I'll site the Huffington post since Ariana is an undisputed progressive. Funny that top Canadian politicians seek medical help in America.....he can't get the surgery in the province he rules.
In his universal healthcare system, only the wealthy have enough money to come to America to pay for the care they need. A homeless person here would get the surgery he's paying for out of pocket.
Who has universal care?
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:I'll site the Huffington post since Ariana is an undisputed progressive
That's an AP story.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Mal, it says it isn't available in his province, and I believe that. Perhaps he prefers going to the US over another province for any number of reasons. A person may have many reasons for seeking private care- he may know or prefer a particular doctor or facility in the US. Would those things disappear under universal care? Think long and hard, if you are capable of doing so.
For all these stories, mal, you continue to demonstrate that you don't understand the fundamental heart of the issue here. A homeless person *might* get this treatment in the US. And each individual case costs individual care providers and vicariously paying customers much, much more than a well administered universal system. And Canada, of all places, does not represent an ideal universal care situation. I don't point to examples of poorly executed capitalist governments to disprove the potential of capitalism- I do the opposite, I look at the best examples to find potential, and I look at the worst to see what *not* to do, not what *will* necessarily happen.
You're obviously too shallow for that, and it's a pity.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:In his universal healthcare system, only the wealthy have enough money to come to America to pay for the care they need. A homeless person here would get the surgery he's paying for out of pocket.
What exactly are you arguing here?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ...he can't get the surgery in the province he rules.
Meh.
So I see your 1 and raise you somewhere between 240,000 to 648,000.
quote:Some 648,000 Americans will seek medical treatment abroad this year, and that number will grow by 35 percent over each of the next 3 years, according to the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. Other researchers, such as Josef Woodman, author of Patients Beyond Borders, put the number of outbound U.S. patients at 240,000 per year.
Thank you, Mucas. I was about to go looking for that stat, I know it was around somewhere.
Keep in mind that this doesn't even address the more than 2 million people who leave the US to buy their prescription drugs every year. And by all accounts that is a very conservative number, the actual number of people who do so is more than likely almost double that.
What was your point again? LOL
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Keep in mind that this doesn't even address the more than 2 million people who leave the US to buy their prescription drugs every year. And by all accounts that is a very conservative number, the actual number of people who do so is more than likely almost double that.
Does that number include people who just mail order from outside the US? I don't you think you need to physically leave the US to order presription drugs, I think you can do it through mail order as well. 2 million seems high for people who physically leave but pretty low if you include mail and/or internet ordering.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Does anyone have links for how many people come to the US for medical treatment?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
There's this study, but it is from 2002, so a bit older than the medical tourism figures from the States.
quote:To examine the extent to which Canadian residents seek medical care across the border, we collected data about Canadians' use of services from ambulatory care facilities and hospitals located in Michigan, New York State, and Washington State during 1994–1998. We also collected information from several Canadian sources, including the 1996 National Population Health Survey, the provincial Ministries of Health, and the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. Results from these sources do not support the widespread perception that Canadian residents seek care extensively in the United States. Indeed, the numbers found are so small as to be barely detectible relative to the use of care by Canadians at home.
I thought we all understood also that the people in the US who were screwed were the middle class. Poor enough and medicaid and other programs work well (or you just don't pay at all, which if you have nothing anyway works). If you are rich, then obviously you can afford whatever you want. So, pointing out that the homeless guy would get the surgery really doesn't dispute anything people opposed to the US system claim.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Premier Williams has a pretty long history of performing high-profile stunts to score political points. So far, though, that doesn't seem to be what he's doing this time.
It's a shame that a small number of people have to go abroad to get treatment, but the answer isn't simply to say that all of the treatments those people seek should be covered under the public system.
Either way, though, holding this up with the insinuation that the US system is superior is laughable. All citizens and most residents have coverage here, which is really the bare minimum standard that a health care system should meet in the industrialized world. The US system fails that basic test.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I thought we all understood also that the people in the US who were screwed were the middle class.
The Republicans have been at war with the middle class for 30 years now, either because they are rich, or because they believe that they have every right and should have every possible opportunity available to them to become rich. Of all economic classes in America, Republicans care least for the middle classes. It's rather academic then, to find that reflected in their policy pursuits. Look at Mal- he hates the government because the one thing he wants, above all else, is success and the chance to prove himself more righteous than others. Giving him a universal health care system, even if it would *really* help him, would shame him in that light. Also, his aspirations to greater wealth and autonomy and rapacious consumption would have cloud cast over them.
God knows why living a good life in a country where your medical needs are secure is not enough for some people... but apparently it isn't. Part of the reason I don't live there.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
It isn't available in his province? I assume there are many cities in a province. What he seeks is available in any city in America.
Republican's aren't at war with the middle class. Progressive taxation prevents the middle class from achieving wealth. My wife is a substitute teacher. She doesn't do it for the money but to support the school. I was working on our taxes for the year...I submitted my two jobs W2's and told her we should get a $650 return but we need her W2's to be certain. She made $1500. After adding her $1500 income, our return was reduced to $350. Her $1500 income increased our taxes by $300. Progressives want you to stay poor...if you work too hard they'll take your money and keep you down. Middle class people make an income with a goal of achieving wealth. The wealthy do not worry about income tax. Nancy Pelosi and Kerry have inherited wealth....they don't have to work up the ladder. My father refuses to work overtime.....working overtime is a loss of pay. It puts him in another tax bracket.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Keep in mind that this doesn't even address the more than 2 million people who leave the US to buy their prescription drugs every year. And by all accounts that is a very conservative number, the actual number of people who do so is more than likely almost double that.
Does that number include people who just mail order from outside the US? I don't you think you need to physically leave the US to order presription drugs, I think you can do it through mail order as well. 2 million seems high for people who physically leave but pretty low if you include mail and/or internet ordering.
Nope, that's the number of people who physically cross each year to either Mexico or Canada.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Mal, that's a crock of crap, and you know it. Progressive taxes these days are NOTHING compared to what they were in the past, back in the days of monopolies and uber-capitolisim. You know, the days you claim to want back.
Scaled taxes make forward progress possible, not stops it.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
mal- your wife still brought home $1200 this year, even if it decreased you tax return. That is far from your claim that working more moves you into another tax bracket which would lead to a loss in pay.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I assume there are many cities in a province.
Not in his province, there aren't. Nor, in fact, in many of Canada's provinces -- possibly most, depending on your definition of "city." Relatively speaking, much of Canada is quite sparsely populated.
*
I'm only making this post to correct the specific false assumption I quoted.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Nope, she didn't bring home $1200 out of her $1500 gross. She still had to pay social security, mecdicare and the obligatory teacher's union chunk. Of her $1500 gross, we may have brought home $900. But of course, we're rich people who need to pay their fair share. We clearly see that brick wall of taxation. When I made 15k less a year, I took home the same as I do now. I use to get a 6k tax refund, now I pay 14k. I'm keenly aware of the point we are not allowed to cross. Progressive income taxes keep people down, they do not penalize the wealthy. Wealthy people do not count on pay checks.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Mal, from your arguments it sounds like you want income taxes to be more progressive, not less.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* It sounds like mal wants a wealth tax. So do I, of course, but I'm surprised he does.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: It isn't available in his province? I assume there are many cities in a province. What he seeks is available in any city in America.
Really? You know something more than what is presented in the article? You know what doctor he prefers? You are aware of the qualifications of heart surgeons in all US cities, and you are convinced that all US cities, and many towns in Canada have similarly qualified physicians? You can make claims and conclusions about this specific case from a medical perspective? You are aware of all factors involved in his making this decision?
No, you don't know any of these things. You are making assumptions that suit your conclusions. You always do this- the truth is what you need it to be. You are, if not an outright liar, a prevaricator, and a bad one at that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Her $1500 income increased our taxes by $300. Progressives want you to stay poor...if you work too hard they'll take your money and keep you down.
See? Prevarication. Your *combined* income put you in a tax bracket where you pay 25% on the last dollar earned. You have lower taxes than anybody in the industrialized world. Boo, Freaking, Hoo.
Wah wah wah! They taxed my wife's 14 days of work out of the year! TRAVESTY! GRAND THEFT!
quote: *nod* It sounds like mal wants a wealth tax. So do I, of course, but I'm surprised he does.
:snort: He doesn't realize that's what he's advocating. That, or he's done one hell of a job concealing a liberal streak he's had all along. Mal wants what's good for mal. Always has, always will.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: My father refuses to work overtime.....working overtime is a loss of pay. It puts him in another tax bracket.
I'm sorry, folks, I've never been in a high tax bracket. Isn't there a provision for this, something along the lines of "last dollar earned?" I believe the tax law is designed to ensure that people *don't* become less productive by creating such a situation. Think of the ridiculous consequences- people would request that their salaries be pegged to the very top of the next lowest tax bracket, in order to increase their income.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It doesn't work that way. Only the portion of the income that pushed him into the higher tax bracket would actually be taxed at the higher rate, not the entire amount of income.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The only possibility that comes to mind is that mal's father could be stuck in a poverty trap. For example, in Ontario I believe that there is a very small window at around $2000 of income where your effective marginal tax rate does go above 100%, albeit for a window about $100 of income or less.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I believe the tax law is designed to ensure that people *don't* become less productive by creating such a situation.
The brackets are, by and large, designed so that this isn't possible. I have known situations in which losing tax credits caused this to happen; your change in bracket status wouldn't increase your marginal tax rate that much, but you'd lose access to a credit or a subsidized program that wound up costing you more than the increase in salary. This is relatively rare, however, and usually requires that someone lose access to multiple credits and assistance programs all at once.
Tax brackets, however, aren't the issue, as we use marginal brackets in this country. Let's say that, hypothetically, you are taxed at 10% up to $1,000 of income and 35% up to 2,000 of income. If you make $1,500, your first $1,000 is taxed at 10%, and the $500 earned in the next tax bracket is taxed at 35%; you are not taxed at 35% on the full $1500.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I assume there are many cities in a province.
Not in his province, there aren't. Nor, in fact, in many of Canada's provinces -- possibly most, depending on your definition of "city." Relatively speaking, much of Canada is quite sparsely populated.
Yep. I'm curious as to whether there [will be] an eventual clarification of whether the procedure was not available only in that province (which has been stated as a specific claim) or not available in the whole country's healthcare system (which, although the facts are mute on this particular point for now, seems to be what is assumed by people taking this up as a banner issue from outside Canada).
I am well familiar with many procedures that are only performed at a few centers (or even just one center) in the US, or Dubai, or wherever. I myself have had to travel from one US state across multiple other states to get to a place where I could get a particular open-heart surgery, and that is more common than not for many such procedures.
I certainly don't have the powers of prognstication that would enable me to deduce whether an unspecified cardiac procedure is available in any given number of cities. Regardless, though, making assessments about an entire system that serves millions based on one or two cases just would seem bizarre. Individual stories are great for generating hypotheses about systems, but they really suck as tools for assessment on their own. It's always a matter of seeing how individual cases add up.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
To add to what Twinky said in response to malanthrop's 'province' comment.
This guy is the Premiere of Newfoundland, which is that little rock off the East Coast. The entire place has a population of a mid-size city (500 000). The biggest city (St. John's) has a population of 100 000 which is not vanishingly small but neither is it a major city. Even if it was available, this Premiere, who is wealthy, may not have wanted to wait.
Given that, many rich people in Canada go to the US for care because they have the money to pay doctors and surgeons to give them the care now, now, now, now!
That's not to say that the procedure isn't available in Toronto or Montreal or Vancouver or Edmonton, and isn't available, possibly with a minor wait, to everyone.
The difference between people in Canada and the US is that poor people can get very good care regardless of the fact that they can't pay for it, not that rich people can't pay for the best, fastest care in the world. That's the difference between socialism and communism.
I don't care about this news and it doesn't shock me. Rich people able to afford whatever they pay for wherever they can get to? It's not exactly news. What matters to me that if I-- or my equally unemployed* friends-- fall sick, we will not be mired in debt for the procedure that will save my life. I can get injections and basic everyday doctoring for a swipe of my health card-- no insurance required, no free clinics required.
*Students, or underemployed, not slobs.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: ... The difference between people in Canada and the US is that poor people can get very good care regardless of the fact that they can't pay for it, not that rich people can't pay for the best, fastest care in the world. ...
Kinda. I would add that the Canada Health Act does prevent rich people from paying for faster or better care from within Canada in order to preserve fairness. That people can take advantage of a loophole in the system and pay for care outside Canada is kind of a separate but related issue.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I believe the tax law is designed to ensure that people *don't* become less productive by creating such a situation.
The brackets are, by and large, designed so that this isn't possible. I have known situations in which losing tax credits caused this to happen; your change in bracket status wouldn't increase your marginal tax rate that much, but you'd lose access to a credit or a subsidized program that wound up costing you more than the increase in salary. This is relatively rare, however, and usually requires that someone lose access to multiple credits and assistance programs all at once.
Tax brackets, however, aren't the issue, as we use marginal brackets in this country. Let's say that, hypothetically, you are taxed at 10% up to $1,000 of income and 35% up to 2,000 of income. If you make $1,500, your first $1,000 is taxed at 10%, and the $500 earned in the next tax bracket is taxed at 35%; you are not taxed at 35% on the full $1500.
Technically this is true. The only thing I would add is that payroll companies do not calculate taxes in that way.
ADP, Paychex, Intuit, etc use an annualization method when calculating payroll. I currently work with Paychex, and the way taxes are calculated are as follows:
The taxable wages of your check are annualized based on your employer's pay frequency (weekly, bi-weekly, etc). The tax bracket is then calculated on this amount, then divided back out and taxed accordingly. If you receive an additional payment such as commission that puts you in a higher tax bracket, you may see a higher percentage of tax due to this annualization. Because of this we usually suggest to employers to cut a seperate check in addition to the normal paycheck. It all equals out at the end of the year, but in the short term it may seem like you are getting screwed.
The highest tax bracket for Federal Income Tax is around 35%, and most of the companies I work with that have highly compensated employees end up paying this tax rate from the very first paycheck of the year to the very last check date of the year.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
So basically, we have concluded that it is highly likely that Mal is simply lying about this?
If so... wow dude. How could you not anticipate that others, even people like me who know virtually nothing about taxes, catch you in such an obvious lie?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: When I made 15k less a year, I took home the same as I do now. I use to get a 6k tax refund, now I pay 14k.
This is a pretty good setup for an algebra question, but it seems to me like you have little idea how taxes actually work or are fudging some facts.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
When discussing tax refunds, you can change how much you take home by changing exemptions. Also, we don't know what tax credits may have changed- like if he got the homebuyer's credit one year and not another.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Or is not aware of how it is actually set up.
I know my parents complained about this when I was younger, because one year my dad got promoted but got less back on his taxes. So much less that it actually was a net loss.
Yet he still managed to retire with 2-3 properties, with a HUGE salary his last 8-10 years, and a nice retirement account.
quote: the point we are not allowed to cross
doesn't exist anywhere but in your mind, Mal. Such as it is.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Oh irony.
quote:“ We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn't that ironic? ”— Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor and U.S. vice-presidential candidate
On the subject of Williams' surgery, it's since come out that the procedure was available in Canada and that he elected to go to the hospital in the US for cosmetic reasons -- basically, he wanted a smaller/less visible scar after the surgery, and this US hospital could provide that.
I don't have any particular problem with Williams going to the US for those reasons, but it also isn't a failure on the part of the Canadian health care system.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well it may be fantastically expensive, ineffectual, and unsustainable as a national system, but we did give a very rich man who was able to spend copious amounts of money on the procedure the same surgery with a less visible scar.
Game set match, SOCIALISTS. Free market wins. Don't even try to debate that.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
May I point out as well that the "less visible scar" is because of a particular approach not available at most sites in the US; i.e., most people in the US would have to
1) cross state lines and 2) go out of coverage (i.e., pay out of pocket because their insurance wouldn't cover it).
In case that wasn't clear. But, you know, misrepresented and bogus Strawman Argument for the win!!! Roxrreez!!!