So since you spent the last post responding to some of the many sources and evidences I have presented in this thread, I presume that means you are withdrawing completely and admitting your error in claiming I had no such evidences, your point in your previous post. Not to worry Aevans, it takes a big man to admit his mistakes.

Now, to your 'rebuttal'.



It doesn't if you ignore the entire report and then cherry pick one out of context quote. I assume your tactic here was to really really hope nobody actually clicked on the link to check? because the entire premise of the entire report is a joint study of the US and Canadian health care systems, and comparing the two. The compairason is present throughout the entire report and it is very one sided. So you claiming it doesn't demonstrate anything about the superior nature of the Canadian system is quite baffling...




It most certainly does. The report contains several lists of statistical rankings based on health criteria, allowing the reader to compare at their leisure. Look at the statistical annex and see what I am talking about before you discard the international report.



Funny, it worked for me.

Here it is again:
http://www.amsa.org/studytours/WaitingTime...iting%20time%22

I am not denying some Canadians go to the US for treatment, of course some do. My point is that the persentage is miniscule, and the report backs this up. I am further stating that Americans flock to Canada as well to have their own health care needs met, needs which are NOT being met in their own country. The link I provided to that report... it seems you ignored.



That site didn't work, oddly, as it did earler. However a 5-second google search came up with the same study in half a dozen other places.

http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/c...stract/22/3/343

And while I was searching, here is a comparason of preventable mortality in Canada and the US (Canada ahead, as usual)

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...i?artid=1447265

I hope that helps you. Then there are the sources I cited you just chose to ignore, of course...



Firstly, I will pass on the reports by far-right-wing think tanks, in particular the one by the 'Heartland Institute', which is a rediculous opinion peice. 6.1 weeks minimum wait for Cancer treatment? Four people I know personally (including my father 2 months ago) have been treated for cancer, MAXIMUM wait time in those cases was 3 days. Perhaps they were all insanely lucky, but 6.5 weeks wait does not dovetail with any statistical reports I have ever seen, nor with the cancer survival rates report I presented here. Not only yhat, but this 'stat' is directly rebutted by stats from YOUR other sources.

Your second link, from Pubmedcentral, is quite reasonable. 7 years ago, and still today, there is a shortage of oncologists in some hospitals in Canada. Notably, if you look for half a second, you will notice that the US, the UK and much of the first would are also below target levels for staffing oncologists. So valid point, just not a terribly relevant one.

The third link is just a search engine, hardly a good way to cite sources. However when I checked some of the sources in the search engine, they pretty much confirmed everything I had been saying, and contradicted your point. Wait times for cancer treatment: average 6 days. In fact the wait btimes were all low, with the exception (which has already ben discussed) for non-critical or optional surguries, where the wait times go into the weeks, and can even go into the months in some cases.




Well that's big of you. I have of course, already done the same. Canada' system is not perfect, of course it has flaws. After all, though it tends to rank quite high on international rankings, and always higher than the US, it never ranks first. There are funding issues, and issues of treatment in Canada's north that are serious problems. This has never been under debate as far as I know.

However, by every measurable standard, the Canadian system is better than that of our southern neighbour. I do not say this to crow 'Go Canada' or mock the US, but to rebut the tendency of some on this board to make up stories about other nations to prove their own nation's infallability (a disease I'm thankful to say you do not have in this case) and to pont out that a socialised system, while not necessarily perfect, is still better and Cheaper than the one the US currently has.




Really? Yes people send their sick to the US. But people send their sick to Canada, France and many other countries as well, and the US media doesn't do much reporting on them. In fact the single largest target for 'patient export' in the world is France.


Nobody is saying the US has the worst system out there, or anywhere near it. In terms of national capacity, it is in the top quarter of the nations on the planet. But it is also below many nations for many reasons. I don't know why some people have so much difficulty accepting that.

The argument I made very early in this debate generally revolves around economies of scale. Managing a population 1/10th the size of the United States is a typically apples and oranges discussion, but people keep making apples to apples claims. What I'm saying is that the only nations that one really could arguably compare might be China and India, both really not carrying the same economic weight.

Let's use an easily understood analogy. If you have a family with 2 children, it's much easier to manage than if you had 12. All kids in the 2 child household would likely have all shots, wear caps when it's cold, etc, etc, etc. When you have 12, one child might miss it's shots, the system to get all 12 cared for has to be far more efficient than the one for 2.

This is coupled with the notion that the US has a population far more culturally diverse than any other large-industrialized nation. Our population is made of a "mixed pot" in terms of national origin, socio-economics, etc.

The argument is perpetually made for socialized health care, and time and time again no one can prove how it would improve the US system. A few notable things would arguably happen. Profits aside, quality of care would decrease. This is proven in any economics lesson. So long as profit isn't a motive, efficiency always wanes. Secondly, as my links showed, investments in alternative treatments, research and development, etc would all begin to slip. The US has been a leader in medical research and pharmaceutical development for one purely easily understood reason- PROFIT. Merck knows that if it's first to market to sell the best drugs world wide, WHAMMO- Billions in profits. Even take a peek at Nobel Laureates in the past few decades... you'll find one overwhelming theme in terms of Medicine... take a guess what countries will appear? Why, one might ask??? Funding. Plain and simple. The US spends ridiculous amounts of money on research (along with other nations like the UK...).

The stark contrast in US healthcare revolves around socio economics. If someone has insurance, particularly Non-HMO based insurance, you can't get better health care world wide. In fact, I work for an international company based in the UK, and our Chairman typically has procedures done right here in Dallas. However, if you work 30 hrs/week at Walmart and have to go to the free-hospital... talk about waiting times, etc. Take a trip to Parkland Hospital (one of the nation's largest trauma centers, and also Dallas's free clinics) and swing through the ER. It definitely will be a drain on your faith in human nature...

Aevans, that doesn't even make sense.

Firstly, (if we were to take your somewhat specious 'family with children' analogy), the US doesn't just have more children, it has substantially more parents. In fact the government apparatus is far larger per capita in the US than in Canada, if you measure dollers per person spent on government and employees per capita.

The argument that the US is worse at taking care of its citizens than other nations because there are more Americans has no basis whatsoever in logic. I have never once seen any kind of study or report to back up that extravagent claim. If anything, Canada has the disadvantage in administration and governance in that it spends less money and has fewer employees per capita in the public sector.



This is just factually wrong. Even the most basic understanding of Canadian history would show you that. Not only has canada been subject to the same immigration pressures as the US during its history, but in fact has been subject to far MORE substantial immigration pressures than the US in the modern era. Even to this day Canada accepts more immigrants per capita than the US.

But it doesn't stop there. In the US you are correct, the 'melting pot' theory hold true, in other words whatever you were before, now you are just American. In Canada the notion of mulitulturalism is standard, across the country we have enclaves of every nation on earth with a portion of their own culture moved to Canada. Your cultural diversity has NOTHING on Canada. We even have two national languages, and have to translate every single document, webpage and fact sheet coming out of the federal government into both languages.

So thats another point just blatantly wrong.



Really? because if you look at Nobel prizes awarded in the last century per capita, the US actually comes in below an assortment of other nations, like Britain, German, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden... Now to be fair thats for ALL prizes, I could not find a chart dealing specifically with prizes in Medicine...




Why do I keep repeating myself here? In the studies I listed above this was proven to be untrue. The CDC report compares the Canadian and American systems at all levels, and in fact the Canadian system is pretty much Exactly the same, and BETTER in some criteria, than INSURED american Health care. It is obviously vastly above non-insured, and thus significantly better overall.

I would not claim that Canada is much better than insured American system, as I said. I will even go one step further and aknowledge that in terms of individual hospitals and clusters, the US has some of the best in the world. Boston General and Johns Hopkins are renowned for this. But this is NOT the average, not even close, and I am baffled as to why so many Americans assume all their hosptals are just like these few elites.

But EVEN IF your statement were true, which it clearly is not, it is laughably sad. It amounts to: if we exclude all those people excluded by our health care system, and ONLY look at those people who get access to the good health care...

Even if it were true, the same statement could be applied to Soviet Russia. In the 1980s, Elite Moscow hospitals could challenge the elite US hospitals for world-class quality, sucess rates and experimental proceedures. I suppose had the USSR stated "Well, if we only look at those people who have access to the elte care in the USSR, our health care is the best in the world!" And they would have been right, as far as that statement goes...

Yes they go here because the wait for say a good heart specialist in Canadian is YEARS. And PLEAS show me proof that Americans go to Canada. They cannot get care without the “card” and we are told at the border if we get sick we will be sent HOME. So please proof …………

The Canadian system is a fiscal disaster and NOT a model we would want here.

“Commonly referenced problems include: limited access to diagnostic equipment (such as MRIs and CT Scanners), lengthy wait times for surgeries and serious physician shortages, which are particularly prevalent for General Practitioners(GP)/Family Doctors. In some parts of the country waiting times to acquire a GP have been quoted at several years.”

A 59-year-old Ontario woman on disability for a heart-related problem is complaining of age discrimination after she was rejected by a local doctor advertising for new patients.
Edith Paulus had already endured two fruitless years of searching for a family physician in Barrie -- a city designated under Ontario's ministry of health as being under-serviced for family doctors -- when she found Dr. Derek Nesdoly's ad in a local community newspaper.
AND many Canadians want out:
TORONTO – Canadians have long prized their public healthcare system as a reflection of national values, and have looked askance at the inequities of private medical care in the United States.
But now that the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled private health insurers should be allowed to compete with the public system, the future of Canadian healthcare is a question mark.
Why Canadians Purchase Private Health Insurance
by Walter Williams (June 20, 2005)
America's socialists advocate that we adopt a universal healthcare system like our northern neighbor Canada. Before we buy into complete socialization of our healthcare system, we might check out the Canadian Supreme Court's June 9th ruling in Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General). It turns out that in order to prop up government-delivered medical care, Quebec and other Canadian provinces have outlawed private health insurance. By a 4 to 3 decision, Canada's high court struck down Quebec's law that prohibits private medical insurance. With all of the leftist hype extolling the "virtues" of Canada's universal healthcare system, you might wonder why any sane Canadian would want to purchase private insurance.
Plaintiffs Jacques Chaoulli, a physician, and his patient, George Zeliotis, launched their legal challenge to the government's monopolized healthcare system after having had to wait a year for hip-replacement surgery. In finding for the plaintiffs, Canada's high court said, "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public healthcare system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public healthcare. The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital healthcare result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness." Writing for the majority, Justice Marie Deschamps said, "Many patients on non-urgent waiting lists are in pain and cannot fully enjoy any real quality of life. The right to life and to personal inviolability is therefore affected by the waiting times."
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4271

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issue...socialized.html

Ted, I am reaching the point where I no longer care if this earns me a strike. I am sick and tired of your standard stactic of entering a thread, reading nothing that has gone before, adressing no issues of evidence presented, ignoring all responses to your previous posts, and ranting about things already dealt with ad nausium. Making a worthwhile contribution to AD is not hard at all, please try.



Thank you for your unsourced, unevidenced opinion. Care to address ANY of the great deal of evidence presented throught this entire thread proving that this is utterly not true?

How Exactly is it a financial disaster when according to every comparative or ranking study in the world, it provides better service overall, and yet costs FAR less per capita than the US system? Please explain your wild assertion to us.



Thank you for your unsourced, unevidenced opinion. Care to address ANY of the great deal of evidence presented throught this entire thread proving that this is utterly not true?

You DO provide one citation, from your standard extreme-right-wing sources, that states at one point, taht there are slightly longer wait times for optional or non-emergency proceedures in Canada than in the US. This is partially true, and has of course been discussed and sourced back and forth a dozen times in a dozen posts, all of which you ignored.

There is an active and pointed debate going on here. Why not read over it before contributing? You would be surprised to discover the points you blandly assert have been dealt with (and proven wrong) in great detail.

The 'proof' you demand of Americans going to Canada has already been provided, if you had just bothered to look.

The wild assertion you make about Canadians flocking to the US has already been demolished by provided evidence, if you just cared to look.


Please, in all honesty and humility. You have already been openly caught fabricating evidence to back up your invented opinions once, but that was a while ago, and I had hoped things had changed. An effort to be a contributing member and abide by basic conventions of the board is all I ask of you.

Ted- your post is an outright lie. you say "disasterous" UK and Canda models? Are you freakin' kidding me? Where DO you come up with this stuff? There is reams and reams of info showing both models as head and shoulders above ours- yet you choose to ignore that?

I had to wait 2 1/2 months for a knee surgeon three years ago- and I was insured, - so how do you explain that homeboy? Shoulder surgery I had to wait ony 6 weeks.

About the only positive comparison the US can make to ANY health care system is some third world bankrupt country like Bangladesh or Sri Lanka or something.

It is very pathetic that we can't match up favorably to any western country, a nation that is supposed to be as great as ours-

The link at the start of this thread appears to be dead. Here is the commonwealth fund study, where the US gets a 66 / 100. The methodology seems a bit self-fulfilling to me. In reading all of the discussion here, I would have thought that, oh, Canada scored a 100 and the US scored a 66. That's not it at all. In many cases in the study, the benchmark used was the "top 10%" of the US health care system itself. What the study proves more than anything is that there is inequity in the US system. From the study:


Throughout most of the study, the "benchmark" was the best US health care system / hospital / state, rather than other countries. Only a handful of measures were truly the US vs. other industrialized nations, and it was a mixed bag. The US under-achieves in infant mortality, preventable death due to disease, spend per-capita, while over-achieving in some areas (self-management of chronic care, healthy life expectancy at higher ages).

There is also another study by the same group which compares across a set of countries - The US ranked 6th out of 6 vs. Australia, New Zealand, Germany, UK and Canada. The US scored best of the 6 nations in "effectiveness" while Canada was 2nd, and the US was 3rd in "timeliness" with Canada 6th. Per-capita expenditures were by far the highest in the US, at $5635, which helped drive the ranking down.

Last point regarding our debate topic, CP refers to the Commonwealth Fund as a "non-partisan" group. While they aren't an arm of the Democratic Party, they are certainly liberal proponents of universal health care. Even the Centrist Policy Network calls the group "liberal" with no animus whatsoever. Looking through the long list of their policy proposals and studies, I question their impartiality, especially when they use such latitude in benchmarking the various measures in this study. If the "top 10%" or "top states" in the US are world class and without peer, this study would be misleadingly downgrading the rest of the country by using that benchmark.

Canada has one of the highest tax burdens for its citizens in the WORLD and the Socialized healthcare system is one reason for this.
Canada has the least attractive taxation of business investments among the industrial countries. Canada’s structure of social programs and income taxes are so interdependent that it has created a perversely high marginal tax burden on lower income families. For example, if an individual’s annual income moves from $22,000 to $54,000, they face a higher marginal tax rate. On the one hand, they are subject to higher tax rates and surtaxes on their income, and on the other hand, they experience claw backs of tax credits, social benefits, and transfers. The effect of these two factors reduces their net take home cheque. For example, a family with two kids depending on one income will face about 60% effective marginal taxes if their taxable income increases beyond $31,000. This means that for every additional dollar in excess of $31,000, the family keeps only 40 cents of it. As their taxable income increases, their marginal tax rates will increase. With such increasing marginal taxes, there is no incentive for saving and investments, rather consumption is more attractive.
http://agora.lakeheadu.ca/agora.php?st=111




Unsourced??? First lets realize that:
The Canadian system is for the most part publicly funded, yet most of the services are provided by private enterprises, private corporations. Most all doctors do not receive an annual salary, but receive a fee per visit or service. Canada's universal health plan does not cover certain services. Non-cosmetic dental care is covered for children up to the age of fourteen. Prescription drugs are not covered, and optometry is only covered in some provinces. Visits to many specialists may require an additional user fee. Also, some procedures are only covered under certain circumstances. For example, circumcision is not covered, and a fee is usually charged when a parent requests the procedure; however, if an infection or medical necessity arises, the procedure would be covered. When compared, the privately managed sectors of the health system have similar rates of participation and treatment in both countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_...ystems_compared




Care to show me how what I presented is wrong? Also I happen to have friends in Canada who tell me I am right on this point. Here is some SOURCED info. Please dispute with evidence and not just personal attacks!
In 2002, the average Canadian patient waited almost four months from the time his general practitioner decided surgery was necessary until a specialist provided the care. That delay has been growing since 1993, when it was only nine weeks.

Further, Canadians have very little access, relative to other developed countries, to doctors and high-tech imaging machines. In a comparison of access to doctors Canada ranked 17th of 20 countries. Canada ranked of 17th of 22 countries in a comparison of access to CT scanners, 18th of 23 countries for access to MRI machines, and 13th of 14 countries for access to lithotriptors.
Remarkably, this lack of access comes at a high price. After accounting for the fact that Canada has a relatively young population, Canada spends more on health care than all multi-payer OECD countries outside the U.S.--countries such as Germany, Switzerland, and Japan.Despite these facts, Woolhandler and her PNHP colleagues assume that arbitrarily low administrative costs are the primary indicator of a well-functioning health care system, ignoring other costs imposed by government monopoly. With some of the longest waiting times in the world and age-adjusted health expenditure higher than all other OECD nations with universal health care systems, the Canadian model is clearly not the rousing success it is purported to be.
. Consider the automobile industry: Wouldn’t it be cheaper if we got rid of all the salesmen, advertising, marketing, and models that differ in trivial matters such as color? If we all got our cars from the government-run factory wouldn’t we have a fairer and cheaper automobile “system”?
They tried that in the Soviet Union and East Germany, and the results were Ladas and Trabants.

Facts Ignored
The Woolhandler article also ignores the fact that much of the administrative costs in U.S. health care are created by the federal and state governments. About half of U.S. health care is privately financed, and even that share is subject to an increasing burden of regulation that reduces competition and adds to costs. Private insurers in the U.S. are essentially selling government-mandated policies.
Without competition, providers have little incentive to act in the interests of consumers. Hospitals in Canada do not feel the need to perform more surgeries to reduce waiting lists or to provide higher quality care, because they are secure in the knowledge that patients cannot go anywhere else. Provincial insurers are not concerned with long queues for health services or a lack of access to doctors or technology, because those who pay insurance fees will never stop paying or go elsewhere.
It would be a serious mistake for Americans to opt for a Canadian-style single-payer system considering only the money saved on administration and not the needless suffering and money lost unaccountably through lack of competition
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12920


Edited to remove personal information - Jaime

Ted- Vermillion expressely asked you to find a verifiable site- not another right wing blogger with no real research to back it up- as with your heartland site. That means published in a real journal, with peer review. Not a non-profit mouthpiece for an american insurance company.

Before we get to the bad news (you being utterly wrong), first let us start with the good news.

You did good Ted. You actually adressed points made by others, you paid at least a bit of attention to previous posts, and you made an effort to support at least some of your points with sources you did not make up. This is a vast improvement, and I thank you for following my advice.

Sadly, though your methodology (and thus the tone of the debate) was improved by your genuine effort, you were still completely wrong on almost all of your points.




Wrong, twice in one sentence. Firstly, Canada does have a slightly higher tax burden than the US, but it is not one of the highest in the world, it is in fact substantially lower than most countries in Europe. Of first world nations it is in the top half, but not even close to the top.

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/index.asp#partthree

Nor, interestingly does your link even come close to supporting your point. It never makes a SINGLE comment which backs up your wild assertion. The editorial is discussing some of the structures of Canadian taxation, which the author thinks should be improved, not the total taxation burden. In fact he makes very clear many nations have a far higher taxation rate. Please read your links before supplying them, it might end up saving you on a fair amount of embarassment.

Secondly, the next part of your sentence does not even pass the basic logic test. Please explain to me how the Socialised health care system can be responsible for the slightly higher taxation rate, when the overall cost per capita for the Canadian health care system is substantially lower than the per capita cost of the US health care system?



Really? Is that why major industries across the US keep investing in canadian business even as they close down plants in the US? Is that why the big three auto companies continue to open plants in Canada as they close them in the US?

Interestingly, this utterly irrelevant point of yours (were you just trying to come up with ways to insult Canada?) dovetails back into the conversation. One of the main reasons why US companies find it so profitable and worthwhile in Canada, even though they pay corporate taxes on averare 1.5% (yes, thats all) higher than in the US, is because they do not need to supply medical insurance to their employees, as it is covered by the state. Wrong again.




This is complete fiction. Dentistry you are correct, is not covered by the Canada health act, never has been except in Quebec. Other than that, you are out to lunch. Prescription drugs are vastly cheaper in Canada than in the US, one of the reasons so many Americans come to canada to get them.
Doctors do bill per visit or service, they bill the Canadian government for this, and that applies only to provate practice of course, those in hospitals draw salaries, salaries that while they are on average slightly less than the US, are higher than in ANY nation in Europe.

As for circumcision not being covered... you got me. Canadian health care system sucks because it does not cover circumcision (which is a cosmetic surgury). Well, you certainly won that argument.



Did you read this source? The one you cited? Read it again. It backs my arguments completely, not yours.






You have a friend? In Canada? Well, then you MUST be right, despite the fact that every statement you have made is substantively wrong, and flies in the face of statistics and reports, statements NOT made by extreme-right-wing partisan American groups.

Seriously, why do you KEEP drawing all your 'statements' from places like the 'Heartland institute'? The comments you provided by this extreme-right-wing group seem to directly contradict stats I have provided from neutral non-partisan groups, including government statistics and academic reports. Now I wonder which one is more credible?

I have no idea where the 'Heartland institute' got its numbers, they provide no sources, origins or context at all. Interestingly, did you read the article you cited in its entirety?

It is actually responding to a journal article praising the Canadian healthcare system, published in the New England Journal of Medicine. You tell me Ted, on matters of medicine, would you trust the single most prestigious medical journal on planet earth, or an openly extreme-right-wing policy group with no medical speciality whatsoever?



Abd these unsourced numbers they came up with... according to internal government statistics compiled respectively by the USand Canadian departments of health, the US and Canada have exactly the same docter to patient ratio, and Canada has more beds per capita than the US does.

As for MRIs, try to cpmpare numbers a little more recently than 18 years ago. In 1987, it was only 2 years after high-speed magnet MRI's had been INVENTED. Now even today, the US DOES have more MRI's per caoita than Canada does, true enough, though nowhere near the discrepency there once was. The again, waiting lines in the US also tend to be shorter because a significant percentage of the population of the United States cannot afford to use them.

Canada---36.1% (corporate) 15-29%(Federal Individual) 7% ( VAT)

USA 35% (corporate) 0-35% (federal individual) 0% (VAT)

Um- Ted- where EXACTLY do you get your information from? Let's see- Canada- 1.1% higher in Corporate Tax- and, depending where you are at on the economic food chain- You could actually be paying LESS taxes in Canada than America- So Ted- where do you get this stuff? Seriously- I would like to know where you pull this information from so we can debate the actual info that says different than the above facts from the link Vermillion provided?

For the money- I would say Canada's system pretty much kicks our butts- Let's see, they get some longer lines because EVERYONE HAS TO WAIT THIER TURN IN LINE- unlike in the US, where, say, Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton may go straight to the front of the line because of thier status- and, because money isn't an issue when deciding to go to a Dr to have something looked at- you have higher Utilization- but, overall, a much healthier nation. Must suck to be them.

If you think you can just dismiss my sources as “right wing” anything I strongly disagree. Come up with real data please.





“Slightly”????!!! And I agree – you are correct the healthcare system is not the only reason the taxes are much higher.

No matter how you slice it, taxes in Canada are much higher than in the United States. One of the best measures of a country’s overall tax burden is to look at the percentage of tax revenue compared to a country’s economic output. For instance, the total tax burden in Canada represents 43.5% of our economic output. In the United States, the tax burden is only 31.6% of their economic output – an 11.9 point difference.

Thats a 37% difference.

But if we remove public health care spending from the respective tax loads of both countries, the remaining tax burden to support other government spending amounts to 36.9% in Canada versus 25.2% in the United States – an 11.7 point difference. The gap is virtually the same


http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=615





Really?? Is that why there are dozens of articles about “brain drain” to the US>

The Reasons Behind the Brain Drain
Those skilled Canadians who have left the country typically cite a combination of lower taxes, higher pay and more opportunity as the reasons for their departure. Post-secondary graduates also cite high levels of debt as another reason for leaving. These issues are expanded upon below.
Taxes
Some critics of Canada’s tax system claim that Canada’s high personal tax rate, including capital gains tax, and high corporate tax rate represent the biggest cause of brain drain. Business leaders have lobbied hard for tax relief, saying that high taxes create the single biggest impediment to recruiting for Canadian companies, especially in the context of the low dollar and lower salaries. A study from Vancouver’s Fraser Institute asserts that the typical Canadian family now pays 46% of its cash income in total taxes. Income taxes are especially oppressive, with a top rate of about 50% (including provincial taxes) on an income of just $63,438. That is equivalent to an income of just $42,000 in US dollars. At such an income, a U.S. married couple filing jointly would still be in the lowest 15% federal income tax bracket; they would need an income of more than $283,000 before they reached the top bracket of 39.6%.
http://www.lib.uwo.ca/business/braindrain.html





You forgot to mention that they are only cheaper in Canada because the prices are REGULATED. And once the traffic across the border starts to really hurt the suppliers here and elsewhere the supply will dry up. Economics 101 sir.





You do this every time to me and others and I am not responding to this nonsense. The facts I posted have not been addressed by you except to say they are wrong.

No comment to this:???
In 2002, the average Canadian patient waited almost four months from the time his general practitioner decided surgery was necessary until a specialist provided the care. That delay has been growing since 1993, when it was only nine weeks.

Further, Canadians have very little access, relative to other developed countries, to doctors and high-tech imaging machines. In a comparison of access to doctors Canada ranked 17th of 20 countries. Canada ranked of 17th of 22 countries in a comparison of access to CT scanners, 18th of 23 countries for access to MRI machines, and 13th of 14 countries for access to lithotriptors.

You can keep your socialized system, where getting care is a waiting game and choices are limited.

Is healthcare a right?

No. Can someone tell me why it should be? I'm poor, so I have a right to your money, please give it to me. People should help other people, but never by force. If I can be forced to pay for your healthcare, I can be forced to pay for your food, water, shelter, college education, the birth of your children, and anything else you have a RIGHT to. So the answer is NO.


How do we fix the healthcare problem in this country?
First off, you assume it's a problem. What if we say there is no healthcare problem. I had to work hard to get my job. I have a job so I can pay for food, water, shelter and health insurance. I buy health insurance so large problems don't ruin me financially. Now what if you don't work, are you saying because I do, I have to pay for your healthcare? What if your health problem is being a worthless drug addict, do I still owe you free healthcare?



According to what we hear from the libs day in and day out, about 13% of our population has no healthcare. And from that general figure they jump to the conclusion that 300,000,000 people need to be put on socialized healthcare. I question the validity of the 13%, but for arguments sake let's break it down to the types of people, circumstances and health problems. How many of these people chose to practice bad habits that adversely affect their health? Is it my fault? It's just like the smoking thing; I'm 47 and since I was young there has been a warning on the cigarette package warning of cancer or bad health problems. Now after 35 years the cigarette companies have to pay $billions to states. When's the last time you saw a state with a cigarette in its mouth. A state doesn't even have a mouth, does it? Most of you libs don't even recognize what a sham this is on legal businesses. If state government were that concerned about it, they would have banned cigarettes from being made or sold, but they didn't. Know why? You can't sue a company that doesn't exist.



The doctor and patient relationship is the primary institution that needs to be preserved and protected. It's no one's business but these two parties. Everyone in the world is sticking their noses in between these two, including the UN.

Thank you for providing Exhibit A.

This, and people like this, is why the US is the only first world country on planet earth that does not have socialised medicine, and why its medical establishment consistently rates below most of the rest of the first world.

Once you decide that people who cannot afford medical care do not deserve medical care, obviously the national standard of your health care will drop significantly. You can hardly be UPSET that the nation ranks so poorly when you quite deliberately give it such a low priority.

Oh, and FYI, its not just the uninsured, as you and many of your ilk like to believe. Over 50% of LL personal bankruptcies in the US are due to medical bills, Most of those people are people who lose their insurance when they lose their jobs (due to a chronic condition) or whose insurance simply runs out after a set time and set amount of money. Too bad for them I guess, after all they don't DESERVE medical care after their insurance runs out, right?

Is healthcare a right?
In some form yes.
At the very minimal AFFORDABLE health care should be a right.

How do we fix the healthcare problem in this country?
Rules! We need Rules.

Let me bend your ear (or eyes as you are reading this!!) a little on a personal story:
I currently live in Germany and was recently seriously ill, both in the US and here. So, my experiences with both systems provide me with a unique view on the situation of "Healthcare".
2 years ago (in the US) I became seriously ill. I had severe abdominal pains, could not eat, and was losing weight at a dramatic pace.
I went to my doctor who sent me to the "Best" gastroenterologist in the State.
He (the "Best" gastroenteroligist) sent me through test after test, looked at everything inside and out, and could not figure out why I was in so much pain. I had described to him the symptoms in detail. Still he was stumped. He even suggested that I get Psychiatric help as it could be all in my head. After 3 months, and more than $50,000.00 (and a loss of 50lbs) he determined I had an Ulcer. At this point, the worst symptoms had been gone for about a month. He did note however that there was a spot on my pancreas that we should look at again in about six months to determine if it has grown. He said it could be cancer, but probably not, so don't worry.

A year later, after just arriving in Germany, the symptoms returned. Thinking the doctor in the US had to be right, I tried to treat it as a ulcer. No help.. it only got worse.
I finally went to a Hospital here, who, after listening to my symptoms, and running a few basic blood tests, determined in less than an hour that I had acute Pancreatitis, requiring that I be hopitalized.
I spent 3 weeks in the Hospital. My total bill? Just over $10,000.00. That's TOTAL. Of course, my insurance company made me pay 20% of that as I was out of network. And the care was 2nd to none.
In the US it would have cost in excess of $150,000.00.
Oh. and that Ulcer the doc in the US was treating me for? No sign of it.
Conclusion on that item is that it probably was caused by the pain killers I was taking to make the original pain tolerable.

The point to this is:
The medical community in the US has become a business to make money. Not cure people. Had the "Best" Gastroenterologist listened to my symptoms, he should have been able to identify the problem immediately.
Funny after it was all over, I looked up Acute Pancreatitis.. guess what.. all the symptoms I described to him where there. All of them. So I can only conclude that the "Best" gastroenterologist was not interested in finding what was ailing me, he was only concerned in getting me in for test after test after test. Drag it out as long as possible until either it becomes critically necessary to find the source, or the problem clears up.

To sum up:
In Germany, there are rules that dictate how much a doctor can charge, how much a hospital can charge, and how much drugs can cost. Doctors are not poor here. But they are not Billionaires either.
But they are able to focus on their job. Which is heal the sick and save lives.
Yeah, I know, your going to say.. But Germany has socialized medicine.
Yes and no. There is a tax to pay for the socialized medicine, but those above a certain income are required to have their own insurance. And.. there are rules on how much that costs too!
They have found a way to cover those who cannot afford their own insurance, a way to ensure the insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, and drug companies are in the business of health care, not in the business of business. They make a profit.. but not a killing, which is what happens in the US.

How about providing qualified sources for your last four posts? Secondly, you spend half of each post tearing down the individual you're responding to. Is that how you got the gold star for being most convincing? You need to step down off your high horse sir, even the most pro-Canada forums I visit are beginning to see how terribly flawed their anti-Americanism has become. Try cleaning your own house before coming here to evaluate ours. I have family in Germany that tell me how flawed their socialized medical system is. The Commonwealth Foundation, which was founded on money from Stephen Harkness who was a founding member of the Standard Oil Company, is a pro-socialized medicine organization. Do you really believe they would say a single good thing about a market-driven health system? Vermillion, maybe you are respected by others for being a fair debater, by I have yet to see it. Providing sources, in fact, does not mean your argument is correct. It only proves you believe whatever you have read. The reason nothing ever get resolved in these forums (here and elsewhere) is because we get too many anti-American Canadians and liberal socialists coming here trying to tell us how the United States of America stinks and is the worst country in history. Well we've created more wealth and a better standard of living in less time than any other country in history, so we're pretty content with our accomplishments and our system, thank you. For all your bloviating, I don't see where you even have a stake in our healthcare system. I'm giving Canada an "F" for judgmentalism.

Please tell me which 'fact' I have not sourced to your satisfaction, and I will show you where I have in fact sourced it already on this thread. In the off chance I have not, I will happily provide you with sources on point. Please, demonstrate which fact you believe I have not sourced, and please be specific. Otherwise I shall be forced to assume this was simple empty posturing for its own sake and you had no point at all.



And this is where you spin completely off the rails. Anti-Americanism? Why, because I state the fact that the US health care system over all is below most of the systems of its socialised peers? Since when did speaking a true fact become 'Anti-Americanism'? Oh wait, is this more of the 'if you aren't with me you are against me'?

Grow up sir. This child-in-the-sandbox tantrum is beneath these boards. The debate here is simple and straightforward, and if you cannot support or even make clear your case, do not wig out on those who make valid points and justify them with evidence. Contradicting you and defeating your arguments with evidence is not 'Anti-Amnericanism'. It is so OBVIOUSLY not Anti-Americanism that one has to wonder what on earth your real reason for using that inane tactic was. It certainly was not to make yourself look good, reasonable or well-informed.

In your entire rant you made not one comment point or statement on point, not one. Not one specific criticism, not one relevant fact. I am not anti-American sir, as you would know well if you read people's posts for what they actually said, not what you wished they would say.



Please be consistent. You started this rant by insulting the fact that I don't provide sources. It seems even your vitriolic tantrums lack basic internal consistency. I make coherent arguments and back them up with sources. I will not pretend I am always right, I have been shown in error several times by several good debators on this board. Not however, by any people who flee from considered points and logic into wild and hystrionic rants about how anyone whi disagrees with thier opinion (no matter how counter-factual that opinion is) virulently hates them and their entire country. For shame, sir.

However, (back on point), had you read posts in the thread you would have noticed I openly asked for anyone to provide me with a survey which opposed the several I provided, a single one which placed the US health care system above those of the wealthy socialised nations. It was easy for you to answer that challenge if you were able to. The fact that you didn't simply means you either would not or could not, choosing instead this route, one of infantile complaining about utter irrelevancies.

I don't believe everything I read, but I do believe hard facts provided by impartial sources over your unsources random opinion. If that makes me a 'bad debator' in your eyes, well you know what, I'll live.



Might I make a suggestion? Cut and paste that last bit of yours, and place it somewhere where it has ANY reference to the issue or debate at hand. There is no anti-Americanism in this thread, and certainly none by me, unless you genuinely think your nation should be somehow immune to criticism, or that anyone who dares mention the US might NOT be the absolute best in the world at everything is a 'traitor' of some kind.

But if you disagree, please provide a specific quote where I was 'unreasonably anti-american'. Any one, and please be specific. You spent a LONG post making wild accusations, thus I assume you can back them up with evidence. Otherwise you would end up looking mighty silly.

Saying the US is 'not the best' is nowhere near the same as saying it is the worst. The first is true in many cases, the second would be anti-americanism. If your right-wing psudo-nationalistic myopia cannot allow you to tell the difference, then sir that is your problem, and nobody else's. I will happily trumpet the many, MANY amazing accomplishments of the US in a thousand different fields, but I will restrict myself to ones that are TRUE. My apologies if that offends your delicate sensibilities.

And irony of ironies, to rant off about anti-americanism in such a staggeringly misplaced self-rightious manner, and then conclude by calling others 'judgemental' is just classic.


I don't 'spend my time tearing people down', unless they threw the first stone, and you know very well that you have. Furthermore, I would MUCH rather be debating the actual issues of this thread here rather than spending my time pointing out your many inadequacies, believe me. Sadly, you decided to stop talking about points and issues entirely, and thats sad.

However, in the sake of friendly debate, if at any point you decide to make a relevant and on topic point in this thread, I shall be very pleased to deal with it factually and on point. In the meantime, playing the 'anti-Americanism' card in such a shambolic and transparent manner says a great deal about you, and very little about anything else.