Canada Moves to Keep Skilled Workers 1067
ashitaka writes "Just in time for all those who have vowed to leave the United States in response to government policies and mainstream cultural malaise, the Canadian government is announcing a C$700 million initiative to help skilled workers stay in Canada and become citizens. If you had the choice, would you really uproot to a new country especially one where the lifestyle isn't that much different than your own?"
Lifestyle (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that a lifestyle that includes warm weather would be reason enough.
The lifestyle IS different! (Score:5, Insightful)
ho (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Quick question.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they have any interest in achieving their goal, shouldn't they be sending a loud message to the rest of the world, inviting like-minded individuals to come live there instead? Or perhaps convince their neighbors to read a newspaper?
Oh, wait. That would involve effort. Never mind - I forgot who I was talking about.
It's a cop-out (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't know how much worse things might have been, either. We say, and it's true, that the domestic opposition didn't prevent the administration from invading Iraq. Well, that was a failure. There is literally no way of knowing what else they might have done if given free reign - Miers on the SCOTUS is only the start of it.
In case you haven't been paying attention - the two last US elections have been very close, and their outcomes (especially in 2000) have had a tremendous impact on the rest of human history. In spite of those election results, public opinion here in the US still plays a big role in determining what the administration can and cannot get away with. If you're really concerned with human civilization, and not with melodrama, you move to a purple state, not to Canada.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
First we take Manhattan, then we take.... Toronto? (Score:4, Insightful)
Japan in this case.
I just couldn't get past America re-electing the failed
ideologues in the White House. Pity the people have seen the err of
their ways all too late. (ref: Bush's declining approval rating)
Barring stumbling into marriage over here, I can't see myself
staying forever though. A place like Canada is *extremely* attractive
to me on a number of levels - it's similarity to America being just one.
Having spent a bit of time in Toronto and Vancouver, they're both places
I can easily see myself living in. They're not New York or Tokyo, mind
you... but they do seem to be everything America believes itself to be -
with Jesus wonderfully absent.
The only problem I can see being an issue is that I don't particularly
care for hockey... Is that a deal-breaker on naturalization?
Would I? (Score:1, Insightful)
Why not? America has become hostile towards it's citizens, I mean obviously the government has chosen to bite off the hand that feeds it.
What with all the outsourcing and offshoring and imported crap from third world countries, it would seem obvious that the US Government doesn't care about the people, only about the profiteers on Wall Street and the Elite Banksters that pad the pockets of the politicians that make the laws that keep making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
If there is a country that is intelligent enough to understand that the well being of ALL it's citizens is the key to it's survival then I would say that sounds like a pretty good place to be.
Re:How about giving up the Socialism, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Real Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a cop-out (Score:3, Insightful)
For once someone gets it. If we ever meet in person I'll buy you a beer [or whatever ya drink].
As a Canadian [and fellow North Americaner] all I have to say is it's good to see someone gets it. Too many foreigners flee their country for safety reasons then just pursue the culture that bred it here [often with the problems just following behind them].
Moving China to Toronto, Vancouver and a few other cities won't fix the problems they have in China.
That said, if you guys don't open up the poles to a "third" option you're doomed for another four years of "Iraq SMASH! Iran PHEAR!". Demo == Repub.
Oh and to CNN
Tom
Re:Healthcare is great if you don't get sick (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, Canada! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's a cop-out (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, some people say that current US administration is arrogant in their attempt to change "human history", but it is really funny to see the same attitude from their opponents!
Is it possible to have somewhat "balanced" (if not "fair") discussion here?
Paul B.
Skilled Workers credentials fallout (Score:2, Insightful)
Main reason why immigration to Canada isn't very popular for "skilled workers" is because it's harder to find work in comparison to the United States. If you don't have Canadian and/or American experience and credentials, most employers will just delete your resume.
I highly discourage any skilled workers from immigrating to Canada, unless you're willing to work blue collar jobs and/or are willing to go back to school to get Canadian approved credentials.
Attracting "skilled" foreign workers and then relegating them to blue collar or minimum wage jobs is largely a waste of resources and time.
Re:Oh, Canada! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about giving up the Socialism, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
People leave Canada for a country with a better economy, and the government's solution is to spend more tax money! Brilliant move, eh?
I presume you're talking about the US - one of the most socialist countries on the planet (or have you opted out of the endless socialist pork projects, massive socialist war machine, and corporate welfare? Is that a checkbox on your income tax return?). Of course it isn't to benefit the poor, so Americans lift their chins up and talk about their great "capitalism" versus the evil "socialism" (of the REST OF THE 1ST WORLD), strangely imagining some moral high road.
Absolutely amazing that any American, with the enormous pork and tax-grabbing bloat of its government, can bleat the word socialist in any manner other than humor or self-deprecation.
What's even more remarkable is the fact that the all-in tax load in the US is, in many cases, similar to or greater than a comparable person in Canada. Don't tell Americans this, though - it might upset their imaginary world.
Re:Goodbye Canada (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, most of the Quebecois that make it out west are really cool. They're almost as much fun to hang around as the Newfies.
Re:Quick question.... (Score:5, Insightful)
In my case, I would like to move to an area that is much more socially liberal than the US, and has more social services. Personally, I don't mind paying more in taxes if the government is going to use those taxes to help the people of the country.
Basically, you say, "if you don't like X, why not try to change it, and invite other people to come and help", whereas I say "If most people in the area like X, but I don't, would I not be better served by going to a place where people share my ideas instead inviting fruther fragmentation into the area I am at, and trying to strong arm my own views onto others?"
Ya don't say! (Score:4, Insightful)
I left Arizona for Vancouver BC in Jan 2003. I've been telecommuting with the little web services outfit (still in AZ) ever since. I married a local last June, and she's sponsoring me for Perm Residency soon.
It was a great relief. My first coherent thought after 9/11 was "This is how tyrants are made". I seem to have been right.
I have absolutely no regrets. Answer your question?
Re:Canada vs. USA (Score:0, Insightful)
Implies that all Christians are fascists and that the USA is overall a fascist nation. In addition to being blatantly wrong, it's also offensive and discriminatory. Next: is a sensational, emotional appeal which stereotypes American soldiers as dangerous "psychos". A nonbiased, rational argument could have been worded such as "enforcement of drug laws in the united states can be avoided by moving to Canada"
And finally, If the canadian health care system is so great, why do thousands of Canadians travel to the US for medical care each year rather than wait months (sometimes years) for necesarry operations? The cost and government waste is terrible, I much prefer my private insurance company.
Re:Yes. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Lifestyle (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Goodbye Canada (Score:2, Insightful)
And besides that, Canada is bilingual not French. Why should French only speaking citizens get jobs with the government when they can get out a couple English words while the Anglophones have to speak French fluently to pass as "bilingual".
Why should I as an anglophone business owner have to display French signs on my business in Quebec? What if I don't speak a word of French at all?
***That's*** why the English are pissed off. Not because the government is bilingual but that the government FAVOURS the french over the english.
Tom
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Canada vs. USA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The lifestyle IS different! (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't make the mistake of judging all Americans by our 'elected' leader who barely won either of his two elections. A large number of Americans would've preferred otherwise.
Re:Canada vs. USA (Score:5, Insightful)
The wait vs. the cost (Score:5, Insightful)
(Actually, in America, you might get turfed out in critical situations anyway. Many hospitals don't have an emergency room, as they cost more than they make and US hospitals are there for profit not care. Those ER rooms that do exist are hopelessly overcrowded, overworked and are considered by the CDC to be extremely high risk areas in the event of an outbreak of a contageous disease. If bird flu ever goes critical, it will likely do so in a US emergency room.)
The American situation, unlike the British and Canadian counterparts, is not fixable. Because hospitals in the US are profit ventures, not health-care centers, they have no interest in doing anything that will cost more than it will earn. Proper emergency care is expensive and earns little, as most accident and crime victims are uninsured and/or flat broke. They have no interest in lowering prices, because the bulk of "paying" customers have health insurance and so never see the real price tag and therefore have no reason to care what it is.
Insurance companies in the US are also money-grubbers and they know how to rake the money in. By charging the companies a "reduced rate" for bulk purchases, they can absolutely guarantee that customers never see the real cost to their paychecks. The victim - errr, employee - only sees a given deduction for their deduction. What they don't see is what the company is really paying and therefore what the company is really calculating payscales on. In the end, you pay the full cost but you only see a fraction of it on the pay stub.
By these accounting tricks and other fraud, the US employees are bilked billions of dollars and somehow consider themselves better off because they don't have the wait. Trust me, if you threw billions of dollars out the window in England, you'd get prompt healthcare too. Well, just as soon as anyone realized that was real money and not something from a Monopoly game.
(For that matter, there's always BUPA, if you insist on the insurance thing in more civilized lands.)
financial rape (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Income tax misnomer (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Healthcare is great if you don't get sick (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Terrorists don't mind cold (Score:2, Insightful)
First off, if I had to choose between the Christian Fundamentalists, or the Islamic Fundamentalists, I'd rather go with the latter. They have less history of violent persecution of non-believers, and before you bring terrorists into the equation, remember that Jerry Falwell would be the same as Osama Bin Laden if he didn't have so much bloody power over here in the 'States.
Second, I see the overall worldwide belief in religion in general declining. All the Japanese and Chinese I know are atheists or agnostics, as are most of the Europeans and Canadians, and a good number of my fellow college students. Christianity just doesn't matter that much anymore outside of the U.S., and Islam doesn't matter that much outside the middle east.
Re:No! You are mis-informed (Score:3, Insightful)
Billions are already spent on providing what SHOULD be excellent living conditions for a virtual handful of people. Instead, their corrupt self-government combines with the pitiful behaviour of people on reserves, leaving taxpayers with the cheque -- The Prime Minister just allocated 5 billion dollars to prevent suicides in native communities, which have pitifully reached epidemic levels.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Until the native populations in canada grow up and start actually taking some responsibility for their actions(And some of them are atrocities -- My mother lived in the North, in a small mining community past Thompson Manitoba, and she has told me stories of natives feeding their kids drano to send them to the hospital because they don't want to get a babysitter while they went out drinking for the night) and their own self-government, they have absolutely no business blaming anyone but themselves for their situation. Rational natives should be extremely vocal in critisizing the unfortunate majority which is enforcing stereotypes and in so doing causing even natives who want to be productive in society untold grief.
Re:The wait vs. the cost (Score:3, Insightful)
Medicare fraud sucks, but it's something to deal with, but it's there for those that need the care, whether old, or simply those that can't pay. Also most states have health plans for the low income, in particular children.
Would I rather be in a system where fraud can happen, but is punished when found, or be on my couch, in pain waiting for a doctor? Personally when you are in pain, the only thing that matters is removing it. Something is wrong when your citizens have to fly to other countries to get needed surgeries.
Re:It's a cop-out (Score:4, Insightful)
Large scale societal dynamics are the things which shape history, not so much the politics of the day. Politics in a vacuum looks very impressive, but you look closer, and you'll often find that it is a mirror which reflects what's actually happening in the world.
Re:Income tax misnomer (Score:3, Insightful)
The Republican necons in our Congress are trying to remove the mortgage interest deduction as we speak. Now how does the US look if that's gone?
Re:Canada vs. USA (Score:4, Insightful)
When the economy tanks in the next year or so, all that hoarded wealth will be released to purchase stock and real estate at greatly deflated prices. They'll make a bundle on our economic disaster, eventually, when the US climbs out of its debt hole (by raising taxes and cutting public spending) and the value of the holdings they will purchase at fire-sale prices go back up.
Supply side economics, as Reagan's budget director David Stockman admitted, is a con to lower taxes on the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. He should know, as he was Reagan's salesman to congress.
Supply side cuts have failed. Jobs are gone, poverty is up, aid to the poor is going, we're trillions in the hole in debt to China, the wealthy are insanely wealthy and poised to become mega-wealthy after the crash caused by the tax cuts and borrowing. Bush believes in his supply side cuts. But, as we've seen, his beliefs are gut-based, not fact-based, and his gut is unbelieveably incorrect about reality. He simply didn't believe in his own college education, and certainly had his own ideas about economics, his Harvard professor says. Faith-based economics, welfare is communism, government is evil, all that.
Economic booms are based on the price of oil, not tax cuts. Reagan cut taxes and increased spending, sending us into a spiral that mirrors today's death swirl, but he was saved by one thing: OPEC's pricing discipline collapsed in the early Eighties. So much wealth, which had been hemorraging to the middle eastern princes since 1973, suddenly flooded into the American economy. We sang with power and money and grew, even as the debt ballooned. Reagan was a lucky bugger: his supply side con would have ruined him had OPEC not collapsed.
Bush the senior had to raise taxes to stop the disaster that supply side created. He paid for it by losing a chance at a second term.
Bush the junior came into office believing, as all the other conservatives did, in the Reagan Miracle. He was wrong: the miracle was the OPEC collapse that saved the old fool from the folly of believing the pack of thieves that sold him on the supply-side con.
So, Bush slammed straight into OPEC and the oil companies ascendant, believing that tax cuts were the solution to all, that government was the problem, and that debt would eventually force the death of the New Deal programs the wealthy hated so. It's five years later, and the International Monetary Fund is telling us we can crash hard or crash soft -- but we will crash, when the Chinese and all the others lending us money cut us off. They will dictates terms to US. And Bush will probably react by screaming at his aides and locking himself away from the public, which is pretty much his reponse to every challenge.
After the crash, the very people who keep selling the supply side con will be flush with offshore cash. They will swoop in and buy cheap, while taxes for the lesser mortals go up 20% to try to stop the bleeding. And oh yep -- they will be the ones who'll be lending us money to shore up the tax base, so they'll make a trillion bucks in interest alone in the next couple of decades -- paid for by tax payers.
Yup, the money is in the mattress - for now.
Re:Lifestyle (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Canada vs. USA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Goodbye Canada (Score:1, Insightful)
It was nothing more than pandering to the whiney seperatists.
Let's see what amendments it would have made to the Canada act:
1. Recognition of a "distinct society"
2. Commitment to Bilingualism
3. Increased provincial powers with immigration
4. Provincial right to constitutional veto
5. Provincial influence in appointments to supreme court and senators
Number 1 is selfish (see below). 2 is already entrenched in Canada. 3 I don't really care about. 4 is debatable as to suitability. 5 is something more than Quebec has wanted for quite some time.
The Meech Lake accord was _APPROVED_ by everyone but Manitoba and Newfoundland. And thank goodness for that.
Unfortunately, by the BNA act (1867), Quebec belongs to Canada. Quebec just has issues with the repatriated constitution.
Why not mention the failed Charlottetown accord in your diatribe? All I know is that it's a good thing that all this nonsense stopped in 1992. Quebec belongs to Confederation. Quebec is not a nation -- it's a province.
I like Quebec. I've spent a lot of time there. I'm reasonably fluent in french. I've lived in every region, and travelled to almost every corner of this land. Quebec is no more distinct, than say, Newfoundland, or Alberta, or the NWT. Every region is different and valuable. The exclusionary seperatists don't seem to realize this.
I'm not racist, I'm angry. A seperatist can be "Quebecois", black, asian, anglo, it doesn't matter. The residents of Quebec are not a race, and thankfully most don't agree with the seperatists.
So, get off your ass, go out and see Canada. Learn about each region and what makes it unique. See that dealing with the rest of the country with civility will earn you far more than trying to force an issue that's been done to death and proven asinine.
Re:The wait vs. the cost (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Income tax misnomer (Score:1, Insightful)
Canada is still a great option (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe in your district. This month in Toronto I found one in about 20 minutes using the Physicians directory. (Despite the dribble of objections from the middle class who have captured the notion that privatisation solves everything, some level of public health service is necessary in a socially just state. That's one big point in Canada's favour...)
(What does "excessive snow" actually mean? How is snow "excessive"? It's snow, for goodness' sake. If you have such a problem with it, sure, you probably want to live somewhere else, at least for those couple of months (Dec/Jan/Feb in Toronto). Frankly, I find the Toronto Summer much harder to cope with than the Winter...)
I can't buy a fully-detached house with two car garage for under $400k,
Have you priced that in any other first world country lately? Then try pricing one in Europe. Canada's real estate prices are quite reasonable compared to comparable New World cities of my acquaintance.
As for education, I cannot comment on the elementary levels, since I'm personally done with that phase. I'm sorry if it's not working out with your kids. However, should I choose tertiary, I know that the cities I'm familiar with - Toronto, Montreal - boast many world class institutions. So presumably you weren't talking about university level "education".
On the subject of city life: The infrastructure Just Works(TM); there is clean and efficient public transport (Montreal's Metro can hold its own with any city's); the streets of Toronto are (still) much safer than US cities; Canadians are incredibly, touchingly polite and civil; they read books; they are informed and interested in things outside their own borders; etc.
several times reporters were spied on, wiretapped or just simply had their personal files confiscated without a warrant by corrupt police who feel that due process is an inconvenience.
I can't think of a "democracy" where that hasn't happened from time to time. Ditto for the corruption/kickback/etc things that I'm sorry to say are not uniquely Canadian. Put that one down to human nature: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance," n'est-ce pas? We can still hope that something less than armed revolution is necessary to keep a Canadian government (relatively) honest...
There are 36,000 deportation orders on illegal immigrants that can't be executed because the government doesn't know where they are.
I don't think this situation is unique to Canada by any means. It is effectively impossible to locate every alien who doesn't want to be found and deported, especially given Canada's geography. Sure, with a few hundred million thrown at the problem, you could find maybe 70% of them (volunteering your tax dollars?) That last few percent just won't ever be found... could just be they really want to live here! (Duh.)
If you think you're going to...satisfy your ideological cravings by coming up to Canada, you are gravely mistaken
Au contraire. I moved here largely for ideological reasons. Canada did not support the Iraq occupation nor the Vietnam adventure, unlike my previous country of residence. I believe in voting with one's passport and Canada's values as a nation do not make me sick to my heart. The arrogance is at least partly justified; and a healthy and judicious distaste for today's America puts Canadians who feel that way in very good company worldwide.
Canada is able to lay claim to more than its fair share of progressive thinkers. Heck, I hear it's one of only 4 countries in the world that countenances gay marriage, and won't give you a life sentence for a couple of grams of dope. Which reminds me. We're METRIC! If that's not enough to make you want to live here, then nothing will...
Re:Income tax misnomer (Score:2, Insightful)
How to Cure Health Care [thepublicinterest.com]
Re:Income tax misnomer (Score:2, Insightful)
Except this is unlikely to be the case in the situation the parent described. The employers are doing their darnest to get out of paying these "benefits" and change work designations to "part-time" or "temporary" or "contract" work to avoid paying them on ever expanding basis. Most people employed in the only area of job expansion in the US - the burger flipping. Wal-Mart and other "service" industries do not have any such benefits. Even many well to do places, such as Microsoft do that. It is a very common scenario amongst IT workers, who are treated as "consultants". Add to this the fact that if forced to, the employers will opt for cheapest insurance with the lowest coverage and highest deductible possible. To compare this situation to Canada and claim that taxation in the US is "lesser" is ridiculous, even if one does not take into account the miriad of other programs offered by the Canadian and Provincial Governments. It is comparing apples to oranges. The US "take home" pay is "greater" simply because the people who take it home are expected to pay much more dearly for these, largely unaffordable to them, services. The fact that there is 40 million of completely medically uninsured US citizens speaks for itself far louder then any self-centered, greedy shill on Slashdot can. What bothers me about the parent is that I fully expect him to crawl back here as soon as he gets into any medical trouble over there. For the likes of him, all of his profits are "private" and exclusively of his own making and all of the losses and help to him are, naturally, an obligation of the Canadian society. I know that kind of a cockroach all to well.
In other words both systems are third-party pay, but in Canada its the government through higher taxes and in the US it is mostly the employers.
That is untrue. Some industries, mostly old-style and going away manufacturing ones, used to provide generous benefits. Such benefits are today restricted mostly to the CEO class. In this "comparison" the Canadian system is the only one which is "third-party" as in the US the coverage is abysmal and it could be more accurately described "third-party for CEOs and the wealthy, everyone-for-himself-party former middle class and no-party for the poor" system.
The economist Milton Friedman wrote an excellent paper on how to fix the healthcare system in America and he considers many other systems alongside our own including the Canadian and European systems.
That man is a total loon. In his scenario, the coverage for the many Americans would be restricted to the "catastrophic" insurance only, which in the long term is much more expensive as the low income (most populous group and increasing) would avoid using high-deductible medical services until their situation got so desperate as to qualify for "catastrophic" coverage. Such a system promotes use of the "catastrophic", emergency services by discouraging the pre-emptive, lower cost ones. It would result in continuation mad profit taking and little change amongst the insurance leeches who would benefit enormously from the fact that they no longer have to worry about the most expensive and money loosing procedures, for which the taxpayer would pay instead. In other words, it is socialism for the insurance companies. All the profits remain private and in place for regular medical service coverage and the greatest potential losses are socialized. I would expect such as system to prove far more expensive as a whole then the current one (but far more profitable for the insurance companies), even though it would provide at least the catastrophic insurance to all citizens. A typical plan by the kind of a "thinker" Freedman is. An economist my ass.
Re:The wait vs. the cost (Score:3, Insightful)
The US is fixing the "No one sees the price tag" problem, its called HSA's. Hundreds of companies are moving to them, I own a small business its how my employees get coverage, we save tons of money on premiums, and we save tons of money on care because we all see the full price of everything, and we can shop around. HSA's are introducing value shopping to the health care market (by value I mean cost+quality=value not just cost) So if you find 2 doctors, one who will do procedure x for 300, and he's rated a B, and another doctor who charges $5000 for the same procedure, but he's rated slightly higher (maybe B+) you go for the $300 doctor...
Anyway, this is something I've learned in the last year using an HSA, doctors in the US really do overcharge (but some don't), and the reason they do is because the insurance is picking up the tab. For just a regular checkup type visit (30 minutes in the chair, vitals, weight, eyes, ears, mouth, basic physical type stuff) I was quoted earlier this year anywhere from $1000 to $45. I ended up paying $85, the doctor was professional, and good, I didn't have to wait, and I saved $450 from what our old family doctor was charging (to our previous insurance, so we never knew how much he charged).
Anyway, the "hidden charge" problem can be fixed and is being fixed, and guess what its being fixed by creating an OPEN MARKET! I know you lefties will hate that. The Health care market is not an open market right now, its run by basically an oligopoly (the doctors) and a gov't sanctioned monopoly (insurance cos) The insurance cos are in effect a monopoly because they have an OK from congress to share information, and colude on prices. Ever wonder why there aren't any "budget" health insurance companies? It's because the Insurance industry has pushed through enough laws to make it illegal to be a health insurance provider unless you play their game and set prices where they already are.
The US system can be fixed and much more readily and cheaply than the UK, or Canadian problems. IE if everyone in the US moved to HSA's there would be an immediate drop in prices across the industry everyone would save money. In national health care systems the only solution available is to spend more money on extra doctor's specialists, equipment, etc. Previously in this post it mentioned that Canadians pay $60/mo for their "free" health care... Well if they got the level of service that is available in the US, I bet it would cost closer to $300/mo... oh wait... that looks alot like the $250/mo I used to pay (regular insurance I had before HMO, I own the business, I know all the costs). If people are waiting 3+ months for a specialist that I can make an appointment to see next week, well.. that is 12 times more capacity (1 week vs 12) so I'm probably being generous with only making the cost 5 times more (60 * 5 = 300).
My point is I think you're wrong, the health care situation in the US can be fixed, and the way to fix it is to open the market, not socialize it. National health care leads to lower levels of service, or to provide the same level of service, you have to spend just as much as people are in the US.
Re:Healthcare is great if you don't get sick (Score:1, Insightful)
After living in different countries I have realized that the single most important point I consider to move to a new place is the quality of life of their cities. That is more important that higher salary, cheaper computers, etc. You can check the cities with better quality of life at http://www.citymayors.com/features/quality_survey
When comparing health systems I think it is important to ask what is the main purpose of a health care system. To me a good health care system is the one that can offer a long healthy life to MOST of its population. Go check this page http://www.aneki.com/expectancy.html [aneki.com] to see wich country has the longer life expectancy. You can also check other index of social development.
I visited doctors in the US and Canada. As far as I am concerned the only difference was that in US I got a bill of US$300 plus my insurance coverage while in Canada I did not pay anything else that the provincial health insurance. The quality was the same, I would say a little better and more "human" in Canada.
I like US, but Americans should recognize that there are a lot of better places to live... I think US IS the largest economic/militar power in the world, but it IS NOT the best place to live or raise my children. I hope Americans will find the energy and motivation to make US the best place to live, too.
I could have stayed in US, but I decided to move to Canada. I hope Americans that are concerned about inmigrants will feel better now. Since my education (PhD) was paid by the taxes of citizens of many countries including US, I wish the best to those people. I know Canadians feels better they got a new inmigrant with a lot of energy to build a better society.
Re:Bullsh*t (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, Canada! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Income tax misnomer (Score:1, Insightful)
Really? Statistics I have heard are much lower. Can you cite your source(s)?
Obviously there is also vagueness WRT whether you are talking about 80% of total american population, or 80% of population that has health coverage (latter is rather misleading if you were using that one). Latest numbers for percentage of americans that do have any health insurance was well below 80% (yes, I need to Google for exact figure and link...).
And yes, employers are doing their hardest to try to get out of having to pay for the insurance. Pre-tax or not, costs are enormous -- US is using twice as much money per capita for health care, and getting mediocre at best results overall. Read ANY international study on the subject; or, for easier reading (but still accurate), go to Scientific American web site and browse about any issue, they have multiple articles each year on this very subject.
My personal comparison between a scandinavian country and US (in 2 states during past 5 years) leads me to believe universal health care is hands down better value for money; even though my personal health care is superior in US system (I have 6 figure salary from a big company -- I feel almost guilty for level of benefits I and my family get, compared to workers).
Oh, and as to your insurance -- sure, you are obviusly a single guy. 25$ is possible, then. For families out-of-pocket expenses start with, say, 200$/month, for GOOD companies, and need to add one more digit for low-wage companies (if they have any plans available at all). Your situation is hardly representative of general population.
Re:Income tax misnomer (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason that they are cheap here is because otherwise the 20 year patent protections which Canadian government granted to them under the condition of price controls would be removed. Followed by Canada's generic drug makers becoming the suppliers of drugs to 90% of USA. But you knew that, didn't you?
Funny. Doctors weren't scare in Canada until there was universal health care coverage and their fees were fixed by the government. We know not of this "scarce resources" problem, at least when applied to doctors, in the U.S. If you'd stop taxing your "scarce resources" away, perhaps they'd not be so scarce.
Let me explain to you how this works: some doctors (and many other professionals) are supremely greedy sons of bitches. Luckily for them, there is one place on Earth that is insane enough to allow them to control access to medical care for all of its citizens. In that place, called the USA, they can make fortunes completely out of proportion with their services to society. The result of such a thing is that many US citizens have no medical care, most only partial and the doctors get supremely rich. Not to mention other middle-men such as the insurance companies. That is chiefly because medical care is not an element of a free market and not even of capitalism per se. Patients do not qualify as Adam Smith's "educated consumers" as in many cases they arrive in the hospital unconscious and thus unable to "shop" for medical services. Not to mention the lack of knowledge required to even do such "shopping". So, consequently, by being direct neighbours to complete insanity, it is only natural that some unscrupulous medical professionals would leave to hope to get rich quick in such an environment. Luckily, most are sane and understand their role in society. And they dont leave. Many older doctors are actually coming back [www.ctv.ca], having tasted the way things work in the US. That is the long answer to your "scarcity" of doctors. The short answer is: you are an idiot. Do not let reality interfere with your engaging in the oldest pursuit of man: trying to morally justify your own selfish greed.
It's funny how scarcity is a self-fulfilling prophesy of socialist societies.
Only temporarily, when they are neighbours to insane houses of cards built on pure greed. If they can make it to the next "depression" there is smooth sailing afterwards, at least for a few decades, until the memories wane and the greedmongers overtake the discourse again amidst the affluence. Rinse, repeat.