RCP/The Health Care Mess In Massachusetts.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Another great myth, people do not pay taxes which is not true they may not make enough to pay income tax but they pay other taxes and one things I have always stat.ed is that behaviours and foods that will increase ones need for health care should have a tax on them to cover their increase risk.

There is already talk of lack of health care and escalating costs being a national security issue

One thing is certain. If you serve in the military, the tax question does not matter.

As for lack of health care and escalating costs being a national security issue, is it a national security issue for Canada? As I understand it, your health care stops when the funds for a given fiscal year runs out. Does this create a National Security issue for Canada?

[Popeman38]

Another great myth, people do not pay taxes which is not true they may not make enough to pay income tax but they pay other taxes and one things I have always stat.ed is that behaviours and foods that will increase ones need for health care should have a tax on them to cover their increase risk.

There is already talk of lack of health care and escalating costs being a national security issue

DRSmith, there are a vast number of Americans that pay 0 federal income tax (47% of all households in 2009). All they pay is FICA/SS. That means that this national healthcare (you suggest single payer) will be funded by 53% of taxable households. We are already running a deficit on the revenue we have. Now, how do you propose we increase spending to cover all Americans while only increasing revenue coming in from 53% of the taxable households? You would bankrupt people. The pie is only so big. The pie is already divided up and accounted for. And you want to drop what will be the single most expensive line item outside of DOD on the table and make room for it? HOW?

[DRSmith]

DRSmith, there are a vast number of Americans that pay 0 federal income tax (47% of all households in 2009). All they pay is FICA/SS. That means that this national healthcare (you suggest single payer) will be funded by 53% of taxable households. We are already running a deficit on the revenue we have. Now, how do you propose we increase spending to cover all Americans while only increasing revenue coming in from 53% of the taxable households? You would bankrupt people. The pie is only so big. The pie is already divided up and accounted for. And you want to drop what will be the single most expensive line item outside of DOD on the table and make room for it? HOW?

No actually you could fud it through payroll and through vat taxes on other products pluse you can put in a healthcare tax if you wanted.

See you got to see solutions oh and by bringing in single payer guess what you now have now bleneded in medicare and medicaid into one program

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 04:44 PM ----------

One thing is certain. If you serve in the military, the tax question does not matter.

As for lack of health care and escalating costs being a national security issue, is it a national security issue for Canada? As I understand it, your health care stops when the funds for a given fiscal year runs out. Does this create a National Security issue for Canada?

No many in the US has said it is an issue

We do not have problems with money running out

[ABQCOWBOY]

No actually you could fud it through payroll and through vat taxes on other products pluse you can put in a healthcare tax if you wanted.

See you got to see solutions oh and by bringing in single payer guess what you now have now bleneded in medicare and medicaid into one program

We are already on the hook for huge increases in 2012 through 2016. We have major debt issues that we must address. I don't see how we can create more taxation that does not go towards paying down debt. We have already gutted these programs so that funds can go towards the President's Health Care plan in 2014. There is no more revenue to take from those programs. We hear almost every day about how the GOP want's to rob those programs. That is simply not a feasible solution. We have to be serious about our situation. We can not afford to try and figure out ways to bump debt. We are being told that it has to be decreased, not increased. I don't think that is something we could do.

[Popeman38]

No many in the US has said it is an issue

We do not have problems with money running out

Really?

With six out of 10 provinces on pace to spend half of all available revenues on health care within six years, the current method of funding Canada’s health care system is not sustainable, says a new report from the Fraser Institute, Canada’s leading public policy think-tank.

The report, "Canada’s Medicare Bubble: Is Government Health Spending Sustainable without User-Based Funding?", found that government health spending in Canada’s two largest provinces—Ontario and Quebec—currently consumes more than half of total provincial revenues, and Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, and New Brunswick will face the same funding crunch by 2017. Manitoba and Prince Edward Island are on track to spend half of all revenues on health care by 2028.

The report recommends temporarily suspending enforcement of the provisions of the Canada Health Act that prohibit consumer cost-sharing and private insurance, to allow provinces to experiment with new ways of financing medical goods and services, while still maintaining universal access and portability.

“The Canada Health Act forbids many of the successful policies that are commonly used in other developed countries that also have universal access health care systems,” said Mark Rovere, Fraser Institute associate director of health policy research and co-author of the study.

“We’ve been tracking provincial health spending since 2004 and it’s readily apparent that unless provincial governments gain the freedom to innovate and devise a better way to finance health care, Canadians will face higher taxes, expanded rationing of medical goods and services, or extensive cutbacks in other government programs.”

The report notes that total provincial health spending has grown at an average annual rate of 7.5 per cent over the past 10 years, compared to only 5.7 per cent for total available provincial revenue (including federal transfers), and only 5.2 per cent for GDP. Long-term trends are similar: government health spending has grown faster, on average, than GDP since 1975.

Meanwhile, Canadians endured an average total wait of 18.2 weeks in 2010 between an appointment with a family doctor and receiving treatment from a specialist, up from 9.3 weeks in 1993. Provincial drug plans also increasingly refuse to pay for most of the drugs that are certified by Health Canada as safe and effective. Averaged across all provincial public drug programs, only 20.3 per cent of all drugs certified by Health Canada in 2008 had actually been approved for reimbursement by the provinces as of December 31, 2009.

“The provinces are bankrupting themselves to pay for a health care system that is fundamentally broken and doesn’t offer Canadians timely access to medical services. Health spending has outpaced revenues despite government efforts to control costs through rationing,” Rovere said.

In order to maintain universal access to health care without raising taxes or further rationing medical services, the report makes five additional recommendations:

- Require patients to make percentage-based, co-insurance payments for all publicly funded medical goods and services they use;

- Legalize private payment and private insurance options for all types of medical goods and services, including hospitals and physician services, as is currently allowed for prescription drugs;

- Allow health providers to receive reimbursement for their services from any insurer or payer, whether government or private;

- Shift the burden of medical price inflation onto the private sector by allowing providers to charge patients fees in addition to the government health insurance reimbursement level; and

- Create economic incentives for cost and quality improvements by permitting both for-profit and non-profit health providers to compete for the delivery of publicly insured health services.

“Our health care system can’t be made sustainable through more redistributive financing. The federal government already transfers billions in funding to the provinces, which has just encouraged provinces to avoid making necessary reforms. And higher taxes will damage the economy,” said Brett J. Skinner, study co-author and Fraser Institute president and director of health policy research.

“This is a genuine financial crisis. Eventually, governments will have to shift a small percentage of public health care costs directly onto users, and allow people the choice of buying private insurance if they wish—something that is already done in other countries with universal-access health care systems. Such changes would make public health spending more sustainable, and provide additional resources to improve access and choice for Canadian patients without bankrupting the provinces or harming the economy.”

European single-payer systems are looking into offering some private insurance to offset government costs (some have already started). If these systems are so perfect, why are single-payer nations desperately seeking ways to shed costs by allowing [gasp] the American system of private health insurance?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Really?

European single-payer systems are looking into offering some private insurance to offset government costs. If these systems are so perfect, why are single-payer nations desperately seeking ways to shed costs by allowing [gasp] the American system of private health insurance?

Brock Lesnar doesn't appear to be a fan.

[DRSmith]

They are already working on new funding formulas

And with provinces who allowed private care run facilities having problems with them bailing on patients

Of course you may want to not use as source material from those who have made it clear they will push for privitization of all public services

No one in Canada but a few on the right advocate for anything other than single payer

[ABQCOWBOY]

One of the key differences between Canada and America, obviously, is the actual number of people who would need to be covered. Another is the percentage of people who are contributing to the Tax Pool. I believe Canada only has something like 30% who do not contribute. In the U.S., that number is considerably higher.

[Popeman38]

They are already working on new funding formulas

And with provinces who allowed private care run facilities having problems with them bailing on patients

Of course you may want to not use as source material from those who have made it clear they will push for privatization of all public services

Bolded: why is that always the response to anything critical of alt energy/healthcare reform? Source is obviously biased if they don't agree with us.

The Frasier Institute:

Who We Are

Demonstrating the benefits of sound economics

We are an independent Canadian public policy research and educational organization with active research ties with similar independent organizations in more than 75 countries around the world.

Our Philosophy

Throughout our exploration of issues that affect citizens, we attempt to discuss complex economic subjects in a manner that can be easily understood by everyone.

Ideas that Improve People's Quality of Life

In raising the level of understanding about the effects of economics and public policy, the Institute's ideas contribute directly to improving the quality of life for people of all ages and income levels. People should have choices as opposed to government telling them what to do.

What is Public Policy?

Public policy includes debate, recommendations, laws, and regulations relating to any course of action that may be undertaken by a level of government, and that affects the public.

Analyzing the Consequences

Our researchers analyze the likely consequences of public policies and ask: based on the results of research, what should the public policy be? Is there a more effective solution to the issues and problems people face other than looking to government as the answer?

Support Greater Choice and Personal Responsibility

The Fraser Institute is a registered non-profit organization. We depend entirely on donations from people who understand the importance of impartial research and who support greater choice, less government intervention, and more personal responsibility.

No one in Canada but a few on the right advocate for anything other than single payer

No one in Canada but a few on the right? Seriously? Maybe you should stop paying attention to American politics and start paying attention to Canada's.....

____

EDIT:

They are already working on new funding formulas

Translation: taxpayer funding from your suggested remedies for America don't work as you suggest, and will have to be augmented by private funding of public healthcare. In other words, you pay for 75% of your government managed and provided healthcare with your taxes (you know, those trivial fees you pay so your government can pay for ****) and pay the other 25% out of pocket. Another way to say it, the government taxes you to fund a service, but to use that service you have to pay the biggest fee in the history of government to use that service. I D I O T I C

[DRSmith]

You mean the 90 percent of Canadians who support the universal health care system is a mirage?

No what happens is the majoirty of money is sent to the feds and then they break it up see I know you know very little about the system here and how the funding works as it can change and they do not have all the taxes here for healthcare that I have suggested

The funding formula is how much comes from the feds and how much each province has to raise

Oh as for the Fraser Institute

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/fraserinstitute/

Hmm privitization, lower taxes attacking science and school vouchers?

[mardi gras skin]

You mean the 90 percent of Canadians who support the universal health care system is a mirage?

I don't know what you Canadians like but I've got friends who moved up there and they're pulling their hair out about how stinking long it takes to see the doctor. These are liberal northeastern democrat friends, too.

[DRSmith]

I don't know what you Canadians like. I've got friends who moved up there and they're pulling their hair out about how stinking long it takes to see the doctor. These are liberal northeastern democrat friends, too.

I have a doctor who happens to be balanced who keeps appts open for emergencies and carries enought patients to care for his financial needs but not to many that you do not get into see him for days on end

[mardi gras skin]

They live in Montreal. If you have any secret handshake thing worked out that they need to know about, I'm sure they'd appreciate you passing it along. They love Montreal but they're totally pissed with the health care system.

[PeterMP]

One of the key differences between Canada and America, obviously, is the actual number of people who would need to be covered. Another is the percentage of people who are contributing to the Tax Pool. I believe Canada only has something like 30% who do not contribute. In the U.S., that number is considerably higher.

Doesn't seem to be that large of a difference.

"As another tax deadline approaches at midnight Saturday, data from the Canada Revenue Agency shows 33.4% of Canadian workers were not taxed for 2009.

QMI Agency asked the CRA for the data after a U.S. study found 69 million Americans, or 45% of households, will end up owing Washington no income tax this year. "

"In the U.S., the rich can fall into the non-payer group if they get their income from tax-exempt bonds or overseas sources for which they get foreign tax credits, according to Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

Quinlan said Canada doesn't have this problem. Bonds are not tax-exempt here and foreign tax credits almost never amount to more than Canadian taxes. Dividend payouts from U.S. equities are taxed at a rate of 46% in Canada, compared to 15% in the U.S., for example. "

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2011/04/30/18087141.html

Especially considering they are getting free healthcare.

[DRSmith]

Doesn't seem to be that large of a difference.

"As another tax deadline approaches at midnight Saturday, data from the Canada Revenue Agency shows 33.4% of Canadian workers were not taxed for 2009.

QMI Agency asked the CRA for the data after a U.S. study found 69 million Americans, or 45% of households, will end up owing Washington no income tax this year. "

"In the U.S., the rich can fall into the non-payer group if they get their income from tax-exempt bonds or overseas sources for which they get foreign tax credits, according to Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

Quinlan said Canada doesn't have this problem. Bonds are not tax-exempt here and foreign tax credits almost never amount to more than Canadian taxes. Dividend payouts from U.S. equities are taxed at a rate of 46% in Canada, compared to 15% in the U.S., for example. "

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2011/04/30/18087141.html

Especially considering they are getting free healthcare.

And we have VAT taxes also

[ABQCOWBOY]

Here is something interesting that I found in an article. I don't know if this is factual or if this organization (NCPA) has any political agenda or not. Only that in this article, they make the following claim.

Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."[9]

Here is the link to the entire article.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649

---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 04:05 PM ----------

Doesn't seem to be that large of a difference.

"As another tax deadline approaches at midnight Saturday, data from the Canada Revenue Agency shows 33.4% of Canadian workers were not taxed for 2009.

QMI Agency asked the CRA for the data after a U.S. study found 69 million Americans, or 45% of households, will end up owing Washington no income tax this year. "

"In the U.S., the rich can fall into the non-payer group if they get their income from tax-exempt bonds or overseas sources for which they get foreign tax credits, according to Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

Quinlan said Canada doesn't have this problem. Bonds are not tax-exempt here and foreign tax credits almost never amount to more than Canadian taxes. Dividend payouts from U.S. equities are taxed at a rate of 46% in Canada, compared to 15% in the U.S., for example. "

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2011/04/30/18087141.html

Especially considering they are getting free healthcare.

I think that 13% is pretty significant. However, the central point is that when Canada runs out of money, they stop providing medical treatment according to what I am reading. Do you ever see that flying in the U.S.?

[DRSmith]

Again as someone who lives here I have never came across any situations or news stories where they say no more health care we do not have money

[ABQCOWBOY]

Again as someone who lives here I have never came across any situations or news stories where they say no more health care we do not have money

I'm not saying you are lying Smith. However, I am seeing articles that say that this is what happens. It could be different, depending on what province you live but there are definitely articles that say this is how it works.

[DRSmith]

I'm not saying you are lying Smith. However, I am seeing articles that say that this is what happens. It could be different, depending on what province you live but there are definitely articles that say this is how it works.

There are laws which would prevent this from happening

[ABQCOWBOY]

There are laws which would prevent this from happening

What are they and do they apply to everything or do they just cover emergencies? How does that work?

[DRSmith]

What are they and do they apply to everything or do they just cover emergencies? How does that work?

The Canada Health Act (CHA) [2] is a piece of Canadian federal legislation, adopted in 1984, which specifies the conditions and criteria with which the provincial and territorial health insurance programs must conform in order to receive federal transfer payments under the Canada Health Transfer [3]. These criteria require universal coverage (for all "insured persons") for all "medically necessary" hospital and physician services, without co-payments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Health_Act

[ABQCOWBOY]

The Canada Health Act (CHA) [2] is a piece of Canadian federal legislation, adopted in 1984, which specifies the conditions and criteria with which the provincial and territorial health insurance programs must conform in order to receive federal transfer payments under the Canada Health Transfer [3]. These criteria require universal coverage (for all "insured persons") for all "medically necessary" hospital and physician services, without co-payments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Health_Act

Forgive me, I saw nothing that spoke to how Canada handles treatment once each province runs out of working capitol. There is no question that you will get treatment but it does not say when you will get treatment. There was something that eluded to "A reasonable time" but it specifically said that there was not outline for what reasonable was. Am I missing something here?

[PeterMP]

I think that 13% is pretty significant. However, the central point is that when Canada runs out of money, they stop providing medical treatment according to what I am reading. Do you ever see that flying in the U.S.?

If it were really 13%, I'd tend to agree, but since it isn't.

No, I have a feeling the old people will scream and yell for their medicare even after the US goverment runs out of money.

Did I miss something? Is Canada on the verge of running out of money?

They seem way down on the list of countries with debt as a % of GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_public_debt

And I know they have some of the slowest raising health care costs in the world.

[DRSmith]

Forgive me, I saw nothing that spoke to how Canada handles treatment once each province runs out of working capitol. There is no question that you will get treatment but it does not say when you will get treatment. There was something that eluded to "A reasonable time" but it specifically said that there was not outline for what reasonable was. Am I missing something here?

DO you have an example of any province running out of money and not covering patient costs?

[Baculus]

Forgive me, I saw nothing that spoke to how Canada handles treatment once each province runs out of working capitol. There is no question that you will get treatment but it does not say when you will get treatment. There was something that eluded to "A reasonable time" but it specifically said that there was not outline for what reasonable was. Am I missing something here?

Yes -- your research on the Canadian health care system. :-)

America is good at high-end treatment, if you can afford it. But, by the numbers and in wellness, the Canadian system provides a more extensive, more comprehensive health care provisioning for its citizens compared to the U.S., at a lower cost.

Health care is a public issue, which is why many people support universal health care (and which is the government has worked on major health threats). You don't want a sick population.

BTW, as a note, the government has been long involved in health care, dating back to the 19th century, when health care was mandated for merchant marines:

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/