fmelvis
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since November 2010
Posts: 235
|
Post by fmelvis on Nov 14, 2012 9:10:02 GMT -5
Again, I will admit, we don't have the military costs that you do, which explains why we can spend more on health.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Nov 14, 2012 9:12:50 GMT -5
Again, I will admit, we don't have the military costs that you do, which explains why we can spend more on health. Good point Elvis, plus we only have 10% of the population.
|
|
|
Post by texaswoodie on Nov 14, 2012 9:32:01 GMT -5
So now I know why our insurance bill is $20,000 a year. Woodie's brother didn't pay his bill, causing hospitals to raise their rates on the rest of us. And we should NOT make everyone pay for insurance, we should pay for those people who can't pay out of our taxes. But wait. Tax revenues are the lowest they've been in the history of the US. So lets take food from children to pay for Woodie's brother's hospital bill, and NOT raise taxes for the rich to the same rates the middle class pays. I get it now. If we had government healthcare I would be paying for your healthcare Helen. So get off the "I'm paying for Woodie's brother's surgery" BS. Curt
|
|
|
Post by sheltie on Nov 14, 2012 9:33:58 GMT -5
ah, pravda is not what it used to be comrade. I used to read it in Russian, along with a number of other papers and periodicals. They were always good for a laugh.
|
|
|
Post by texaswoodie on Nov 14, 2012 9:35:14 GMT -5
You would think I would have something better to do. All of this is a moot point anyway. The American voters have spoken. Like it or not the whiners have won.
Curt
|
|
|
Post by sheltie on Nov 14, 2012 9:39:48 GMT -5
The US has the best health facilities in the world. too bad only the rich have access to it. You get to brag about it. I'm sorry, but someone has misled you. Yes, we have great facilities here. But, there are very few of them that can't be accessed by - in theory - anyone. It all depends on your doctor, your problem etc. Cancer facilities are a wonderful example. If you get cancer, you get access to the finest facilities available in your area. Believe it or not, wealth has nothing to do with the treatment you get. The difference is that the wealthy who have to PAY for their care (suckers) can go anywhere in the world they want to find an answer to their problem. AND they probably won't be released from the hospital in the barest minimum of time like the rest of us. In my case, I'd rather recuperate at home than in the hospital anyway. As a matter of fact, I'll be doing that tomorrow. Surgery in the morning, home by the afternoon. Slam bam, thank you mam!
|
|
itsandbits
freely admits to licking rocks
Member since March 2012
Posts: 825
|
Post by itsandbits on Nov 14, 2012 10:10:22 GMT -5
The US has the best health facilities in the world. too bad only the rich have access to it. You get to brag about it. I'm sorry, but someone has misled you. Yes, we have great facilities here. But, there are very few of them that can't be accessed by - in theory - anyone. Well if this is the case I don't really understand the system there; no. What is all the bellyacheing about fees if you don't have to pay them. just don't buy your medical insurance but use the system anyways; they have to let you in because you need it; right. Why doesn't everyone just do that?
|
|
itsandbits
freely admits to licking rocks
Member since March 2012
Posts: 825
|
Post by itsandbits on Nov 14, 2012 10:21:39 GMT -5
Hey Elvis I'm curious to know what Canadians pay in income tax. I would rather borrow a few thousand in a lifetime than to pay 40 or 50% of my lifetime salary for "free" healthcare.......but that's just me. Curt GDP is where the final total is calculated. yours is 16% onhealthcare Canada's is 11% even though our population that is 10% of the US pop and is spread over the land mass of the second largest country in the world which should make our system much less effecient because volume and distance allways effects cost. Distance adds to it but volume usually subtracts so we have both working against us here, lower volume, higher distance. what about all the hidden fees when you talk about taxes; for example windfall and death taxes we don't pay. If I were to win 10 kerzillion dollars in the lottery I wouldn't get 5 of it taken away in taxes; not 1 "red" cent!!! Lloyd
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,487
|
Post by Sabre52 on Nov 14, 2012 10:43:15 GMT -5
Elvis has made one very good point and Jim has talked to this point too. Wars and the military industrial complex do much to deplete funds that could be used elsewhere. I'd throw foreign aid into this equation too. We just sent another 30 million to Syria on top the 23 million last week for example. Seems we always are forced to solve other folk's problems and fight other folk's wars and the military industrial complex and folks like the UN encourage this because better we pay for this stuff, even if we have to borrow the money, than them huh? Of course, I'm kind of an isolationist anyway, but it does seem we're always the primary country to bearing the costs of other folk's problems while others sit and watch us spend all our money. No wonder we're flat broke.
Just curious Elvis, do you guys have sales tax, fuel tax , any VAT taxes like in Europe, property tax or surtaxes added to your bills or is it just provincial and national income tax you guys pay? Sometimes folks here think they pay low taxes when actually they pay much more with all the add ons. Back in Commiefornia the taxes added up to a pretty outrageous rate for which most working folks got nothing in return except crappy roads and sometimes very poor government services. In addition, in this country there are fees to use all the government stuff we also pay taxes for ie: Parks, boat ramps, various licenses etc etc. Most Americans just accept all this but if they'd really add up all this stuff, they'd poop their britches.......Mel
|
|
fmelvis
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since November 2010
Posts: 235
|
Post by fmelvis on Nov 14, 2012 11:08:30 GMT -5
Mel, it varies from province to province but in Ontario, we have a 13% goods and services tax on most stuff except most groceries. That's how the province makes most of their money. We also have a lot of taxes on smokes and booze. Sin taxes i guess. Health care costs are the biggest expense in most provinces and alot of these taxes go towards that.
|
|
fmelvis
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since November 2010
Posts: 235
|
Post by fmelvis on Nov 14, 2012 11:13:55 GMT -5
Oh, the province also gets money from the federal gov. They call it transfer payments or something like that. Comes from the federal income taxes we pay i believe.
Lots of taxes, so no, our healthcare is not free, just different way of paying for it.
|
|
itsandbits
freely admits to licking rocks
Member since March 2012
Posts: 825
|
Post by itsandbits on Nov 14, 2012 11:18:52 GMT -5
Mel from the Vancouver sun by p kershawquote april 2012: I suspect most Canadians believe that we live in a high tax country. It’s just not true. Adding up the income, sales, corporate, property and other taxes we pay to all levels of government, total taxes are 31 per cent of Canada’s economy. This is below the average (33.8 per cent) for rich, industrialized countries that are part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). If Canadians paid taxes at the OECD average, we’d owe an additional $45 billion a year. For high tax countries, we need to look to France, Finland, Austria, Norway, Belgium, Italy, Sweden and Denmark. Taxes add up to between 42 and 48 percent of their economies. In other words, their citizens pay half again as much as we do in Canada:enquote
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Nov 14, 2012 11:44:38 GMT -5
“That spade’s not a spade, it’s a shovel.” ;D Texas hospitals reported spending $10.2 billion on uncompensated care in calendar year 2005." Those costs are "borne through higher insurance premiums paid by insured patients and their employers" as well as government sources, the report said. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . maybe it’s a Texan blaming the military industrial complex. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2012 12:49:09 GMT -5
From what I know about Woody. Woody's brother more than likely had worked his whole life, paying taxes, Unlike the 30% of the 47% of the people that Mitt was talking about. You're right about that Billy. But now it seems it's OK to lay around on your butt and get everything handed to you instead of actually working for it. That's irrelevant to the point, which is that he got $100K of health care that he'll never pay for and which will be picked up by everyone else (government, other patients). Had he never worked, he would have gotten the same deal. It is the exact same thing being branded as "socialism" in Obamacare. Moreover, even if he had insurance, prior to Obamacare he could have been dropped by his insurer once they detected he was ill. Ill health was then the #1 cause of bankruptcy for middle class families, even among families with insurance, and won't be under Obamacare. I'm curious to know why someone would go to school for 8 years. Then go through years of internship, then finally become a Dr. if he's going to make the same money as a plumber who barely managed to get out of high school? I recall a time only a half century ago when people went into medicine because they found helping people to be an interesting and fulfilling career. They were paid well, but nothing on the order of today. Back then, a Buick was considered a "Doctor's car" and not Mercedes or Bentley. Except for union members, people didn't buy much health insurance - didn't need it (a major surgery in my family that required several days of hospital stay cost under $1000). You went to your family doctor, not to today's mega-clinics that push you into taking a full suite of tests nearly every visit (x-rays for a cold) just to pump up profits. Insurance became the problem because it is more profitable to continually tack on more to premiums than to actually control costs. If you think private insurance is efficient, then you are living in fantasy land (and I worked in the industry many years). As for hospitals falling apart, or doctors being reduced to penury, I suggest you give an honest look (not through the eyes of industry lobbiests) at the situations in other nations that have universal coverage. Their hospitals are clean and well-run, and their doctors are well-paid (as a bonus in some, their educations are covered, so they don't end up with student loans to pay off). Sure, they have waits for non-emergency procedures, and so do we (even for the insured). They also have lower costs - not because they cut on care, but because universal coverage (especially single-payer) gives a lot of leverage to control spending on things like over-testing, exhorbitant drug costs, etc. A large percentage of people surveyed who don't particularly care for Obamacare aren't opposed because it goes to far, but rather because it doesn't go far enough (either in controling costs or extending coverage). I'm one of those, but Obamacare was as far as could get through the battalions of insurance and drug company lobbiests.
|
|
fmelvis
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since November 2010
Posts: 235
|
Post by fmelvis on Nov 14, 2012 12:55:19 GMT -5
crazy......
Unfortunately, not everyone is eligible for HumanaOne health insurance for individuals and families; certain pre-existing conditions may cause your application to be denied.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Nov 14, 2012 13:32:38 GMT -5
You're right about that Billy. But now it seems it's OK to lay around on your butt and get everything handed to you instead of actually working for it. That's irrelevant to the point, which is that he got $100K of health care that he'll never pay for and which will be picked up by everyone else (government, other patients). Had he never worked, he would have gotten the same deal. It is the exact same thing being branded as "socialism" in Obamacare. Moreover, even if he had insurance, prior to Obamacare he could have been dropped by his insurer once they detected he was ill. Ill health was then the #1 cause of bankruptcy for middle class families, even among families with insurance, and won't be under Obamacare. I'm curious to know why someone would go to school for 8 years. Then go through years of internship, then finally become a Dr. if he's going to make the same money as a plumber who barely managed to get out of high school? I recall a time only a half century ago when people went into medicine because they found helping people to be an interesting and fulfilling career. They were paid well, but nothing on the order of today. Back then, a Buick was considered a "Doctor's car" and not Mercedes or Bentley. Except for union members, people didn't buy much health insurance - didn't need it (a major surgery in my family that required several days of hospital stay cost under $1000). You went to your family doctor, not to today's mega-clinics that push you into taking a full suite of tests nearly every visit (x-rays for a cold) just to pump up profits. Insurance became the problem because it is more profitable to continually tack on more to premiums than to actually control costs. If you think private insurance is efficient, then you are living in fantasy land (and I worked in the industry many years). As for hospitals falling apart, or doctors being reduced to penury, I suggest you give an honest look (not through the eyes of industry lobbiests) at the situations in other nations that have universal coverage. Their hospitals are clean and well-run, and their doctors are well-paid (as a bonus in some, their educations are covered, so they don't end up with student loans to pay off). Sure, they have waits for non-emergency procedures, and so do we (even for the insured). They also have lower costs - not because they cut on care, but because universal coverage (especially single-payer) gives a lot of leverage to control spending on things like over-testing, exhorbitant drug costs, etc. A large percentage of people surveyed who don't particularly care for Obamacare aren't opposed because it goes to far, but rather because it doesn't go far enough (either in controling costs or extending coverage). I'm one of those, but Obamacare was as far as could get through the battalions of insurance and drug company lobbiests. Brilliantly stated. Hope people comprehend what you are saying.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Nov 14, 2012 13:51:47 GMT -5
Oh, the province also gets money from the federal gov. They call it transfer payments or something like that. Comes from the federal income taxes we pay i believe. Lots of taxes, so no, our healthcare is not free, just different way of paying for it. There called equalization payments. Canada has a formula in which it depends on how much money the province takes in from natural resources and manufacturing. The "well to do" provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. Give a form of welfare payments to the rest. Hmmm! Sounds at lot like one of Barry,s speeches. The provinces with Leftwing Liberal governments seem to never leave the have not status. Quebec and Manitoba are the worst offenders. So basically 3 or 4 provinces help fund there liberal policies. In Saskatchewan we pay a 5% provincial sales tax and a 5% Goods and service tax (federal) Our health care is free, but most pay for there prescriptions.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Nov 14, 2012 14:29:16 GMT -5
In Canada, the federal government makes payments to less wealthy Canadian provinces to equalize the provinces' "fiscal capacity"—their ability to generate tax revenues. In 2009-2010, six provinces received $14.2 billion in equalization payments from the federal government.[1] Until the 2009-2010 fiscal year, Ontario was the only province to have never received equalization payments; in 2009-2010 Ontario will receive $347 million,[2] while Newfoundland, which has received payments since the program's creation, is now a so-called "have" province, and is now a net contributor that does not receive Equalization payments. Canada's territories are not included in the equalization program - the federal government addresses territorial fiscal needs through the Territorial Formula Financing (TFF) program. Equalization payments are based on a formula that calculates the difference between the per capita revenue yield that a particular province would obtain using average tax rates and the national average per capita revenue yield at average tax rates. The current formula considers five major revenue sources (see below). The objective of the program is to ensure that all provinces have access to per capita revenues equal to the potential average of all ten provinces. The formula is based solely on revenues and does not consider the cost of providing services or the expenditure need of the provinces. Equalization payments do not, technically, involve wealthy provinces making payments to poor provinces, although in practice this is what happens, via the federal treasury. As an example, a wealthy citizen in New Brunswick, a so-called "have not" province, pays more into equalization than a poorer citizen in Alberta, a so-called "have" province. However, because of Alberta's greater population and wealth, the citizens of Alberta as a whole are net contributors to Equalization, while the citizens of New Brunswick are net receivers of Equalization payments. Equalization payments are one example of what are often collectively referred to in Canada as "transfer payments", a term used in other jurisdictions to refer to cash payments to individuals (see Canadian Transfer Payments). In fact, there are four types of federal transfers to provinces and territories: the Canada Health Transfer (CHT), the Canada Social Transfer (CST), Equalization, and Territorial Formula Financing (TFF). Moreover, the federal government has entered into particular arrangements with certain provinces – Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular – under which offset payments are made to the governments of these provinces for the development of offshore oil and gas reserves.[3] The money the provinces receive through equalization can be spent in any way the provincial government desires. The payments help guarantee "reasonably comparable levels" of health care, education, and welfare in all the provinces. The definition of "reasonably comparable levels", however, has been the subject of considerable debate. In 2009-2010, the total amount of the program was roughly 14.2 billion Canadian dollars. Recent negotiations surrounding the renewal of the program have created considerable tension among provinces. Due to the zero-sum nature of the formula, increases in entitlements for some provinces necessarily lead to decreases for others.
|
|
unclestu
Cave Dweller
WINNER OF THE FIRST RTH KILLER CAB CONTEST UNCLESTU'S AGUA NUEVA AGATE
Member since April 2011
Posts: 2,298
|
Post by unclestu on Nov 14, 2012 14:50:39 GMT -5
I posted this question last night but I see no one responded to it. I will ask it againas I would reaally like to get some opinions. "Why is one person person paying $2,940,000 (14% or $21,000,000) not enough?
No, it's not enough. That's like saying if I pay $.06 sales tax because I bought 1 pack of gum, I should pay $.02 sales tax because I bought 10 packs of gum. Does sales tax work that way? Why not?
When you tell a clerk at the store that you are buying 10 packs of gum and therefore should pay less state sales tax, what's that clerk going to say to you?
And why should Federal tax be different than State tax?
I don't know the guy paying 2,940,000 is contributing far more than the person who might be earning 35,000 and maybe paying 5,000 in taxes. Also the person making 35,000 and paying 5,000 is in most cases is utilizing more services provided by the government than the person who might make 21,000,000 and is paying 2,940,000 in taxes. Going to your example of chewing gum or better yet lets make it an item which is more meaningful. Say gasoline to go to work. Should a person with a high income be forced to pay a price for gasoline or taxed for gasoline based upon his income?
If you were a fund raiser for a charity and you went to call on a person making 21,000,000 for a donation and he donated 3,000,000 to your charity would you turn around and say that he was not giving enough because he was giving the same percentage of his income as a person making far less money? I don't think so. What this country shouldd have is a flat tax and a system in place that is designed to get people off the teet of the government and move from an existsnce of dependence to a productive life of independence. Stu"
|
|
fmelvis
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since November 2010
Posts: 235
|
Post by fmelvis on Nov 14, 2012 15:08:05 GMT -5
I think your right about the flat tax. Same rate for everybody's income tax. WITH NO LOOP HOLES.
Income is income. None of this dividend income hogwash.
|
|