ok you donkeys, answer this for me

[frankeaton]

now that the texass primary is coming in a couple weeks every other ad is for Hillary or Obama. Both say they want national health care but never say how they are going to pay for?

Didn't this sink the Demos back in 94 will Hillary first brought it up?

I hear stories from Canadians that come to the US for health care because one pregant woman was told they could get to her in 13 months and a hip replacement may take 4 years.

Believe me I would love it cause I pay $300 out of my own pocket for medical insurance but if it raises my taxes by ??? $300 will look cheap:p

[FloridaPoke]

I think I can speak from experience on this one. My business partner is Canadian (Ontario Province). He is 75 yrs. old. On of my long term best friends is Canadian (British Columbia). She is 47. I hold property and spend considerable time in BC as a vacation spot.

Canadians pay materially higher taxes at the Fed level due to their healthcare system.

The real answer lies in the provincial management of services, geography and quality of doctors.

My Partner is wealthy and his family resides in Toronto (his residency is Switzerland and in Canada you are taxed on your residency not your citizenship). It is "technically" illegal in Canada to procure healthcare services outside "the gov't system". But anyone in Ontario who can afford to does by flaunting the system, through supplemental insurance directly with either the Cleveland Clinic or the Mayo Clinic (great business for those two firms by the way). They access the social system when it suits them....and they access Cleveland or Mayo when that suits them. Their total healthcare cost is comparible to mine and they get equal care to me in the US (sans the higher taxes that my partner doesn't pay as a Swiss "resident").

British Columbia on the other hand, has great healthcare services.....exponentially better than Ontario, and in many respects better than anything in the US. My long term friend pays equivalent or lower taxes than you and I, partly because she isn't wealthy and partly because BC as a Province has a lower tax rate. But, she doesn't need to access supplemental and illegal US services, so she is probably way ahead of those of us that pay large premiums to get what she gets basically for free.

Two Canadians.....Two different stories. Provincial management of the healthcare system, combined with large deltas in Provincial tax rates can make the story change dramatically.

With all the crap that goes on in their system, there is one area Canadians have figured out "with dignity" something I doubt the US will ever figure out......and it is cultural...and until we do we are in deep doo doo. In Canada, paliative (hospice level) care is provided by the gov't. It is done well, with dignity, with compassion and there are NO complaints by the loved ones. In the US, greater than 50% of our healthcare budget goes to the last 6 months of life....in intinsive care....spending gazillions of dollars.....without hope of recovery.....yet anything less would not be considered dignified. One should ask why our Medicare system would spend over one million dollars keeping a 90 year old man alive for his last 3 months of life while the same gov't requires a low income family to file bankruptcy over less than $20 thousand in unpaid emergency bills. Especially if that 90 year old man is worth millions to start with.

If we nationalize coverage on any level without "first" solving the cost crisis (drug costs and the last 6 months), I can assure you it will exacerbate the gap between the lower and upper classes.....and there will be no middle class.

Healthcare services, like any other goods or services, is a global market now (like it or not). To the extent that services aren't up to snuff, the wealthy will search out and procure the level of services that they can afford, which means globally. That will put an additional pressure on the system and the losers will be everyone else who can't afford to get their checkbooks out to seek help on a global scale.

The people who propose this do so in the name of the poor, the uninsured and the middle class........the very people who they will unintentionally target and damage the most.

In all Western democracies who have done this, the wherewithall's have been the first to seek global alternatives, leading to irrational laws that make it illegal to seek medical help outside a failed system (meaning, stay here and get bad care and subsidize the less wealthy to get the same bad care...making care for all worse). Which is exactly what our system does today without any changes to the poor. Go figure.

Then, the regional diffences in socialized care are staggering. People in BC love the system. People in Ontario hate it. The reason is quite simple and has to do with geography. In BC, quality doctors can live in the Pacific NW, where the weather is great year around, there are mountains, oceans and probably the most beautiful place to live anywhere in Canada. Good Docs want to live there. The rest of Canada is quite frankly colder than shit, with Toronto the exception and it is no longer part of North America (ie, Chinese, Japanese, Arab, etc.)

Good healthcare means good doctors in a free market. BC enjoys a US style free market. The rest of Canada doesn't. And that doesn't even count the really "great" physicians that migrate to the US so they can make 5x the Salary that the social system caps them at.

In the category of too much information I am sure.... Ciao, FP

[Lewis the Pike]

I think I can speak from experience on this one. My business partner is Canadian (Ontario Province). He is 75 yrs. old. On of my long term best friends is Canadian (British Columbia). She is 47. I hold property and spend considerable time in BC as a vacation spot.

Canadians pay materially higher taxes at the Fed level due to their healthcare system.

The real answer lies in the provincial management of services, geography and quality of doctors.

My Partner is wealthy and his family resides in Toronto (his residency is Switzerland and in Canada you are taxed on your residency not your citizenship). It is "technically" illegal in Canada to procure healthcare services outside "the gov't system". But anyone in Ontario who can afford to does by flaunting the system, through supplemental insurance directly with either the Cleveland Clinic or the Mayo Clinic (great business for those two firms by the way). They access the social system when it suits them....and they access Cleveland or Mayo when that suits them. Their total healthcare cost is comparible to mine and they get equal care to me in the US (sans the higher taxes that my partner doesn't pay as a Swiss "resident").

British Columbia on the other hand, has great healthcare services.....exponentially better than Ontario, and in many respects better than anything in the US. My long term friend pays equivalent or lower taxes than you and I, partly because she isn't wealthy and partly because BC as a Province has a lower tax rate. But, she doesn't need to access supplemental and illegal US services, so she is probably way ahead of those of us that pay large premiums to get what she gets basically for free.

Two Canadians.....Two different stories. Provincial management of the healthcare system, combined with large deltas in Provincial tax rates can make the story change dramatically.

With all the crap that goes on in their system, there is one area Canadians have figured out "with dignity" something I doubt the US will ever figure out......and it is cultural...and until we do we are in deep doo doo. In Canada, paliative (hospice level) care is provided by the gov't. It is done well, with dignity, with compassion and there are NO complaints by the loved ones. In the US, greater than 50% of our healthcare budget goes to the last 6 months of life....in intinsive care....spending gazillions of dollars.....without hope of recovery.....yet anything less would not be considered dignified. One should ask why our Medicare system would spend over one million dollars keeping a 90 year old man alive for his last 3 months of life while the same gov't requires a low income family to file bankruptcy over less than $20 thousand in unpaid emergency bills. Especially if that 90 year old man is worth millions to start with.

If we nationalize coverage on any level without "first" solving the cost crisis (drug costs and the last 6 months), I can assure you it will exacerbate the gap between the lower and upper classes.....and there will be no middle class.

Healthcare services, like any other goods or services, is a global market now (like it or not). To the extent that services aren't up to snuff, the wealthy will search out and procure the level of services that they can afford, which means globally. That will put an additional pressure on the system and the losers will be everyone else who can't afford to get their checkbooks out to seek help on a global scale.

The people who propose this do so in the name of the poor, the uninsured and the middle class........the very people who they will unintentionally target and damage the most.

In all Western democracies who have done this, the wherewithall's have been the first to seek global alternatives, leading to irrational laws that make it illegal to seek medical help outside a failed system (meaning, stay here and get bad care and subsidize the less wealthy to get the same bad care...making care for all worse). Which is exactly what our system does today without any changes to the poor. Go figure.

Then, the regional diffences in socialized care are staggering. People in BC love the system. People in Ontario hate it. The reason is quite simple and has to do with geography. In BC, quality doctors can live in the Pacific NW, where the weather is great year around, there are mountains, oceans and probably the most beautiful place to live anywhere in Canada. Good Docs want to live there. The rest of Canada is quite frankly colder than shit, with Toronto the exception and it is no longer part of North America (ie, Chinese, Japanese, Arab, etc.)

Good healthcare means good doctors in a free market. BC enjoys a US style free market. The rest of Canada doesn't. And that doesn't even count the really "great" physicians that migrate to the US so they can make 5x the Salary that the social system caps them at.

In the category of too much information I am sure.... Ciao, FP

Great well thought out and well written response. Great 2 read florida!!

[CowboyJD]

Great well thought out and well written response. Great 2 read florida!!

+1

[Chief-Poke]

Thank you for sharing your knowledge of the medical systems. Best non-sports post to date.

[MemphisPoke]

+ 1 Flordia. Thank You.

[AnniePokely]

Great post indeed FP.

[panhandler62]

That is a good writeup but I have to point out that neither Clinton nor Obama are proposing socialized medicine. Both are proposing (slightly different) subsidy programs to assist low income peple in obtaining comercial health insurance.

For those of us with group plans; the only difference we should notice will be in our taxes.

[T. J.]

now that the texass primary is coming in a couple weeks every other ad is for Hillary or Obama. Both say they want national health care but never say how they are going to pay for?

Didn't this sink the Demos back in 94 will Hillary first brought it up?

I hear stories from Canadians that come to the US for health care because one pregant woman was told they could get to her in 13 months and a hip replacement may take 4 years.

Believe me I would love it cause I pay $300 out of my own pocket for medical insurance but if it raises my taxes by ??? $300 will look cheap:p

Instead of asking random strangers on an OSU message board about it, you could spend about two minutes on the Clinton and Obama websites to find the answers you're seeking.

Obama's plan: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf

Clinton's plan: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

Basically, both say they'll pay for it by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making over $250,000/year and through savings that their plans will realize.

[frankeaton]

Instead of asking random strangers on an OSU message board about it, you could spend about two minutes on the Clinton and Obama websites to find the answers you're seeking.

Obama's plan: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf

Clinton's plan: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

Basically, both say they'll pay for it by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making over $250,000/year and through savings that their plans will realize.

well excccccuse me t.j. :p I do not consider these people random, most of us have been exchanging ideas for years now. BTW known of the ads say how they are going to fix it and I will be da*ned if I am going to a donkey website but I did learn something on how the Canadians do it:rolleyes:

[FloridaPoke]

Instead of asking random strangers on an OSU message board about it, you could spend about two minutes on the Clinton and Obama websites to find the answers you're seeking.

Obama's plan: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf

Clinton's plan: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

Basically, both say they'll pay for it by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making over $250,000/year and through savings that their plans will realize.


They are both full of crap. Unless the healthcare system costs are brought under control, there is no way in hell that the tax increase they speak of (and yes, it is a material tax increase and not just on wealthy people) will fund the gap. What they are proposing (without saying it) is another unfunded mandate in the billions of dollars.

I would be all for it if the healthcare system costs were fixed FIRST.

How is the tax increase going to effect people with less than 250k of income? Greater than 50% of capital gains taxpayers are people with less than 75k of income. And an increase in cap gains taxes will only bottle up capital assets that will no longer be sold, materially reducing the gross federal take and exacerbating the economic problems, which will effect the little guy more than the wealthy guy. Here we go again with proposed changes to things that aren't broken in the name of the "little guy".....and the changes will hurt the "little guy" the most. Brilliant, simply brilliant.

I will continue managing my business and investments to maximize my after tax net income. Always have, always will. Think I can't figure out how to lower my tax bill regardless of what Hillary or Obama propose? Think again. Should they win and succeed in doing what they plan, with my business in Europe there are dozens of ways to achieve legal and ethical tax deferrals, so that I can defer the taxes until the future when a more sensible approach is in play again. And I can be very patient in that process. Unfortunately I am not alone, and why significant tax increases rarely, if ever, raise near as much revenue as is projected.

[T. J.]

BTW known of the ads say how they are going to fix it and I will be da*ned if I am going to a donkey website

See, this makes no sense whatsoever to me and never will. In my voting history I've voted for 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats for president in the general election and Democrats, Republicans, and even a few Libertarians in various other state and local elections. How can anybody vote based on the fact that a (D) or (R) show up after that person's name on the ballot?

[frankeaton]

See, this makes no sense whatsoever to me and never will. In my voting history I've voted for 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats for president in the general election and Democrats, Republicans, and even a few Libertarians in various other state and local elections. How can anybody vote based on the fact that a (D) or (R) show up after that person's name on the ballot?

very simple, I have not seen a (D) in my 58 years I would vote for yet and Billary & Obama are perfect examples based on FP's reply

& BTW everybody else in this thread seems to have enjoyed it. So instead of belittling every comment I have made "newbie" go on the rivals board and take on RCPorky

[panhandler62]

That doesn't seem to leave us much choice then, does it?

We have three possibilities for president for the next term. Two of them are so similar that we may as well count them as one for philosophical purposes.

Are any one of these acceptable? FP makes a credible argument against the general expectations of the fiscal policy we might expect from one source and a quick trip to the other side's own web site reveals that going in that direction means we'll have little hope of a sensible energy policy or rational foriegn relations any time soon.

Maybe reality has passed both hide-bound parties by.


Unless the healthcare system costs are brought under control, there is no way in hell that the tax increase they speak of (and yes, it is a material tax increase and not just on wealthy people) will fund the gap.

Now that is a mouthfull. There is no way *anyone's* health care plans are going to succeed when the diference between a $.05 stick and a $2.90 stick is that the latter has a medical label.

[legelegel]

Thanks for the lesson today on socialized medicine to the north, FL Poke. :)

[panhandler62]

I think y'all are just mad cause no one ever got a good peice of elephant. ;)

[Verb]

Instead of asking random strangers on an OSU message board about it, you could spend about two minutes on the Clinton and Obama websites to find the answers you're seeking.

Obama's plan: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf

Clinton's plan: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf

Basically, both say they'll pay for it by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making over $250,000/year and through savings that their plans will realize.

Thanks for providing those links, TJ. I found them quite informative.

[bleedorange]

I think y'all are just mad cause no one ever got a good peice of elephant. ;)

That joke's getting around today.