You need any further proof that democrats are without honor...

hrmwrm said:
as of january 2009 monthly fees in alberta were dropped. no deductible, no limit.
afraid to post yours up?
Click to expand...
Contradicts...
hrmwrm said:
depends on income. range is 30 - 50%. but it's a large country with a small population. takes a lot of road to get from place to place. so our infrastructure is more costly on a per capita basis.
health care premiums last year for a single person was $42/month.
$84/month for married or family. it's irrelavent of how many kids.
premiums are subsidized on lesser incomes, to no premiums on low enough income.

so nobody is ever out of healthcare. (or at least, there is no reason for it).
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
hrmwrm said:
as of january 2009 monthly fees in alberta were dropped. no deductible, no limit.
afraid to post yours up?
Click to expand...

Here is a very important difference...
hrmwrm said:
premiums are subsidized on lesser incomes, to no premiums on low enough income.
Click to expand...

Because of that fact, comparing average premiums in Canada to those in the US is comparing apples to oranges.

If premiums are subsidized on lesser incomes, then the premium ceases to reflect the true costs of the product and does not serves as an indicator of the true price involved.

Ignoring the fact that certain premiums are subsidized is how it can be said that average premiums are dropping while hiding the fact that costs (and thus, the TRUE price) are rising.
 
hrmwrm said:
that was when there were premiums. and since fossten said his were less, i asked what his were. he asked, i answered, i ask, he evades.
you do realize i know there is a difference, and since your system also subsidizes low/no income, that whole explanation is irrelevant to my query. although i no longer pay premiums so it's even more irrelevent.
Click to expand...
So you have no income?
 
Want to change the rules? Vote them out next year!

Reid is a fool to think anything is written in stone. As politicians they know that anything can change at any time. Nothing in this world is permanent. If we vote back the republicans, then Obama care will be crushed and thrown out. What I worry about is the massive government gravy train this will create. Once the tax revenue starts coming in, then it will be even more unlikely that we will ever put an end to Obama care. I lived in Pennsylvania for many years when they tried this health care nonsense, we paid into the system every year (we were forced to pay, or else), and after three years the system was bankrupt from all the corruption and graft. Why don't they just give us tax credits so we can buy heath care policies? The answer is because they want control of the funds and our lives. Vote them out as soon as possible.
 
tireman said:
If we vote back the republicans, then Obama care will be crushed and thrown out.
Click to expand...
No offense, but this is naive thinking and has no basis in fact. When is the last time the Republicans reversed ANY legislation?
 
hrmwrm said:
...since your system also subsidizes low/no income, that whole explanation is irrelevant to my query.
Click to expand...

Unless insurance companies and, specifically, insurance premiums are being subsidized, you are again comparing apples to oranges. I pointed out that premiums were being subsidized (to the point of none existence) so they are not a reflection of the true cost of medical care. Government subsidizing of low/no income has nothing to do with hiding the cost of medical care.

although i no longer pay premiums so it's even more irrelevent.
Click to expand...

So, there are no economic costs to medical care in Canada anymore? How do they circumvent the laws of supply and demand? How can they turn medical care into a resource that is not scarce (going against the basic laws of physics)?

Unless they can magically end all costs associated with medical care, looking at where the costs are hidden, shifted, etc. is VERY relevant. To simply point out that you "no longer pay premiums" is, in and of itself, inherently misleads by implying that there is no cost associated with medical care where you live.

Again, government CAN NOT reduce costs. ALL they can do is shift costs and reduce the quality and/or quantity of health care. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, then the examples I cited are very relevant in pointing out that reality.
 
Just out of idle curiosity - you don't have health insurance Foss?
 
hrmwrm said:
so your covered from work, or you don't carry health insurance?
Click to expand...
I had no healthcare expenses this year.

foxpaws said:
Just out of idle curiosity - you don't have health insurance Foss?
Click to expand...
You should learn to read posts more carefully. Thanks for playing.

hrmwrm said:
.

maybe, but it still has nothing to do with how much fossten pays for healthcare, which was my question.
Click to expand...
Do you plan on responding to Shag's post, or are you just going to obsess over me?:rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You have health insurance - so you don't consider the money that goes into that a 'health care' expense Foss?
 
foxpaws said:
You have health insurance - so you don't consider the money that goes into that a 'health care' expense Foss?
Click to expand...
Healthcare is not the same as health insurance any more than car care is the same as car insurance.

So, fox, how do you define 'capitalist?'
 
fossten said:
Healthcare is not the same as health insurance any more than car care is the same as car insurance.

So, fox, how do you define 'capitalist?'
Click to expand...

The budget cost of your car includes the cost of car insurance. The budget cost of your health includes the cost of health insurance. But you are right - the question was worded poorly - health care isn't health insurance. The amount you spend on 'health' usually does include health insurance. When you budget for a car, you take in maintenance, gas, and insurance expense. When you budget for your health you take in co-payments, prescriptions, and insurance expense. You had health expense, you (or your employer) paid insurance, you didn't have any other expenses such as co-pays, prescriptions. Either you are very healthy, or your insurance is incredible. I would imagine healthy...

So, I would love to define capitalist, as soon as I get an answer to that little voting question...
 
hrmwrm said:
ok. technicality of words. but you did say mine was more expensive than yours. so, my health insurance is zero.
you getting paid for yours?
Click to expand...
Yes. My company pays me a stipend which more than covers my cost of insurance every month. They literally fund my HSA.

What's your tax rate?
 
hrmwrm said:
i'm also in a single tax base. my wife has income and declares my daughter as dependent, i have nothing but investments to bring my tax rate down.(rrsp)
40% is my at work deduction, not year end total. i claw back about a quarter of the 40%.
Click to expand...
Anything else you'd like to add? You keep changing your story.
 
I don't know about Alberta with it's oil wealth and low population but in Ontario there is a 5% surtax on income as little as $65,000.00.

For the average person taxes seem similar but high income earners are dunned significantly higher in Canada than in the US
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 190 (members: 1, guests: 189)
Back
Top