How the rich keep geting richer,look over there!

[CPCFTW]

When you say increase the cost to employers... increase in what context? In Canada, healthcare is already publicly funded, so there is no "increase". In the US, taking the paperwork burden off employers and funding healthcare out of other revenue streams including income tax rather than direct payment by employers would reduce the cost for employers, not increase it. So where is the increase?

You implied that if I didn't accept Canada's publicly funded system, I must want the US's employer-backed system. That implication does not make sense since I had previously argued that health care is not a substantial benefit to employers. If that is my belief, then why would I accept a system which imposes a higher cost on employers? You seem to be lost in a false dichotomy.

[Bonam]

You implied that if I didn't accept Canada's publicly funded system, I must want the US's employer-backed system. That implication does not make sense since I had previously argued that health care is not a substantial benefit to employers. If that is my belief, then why would I accept a system which imposes a higher cost on employers? You seem to be lost in a false dichotomy.

No, I understand that there are other options out there. But you talked about "increasing" healthcare costs. A public option does not increase the healthcare cost burden on employers in either Canada or the US. So I'm just not sure what you're talking about. But yes, we could reduce costs to employers by moving to a private system where people buy their own insurance.

But then you have to address the issue of what do you do with people who choose not to buy insurance but then require emergency care and can't pay out of pocket. Someone picks up the tab (because a hospital/doctor isn't gonna let a patient die on the floor without care), and that someone is likely the other payers of insurance. In the end, the cost gets socialized one way or another, that is the nature of healthcare, unless we are willing to be more merciless as a society and just let people die, which seems unlikely to be the case.

While I'm sure you know that I'm a strong supporter of free markets and oppose socialism in general, I think that in the case of healthcare, the evidence and arguments for providing a publicly funded minimum standard of care are just too strong.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Bonam

[WWWTT]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone in here remember how Socialism worked out for the "average Joe" in the now defunct Soviet block nations in Eastern Europe? Just ask an immigrant who came over to Canada for a better life after the wall fell just how much he/she liked it. The left camp in here who want more and more distribution of wealth like this video suggests are living in ignorance just as CPCFTW stated. Exactly how much should our government take from the rich for the "so-called" benefit of the "greater good"? What % is enough? If you take and take, you eventually leave no reason for free enterprise to even exist anymore and eventually you get Eastern Europe all over again before you know it.

Oh really?

I thought those countries collapsed because they never really recovered from the devastation of WWII coupled with the Soviet military arms race.

But if you want to believe the twist of reality then go right ahead.

Here's a list of countries where increased social spending has given them a stronger economy than Canada!

Germany,Netherlands,Luxemburg,Switzerland,Israel,Japan,South Korea,Norway and several others.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

There you go again only looking at one side of the equation. Yes there is a benefit to socialized health care.. There is also a cost which you continue to ignore.

Actually I continue to use the cost as to why the rich must pay their fare share.

WWWTT

[CPCFTW]

No, I understand that there are other options out there. But you talked about "increasing" healthcare costs. A public option does not increase the healthcare cost burden on employers in either Canada or the US. So I'm just not sure what you're talking about.

I said I don't support an employer-based system because it would increase costs over the current system, which I already think is too costly. It's not that complicated.

[CPCFTW]

But then you have to address the issue of what do you do with people who choose not to buy insurance but then require emergency care and can't pay out of pocket. Someone picks up the tab (because a hospital/doctor isn't gonna let a patient die on the floor without care), and that someone is likely the other payers of insurance. In the end, the cost gets socialized one way or another, that is the nature of healthcare, unless we are willing to be more merciless as a society and just let people die, which seems unlikely to be the case.

Many industries have an allowance for bad accounts built into their cost structure. The people who use the system most would pay for those costs, the same way people who don't default on their credit card payments pay for other people's bankruptcies. That's not "socialized".

[roy baty]

Oh really?

I thought those countries collapsed because they never really recovered from the devastation of WWII coupled with the Soviet military arms race.

But if you want to believe the twist of reality then go right ahead.

Here's a list of countries where increased social spending has given them a stronger economy than Canada!

Germany,Netherlands,Luxemburg,Switzerland,Israel,Japan,South Korea,Norway and several others.

WWWTT

So you are telling me that Socialist/Communist economics had nothing to do with these governments' collapse right? Who's really twisting reality here? They never recovered from WWII in great thanks to the economics that comes with that form of government.

You're also comparing GDP I assume here. By that standard India is a better place to live for the average Joe in Canada yet you don't see any of us immigrating there do you? I prefer to look @ standard of living. We still have one of the highest average standards of living in the world. Even higher than most of the countries you mention. Based on GDP, just how to you explain the likes of what happened to Spain who ranks just below us by your GDP standard?

Yes, there has to be a good balance of social programs and capitalism. My point is that the left these days would rather see that balance shift completely away from capitalism and into the socialist pool in the long run and that is dangerous and can lead to what we should have learned from the past.

[cybercoma]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone in here remember how Socialism worked out for the "average Joe" in the now defunct Soviet block nations in Eastern Europe?

Is there really any point in reading beyond this line? If the rest of what you write is even a fraction as ridiculous as this, then it would be a complete waste of everyone's time. Advanced capitalism is not anything even remotely close to "socialism" in the Soviet block nor do we have a dictatorial regime forcing policies on people by pointing rifles in their faces. Having single-payer health insurance, employment insurance for economic downturns, and universal child tax credits is not in any way even close to Soviet Block policies. More to the point, the problem in the Soviet Block were not limited to so-called socialist policies, but the were the result of tyrannies abusing their power.

You want to know what's destructive? Look at what austerity measures have done to countries in recent years. They sure as hell aren't making things better.

[cybercoma]

one can argue for private healthcare, where everyone buys their insurance directly, but tying healthcare to employment is about the dumbest thing you could possibly do.

Doctors in Canada generally hate this idea. Private insurance companies are a pain to deal with most of the time. Doctors need to fight with them to get paid in some cases. That's not the situation that people should be in. That is a situation where a doctor is afraid to run tests that s/he thinks may be necessary because s/he doesn't know if they will be covered.

[cybercoma]

My initial argument was that health care doesn't benefit employers substantially

Which couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

[cybercoma]

No, I understand that there are other options out there. But you talked about "increasing" healthcare costs. A public option does not increase the healthcare cost burden on employers in either Canada or the US. So I'm just not sure what you're talking about. But yes, we could reduce costs to employers by moving to a private system where people buy their own insurance.

But then you have to address the issue of what do you do with people who choose not to buy insurance but then require emergency care and can't pay out of pocket. Someone picks up the tab (because a hospital/doctor isn't gonna let a patient die on the floor without care), and that someone is likely the other payers of insurance. In the end, the cost gets socialized one way or another, that is the nature of healthcare, unless we are willing to be more merciless as a society and just let people die, which seems unlikely to be the case.

While I'm sure you know that I'm a strong supporter of free markets and oppose socialism in general, I think that in the case of healthcare, the evidence and arguments for providing a publicly funded minimum standard of care are just too strong.

No one's mentioning the fact that people miss more time from work when healthcare is not funded publicly. People put off going to the doctor when they can't afford it, worsening their conditions in many cases. When things finally get so complicated that they have no choice but to go see a doctor, they're more likely to spend a lot more time off than if they were able to just go see a doctor when they first started getting sick. But hey, no big deal in some states where you can just fire your employees when they get sick and need too much time off.

[guyser]

I did not even check because I feel there is a couple good reasons to not even bother.

The first reason being you wont find one.

You only had to admit it, not move the goalposts

[Topaz]

A report out says that Canadians are spending more money on the neccesities of life, than ever before. All three levels of ogvernment have increase taxes and some hidden taxes such as, import duties,excise tax on tobacco, alcohol, amusement and gasoline. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/canadian-families-paid-more-taxes-necessities-life-2010-165426845.html

[Argus]

That's part of the reason the rich are getting richer, because their money is made off the backs of the middle and poor classes. Less benefits, contracting work, part time work, low wages... plus many other factors.

I think that's a minor part. Really, the issue is the rich and corporations (which are all controlled by the rich) have more power to influence government into changing rules, especially tax rules, in their favour. Thus we get big corporate tax cuts alongside 'temporary workers' coming in by the hundreds of thousands to depress wages. In the US they get anti-union laws, cuts to pensions and benefits, and tax cuts for the rich. In both countries you got those big cuts to dividend and capital gains taxes a decade or so back.

[Argus]

Except that figures show the better off pay the bulk of taxes. But there's a simple fix for that - pay the lower income people more, and they'll contribute more tax revenue back to the government, as well as needing less spending from the government to support them.

They pay the bulk of taxes because they make the bulk of the money. But the tax they pay is not proportional to the wealth they are making. Thus you get the Mitt Romney's making millions in a year, but paying about a10% tax rate while I pay 38%.

[Argus]

The biggest costs of government are health care, education, and social assistance.

What does health care do for business? Most employees are retired by the time they start excessively using the health care system.

You are aware that the development of public health care and public hospitals was done at the urging of business, right? That was because of all the work hours lost by sick employees.

As for education, are you kidding? An educated population is a necessity for modern business. Where are they going to find workers? Even tradesmen need to be literate, need to be able to count.

And social assistance keeps the dirty poor losers (not said in a pejorative sense) from killing people in the street and burning down buildings.

All quite aside from the morality of simply letting people starve to death, or die of easily curable illnesses.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Argus

[Canuckistani]

So what are you arguing for ... no health care?

He's arguing for no regulated health care. People can do what they want. Of course what would happen is that a private insurance system would spring up, with the higher administrative costs and medical costs we see in the US. He may not believe that health care is a benefit to business, but business would soon find that they can attract better employees if they offer health care coverage. In other words, the system would default to the US system, except without Medicare and Medicaid, meaning there would be millions without any coverage at all who couldn't afford health care. Guess those would be just left to die, and a whole new industry would be created - people driving around with pickup trucks yelling "bring out your dead." His posts show the danger of "sophomore disease" where somebody has taken a couple of courses in a field (in this case economics) and now thinks they're the expert.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Canuckistani

[jacee]

You implied that if I didn't accept Canada's publicly funded system, I must want the US's employer-backed system. That implication does not make sense since I had previously argued that health care is not a substantial benefit to employers. If that is my belief, then why would I accept a system which imposes a higher cost on employers?

Now you're getting it: Single payer public health care, paid by taxation, is the most cost effective and 'equal opportunity' method of service delivery. That's why the VAST majority of Canadians of all political stripes consider it incredibly important, and discussions like this are pretty much irrelevant.

Now on to education, transportation, power,water, policing, fire/EMS, mail ... do you as an employer want to assume ALL of these infrastructure costs that support your business?

Because frankly, I might agree! These services should be supplied equally and publicly for all people, but not for the profit-making of a few. Business and industry are HUGE consumers of public infrastructure, whose constant whining about their costs is extremely irritating to the rest of us who subsidize them and get stuck with cleanup costs for dirty industries who run away with their profits.

Subsidized infrastructure and subsidized cleanup ... pretty sweet deal!

Edited April 24, 2013 by jacee

[CPCFTW]

No one's mentioning the fact that people miss more time from work when healthcare is not funded publicly. People put off going to the doctor when they can't afford it, worsening their conditions in many cases. When things finally get so complicated that they have no choice but to go see a doctor, they're more likely to spend a lot more time off than if they were able to just go see a doctor when they first started getting sick. But hey, no big deal in some states where you can just fire your employees when they get sick and need too much time off.

More heresay. Let's get some citations or this all sounds like more faith-based nonsense from the left.

"All praise our lord and saviour the benevolent government and damn those who don't!"

[CPCFTW]

Which couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

Is that what your faith has taught you? Better round up the heretic wealthy people and string them up! I thought witch hunts were a thing of the past, but I guess history is doomed to repeat itself.

[CPCFTW]

Now you're getting it: Single payer public health care, paid by taxation, is the most cost effective and 'equal opportunity' method of service delivery. That's why the VAST majority of Canadians of all political stripes consider it incredibly important, and discussions like this are pretty much irrelevant.

I never said it was the most cost-effective.. Just more cost-effective than the US system. Not exactly a high bar.

Now on to education, transportation, power,water, policing, fire/EMS, mail ... do you as an employer want to assume ALL of these infrastructure costs that support your business?

Because frankly, I might agree! These services should be supplied equally and publicly for all people, but not for the profit-making of a few. Business and industry are HUGE consumers of public infrastructure, whose constant whining about their costs is extremely irritating to the rest of us who subsidize them and get stuck with cleanup costs for dirty industries who run away with their profits.

Subsidized infrastructure and subsidized cleanup ... pretty sweet deal!

Corporations and the top 20% of taxpayers likely pay the entire costs of all those services. Yet it's usually those who pay little to nothing who do all the whining about fairness.

[jacee]

Corporations and the top 20% of taxpayers likely pay the entire costs of all those services.

"Likely"?

Show me!

[Canuckistani]

So what? That's where the money is, so that's who has to pay the taxes. The 20% have benefitted from the labor of others and the social and physical infrastructure that allowed them to make and keep that money. They should be sending in thank you notes with their tax remittances for the opportunity afforded them.

[WWWTT]

Yes, there has to be a good balance of social programs and capitalism. My point is that the left these days would rather see that balance shift completely away from capitalism and into the socialist pool in the long run and that is dangerous and can lead to what we should have learned from the past.

You are claiming that the left would like to see no capitalism???

No private enterprise???

Who told you this?Do you have a link?

I have a small business,I know many others in the NDP who do as well.

WWWTT

[jacee]

Yes, there has to be a good balance of social programs and capitalism. My point is that the left these days would rather see that balance shift completely away from capitalism and into the socialist pool in the long run and that is dangerous and can lead to what we should have learned from the past.

That's absolutely ridiculous.

Speak for your own opinions.

Don't misrepresent others.

There's a certain amount of libertarian in every Canadian, I think, when it comes to the right to run your own business.

Edited April 24, 2013 by jacee