If health care is free in Canada, why can't this woman afford surgery?

[CanadianLoonie]

No. Certain things should not be taxed, such as the internet.

Why can't it be taxed just like another consumption item, not unlike gasoline, alcohol, and tobacco...?

Don't you want transit, schools, and hospitals?

I'm all for taxes but boo your opinion.

aka I'm all for taxes...until I have to pay them!

[Hugor Hill]

Road pricing. Works in Singapore, Chile, and central London.

The fact that after 12 years of forced government schooling is not enough to make one employable and that "higher" education is a necessity is damning enough evidence of the incompetence of the system.

By monopoly, I'm including rules and regulations, licensing and orders, since they are controlling those sectors de jure.

Nowhere is perfect...if it's first class, it's not low-cost for everyone.

But here, it's crappy enough for everyone at high cost so it boggles the mind how much everyone supports it...

So your solution to traffic congestion is tax, I mean, in your words, stealing money from people? LOL!

"Education Inflation" is not the fault of the education institution, in general, but the fault of the labour market place that increasingly demands higher and higher levels of education for jobs that do not need that level of education.

Life saving surgeries and procedures in Canada are free. Obviously the situation in this thread is an exception, but I don't know how much cheaper you want.

[CanadianLoonie]

So your solution to traffic congestion is tax, I mean, in your words, stealing money from people? LOL!

I don't view road pricing/congestion charges as a tax in the same way I don't view Translink fares, UBC tuiton, or MSP/ICBC premiums as taxes, but rather as user fees for a government monopolized service...because I can still decide not to consume that service.

I did not have that choice with income taxes prior to expatriation.

"Education Inflation" is not the fault of the education institution, in general, but the fault of the labour market place that increasingly demands higher and higher levels of education for jobs that do not need that level of education.

This is what happens when jobs are encouraged over entrepreneurship.

Life saving surgeries and procedures in Canada are free. Obviously the situation in this thread is an exception, but I don't know how much cheaper you want.

So the surgeons and nurses are practicing for free?!

[c00kies]

The fact that after 12 years of forced government schooling is not enough to make one employable and that "higher" education is a necessity is damning enough evidence of the incompetence of the system.

I'm more concerned about all the college graduates that are unemployed. The Swiss are one of the best at ensuring their graduates do not go unemployed (the rate is ~2% there).

[Brick Tamland]

I've traveled around the world enough to have seen what works and what doesn't...I suggest you should too.

Roads are not alright in this country, because there is traffic congestion. Government has a monopoly on the delivery of this service.

Education is not alright in this country, because there are graduates who are unemployed. Government has a monopoly on the delivery of this service.

Health care is not alright in this country, because there are wait lists. Government has a monopoly on the delivery of this service.

ISPs...regulated by the CRTC...aka government.

But we can agree on the US being a diaster.

Show me a perfect system for anyone one of those. I would put my Air Miles mileage up against yours any day of the year.

We have an Elite system compared to the world. Better than 95% of the world in all 3 categories you list. That is pretty f*cking good.

If people don't like it, move.

PS: I do feel sorry for her, where can I donate

[Lancaster]

More taxes?

This is like the only country in the world where more money is thrown at the healthcare problem and the waiting list increases.

[CanadianLoonie]

Show me a perfect system for anyone one of those. I would put my Air Miles mileage up against yours any day of the year.

We have an Elite system compared to the world. Better than 95% of the world in all 3 categories you list. That is pretty f*cking good.

And all the spending to build and maintain this 'elite' system was so unsustainable that from the 70s on it had to be financed with deficit spending and debt issuance that has yet to be paid off.

What will the numbers look like over the next 20-30 years as the baby-boomer cohort retires and their entitlement costs escalate?

If people don't like it, move.

To escape the CRA, hell yeah!

[Lockout Casualty]

And all the spending to build and maintain this 'elite' system was so unsustainable that from the 70s on it had to be financed with deficit spending and debt issuance that has yet to be paid off.

What will the numbers look like over the next 20-30 years as the baby-boomer cohort retires and their entitlement costs escalate?

To escape the CRA, hell yeah!

Just the fact you think deficit spending is necessarily a bad thing shows you're so far removed from understanding the things you're talking about the distance is measured in astronomical units.

[GLASSJAW]

No you're right, private industry will do a much better job, it's their mandate to provide the best quality service and products possible at reasonable prices. /s

What I want would take too long for me to explain and I doubt you'd understand half of it. After all, it's more complicated than the libertarian mantra "government bad". You just stick to that, let the rest of us worry about what could actually work.

[CanadianLoonie]

Just the fact you think deficit spending is necessarily a bad thing shows you're so far removed from understanding the things you're talking about the distance is measured in astronomical units.

There are other economic paradigms beside Keyensianism and it's almighty god, the holy GDP = C + G + I + N(X).

[CanadianLoonie]

PS: I do feel sorry for her, where can I donate

This is how it sure be done.

[ILL BILL NECRO]

Meth user.

[Lockout Casualty]

Universal drug plan could save billions: study

A universal drug plan could reduce spending on prescription medications in Canada by billions each year, a new Canadian study suggests, which contradicts long-held beliefs that such coverage would put too much strain on the public purse.

Researchers say that if Canada could bring drug prices in line with what other developed countries pay and boost rates of generic drug use, a universal drug plan could reduce total spending on prescription drugs in this country by $7.3 billion per year, a 32 per cent decrease.

Government costs under a universal drug plan would only increase by about $958 million, the researchers said.

It may seem counterintuitive that it is possible to save money when implementing a universal drug benefit plan, said Dr. Steven Morgan, professor of health policy at the University of British Columbia School of Population and Public Health.

Benefits of single-payer system

But Canada is currently not purchasing prescription drugs on the global market in the most cost-effective and efficient way, he said.

"Because we don't have a single-payer system, because we don't have a single drug plan for any given province or for the entire country, we end up fragmenting our purchasing power," Morgan told CTV News.

"So by having a single-payer system through a universal pharmacare program you create much stronger buying power on the world market, and it's through that buying power that you get better prices."

For example, under the current system, Canada pays up to five times as much for the same generic drugs as New Zealand does, Morgan noted.

"In many cases, they are from the same company," he said.

The study was published Monday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

Canada the odd one out

The researchers note that all countries with universal health insurance offer universal drug coverage, with the exception of Canada.

Currently, prescription drugs in Canada are funded by what the researchers call "a patchwork" of public and private plans that vary among the provinces and leave "many Canadians with little or no drug coverage at all."

Government drug plans, both federal and provincial, cover about 36 per cent of the total prescription drug costs in Canada, while private plans cover another 36 per cent of total costs.

Using data from the 2012-13 fiscal year, the researchers determined that governments already spend $9.7 billion on public drug plans in Canada, including coverage for First Nations populations, senior citizens and social assistance recipients.

Another $2.4 billion is spent on drug plans for public sector employees.

Therefore, governments are already paying the majority of prescription drug costs in Canada, "but they're doing it in a market that has inflated prices and doesn't always have the cost-effective product choice decisions being made," Morgan said.

Meanwhile, private sector spending on private health plans accounts for $5.7 billion, and patients without insurance pay another $4.5 billion in out-of-pocket expenses.

Three scenarios for savings

Using the 2012-13 data, the researchers created three scenarios for a universal drug plan: an expected outcome, and then best- and worst-case scenarios.

They looked at prescribing patterns and costs of different drugs, as well as the three sources of funding: public drug plans, private plans and out-of-pocket spending.

They determined that overall spending under a universal drug plan would drop to $15.1 billion, or by $7.3 billion. The best-case scenario calls for a $9.4 billion reduction, while the worst-case scenario calls for a $4.2 billion reduction.

While the study predicts a $958 million increase in cost for government, the best-case scenario model anticipates savings of $2.9 billion. The worst-case model calls for an increase of $5.4 billion.

For the private sector, the researchers found that employers and unions that offer drug benefits could save $8.2 billion if a universal drug plan were in place. The best-case scenario for these private plans is $9.6 billion in savings, while the worst-case scenario is still $6.6 billion in savings.

The researchers note that factors have not been included in their study that could result in even further savings to government. Universal drug coverage would eliminate the need to offer tax incentives to employers to provide benefits for their employees. A single-payer system would also reduce administrative costs, they said.

Among the losers under a universal drug plan would be drug companies, who would sell their products at a reduced price, and chain drug stores that make a significant amount of money off of Canada's expensive drug pricing regime, Morgan noted.

However, access to medication could also reduce demand for other health services, which would reduce spending in other areas of the health system, the researchers concluded.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/universal-drug-plan-could-save-billions-study-1.2281825

The monumental waste in our system is... monumental. Hey, let's cut all programs 10% across the board, and let's disproportionately cut the funding to front line VA staff. Also, our EI system works too fast, sometimes it only takes two weeks to get put on hold instead of being told how overloaded they are and hung up on.

[Lockout Casualty]

There are other economic paradigms beside Keyensianism and it's almighty god, the holy GDP = C + G + I + N(X).

Mmm. Yes. I recognize some of these things.

Look dude, I skipped most of my econ classes before I dropped out for good. I'm not an economist and don't pretend to be, but that deficit spending is not necessarily bad is objectively correct. If you're going into debt to fund a project that, over the long term will bring in that amount 10 fold in economic activity, you're coming out ahead.

[CanadianLoonie]

Mmm. Yes. I recognize some of these things.

Look dude, I skipped most of my econ classes before I dropped out for good. I'm not an economist and don't pretend to be, but that deficit spending is not necessarily bad is objectively correct. If you're going into debt to fund a project that, over the long term will bring in that amount 10 fold in economic activity, you're coming out ahead.

So goes Keynes' theory, but with governments being responsive to political factors and not economic ones, the potential for mis-allocations of resources and the distortion of markets that it creates cannot be completely known beforehand.

I dare say you were wiser than me for avoiding having bull$h!# stuffed in your head while I actually did and having to painfully unlearn and forget the garbage once I discovered the fraud that is Keynesian macroeconomics.

[Lockout Casualty]

So goes Keynes' theory, but with governments being responsive to political factors and not economic ones, the potential for mis-allocations of resources and the distortion of markets that it creates cannot be completely known beforehand.

I dare say you were wiser than me for avoiding having bull$h!# stuffed in your head while I actually did and having to painfully unlearn and forget the garbage once I discovered the fraud that is Keynesian macroeconomics.

I can't speak to most of what you said here, but surely you're not suggesting that corporations that have over a trillion on hand in capital dormant, that pay exorbitant bonuses to CEO's, the millions speculators make without creating a shred of value in return, that those are good allocations of resources.

Yes, our system is broken, it's inefficient, it's corrupt. One of the major causes of these issues, and many more I could list is the private sector's money. I do not understand, not one iota, how less government should fix these issues instead of exacerbate them. Then again, we disagree fundamentally as to what the purpose of government is. I think it's there to, among many other things, make sure as few people have problems with living basics like shelter and food, a minimum standard of living; I think it helps up pool our resources on enormous scale to achieve monumental tasks, like space travel, universal literacy, scientific advancements without immediate financial application; it works to split the costs of society between people in a more fair way (what's fair is open to debate). I don't think it should be limited to foreign policy and defense.

I wasn't wiser, I just realized that for my purposes schooling was unnecessary. I have my opinions on schooling, but that's a discussion for another time.

[Hunter_74]

Didn't really read the OP, but from my understanding, Canadian doctors cannot simply do some of the surgeries because a lot of those "Specialists" export their work to other countries like America where they can earn A LOT more money. The whole health industry is a scam. There are cures for a lot of things out there, but the drugs they sell earn more money than if they were to cure the ailment. If people die, then people die, but having people constantly purchase prescriptions is just money in the Gov't and Pharmaceutical Companies pockets.

[Duodenum]

Didn't really read the OP, but from my understanding, Canadian doctors cannot simply do some of the surgeries because a lot of those "Specialists" export their work to other countries like America where they can earn A LOT more money. The whole health industry is a scam. There are cures for a lot of things out there, but the drugs they sell earn more money than if they were to cure the ailment. If people die, then people die, but having people constantly purchase prescriptions is just money in the Gov't and Pharmaceutical Companies pockets.

Is it just me or is it getting kind of tinfoil-y around here.

[Hugor Hill]

.

[Hugor Hill]

This is how it sure be done.

So goes Keynes' theory, but with governments being responsive to political factors and not economic ones, the potential for mis-allocations of resources and the distortion of markets that it creates cannot be completely known beforehand.

I dare say you were wiser than me for avoiding having bull$h!# stuffed in your head while I actually did and having to painfully unlearn and forget the garbage once I discovered the fraud that is Keynesian macroeconomics.

LOL! You want people to donate instead of paying taxes for healthcare and you are worried about mis-allocation of resources. You really need to educate yourself with real economics rather then Ron Paul videos. The Ice Bucket Challenge is one of the biggest mis-allocation of resources for healthcare donation in history. ALS is a rare disease yet they raised over 100M over the summer because of a catchy marketing campaign.

The woman in this thread obvious needs our generosity but so do probably hundreds of others who can't afford to pay medical bills. You want to read all their stories and donate to all of them too? The most efficient and fair way of helping them all, and all Canadians as a matter of fact, is pay your taxes and support our healthcare system, along with all our other social programs and benefits. Sure it doesn't make you feel altruistic like you would if you contribute to her crowdsource campaign, but it works.

Our healthcare system is expensive now primarily because of demographics and economics: more old people requiring expensive medical care and relatively less middle age and young people paying into the system than before, and a stagnant economy combined with lower income tax rates. That's the truth. Go on and watch your Ron Paul youtube videos and diss Keynes all you like, nothing changes the facts.