With all of the posting about socialism and over regulation, it is interesting to look at Canada. Canada was barely touched by the recession, but yet is much more regulated and would definitely fit in the definition of socialism, by more than a few on this board.

Granted there are some differences as noted this article and true their medical system is headed into some big problems that are being ignored by the politicians, but then so is Social Security and Medicare in this country.

I am up there a lot, and even though taxes are high compared to here, Canadians are spending and the housing market is in excellent shape.

http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16060113

I just find it interesting how over regulation and a "socialist" system", the killer of prosperity, can't deal them a death blow.

The amount of protected land in Canada is less then the U.S. So if we opened up more of our land to oil and mineral exploration, that should solve our economic problems?

Lack of regulation and oversight may be part of the explanation of what is going on in the Gulf.

FP, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but at the same time, I have to ask, as a country that consumes over 40% of the resources on this planet, are we too greedy? Is it greed, the willingness to ignore the consequences of our own greed that has come home to roost?

And those countries are? And of those, which ones subsequently converted to a capitalist system to prosper?

They also didn't schit-can their entire manufacturing base so the shareholders could reap a quick buck at the expense of the entire country.

But hey we can still buy the same stuff. It's just 1/3 the cost & made of toxic crap slapped together by Chinese prisoners. We just have to go to Walmart to get it.

We obviously have a different view on the interpretation of, and distinction between socialist goverments, economies, and the word bankrupt.

Ex Soviet-bloc satellite communist dictatorships is what ALL of the countries, with the exception of Russia, you named are FP. Not ONE of them is/was a true Socialist Democracy.

Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Spain and France are all examples of successful "Socialist" countries.

I put the word Socialist in quotation marks because most wingnuts... including you, have no freakin' clue what it really means.

Try turning off Glenn Beck for a while... you might actually learn something.

C'mon now Hank.

That's because the banks won't let them refinance all that debt

A system that pays people not to work eventually creates a mind set where many people choose not to work. In the years ahead the citizens of the European welfare systems will most likely wake up to this reality.

They didn't go broke because they are Socialist any more that we are going broke because we're Capitalist.

In fact, it can be successfully argued that the reason the European Union is currently in financial distress is directly attributable to unfettered, unregulated capitalism.

European Welfare System?

Is that what you think they have Stink?

For an alleged financial "expert"... you sure don't seem to know very much.

At least Hank has an excuse...

Apparently you missed the sarcasm.

By banks I was refering to the central banks that hold the debt of those gov'ts.

They're having trouble refinancing the massive debt loads and trouble selling government bonds precisely because the risk of non-payment exists. That's the reason they are being required to implement austerity measures.

Is that so?

Well,................go ahead and argue it then

European welfare system?

Did you want me list the welfare programs for each country? You didn't think I was stating that the system is run as a European program as a whole did you? It was a general statement.

So you pony up the cash for that bet on the Kentucky senate race with Hank yet?

TORONTO (Reuters) – Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada's provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.

Ontario, Canada's most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate "incentive fees" to generic drug manufacturers.

British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit -- an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.

And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.
t's likely just a start as the provinces, responsible for delivering healthcare, cope with the demands of a retiring baby-boom generation. Official figures show that senior citizens will make up 25 percent of the population by 2036.

"There's got to be some change to the status quo whether it happens in three years or 10 years," said Derek Burleton, senior economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank.

"We can't continually see health spending growing above and beyond the growth rate in the economy because, at some point, it means crowding out of all the other government services.

"At some stage we're going to hit a breaking point."

MIRROR IMAGE DEBATE

In some ways the Canadian debate is the mirror image of discussions going on in the United States.

Canada, fretting over budget strains, wants to prune its system, while the United States, worrying about an army of uninsured, aims to create a state-backed safety net.

Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded system, which covers all "medically necessary" hospital and physician care and curbs the role of private medicine. It ate up about 40 percent of provincial budgets, or some C$183 billion ($174 billion) last year.

Spending has been rising 6 percent a year under a deal that added C$41.3 billion of federal funding over 10 years.
But that deal ends in 2013, and the federal government is unlikely to be as generous in future, especially for one-off projects.

"As Ottawa looks to repair its budget balance ... one could see these one-time allocations to specific health projects might be curtailed," said Mary Webb, senior economist at Scotia Capital.

Brian Golden, a professor at University of Toronto's Rotman School of Business, said provinces are weighing new sources of funding, including "means-testing" and moving toward evidence-based and pay-for-performance models.

"Why are we paying more or the same for cataract surgery when it costs substantially less today than it did 10 years ago? There's going to be a finer look at what we're paying for and, more importantly, what we're getting for it," he said.

Other problems include trying to control independently set salaries for top hospital executives and doctors and rein in spiraling costs for new medical technologies and drugs.

Ontario says healthcare could eat up 70 percent of its budget in 12 years, if all these costs are left unchecked.

"Our objective is to preserve the quality healthcare system we have and indeed to enhance it. But there are difficult decisions ahead and we will continue to make them," Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan told Reuters.

The province has introduced legislation that ties hospital chief executive pay with the quality of patient care and says it wants to put more physicians on salary to save money.

In a report released last week, TD Bank said Ontario should consider other proposals to help cut costs, including scaling back drug coverage for affluent seniors and paying doctors according to quality and efficiency of care.
WINNERS AND LOSERS

The losers could be drug companies and pharmacies, both of which are getting increasingly nervous.

"Many of the advances in healthcare and life expectancy are due to the pharmaceutical industry so we should never demonize them," said U of T's Golden. "We need to ensure that they maintain a profitable business but our ability to make it very very profitable is constrained right now."

Scotia Capital's Webb said one cost-saving idea may be to make patients aware of how much it costs each time they visit a healthcare professional. "(The public) will use the services more wisely if they know how much it's costing," she said.

"If it's absolutely free with no information on the cost and the information of an alternative that would be have been more practical, then how can we expect the public to wisely use the service?"

But change may come slowly. Universal healthcare is central to Canada's national identity, and decisions are made as much on politics as economics.

"It's an area that Canadians don't want to see touched," said TD's Burleton. "Essentially it boils down the wishes of the population. But I think, from an economist's standpoint, we point to the fact that sometimes Canadians in the short term may not realize the cost."

($1=$1.05 Canadian)

Canada population around 36,000,000, 174 billion healthcare cost

U S population around 310,000,000, if we use the Canadian system and multiply by a factor of 8.6 the US costs would be 1 trillion 496 billion.

Yeah, but they're on the metric system, so you gotta double it and add 30.

US population is 8.6 times larger than Canada. I sure hope that economy of scale brings the costs way down.

32

The actual number is $2.3 trillion for the US. http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358

So which country spends the most per capita on heath care? Which has the ower infant mortality. And which has the higher life expectancy?

Whatcha gonna do with all of those folks who aren't quite poor enough to qualify for government assistance... yet can't afford private insurance either and need to be treated for cancer here though Hank?

I bet a lot of lower income folks would rather take their chances on a waiting list... than be told outright "You can't be treated because you don't have medical insurance"... like you Repugnicans would prefer to do.

Hankster: I can C&P all kinds of nonpartisan studies that show Canadians get better care than us, but previous posts were railing about their cost. Bottom line is thay pay considerably less than we do on a per person basis. So, the question is,if their system will bankpupt them and ours cost more per person than theirs, wouldn't it also bankrupt us to keep our system as it was?

FP... put down the Limbaugh Letter and step away from the keyboard.

Yeah, people will get emergency treatment and be billed... but cancer treatment is a very expensive, long-term deal and NO doctor or hospital is gonna treat you if you can't demonstrate an ability to pay.

AntiM... clueless as ever.

You get free health care and you continually want to deny it to others.

Centrist my ass... you're a farkin' wingnut... plain and simple.

Just to toss a few facts into the equation. Canada and the U.S. spend roughly the same percentage on administration. We are a bit higher at 38% Canada is at about 34%

I know one person well who has been forced to declare bankrupcy because of medical bills. She has worked full time since graduating high school. Has damn few luxuries and tried desperatly to pay her medical bills. Four major surgeries in six years simply overwhelmed her ability to pay.

Yeah, she is off the hook for the bills now, but not before the hospitals took all her savings. And no they woud NOT agree to a payment plan. They could see that owing $120,000 she would never be able to pay it off. She had numerous harassing phone calls both to her home and at work. Spent many nights in tears. Now her credit is ruined. Is that how the famous oath is supposed to work?

BTW I have many Canadian friends and have actually recieved care in Canada myself They are all happy with the care they recieve. (I was at a conference last month where many attendees were Canadian. I made a point to ask several how they liked thier system. They were happy, but felt it was underfunded.) I was very pleased with the care I recieved and the speed it was administered.

One good friend from Canada has some major health issues. He once told me,"If I ever get really sick while I am here, please drag my ass over the border as soon as possible.

She did not have a retirement account, as is often the case with folks at small firms. Her husband does have a small IRA and he did keep it. They live in an aprartment. They had a house and sold it, in part to free up money to pay her medical bills.The hospital indeed did take every penney in her personal saving account, money she had really scrimped to save for her son's college. It wasn't much, but it realy hurt to see it taken.

You apparently made several assumptions that were quite incorrect. Maybe you shouldn't assume so much.

Yeah, she got treatment in spite of not having insurance. (Although many of the bills came when she had inadequate insurance.) But that is most certainly not any way to run a health care system. People shouldn't have to declare bankrupcy just because they get sick.

She had been saving about $200 per month, by doing without many things a lot of us take for granted - movies, dining out etc. Health insurance before she got sick would have been more than $600 per month, after her disease became known she couldn't get insurance for any price. You know that preexisting condition thingy.

Like others you seem to assume things not in existence. My "friend" is my adult daughter. She has FAP - look it up if you care. She worked at a small CPA firm after Safeco closed her division in a cost saving move. The CPA firm had fair health insurance when she went to work there. Then, because it was too costly they dropped the insurance in favor of an employee medical savings plan. She contributed the maximum possible. That was more than wiped out by her first surgery.

I honestly can’t see what else she could do. She quit the CPA firm to take a job that paid $15,000 a year less, but had decent health insurance. By then she owed so much there was no way she could pay it. She tried to work out some sort of payment plan but the hospital wasn't interested and there were still surgeons, anesthesiologist and a bunch of other in line. She really did not want to declare bankruptcy, but saw no other option. To me that is a broken system.

I spend a fair amount of time in Canada and EVERY SINGLE Canadian over the age of 60 has said their system sucks. THEY HATE IT.

That is because for older folks they are losing their benefits. The most difficult thing for the older Canadian is their ability to come down here and stay for awhile is hampered not by Immigration, but by the cost of buying insurance to cover them out of the country. Not so bad for younger folks, but for those over 60 the cost is very expensive.

AM: I dont think I chided you. I'm pretty sure that if do you will know it.

I pointed out she was my daughter so folks would know that this is not a hypothetical and I really do know what happened.

I am not a big fan of Obama care, but now my daughter will get health care without facing bankruptcy. I wanted universal, single payer, coverage, but the big money interests killed that.

The old system was awful. The new may be no better. So what are we to do? I pointed out yesterday that our care on a per capita basis is still higher than Canada’s. Yes, I can prove that. So the question remains what is the solution.?Sure tort reform might help a bit, but no rational person can possibly think that’s all we need. What do we need to have affordable health care for our people without bankrupting us? If the only answer is rationing care, and it may well be, how do we do that. The old system did it by neglect and by accident. Is there a better way? What is it?

Any Canuck that says it sucks is because they've never had to pay out of pocket. They're suddenly being hit with co-pays and surcharges because of budget cuts. I've NEVER met ANYONE with government healthcare that would rather pay out of pocket.

...Only some wingnut asswipe teat-sucking parasites that don't want anyone else to enjoy the benefits they themselves enjoy, or professional couch-sitters enjoying the fruits of their SPOUSES military careers and now acting as internet experts on why gov't healthcare should be denied to OTHER fat lazy old women.

Aunty M,
Your present coverage most likely was not earned. More likely you and your spouse earned the promise of health care, which we must now aborb at a much higher rate than anticipated. It is now left up to the younger generations to payoff the promises of their parents. I am not saying you do not deserve what you are getting, but to think that you earned it and the next generation earn their own too is just plain wrong. Not only are they stuck paying a deliberating sum for their own insurance, they are also burdened with paying a large percentage of the generation before them. Most people have no idea what health care really costs. I remember one year when the local teachers union was complaining about their insurance costs which went up $15.00 a month. Little did they know I had the same insurance and mine went up over $200 a month.

The problem is not THEM, it's US...

The problem is not SICK UNINSURED people, it's (surprisingly) HEALTHY RICH white people

Sure the politicians are corrupt, and tort reform would help a bit, but the heavy lifting of health-care spending is because people cannot deal with their own mortality. The real money saver is -- yup -- death panels. I'm entirely serious. Obnoxious and axe-grinding name aside, we all need to get to terms with the fact that there ain't none of us getting out of here alive... Just like oil drilling (which we've driven into way more technically demanding/costly locations), we now have incredibly expensive technically demanding remedies available to us, and we want every f'n one of them exhausted on our loved ones. That's understandable, but it's the problem. Just like our insatiable appetite for cheap gasoline.

And the real drain on healthcare $$$'s? Rich white people who live long lives. Everyone blames the poor/uninsured, but it's a great sound bite that misses the majority of the pie. The reality is the sick and high-health-risk lifestyle folks (obese, smoke 2 packs a day) cost us less, because they exit the system early. It's 30 extra years, all after retirement, of prescription drugs, costly tests, and exotic treatments which are the REAL expenses.

My point is that if you blame OTHERS, you are missing the point.

We have seen the problem, and it is US.

Yep folks there ya have it.

Just go ahead and off yourself,......it's best for the planet

So the question remains,......why not just speed up the process? Which one of ya is going to be first?

Better yet,.......why don't we just start sterilizing people? The European socialists thought it was a great idea in the 30's and 40's.

Wait a minute though,.......the ponzi schemes won't work.

Oh well,....back to the drawing board

To be clear, my point is that the solution lies in us changing our own habits, expectations and behaviors...

This is much harder than just voting out the politicians, and it's 1000x harder than just TALKING about voting out the politicians...

Like other things, we're addicted to our current life, and yet it's unsustainable. Healthcare, cheap gasoline/energy, cheap-wild-caught fish, you name it.

Aunty,
I think you missed my point. It's not that the insurance was not earned. It was. The problem is that the generation making the promises cut all the corners towards funding those promises. This same generation is the same one that benefited (noice that I am not blaming them for it, just saying they benifitted) from building dams, clear cutting our forests, polluting our waters, not building adequate infrastucture and schools and otherwise raping the world. Now as this generations ages they continue to look at the next generation and complain about how lazly they are and how they need to work harder to fix the problems. From impact fees to increased social security taxes, more and more of the burden is being passed on. In the history of the world, I do not think there had ever been a generation of people who have left their children with a future that is has less potential. Of course, they still think its their lazy childrens fault. I know someone of this generation that was raised in welfare and after working several years, was injured and moved onto SSI and other government programs. As a child she lived in a house with no running water and little food. Society and its programs now provide her with better medical than I can afford, a very nice apartment with a fireplace, community pool and club house, cable tv, a old but usable car, and enough food to easily survive. It is my beleif that all of the baby boomer generation had life style increases similar that were simply afforded by living during this time period. Now that it is time to pay the piper, they are all trying to find some way to pass the burden on to their children.

You may not want to live to 100,..... and I may not either,......that's not the point. The point is that it's utterly ridiculous to assume that in order to solve the problem of increasing medical expenses that we need a central authority to pass decisions on just how long an individual has the right to live. Such things are the policies of facsist and communist dictatorships. Especially when there are so many other viable alternatives,......most of them detailed very well by FishPrince.

Your family's decision to limit yourselves to one child is a personal choice. A personal reproductive choice that should also not be infringed upon by some monolithic central authority. I would note however,.......that to continue the ponzi scheme of the younger generations paying for the benfits of the older generations there must be enough tax paying workers. To simplify the equation, continuing equal population numbers from generation to generation would require each individual to reproduce another individiual, or each couple has 2 children. That, in a nut shell, describes the problem we see in this country with the enormous number of retiring Boomers and too few tax paying workers to keep the system afloat.

Growing population numbers are hardly something to be worried about IMO. To put it in perspective consider this;

In 2010 the world population is estimated to be around 6.8 billion people. The state of Texas covers roughly 268,601 square miles which equates to 171,604,950 acres. There are 43,560 square feet in an acre which means that Texas consists of 7,475,111,622,000 (trillion) square feet. This means that not only could the entirety of the world's population fit inside the state of Texas. It means that each individual in the entire world would have their very own 1,099 square foot patch of land within the state of Texas. Roughly a small apartment.

This shoud give this post a few more pages.

The reason the Canadian economy is doing better than ours is they have strong unions that assure workers a living wage, which in turn gives workers the buying power to keep the economy strong.

Maybe its the open boarders within the commonwealth that is bringing in foreigners with lots of money.

Ahhh the ole "living wage" argument.

Well,....by that reasoning why not just increase the national minimum wage to $20/hr.

Should do wonders for the unemployment numbers

That ain't it...

They don't have near as many brain-dead, hate-mongerin', teabaggin', Beck worshippin', racist, right-wing simpletons as we do... so there's no one for the rich corporatists to manipulate into consistently votin' against their own self-interest.

+100000

[RANT]
The Baby Boomers were spoiled rotten on the spoils of WWII and their parent's work ethic gained during The Worst Hard Times of the Great Depression.

As a generation, they became a vast clot of drug-addled selfish crybabies that only care about getting loaded on the latest dope and buying the latest craze. First it was LSD & Pot, then Coke, then after they discovered church, Nikes, Volvos, & Loafers and tried to act straight, they switched to pills. Abilify, Xanax, Zoloft, Wellbutrin, Valium, Oxycontin, etc etc ad nauseum...
I swear, everytime I hear some old POS complain about "restless leg syndrome" or "anxiety" or "Seasonal Affective Disorder" I want to write mandatory euthanasia legislation and hold the Senate hostage until it's passed.
They have essentially squandered their inheritance & sold out their country for a quick buck to the point where it's akin to Paris Hilton having to spend her Golden Years as a Walmart Greeter because she ran the family business straight into the schitter to pay for her coke habit and crotch rot meds.
Serves you all right.
So there.
[/RANT]

Yep, we would be so much better off if wages were fixed at $2.00 per hour. Think of the benefits . . to some.

You mean those "some" who are currently unemployed. Perhaps those "some" who may not have the skill level to obtain a job that pays more. Fact is not everyone is worth $20/hr.

There's a reason politicians do not raise the minimum wage to $20/hr. It's because a raise in the minimum wage is directly correlated to unemployment. Businesses that cannot afford the wage increases simply get by by asking less workers to be more productive and lay off those they cannot afford to pay.

Wages offered to workers are the competitive force between businesses for skilled labor. Have you ever tried hiring a pool of workers when minimum wage is being offered? I'll tell you what,.....put an add in the paper for a min wage job and tell me how many viable candidates you come up with out 10, 20. It costs businesses to train and hire workers so high turnover is not in their best interests. If they want good workers and want to keep them, they'll pay them accordingly.

I love the generational blame game. I think all of you under 50 types should get off the computer and get productive so I can enjoy my retirement.