Michael Moore's 'Sicko' Scrutinizes Canada's Healthcar

[bush_cheney2004]

To equate "universal health care" for military forces only furthers the absurdity of your argument. Preventative and primary care for military personnel is driven by mission and combat readiness, not a socialist-commie utopia for healthcare. Military dependents are covered because of their status, not "universal" benefit.

The government hires a bunch of doctors and medical personnel and then tells them to provide services for free to a bunch of other people. No one has much choice in whether you get to see Doctor A or B, and Doctor A or B doesn't have much choice in seeing person Y or Z.

Only Stalin could have dreamed up such a system. We don't even have it in Canada.

But you B/C seem to think it's great.

I guess you don't like the words. I won't call it "socialism" and instead we'll refer to "national service".

Wrong again....it wasn't socialism...I was free to buy medical insurance or visit any private practitioner while in the service. Can you legally buy such insurance in Canada (yet)? LOL!

And that's the unmentioned problem with Canadian style single-payer healthcare....when the government needs to cut back, it can reduce funding to the provinces, squeezing an already thin system even further. It's always in crisis, begging professionals to not strike or jump ship altogether. Ration, ration, ration for the good of the People's Party!

The profit motive, however, makes for excess capacity in the USA, from boob jobs to instant MRIs.

[Riverwind]

And that's the unmentioned problem with Canadian style single-payer healthcare....

Every industrialized country other than the US has a single payer government funded system. The problem with Canadian system is people are prohibited from purchasing medical services privately - no other industrialized country does this and the US would be dumb to adopt this part of the Canadian system.

That said, you participated in a single payer government funded system for years and you were perfectly happy with it. Why do you now resist extending that same system to cover the millions of Americans who do not have access to insurance today?

The profit motive, however, makes for excess capacity in the USA, from boob jobs to instant MRIs.

I also means that HMOs use any excuse possible to deny treatments.

[jdobbin]

Nonsense, and double nonsense. At the risk of thread hijack, you miss the point Dobbin.

When the Liberals raised CPP rates, they simply raised taxes - and they did this on the poorest people of all. The working poor.

CPP is not a pension scheme - it is a transfer scheme. We take from some and give to others. The idea that it should be "properly funded" is both crazy and political smoke-and-mirrors.

The one advantage of the CPP is that there are strict rules on how anyone can access it. That means the government doesn't have problems with rising costs (with the possible exception of rising disability claims).

This doesn't apply to health care. Anyone with an ailment (imaginary or real) can access health care. The costs have no limit.

If it was as simple as you say, other countries would have been able to follow Canada's lead on fixing their pension problems. The Liberals didn't just unilaterally make the decision. There was a lot of consultation with the provinces, the public and everyone else you can think of.

Do you have any citations for the claims you have on CPP? Was there anyone opposed to the reforms that were made? It is obvious that you don't like the program but I certainly don't see a lobby group rallying against it now or raising the criticism you are now.

I think you miss the point that CPP was regarded as a problem and it was addressed. So too can healthcare although you seem to be arguing that it is a problem that can't be solved.

[August1991]

The profit motive, however, makes for excess capacity in the USA, from boob jobs to instant MRIs.

Where was the "profit motive" in your "national service" (US military) health care system?

----

I think you miss the point that CPP was regarded as a problem and it was addressed. So too can healthcare although you seem to be arguing that it is a problem that can't be solved.

It was a problem in the minds of smart Liberal strategists. This gave them the justification to triple CPP "taxes".

Look Dobbin, is our health insurance system "fully funded"? That is, are governments contributing to a fund to ensure that we have sufficient reserves against all future liabilities?

Is our welfare system "fully funded"? Do governments have sufficient reserves to protect all future claims and liabilities?

Governments generally don't buy insurance because they self-insure.

In this sense, when we spek about the government, we are talking about the country as a whole. It makes no sense to speak of "creating a pesion fund" except in the sense that Canada as a whole will have the means to generate wealth.

CPP is pay-as-you-go because Canada as a whole is pay-as-you-go. That's the nature of the world, countries and governments. Individuals OTOH are not pay-as-you-go. And I think that's the source of the confusion.

When the federal Liberals raised CPP contributions, they claimed that they were "properly funding pensions". In fact, they were just raising taxes. McGuinty did the same in Ontario when he raised health premiums to "fund properly" the health system.

Sorry for the thread drift.

[ScottSA]

On average, Canadians pay about half of their income in various taxes and governments fees. OTOH, they receve back about half that in government transfers of various sorts. As a result, on average, we fork over about 25% of our income.

Since that's an average amount, and rich people pay more, I'm with Riverwind on this argument. Few if any Canadians pay 45% of their income in taxes.

And ScottSA, don't confuse marginal and average. There's a big difference.

I think the only confusion lies with you confusing "effective" with "average." The two terms I used were "marginal" and "effective." "Average" is something else entirely, and I have no idea why you inserted it in the argument. You do know what an effective tax rate is, right?

I suggest you not confuse government transfers to public goods and equalizations as "rebates," since they are nothing of the sort, and don't even approximate rebates in effect. As I said, many people with half-decent jobs pay 45% in tax; well over any state in the US except possibly Alaska.

[bush_cheney2004]

Every industrialized country other than the US has a single payer government funded system. The problem with Canadian system is people are prohibited from purchasing medical services privately - no other industrialized country does this and the US would be dumb to adopt this part of the Canadian system.

That said, you participated in a single payer government funded system for years and you were perfectly happy with it. Why do you now resist extending that same system to cover the millions of Americans who do not have access to insurance today?

Thank you for admitting that your system is "dumb"...on this point we agree.

I was perfectly happy with military health care because I only used it for free condoms and Actifed tablets. Doc would only give us 12 tabs at a time....kinda like RATIONING in Canada!

[Riverwind]

I suggest you not confuse government transfers to public goods and equalizations as "rebates," since they are nothing of the sort, and don't even approximate rebates in effect. As I said, many people with half-decent jobs pay 45% in tax; well over any state in the US except possibly Alaska.

Everything you said is absolutely false. Read my post: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....ndpost&p=234723

Also see this link: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financi...6f39bbb&k=43594

But employees, especially in states with state income taxes, may pay more in income taxes, payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare (which covers retired and disabled people) than they would pay in Canada in income taxes, CPP and EI contributions, and health-care premiums.

[Michael Bluth]

Every industrialized country other than the US has a single payer government funded system. The problem with Canadian system is people are prohibited from purchasing medical services privately - no other industrialized country does this and the US would be dumb to adopt this part of the Canadian system.

That is the exact problem with the Canadian health care system.

The small amounts of private health care our there are what are relieving the most stress on the system.

If Canadians would quite being afraid of the two-tier boogey man they would be a lot better off.

[Riverwind]

I was perfectly happy with military health care it because I only used it for free condoms and Actifed tablets.

Ok - so are you saying you would not be happy with the military system if you were older and actually needed to use it?

[bush_cheney2004]

The profit motive, however, makes for excess capacity in the USA, from boob jobs to instant MRIs.

Where was the "profit motive" in your "national service" health care system?

Military contracts for "BigPharma", CHAMPUS, imaging labs, urinalysis, tactical ORs, medical waste disposal, radiological monitoring (dosimeters), Ambu bags, etc. , etc.

Rationing and scarcity is the main concern that many Americans have with a Canadian style system. It doesn't mean jack dick to suffer equally.

[Riverwind]

Military contracts for "BigPharma", CHAMPUS, imaging labs, urinalysis, tactical ORs, medical waste disposal, radiological monitoring (dosimeters), etc. , etc.

Gee - just like the Canadian system where services outside hospitals are done by private for profit contractors.

[ScottSA]

Also see this link: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financi...6f39bbb&k=43594

But employees, especially in states with state income taxes, may pay more in income taxes, payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare (which covers retired and disabled people) than they would pay in Canada in income taxes, CPP and EI contributions, and health-care premiums.

If you know anything about tax law at all, you must see the giant glaring problem with trying to use this to claim that taxes are higher in the states. You cannot simply lump in various costs and call them taxes. They are not, any more than a benefit or social equalization is a tax rebate.

[Riverwind]

If you know anything about tax law at all, you must see the giant glaring problem with trying to use this to claim that taxes are higher in the states. You cannot simply lump in various costs and call them taxes. They are not, any more than a benefit or social equalization is a tax rebate.

All of the costs listed are mandatory deductions. If you call CPP a tax then so is Social Security. Your claim that most Canadians pay 45% of their gross income as tax is also a complete fiction.

[bush_cheney2004]

Gee - just like the Canadian system where services outside hospitals are done by private for profit contractors.

Can Canadians buy some insurance for those services? Or is that illegal?

[August1991]

I think the only confusion lies with you confusing "effective" with "average." The two terms I used were "marginal" and "effective." "Average" is something else entirely, and I have no idea why you inserted it in the argument. You do know what an effective tax rate is, right?

To be honest, I don't know what you mean by effective tax rate. I have seen the term used in the context of tariffs. A firm may pay one published tax rate but because of tariffs and various distortions, it may be paying a different "effective" tax rate. I gather it refers to tax incidence.

Average tax rates and marginal tax rates are clear. If you earn $1000 a month and pay $200 to the government, you pay on average 20%. If you get a $200 raise but only get to keep $120 after taxes, then your marginal tax rate is 40%.

Now then, if you have three kids under 6 years, and Harper sends you $100/month for each, then I'd say governments are a good deal, and you might say that the effective tax rate is negative.

I suggest you not confuse government transfers to public goods and equalizations as "rebates," since they are nothing of the sort, and don't even approximate rebates in effect. As I said, many people with half-decent jobs pay 45% in tax; well over any state in the US except possibly Alaska.

I'm referring to transfers to individuals - primarily pensions, child transfers, GST rebates, UIC and welfare.

Don't you think GST rebates should be deducted from taxes paid to get a true picture of the "effective" tax rate?

[bush_cheney2004]

I was perfectly happy with military health care it because I only used it for free condoms and Actifed tablets.

Ok - so are you saying you would not be happy with the military system if you were older and actually needed to use it?

Don't know..that would be pure conjecture. What I would not be happy with is the lack of choice to pick military care over private providers, including private insurance. And that is all that many Canadians are asking for.

[bush_cheney2004]

That is the exact problem with the Canadian health care system.

The small amounts of private health care our there are what are relieving the most stress on the system.

If Canadians would quite being afraid of the two-tier boogey man they would be a lot better off.

Agreed....what are the detractors so afraid of?

[Riverwind]

Agreed....what are the detractors so afraid of?

You have to stop lumping all supporters of the Canadian system into one group. A significant number of Canadians want to keep the single payer model but want the option of buying private care. The SCC has already ruled that is unconsitutional to prevent Canadians from doing that so governments are already working on removing those restrictions.

The single payer system is what other industrialized countries have - why are you so afraid of that?

[bush_cheney2004]

Agreed....what are the detractors so afraid of?

You have to stop lumping all supporters of the Canadian system into one group. A significant number of Canadians want to keep the single payer model but want the option of buying private care. The SCC has already ruled that is unconsitutional to prevent Canadians from doing that so governments are already working on removing those restrictions.

The single payer system is what other industrialized countries have - why are you so afraid of that?

Let's put a stop to this myth you keep repeating right now....Japan and Germany have a plural system of private and public payer...they are not single payer systems like Canada's.

Also, the US already has a single payer system..it is called Medicare.

[jdobbin]

It was a problem in the minds of smart Liberal strategists. This gave them the justification to triple CPP "taxes".

Look Dobbin, is our health insurance system "fully funded"? That is, are governments contributing to a fund to ensure that we have sufficient reserves against all future liabilities?

Is our welfare system "fully funded"? Do governments have sufficient reserves to protect all future claims and liabilities?

Governments generally don't buy insurance because they self-insure.

In this sense, when we spek about the government, we are talking about the country as a whole. It makes no sense to speak of "creating a pesion fund" except in the sense that Canada as a whole will have the means to generate wealth.

CPP is pay-as-you-go because Canada as a whole is pay-as-you-go. That's the nature of the world, countries and governments. Individuals OTOH are not pay-as-you-go. And I think that's the source of the confusion.

When the federal Liberals raised CPP contributions, they claimed that they were "properly funding pensions". In fact, they were just raising taxes. McGuinty did the same in Ontario when he raised health premiums to "fund properly" the health system.

Sorry for the thread drift.

It wasn't just Liberal strategists who indicated that CPP was headed for trouble. It was talked about by every party, every premier, business leaders, union leaders, journalists, academics and accountants of every stripe. I think you are just taking a partisan swipe at the Liberals even though quite a few people had a hand in making the changes.

The situation with CPP was addressed and it is now not a concern. It is a concern in other nations where they haven't even reached the discussion level over the issue.

You are obviously opposed to CPP and that is fine. Don't act like it was a unilateral decision though. And don't act like it was created by Liberal strategists. There were a lot of voices raised on the subject. Not too many had the same objections you have.

Back to the topic at hand though, I have not said a few times that it will take an effort at various government levels and consulting as widely as during the CPP discussion to come up with a variety of solutions.

I don't know that you would disagree but it seems you are.

[Riverwind]

Also, the US already has a single payer system..it is called Medicare.

So why do you have a problem extending this system to cover all Americans?

[August1991]

CPP is not a pension scheme - it is a transfer scheme. We take from some and give to others. The idea that it should be "properly funded" is both crazy and political smoke-and-mirrors.

Why is the CPP, as it currently stands, any different from a private sector pension fund? (I agree that when it was first set up early retirees got a lot more than they should have if it was a proper pension plan).

Why is the CPP not like a private pension scheme?

Because at any moment the CPP (ie. government) can raise pension contributions (that's what the federal Liberals did). Indeed, the government can raise income taxes to make up for any CPP shortfall.

Further, and more important, the CPP can change at any time benefits to pay out. Or rather, the government can simply change the tax rate on pensioners - and in effect change the benefits they receive.

No private pension scheme has the power to change any time it wants contributions, or benefits.

----

More broadly though, a government is like a country. Notions that apply to an individual don't apply to a country. An individual should save for the future when the individual will stop working and no longer have a working income. A country never stops working and hence has no similar reason to save.

Canada, the country, will never retire and so Canada has no reason to contribute to a pension or create a pension fund. Individual Canadians view that question differently of course.

[bush_cheney2004]

Also, the US already has a single payer system..it is called Medicare.

So why do you have a problem extending this system to cover all Americans?

Because "all Americans" do not qualify for Medicare, nor have they paid the payroll tax premiums to reap the benefits.

Why is it so important to you that "all Americans" be "covered"?

[Riverwind]

Because "all Americans" do not qualify for Medicare, nor have they paid the payroll tax premiums to reap the benefits.

That is a circular argument. Medicare rules are arbitrary and change over time. What makes the current rules so special? Also, the working poor make up the bulk of the uninsured since welfare bums qualify for medicare. Why do you want to punish the people that are willing to get off their butt to support themselves and reward those who live off the state?

Why is it so important to you that "all Americans" be "covered"?

Why is it important to cover seniors or children?

[bush_cheney2004]

That is a circular argument. Medicare rules are arbitrary and change over time. What makes the current rules so special? Also, the working poor make up the bulk of the uninsured since welfare bums qualify for medicare. Why do you want to punish the people that are willing to get off their butt to support themselves and reward those who live off the state?

No it isn't...Medicare is a Great Society program that was specifically designed to target the elderly and disabled. Has nothing to do with the "working poor".

Welfare "bums" do not qualify for Medicare...they get Medicaid and a patchwork of state programs.

Nobody is getting punished....the government doesn't owe us anything....Medicare is financed by payroll taxes, including the working poor, who will qualify when elderly.

Is being poor without insurance a crime?

BTW, US Medicare is often augmented by private "MediGap" insurance policies.