Isn't it nice

[theMAJORITY]

I honestly have no idea what percentage an average single man making 50k would contribute to healthcare alone, through taxes on his income. There are federal and provincial taxes plus Canada pension and old age pension. I would guess roughly 30% - give or take, is deducted for all combined taxes and pension funds.

And tto your second comment.......if you're paying for something, a service or product should be provided. If this isn't the case, shouldn't we be able to go elsewhere AND pay the government less since they aren't provding us with that service any longer?

On the first part--how about telling us about your taxes if you would. I am self employeed this year, and I am not incorporated yet. M accoutnat tells me if I make 100 grand profit--I will pay out 48% right now---with no national health insurnace social program. I purposely made less money than that last year--and bought a lot of stuff for write offs---but I can't keep my money.

On your second point---you would think so--but not with our government. Every major social program that is coming out of our check is going broke---just like the majority of our people. We have tens, may be hundereds of millions of Americans that won't be able to retire in a self supportive mannor (IMO--because of irresponsibel globalization and high income tax). That is goning to be fun for the tax payers in a socialist society.

 

[Said1]

Question # 2 from a free persons percpective. If your citizrens are only able to pay for necessities because most of their disposable income is taken from them for a socialist society--how is that different when the black slaves of the south, before the civil war in the USA,--had food, shelter, clothing, and yes--health care provided for them (a healthy slave is a productive slave--they had health care paid for by the products the owners sold---not taxes).

Slavery is slavery--and is alive and well all over the world.

You're equating taxes to pay for city infrastructures and socialized healthcare with slavery? Bad example.

Most of my disposable income doesn't go to taxes, a percentage of my gross income does. My disposable income is what I have left over after I've paid taxes.

 

[Said1]

On the first part--how about telling us about your taxes if you would. I am self employeed this year, and I am not incorporated yet. M accoutnat tells me if I make 100 grand profit--I will pay out 48% right now---with no national health insurnace social program. I purposely made less money than that last year--and bought a lot of stuff for write offs---but I can't keep my money.

I'd probably pay something like 15% given that I'm a single mother, zero child support and make less than 50k. I"m also a part-time student.Those factors reduce the amount I pay, considerabley.

On your second point---you would think so--but not with our government. Every major social program that is coming out of our check is going broke---

For example? Are you differentiating between state and federally funded programs?

just like the majority of our people. We have tens, may be hundereds of millions of Americans that won't be able to retire in a self supportive mannor (IMO--because of irresponsibel globalization and high income tax). That is goning to be fun for the tax payers in a socialist society.

Shrinking economies tend to result in less socialism, as in social programs.......slashing the budget. Again, I'm not clear on your definition of social programs, so I'll stop commenting on that for now.


And finally, why are hundreds of millions of Americans so negatively affected by globalization, specifcally. I would have thought you would think NAFTA is be a bigger detriment......unless NAFTA is included in your definition of globalization. What's the total population of the USA?

 

[theMAJORITY]

You're equating taxes to pay for city infrastructures and socialized healthcare with slavery? Bad example.

Most of my disposable income doesn't go to taxes, a percentage of my gross income does. My disposable income is what I have left over after I've paid taxes.

Here, most Americans have very very little, and some no disposable income after taxes. They are allowed to pay their bills, and that is about it. That sir is slavery as the black slaves were allowed no disposable income--but were taken care of by their masters.

Ifrastructure has to be paid for by taxes (roads and PUBLIC buildings)--but we had infrastructure before we had federal income tax and was paid for by local and state taxes. If you were never free sir---you will not see the difference. Very very little of our money goes to maintaining public roads (#1 misguided excuse to have to pay taxes in the USA)---who are they trying to kid?

 

[Litmus]

Shrinking economies tend to result in less socialism, as in social programs.......slashing the budget.

Howeever... shrinking economies and fear tend to incite people to get spazzy about demanding social programs. If people feel futures are bleak they will feel more anxiety and become more concerned with social programs.

SO the key for freedom oriented individuals is to reject the dependancy of handouts, and lobby instead for protectionist measures to keep human slavery outside the moral bounds of modern man, instead of incentivizing it through our massive orders, and putting ourselves out of work in the process.

Peanuts from the government may seem like enough to get by, but what happens when the checks stop coming?

You said something about canada doing well from globalization and some industries coming back, and something about diversification. I would like to hear more on these positive stories, as I feel most industries are susceptible to have major tasks and labor outsourced to nations with cheap cheap labor.

 

[theMAJORITY]

Shrinking economies tend to result in less socialism, as in social programs.......slashing the budget. Again, I'm not clear on your definition of social programs, so I'll stop commenting on that for now.

The depression bropught on the "New Deal" with Social Security.

Our poor private economy is bringing on a national health care system.


Thos are the two largest social programs that were, and are brought on by a poor economy. Your thinking is backwards. In good times (the line is never flat)---nobody asks to be taken care of---but now we have these social programs that programmed the people that they have a right to be dependant on a government--so they want welfare even in goods times now.

There is a very strong socialist movement by very powerfull people in this world---so don't be suprised if they intentially cause a poor economy (in the private sector) to help push their socialist/comunist agenda. I believe one socalist, commie liberial on this board condoned the practice---calling it "destructive creation". Just remember who is being destroyed (the people) for whos creation (the elite).

Yea--I used to think governments actually cared about all their citizens also--but I found out they only care about the elite. That is the basis of the USA forming---to get away from elite rule and form a government that is ruled by it's citizens. It was wonderfull for about 100 years, bnd the elite took control again (they got elite here with the old America)--and have been in control ever since. Socialism sounds great to them, and it is time for some kind of revolution if we want to keep and get the freedom we have and used to have.

Face our problems like brave men and women--because if we let the government fix all our problems--they will create three times more problems--which will need more social programs---a incrimental stepping process to socialism/communisum.

One mans opinion.

 

[Litmus]

The fact is, I don't fear socialism, or communism, or fascism. They just aren't strong philosophies, and they'll never get off the ground, unless they can throw people into the same hysteria you're in.

Fascism is quite off the ground. many people now believe we should form policy based on what's good for the bottom line of corporations: dissolve borders, violate human rights, whatever it takes.

 

[Dilloduck]

The depression bropught on the "New Deal" with Social Security.

Our poor private economy is bringing on a national health care system.


Thos are the two largest social programs that were, and are brought on by a poor economy. Your thinking is backwards. In good times (the line is never flat)---nobody asks to be taken care of---but now we have these social programs that programmed the people that they have a right to be dependant on a government--so they want welfare even in goods times now.

There is a very strong socialist movement by very powerfull people in this world---so don't be suprised if they intentially cause a poor economy (in the private sector) to help push their socialist/comunist agenda. I believe one socalist, commie liberial on this board condoned the practice---calling it "destructive creation". Just remember who is being destroyed (the people) for whos creation (the elite).

Yea--I used to think governments actually cared about all their citizens also--but I found out they only care about the elite. That is the basis of the USA forming---to get away from elite rule and form a government that is ruled by it's citizens. It was wonderfull for about 100 years, bnd the elite took control again (they got elite here with the old America)--and have been in control ever since. Socialism sounds great to them, and it is time for some kind of revolution if we want to keep and get the freedom we have and used to have.

Face our problems like brave men and women--because if we let the government fix all our problems--they will create three times more problems--which will need more social programs---a incrimental stepping process to socialism/communisum.

One mans opinion.

Like creating rocketing energy and food prices, for instance ?

 

[Diuretic]

this is who majority is deeep down inside.

You got to love drunken posting

When the ancient Romans invented the internets they called it the "In vino veritas netus".

When the Romans were overrun the Church banned the internetus because it allowed people to get cranky with each other at a distance. So it disappeared from our awareness.

Then it came back.

Le plus ca change

There, epigrams in Latin and French. That means (a) I'm sober enough to remember them and to be able to keyboard them and (b) I can use Google.

Note to self - don't post on JPP when you're banging back a very nice shiraz, you are mouthy in a keyboardy way and must not let your guard down.

 

[Diuretic]

In any case, I don't think I've ever heard anyone propose a canadian style system.

Ours is better, Canda needs to learn from us.

 

[Diuretic]

Threatening to take away our health care is an tradtional election scare tactic. Claiming that voting for so and so conservative will equate to American health care 'and my fellow Candians, do you want that.......?" (followed by no's, boos and hisses at whatever Liberal or NDP rally in the middle of nowhere Saskatchewan......who, incidentily gets the short end of the social health care stick).

And no, private care isn't making a come back. We don't have a choice where it appears to be 'coming back'. Why is this you ask? Because it works better! Can't argue with that logic, eh? Wrong. It's even simpler than what you thought! The answer is......... are you ready for this......'areas that are now allowed to be covered under private insurance are now considered non-essential services by the provincial government and, therefore, no longer covered by provincial plans ie eye exams, physicals and visitis to the dermatologist (cover and non-covered services vary province to province, but I think you get the point). You see, taking more and giving less is just as popular as ever.

Go easy on Sask, at least it's nice and flat there.

 

[Diuretic]

Nationalization got really popular between the 30's and 60's. Most countries that went to government healthcare before then have a combination private-public system. Most nations that went into public healthcare in the 30's and 60's had nationalized healthcare. Nationalized healthcare is certainly cheap, but it isn't very good in quality.

I don't think any nation ever took the private-public partnership as a "stepping stone" to complete nationalization. At best it even took the pressure off of the issue and prevented nationalization.

Nationalisation saved the UK after WWII.

 

[Diuretic]

It's not a start because we are paying more for less. A start would be a tax reduction OR better existing services for that which is still covered under provincial plans.

It's going to get worse before it gets better. City facilities can't keep up with demands created by inter-provincial migration, as it is. Once they are able to cope, the boom is over, hospitals close and the same process is repeated elsewhere.

Quebec has been breaking the rules in certain areas, namely MRI's.

I've wondered about the provincial programmes. Canada should do it the way we do it. The single payer is a federal government agency but the federal government gives the states money to deliver health services (not enough but that's because of the previous federal government policies) and since the current federal government is going to increase funding that should help the states deliver better health services.

 

[Diuretic]

I've never had any bad experiences with healthcare in Canada, but many have. I've also heard nothing but horror stories about your system, but that's what our media reports. They also put a large spin on what they report about services in Canada.

Socialized healthcare really is a cultural thing. I'm 34 and have never experienced any other system. I can't imagine doing i any other way. As dissatisfied as many Canadians are, I know I'm not alone in my opinion........I get sick, I go to the doctor. The secretary asks for my health card, swipes it, then tells me to take a seat. If I have to go to the ER, I might wait 1 hour or 4 or not at all. If I need a new hip, I might want to invest in one of those cool electric scooters and find a good connection for oxycodine.....or whatever it is.

I have to pay in Canada, luckily I've only had to use a walk-in clinic but I always have full travel insurance. When I go to the UK I don't need any travel insurance as we have a reciprocal relationship (ie Brit comes here gets sick we provide treatment). If Canada went federal you could do it too.

 

[Diuretic]

Regarding your questions about Canadian healthcare, I would suggest some research. It's a little more complicated than a certain amount of my income going to healthcare. In fact, the idea of explaining the concept gives me a headache. Then you have provincial transfer and equalization payments for healthcare etc, etc. It's giant bouncing ball. Here's a good site to get you started: http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/ Enjoy!

I hate it when people use facts.