Casinos should be taxed more or less?
Thread Rating:
Quote: rxwineWell, I live in Vegas so I'm interested in that in particular. I suppose it is a complicated question. If casinos are taxed more, would it work against their business and actually be bad for the local area because they bring in less? On the other hand, extra profits from very low taxes could just end up funding new casinos in China, or elsewhere.
If you raise the cost of something you get less of it. Taxes are a cost. Raise the tax on casinos in NV and they will surely start to build elsewhere. Keep taxes lower and you will get better casinos, better game rules, and more employment in the industry.
Quote: cardsharkBetter yet, have governments and charities (worthwhile charities!) be the only ones allowed to run casinos. Use the profits to fund public works projects like building bridges, schools and hospitals, hosting the Olympics or funding cancer research.
That didn't work in the USSR and won't work here. Unless you want your casino to be like the DMV or Post Office.
There is nothing wrong with profit.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: cardsharkBetter yet, have governments and charities (worthwhile charities!) be the only ones allowed to run casinos. Use the profits to fund public works projects like building bridges, schools and hospitals, hosting the Olympics or funding cancer research.
That didn't work in the USSR and won't work here. Unless you want your casino to be like the DMV or Post Office.
There is nothing wrong with profit.
That's funny. The Ontario government run casinos are exactly like the Post Office. I pay them $5 in cash and I get this funny red thing that I can only use there. Once I left the casino, I tried to give the red thing to someone at the 7-11 for a Slurpee and they just looked at me strange.
But seriously, the government does run six casinos and another twelve slots only facilities here in Ontario and they are quite successful. They all have Player's Card programs. No you can't smoke in them (there's smoking sections outside) and you have to pay for drinks, and they cut you off when you're too drunk. Employees are unionized and get paid salary and split tips among themselves. They are generally happy.
There is nothing wrong with profit, but here, I like my slot revenues and losings to go to back to the local governments who host the casino and charities.
Quote: boymimbo
But seriously, the government does run six casinos and another twelve slots only facilities here in Ontario and they are quite successful. They all have Player's Card programs. No you can't smoke in them (there's smoking sections outside) and you have to pay for drinks, and they cut you off when you're too drunk. Employees are unionized and get paid salary and split tips among themselves. They are generally happy.
There is nothing wrong with profit, but here, I like my slot revenues and losings to go to back to the local governments who host the casino and charities.
So lets see. You have to pay for drinks. Would that be the case if there was actual competition going on? Unless the government outlawed free drinks some owner would go for that advantage. As a nonsmoker I like smokefree, but a smart owner would put in a smoking section as there seems to be a number of smokers who gamble hard and fast. Simply put, it is less choice.
You are clearly free to your opinion, but please realize what you are advocating is socialism. And socialism will always lead to less choice, higher prices, lower service levels, or some combination of the above.
As for myself, keep the government out except to see the regulations are followed. And keep the tax rate as low as possible. The casino owner can't give me as good of a value if the government is ahead of him in line at the count room.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: boymimbo
But seriously, the government does run six casinos and another twelve slots only facilities here in Ontario and they are quite successful. They all have Player's Card programs. No you can't smoke in them (there's smoking sections outside) and you have to pay for drinks, and they cut you off when you're too drunk. Employees are unionized and get paid salary and split tips among themselves. They are generally happy.
There is nothing wrong with profit, but here, I like my slot revenues and losings to go to back to the local governments who host the casino and charities.
So lets see. You have to pay for drinks. Would that be the case if there was actual competition going on? Unless the government outlawed free drinks some owner would go for that advantage. As a nonsmoker I like smokefree, but a smart owner would put in a smoking section as there seems to be a number of smokers who gamble hard and fast. Simply put, it is less choice.
You are clearly free to your opinion, but please realize what you are advocating is socialism. And socialism will always lead to less choice, higher prices, lower service levels, or some combination of the above.
As for myself, keep the government out except to see the regulations are followed. And keep the tax rate as low as possible. The casino owner can't give me as good of a value if the government is ahead of him in line at the count room.
I'm not going to get into a political debate on this, but I just wanted to point out two things regarding Ontario and its government and charity only casinos:
-Smoking is banned in Ontario casinos, but not because of a casino management decision. Smoking is banned by law EVERYWHERE in Canada that is a public space (this includes all workplaces, shopping malls, restaurants and even outdoor patios).
-Giving out free alcohol has also been banned by the government of Ontario. It was a not a decision made to sap more money out of casino players. That law banning giving out alcohol for free was established before the first casino opened in Canada.
The casinos in Ontario operate very similarly to those in Vegas and the USA, other than the above. There is even competition in some areas, such as Niagara Falls and Windsor, which have multiple casinos competing against each other. Not to mention the competition they face from casinos on the other side of the border in Detroit, Upstate New York and Québec.
Rules are very comparable and sometimes better than what you'll find in most (non-Vegas) casinos.
Quote: cardsharkQuote: AZDuffmanSo lets see. You have to pay for drinks. Would that be the case if there was actual competition going on? Unless the government outlawed free drinks some owner would go for that advantage. As a nonsmoker I like smokefree, but a smart owner would put in a smoking section as there seems to be a number of smokers who gamble hard and fast. Simply put, it is less choice.
You are clearly free to your opinion, but please realize what you are advocating is socialism. And socialism will always lead to less choice, higher prices, lower service levels, or some combination of the above.
As for myself, keep the government out except to see the regulations are followed. And keep the tax rate as low as possible. The casino owner can't give me as good of a value if the government is ahead of him in line at the count room.
I'm not going to get into a political debate on this, but I just wanted to point out two things regarding Ontario and its government and charity only casinos:
-Smoking is banned in Ontario casinos, but not because of a casino management decision. Smoking is banned by law EVERYWHERE in Canada that is a public space (this includes all workplaces, shopping malls, restaurants and even outdoor patios).
-Giving out free alcohol has also been banned by the government of Ontario. It was a not a decision made to sap more money out of casino players. That law banning giving out alcohol for free was established before the first casino opened in Canada.
The casinos in Ontario operate very similarly to those in Vegas and the USA, other than the above. There is even competition in some areas, such as Niagara Falls and Windsor, which have multiple casinos competing against each other. Not to mention the competition they face from casinos on the other side of the border in Detroit, Upstate New York and Québec.
Rules are very comparable and sometimes better than what you'll find in most (non-Vegas) casinos.
Not to contradict myself, but the Casinos in Niagara Falls (2 of them), Windsor, and Rama are privately held and pay a licensing fee to the government similar to a tax structure in the states. That said, the government run casinos offer pretty much all of the games that the "big 4" do. The casino in Niagara Falls is unionized -- not sure about the one in Rama or in Windsor (which is operated by Harrahs).
I do advocate socialism. And so do most Americans without realizing it: the postal service, the Military, Medicare, Social Security are all representations of socialism, all subsidized and paid for by the taxpayer. Certainly on the health care debate I think everyone should have health care as a basic right. I don't have a problem here with the way the government has advocated gambling as it keeps them from raising the Provincial tax rate.
Quote: boymimboI do advocate socialism. And so do most Americans without realizing it: the postal service, the Military, Medicare, Social Security are all representations of socialism, all subsidized and paid for by the taxpayer.
You're wrong about the military (and the courts and police, which you left out). The purpose of a government in a free state is to secure and protect individual rigths. That is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and it's the rationale for the US Constitution ("To secure the blessings of liberty"). And for that you need the courts and the police for protection against internal threats, and the armed forces against external ones.
In a free state the government has a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. Not all force, just that used in retaliation for a wrongful act. Thus you can use force in self defense or ind efense of a third party, but only when there's imminent danger. Once the danger has passed, you cannot arrest someone and punish him, no matter what wrong he may have done you. Thats' the government's role.
The reason for a monopoly on such kind of force is self-evident: to avoid all sorts of injustice and strife. That's why the government has limitations placed upoin itself to excercise the use of force (such as rules of evidence, limited powers for search and seizure, etc), and why it has to convict a criminal before any kind of punishment and/or reparations are imposed on him.
So there's nothing at all socialistic about the military, the police and the courts.
As to the post office, it would go broke in weeks if any kind of free competition were allowed. I'll be charitable and say maybe it was needed as a part of government when transportation between cities, and even within cities, was slow, sporadic and expensive. But it's not needed now.
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are doing a fine job of pushing up the national debt and bankrupting the country.
Quote: boymimboCertainly on the health care debate I think everyone should have health care as a basic right.
This isn't the place for a debate on the issue. So I'll just say this: what right have you to the labor of anyone at all?
Quote: NareedSo I'll just say this: what right have you to the labor of anyone at all?
Beautiful. Perfect anarchy.
Let's just say that people are born with certain advantages and disadvantages in life, whether is is a defect at birth or an environmental defect through bad parenting, living next to a steel plant, getting attacked by someone without cause. I realize that people in general (especially the well to do) think that everyone should fend for themselves and pay for every service that they receive and if they can't, too bad... you suffer.
In my particular scenario, I've worked hard to be where I am at today, but I also consider myself gifted and lucky. Just because the neighbor down the street loses their job or the kid down the street can't pick himself up because of inherent disadvantages (or even laziness) doesn't mean that they should be treated differently. They just don't have the goods or the means that I have and it isn't necessarily their fault.
That's the society I would like to live in, and I would gladly pay taxes to make that happen. There are plenty of statistics to prove that Canada's quality of life indicators are better than the States. Yes there is a penalty: Canada's tax rate is generally higher than the United States and heavily biased towards the rich, which drives wealth out of this country.
Quote: Nareed
As to the post office, it would go broke in weeks if any kind of free competition were allowed. I'll be charitable and say maybe it was needed as a part of government when transportation between cities, and even within cities, was slow, sporadic and expensive. But it's not needed now.
In fact the USPS is being run out of business where it competes. FedEx handles Parcel Post these days. Online Bill Pay and Email are killing lots of USPS business, and junk mail has been declining for years as response rates fall. Saturday Delivery will be gone in < 5 years. I can forsee the day in maybe 20 years where there is no more home delivery at all and you will have just a PO Box, either at a USPS Office or at a UPS Store type place. (Or else maybe delivery one day a week.)
Quote: boymimboCertainly on the health care debate I think everyone should have health care as a basic right.
Health care cannot be described as a "right." Rights are something you are born with. Health care is the result of someone else's labor. You have no more a right to health care than to walk into a farmer's field and take some food becaue you have a "right" to eat.
In the USA, most anyone can get basic health care as it is now, BTW.
Now I'm sure somebody will chime in and say that this would be a progressive tax on low earners, causing the poor and middle class to subsidize the rich. To that I would mention that Warren Buffet noted that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. The Social Security tax cap, and ways of redefining income as investment profits allow the wealthy to often have a lower tax rate than the middle class. So I'm not convinced that the rich wouldn't actually end up paying more.
Quote: boymimbo
Beautiful. Perfect anarchy.
Sir, may I interest tou in a dictionary?
I went on at some lenght regarding the role fo government in enforcing the rule of law, through the use of retaliatory force, yet you ignore all that.
Quote: boymimboLet's just say that people are born with certain advantages and disadvantages in life, whether is is a defect at birth or an environmental defect through bad parenting, living next to a steel plant, getting attacked by someone without cause.
Sure. Take me, for example: I work at a job that requires a great deal of attention to detail, and I have no eye for detail (not the kind at work, at any rate). I have to expend a great deal more effort to overcome that aprticualr disadvantage.
I also lack manual ability. There isn't a minor repair job so simple I can't screw it up, and I mean that. But you'd be surprised what I can do when I must and I apply myself to the task. I don't claim I do well, but jusssssst well enough that it serves.
I do not claim a right to have others do my work, or even a second's worth of a mechanic's time unless I'm willing to pay for it.
Quote: boymimboIn my particular scenario, I've worked hard to be where I am at today, but I also consider myself gifted and lucky. Just because the neighbor down the street loses their job or the kid down the street can't pick himself up because of inherent disadvantages (or even laziness) doesn't mean that they should be treated differently. They just don't have the goods or the means that I have and it isn't necessarily their fault.
People shouldn't be despised beacause there are things they can't do. But that doesn't mean they're entitled to equal treatment. I admire poeple like Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Marie Curie and Issambard K. Brunnel for their inventiveness, intellignece and resourcefulness. They've earned it (and the vast fortunes some fo them amassed). I wouldn't despise a mentally retarded man for being mentally retarded, it's not his fault. But I also wouldn't admire him they way I do Edison.
As for people who are capable of doing something but chose not to out of laziness, those poeple deserve nothing but contempt.
Quote: boymimboThat's the society I would like to live in, and I would gladly pay taxes to make that happen.
That's fair enough. Now explain to me why it would also be all right to amke everyone else pay taxes to make it happen, even if they are opposed to your ideas.
Quote: WizardMy opinion is that taxes should not be paid based on earnings, but on consumption. If I had my way, we would do away with income taxes and make up the income with a value added tax, especially on energy. Thus there would be no particular casino tax. The casinos would pay plenty for the energy they consume via heating and air conditioning, not to mention for food and other consumable products. Another benefit of this approach is that it would encourage conservation, and end the billions of hours spent filling out tax returns.
Now I'm sure somebody will chime in and say that this would be a progressive tax on low earners, causing the poor and middle class to subsidize the rich. To that I would mention that Warren Buffet noted that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. The Social Security tax cap, and ways of redefining income as investment profits allow the wealthy to often have a lower tax rate than the middle class. So I'm not convinced that the rich wouldn't actually end up paying more.
Actually, Wiz, I'll chime in early and say I am mostly with you. A consumption tax would be the way to go, just make sure it is paid at the end of the chain and not "hidden" like a VAT. This way everybody, even the poor, would be paying something and we wouldn't have to listen to who got and didn't get a tax cut. My caveat would be that the Constitution would need to be changed to remove the power of congress to enact an income tax as we would eventually have both a consumption and income tax.
I'd also make in an even % on all items so no favoritism.
Such a tax would capture more of the hidden economy.
Quote: NareedQuote: boymimbo
Beautiful. Perfect anarchy.
Sir, may I interest tou in a dictionary?
I was commenting on your very last comment in the post, not the remainder of your post.
Quote: NareedPeople shouldn't be despised because there are things they can't do. But that doesn't mean they're entitled to equal treatment. I admire people like Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Marie Curie and Issambard K. Brunnel for their inventiveness, intelligence and resourcefulness. They've earned it (and the vast fortunes some of them amassed). I wouldn't despise a mentally retarded man for being mentally retarded, it's not his fault. But I also wouldn't admire him they way I do Edison. As for people who are capable of doing something but chose not to out of laziness, those people deserve nothing but contempt.
Agreed!
Quote: NareedQuote: boymimboThat's the society I would like to live in, and I would gladly pay taxes to make that happen.
That's fair enough. Now explain to me why it would also be all right to make everyone else pay taxes to make it happen, even if they are opposed to your ideas.
Why would it be all right? I think I explained it, but in a nutshell, because I think that all people should have the right to live a basic life (food, shelter, education, healthcare) and given the opportunity to succeed despite the cards they've been dealth.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: WizardMy opinion is that taxes should not be paid based on earnings, but on consumption. If I had my way, we would do away with income taxes and make up the income with a value added tax, especially on energy. Thus there would be no particular casino tax. The casinos would pay plenty for the energy they consume via heating and air conditioning, not to mention for food and other consumable products. Another benefit of this approach is that it would encourage conservation, and end the billions of hours spent filling out tax returns.
Now I'm sure somebody will chime in and say that this would be a progressive tax on low earners, causing the poor and middle class to subsidize the rich. To that I would mention that Warren Buffet noted that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. The Social Security tax cap, and ways of redefining income as investment profits allow the wealthy to often have a lower tax rate than the middle class. So I'm not convinced that the rich wouldn't actually end up paying more.
Actually, Wiz, I'll chime in early and say I am mostly with you. A consumption tax would be the way to go, just make sure it is paid at the end of the chain and not "hidden" like a VAT. This way everybody, even the poor, would be paying something and we wouldn't have to listen to who got and didn't get a tax cut. My caveat would be that the Constitution would need to be changed to remove the power of congress to enact an income tax as we would eventually have both a consumption and income tax.
I'd also make in an even % on all items so no favoritism.
Such a tax would capture more of the hidden economy.
What does the Wizard think about taxes on capital (property tax?).
I also agree. The only issue then becomes tourism and competition. Because if you have a 25% tax on all forms of consumption it pushes the prices up on visitors. Perhaps you could have them get a rebate on what they spent when they leave. Canada has (had?) that with the GST (a form of VAT) where a visitor to Canada could get a rebate when they left the country.
Quote: boymimboI was commenting on your very last comment in the post, not the remainder of your post.
Anarchy means the lack of all government in all aspects. Rejection of the socialism in any form, including the welfare state, does not mean rejection of all government. therefore it is not anarchy.
Quote: boymimboWhy would it be all right? I think I explained it, but in a nutshell, because I think that all people should have the right to live a basic life (food, shelter, education, healthcare) and given the opportunity to succeed despite the cards they've been dealth.
The thing is that food, shelter, education and healthcare, among many other things, are not freely obtained. They all represent the labor, time and investment of countless people. You'¿re saying, in effect, you have a right to enslave teachers, doctoros, farmers and builders, among others, because you think they should think the way you do.
Now, when I pay a doctor for his time and labor, I have a right to it. The same when I pay a contractor for a house, who pays his employees to build it. In such cases there is an exchange of value for value, money for services.
So I ask again: what right have you to someone else's labor?
Quote: boymimbo
What does the Wizard think about taxes on capital (property tax?).
I also agree. The only issue then becomes tourism and competition. Because if you have a 25% tax on all forms of consumption it pushes the prices up on visitors. Perhaps you could have them get a rebate on what they spent when they leave. Canada has (had?) that with the GST (a form of VAT) where a visitor to Canada could get a rebate when they left the country.
I'm fine with property taxes on homes. Consider a house, for example. There is a variable cost to the government to supply that house with services such as power, sewer, trash removal, road access, and emergency services. So I have no problem paying my fair share for those expenses. I would oppose car registration taxes, because the state could recoup the expense of road maintenance on a tax at the gas pump. Anything to keep things simple.
I would tend to oppose international tax rebates. That only incentives people to cross borders to buy things, which is wasteful. However, if Canada lures Americans north of the border with a rebate, I would favor retaliating by giving a break to Canadians to come south.
As an aside, I've been to Canada lots of times, and every single time I forget to send in my receipts timely for my rebate. Once I sent them in a few days late, and they denied me because of it.
Quote: NareedSo I ask again: what right have you to someone else's labor?
Quote: Dictionary.com
right
–noun
18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.
19. Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.
20. adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority.
21. that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong.
22. a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.
Of course when you pay for something you have the right to receive the goods or services as you paid for it. I think you are talking about this "right".
Legally, in Canada, I have the right to free education up to Grade 12 (as well as heavily subsidized University) and health-care. And based on my income, I could also receive "Welfare" that provides a very basic stipend for food and shelter. So as a Canadian citizen I have the right to these things.
Are the people doing this work enslaved? No. They are getting paid out of a collective, the taxes that most of us pay. When teachers and doctors make up the decision to take up their career in Canada, they understand that they get paid by the government and that the government is collecting the money from taxpayers, so I guess they chose to be "enslaved".
Take education for example. I pay property taxes which pay for public school, but I don't have a child living at home. I pay taxes to a health care system that I have yet to use significantly in the past 20 years. I pay employment insurance to a system I hope I'll never use. I assume that part of my taxes goes to pay for the province's welfare system.
As a nation, Canada's lawmakers chose to give all of its citizens (and permanent residents, and refugees) that right so that they would be given the opportunity to have a decent quality of life. In my opinion, it is the correct and moral thing to do.
I doubt this answers your question.
Quote: boymimbo
Legally, in Canada, I have the right to free education up to Grade 12 (as well as heavily subsidized University) and health-care. And based on my income, I could also receive "Welfare" that provides a very basic stipend for food and shelter. So as a Canadian citizen I have the right to these things.
You are confusing "right" with "entitlement." "Rights" are given by God (or nature if you prefer) as a human condition. However, one person't natural rights cannot take away something from another person. Take the case of subsidized university. Your "right" is taking away from other people in the form of higher taxes. So it is an entitlement, not a right.
Quote:Are the people doing this work enslaved? No. They are getting paid out of a collective, the taxes that most of us pay. When teachers and doctors make up the decision to take up their career in Canada, they understand that they get paid by the government and that the government is collecting the money from taxpayers, so I guess they chose to be "enslaved".
It is not the workers in the government system who are "enslaved," rather it is those who are paying for that system. Go back to feudal Europe. The peasants had to give up a few days labor to the lord in exchange for protection. Like taxes in modern countries, the rate varried wildly form one to six days a week. They had no choice. Same with taxes today. If I have to pay 20% in taxes for school and health care (your "rights" as you say) then I am effectively enslaved 20% of the time if we assume a five day work week.
"Rights" are better left few but vague than more and speciffic. Look at the USA where we started with just three named rights but built a system on them. Then look at the failed European Constitution. It tried to list hunderds of "rights," most of which were "entitlements." It failed to pass.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf I have to pay 20% in taxes for school and health care (your "rights" as you say) then I am effectively enslaved 20% of the time if we assume a five day work week.
Right. That fifth of your life gets taken from you by threat of force.
Quote: AZDuffman"Rights" are better left few but vague than more and speciffic. Look at the USA where we started with just three named rights but built a system on them.
As you remarked before, rights are not something given or granted by a government, but rather inherent to human beings. A government may grant certain "rights" in special circumstances, such as the right of the accused to be represented by an attorney. But if you look deeper, you'll see the purpose fo such grants is to safeguard other, existing rights, seeing as how the accused might be innocent, therefore he's entitled to a defense.
The "right" to remain silent is not a "right" per se, but rather a recognition that the government may not force you to say anything, btw.
When it comes to entitlements and particualrly health-care as entitlement, the great big problem is that en entire industry becomes government-controlled. Regulation is bad enough, but full cotrol by the government is a hundred times worse. Think of any transaction you've ever been forced to undertake in a bureaucracy, then ask yourself if that's what you want as far as health care is concerned.
I've seen just that in government-run health care in Mexico. There are horrendous wait times, shortages of drugs and equipment, not to mention how many people are turned away because they lack some paper or their papers weren't in order. It's frightening.
Quote: NareedQuote: AZDuffmanIf I have to pay 20% in taxes for school and health care (your "rights" as you say) then I am effectively enslaved 20% of the time if we assume a five day work week.
Right. That fifth of your life gets taken from you by threat of force.Quote: AZDuffman"Rights" are better left few but vague than more and speciffic. Look at the USA where we started with just three named rights but built a system on them.
As you remarked before, rights are not something given or granted by a government, but rather inherent to human beings. A government may grant certain "rights" in special circumstances, such as the right of the accused to be represented by an attorney. But if you look deeper, you'll see the purpose fo such grants is to safeguard other, existing rights, seeing as how the accused might be innocent, therefore he's entitled to a defense.
The "right" to remain silent is not a "right" per se, but rather a recognition that the government may not force you to say anything, btw.
When it comes to entitlements and particualrly health-care as entitlement, the great big problem is that en entire industry becomes government-controlled. Regulation is bad enough, but full cotrol by the government is a hundred times worse. Think of any transaction you've ever been forced to undertake in a bureaucracy, then ask yourself if that's what you want as far as health care is concerned.
I've seen just that in government-run health care in Mexico. There are horrendous wait times, shortages of drugs and equipment, not to mention how many people are turned away because they lack some paper or their papers weren't in order. It's frightening.
Maybe the President will read this thread. I think it's remarkable to have someone from Canada, the US, and Mexico debating health care on a thread about Casino taxation. I'm not complaining.
Quote: cclub79Maybe the President will read this thread. I think it's remarkable to have someone from Canada, the US, and Mexico debating health care on a thread about Casino taxation. I'm not complaining.
Well, it's like this:
In Mexico most health care is provided somehow by the government. There's a mish-mash of agencies at various levels. Then there's private-sector health care. This includes everything from doctors' offices to hospitals of varying price points. And there are some charitable health care providers with their own clinics (most charity, though, goes on in private hospitals).
It used to be that private care here was good, but not quite up to date. So if you had anything seriously wrong with you, such as heart disease or cancer, and your insurance covered it or you coudl afford it, you'd travel to the Mayo clinic in Rochester or to one of Houston's hospitals.
That's no longer the case. Private hospitals today in mexico, at least in the larger cities, are near state of the art in both equipment and personnel. But, and this is the crux, a great many local doctors trained wholly or partially somewhere in the US (a very few elsewhere such as Canad or Europe). They in turn pass on what they've learned to local med students and interns, but as medicine advances it's curcial that more new doctors get trained in America. And many of them do.
It may be worht noting that some doctors who take internships and training in private hospitals wind up working in government hospitals. More wind up in charitable institutions full or part time.
So if America goes and wrecks its health care system, they wreck Mexico's as well, and probably others too.
Quote: cclub79Quote: NareedQuote: AZDuffmanIf I have to pay 20% in taxes for school and health care (your "rights" as you say) then I am effectively enslaved 20% of the time if we assume a five day work week.
Right. That fifth of your life gets taken from you by threat of force.Quote: AZDuffman"Rights" are better left few but vague than more and speciffic. Look at the USA where we started with just three named rights but built a system on them.
As you remarked before, rights are not something given or granted by a government, but rather inherent to human beings. A government may grant certain "rights" in special circumstances, such as the right of the accused to be represented by an attorney. But if you look deeper, you'll see the purpose fo such grants is to safeguard other, existing rights, seeing as how the accused might be innocent, therefore he's entitled to a defense.
The "right" to remain silent is not a "right" per se, but rather a recognition that the government may not force you to say anything, btw.
When it comes to entitlements and particualrly health-care as entitlement, the great big problem is that en entire industry becomes government-controlled. Regulation is bad enough, but full cotrol by the government is a hundred times worse. Think of any transaction you've ever been forced to undertake in a bureaucracy, then ask yourself if that's what you want as far as health care is concerned.
I've seen just that in government-run health care in Mexico. There are horrendous wait times, shortages of drugs and equipment, not to mention how many people are turned away because they lack some paper or their papers weren't in order. It's frightening.
Maybe the President will read this thread. I think it's remarkable to have someone from Canada, the US, and Mexico debating health care on a thread about Casino taxation. I'm not complaining.
Fine, I concede that it's an "entitlement", not a right.
But with the case of health care, here in Canada the system, while not perfect, is quite adequate. We pay a heck of a lot less for prescription drugs because the provinces negotiate rates as a large buyer. Our urgent care is exemplary. We have longer life expectancy and lower mortality rates than both the US and Mexico. Unfortunately, because we live next door to the place with the most expensive health care in the world, our costs too soar. Competition from the USA takes away our best doctors and nurses who go and work down there and drives up other costs. Yes, we have waiting lists for procedures. If you have the cash you jump the line and head south. Governments have to make the choices between providing more care and raising taxes. As far as efficiency goes however, the system is fairly efficient.
Once again though, I don't have a problem with paying taxes. If you don't like paying them, you can always move somewhere where the tax regime is more agreeable.
Quote: NareedIt used to be that private care here was good, but not quite up to date. So if you had anything seriously wrong with you, such as heart disease or cancer, and your insurance covered it or you coudl afford it, you'd travel to the Mayo clinic in Rochester or to one of Houston's hospitals.
That's no longer the case. Private hospitals today in mexico, at least in the larger cities, are near state of the art in both equipment and personnel. But, and this is the crux, a great many local doctors trained wholly or partially somewhere in the US (a very few elsewhere such as Canad or Europe). They in turn pass on what they've learned to local med students and interns, but as medicine advances it's curcial that more new doctors get trained in America. And many of them do.
This is the exact problem with socialized medicine in any form. You inadvertently create a two-tier system, with a ridiculous gap. Anyone, even upper middle class (Which in my experience, still exists in Canada but is very rare in Mexico), who isn't making millions is required to go into the government system. This system tends to be overcrowded, and when it comes down to IMPORTANT surgeries you have problems. When you have a cough, at least in Canada, you're as good as you are in the US. In this country, the difference in care between someone on medicare and the CEO of Boeing doesn't contrast nearly as much. If you have a heart problem in the US, and one of the mass majority of people with some kind of insurance, the two will get similar care. In Canada, even if you're the premier of let's say... Newfoundland, you have to go to the US to get the quick and professional care that you want.
Newfie Premier Gets Heart Surgery In The US
Now, let's talk about taxes. Someone mentioned VAT, Canada does not have a VAT. They have a GST, which means that it is added on as a sales tax. This is unlike Mexico and almost the rest of the world who has a VAT which is built into the price sticker you see. I know in Germany, it's ILLEGAL to show a price without the VAT. As a side note, you can no longer get your GST back at least between Washington~British Columbia.
In Canada (Sorry people, I'm going to have to generalize here) the absolute top marginal rate not considering cities and using the highest provincial income rate, is 43%. This hits in at an astounding ~130k/year. America's top marginal rate will be ~39.something% after Obama fucks us over. I live in Washington, which does not have an income tax. I know California goes much higher (for the rich) than the 43% but I mainly want to talk about the poorer people since this applies to them more. This kicks in at ~350k/year.
The minimum for Canada is 20% (10% of both federal/provincial) with the US not even taxing you until $8k and not hitting 20% until around 20k. Looking at this, the lower income people have to pay both around 15% (nominal) more in income taxes and a GST which is a HIGHLY regressive tax along with provincial sales taxes (I assume). So these people making less than 40k-CN/year are paying 2-3k in sales tax with an additional... I don't know... 500 in GST? Most likely, the worst thing that will happen to these people is a cough which, because of American charity, can usually be cured at a very low cost.
Personally, I will always be at least 2-3 times the poverty line. If I continue in my field of choice (I'm a student, yes a far right conservative college student in Seattle) I will probably be making 6 figures easily in 15-20 years. I would be destroyed in Canada, but in the US I would not have as many of these funds stolen from me by the government.
Lastly, I agree with the Wizard. The proper term is the "Fair Tax" and has been proposed by those like Huckabee, whom I find to be a horrible voice for this message. The fact of the matter is, we could have a 25-30% VAT on every new item produced in the US. People would be sent a check at the beginning of each month to cover the cost of the VAT, this way low income families wouldn't be hurt by a regressive sales tax and could still pay for their family's food and housing. Think about it, right now let's say you make 60k/year. How would you like your paycheck to say 2500 every pay period? The 25-30% VAT would cover Medicare/SS. Personally, I don't trust our government to not have a sales tax period. The next time an Obama fools the public, he/she would come in and throw in a "Small tax" "For the rich". Let's remember the US income tax started at a 7% top marginal rate.
Sorry this turned into a rant, but I have some good numbers in there. My source for the tax information is worldwide-tax.com
Back to the topic: I have no idea how casinos are taxed currently, are they treated as any normal business or do states tag an extra % from them? Just know, the more you tax them the less they will be inclined to stay in Nevada. Especially because LV is becoming less and less of a luxury in terms of legal gambling.
Quote: ahiromuThis is the exact problem with socialized medicine in any form. You inadvertently create a two-tier system, with a ridiculous gap. Anyone, even upper middle class (Which in my experience, still exists in Canada but is very rare in Mexico), who isn't making millions is required to go into the government system. This system tends to be overcrowded, and when it comes down to IMPORTANT surgeries you have problems. When you have a cough, at least in Canada, you're as good as you are in the US. In this country, the difference in care between someone on medicare and the CEO of Boeing doesn't contrast nearly as much. If you have a heart problem in the US, and one of the mass majority of people with some kind of insurance, the two will get similar care. In Canada, even if you're the premier of let's say... Newfoundland, you have to go to the US to get the quick and professional care that you want.
Newfie Premier Gets Heart Surgery In The US
Canada’s system is not overcrowded. The problem with Canadian health insurance is that the costs are simply too high and resources too thin for the population. It creates wait lists. If anything, I would say that Canadian health insurance is adequate. You get the care you need, a little bit late sometimes, but when you need it. Most Canadians support the premier’s right to go south for his surgery. He had the money to get a superior procedure that wasn’t available in his province, so he went.
“Mass majority.” The problem is that if you don’t have insurance, you will be bankrupt. And if you’ve had a history of a heart problem and you transfer jobs, chances are that the insurance company will not cover that either. 62% of bankruptcies in the United States is due to medical reasons, unable to pay their bills or having lost their job for medical reasons. That number in Canada is ZERO. A health system that covers only 85% of the population sucks. The US’s life expectancy ranks BELOW Chile and Cuba. A 2009 Harvard study shows that there are about 45,000 excess deaths per year in the United States due to a lack of health coverage.
The United States pays 15% of its GDP on health care and is indeed 1st in responsiveness (when you have insurance, that is), while Canada only pays 10%. Part of our problem is that a lot of our talent goes south, where they can make more money.
Quote: ahiromuNow, let's talk about taxes. Someone mentioned VAT, Canada does not have a VAT. They have a GST, which means that it is added on as a sales tax. This is unlike Mexico and almost the rest of the world who has a VAT which is built into the price sticker you see.
By definition, GST is a VAT. It is a flow-through tax, in that manufacturers and firms are allowed to claim credits on GST paid to produce its goods and services. In fact, most of Canada is getting rid of sales tax altogether in favour of a harmonized sales tax (HST) rate. Canada doesn’t hide it. Sales taxes, on the other hand, are only charged to the end user and is seen as very regressive as every level of business as to pay it. Washington has such a sales tax.
Quote: ahiromuIn Canada (Sorry people, I'm going to have to generalize here) the absolute top marginal rate not considering cities and using the highest provincial income rate, is 43%. This hits in at an astounding ~130k/year. America's top marginal rate will be ~39.something% after Obama. I live in Washington, which does not have an income tax. I know California goes much higher (for the rich) than the 43% but I mainly want to talk about the poorer people since this applies to them more. This kicks in at ~350k/year.
Let’s compare apples to apples here. First, Canada’s top marginal tax rate is indeed 43% at 130k. That includes health care coverage, where as health insurance is paid directly by employers or employees in the United States. The 2009 per capita health care spending is 8,160/year source. 1.45% is collected as FICA to fund Medicare.
The United States marginal tax rate at 130,000 is generally between 34 and 37% (state tax contributes between 6 and 9% where state taxes exist). But the USA of course is running a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit that is not being paid by taxes. That’s $3,500 per American. So maybe your tax rate should be higher. Just how do you suppose the American people are going to pay back a 12.556 trillion dollar debt?
So if you add 8,100 for per capita health care (source: Kaiser foundation) (which is in effect a tax if you are comparing to Canada) and 3,500 for debt that you are not paying (we can be fair and add $1,600 which is the deficit that we’re not paying either), that adds up to 10,000 or about 8% to your marginal tax rate, which brings your rate to 42-45%, very much in line with Canada’s. This does not take into account sales taxes or city taxes.
Quote: ahiromuThe minimum for Canada is 20% (10% of both federal/provincial) with the US not even taxing you until $8k and not hitting 20% until around 20k. Looking at this, the lower income people have to pay both around 15% (nominal) more in income taxes and a GST which is a HIGHLY regressive tax along with provincial sales taxes (I assume). So these people making less than 40k-CN/year are paying 2-3k in sales tax with an additional... I don't know... 500 in GST? Most likely, the worst thing that will happen to these people is a cough which, because of American charity, can usually be cured at a very low cost.
Get your facts straight. In Canada, your first 10,800 is tax exempt. You get a GST rebate of $248/year if you make < 30,000. Most provinces also give you PST rebates for low income families. If you have children under 18 and make 30,000, you get about $500/month in benefits. Sales taxes are not payable on housing or food. So, people making 40K or less are paying probably about a net total of about 1.5K on consumption taxes, total. And even if we have a lot more than a cough, or need to see our doctor every six months for a check up, we’re covered.
---
So, to conclude, in Canada, just like in every other developed country (except the US), we socialized medicine. We pay it as part of our tax rates. When you factor in the US marginal tax rate with the cost of health care (which also makes American companies uncompetitive) and the debt you are not paying, taxes are roughly equal.
Canada, back in the 60s, made the decision that every Canada should have equal and free access to health care, and it is a national value that we hold very dear (almost like hockey). We know it's not perfect.
Slot machines: $250/year, $20 quarterly fee per machine.
Games: $16,000 + $200 /game over 16 games per year, $20,300 + $25 for each game over 35 per quarter.
Monthly percentage fee: 6.75% of gaming revenue over $134K/month.
So a place like the Wynn/Encore with 3,000 machines and 270 games would pay about $1,000,000 in slot licences ($330 x 3,000) and $16,000 + 81,200 + 254 x 200 + 100 x 235 = 171,500
And then pay 6.5% in revenue.
Quote: boymimboCanada’s system is not overcrowded. The problem with Canadian health insurance is that the costs are simply too high and resources too thin for the population. It creates wait lists.
The US’s life expectancy ranks BELOW Chile and Cuba. A 2009 Harvard study shows that there are about 45,000 excess deaths per year in the United States due to a lack of health coverage.
The United States pays 15% of its GDP on health care and is indeed 1st in responsiveness (when you have insurance, that is), while Canada only pays 10%. Part of our problem is that a lot of our talent goes south, where they can make more money.
Can you further explain your first statement? You state one thing, then basically define yourself incorrect afterwards. The (soft) definition of overcrowding is too many people for a given service.
Two things about the life expectancy. America is the fattest country on earth (or close to it), why don't you take something like that into account? You take one piece of possible causation, then link it directly to the effect. Japan has a pretty reasonable form of healthcare, moderately between socialism and free market albeit a little more on the left. To add onto that, in Japan you have to pay 30% of your medical costs (Probably fine otherwise). The New York Times, hardly an advocate for the free market, feels obligated to mention healthy eating and violence:
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/health-care-abroad-japan/
Also, we're on part with both Cuba and Chile, but to honestly take Cuba's numbers 100% seriously is foolish:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/datablog/2009/mar/10/health-population
Just because I found this I'll link it. It's basically showing that we have many more of the "emergency" machines than you guys. Many, many more in some cases:
http://www.mackinac.org/2748
Quote: boymimboBy definition, GST is a VAT. It is a flow-through tax, in that manufacturers and firms are allowed to claim credits on GST paid to produce its goods and services. In fact, most of Canada is getting rid of sales tax altogether in favour of a harmonized sales tax (HST) rate. Canada doesn’t hide it. Sales taxes, on the other hand, are only charged to the end user and is seen as very regressive as every level of business as to pay it. Washington has such a sales tax.
I never said that Canada hides it, I directly said that they have to show it. I just had to make a differentiation because a lot of people I know consider them separate entities. With the VAT being hidden and the GST being shown.
Quote: boymimboLet’s compare apples to apples here. First, Canada’s top marginal tax rate is indeed 43% at 130k. That includes health care coverage, where as health insurance is paid directly by employers or employees in the United States. The 2009 per capita health care spending is 8,160/year source. 1.45% is collected as FICA to fund Medicare.
The United States marginal tax rate at 130,000 is generally between 34 and 37% (state tax contributes between 6 and 9% where state taxes exist). But the USA of course is running a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit that is not being paid by taxes. That’s $3,500 per American. So maybe your tax rate should be higher. Just how do you suppose the American people are going to pay back a 12.556 trillion dollar debt?
So if you add 8,100 for per capita health care (source: Kaiser foundation) (which is in effect a tax if you are comparing to Canada) and 3,500 for debt that you are not paying (we can be fair and add $1,600 which is the deficit that we’re not paying either), that adds up to 10,000 or about 8% to your marginal tax rate, which brings your rate to 42-45%, very much in line with Canada’s. This does not take into account sales taxes or city taxes.
In your version, the money that employers are currently paying completely disappears. That money would work its way back into the system in some realm, or be paid directly back to the government. So your numbers are completely false, I appreciated the math though.
Quote: boymimboGet your facts straight. In Canada, your first 10,800 is tax exempt. You get a GST rebate of $248/year if you make < 30,000. Most provinces also give you PST rebates for low income families. If you have children under 18 and make 30,000, you get about $500/month in benefits. Sales taxes are not payable on housing or food. So, people making 40K or less are paying probably about a net total of about 1.5K on consumption taxes, total. And even if we have a lot more than a cough, or need to see our doctor every six months for a check up, we’re covered.
Alright, my source didn't say anything about that so I was incorrect and admit it. I decided to go to an income tax calculator for both countries.
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
http://lsminsurance.ca/calculators/canada/income-tax (canada)
Punch in 150k, which is what a family of one high professional or two relatively moderate professionals would be making. In Canada you would be paying 10-20k more in taxes, with your company covering insurance.
This gives us what was expected, but I found them and decided to have some fun. I also did mention that primary care is very similar.
Quote: boymimboSo, to conclude, in Canada, just like in every other developed country (except the US), we socialized medicine. We pay it as part of our tax rates. When you factor in the US marginal tax rate with the cost of health care (which also makes American companies uncompetitive) and the debt you are not paying, taxes are roughly equal.
Canada, back in the 60s, made the decision that every Canada should have equal and free access to health care, and it is a national value that we hold very dear (almost like hockey). We know it's not perfect.
I see what you did there (Insert Futurama picture). Yes every other developed country has socialized medicine, but last time I checked we have been a world superpower for 60 years... I couldn't find Canada on the map. Taxes are not roughly equal, companies absorb those costs so please stop saying that. The money wouldn't disappear. Sorry, but we're both taking a few pot shots at each other so that's that.
Just to be sure, Canada's employers do not pay health insurance or health costs. It is purely accounted for in our income taxes, which is why I pay more taxes. US companies do absorb the cost of health care and it makes them less competitive overall. So, it's fine to add the 8,100 in per capita health care costs to your tax regime because it is paid either by you or absorbed by your employer. And what if your employer doesn't pay it? Then you are stuck paying the tax. Or being uninsured.
The fact that many Americans are obese is also a function of preventative health care. But you ignore the statistic that states that 45,000 people a year die because they are under or uninsured.
And the debt facts that Americans are underpaying taxes by about 3,500 a year because you are running a 1.4 trillion deficit this year.
---
On the healthcare debate, I certainly don't support what's in the legislation today. The people who have health insurance today want to ensure it remains the same despite the fact that the costs have gone up 50% in the past six years and it is becoming an unsustainable cost. The people who don't have it want to have it but those who are insured don't want to pay for the uninsured and they don't want the government to pay for it either.
I think you attack health care by:
(1) regulating costs and increases by health insurance policies to a cap.
(2) have the government take over prescriptions and have governments negotiate rates to be lower.
(3) have the states offer a form of public insurance that is low cost or borne through an employer or state tax with premiums being paid by a sliding scale.
(4) no more denial of service.
(5) no more preexisting conditions with the exception of travel insurance.
Yes I understand the whole employer thing, I went out with friends after I wrote my response and couldn't stop thinking about the math. Let me say I disagree that it is a tax. We have much more say over what happens with our health care, so yes even though we are kind of "forced" to pay for it we have our decisions to make. If I want to go to doctor A because doctor B is an asshole, or I want to pay an extra grand and get my MRI done at location B instead of A I (usually) can. I do not know enough about the specifics, but as much as I have heard our ability to choose our doctors better than Canada isn't under contest by anyone.
Let's say that it is a tax. This means that that health care money, let's call it additional income, is added onto our current income. So in the end, instead of making... 45k? we have a per capita of 53k. In the end, yes we would have a higher marginal rate. Let's not look at marginal rate though, because what really matters is your bottom line, how much money you have at the end of the month which goes back to how much you are taxed on personal income. Neither of us argue that Canadians pay more in taxes, thus have a lower bottom line. Therefore, you Canadians pay extra taxes for what we get for "free". Healthcare for us, yes, is kind of a hidden cost. If businesses stopped paying for it we would A. Get paid more and B. Have more jobs. I also guarantee you that if people actually saw the cost of their healthcare here, prices would plummet. We American love our money.
Side story: I come off of my parents' insurance plan in June. I wear glasses and was going to just buy one box of contacts to have them for emergencies. But, because of how our insurance is setup, I am going to buy 5 boxes instead and not see a dime come from my wallet. This is a microcosm of why health care is too expensive in the US.
Do you know why I ignored your "statistic" about un/underinsured people? Statistics like that are completely bogus, it's like Obama's "saved or created" jobs statistic. I have a friend who came from a very poor family, she had/has lupus and is currently ~28. When she wasn't working at this dentist's clinic who is very nice to her (She's on their medical even though she only is able to work like 15 hours a week) she was able to sign up for medicare/social security. I know, sample size of one, but there are services for these people.
On your healthcare points:
1. Regulating costs and services only lowers the supply. It adds an increased invisible "cost" that the consumer never sees. There is a big problem in the US right now with doctors refusing to see Medicare patients because they aren't reimbursed enough. This would only get worse when the government has an even bigger monopoly.
2. America already does this with flu shots, ever wonder why there's always a shortage? We pay full price for prescriptions, if we stopped that and started collective bargaining for drugs, then the quality and/or quantity would go down I assure you for the whole world.
3. State by state is fine, but Mass. and Cal. have done that and the prices are ridonculous. Maybe not exactly to your personal liking, but it is currently being attempted and not doing too well. Hey, just like Communism.
4 & 5. Seeing as I don't see healthcare as a fundamental right, this one really comes down to personal opinion. These two conditions would hinder any attempt at affordable healthcare.
Personally I have no problem with Canada, if my interests didn't lie in the defense industry / aerospace I wouldn't mind living up in Vancouver for a bit. Also you have to remember the basis of the two countries: America saw (what was perceived as) its rights being trampled on, therefore we fought to protect these important and few rights. We (still the majority) have a different view of government and its proper size. I don't know enough about Canadian independence, but aren't they still under the queen?
Canadians in general pay roughly the same taxes as the United States up to a certain point. When we get to 80K or so, we start to pay more taxes and our marginal rate goes up to between 41% and 44% (depending where we live) that you say while yours stays between 28 and 37%. And we pay sales taxes and/or GST (which is a VAT). Alot of it.
You can't just wipe away the fact that are a bunch of studies that say that 45 million Americans are uninsured. You can't ignore the fact that America has the most expensive health care in the world. And you can't ignore the number of bankruptcies created for medical reasons. And you can't ignore the deficit and national debt which is sitting at about 85% of GDP. These statistics are not bogus and you can't simply say that it's not a problem the people at Fox News or you don't see it from your experience of the world.
I completely admit that when you do have health insurance, it's great. The problem is when you don't. The problem is the premiums that you have to pay when your employer stops or forces you to pay for part of the coverage (which happened to me, at my employer, while I was living there) or all of your coverage.
At that point, it becomes a tax. Whether the cost of the health care is borne by the employer or by you, it is not paid as an income tax (as it is here), it is paid for via a premium (per capita, $8,100/year). Whether that premium is borne by you or by your employer (who adds it to their cost structure making them uncompetitive), it still must be paid if you want adequate care. In Canada we add it to our taxes and our government pays for our adequate (certainly not perfect) health care. In the States the cost of health care is borne outside of the tax system. So our tax system includes health care and yours does not.
What really bothers me about US politics and US news today is the polarity on both sides of the fence. Fox News hosts these tea parties and calls their news "fair and balanced". CNBC is completely on the other side of the fence, while CNN, stuck with awful ratings, gets most of its news seemingly from Twitter and Facebook but still reports from the opposite side of the fence as Fox News. PBS and the networks and 90% of the media is seen as "liberal". There seems to be no truly unbiased news source out there so it's difficult to believe news you hear and believe that it's true. But the truth is out there. You just have to dig, use your research skills, and find out the truth for yourself. You're a college student. Figure it out! You're America's future!!!
Quote: boymimbo
I think you attack health care by:
(1) regulating costs and increases by health insurance policies to a cap.
(2) have the government take over prescriptions and have governments negotiate rates to be lower.
(3) have the states offer a form of public insurance that is low cost or borne through an employer or state tax with premiums being paid by a sliding scale.
(4) no more denial of service.
(5) no more preexisting conditions with the exception of travel insurance.
The first three of your solutions are just more government. Why do we need to regulate everything? The more things get regulated the more they don't work. A better way is to let the market work by:
(1) Get rid of most or all "mandates" on what insurance covers. When you mandate that "health insurance" covers things like screenings; psyciatric care, etc you blow up the cost for everyone. Let people just buy INSURANCE. Coverage for major medical hospital stays with say a deductible of $5,000 or so. Those that want all those other coverages may add them on if they wish.
(2) Take the savings and let or even require people to set up Health Savings Accounts. Set it up on a MC/Visa card that can only be swiped at a provider. (eg: at Walgreens the card will work at the Rx counter but not at the front checkout.)
(3) Require providers to post cost for treatments or Rx drugs both online and in a conspicuous place in their office. What and how they charge is up to them. A doctor could give Cadillac service for $10,000 per year all-you-can-eat style down to a clinic with bare-bones service and low prices. Since *you* pay *you* choose. THIS IS A RETURN TO FEE-FOR-SERVICE, a simple concept that worked years ago!
(4) Let people buy AFLAC-style long term disability coverage for missed wages. This solves the bankruptcy problem.
(5) De-regulate medicine so that it is easier to set up clinics, in-store even, and let nurses and physicians assistants handle routine things and prescribe most drugs. Thus if I have a cold and know I just need the better cough syrup and some antibiotics I go to the Walgreen Clinic and am out in minutes.
That's it. No government involvement. Less government involvement than we even have now. Choice but with responsibility. Of course, buying the LTD and setting up the MSA mean you may have to live a little mor emodest. But better that than everyone expecting their neighbor to pay their way.
Best part is the plan is self-rationing. You have a cough instead of running to the doctor because the co-pay is $10 you decide if it is worth $50 to you. All of the sudden it might not be.
Quote: ahiromu
Personally, I will always be at least 2-3 times the poverty line. If I continue in my field of choice (I'm a student, yes a far right conservative college student in Seattle) I will probably be making 6 figures easily in 15-20 years. I would be destroyed in Canada, but in the US I would not have as many of these funds stolen from me by the government.
Wow. I've now found two actual conservatives up there. And coincidently I found both thru gambling websites.
So, say you have a heart attack. Your health care plan covers it, but your doctor tells you that you need to take time off work to recover, so you do. When it comes time to get back to work, your employer decides that you are no longer needed and you're done. So you go on COBRA for a while, paying your own premiums, decimating your savings, while you go look for new work.
So you find a new job, but the employer doesn't have health benefits. You take the job and go shopping for self-paid health insurance. But because you've had a condition (heart attack, cancer, stroke, insert life-shortening, recurring condition here), you have to pay, oh, $50,000 a year for coverage. You declare bankruptcy because you can't pay the premium, or you cancel health care coverage and pay for the heart drugs out of pocket, because that's what the market dictates. The stress of having to pay $$$$$ for medication gives you another heart attack. You're dead, because you'd rather be dead than pay the ambulance bill after you dial 911. The market works!!!
Earlier we talked about enslavery and how people are enslaved to the government to pay taxes. For me, I have no problem socializing medicine. All of us posting have been lucky so far. We're gainfully employed, we have health insurance that the employer pays, or we're rich enough and healthy enough to pay our own way. We say that hey, let's let the "market" dictate things, which is fine for us, because we don't pay the premium.
However, the moment we become unemployed or the health care benefit becomes a shared cost with your employer, it starts to become prohibitedly expensive. And god forbid that something bad happens, because holy crap, you have sevened out in the worst imaginable way. Getting cancer or other life-threatening / expensive to treat diseases is not something that the individual can control. So why should the individual have to pay the market cost of getting that treated and be exposed to incredibly high premiums that will inevitably kill them anyway?
I guess it's a matter of deciding what society you want to live in. One where you live your own life, paying for everything as you go, and hoping that nothing bad happens to you and if something does, you are forced to use up all of your wealth, declare bankruptcy, and live on the street? (But hey, at least you're responsible). Or one where you count your lucky stars and pay into a system that covers both the lucky and unlucky equally, where if you get sick, you can take time off work to recover, and not have to worry about financial ruin? I prefer the latter, by far. It's just more humane.
That said, what I think would work for America is a blanket group insurance policy that covers everyone regardless of condition, age, preexisting conditions, etcetera. You could buy different policies like the Yugo (they send you to Kosovo for treatment), the Bombardier (they send you to Canada), the Corolla (the coverage never stops), or the Cadillac (overpriced treatment, they send you to Detroit for every single procedure). You pay the rate, no questions asked, no one is denied. Employers could pay it. Employees could pay it. It's affordable. The government would give you a tax credit/rebate for premiums you paid based on your income, (meaning that the Yugo policy would be essentially free for everyone). At that point, you remove the unfairness of the whole insurance program while keeping it privatized. And maybe, maybe, competition would drive the price downward. Perhaps governments would need to put caps on premium increases and regulate the insurance companies somewhat.
Quote: boymimboThe problem with this entire debate is that you really don't get a choice whether you get sick or not. Yeah, a cough is a cough, and a broken bone is just that, but what about cancers, brain tumors, heart attacks, strokes, or even appendicitis. None of these are easily preventable, and it is just a roll of the dice whether you get this or not.
This is why you buy insurance. But we have two problems in the USA. First, people want insurance to cover *everything.* So they load up the benefits. Then people expect the cost of the insurance to be minimal. There seems to be about 35-40% of the USA population who gets totally POed when they are asked to pay for their own care. This has to cahnge.
Quote:So, say you have a heart attack. Your health care plan covers it, but your doctor tells you that you need to take time off work to recover, so you do. When it comes time to get back to work, your employer decides that you are no longer needed and you're done. So you go on COBRA for a while, paying your own premiums, decimating your savings, while you go look for new work.
So you find a new job, but the employer doesn't have health benefits. You take the job and go shopping for self-paid health insurance. But because you've had a condition (heart attack, cancer, stroke, insert life-shortening, recurring condition here), you have to pay, oh, $50,000 a year for coverage. You declare bankruptcy because you can't pay the premium, or you cancel health care coverage and pay for the heart drugs out of pocket, because that's what the market dictates. The stress of having to pay $$$$$ for medication gives you another heart attack. You're dead, because you'd rather be dead than pay the ambulance bill after you dial 911. The market works!!!
Lots of cherry picking here on your part. First, the USA has the FMLA so you get time off the job and must be taken back by law. Second, most employers offer LTD plans very inexpensively. But guess what? Most people decline coverage again because they are expected to pay for it themselves. They would rather let Uncle Obama send a check. Finally you assume a person will not find a new job with health benefits. Guess what? Most employers do offer health insurance. But if we went to my system in a previous post it wouldn't matter because you would pay for your own coverage then it is not job-dependent. And all of this without socialized medicine and its long wait times.
Quote:Earlier we talked about enslavery and how people are enslaved to the government to pay taxes. For me, I have no problem socializing medicine. All of us posting have been lucky so far. We're gainfully employed, we have health insurance that the employer pays, or we're rich enough and healthy enough to pay our own way. We say that hey, let's let the "market" dictate things, which is fine for us, because we don't pay the premium.
No, I am not "lucky" to have a job and health insurance. I went to college to get skills and then hunted for a good job. Most everyone who gets a job did the same. Just like in BJ you need to play this basic strategy to overcome the "house edge" of life.
Quote:However, the moment we become unemployed or the health care benefit becomes a shared cost with your employer, it starts to become prohibitedly expensive. And god forbid that something bad happens, because holy crap, you have sevened out in the worst imaginable way. Getting cancer or other life-threatening / expensive to treat diseases is not something that the individual can control. So why should the individual have to pay the market cost of getting that treated and be exposed to incredibly high premiums that will inevitably kill them anyway?
Plenty of life is not controlable yet must be dealt with. And again, if you could just buy a major-medical type plan with a high deductible the cost of the plan would plummet.
Quote:I guess it's a matter of deciding what society you want to live in. One where you live your own life, paying for everything as you go, and hoping that nothing bad happens to you and if something does, you are forced to use up all of your wealth, declare bankruptcy, and live on the street? (But hey, at least you're responsible). Or one where you count your lucky stars and pay into a system that covers both the lucky and unlucky equally, where if you get sick, you can take time off work to recover, and not have to worry about financial ruin? I prefer the latter, by far. It's just more humane.
He who trades his freedom for security will have neither. If everyone is under a government plan, how long before some government actuary (no offense, Wiz) says, "You don't get this treatment because you ate Big Macs and got fat." Or, "We require a certain % of care to go to minorities, you don't qualify." Or, "You are out of shape, if you don't lose weight you will need to go to fat camp. It's for the common good after all."
Quote:Perhaps governments would need to put caps on premium increases and regulate the insurance companies somewhat.
Price controls never work. If you cap the price at a low lwvel people and companies simply stop selling the product or service.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, I am not "lucky" to have a job and health insurance. I went to college to get skills and then hunted for a good job. Most everyone who gets a job did the same. Just like in BJ you need to play this basic strategy to overcome the "house edge" of life.
You are lucky that (1) you were able to pay for college (2) were smart enough to go to college (3) secure and maintain a job that provides health insurance (4) haven't had some condition where you had to leave work for an extended period of time. Some people just aren't that fortunate.
MOST employers offer health coverage. What if you are thrown out of work (like the 10% who are unemployed today)? What if you work for a small business that doesn't offer insurance? What if you have a preexisting condition? Throw em under a bus?
Quote: AZDuffmanHe who trades his freedom for security will have neither. If everyone is under a government plan, how long before some government actuary (no offense, Wiz) says, "You don't get this treatment because you ate Big Macs and got fat." Or, "We require a certain % of care to go to minorities, you don't qualify." Or, "You are out of shape, if you don't lose weight you will need to go to fat camp. It's for the common good after all."
None of that has happened here in Canada yet in the 45 years we've had socialized medicine nor in any other socialized country that has socialized medicine so why do you think it will be that way in the States? Why does it have to be that way?
Quote: boymimboYou are lucky that (1) you were able to pay for college (2) were smart enough to go to college (3) secure and maintain a job that provides health insurance (4) haven't had some condition where you had to leave work for an extended period of time. Some people just aren't that fortunate.
Again, I don't call it "luck." I look at is more along the lines of "The Ant and the Grasshopper." Or put another way, The Roman Empire wasn't planned, but neither did it "just happen."
Quote:None of that has happened here in Canada yet in the 45 years we've had socialized medicine nor in any other socialized country that has socialized medicine so why do you think it will be that way in the States? Why does it have to be that way?
Why do I think it will happen in the USA? I have my eyes open. There are already crazies talking about banning salt in restaurants; taxing soda pop and fatty foods; and the USA Government is obsessed with setting aside things for "diversity" representation. So imagining what I wrote as part of a socialized medicine plan is not even a stretch of the imagination but rather a projection based on current government behavior.
I still ask if socialize dmedicine is so great, why do so many important people come to the USA when they need good and fast care.
PICK ANY TWO OF THE FOLLOWING FOR YOUR MEDICAL CARE OPRIONS:
(A) GOOD
(B) FAST
(C) CHEAP
