Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Taxes: America compared to other countries


Recommended Posts

This was in The Week magazine referring to an article by Henry Olson in The Washington Post.

The middle class in other countries pay far higher taxes than in the US.  Canada has a national 5% sales tax, provincial sales taxes or up to 10%.  Ontario has a top income ta rate of 46.13% on incomes of more than $175,000.  In the UK, taxpayers pay 40% tax on incomes of just $52.100 and 45% at $208,600.  They also pay a 20% Value-added tax on all goods and services and $3.00 per gal. fuel tax.  In Denmark, top tax rate of 55.9% for incomes of $86,500 plus a 25% value-added tax.

This is how they pay for all their social programs.  It is doubtful that Biden's proposed taxes on corporations and "the rich" will pay for everything the progressives want.  It will also make it a tough sell to middle-class voters, especially with the Republicans spreading propaganda about taxes going up on all workers and the middle-class.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, ElCid said:

This was in The Week magazine referring to an article by Henry Olson in The Washington Post.

The middle class in other countries pay far higher taxes than in the US.  Canada has a national 5% sales tax, provincial sales taxes or up to 10%.  Ontario has a top income ta rate of 46.13% on incomes of more than $175,000.  In the UK, taxpayers pay 40% tax on incomes of just $52.100 and 45% at $208,600.  They also pay a 20 Value-added tax on all goods and services and $3.00 per gal. fuel tax.  In Denmark, top tax rate of 55.9% for incomes of $86,500 plus a 25% value-added tax.

This is how they pay for all their social programs.  It is doubtful that Biden's proposed taxes on corporations and "the rich" will pay for everything the progressives want.  It will also make it a tough sell to middle-class voters, especially with the Republicans spreading propaganda about taxes going up on all workers and the middle-class.

 

Just like that propaganda about Trump's supposed tax cuts.    But oddly, I never noticed any extra money coming MY way in those four years.  :rolleyes:  But then, I'm not in the republican pampered 1%.  ;) 

Incidentally, I think sales taxes are a state-to-state thing.  Here in MI we pay a 6% sales tax. 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick Santorum was on CNN this morning saying that Republicans loved infrastructure but would not go for social programs attached to the bill and would not go for raising taxes (on the rich and corporations).   Asked how he would pay for these things he said with "user taxes."  Tax on gasoline and tolls on roads and bridges.  In other words, tax the consumer of which 99% are not rich.

This is akin to eliminating state tax and increasing sales tax.  It is tax on the majority who are not rich and are not corporations.

Biden's Infrastructure plan comes with a plan on how taxes would pay for it over 10 plus years. People earning under $400,000 would not see their taxes increase.  Apparently Republican voters are also in favour of more infrastructure and more tax for the rich.  Interest rates are so low I think it is time to go big or go home.  That's my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do Republicans wish to spend so much on the military and weapons of war?  And if you don't go along with them you are unpatriotic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Why do Republicans wish to spend so much on the military and weapons of war?  And if you don't go along with them you are unpatriotic.

Not just the Republicans.  While they wish to spend more, the Dems are all in if it affects their states or districts.

But the issue is how much higher taxes on middle-class and workers are in other nations that provide "socialized" services.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ElCid said:

Not just the Republicans.  While they wish to spend more, the Dems are all in if it affects their states or districts.

But the issue is how much higher taxes on middle-class and workers are in other nations that provide "socialized" services.

No doubt the taxes are higher for the middle class and workers in other countries.   It has been my experience living in several of these countries that most people just accept that as a reality.  No one wants to give up their health care in Canada or in Britain.  Even the conservatives don't dare go anywhere near those sort of issues.

Again, I think the messaging has been brutal in America and no doubt that is colored by the propagandists such as Rupert Murdoch and the Kochs who wish to have people believe that giving ANY money to social programs is just throwing it away on dead beats who won't look after themselves.  You hear that all the time.  Even the very people who rely on these programs don't wish to pay anything toward helping other people!  The same sort of sentiment sort of exists in Canada and throughout Europe as the Right Wing pushes that messaging upon workers every day as they sit and read Rupert Murdoch's rags on the way to work.  The indigenous 'deadbeat' is often replaced by the 'immigrant.'   Why pay anything toward new citizens?  You hear that a lot from the right wing in these countries and that is taken up by the 'worker' who reads these kind of rags.  What the right wing is actually trying to do is to get people to be against their own social safety nets.  Throw out the baby with the bathwater because you don't want to help deadbeats or immigrants.

But at least in these other countries the social programs have been established and it is then much harder to get rid of them because the people have decided that they actually like them.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

No doubt the taxes are higher for the middle class and workers in other countries.   It has been my experience living in several of these countries that most people just accept that as a reality.  No one wants to give up their health care in Canada or in Britain.  Even the conservatives don't dare go anywhere near those sort of issues.

Again, I think the messaging has been brutal in America and no doubt that is colored by the propagandists such as Rupert Murdoch and the Kochs who wish to have people believe that giving ANY money to social programs is just throwing it away on dead beats who won't look after themselves.  You hear that all the time.  Even the very people who rely on these programs don't wish to pay anything toward helping other people!  The same sort of sentiment sort of exists in Canada and throughout Europe as the Right Wing pushes that messaging upon workers every day as they sit and read Rupert Murdoch's rags on the way to work.  The indigenous 'deadbeat' is often replaced by the 'immigrant.'   Why pay anything toward new citizens?  You hear that a lot from the right wing in these countries and that is taken up by the 'worker' who reads these kind of rags.  What the right wing is actually trying to do is to get people to be against their own social safety nets.  Throw out the baby with the bathwater because you don't want to help deadbeats or immigrants.

But at least in these other countries the social programs have been established and it is then much harder to get rid of them because the people have decided that they actually like them.

Again, it is about how much higher taxes in "socialized" countries are.  This will be a major selling point for Republicans to use in defeating Democratic programs and Democratic candidates at both state and federal levels.

The Democrats have suffered major losses among Hispanic voters, particularly males, because of Democratic links to "socialism."  That is why FL and TX are predominately still Republican.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Again, it is about how much higher taxes in "socialized" countries are.  This will be a major selling point for Republicans to use in defeating Democratic programs and Democratic candidates at both state and federal levels.

The Democrats have suffered major losses among Hispanic voters, particularly males, because of Democratic links to "socialism."  That is why FL and TX are predominately still Republican.

Granted but in the case of health you should take into account that in these 'other' countries most if not all people can get by without any insurance costs whatsoever.

Of course, that is not a talking point for Repub;icans.  Again it is about propaganda.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Granted but in the case of health you should take into account that in these 'other' countries most if not all people can get by without any insurance costs whatsoever.

Of course, that is not a talking point for Repub;icans.  Again it is about propaganda.

Ah, but it would be a talking point AMONG republicans, who in this country have always had a hard-on for insurance companies.  ANY insurance companies, not just healthcare insurance companies.  Recall?--------

Just a few short WEEKS after the 9/11 attacks EVERYBODY'S homeowner insurance premiums doubled to tripled with the excuse that those companies were trying to recoup from the losses suffered from the 9/11 attacks.  As if EVERY pissant  insurance company in this country held some sort of policy on the twin towers!  And the then republican led house and senate and the republican president said not ONE WORD in acknowledgement of such price gouging by insurance companies.  And here in MI, it was a REPUBLICAN governor and state legislature who got into law the mandatory requirement to buy car insurance before you can buy your license plates or tabs.  Where before then one just had to pay a higher price for the plates and tabs.  And surprisingly enough, it was the hypocritical republicans(in this state at least) who cried the loudest at the idea that the ACA would require people to buy healthcare insurance or face getting a fine, crying, "It's WRONG to make people buy something they don't want!"  :wacko:    ;)  But somehow it was OK as long as it was just car insurance, and a republican idea to boot.  ;) 

And personally, I don't mind paying a higher tax rate, but only if;---------------

The percentage of increase is equally dispersed among ALL income levels, and;

NOT to shore up the revenue NOT collected from far more wealthy citizens who already get an unfair tax break to begin with.  and.....

There's adequate oversight to make sure the extra money taxed from my and others incomes isn't needlessly squandered.

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

Ah, but it would be a talking point AMONG republicans, who in this country have always had a hard-on for insurance companies.  ANY insurance companies, not just healthcare insurance companies.  Recall?--------

Just a few short WEEKS after the 9/11 attacks EVERYBODY'S homeowner insurance premiums doubled to tripled with the excuse that those companies were trying to recoup from the losses suffered from the 9/11 attacks.  As if EVERY pissant  insurance company in this country held some sort of policy on the twin towers!  And the then republican led house and senate and the republican president said not ONE WORD in acknowledgement of such price gouging by insurance companies.  And here in MI, it was a REPUBLICAN governor and state legislature who got into law the mandatory requirement to buy car insurance before you can buy your license plates or tabs.  Where before then one just had to pay a higher price for the plates and tabs.  And surprisingly enough, it was the hypocritical republicans(in this state at least) who cried the loudest at the idea that the ACA would require people to buy healthcare insurance or face getting a fine, crying, "It's WRONG to make people buy something they don't want!"  :wacko:    ;)  But somehow it was OK as long as it was just car insurance, and a republican idea to boot.  ;) 

And personally, I don't mind paying a higher tax rate, but only if;---------------

The percentage of increase is equally dispersed among ALL income levels, and;

NOT to shore up the revenue NOT collected from far more wealthy citizens who already get an unfair tax break to begin with.  and.....

There's adequate oversight to make sure the extra money taxed from my and others incomes isn't needlessly squandered.

Sepiatone

I come back to propaganda.  It is difficult to go up against the Republicans who say they are champions for smaller government and letting people keep more of their own money in their pockets.  They say this even if it isn't remotely true.  Like their trickle down theory.

And who can argue with those pointing to needlessly squandered funds like the storied "$100,000 hammer"  that the Pentagon paid for.  But that is all to muddy the waters and leave more money for the rich and to provide no safety nets for the poor - voted for those who are last to benefit from this.

On the subject of health care, I had EXTRA coverage than the basic through my Union.  **** if needed, etc.  I'm sure the Canadian military has something similar.  So people don't have to lose that sort of thing by having universal health care.  And because there is Universal health care that covers the basics the Extra coverage is peanuts.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

I come back to propaganda.  It is difficult to go up against the Republicans who say they are champions for smaller government and letting people keep more of their own money in their pockets.  They say this even if it isn't remotely true.  Like their trickle down theory.

And who can argue with those pointing to needlessly squandered funds like the storied "$100,000 hammer"  that the Pentagon paid for.  But that is all to muddy the waters and leave more money for the rich and to provide no safety nets for the poor - voted for those who are last to benefit from this.

On the subject of health care, I had EXTRA coverage than the basic through my Union.  **** if needed, etc.  I'm sure the Canadian military has something similar.  So people don't have to lose that sort of thing by having universal health care.  And because there is Universal health care that covers the basics the Extra coverage is peanuts.

When I worked in the UK, my employer offered medical insurance policies to the UK employees (we were still covered under our US policy).  As I recall there was a cheap option that covered things the NHS didn't cover completely, and an expensive version that would pay for private care if you wanted.  Few people took either.

I'm retired, but since I retired early, I'm not eligible for Medicare for another 8 years.  My previous employer provides retirees  with a policy (the same one as for employees), but we are completely responsible for paying the premium (no cost sharing).   As a single person, my premium is about $850 a month (around $10K per year).   Fortunately, my pension includes a medical annuity stipend (originally designed to pay for Medigap premiums, but it can be used for any medical purpose) that pays about 40% of the premium.  Even with that, my medical premium deduction is equal to about 65% of my income tax deduction from my pension check each month.   

Texas insurance premiums are higher than average because we have so many uninsured people in the state and high rates of obesity, heart disease and cancer, so I'm told.

I doubt my taxes would go up by $10K a year if my private health insurance was replaced by a government funded insurance system.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

And here in MI, it was a REPUBLICAN governor and state legislature who got into law the mandatory requirement to buy car insurance before you can buy your license plates or tabs.  

Sepiatone

In S.C., the state has required proof of insurance for decades.  In fact, if you are stopped you have to provide proof of insurance or you can be fined.  All of this was done when the Democrats controlled the governorship and the state legislature.  Personally I fully support it as there are still far too many uninsured or underinsured motorists on the roads today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, txfilmfan said:

When I worked in the UK, my employer offered medical insurance policies to the UK employees (we were still covered under our US policy).  As I recall there was a cheap option that covered things the NHS didn't cover completely, and an expensive version that would pay for private care if you wanted.  Few people took either.

I'm retired, but since I retired early, I'm not eligible for Medicare for another 8 years.  My previous employer provides retirees  with a policy (the same one as for employees), but we are completely responsible for paying the premium (no cost sharing).   As a single person, my premium is about $850 a month (around $10K per year).   Fortunately, my pension includes a medical annuity stipend (originally designed to pay for Medigap premiums, but it can be used for any medical purpose) that pays about 40% of the premium.  Even with that, my medical premium deduction is equal to about 65% of my income tax deduction from my pension check each month.   

Texas insurance premiums are higher than average because we have so many uninsured people in the state and high rates of obesity, heart disease and cancer, so I'm told.

I doubt my taxes would go up by $10K a year if my private health insurance was replaced by a government funded insurance system.

 

But, would the government funded program give you the same coverage as your current private insurance?  Would you have the same accessibility to medical treatment?  Probably not.  

One of the problems currently is the deficit in funding Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and other government funded medical "insurance."

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

I come back to propaganda.  It is difficult to go up against the Republicans who say they are champions for smaller government and letting people keep more of their own money in their pockets.  They say this even if it isn't remotely true.  Like their trickle down theory.

And who can argue with those pointing to needlessly squandered funds like the storied "$100,000 hammer"  that the Pentagon paid for.  But that is all to muddy the waters and leave more money for the rich and to provide no safety nets for the poor - voted for those who are last to benefit from this.

On the subject of health care, I had EXTRA coverage than the basic through my Union.  **** if needed, etc.  I'm sure the Canadian military has something similar.  So people don't have to lose that sort of thing by having universal health care.  And because there is Universal health care that covers the basics the Extra coverage is peanuts.

The Democrats in Congress and the White House approved the budgets that paid for the "$100,000 hammer." 

So, you now no longer have "EXTRA coverage" for health care?  Why did you single out the Canadian military as being provided extra coverage since they are funded by the government (taxpayers)?  I am sure that is a very small percentage of the Canadian population anyway?

Incidentally, you complain about the US Military spending too much money.  To some degree, I agree with that.  But you need to remember that the US military has a very substantial and costly role in defending the Pacific Rim countries, Europe, the Middle East and even some of Africa.  Therefore, these countries spend far, far less of their government budgets on defense.

Without the US military, no telling what Russia, China and other bad actors would do in those locations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ElCid said:

The Democrats in Congress and the White House approved the budgets that paid for the "$100,000 hammer." 

So, you now no longer have "EXTRA coverage" for health care?  Why did you single out the Canadian military as being provided extra coverage since they are funded by the government (taxpayers)?  I am sure that is a very small percentage of the Canadian population anyway?

Incidentally, you complain about the US Military spending too much money.  To some degree, I agree with that.  But you need to remember that the US military has a very substantial and costly role in defending the Pacific Rim countries, Europe, the Middle East and even some of Africa.  Therefore, these countries spend far, far less of their government budgets on defense.

Without the US military, no telling what Russia, China and other bad actors would do in those locations.

I don't disagree with anything you have said.

BTW, my experience and those that I know is that there have been no problems gaining access to medical treatments, expensive scans, cancer treatments, etc.  All for FREE.  I have never paid a penny for Insurance unless it is for travel.

As a veteran you no doubt enjoy the benefits of medical coverage but I have heard plenty of stories from snow birds in Florida who are aghast learning that pensioners they know have committed suicide because they were diagnosed with cancer and they do not wish to bankrupt their family.  You have better care in Cuba.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ElCid said:

But, would the government funded program give you the same coverage as your current private insurance?  Would you have the same accessibility to medical treatment?  Probably not.  

One of the problems currently is the deficit in funding Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and other government funded medical "insurance."

Who knows?  My policy is a high deductible plan that includes an HSA.  It only covers 80% of the cost, with an annual cap on out of pocket expenses (which I have never come close to reaching yet).  

So coverage would likely go up (in terms of $ amount paid by insurance), but access would likely be more limited or less convenient.   It depends on how it's implemented, and whether it's just a government insurance program (like Medicare) or if it's more like the NHS (which is a hybrid system of insurance and government-employed health care providers).

It's not as if the current U.S. system gets great results for the 17%-18% of GDP we currently spend on health care.  We're only behind Tuvalu and Marshall Islands in spending in terms of GDP in the world, yet our health outcomes lag behind.   In terms of dollars, we outspend Switzerland by nearly $3300 per person ($11,000 pp vs $7700 pp).    

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also glad that I have never had to experience any anxiety about health insurance - where to get it, can I afford it, what happens if I lose my job, etc.    I don't even think twice if I am in need of a checkup for something.  That is worth quite a bit to me.

And as I have said before, now that it has been implemented in these 'other' countries the conservatives know that it would be political death for them to remove it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:

I am also glad that I have never had to experience any anxiety about health insurance - where to get it, can I afford it, what happens if I lose my job, etc.    I don't even think twice if I am in need of a checkup for something.  That is worth quite a bit to me.

And as I have said before, now that it has been implemented in these 'other' countries the conservatives know that it would be political death for them to remove it.

I was going to add that to my post as well - that divorcing your health coverage from your employment provides a degree of freedom.

I think most Americans (at least those who have health insurance) worry about access.  I had one acquaintance in Canada who needed an MRI, and his appointment was at 2am and several weeks out.  In the U.S., MRI scanners are everywhere and an appointment is easy to get, if you have insurance coverage or money.    And that's the main benefit to the US system - if properly covered, you are virtually guaranteed unparalleled and speedy access to care.  Arguments against single-payer systems here in the US focus on the access issue, saying that it amounts to health care rationing.  But health care in the US is also rationed, just in a different way (either by your insurance carrier or by not having insurance at all). 

Single-payer systems have a big advantage in cost, in that they can more easily control costs.   Doctors in the US on average earn far more than their counterparts elsewhere.   Pharmaceutical companies charge US consumers far more for the same medicines.  Overhead is higher in the US because office staff must deal with dozens of insurance companies and state and federal governments, and potentially hundreds of insurance plans.   The litigation culture in the US also adds to the cost.

Proponents of the current US system liken it to any other service you might buy.   But it's not.  My main issue with this viewpoint is that it's not like selecting a barber, or lawn service, or buying a big-ticket item like a car or house.  With health care, when it comes to the big-ticket items (cancer, cardiac events, stroke, etc), these are urgent, critical care items, very expensive, and you likely don't have time to "comparison shop", and if you live in a less populated region, you may not have much choice at all (how many cancer centers are there in Wyoming, for instance?)  It's nearly impossible to get a reliable estimate of costs in advance of even minor procedures, much less open heart surgery, cancer treatment or the like.  You just have to start and hope that your insurance will cover it, and that you won't end up bankrupt after you've been cured.

Would anyone buy a car or house without knowing how much it's going to cost?  No.  But in the US, if you have a serious health issue like cardiac surgery or cancer treatment, you're forced to enter into arrangements where the total cost far outstrips what most people would pay for a house, without knowing exactly what it will cost.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

I was going to add that to my post as well - that divorcing your health coverage from your employment provides a degree of freedom.

I think most Americans (at least those who have health insurance) worry about access.  I had one acquaintance in Canada who needed an MRI, and his appointment was at 2am and several weeks out.  In the U.S., MRI scanners are everywhere and an appointment is easy to get, if you have insurance coverage or money.    And that's the main benefit to the US system - if properly covered, you are virtually guaranteed unparalleled and speedy access to care.  Arguments against single-payer systems here in the US focus on the access issue, saying that it amounts to health care rationing.  But health care in the US is also rationed, just in a different way (either by your insurance carrier or by not having insurance at all). 

Single-payer systems have a big advantage in cost, in that they can more easily control costs.   Doctors in the US on average earn far more than their counterparts elsewhere.   Pharmaceutical companies charge US consumers far more for the same medicines.  Overhead is higher in the US because office staff must deal with dozens of insurance companies and state and federal governments, and potentially hundreds of insurance plans.   The litigation culture in the US also adds to the cost.

Proponents of the current US system liken it to any other service you might buy.   But it's not.  My main issue with this viewpoint is that it's not like selecting a barber, or lawn service, or buying a big-ticket item like a car or house.  With health care, when it comes to the big-ticket items (cancer, cardiac events, stroke, etc), these are urgent, critical care items, very expensive, and you likely don't have time to "comparison shop", and if you live in a less populated region, you may not have much choice at all (how many cancer centers are there in Wyoming, for instance?)  It's nearly impossible to get a reliable estimate of costs in advance of even minor procedures, much less open heart surgery, cancer treatment or the like.  You just have to start and hope that your insurance will cover it, and that you won't end up bankrupt after you've been cured.

Would anyone buy a car or house without knowing how much it's going to cost?  No.  But in the US, if you have a serious health issue like cardiac surgery or cancer treatment, you're forced to enter into arrangements where the total cost far outstrips what most people would pay for a house, without knowing exactly what it will cost.

 

 

The MRI that your acquaintance had to wait for in Canada was almost certainly not an emergency.   Those are done practically right away and in fact if you simply have a booking for a routine non-emergency MRI you are told that you might have to wait in the hospital as you may be bumped by anyone in an emergency situation.

But yes, you may have to wait a few weeks for a non-emergency MRI.  

Our vaccine rollout in Canada has come under severe and deserved criticism.  It all stems from not having any manufacturing capability in Canada.  We once had but the conservative governments of  yore decided not to help fund them and rely entirely on offshore manufacturing.  Also, our extended care homes had severe deregulation , funding cuts and privatization by conservative governments years ago and you can point directly to that for the huge amount of seniors that succumbed to covid due to bad practices in these homes.  Our conservative Ontario Premiere who was responsible for all of this went on to be Chairman of some of these homes that he privatized.  A real human tragedy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

o4gmOJ9bTwA7scucPpp4gcAkAQc=&risl=&pid=I

  "Taxes? Say, I gotta brother lives in Taxes! Yeah in Dollars, Taxes, in'a fact."

AND speakin' o' which...hey Tex, I've heard Taxes, ahem, I mean TEXAS has some of the highest property tax rates in the country. 

(...true or what)

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, txfilmfan said:

In the U.S., MRI scanners are everywhere and an appointment is easy to get, if you have insurance coverage or money.  

 

Part of my work is reviewing orders for imaging to ensure that they are appropriate to patient history and will provide the resolution needed for an accurate diagnosis. A considerable number of these files have the notation: "patient pay" or: "no charge" in the box for insurance information. No sorting or delays incur because of such notations. The only times that I have experienced more than three days from the issue of the order and the scan being performed has been due to natural disasters preventing imaging centers from sustaining normal operation or when there is a specific health criteria requiring a scan being done on a certain day.

Part of my receiving my degree was doing rotations in various practices. At no time did I ever witness a person being refused service or having to wait because they were uninsured. All doctors, clinics and hospitals in the U.S.A. which receive any Medicare or Medicaid payments must be legally blind to a patient's insurance status except when the treatment is purely cosmetic.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2021 at 11:04 AM, Bogie56 said:

I am also glad that I have never had to experience any anxiety about health insurance - where to get it, can I afford it, what happens if I lose my job, etc.    I don't even think twice if I am in need of a checkup for something.  That is worth quite a bit to me.

And as I have said before, now that it has been implemented in these 'other' countries the conservatives know that it would be political death for them to remove it.

As a GM retiree after near 30 years seniority, I haven't had to worry about healthcare coverage since Nov. '71.   What I'd like to know is.....

Since the "socialized" medicine program started in Canada(if I stated that right) what, if any, pros and cons were outstanding?  And how much more of a burden on taxpayers did it add? 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

As a GM retiree after near 30 years seniority, I haven't had to worry about healthcare coverage since Nov. '71.   What I'd like to know is.....

Since the "socialized" medicine program started in Canada(if I stated that right) what, if any, pros and cons were outstanding?  And how much more of a burden on taxpayers did it add? 

Sepiatone

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to these questions.   In Ontario we currently pay a direct tax toward health every year.  It is something like $100.

Personally I wouldn't say that it is any burden on taxpayers.  I would hate to be paying up to $1000 a month for health insurance.   And if you are not a top earner you may not pay much tax at all with your yearly personal tax deduction.

Of course, there are those in the U.S. such as military vets who are probably very happy with the system as is.  But sadly there are still millions without any insurance whatsoever.

Where I got dinged was paying into the Canada Pension Plan.  As a self-employed person my entire life I had to pay double into the plan.  The employee's plus the employer's contribution to the pension.  I never had to contribute to unemployment insurance tax but then I was never eligible for unemployment insurance when I was "resting between gigs" as they say.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

Since the "socialized" medicine program started in Canada(if I stated that right) what, if any, pros and cons were outstanding?  And how much more of a burden on taxpayers did it add? 

Sepiatone

I can not speak to changes or costs as those are not within my areas of interest.

I can state that a considerable number of the files which I handle are Canadians who come to U.S.A. for imaging or radiation treatments. I presume this is due to the lengthy access times when there is insufficient evidence for a priority declaration. An appalling number of these cross my screen again with directives from the diagnostician to immediately seek treatment because any further delay may be life-threatening.

I can state also that I have seen more than one file which notes several MRI and/or CTscans performed in Canada being inconclusive when imaging done in U.S.A. has been definitive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...