So, tell us the condition and the place and time of this diagnosis. If what you say is true, then this should come out in our rapidly approaching election.
I've got angry enough, that it might be worth doing some digging. I suspected that the formal medical records are not available to me for privacy reasons. I remember trying to get receipts for medical services I purchased at a Whitby, ON ER, for my wife (outpatient I/V antibiotics for a tooth abcess) and was denied, with "privacy reasons" cited. But, as next of kin, it might be worth trying, at least from the private hernia-repair hospital he visited.
Please, provide the details. I can find out more information as I can access them up here.
If what you say is true it is an outrage that needs to be dealt with. I would hardly call it common in our system, though.
Of course, if you choose not to provide the details of the condition and what the operations was, then this will have to stop right here. Without those details, I have no way of knowing if what you say is even true. Many of your posts seem to indicate a pathological hatred and I cannot be sure your anre not delusional on this account unless your tell us more.
Fair enough. You've irked me enough to strive to get more substantial proof than the heresay of my father's testimony to me. I'll start by striving to get his medical records from the private centers he visited -- they did not appear to be guilty of any malpractice as they specialized in herna repair.
Oh, ok I've got it now. The surgery was covered but there was no doctor available to do the surgery or your dad died waiting for the operation to come up on the schedule of one of the doctors that did do it (this could have been months or minutes).
No, the position was that it was not possible as there were no doctors in Canada skilled in performing the surgery. There was no list to wait on.
So, if a doctor was availble, our socialized healthcare system would have paid.
Plenty of doctors were available in the world. At a cost far less than what he had paid over the years to support a fraudulent healthcare system. If he was not forced to participate in that system he could have purchased adequate insurance on the open market. Hell, he could have self-insured and had enough funds in his retirement to pay for it.
Canada promises health care, and does not deliver. Furthermore, it forces participation in a broken system. You will see how it deteriorates further.
And even if you could have purchased that operation in a private clinic in Canada, it wouldn't have mattered because there was still no doctors to perform it. Yet it's the fault of the public health insurance system?
Yes. What make you think that Canada is the world? There are plenty of places and thousands of competent surgeons to perform it in the U.S. If I examine the proprortion of taxes paid to provide for health care, much better coverage could have been obtained on the open market in the U.S. He did not recieve value for his money. Hell, never mind insurance. He could have self-insured with the taxes he paid to cover the cost of the surgery.
So why isn't there a doctor to do it? Oh, because the various Conservative provincial governments and the Liberals in the Federal government have slashed funding for our healthcare system for more than 15 years.
No. I can speculate why. Doctors in Canada are paid on a "per procedure" basis, with an annual cap on the number of procedures permitted. There is no distinction between the skilled and the mediocre, so the skilled leave for the U.S. where they can earn more money. If they were permitted to tend to those who can afford private health care in Canada, they would stay, and shorten the lines in the public system. Every other socialised country has accepted, perhaps grudgingly, a two-tier health care system.
Do you think if the likes of Mike Harris or Ralph Klein decided not to piligage healthcare to give the wealthiest members of their provinces tax cuts throughout the '90s, that maybe there would be enough money to employ those specialists?
If they were allowed to practice in a free market, there would be plenty of money. The socialists drove them off.
So you are trying to tell me that the evil doctors conspired not to perform the surgery by putting your father on a waiting list four years long? There never was a list that long for any "routine" procedure in the whole country. The most notorious, non-critical, elective hip replacements and the like take 3 months.
No. He was never put on any list. The surgery was denied because it was not done in Canada. The position was that it did not exist, despute being available in the U.S. as relatively common, if risky. And, currently, the wait is 80 weeks for a tonsillectomy in Canada. My son was examined on a Thursday, and had the surgery the next Tuesday as an outpatient. Last I heard about hip replacements, the wait was seven years, though that may have changed, and it varies from province to province. My father in law is on an 18 month waiting list for a hammer toe in New Brunswick.
Right. So your father had other surgeries earlier and took advantage of the system throughout his life. There goes the "argument" of yours about not getting back what he paid in. In fact this makes you nothing but the troll some others on this thread already pointed out based on your past history of fabrications and mis-statements
At the time, there was no nationalized health care. He had private health insurance through his employer, RCA Victor. As I recall, the bill came to around CA$25,000, a significant sum at the time (1961), completely covered by his private insurance.
The AAA was not caused as a result of the hernia repair. It was discovered during the hernia repair. He survived the hernia repair just fine.
It was speculated that the AAA began some 30 years earlier when he underwent surgery to remove kidney stones: the tugging on the renal artery weakening the wall of the aorta.
It was detected during a hernia repair surgery at a private clinic. (Apparantly, hernia repair is not a covered procedurre).
It burst four years later.
He was refused treatment because "there is no doctor in Canada that can do this" and "it is too expensive to send you to the U.S."
I suppose if he tried to "pull strings" he might have gotten treatment. But, he was not one to challenge authority.
He certainly didn't have the financial resources to sue.
Apparently, his situation is becoming increasingly common. The fact remains that if he could purchase health insurance on a free market, there would be no issue of getting treatment.
Furthermore, while the Canadian doctors only concern was that the procedure would have been a waste of effort...
What are you smoking to make you belive that Canadians are somehow less corruptable than Americans?
There is plenty of evidence that shows persons of noted political or social stature "buy" thier way up the list for surgery in a manner that bears not relationship with the urgency of their need.
I will grant, however, that Canadians sure are gullible when it comes to how well their government "takes care of them".
But there will be always some poeple complaining that the Canadian doctors refused to authorize the One And Only Patented Emu Dung and Hollistic-Spiritual-Hypnotic Therapy With Fire Ants for someone in the final, inoperable stages of cancer for a mere $100k in a Church "clinic" somewhere in Brazil
And that compares to a covered, routine AAA-repair surgery with a 70% chance of success at a cost of 1/20th of the premiums paid by the patient, how?
Ah, yes, abdominal aortic aneurysms are not repaired in that primitive medical backwater known as Canada. The government says they cover that surgery, but, surprisingly, they can not provide the surgeons to perform it.
Do you realize that there are some 9000 relatively routine medical procedures not available in Canada for lack of skill? And these aren't the medical equivalent of rocket science, either.
Of course considering the average wage in the US is not that high, I think like $45k (you're only making 2.2x the average, so your experience is not really typical is it?)
I live in the most expensive part of the U.S. A $100k income is considered "middle class" here, and typical homes go for US $400k.
So, while my situation might be atypical, it is still very much "middle class" for where we live.
I think we're still seeing the shakeout from the 'net bubble bust. Eventually it will put enough pressure on non-cost-of-sales health care expenses to result in an adjustment there: administrative overhead and tort reform are areas for attack to bring costs down.
FWIW, I've been quite poor, struggling to make ends meet, so most of my income is going to save for the inevitable rainy day, when it comes.
Sooner or later, the collective noise will be too loud to ignore.
I wonder how ugly it will turn when people realize just how badly they've been robbed. This is the stuff of which bloody revolutions are made. I do not think Canadans' general compacency will stave off such a revolution. I think it will merely delay it, and when it comes, it will be all the more bloddy for the delay.
... and it was the opinion of the doctors that it would have been a waste of time and money since they already knew what the result would have been. You are objecting to them being unwilling to spend $30k on a 0.001% (or some such) chance of success
So you were not but the only people who would benefit from private health-care are those who did and a small group of "self-made" millionaires many of whom are business crooks. Why are you shilling for them then?
Because I benefit from a free enterprise system. The fact that some benefit far more does not bother me. It is bothersome that one can use wealth to purchase law that benefits the wealthy exclusively, but that is no reason to decry wealth alone. Decry fraud and other crimes.
Some American doctors recently made a ruckus in Congress about this little bit... something about 30% higher administrative costs... 250% higher drug costs etc. etc. In other words the poeple of "modest means" are served far, far better
This has not been my experience, and recent reports suggest that the Canadian health care system is getting worse at an accelerating rate. For refusing to "cave in" to a two-tier system, Canada has the greatest per-capita costs of any country with a national health care system. While the U.S. has problems with administrative inefficiencies and legal expenses, these are trivial to correct, by comparison. You are comparing apples to oranges and stating that rotten apples are more appealing than expensive oranges.
I see you do not believe in the concept of insurance! As in taking small amounts from all to cover huge expenses in case of the unlucky few. In which case I am afraid that your cash-only experience with the US for-profit system will likely be even more abysmal than most (some procedures cost over $500k, hospital stay $2k per day etc.).
No, I fully understand insurance. I have adequate health, disability, and life insurance. But no sane person would purchase a health insurance policy that would not at least provide up to the amount of premiums paid to save their life for covered procedures. To force such a policy on one and not permit them to purchase another is criminal.
If my house burns down, I get my house replaced. My premiums might go up, but so long as the loss (i.e. health problem) is covered, the insurer pays.
Out of curiosity though: What will happen if you get disabled and cannot work any longer?
I have disability insurance. I have significant life insurance to provide for my family in the even of my demise.
It may surprise you, but I also contribute significant amounts to charity to help the truely unfortunate and destitute. I could neve afford to do so to the degree that I do in Canada.
They are generally eligible for government programs geared toward the pool. Government "Medicaid" in the U.S. appears on a par with Canadian health care.
I am not entirely opposed to some such assistance in practice, even as I oppose it in principle. But, the situation in Canada is horrendous.
I define it as follows: humans are not animals, and thus they form societies. Within societies, humans naturally take care of the group before they take care of themselves. The group is largely formed by the geological borders of a country, and to a lesser extent includes all life on this planet.
If such societies were formed by the voluntary cooperative efforts of their members, this might be true. However, so-called democracies are a thin veil around mob rule.
Truely voluntary communities function the way you describe, and represent greater security for their members than what they can provide for themselves. The Amish and Mennonites know this very well.
However, the situation in Canada is not voluntary: one can not "opt out" and go it alone, with no help "from the group". The group becomes a mob and the mob, or rather it's leaders, seeing a net gain from the fruits of the labours of those who would seek to remain outside the group employ force to make them participate. Of course, all democracies work this way, to some degree or other, but Canada is, in my experience, far more heinous in this regard than is the U.S.
Worse, it isn't even a qustion of a mob exerting its will on outsiders. Its a cabal of criminals who have, through effective propaganda, convinced the population that "the mob" is the "one, true, best way," even in the face of mounting evidence that it is not working very well.
If things were so rosy, one would not have to use force to ensure participation: the value proposition would stand on it's own. But, it fails miserably, even when compared to other socialist nations that have at least accepted two tier health care, even if it offends some idealistic notion of fairness.
It became hard to contribute the max to an RRSP once I had a family.
Also, the first 8+K (and the similar spousal credit) are not "free". These are non-refundable tax credits: you add up the ones you have (generally 8k for yourself and 7.5k for your spouse, if you have one with no income), and then compute the lowest tax rate on them, currently around 16.5%. That becomes a credit against the income tax you owe which is computed from the first dollar of income. About a CA$2500 credit. Peanuts.
Constrast deductions and exceptions in the U.S. These are taken right off the top and are the equivlent of non-refundable tax credits at your marginal tax rate.
Marrieds in the U.S. can file jointly: add their incomes (even if one is zero), and get double the standard deduction and all the tax brackets start at double the single rates. Marrieds can't file jointly in Canada (and any attempt to split income with one's spouse is attributed back to the source -- trying to hide it is tax evasion), and that's what was the real killer: my wife does not work.
Your ad hominem comparision of libertarianism to fascism is telling. Typical of a liberal to resort to ranting instead of reasoned debate.
I was not born into privelege. My father was, surprisingly, but was robbed of his wealth by Soviet communists post-WWII. He indeed started over from scratch, with nothing more than the chothes on his back and a willingness to work hard. Fortunately, despite being born to modest affluence, such labour was not beneath him, and he managed to survive, though he never suceeded in owning a home other than a shack in rural Quebec. He was very much a middle-class worker.
But, your critisism is telling. You presume that even people of modest means are "privileged assholes". This is typical of the thief.
FWIW, the procedure to save his life would cost about US$30k. He paid far, far, more than that in Canadian income taxes over a 31 year working career.
In any case, no more monies should be spent to save a live than were taken from that person for that possible purpose. So, your $25M argument is specious.
While I am to old to register with the U.S. millitary, my son, an American citizen, is too young, but I expect that one day he will, as he will be required to by law.
Except I never mentioned Hitler. And the subject of human medical experiments is relevant to health care and unconsionable steps taken to ostensibly provide it.
Much was learned by Nazi experiments to determine the body's tolerance to extremes of heat and cold. That does not justify what was done, though it would be equally criminal to ignore the knowledge gained at such a high price.
Similarly, taxing one to the point of their not being able to spend their money to save their own life is not justified regardless of how many other lives can be saved by application of the monies stolen.
This situation is becoming increasingly common, particularly as the population ages.
Futhermore, to get health care in Ontario after moving there, one has to sign a form agreeing to live there permanently. (And yes, they mean "forever", not some minimum time -- I asked.)
I just about had a crown prosecutor (rather like a district attorney in the U.S.) ready to levy charges against me for spousal neglect for not providing health care on demand for my wife that she had grown accustomed to in Texas, despite it being illegal to even try to pay for it (not that I could afford to in Canada, with the taxes I paid)! It was "my tough" that the law required me to do something that was illegal, never mind financially impossible. "You shouldn'tve left and lived better!" was the growl over the phone.
Canada is very close to closing the borders, IMHO, to those that have the means to leave.
Medical experiments performed by Nazis and the knowledge gained therefrom are relevant to a discussion of medical care and and argument that the end justifies the means.
I present a reducto ad absurdum proof that they do not because they justify heinous acts.
over $35,595 up to $56,070: 38.37%
over $56,070 up to $71,190: 42.37%
And yes, that includes the 16.5% abatement.
Ontario is a little better, with a tax rate over 40% at around CA$70k.
So, my numbers were a bit off for Ontario, but about right for Quebec.
That's insane.
I earned a little over US$100k from all sources in 2005, and paid Uncle Sam about US$7k in tax, filing jointly, taking exemptions for my spouse and kids, deducting the home mortgage, and maxing my 401(k) (like an RRSP). I also paid CA$7k on CA$40k of that income (much of it at a reduced capital gains rate) to Canada (which gave rise to an FEIE, and so wasn't taxed at all in the U.S.). My health insurance is paid completely by my employer and I have no copay or annual deductable. It's worth about another US$15k.
In Canada, doing the same work, the best I could earn was CA$76k a year.
Worse, Canadian law requires me to provide for my spouse "in the manner to which she has become accustomed". That being impossible, I was in serious danger of being jailed for not earning enough ("If you can earn US$100k in the U.S., why can'y you earn CA$12k here?").
Slashdot Mirror
I've got angry enough, that it might be worth doing some digging. I suspected that the formal medical records are not available to me for privacy reasons. I remember trying to get receipts for medical services I purchased at a Whitby, ON ER, for my wife (outpatient I/V antibiotics for a tooth abcess) and was denied, with "privacy reasons" cited. But, as next of kin, it might be worth trying, at least from the private hernia-repair hospital he visited.
Please, provide the details. I can find out more information as I can access them up here.
If what you say is true it is an outrage that needs to be dealt with. I would hardly call it common in our system, though.
Of course, if you choose not to provide the details of the condition and what the operations was, then this will have to stop right here. Without those details, I have no way of knowing if what you say is even true. Many of your posts seem to indicate a pathological hatred and I cannot be sure your anre not delusional on this account unless your tell us more.
Fair enough. You've irked me enough to strive to get more substantial proof than the heresay of my father's testimony to me. I'll start by striving to get his medical records from the private centers he visited -- they did not appear to be guilty of any malpractice as they specialized in herna repair.
No, the position was that it was not possible as there were no doctors in Canada skilled in performing the surgery. There was no list to wait on.
So, if a doctor was availble, our socialized healthcare system would have paid.
Plenty of doctors were available in the world. At a cost far less than what he had paid over the years to support a fraudulent healthcare system. If he was not forced to participate in that system he could have purchased adequate insurance on the open market. Hell, he could have self-insured and had enough funds in his retirement to pay for it.
Canada promises health care, and does not deliver. Furthermore, it forces participation in a broken system. You will see how it deteriorates further.
And even if you could have purchased that operation in a private clinic in Canada, it wouldn't have mattered because there was still no doctors to perform it. Yet it's the fault of the public health insurance system?
Yes. What make you think that Canada is the world? There are plenty of places and thousands of competent surgeons to perform it in the U.S. If I examine the proprortion of taxes paid to provide for health care, much better coverage could have been obtained on the open market in the U.S. He did not recieve value for his money. Hell, never mind insurance. He could have self-insured with the taxes he paid to cover the cost of the surgery.
So why isn't there a doctor to do it? Oh, because the various Conservative provincial governments and the Liberals in the Federal government have slashed funding for our healthcare system for more than 15 years.
No. I can speculate why. Doctors in Canada are paid on a "per procedure" basis, with an annual cap on the number of procedures permitted. There is no distinction between the skilled and the mediocre, so the skilled leave for the U.S. where they can earn more money. If they were permitted to tend to those who can afford private health care in Canada, they would stay, and shorten the lines in the public system. Every other socialised country has accepted, perhaps grudgingly, a two-tier health care system.
Do you think if the likes of Mike Harris or Ralph Klein decided not to piligage healthcare to give the wealthiest members of their provinces tax cuts throughout the '90s, that maybe there would be enough money to employ those specialists?
If they were allowed to practice in a free market, there would be plenty of money. The socialists drove them off.
No. He was never put on any list. The surgery was denied because it was not done in Canada. The position was that it did not exist, despute being available in the U.S. as relatively common, if risky. And, currently, the wait is 80 weeks for a tonsillectomy in Canada. My son was examined on a Thursday, and had the surgery the next Tuesday as an outpatient. Last I heard about hip replacements, the wait was seven years, though that may have changed, and it varies from province to province. My father in law is on an 18 month waiting list for a hammer toe in New Brunswick.
Right. So your father had other surgeries earlier and took advantage of the system throughout his life. There goes the "argument" of yours about not getting back what he paid in. In fact this makes you nothing but the troll some others on this thread already pointed out based on your past history of fabrications and mis-statements
At the time, there was no nationalized health care. He had private health insurance through his employer, RCA Victor. As I recall, the bill came to around CA$25,000, a significant sum at the time (1961), completely covered by his private insurance.
It was speculated that the AAA began some 30 years earlier when he underwent surgery to remove kidney stones: the tugging on the renal artery weakening the wall of the aorta.
There's a lot of favoratism that goes on with those that are stuck on the dreaded "list".
It burst four years later.
He was refused treatment because "there is no doctor in Canada that can do this" and "it is too expensive to send you to the U.S."
I suppose if he tried to "pull strings" he might have gotten treatment. But, he was not one to challenge authority.
He certainly didn't have the financial resources to sue.
Apparently, his situation is becoming increasingly common. The fact remains that if he could purchase health insurance on a free market, there would be no issue of getting treatment.
What are you smoking to make you belive that Canadians are somehow less corruptable than Americans?
There is plenty of evidence that shows persons of noted political or social stature "buy" thier way up the list for surgery in a manner that bears not relationship with the urgency of their need.
I will grant, however, that Canadians sure are gullible when it comes to how well their government "takes care of them".
And that compares to a covered, routine AAA-repair surgery with a 70% chance of success at a cost of 1/20th of the premiums paid by the patient, how?
Ah, yes, abdominal aortic aneurysms are not repaired in that primitive medical backwater known as Canada. The government says they cover that surgery, but, surprisingly, they can not provide the surgeons to perform it.
Do you realize that there are some 9000 relatively routine medical procedures not available in Canada for lack of skill? And these aren't the medical equivalent of rocket science, either.
I live in the most expensive part of the U.S. A $100k income is considered "middle class" here, and typical homes go for US $400k.
So, while my situation might be atypical, it is still very much "middle class" for where we live.
I think we're still seeing the shakeout from the 'net bubble bust. Eventually it will put enough pressure on non-cost-of-sales health care expenses to result in an adjustment there: administrative overhead and tort reform are areas for attack to bring costs down.
FWIW, I've been quite poor, struggling to make ends meet, so most of my income is going to save for the inevitable rainy day, when it comes.
Someone has to expose the crimes, though.
Sooner or later, the collective noise will be too loud to ignore.
I wonder how ugly it will turn when people realize just how badly they've been robbed. This is the stuff of which bloody revolutions are made. I do not think Canadans' general compacency will stave off such a revolution. I think it will merely delay it, and when it comes, it will be all the more bloddy for the delay.
The chance of success was estimated at 70%.
Because I benefit from a free enterprise system. The fact that some benefit far more does not bother me. It is bothersome that one can use wealth to purchase law that benefits the wealthy exclusively, but that is no reason to decry wealth alone. Decry fraud and other crimes.
Some American doctors recently made a ruckus in Congress about this little bit... something about 30% higher administrative costs... 250% higher drug costs etc. etc. In other words the poeple of "modest means" are served far, far better
This has not been my experience, and recent reports suggest that the Canadian health care system is getting worse at an accelerating rate. For refusing to "cave in" to a two-tier system, Canada has the greatest per-capita costs of any country with a national health care system. While the U.S. has problems with administrative inefficiencies and legal expenses, these are trivial to correct, by comparison. You are comparing apples to oranges and stating that rotten apples are more appealing than expensive oranges.
I see you do not believe in the concept of insurance! As in taking small amounts from all to cover huge expenses in case of the unlucky few. In which case I am afraid that your cash-only experience with the US for-profit system will likely be even more abysmal than most (some procedures cost over $500k, hospital stay $2k per day etc.).
No, I fully understand insurance. I have adequate health, disability, and life insurance. But no sane person would purchase a health insurance policy that would not at least provide up to the amount of premiums paid to save their life for covered procedures. To force such a policy on one and not permit them to purchase another is criminal.
If my house burns down, I get my house replaced. My premiums might go up, but so long as the loss (i.e. health problem) is covered, the insurer pays.
I have disability insurance. I have significant life insurance to provide for my family in the even of my demise.
It may surprise you, but I also contribute significant amounts to charity to help the truely unfortunate and destitute. I could neve afford to do so to the degree that I do in Canada.
I am not entirely opposed to some such assistance in practice, even as I oppose it in principle. But, the situation in Canada is horrendous.
If such societies were formed by the voluntary cooperative efforts of their members, this might be true. However, so-called democracies are a thin veil around mob rule.
Truely voluntary communities function the way you describe, and represent greater security for their members than what they can provide for themselves. The Amish and Mennonites know this very well.
However, the situation in Canada is not voluntary: one can not "opt out" and go it alone, with no help "from the group". The group becomes a mob and the mob, or rather it's leaders, seeing a net gain from the fruits of the labours of those who would seek to remain outside the group employ force to make them participate. Of course, all democracies work this way, to some degree or other, but Canada is, in my experience, far more heinous in this regard than is the U.S.
Worse, it isn't even a qustion of a mob exerting its will on outsiders. Its a cabal of criminals who have, through effective propaganda, convinced the population that "the mob" is the "one, true, best way," even in the face of mounting evidence that it is not working very well.
If things were so rosy, one would not have to use force to ensure participation: the value proposition would stand on it's own. But, it fails miserably, even when compared to other socialist nations that have at least accepted two tier health care, even if it offends some idealistic notion of fairness.
Also, the first 8+K (and the similar spousal credit) are not "free". These are non-refundable tax credits: you add up the ones you have (generally 8k for yourself and 7.5k for your spouse, if you have one with no income), and then compute the lowest tax rate on them, currently around 16.5%. That becomes a credit against the income tax you owe which is computed from the first dollar of income. About a CA$2500 credit. Peanuts.
Constrast deductions and exceptions in the U.S. These are taken right off the top and are the equivlent of non-refundable tax credits at your marginal tax rate.
Marrieds in the U.S. can file jointly: add their incomes (even if one is zero), and get double the standard deduction and all the tax brackets start at double the single rates. Marrieds can't file jointly in Canada (and any attempt to split income with one's spouse is attributed back to the source -- trying to hide it is tax evasion), and that's what was the real killer: my wife does not work.
I prefer the tragedy of indifference to murder by theft.
Your ad hominem comparision of libertarianism to fascism is telling. Typical of a liberal to resort to ranting instead of reasoned debate.
I was not born into privelege. My father was, surprisingly, but was robbed of his wealth by Soviet communists post-WWII. He indeed started over from scratch, with nothing more than the chothes on his back and a willingness to work hard. Fortunately, despite being born to modest affluence, such labour was not beneath him, and he managed to survive, though he never suceeded in owning a home other than a shack in rural Quebec. He was very much a middle-class worker.
But, your critisism is telling. You presume that even people of modest means are "privileged assholes". This is typical of the thief.
FWIW, the procedure to save his life would cost about US$30k. He paid far, far, more than that in Canadian income taxes over a 31 year working career.
In any case, no more monies should be spent to save a live than were taken from that person for that possible purpose. So, your $25M argument is specious.
While I am to old to register with the U.S. millitary, my son, an American citizen, is too young, but I expect that one day he will, as he will be required to by law.
Much was learned by Nazi experiments to determine the body's tolerance to extremes of heat and cold. That does not justify what was done, though it would be equally criminal to ignore the knowledge gained at such a high price.
Similarly, taxing one to the point of their not being able to spend their money to save their own life is not justified regardless of how many other lives can be saved by application of the monies stolen.
Futhermore, to get health care in Ontario after moving there, one has to sign a form agreeing to live there permanently. (And yes, they mean "forever", not some minimum time -- I asked.)
I just about had a crown prosecutor (rather like a district attorney in the U.S.) ready to levy charges against me for spousal neglect for not providing health care on demand for my wife that she had grown accustomed to in Texas, despite it being illegal to even try to pay for it (not that I could afford to in Canada, with the taxes I paid)! It was "my tough" that the law required me to do something that was illegal, never mind financially impossible. "You shouldn'tve left and lived better!" was the growl over the phone.
Canada is very close to closing the borders, IMHO, to those that have the means to leave.
A month wait?
Heck, I had three when I was deathly ill in intensive care in a Chicago hospital in 1998. I would have surely died in Canada.
I present a reducto ad absurdum proof that they do not because they justify heinous acts.
I have 100% coverage with no annual deductable and no copays.
Of course, it costs around US$15k a year for the family, but it's part of my total remuneration.
And the rate of banruptcy, overall, is...?
You're raising a red herring.
Besides, bankruptcy, isn't fatal. Failed universal healthcare is.
over $35,595 up to $56,070: 38.37%
over $56,070 up to $71,190: 42.37%
And yes, that includes the 16.5% abatement.
Ontario is a little better, with a tax rate over 40% at around CA$70k.
So, my numbers were a bit off for Ontario, but about right for Quebec.
That's insane.
I earned a little over US$100k from all sources in 2005, and paid Uncle Sam about US$7k in tax, filing jointly, taking exemptions for my spouse and kids, deducting the home mortgage, and maxing my 401(k) (like an RRSP). I also paid CA$7k on CA$40k of that income (much of it at a reduced capital gains rate) to Canada (which gave rise to an FEIE, and so wasn't taxed at all in the U.S.). My health insurance is paid completely by my employer and I have no copay or annual deductable. It's worth about another US$15k.
In Canada, doing the same work, the best I could earn was CA$76k a year.
Worse, Canadian law requires me to provide for my spouse "in the manner to which she has become accustomed". That being impossible, I was in serious danger of being jailed for not earning enough ("If you can earn US$100k in the U.S., why can'y you earn CA$12k here?").