is free... but it's free in the idea that they don't have to worry about, from birth to death, if they never work, never pay a dime.. it's 100% free for that person, they will never get a bill, a phone call, nothing...

Overall, Canadians take home more money than Americans.. twist the tax, state fees, whatever... you clear more money personally in Canada than you do as an American working the same level of job.

Companies... that's a totally different story, they rape Canadian Companies.

Best of luck ...

http://www.city-data.com/forum/canad...ey-than-2.html
http://members.forbes.com/global/2006/0522/032a.html
Educate yourself before spewing more bullshit. There's no evidence whatsoever that Canadians make more money than Americans.

"Overall, Canadians take home more money than Americans."

median household incomes for canada and US:

Canada - $53,634 CAD $51,973.08 USD
United States - $50,233 USD

Not that much more.

Nope not much at all... but just remember, they have Insurance costs built in - so we gota add ours on top :/

I have a Canadian Company and American (porn and product based) and lived in Canada legally as a company owner/worker, for 2 years.. I have a great deal of first hand experience between the two countries.. I will admit, I was "shocked" when I learned the truth...

Listen, if paying 10% more of my income to taxes meant that everyone on my country would have equal access to health care, I would be all for it.

But I hear this smug argument all the time that Canadians have universal healthcare, and it's free. Nya nya nya.....

I'm just here to point out to you that you are paying for it, you just don't realize it.

"Nope not much at all... but just remember, they have Insurance costs built in - so we gota add ours on top :/"

Now you're just not making any sense.

Basically what you're saying now is that Americans and Canadians make about the same, but canadians pay about 10% or higher in income taxes to cover health care costs. Gee, that's what I have been saying all along.

No... I said we pay about the same, they have health care costs built in, we don't. So if our tax is about the same.....and 1 person here has to pay $200 a month in insurance... the American makes less money, let alone a family, old person, or women...

"So if our tax is about the same..."

Our tax is nowhere near the same.

Oy. I give up.

Yea dude, you need to stop arguing with him, you're going to get nowhere and feel dumber.

Families . . . living in the United States are not necessarily better off in terms of disposable income, than their Canadian counterparts,'' they concluded. "Indeed, roughly half of Canadian families had disposable incomes in 1995 that gave them higher purchasing power than otherwise comparable U.S. families.'

The tax advantage of a move to the U.S. isn't obvious until you get beyond that $60,000 a year mark. Also, it's too simple to just throw around tax rates in the two countries, without factoring in other paycheque deductions for pensions and unemployment.

Canada's CPP and EI premiums are lower than U.S. social security deductions. As well, taxes levied by American states vary much more than provincial taxes in Canada. So do local and municipal levies

A Canadian family with two earners and two children making $75,000 would pay 23.6 per cent. A similar American family making a comparable $60,000 (U.S.) would pay 21.6 per cent.

At the $75,000 Canadian level, an American advantage is starting to emerge, but hardly big enough to make a move to New York for economic reasons alone.

Not when you factor in Canada's free medicare and lower education costs, which would make all the difference to a family with children in school and anticipated medical bills.


http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/taxes.htm

Again I lived between the two countries... I have companies in both. I have a tiny, just a micro bit of a clue about it.

I did not say I paid high medical bills for years. I said there have been years where I paid high medical bills.

An example of how insurance is a subsidized industry in America is that insurance is fully deductible for a company, but just paying for something a worker needs i.e. like an operation, is only partially tax deductible.

I get to choose my doctors. I get to choose my medical treatment. I get to refuse medical treatment I don't want. I get to get a second opinion, third opinion, as many opinions as I want. I get to choose when to put my budget toward vitamins or a personal trainer or whatever instead.

In my experience, car insurance never really covers what is needed in full. Get rear-ended and need a new bumper and they will decide that some touch-up paint will do the job just fine. I don't want touch-up paint on my health, thanks.

Where do you get a $200 a month figure?

Just FYI. If Brown does win today it already looks like the dems are finding ways to get the bill through.

I just read that a congressional leader has said that the senate bill is better than nothing. This means if Brown wins there is a strong chance the house will vote on just passing the senate bill.

I also have read a few things today about how there could be recounts and recounts of the recounts. There is also word from the Sec State of Mass saying that in the end it is up to the Senate to decide when to seat the winner of this election. The dems are already prepping their stall tactics. If the election is very close they could put off letting Brown into the senate by a few months which would give them time to get the health care bill through.

Of course if they do that, it will only give the republicans more fire power against them. Once you pull shady shit, people seem to forget the shady shit your opponents have pulled in the past.

Not really sure the logic behind that. The senate bill is better than nothing? You mean all or most of the provisions the Democrats hoped to include into a revolutionary health care reform are gone? And the bill pluges us further into debt. Sorry but I'll take nothing over their current watered down, behind closed doors, nonsense.

Exactuly dude. Obama can't afford the public outrage that's going to blow up if they stall. But really, it's easy to see why a Republican might win in Massachusetts. People are sick and tired of the democrats sitting behind closed doors, adding and subtracting provisions, and not telling anyone what they're doing, nor asking the American public if this is what we want(it isn't). All this while Obama is destroying our economy with his Keynesian deficit spending. Not sure if it can get any worse for the Democrats.

In the end it all depends on your situation. For example, I have asthma and it is nearly impossible for me to buy health insurance that covers asthma. If I buy insurance that will cover it the cost is so outrageous it is not worth having. Having had this my entire life I know what it costs if I have an asthma attach and end up in the ER. I also know how much the medicine costs. It is cheaper for me to buy the medicine out of pocket and if I ever need to go to the ER to pay for that out of pocket than it is for me to buy insurance that covers asthma.

The funny thing is if I worked for a company that gave me health insurance the asthma stuff would be covered. Alone I am a losing investment to the insurance companies, but as part of a group my loss is okay to them.

So for me it is better to buy a cheap policy that covers major things like heart attacks or broken bones and cover asthma myself.

Here is the difference between car insurance and health insurance. If you are walking down the street, fall off the curb and break your ankle you are the only one you hurt and you have to pay for yourself. If you are in your car and get in an accident that is your fault you may have to pay for their car, medical, pain and suffering. It could easily be 10's of the 1000's of dollars. Maybe you have that kind of money so it wouldn't be a big deal, but 95% of the population doesn't. Your car insurance is less about you and more about someone you might hit.

The $200 a month figure is not far off from reality for one person. Here are the rates for one company in my state http://www.regence.com/docs/OR/rates...nRatesORQ4.pdf
depending on your age and what deductible you want $200 is a pretty average price for a policy.

This is why it's beneficial to work for a company. There's one thing I really want in health care reform, and that's getting rid of the pre-existing conditions clause for insurance companies. I think that would increase the efficiency of our health care by a great deal.

Seriously... I have read alot of those quotes today and yesterday... if they do that they will definitely lose the majority this year and probably 2012 too. :2 cents: That bill does have some good things in it... but it's like dumping a teaspoon of white sugar on a pile of crap. :2 cents:

oy... I literally spit out my sweet tea when I read that. :error

Oh I'm sorry, perhaps I should become an "adult entrepreneur". Health insurance is about the only thing that's beneficial about working for a company.

I'm not saying I agree with the bill, just saying what is going on. It seems that the democrats may have decided that if they lose this seat they might prefer to just pass the senate bill as opposed to pass nothing at all. There is zero chance that the both parties can work together to pass any kind of health care bill that they can both agree on so I think they would rather have this than nothing at all. Not saying it is good, just saying what it looks like.


This also shows the short sightedness of the American people. Just 3 years ago they were so fed up with all the republican bullshit that they tossed them out. Democrats got elected in places that they never get elected in. The religious right turned their backs on the republican party and the party had become bloated, corrupt, out of touch and useless. Now just a few years later the people are considering putting them back in power? Did they forget that soon?

To me it is sad statement of the reality faced by this country. We have to decide which we prefer. The party that kicks us in the balls and makes no apologies for it (republicans) or the party that kicks us in the balls and tells us they aren't really kicking us in the balls (democrats).

The bottom line is that most people don't care either way. There was an actual outcry last week because people found out Obama wanted to give the State of the Union address during the same week that Lost season premier was going to air. Obama assured them he would do it on night that show wasn't on. When millions of people care more about Lost than about the direction the country is headed in, that is a bad sign.

We are fucked no matter who wins this election. I guess it is just a matter of how you prefer your fucking.

I agree. If Brown wins and they push this through it really could bite them in the ass because it will look like they are pushing through a bill that isn't that good, just to get it passed.

There are some very good things in the bill, but I think it is far from an actual "reform". This current bill is basically just going to help everyone get health insurance so it is essentially a boon for the insurance companies. Sure, they will have to take everyone even those with pre-existing conditions, but the government will be paying for many of those people so they don't care if they lose money on a few, they will gain big on the rest.

No, I wasn't questioning your logic, I was questioning the Democrats' logic if they decide to go for broke. And I disagree, I think both parties CAN come to agreement over health care reform, just not now. When our economy is out of the shitter and not on the verge of collapse, the parties can discuss spending a shitload of useless US dollars to reform our healthcare system.




Are you looking at Bush, or the House and Senate as well during the Bush Administration? And honestly, I think what Obama did this year really starts to negate the Bush Administration. Look at how much he increased the budget deficit and national debt in under a year. The numbers are staggering.

Haha this is one hell of an analogy.

Not only that but Obama tries to appease everybody at the same time and it has failed miserably. That's why I look at Reagan as our greatest president (along with FDR). Reagan did what he thought was necessary, he didn't have to appease anyone nor did he even try. He stood by his convictions and people respected him for it.

I think the Republicans can do a better job with our economy than the Democrats. At the same time, I might be tempted to side with the Democrats in terms of who can create better health care reform.. I'm a little even right now.

Yay for pre-existing conditions, boo for more fiscal deficit/debt.

I will agree that right now they will agree on nothing. Both sides hate each other so there is no way they will reach any kind of compromise anytime soon. The state of the economy has less to do with it, to me, than the reality of both sides fighting for power.





I'm looking at the republican machine as a whole. Sure Obama increased the debt, but in his defense it wasn't as much as it appears to be. Bush never included the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his budget because he felt they didn't belong there. When Obama took over he felt the costs of those wars should be included in the budget. So Bush's budget looked less ugly than it actually was and Obama's looks like increased more than it actually has. Much of that debt has been there for years, it was just not shown to anyone.

That said I'm not giving Obama a pass on his spending. He is spending money like mad. I look at it like this when it comes to the economy. You can either do as Obama did and spend like hell hoping to help right the ship or you can spend nothing and let it all burn then hope it rebuilds. If you spend, you have to hope you can deal with the debt later on. If you let it burn, you have to hope it doesn't get too bad and you can fix it. Neither is a good option.

I see nothing from the republicans that would give any indication that the would improve the economy. Right now all they are really saying is that they would do the opposite of what Obama is doing. To me they are the same horse with a different saddle. Maybe they would have some good ideas. I would get behind them a little more if they would drop the morality bullshit, but they are the party of the past and they need to hang on to the old while religious voters. At the same time I'm not enamored with the democrats ideas either. I guess you could say I'm pretty pessimistic about both parties.

It's possible. I'd like to think that the Republicans are noticing Obama's massive deficit spending. In fact they've documented as such. But I agree, that doesn't mean THATS why they're fighting him.



If you want, I can provide you the exact costs of the Obama Administration and the Bush administration and you can see what Obama has done in one year.
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j1...amadeficit.jpg
http://chartingtheeconomy.com/wp-con...2_image001.gif

There are many ways we could have slowly gotten out of this depression. Now an economic collapse is not only feasible, but likely. That's what you get when you follow a flawed form of economics.


True to some extent. This is why I wish Ron Paul was either president or head of the FED. This guy knows his shit more than any other economist on Obama's staff. Hell, include Peter Schiff.

Update: http://drudgereport.com/

So far Brown is winning. He's up 53% to 46% and 17,000 voters.

"depending on your age and what deductible you want $200 is a pretty average price for a policy."

Maybe if you live in the boondocs of oregon.

Here are rates that are a little bit more realistic in my neck of the woods:

http://www.horizon-bcbsnj.com/pdf/No...teSheetCLR.pdf

They already lost 2012 unless a huge miracle happens for them. :2 cents:

I'm not a Democrat, just asked a question. This isn't a political site where you have to stick to teams and listen to what your masters say. There are people out there who have independent thoughts.

Most of your things you said you want are in the health care plan. So why are you against it? Your ideas are very liberal.

This might be deciding on whether you'd rather eat a plate of vomit or a plate of shit, but have you been around for the last 8 years? I mean Democrats aren't good, but didn't we just get set on the brink of financial collapse after a Republican run in power? I mean if Democrats are worse than that, we should all start digging out bunkers.

They notice it for sure. But all they are saying is: "He is spending too much! This must stop!" Of course they don't give any alternative plans that are based in reality. It is part of the convenience of being the party that is out of power. The democrats did it under Bush. You can just yell about how things would be different if you were in power, but you have the luxury of not having to prove it.




Don't get me wrong. I understand fully that Obama has spent like crazy. I'm just saying that Bush spent more than it appears he did because he was accounting for it in different ways. There are a lot of economists who say that Obama hasn't spent enough. Others say he has spent too much. Some say he shouldn't have spent a dime. It is one of those things that we can all have an opinion on, but until it is actually carried out we don't know for sure if it will work. I give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he spent all this money on economic bailouts and stimulus just because it would be fun. I feel he believes it is the correct thing to do. I personally think it would be easier and less painful to deal with the debt down the road than to deal with a collapse that doing nothing may have brought about. And maybe there were other options too that could have improved things without spending or crashing.

This much I know for certain. Had McCain won he would have put together a huge spending and stimulus package. The other options are just too risky. If you spend nothing and the economy crumbles it could take years and years to recover and we could see 30-40% unemployment. If it didn't recover fast enough he would have been a 1 term president and it may have brought the republican party to their knees because it would have looked like he did nothing but stand by and watch. The American people want to be tough and independent, until they have to be tough and independent against their will.


To me Ron Paul has some good ideas, but he is primarily a hypocrite and he really has no actual desire to be president. It is easy to give your thoughts and speak your mind and say you have all the answers when you aren't actually going to have to prove it. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing someone with many of his ideas come to power and put them into to practice. I think it would interesting and probably good for the country. I like his ideas on foreign relations and about the FED and other things. The problem with Paul is that it is hard for me to take someone seriously when they rail against earmarks and pork spending on bills yet they are consistently among the top 10 in congress in the amount of money requested in earmarks.

My favorite quote of all time was when I was debating that reality with someone and they said to me: "Ron Paul is using those earmarks to get back the tax dollars that were wrongly stolen from the people of Texas." I said, "Fair enough. So then Nancy Pelosi is doing the same for the good people of San Fransisco right?" they didn't seem to agree with me :)

You make a good point. I have to admit I didn't realize it was that much higher from one place to another. I guess there are some benefits to living out in the middle of nowhere.

Very few pay $200/month in insurance. I have the rates for all the major insurance companies (BCBS, United, etc) and the only group that falls under $200/month is males under 30 (and that's barely). It's about double that for women in child-bearing years and anyone over 50 is paying a ton. Those are just the monthly rates and don't count deductible/co-pays.

BYE BYE COAKLEY....QUITER...Just like the Dems...Quit when the going gets tough...

AP calls it for Brown. Looks like the American voter isn't as stupid as obama thought

Were you there when Clinton took the cap off of bank loans and inadvertedly started the sub prime mortgage collapse/housing bubble? Were you there when Obama raked up a national debt in one year that took Bush at least 4?

I've read his books and listened to his speeches, the guy is an economic genius. Maybe he wouldn't make a good president but he sure as hell could bring our economy back on track. Him and Schiff have been campaigning for a return to the gold standard, which I am fully with them on.

Hahaha

Political discussions on GFY are futile

I live in Los Angeles where the rates are much much higher, but, even on that chart, it looks like the $200 a month plan would be for someone 21 and single with no kids and a $1,000 deductible. How much healthcare is a single 21-year-old with no children likely to end up needing? If you eliminate car accidents likely to be covered by car insurance, someone like that is very very unlikely to end up needing to spend $3,400 (premium + deductible) a year on healthcare. And $2,400 is generally a lot of money at that age and could be better put to wacky luxuries like food and rent. Or even starting a business or going to nightclubs to meet a mate.

The math on insurance at for-profit companies does not work for individuals because it can't work. The insurance company has to make a profit, so they are gambling on you not getting sick, and using your premiums to play the market (and they will expect to be bailed out by the government if their market investments tank.) You, on the other hand, are betting that you will get very very sick. The insurance company, in order to make a profit, needs to have a large enough number of their customers bet they'll need care . . . who do not end up needing care, customers who basically threw out money.

I would rather see people spending money on building genuine value and not giving it to for-profit insurance corporations who just use it to build stock and real estate bubbles, like the disasters were are currently dealing with in our economy.

Precisely.

That's why Obama's "reform" which forces people to buy that crap is worse than no reform at all.

Single payer is the way to go but this country ain't even close to being ready for that.

I haven't read any of his books. I'll have to check them out.

True. Insurance is just that. It is insurance. It is something you buy in case you need it. You buy home owners insurance in case something happens to your house. The same with health insurance. Sure most 21 year old people are healthy and will use little of their health insurance so it is a loss for them. But if something major happens to them it could save them money. Like you say it is a bet. For those that have never had any problems and never used it, it seems like a waste of money. For those that have had to have major surgeries or have had health problems and their insurance has kept them from going bankrupt, it isn't.

Personally, I would like to see the entire health care system reformed. In order to do this there would have to be some major changes made that brought costs down and made things more accessible for average people. One of the major things that would have to happen is that the government would have to put in place some kind of law that limited the profit margins on drugs or they would have to open up the market and make it 100% legal for anyone to get online and buy medicine from other countries in order to create more competition and drive down costs. But that is not likely to happen.