Anyone else see Sicko?

calcium said:
Yikes......
Click to expand...

No offense by any means, but I enjoy how you seem to have changed your opinion on NHS in about 3 pages of this thread!

It's so easy to fall for the government hand-outs because they sugarcoat them so nicely. However, as it's been mentioned before, the more a government dips it's hands in your pocket to help everyone else, the more dependant and lazy society becomes.
 
CCR said:
The coverage is complete but the quality of service sucks, I split my open as a kid once and lost a hell of a lot of blood. I was sat in the waiting room for 4-5 hours because the hospital only had one person capable of doing stitches. All the hospital did while I was waiting in a crowded room (I was responsible for holding my eyebrow in place while I waited, it was completely detached) was to come over every 15-30 minutes to check I hadn't gone into shock through blood loss. My white shirt was pure red when I left the hospital (head wounds really bleed hard!)

And then a female friend of mine almost lost her baby during child birth recently due to incompetance. Her labour lasted about 48 hours because her cervix wouldn't open, they tried enducing her about 5 times and refused to do a C-section (they want to cut down on the number performed). In the end they had to do an emergency C-section because the baby got so distressed it stopped breathing. They were too late to give her an Epidural and the baby took 3 minutes before it began breathing on its own again. Due to the distress the baby didn't even cry for days after the event.

That's what you get if you adopt an NHS style system, I bet MM didn't show any of that in his mockumentary
Click to expand...

I think it depends on which system you're talking about.

Here in the Great White North, we had some elderly neighbors up the street who both had extensive medical issues as a couple - both in their mid 80's. As with most Canadians, their medical costs are funded by the taxes of all taxpayers - so their hospital care and surgical procedures didn't cost them a cent....whether they were in their teens, 30's 50's or ( in their case ) 80's.

First the wife needed a hip replacement - had it done - no cost to her. Her GP simply chose to refer her to the surgeon of the GP's choosing. Then, the wife had needed open heart surgery for a heart valve replacement some years later - again, no cost to her. Once again, her GP simply chose to refer her to the surgeon of the GP's choosing. Sadly, 18 months later she had a stroke and spent 3 months in the hospital recovering. Again, no cost to her - and luckily - she has bounced back from her stroke.:)

Her husband also had a stroke as well. He didn't fair so well. He was in the local hospital for 5 months and then for another 6 months in a rehab hospital in a nearby town and then 4 months as an outpatient 3X a week. He is out now but can no longer walk very well or even speak - however, none of the hospital stays / visits cost his a dime.

Now, if these 2 elderly people had insurance - or no insurance at all - and lived in the U.S. - I don't know the extent to which they would have come away from these sorts of medical issues without having to pay at least something toward it..if not 100% of it. Either way, in their case up here, costs never entered their mind.
 
Last edited:
Wrangell said:
however, none of the hospital stays / visits cost his a dime.
Click to expand...

Let's assume these individuals worked from the time they were 20 years old, until they retired at 65; 45 years. Average income is approximately 50,000 a year, and the approximate increase in withheld income for National Healthcare is 15%. Essentially, they paid 7500 a year, for 45 years for their "free" healthcare.

45 years x $7,500 = $337,500 for their coverage. Hardly a free service if you ask me... Obviously I simplified this for sanity sake, but you get the idea; It's going be paid by someone, one way or another.
 
Last edited:
In regards to taxes,
* 10%: from $0 to $7,550
* 15%: from $7,551 to $30,650
* 25%: from $30,651 to $74,200
* 28%: from $74,201 to $154,800
* 33%: from $154,801 to $336,550
* 35%: $336,551 and above
(from the link posted) - It appears that the higher incomes are taxed more than the lower, not the other way around.

Goergen, you mentioned the accumulated total % of taxes in America. That is rather scary when you put it all together.

At least, though, we have to add in all the taxes (not just the ones that come straight out of our checks) to equal roughly the amount that others must pay from their checks alone (then they have to pay the same, or higher, on the other things).

Here, I pay 8.25% sales tax on purchases, with no state tax.

I'm truly afraid of what might happen to our health care system after the next election. It's very easy to play on the heartstings of the public, showing pictures of dying children and whatnot, to convince everyone to give total healthcare control over to the govt.

Bush may be a dip-shi*t, but at least he's not a socialist.
 
SkianS40 said:
Let's assume these individuals worked from the time they were 20 years old, until they retired at 65; 45 years. Average income is approximately 50,000 a year, and the approximate increase in withheld income for National Healthcare is 15%. Essentially, they paid 7500 a year, for 45 years for their "free" healthcare.

45 years x $7,500 = $337,500 for their coverage. Hardly a free service if you ask me... Obviously I simplified this for sanity sake, but you get the idea; It's going be paid by someone, one way or another.
Click to expand...

I can't comment either way on the accuracy of the 15% you cited.

In any event, I never said it was " free "...in fact, I what I said was " medical costs are funded by the taxes of all taxpayers ". In my province for example, about 40 % of its tax revenue is earmarked for health care.

So, what I'm saying when I say " the hospital stays / visits [ didn't ] cost him a dime " is that not one Canadian ever has to worry about medical costs that may have to be paid by them directly to a third party for medical services rendered - there is never a direct charge to the patient.

You never have to face unplanned medical costs. And in the vast majority of cases, you never have to be concerned that you won't be able to get the procedure you need. You get to pick any GP you want. Whether you have worked 45 years or 45 minutes - you are covered for all your medical costs and never have to worry about getting any medical procedure you need. So, you could be hit by a truck tomorrow and be in hospital for a 1 year ++++, 2 year +++++ ( whatever ) with countless surgeries - and whether you are 8, 18, 38, 68 or 88.... employed or not employed - there is never a direct charge to you as a patient.

You can go bankrupt for a lot of reasons in Canada - but paying for medical costs certainly isn't one of them.:)
 
deschain said:
Yes, but it did enter your mind, b/c while they didn't pay for it, you did.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm well aware of it.

Actually, it is a great source of comfort that should any of my immediate or extended family require medical care of a cost 2, 3, 4 times what they may have paid into the system via taxes - they never have to worry about whether they are eligible for treatment or be concerned about getting a direct charge as a patient.

deschain said:
Like Tan said, people are free to donate or not to donate to help others out. But, in that system, you aren't.
Click to expand...

What can I say - we care about our fellow citizens up here.

Very few of us up here complain about paying collective as we feel everyone has a right to basic health care - no matter who you are. In most cases, you simply have to be a Canadian ( or soon to be ) citizen - that's it.
 
deschain said:
Yes, but it did enter your mind, b/c while they didn't pay for it, you did. Like Tan said, people are free to donate or not to donate to help others out. But, in that system, you aren't.
Click to expand...

Aren't you the person who said it was right for him to steal money from his father?
 
SkianS40 said:
No offense by any means, but I enjoy how you seem to have changed your opinion on NHS in about 3 pages of this thread!

It's so easy to fall for the government hand-outs because they sugarcoat them so nicely. However, as it's been mentioned before, the more a government dips it's hands in your pocket to help everyone else, the more dependant and lazy society becomes.
Click to expand...

I never changed my opinion. If you look back you would see that I never really had much of an opinion in the first place. I was asking questions.


Goergen - Was %50 of your pay just the federal and state tax? Or were you adding in sales tax, etc into that?
 
Tanizaki said:
Aren't you the person who said it was right for him to steal money from his father?
Click to expand...

Good catch Tani.lol

If the man could look his own child in the eyes, and say he won't give 5 bucks, or whatever, to help save his dying friend , then I don't think it's a terrible crime for a kid to swipe a few bucks out of his dad's wallet.

Of course the man has a right to choose not to give. The man also has an obligation to his own son. Like he said, he felt that if he didn't give and his friend died, he was scared it would somehow be his fault. This is a prime opportunity for the parent to talk to their child, help them understand, and maybe help give them a small sense of empowerment (like letting him give a few bucks) - to help him feel a little less helpless in the situation, to help him feel like he did something that might help.

anyway, that's just my opinion, end of hijack.
 
deschain said:
Good catch Tani.lol

If the man could look his own child in the eyes, and say he won't give 5 bucks, or whatever, to help save his dying friend , then I don't think it's a terrible crime for a kid to swipe a few bucks out of his dad's wallet.

Of course the man has a right to choose not to give. The man also has an obligation to his own son. Like he said, he felt that if he didn't give and his friend died, he was scared it would somehow be his fault. This is a prime opportunity for the parent to talk to their child, help them understand, and maybe help give them a small sense of empowerment (like letting him give a few bucks) - to help him feel a little less helpless in the situation, to help him feel like he did something that might help.

anyway, that's just my opinion, end of hijack.
Click to expand...

Agghh, I think you're assuming too much about the situation

I'll clarify so my Dad doesn't come across as some kind of heartless demon

My Mum and Dad did give money to the collection, it's just that at the time the school pushed the collection a lot and I wasn't old enouth to deal with it. I started to feel like it was all down to me and pressure got too much for me to cope with.
When my mum saw what was happening to me she sat me down and explained that I was just a small part in a large effort and that I'd done a lot already and a boy my age wasn't expected to raise about £100,000 on my own.

The amount I stole totalled about $100 which 20 years ago was a pretty large amount of money and of course it was wrong
 
deschain said:
Good catch Tani.lol

If the man could look his own child in the eyes, and say he won't give 5 bucks, or whatever, to help save his dying friend , then I don't think it's a terrible crime for a kid to swipe a few bucks out of his dad's wallet.
Click to expand...
Why?

Of course the man has a right to choose not to give. The man also has an obligation to his own son.
Click to expand...
While parents do have obligations to their children such as to provide shelter, clothing, food, and a healthful environment, I do not believe there is an obligation for parents to contribute money to their kids' pet charitable causes.

Like he said, he felt that if he didn't give and his friend died, he was scared it would somehow be his fault. This is a prime opportunity for the parent to talk to their child, help them understand, and maybe help give them a small sense of empowerment (like letting him give a few bucks) - to help him feel a little less helpless in the situation, to help him feel like he did something that might help.
Click to expand...
Well, we don't know how that conversation could have gone because the child chose to steal. Maybe he could have gotten more money if he'd been honest instead of a thief.

anyway, that's just my opinion, end of hijack.[/QUOTE]
 
Tanizaki said:
How long does one have to wait for surgery? In North America, Americans go to Canada to buy cheap drugs, while Canadians come to America for surgery and procedures.

Cost aside, I don't think anyone could name a country that has a health care system of superior quality than America.
Click to expand...

I can.

Canada....eh ! .:canadaf:
 
deschain said:
Good catch Tani.lol

If the man could look his own child in the eyes, and say he won't give 5 bucks, or whatever, to help save his dying friend , then I don't think it's a terrible crime for a kid to swipe a few bucks out of his dad's wallet.

Of course the man has a right to choose not to give. The man also has an obligation to his own son. Like he said, he felt that if he didn't give and his friend died, he was scared it would somehow be his fault. This is a prime opportunity for the parent to talk to their child, help them understand, and maybe help give them a small sense of empowerment (like letting him give a few bucks) - to help him feel a little less helpless in the situation, to help him feel like he did something that might help.

anyway, that's just my opinion, end of hijack.
Click to expand...

Or it could have been that his dad thought he was bs'ing him to give him 5 dollars. Kids do it all the time, and I think that was the case in this situation. During Halloween, you can really pick out the clever kids among the group... for example, last year a kid came up to me saying, "Can I have double the candy? My baby brother can't come up to the doorsteps." Then I said, "Well if your little brother can't come up to the doorsteps, then he shouldn't be eating candy." Pretty smooth and almost got me. lol.
 
CCR said:
Agghh, I think you're assuming too much about the situation

I'll clarify so my Dad doesn't come across as some kind of heartless demon

My Mum and Dad did give money to the collection, it's just that at the time the school pushed the collection a lot and I wasn't old enouth to deal with it. I started to feel like it was all down to me and pressure got too much for me to cope with.
When my mum saw what was happening to me she sat me down and explained that I was just a small part in a large effort and that I'd done a lot already and a boy my age wasn't expected to raise about £100,000 on my own.

The amount I stole totalled about $100 which 20 years ago was a pretty large amount of money and of course it was wrong
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying. You little thief. :p
 
deschain said:
Amen to that.

While I'm sure Canada has many fine qualities (like hockey and syrup), top notch quality medical care isn't exactly their strong suit.
Click to expand...

Not to mention polar bears, igloos, snowmobiles ...........and ' real ' beer.:)

You also forgot other fine qualities like the fewer obese people in our population, fewer handguns and fewer murders / violent crime per capita etc. etc. - I could go on and on - but that's info better left for another thread.:)

I know it's tough to stomach but the simple truth is, overall, our health care is ( at the very least ) as good - if not better - than the health care system in the U.S. Most studies ( though not all ) that have compared the 2...tend to give the Canadian experience the nod.

As I said before, being blindsided by costs related to medical illness will never have the potential to drive any of our citizens into financial ruin...as they can in the U.S. Having to refrain from seeing your GP or getting the medical treatment you need because " you can't afford it " or " I have no insurance " or " it's not covered " or " my claim was denied " will rarely - if ever - happen to a Canadian. We believe that every Canadian a right to a guarantee they will receive medical care with no direct cost being billed to the patient - regardless of their lot in life.

I think it was Dr. Gupta on CNN tonight that said something to the effect that, " a society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members." I would agree. The U.S. remains as one of the only industrialized nations in the world without some form of universal health care.

That said, it seems the U.S. is seemingly indifferent to the fact a large number of it's citizens are not able to access or even pay for health care, and that the U.S. doesn't feel ALL of it's citizens have a right as Americans to a guarantee of medical care....which sadly ......speaks for itself.

So, I'd suggest that in this context, any desire by the U.S. to take care of " its weakest and most vulnerable members " certainly is not what you'd call an American " strong suit " :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top