Canada Health Care Dollars?

[Glaken]

My girlfriend's family is from Canada....her mom and dad pay $60 Canadian for healthcare each month which includes prescription drugs.....her sister had a baby girl and the total cost was about $300 Canadian...HOW DO THEY DO THIS?

Please don't give me the Military expense excuse?

 

[LineBreaker+]

I have a little knowledge in this area.

I am a pharmacy student and in our law class we were told that Canada gets their drugs so low because the government has contracts with the drug companies.

These contracts will give Canada the drug products for a lower cost if they have the contracts with that certain drug company. Canada also says we will buy this certain amount if you give us discounts. Since this governmental healthcare they can contract with drug companies.

In summary Canada will have a contract for only a handful of the high blood pressure medicines and not all of them that the US has.

Another point about the importation of drugs from Canada. Canada only gets a certain number of drugs from the drug companies. If they lose a lot of drugs to export to the U.S. it is very likely that Canada will make it a law against exporting drugs to the U.S.

I don't know a lot but we had a little information on the subject

 

[eek.]

You have (relatively speaking) incredibly low taxes in the US.

In communist countries like Canada and the United Kingdom we pay higher taxes to create a decent welfare/health system.

By having a crap unfunded health system in the US, you save the wealthy a fuxxing fortune.

I'm sure that the rich are very grateful for the suffering and sacrifice you poor people must endure so the rich can get richer.
A few of them might even put a couple of dollars into your local soup kitchen.

RIP son. And remember, by not complaining you are making America great.
Complainers are communists.

 

[LineBreaker+]

Great point eek,


I was surprised to see how low the U.S. taxes are compared to other countries. Seen it awhile ago, but it was amazing.

 

[Cujo]

Am I rich? I had an AGI of mid 50's last year. I suppose I'm part of the filthy rich that appreciate not having to support that system on a regular basis. I do support it, however, in the form of higher premiums for non-paying customers. FWIW I do give of my time to a church and for more than soup kitchen style activities. My donations whether time or money would continue with higher taxes but at a considerably lower rate as I would have less to allocate.

 

[eek.]

$55k in the UK system.

@1.8 is £30.5k

4615 at 0%
1920 at 10% 192
bal at 22% 5272
National insurance about £2850 (dont ask if u dont know) http://www.corporateangels.com/national_insurance_rates_2003.html


Which means you would pay £8314 taxes.
@ 1.8 is a mere $14,965

On top of that we have lots of purchase taxes

on tobacco ($8 a pack of 20)
petrol taxes ( $6 a gallon)
alchohol taxes ($18 for a bottle of basic whisky)
Value added tax is 17.5% and is on most things except food, printed matter(newspapers etc) and baby clothes.


So:

Are you still jealous?

 

[Cujo]

I think you may have misunderstood my post. I have no doubt that Brits pay more taxes than Americans. I don't consider myself rich or even well off just because I fund certain things or don't want to fund others. I was merely putting a different perspective out there. I know from the Jack Daniels tour that half of every dollar spent on alcohol goes to taxes. I don't drink very much alcohol but when I do it's Johnnie Walker Black label or Crown which last time I purchased it was more than $18 but I don't know the size or brand you prefer. I can't see you paying less than I for Crown. Maybe JW, I don't know. As far as tobacco, New Yorkers probably pay in the neighborhood of $5-$6 for a pack of cigarettes whereas someone in Texas might pay $2-$3 for the same thing. Gasoline; same thing but not on as large a scale.

In response, I'm not jealous of the taxes but you boys make good scotch. I'll tell you that right now.

 

[eek.]

There's actually a pretty huge black market in the UK, the 'black economy' which is cash based and worth the best part of £100 billion p.a.

There is also a taxes 'limit' where the population revolts, like the polltax riots of the early '90s here. (The polltax riots destroyed Maggie Thatcher)

Plus its not so easy for the Government to squash the general population.
In the US the National Guard would probably shoot rioters.

The UK Liberal Party shot people in the strikes during their administration 1906 to 1914.
The Liberal Party has not sniffed political power in the UK since they did that.(A warning for all politicians here)

It seems to have dropped out of recorded history, but all my grandparents held the Liberals in contempt because they called out the troops and shot strikers.

 

[Cujo]

Despite some of my opinions I am a firm believer in law. I don't think the Guard would shoot rioters en masse just based on historical evidence. I was listening to talk radio earlier and something like that was mentioned briefly. I remember the L.A. riots in the early 90's and I feel the Guard should have flexed more muscle and shot some of the more dangerous people just to give everyone else a pause before they continue. Rodney's little speech got some decent press time but it didn't do a damn thing to defuse the situation.

 

[eek.]

I seem to recall, at the time, that the LA riots were a direct result of the Rodney King incident.
The perps beat the fuxxing **** out of him, and it was recorded on camera. Then the jury let them off ???
I would riot too.

This quite rightly, created mayhem in the social structure.
It showed your 'ruling classes' the limits of their power.

Then OJ muppet got caught with his bungled murder.
To prevent a repeat of the riots, and balance the racist bullshit nonsense equation, OJ Simpson was found not guilty even though it was pretty obvious he did it.

Society had no riot, breathed a sigh of relief, and got on with life.

 

[Woody0]

The historical evidence is that the National Guard did shoot rioters en masse on May 4th 1970 at Kent State University.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Kent-State-massacre

 

[xpanda]

My girlfriend's family is from Canada....her mom and dad pay $60 Canadian for healthcare each month which includes prescription drugs.....her sister had a baby girl and the total cost was about $300 Canadian...HOW DO THEY DO THIS?

Please don't give me the Military expense excuse?

You're referring to 'benefits' which aren't the same as 'health care benefits.' Most employers have a benefit package which includes things like eyeglasses, prescriptions (usually 80% or better), dental, chiropractic, private accomodations in hospital, blah blah. Stuff that our 'free' health care does not provide.

Canada spends 9.6% of GDP per capita on health care for the entire population. The US spends 13.1% of GDP per capita on health care for 30% of the population. Plus you gotta buy your coverage. What's wrong with that picture?

Maybe some things just make a better monopoly? Dunno, but I don't think trial lawyers could account for that kind of fiscal discrepancy. Administration, maybe?

 

[xpanda]

In communist countries like Canada and the United Kingdom we pay higher taxes to create a decent welfare/health system.

By having a crap unfunded health system in the US, you save the wealthy a fuxxing fortune.

I'm sure that the rich are very grateful for the suffering and sacrifice you poor people must endure so the rich can get richer.
A few of them might even put a couple of dollars into your local soup kitchen.

RIP son. And remember, by not complaining you are making America great.
Complainers are communists.

:awesom:

 

[Cujo]

The historical evidence is that the National Guard did shoot rioters en masse on May 4th 1970 at Kent State University.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Kent-State-massacre

Woody0,

I think we associate different meanings with different words. Based on your link, only 28 of them fired and killed 4 and wounded 9. That's so small of a % that it's not even funny. Whether the Guard was right in firing is arguable but the fact remains that the protesters did not back down and were outgunned so the blood of those killed is on their hands. I can't speak for everyone but I would never blame anyone for defending themselves if they felt their safety was endangered. It's a tragedy, no doubt, but it's one with extenuating circumstances.

 

[Cujo]

I better elaborate even more so I won't be dinged by semantics again. I believe that the National Guard would not gun down rioters that have a brain. Obviously, pulling people out of vehicles and beating the hell out of them would warrant a tougher response than say raising hell on a city street or whatever. As far as the Rodney King situation you can say he was beaten up with it caught on tape: End of story. You could also say that he was dangerously speeding, resisting arrest, obstructing and assualting officers of the law. The severity of the beatdown apparently trumped the drug abuse that may have exacerbated Mr. King's behavior. The officer's safety was threatened and they responded to remove that threat. That entire scenario may not have been avoided by Mr. King had he initially stopped but it puts the onus on the cops to act appropriately.

 

[eek.]

Cujo, old chap.

Can you tell us all how many guns the Kent State communist bastards and overthrowers of our free society had?

thanx.

 

[Cujo]

I don't know. I wasn't there. It doesn't matter, though. Weapons come in many forms. I could have an H2S bomb and that's certainly not a firearm but it's still a dangerous weapon nonetheless. A lot of people wait for others to act before they risk their precious neck. If you're firm as a matter of policy you cut down on the sheep factor because there are a lot of spineless people who'll accept the status quo no matter what it is. It's sad but true but to answer your question it was probably 0.

 

[eek.]

You're a scary guy Cujo.


You're honest.

peace.

 

[GAMEFACE]

Socialism run amok. The rich of the world don't get operated on by these 3rd rate systems they fly to the States and get the best treatment. Drugs are cheap in Canada because someone else (primarly American drug companies) took on the R&D cost not Canada, so once again the Americans get left footing the bill.

 

[eek.]

When you start raving Game, you lose credibility...