RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 08:20 |
One thing you could say for Obama's idea: It would expose Social Security once and for all as nothing less than a grandiose income redistribution scheme. You take from those who are working, and give to those who are not. |
RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 11:20 |
Barack Obama's great idea for saving Social Security? Easy ... eliminate the earnings cap. Just go ahead and tax every penny someone makes – no matter how much that is – at the full Social Security rate. wants to impose a 12.4% tax on all income above $97,000 per year. He says that by taxing the rich we can eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall. |
Fox wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 10:28 |
My parents make a combined salary of about $110,000/year and are taxed about 38%-40%. |
RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 08:20 |
So far Hillary Clinton has dodged this bullet by not providing a solution. But Hillary did point out the fact that we are missing a lot of value money to tax! She points to Warren Buffet, reminding us of his famous liberal dogma, 'Look, tax me because I'm a patriotic American and I want to make sure our country stays strong and is fair.'" |
danickstr wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 10:46 |
1 million a year 45% 10 million a year 50% 100 million a year 60% works for me |
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 08:51 |
It's not a matter of making the wealthy pay a higher percentage, it's about making the wealthy actually pay the same percentage. |
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 08:51 |
Maybe, but it's unnecessary. The problem lies in the fact that currently, anyone making $200k/year that has a decent accountant will pay a lower percentage than someone making $50k/year. It's not a matter of making the wealthy pay a higher percentage, it's about making the wealthy actually pay the same percentage. |
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 16:51 | ||
Maybe, but it's unnecessary. The problem lies in the fact that currently, anyone making $200k/year that has a decent accountant will pay a lower percentage than someone making $50k/year. It's not a matter of making the wealthy pay a higher percentage, it's about making the wealthy actually pay the same percentage. |
JS wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 19:06 |
Two points; flat taxes primarily benefit the wealthy (which is fine with me), and; there will never be a flat tax because governments do more through fiscal legislation than raise revenues through taxes - they also implement social and economic policy. |
RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 11:20 |
In another thread we talked about, "rich" being a relative term. Apparantly, anything over $97,000 a year is rich. So now we know. |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 14:49 | ||
Several countries already have a flat tax system. Strictly speaking I guess it isn't a FLAT tax, since there is an initial allowance so the poorest pay no tax, and those with less money pay a smaller percentage of their income (since that allowance makes up a larger percentage of their income than would be the case for a rich person), it's perhaps more accurately described as a simplified flatter tax system. But from what I can see it is a system that I like. |
RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 08:20 |
In another thread we talked about, "rich" being a relative term. Apparantly, anything over $97,000 a year is rich. So now we know. by Neil Boortz |
Quote: |
SOCIAL SECURITY 'FIX' Barack Obama's great idea for saving Social Security? Easy ... eliminate the earnings cap. Just go ahead and tax every penny someone makes – no matter how much that is – at the full Social Security rate. wants to impose a 12.4% tax on all income above $97,000 per year. He says that by taxing the rich we can eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall. |
Quote: |
Robert Bixby is the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a non-partisan group advocating a balanced budget. He says that this would be a radical change from how Social Security was originally designed, because "it would end the contributory idea of Social Security, where you get back something for what you put in." |
Quote: |
SOLUTION? Simple .. the FairTax. The economic growth that would come from the expansion of business and our economy from the enactment of the FairTax would protect Social Security for generations. |
Quote: |
Tourists. When the come to this country and spend their billions of dollars on everything from ash trays to second homes, do they pay any Social Security tax? |
Quote: |
No, not a penny. But under the FairTax every dollar a tourist spends on a hotel room in New York or a ticket at Disney World would see 23% sent to the federal government. |
Quote: |
Ditto for the underground economy and the money spent by our wonderful, hard-working illegal aliens. Just how much do you think they're paying into Social Security now? |
Andy Peters wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 13:55 |
Well, there's one problem right there. Boortz is an idiot. |
bblackwood wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 09:51 | ||
Maybe, but it's unnecessary. The problem lies in the fact that currently, anyone making $200k/year that has a decent accountant will pay a lower percentage than someone making $50k/year. It's not a matter of making the wealthy pay a higher percentage, it's about making the wealthy actually pay the same percentage. |
JS wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 21:03 | ||||
Fair enough. Certain former east-bloc countries with emerging economies have adopted somewhat flat tax systems. I guess I should say that the definition of "flatness" may be up for debate. For instance: If you enjoy a capital gain should it be taxed at full pop, and is that fair considering the effects of inflation? If you enjoy a capital gain on the disposition of your principle residence when you are required to move for business purposes should that amount be taxable? If a corporation owes debt to a trust how should the payment of interest by the corp to the trust be treated? Should trusts be taxable if they disburse their income to beneficiaries? What about situations in which people earn passive income in foreign countries? What about pension plan contributions? What about pension plans that hold units in trusts to which corporations owe debt? What should the tax treatment of partnerships be? Should we tax benefits conferred on employees the same was as we tax income? What about gifts? What about lottery winnings? Things like this keep certain people awake at night. |
PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 16:01 | ||||
Exactly. I believe that a lot of the stats are skewed. Folks who are very wealthy can do their accounting in such a way as to leagally minimize reportable income and drastically lower their taxes. |
danickstr wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 20:28 |
the loopholes are there because the rich people's politicians put them there. That is the other part of the problems. it is a two-part problem that can be solved in two steps. |
rollmottle wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 16:38 | ||||||
a couple of you have said this now, but i don't get it. only wealthy people can do this? how do you figure? |
Andy Peters wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 17:42 |
Most non-wealthy people earn a straight salary, either hourly or weekly, and they are paid by check by their employer on a regular basis. All taxes are deducted by the employer, according to standard tables, from each paycheck. At the end of the year, the employer fills out W-2 forms for each employee and sends a copy off to the IRS. Because the IRS knows exactly how much you are making, and they know exactly how much your employer withheld from your paycheck for the payroll taxes, they know exactly how much tax you owe and how much you have already paid. If you own a home, they also get the property tax statement from your local gov't, and if you have a mortgage, they get the interest statement from the lienholder. In other words, for most non-wealthy people, there's very little wiggle room in terms of deductions. If you (and your spouse, if applicable, each) have only one job, then your 1040 each year is pretty straightforward and it shouldn't take more than an hour to deal with. If you have a second job or you're self-employed, it's worth hiring an accountant to make sure you don't screw up. On the other hand, wealthy people don't get paid the same way the non-wealthy do. They may draw a salary from their employer, but in many cases that salary is a minor part of the total compensation package. The total take-home may be stocks, stock options, things like company cars/homes/etc. Other income may be derived from trusts, or from the sale of real estate or other big items. It's all a lot more complicated and the IRS reporting rules are widely different for different things, and a good accountant can do clever (but legal) things to reduce the income on paper. And this is where the issue of tax rates for capital gains comes in. Capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than salary income, and no Medicare/FICA taxes are paid on that money either. So if a wealthy person's primary income is in the form of capital gains, then clearly they pay less tax than someone who gets a W-2. -a |
RPhilbeck wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 17:37 |
If those evil rich people were really that influential than they would not be paying 90% of the taxes the U.S. government takes in every year. |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 19:22 |
I do suspect that if they simplified and made taxation more consistent, and passed the savings made on the government side through simpler administration back to the taxpayers, then we could all be better off. |
ih2005 wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 21:26 |
For INDIVIDUALS: ? No more tax on income - make as much as you wish ? You receive your full paycheck - no more deductions |
Quote: |
? You pay the tax when you buy "at retail" - not "used" |
Quote: |
? Finally, citizens are knowledgeable of what their tax IS |
Quote: |
? Households have more disposable income to purchase goods |
Quote: |
? Savings is bolstered with reduction of interest rates |
Quote: |
? 7% - 13% economic growth projected in the first year of the FairTax |
Quote: |
? Jobs return to the U.S. |
Quote: |
? Foreign corporations "set up shop" in the U.S. |
Quote: |
? No more "closed door" tax deals by politicians and business |
ih2005 wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 00:26 |
While many who are invested in the current income tax system seek to demagog the well-researched FairTax plan (1), FairTax's theoretical underpinnings have been professionally reviewed (2), and its acceptance in the professional / academic community continues to grow (3). Renown economist Laurence Kotlikoff believes that failure to enact the FairTax - choosing instead to try to "flatten" what he deems to be a non-flattenable income tax system - will eventuate into an irrevocable economic meltdown (4) because of the hidden aspects of the current system that make political accountability impossible. Tom Frey, of the DiVinci Institute, foresees the coming collapse of the income tax system (5). Here is why the FairTax MUST replace the income tax. It's: • SIMPLE, easy to understand • EFFICIENT, inexpensive to comply with and doesn't cause less-than-optimal business decisions for tax minimization purposes • FAIR, loophole free and everyone pays their share • LOW TAX RATE, achieved by broad base with no exclusions • PREDICTABLE, doesn't change, so financial planning is possible • UNINTRUSIVE, doesn't intrude into our personal affairs or limit our liberty • VISIBLE, not hidden from the public in tax-inflated prices or otherwise • PRODUCTIVE, rewards, rather than penalizes, work and productivity Its benefits are as follows: For INDIVIDUALS: • No more tax on income - make as much as you wish • You receive your full paycheck - no more deductions • You pay the tax when you buy "at retail" - not "used" • No more double taxation (e.g. like on current Capital Gains) • Reduction of "pre-FairTaxed" retail prices by 20%-30% • Adding back 29.9% FairTax maintains current price levels • FairTax would constitute 23% portion of new prices • Every household receives a monthly check, or "pre-bate" • "Prebate" is "advance payback" for taxes payable on monthly consumption to poverty level • FairTax's "prebate" ensures progressivity, poverty protection • Finally, citizens are knowledgeable of what their tax IS • Elimination of "parasitic" Income Tax industry • NO MORE IRS. NO MORE FILING OF TAX RETURNS by individuals • Those possessing illicit forms of income will ALSO pay the FairTax • Households have more disposable income to purchase goods • Savings is bolstered with reduction of interest rates For BUSINESSES: • Corporate income and payroll taxes revoked under FairTax • Business compensated for collecting tax at "cash register" • No more tax-related lawyers, lobbyists on company payrolls • No more embedded (hidden) income/payroll taxes in prices • Reduced costs. Competition - not tax policy - drives prices • Off-shore "tax haven" headquarters can now return to U.S • No more "favors" from politicians at expense of taxpayers • Resources go to R&D and study of competition - not taxes • Marketplace distortions eliminated for fair competition • US exports increase their share of foreign markets For the COUNTRY: • 7% - 13% economic growth projected in the first year of the FairTax • Jobs return to the U.S. • Foreign corporations "set up shop" in the U.S. • Tax system trends are corrected to "enlarge the pie" • Larger economic "pie," means thinner tax rate "slices" • Initial 23% portion of price is pressured downward as "pie" increases • No more "closed door" tax deals by politicians and business • FairTax sets new global standard. Other countries will follow (1) http://snipurl.com/taxpanelrebutted (.pdf) (2) http://snipurl.com/taxnotes_galerebut (.pdf) (3) http://snipurl.com/econsopenletter (.pdf) (4) http://snipurl.com/meltdowninprogress (5) http://snipurl.com/incometaxcollapse It's well past time to scrap the tax code ( http://snipr.com/scrapthecode ) and pay for government the way that America's working men and women are paid - when something is sold. Also, register for the FairTax presentation at the webcast American Solutions seminar: http://americansolutions.com The FairTax will be presented this Saturday during the seminar. |
mgod wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 21:15 | ||
Facts please - some real and actually verifiable numbers. And this time I do mean actual facts, not Heritage Foundation fantasies meant to get you all cranked up at your neighbors and brothers. DS |
RPhilbeck wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 14:28 | ||||
Sorry Schwartz. This is one of those things I assumed most people were aware of. It's only one of the most discussed facts in any tax debate ever held. I tried to find something from a site I know you would trust, but moderncommunisimforthosewithlessthanahighshooleducation.com had nothing. No matter where I point you you'll find a conspiracy, but here is one link. From here you can do your own search. http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm Please pay very close attention to the article. Read it twice, or three times if you need to. |
Andy Peters wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 02:23 |
Their crystal ball is as good as mine. I can pull numbers out of my ass as well as they can. -a |
mgod wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 10:12 |
you're the perfect receiver drone for manufactured fear mongering and bullshit. Oh, and counterproductive insult of course. Reply all you want, I won't see it. But look out - the world, and your neighbors, really are out to get you. DS |
mgod wrote on Wed, 26 September 2007 19:15 | ||
Facts please - some real and actually verifiable numbers. And this time I do mean actual facts, not Heritage Foundation fantasies meant to get you all cranked up at your neighbors and brothers. |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 06:48 | ||||||
The top 50% of income hardly qualifies as the rich, it's anybody who has above average income. |
Quote: |
Also how is income calculated in these cases? Are we talking about salary? Because wealthier people generally have a far smaller percentage of their annual effective income as salary. |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 09:48 | ||||||
The top 50% of income hardly qualifies as the rich, it's anybody who has above average income. Also how is income calculated in these cases? Are we talking about salary? Because wealthier people generally have a far smaller percentage of their annual effective income as salary. |
Quote: |
Also how is income calculated in these cases? Are we talking about salary? Because wealthier people generally have a far smaller percentage of their annual effective income as salary. |
Quote: |
EXACTLY. -a |
RPhilbeck wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 10:42 | ||||
Hodgson asks:
Andy responds:
He asked a question about how income is calculated on this report, and your answer is "exactly"? |
Andy Peters wrote on Thu, 27 September 2007 14:42 | ||||||
My exclamatory "exactly!" was in support of his declaratory statement, "Because wealthy people generally have a far smaller percentage of their annual effective income as salary," rather than an answer to his two questions. I apologize for not editing his statement, but I assumed that most people understood what I was getting at. -a |
Les Ismore wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 02:23 |
You guys have nothing to complain about. My wife is from Denmark. They have the highest taxes in the world. For instance the automobile sales tax is 200%. That means that a $50k car costs you $150k. They also have some of the best social programs in the world and most Danes feel the taxes are ok. They also have a much higher income generaly than in North America, so it all seems to work out. |
mgod wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 10:00 |
It does raise the question of how good the public transport system in Denmark is. Living in a huge city in which driving is an absolute necessity because the very good public transit system was deliberately destroyed by a consortium of car, rubber and fuel manufacturers helps me see this as a broader issue. Communistically, of course. The remains of that system are all over my neighborhood. DS |
JS wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 07:31 | ||
Can you elaborate as to how the automotive industrial complex destroyed the public transit system in LA? |
mgod wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 15:00 |
It does raise the question of how good the public transport system in Denmark is. Living in a huge city in which driving is an absolute necessity because the very good public transit system was deliberately destroyed by a consortium of car, rubber and fuel manufacturers helps me see this as a broader issue. Communistically, of course. The remains of that system are all over my neighborhood. DS |
Jon Hodgson wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 03:08 |
If you really want a shock, just order a beer in Copenhagen. 45 Krona when I was there... about 9 dollars. |
Andy Peters wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 19:30 | ||
If you really want a shock, order a beer in NYC. -a |
Jay Kadis wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 12:09 | ||||
It wasn't just L.A. The SF bay area had the Key System, a light rail system that connected the east bay neighborhoods with San Francisco back in the 1940s and 50s. The system was dismantled in favor of cars, roads and gasoline interests. Thanks, GM, Firestone and Standard Oil! Decades later BART was implemented, but it is far more limited and expensive to use. Most users drive to the BART station. |
danickstr wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 00:12 |
it was done by a group of corrupt lobbyists and I am guessing they did not document their work for your or anyone's benefit. But it is a well-known urban legend that has been bantered around for decades in the two Golden state big cities. You may even be able to google info on it if you are truly skeptical. |
Andy Peters wrote |
If you really want a shock, order a beer in NYC. |
ssltech wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 14:27 | ||
I plan on shocking myself silly next weekend. Ah yes... the British "Special Car Tax". It made importing cars (after driving them a hundred feet so that they could be classed as "used") from mainland Europe a VERY viable proposition. To help counter that, many manufacturers used different vehicle and brand names for Europe Vs UK: Ascona/Cavalier, Kadett/Astra, etc. Anyhow, the British special car tax was completely larcenous. They keep telling me that it's now largely a thing of the past, but a VW (Golf) GTI in the US is still cheaper than in the UK, to a MASSIVE degree. Keith |
JS wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 06:02 |
Being truly skeptical, I did google this. Found an article from the LA Times dated March 23, 2003 that says that although auto, fuel and tire makers were investors in National City Lines (owner of the LA Yellow Car Co. - a public transit provider) any subsequent changes to the Yellow Car system were merely a final blow to a flawed and unpopular system of transit that was about to collapse. |
JS wrote on Sun, 30 September 2007 20:21 |
Ok, but I guess I was really asking for specific evidence that supports the conclusion that a consortium of auto, tire, and fuel makers played an active role in undermining public transit. |
mgod wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 14:03 |
There's a lot of opinion in those paragraphs, and quite a bit of unsupported rhetoric. What this article does is pretty typical agenda-assertion along with some reporting, just to blur the boundaries a little. ....Nice bit of manipulation. |
JS wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 11:32 |
Well, I was going to say something similar about the link you posted, but let it slide. No disrespect intended. |
Jay Kadis wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 10:41 |
http://moderntransit.org/ctc/ctc06.html |
Les Ismore wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 17:22 |
Now we are suffering endless gridlock and are paying billions and billions to build new rapid transit systems that at this point frankly still aren't as good as the ones we had 70 years ago. |
mgod wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 19:53 |
"A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." Well said - maybe something for you to think about. Until the CIA space ships abduct you of course. |
mgod wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 21:58 |
In other words, you make assertions that you won't, or as appears more likely, can't support. And then are forced to denigrate the people and the conversation you got yourself into - to distract from your lack of ability. Typical. But it is worth pointing out - you wallowed into something and started throwing around accusations of "conspiracy theorists" when you couldn't prove that you weren't yourself crazy. The more of these discussions I encounter in here, the more its become completely clear that the people who are so quick to accuse others of being conspiracy theorists are themselves the worst sort of conspiracy theorists (which only makes them seems like contemporary Republicans) - what appears to be must be, because to entertain doubt requires you to accept the possibility of a conspiracy to doubt. Hence spreading the topic from public transit to the Illuminati. Just a touch desperate, huh? OK - you're excused. Hope your dinner mates fortify your reasoning capabilities. And no matter how much you try but fail to insult by bringing in irrelevant fantasies, the fact remains that a number of us have shown GM's involvement with the destruction of pubic transit, and you still haven't done anything. But if you smell a rat remember that you're sitting by yourself. Bye. DS |
JS wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 15:34 | ||
Wow, you rode public transit 70 years ago? My, you're looking great for your age, if you don't mind me saying so. Too bad that Vancouver has such mass transit problems. I always found the highways in Vancouver sub-par compared to Toronto. Not that I drive much anymore. I take the subway or streetcar mostly. Yep, got rid of my car 6 months ago, and take public transit, including electric streetcars, all the time. Bummer that the military industrial complex killed off the public transit systems in Roswell or wherever you guys call home now. |
GreekPeet wrote on Mon, 01 October 2007 08:15 |
Look at how the federal government does at taking care people during Katrina. Pretty shitty. You don't want a profit driven health care system handed over to the government. We're talking peoples medical history, dna, ect ect all within any federal agencies grip. Freedom is much more important than government health care. Democrat voting and giving money to Dr. Paul. Its time to join the revolution. ronpaul2008.com |
groundhog day wrote on Tue, 02 October 2007 19:49 |
hey -a , If you're really wondering what out just asked ....... then give this a glance . see what YOU think . ( & the comments too of course ) http://lp.org/yourturn/archives/000090.shtml It's not a clear cut answer to your question but RP will lean that way . the LP is likely the way of the future . It's just a matter of time ( like 70 years from now ), . |
danickstr wrote on Wed, 03 October 2007 22:28 |
Allow myself to introduce......myself. I mean allow me to put the kibosh on the libertarian party. Unless you are a smart white guy that doesn't care about others, it's not for you. I would like to think there are lot of smart white guys here, but hopefully not many that don't care about others, which is sort of a tacit part of being a libertarian. It privatizes everything, which means that only the rich and privileged will get the best care. Not that this isn't the way it is now, it's just that the current system is actually trying to make things a bit more equal for the disenfranchised. |
JS wrote on Wed, 03 October 2007 22:42 | ||
Hmm, I thought libertarians valued individual liberty and freedom, and advocate minimal state interference with private rights. Live and learn I guess. |
danickstr wrote on Wed, 03 October 2007 22:28 |
It privatizes everything,..... |
danickstr wrote on Thu, 04 October 2007 07:03 |
So when there is a single mother with 4 kids that did not have any insurance or savings, how is she going to pay for her life? After libertarians eliminate welfare, job placement programs, childcare subsidies, and food stamps, since these programs costs infringed on their "freedoms" what choice will she have when the landlord evicts her and the children need dinner? |
mgod wrote on Thu, 04 October 2007 00:15 |
Any thoughts on my question about the LP Social Security policy? I understand they don't like it, but as I said earlier, the stated policy seems to include serious fantasy. Am I missing something? DS |
groundhog day wrote on Thu, 04 October 2007 08:46 |
To help facilitate this transfer of responsibility from government welfare to private charity, the federal government should offer a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charities that provide social-welfare services. That is to say, if an individual gives a dollar to charity, he should be able to reduce his tax liability by a dollar. |
Quote: |
Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap. |
mgod wrote on Thu, 04 October 2007 13:47 |
And there you have it - the essential problem. At the moment I know a woman who runs for local office as a Libertarian. She doesn't win of course. But the thing is, those seemingly heartless principles kind of fall apart when the LP party member themselves need a hand up, like say, in a medical crisis. This particular woman is in the process of divorcing her husband, a working musician, and while they had a signed mediation agreement, on the day it went into effect, she filed a suit and has been fighting him for 3 years ($$$) to force him to support her for the rest of her life at $20,000 a month. Now THAT'S freedom! DS |
JS wrote on Thu, 04 October 2007 19:32 |
I'm having difficulty with your argument. |
Quote: |
A libertarian might say "don't spend my tax dollars on public health care, I'll pay for my own insurance." Thus, the medical crisis is dealt with, through private means. When I lived in the US I paid for health insurance, and enjoyed excellent care. |
Quote: |
but I am quite confident I pay more money for less service here. |
Andy Peters wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 01:38 |
Now, what if you are a low- to medium-wage worker, whose employer does not offer an insurance plan? |
jwhynot wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 04:00 | ||
To insure my family with equivalent coverage in California to what I would get in Ontario would cost me about 22k a year. To make it at all affordable I have to carry high deductibles and pay for doctor visits up front - and usually uncompensated. Medical is my biggest expense after housing - and housing is not far ahead. How about comparing the retail price for care in both countries? The cost of equivalent services for care not covered by insurance runs about 25% in Canada. And I'm not sure how you measure the services - but I live in the US and work in Canada, having grown up there. I just don't see how you can support that statement at all. Just sayin' JW |
Andy Peters wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 01:38 |
I am glad that you received excellent care. You should consider yourself fortunate. |
danickstr wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 10:57 |
All hail the good planners. The lessons that single mothers could learn from them... There are none so blind as those who will not see. If only single mothers had budgeted for condoms they could afford to budget for healthcare. I really don't feel that their mistake should cost me good money. |
danickstr wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 07:57 |
I really don't feel that their mistake should cost me good money. |
phantom309 wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 11:21 |
I immigrated to Alberta in 2000. I had a GP doctor within 2 months of living here with NO "insider help". I have been in the Peter Lougheed Hospital once for 3 weeks and got excellent care that cost me NOTHING. Health care in Los Angeles with Blue Cross HMO cost me 5200.00 a year when I hit 40...and I didn't get to choose my doctor or testing facilities. I guess it sucks to live in Ontario. Maybe it's a provencial problem? And BTW, don't we have a real names policy on this board? |
JS wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 09:26 | ||
I too had very good care in Alberta. Yes it does suck to live in Ontario. Yes, there is a real names policy on this board. If a moderator would like to enforce that policy for everyone I should be happy to receive a PM duly informing me that I have to comply. |
phantom309 wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 08:38 |
"HAVE to comply"?? That's all I needed to hear. |
mgod wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 11:54 |
Now before anybody get aroused by all this, I'm cancer free, I still have a great kidney and we only really need 50% of one, and my cardiac stress tests indicate that I'm in better than average shape now. Physically. Financially, we're screwed, especially being a musician in a dying industry. My wife gets sick, we're outta here. If she doesn't we'll recover eventually. But its kind of all we do, deal with this stuff. So for many of us, this isn't a discussion of hypothetical political principles, its day-to-day reality. Just sayin'. DS |
danickstr wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 12:34 |
With all these under-covered sick people and the programs that tax me to support them, I won't be able to get the yacht I really want, and will have to settle for something with less bling. Maybe people like Dan wouldn't mind too much moving to a socialist country and help me free up more capital for a nicer yacht and other things that I have carefully planned for. I just didn't plan for your sickness, and I don't think I should have to feel bad about that. |
jwhynot wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 13:02 |
JS - ...it's fairly hard for me to look at my experience, that of the people I know well, the statistics you can find on the topic, read your posts and not call "bullshit". |
danickstr wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 09:34 |
Maybe people like Dan wouldn't mind too much moving to a socialist country and help me free up more capital for a nicer yacht and other things that I have carefully planned for. I just didn't plan for your sickness, and I don't think I should have to feel bad about that. |
RPhilbeck wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 05:17 | ||
THAN (SIC!) YOU MAKE A JOB CHANGE! Preferably to one of the many employers in this country who offer excellent benefits. |
danickstr wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 17:17 |
I liked the intermission...hairy college drop-outs performing moulin rouge. I am not arguing that health care organizations and even group health co-ops are going to do the right thing. And actually health care is just one way to cheat the disenfranchised by going libertarian/republican. To tell the truth, in my 20's the libertarian idea sounded great. Then I grew a conscience and it sounded selfish. Is there anything I missed? |
Les Ismore wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 13:21 |
So I went into emergency and had a CAT scan that evening and an MRI the next day. I had spinal surgery 2 weeks later done by a very good surgeon that was successful except I was left with some minor nerve damage which keeps me from sitting or driving. This is common on repeat surgeries such as mine. |
JS wrote on Fri, 05 October 2007 17:59 |
Perhaps you neglected to say that rich, white libertarians want to use the corpses of the poor and disenfranchised as fuel for their yachts. |