Tax cuts bolster US economy to 7.2% growth rate.
- Thread starter Sabastian
- Start date
Or himself for that matter clashman 
... Id bet on most private care insurance providers being far more severe on rationing than any soclialized non profit system... My sis gave a me a list of procedures in Canada vs the Maine where she also recieves patients from and many typical hospital stays in Canad are 2-3x longer than similar stays in the US.
The most glaring one she mentionned was the one say stay after giving birth vs 3 days in canada (it used to be 5 days but was drastically cut back in the 1980's under the conservatives 'overhaul'). This is for normal pregnancy and dont include surguical procedures like cesarians...
Not to mention the in depth study that showed people are 2% more likely to die in hospital in the US than In Canada. Statistically it mean thousands more deaths per year...
... Id bet on most private care insurance providers being far more severe on rationing than any soclialized non profit system... My sis gave a me a list of procedures in Canada vs the Maine where she also recieves patients from and many typical hospital stays in Canad are 2-3x longer than similar stays in the US. The most glaring one she mentionned was the one say stay after giving birth vs 3 days in canada (it used to be 5 days but was drastically cut back in the 1980's under the conservatives 'overhaul'). This is for normal pregnancy and dont include surguical procedures like cesarians...
Not to mention the in depth study that showed people are 2% more likely to die in hospital in the US than In Canada. Statistically it mean thousands more deaths per year...
We've seen many services up here (yes im canadian) turned to the private sector and end up costing more. Many health care procedures for one form mri's to small surgical procedures mainly in Alberta where the privatisation bandwagon got its start and likely its soon floundering when the gov realizes how much more its costing the provincial medicare plan...
The lost quality of life is pretty obvious. Private care in the US is not available to all who work much less to all... Im dealing with health care but Im sure many other services from gov can have this happen to them as well.
Businesses like workers are of course made up of people... just a lot fewer people than workers...
As for US success there are various arguments to that, historical and otherwise... Many of which are fairly oblivious to the relative right or left wing degree of the political establishement which varies very little from reps to dems or even canuckians to yanks.
There are also very diff ways to do accounting of such things as unemployment...
You have to realize too, Socialism was a relatively new construct back in the time Einstein lived. It had been done before, but not with Keynsian economics backing it and the great productivity technology had brought.
A lot of the economic feeling at the time, was that indeed it was a very possible and good, almost mathematical solution. Many of the greatest economics proffessors of the day felt that way.
What they were missing was game theory (which revolutionized economics and made keynsian and smith subsets of a much more general background) and strong empirical numbers on government efficiency.
I believe Einstein would be far more to the right today if he was alive, as he was a rationalist. I think he would be disgusted by the waste and innefficiency that Europe enjoys at the moment.
Personally, I believe there IS an optimal solution alla Asimov in his robot series, or at least some sort of convergent series. However, the fundamentals have to be hidden from the people, as speculation will destroy any perfect unity. Moreover, the solution is not a steady state, it will probably require varying many \variables (tax rate 60% one year, 20% the next, etc)
A lot of the economic feeling at the time, was that indeed it was a very possible and good, almost mathematical solution. Many of the greatest economics proffessors of the day felt that way.
What they were missing was game theory (which revolutionized economics and made keynsian and smith subsets of a much more general background) and strong empirical numbers on government efficiency.
I believe Einstein would be far more to the right today if he was alive, as he was a rationalist. I think he would be disgusted by the waste and innefficiency that Europe enjoys at the moment.
Personally, I believe there IS an optimal solution alla Asimov in his robot series, or at least some sort of convergent series. However, the fundamentals have to be hidden from the people, as speculation will destroy any perfect unity. Moreover, the solution is not a steady state, it will probably require varying many \variables (tax rate 60% one year, 20% the next, etc)
For all their waste and innefficiency Europe has an uncanny ability over generations to provide America with many of its best thinkers and workers...
Continuing arguments would be healthier here if people could see the diffs tween social democracy and actual socialism... Social democracy is far more flexible which is what Europe really is (as socialism really means gov runs ALL business).
I think we can measure a country's success by how many trade barriers it erects as the rest of the world desperately wants to enter the given market. The fact Europe has immense trade barriers shows not necessarily its inability to compete but its attractiveness to people who want to sell things there. People with the ability buy things make for the most attractive market to venture into...
Continuing arguments would be healthier here if people could see the diffs tween social democracy and actual socialism... Social democracy is far more flexible which is what Europe really is (as socialism really means gov runs ALL business).
I think we can measure a country's success by how many trade barriers it erects as the rest of the world desperately wants to enter the given market. The fact Europe has immense trade barriers shows not necessarily its inability to compete but its attractiveness to people who want to sell things there. People with the ability buy things make for the most attractive market to venture into...
Sorry pax, you can't sell that idea. Country's don't erect trade barriers because "too many people are trying to sell stuff to us", they erect barriers because their native industries are unable to compete.
Otherwise, you're theory would posit that North Korea is the most successful society on earth.
That's because those people are people trying to ESCAPE the effects of socialism/the welfare state. So yes, over the last century, Europe has provided many of it's best entrepreneurial and scientific minds to the U.S. Funny, if Europe's educational, health, and welfare systems were so glorious, why would anyone ever emmigrate to this harsh land, with people armed with guns, starving on the streets, and no one able to get a doctor, as foreigners frequently like to portray the US (see Fek's last message).?
What's more amazing is how many Europeans today I see here on H-1Bs, who talk about eventually going back, but end up buying a house in the suburbs and becoming permanent residents.
Otherwise, you're theory would posit that North Korea is the most successful society on earth.
That's because those people are people trying to ESCAPE the effects of socialism/the welfare state. So yes, over the last century, Europe has provided many of it's best entrepreneurial and scientific minds to the U.S. Funny, if Europe's educational, health, and welfare systems were so glorious, why would anyone ever emmigrate to this harsh land, with people armed with guns, starving on the streets, and no one able to get a doctor, as foreigners frequently like to portray the US (see Fek's last message).?
What's more amazing is how many Europeans today I see here on H-1Bs, who talk about eventually going back, but end up buying a house in the suburbs and becoming permanent residents.
I dont think NK is a good example as trade with communist economies are barely workable in any fashion... Im also not selling that idea as instead of protecting local industry that are 'uncompetitive'. Its obvious both are happening when trade barriers are setup or go down.
My giving the example of Europe giving huge numbers of thinkers and highly qualified workers means that the US systemn is unable to produce enough of its own even tho as the 'more competitive economy and society ' it should be able to. Its normal for workers to seek better pay and career opportunities. 2 of my cousins who are engineers are in california as well but they themselves know its not because Canada is this socialist uncompetitive haven but because the US has the economy of scale that can produce the infrastructure necessary for the kind of work they want to do as engineers.
Its this as well as political integration of the country with s stable political climate over the last few generations that has produced an attractive environement for investors and not necessarily your political economy.
There are so many factors at work here it'll be very hard to prove it either way. At least until Europe becomes sufficiently integrated and has a generation or 2 to begin truly competing with the US. Maybe by 2050 or so. Tho if you ask investors the Euros amazing early success indicates they think Europe is a lot more competitive than many give them credit to be.
I never expected the euro to pass the dollar for 30-40 years (well until I read some of the real reasons for the dollars strong value which had little to do with competitiveness of the internal economy).
Im not sure but most of the reasons for people investing in euros seems to be faith in the euro as a currency of an eventually very strong internal european economy as well as the euro's presence as competing world currency with the dollar.
I think my idea has a lot more ring to it than you think. Many companies after being faced with trade barriers still came here to do business but on our terms and started making cars for ex, locally. Same with Europe. You simply cant be seen to lose money simply because you couldnt import your product but had to have it made in the european market so you could sell it there...
Sounds to me that those markets arent all that uncompetitive to start with...
My giving the example of Europe giving huge numbers of thinkers and highly qualified workers means that the US systemn is unable to produce enough of its own even tho as the 'more competitive economy and society ' it should be able to. Its normal for workers to seek better pay and career opportunities. 2 of my cousins who are engineers are in california as well but they themselves know its not because Canada is this socialist uncompetitive haven but because the US has the economy of scale that can produce the infrastructure necessary for the kind of work they want to do as engineers.
Its this as well as political integration of the country with s stable political climate over the last few generations that has produced an attractive environement for investors and not necessarily your political economy.
There are so many factors at work here it'll be very hard to prove it either way. At least until Europe becomes sufficiently integrated and has a generation or 2 to begin truly competing with the US. Maybe by 2050 or so. Tho if you ask investors the Euros amazing early success indicates they think Europe is a lot more competitive than many give them credit to be.
I never expected the euro to pass the dollar for 30-40 years (well until I read some of the real reasons for the dollars strong value which had little to do with competitiveness of the internal economy).
Im not sure but most of the reasons for people investing in euros seems to be faith in the euro as a currency of an eventually very strong internal european economy as well as the euro's presence as competing world currency with the dollar.
I think my idea has a lot more ring to it than you think. Many companies after being faced with trade barriers still came here to do business but on our terms and started making cars for ex, locally. Same with Europe. You simply cant be seen to lose money simply because you couldnt import your product but had to have it made in the european market so you could sell it there...
Sounds to me that those markets arent all that uncompetitive to start with...
I should maybe say not as unproductive as obviously some lack of competitvity exists. But then if we function only in terms of whose competitive we lose sight of good markets and whats makes them a good market to sell in.. I find it strange the most competitive markets are also sometimes the least interesting in terms of wanting to sell things there... i.e. mexico, china...
Pax, money and people go where they can get the greatest return. Why do so many people immigrate to the US? Because of greater opportunity, less bureaucracy, easier capital flow, less interventionism.
You can try to spin this negative all you want, but the fact is, by and large, it is the US that imports high-tech labor, and brain-drains the world. Is this because Americans are dumb? No, it's because the growth in demand for such labor in the 90s outstripped the growth in supply. Other countries have a surplus of educated people who cannot create local industries because of bureacracy, unionism, red-tape, taxes, bad fiscal markets, whatever. The demand for high-tech workers during the 90s rose so quickly that even after the H-1B program quota was exhausted, and even after every literate person who could peck on a keyboard was hired, salaries were still being driven through the roof.
Before the rise of Bangalore, Shen-Zhen, et al, what was an educated Indian, Chinese, Russian, or Brazillian to do? Create high tech businesses to sell to peasants? Ditto for Europeans with bright ideas in the early 90s, who simply could not raise angel, venture, or public money anywhere near as easy (if at all) as in the US. As always, our British cousins are the exceptions. They have London, which has a huge chunk of the world's money flowing through it to tap into it.
Anyway, California, for example, is a very socialistic state, yet it is also the prime engine of the tech economy. However, on some very key issues, it is fundamentally different than say, La Defense' in Paris. La Defense looks like a hi-tech center, but it's full of large industries, many which have connections to the government.
1) "At Will" state. You can be fired for ANY reason at any time. Cold hearted? An economy driven by small companies starting up and tearing down needs the flexibility to lay off workers. The dot-com bust would have taken a much larger toll on IBM, Oracle, Sun, Cisco, etc if they couldn't lay off to respond to huge falls in market demand.
Contrast this with the situation in Paris. Any medium size company that tried to downsize, adjust salaries, or benefits would face harsh criticism, if not public protests.
2) Little to no bureaucracy. Anyone can start a business with almost zero red-tape, and in many cases, no taxes.
3) A culture of entrepreneurism. Do you want to try to be an entrepreneur in a society where 25-50% of the people work for the public sector, or do you want to mingle in a society where everyone is passionate about ideas and making them work. Where it is easy to meet someone who knows someone who has money to invest.
The EU has a large consumer market, sure, but when EU investors choose to grow their money, they put it into the US, not the EU. High tariff's in the EU won't stop foreign companies from using Foreign Direct Investment to manufacture locally (only restrictions on FDI will stop this process), as long as there is some money to be made, but this is not a measure of productivity or competitiveness or strength as you would like to make it. People have been salivating about the Chinese market as well for decades.
The key is, local manufacturing has to be cheap enough to justify (generally not the case in high labor costs eurozone without sweet tax deals), and secondly, this means foreign owned firms are pushing out your domestic industries anyway. So you "protected" your local crappy car company, but a "local" Honda plant puts Crappy Inc out of business anyway. Now all your employees at CrappyInc are out of work, or working at Honda, and the profits are still going back to Japan. If you're lucky, you don't have a net loss of jobs. And if Honda decides one day that it can make cars in Estonia far cheaper and still profitable, your local Honda factory goes bye bye, and your French froggies will be protesting in the streets and burning down McDonalds.
Simply put, the protectionism has lots of negative effects
1) goods are much expensive than they should be for EU citizens
2) FDI branches of overseas companies will close down local factories as soon as tariff's change or the costs become cheaper elsewhere even with the tariff
3) investment is driven away, net capital flow outward
4) retaliation against your exports. You protect one firm, but another one, that might be efficient gets retaliated against
It sucks, and doesn't solve the problem behind the fundamentals: if your economy is too rigid and has a high regulatory overhead, businesses will gravitate away. Just look at some of the tax and regulation cutting going on now.
Protectism isn't going to stop the global sync-up that's going to happen with wages and regulations.
You can try to spin this negative all you want, but the fact is, by and large, it is the US that imports high-tech labor, and brain-drains the world. Is this because Americans are dumb? No, it's because the growth in demand for such labor in the 90s outstripped the growth in supply. Other countries have a surplus of educated people who cannot create local industries because of bureacracy, unionism, red-tape, taxes, bad fiscal markets, whatever. The demand for high-tech workers during the 90s rose so quickly that even after the H-1B program quota was exhausted, and even after every literate person who could peck on a keyboard was hired, salaries were still being driven through the roof.
Before the rise of Bangalore, Shen-Zhen, et al, what was an educated Indian, Chinese, Russian, or Brazillian to do? Create high tech businesses to sell to peasants? Ditto for Europeans with bright ideas in the early 90s, who simply could not raise angel, venture, or public money anywhere near as easy (if at all) as in the US. As always, our British cousins are the exceptions. They have London, which has a huge chunk of the world's money flowing through it to tap into it.
Anyway, California, for example, is a very socialistic state, yet it is also the prime engine of the tech economy. However, on some very key issues, it is fundamentally different than say, La Defense' in Paris. La Defense looks like a hi-tech center, but it's full of large industries, many which have connections to the government.
1) "At Will" state. You can be fired for ANY reason at any time. Cold hearted? An economy driven by small companies starting up and tearing down needs the flexibility to lay off workers. The dot-com bust would have taken a much larger toll on IBM, Oracle, Sun, Cisco, etc if they couldn't lay off to respond to huge falls in market demand.
Contrast this with the situation in Paris. Any medium size company that tried to downsize, adjust salaries, or benefits would face harsh criticism, if not public protests.
2) Little to no bureaucracy. Anyone can start a business with almost zero red-tape, and in many cases, no taxes.
3) A culture of entrepreneurism. Do you want to try to be an entrepreneur in a society where 25-50% of the people work for the public sector, or do you want to mingle in a society where everyone is passionate about ideas and making them work. Where it is easy to meet someone who knows someone who has money to invest.
The EU has a large consumer market, sure, but when EU investors choose to grow their money, they put it into the US, not the EU. High tariff's in the EU won't stop foreign companies from using Foreign Direct Investment to manufacture locally (only restrictions on FDI will stop this process), as long as there is some money to be made, but this is not a measure of productivity or competitiveness or strength as you would like to make it. People have been salivating about the Chinese market as well for decades.
The key is, local manufacturing has to be cheap enough to justify (generally not the case in high labor costs eurozone without sweet tax deals), and secondly, this means foreign owned firms are pushing out your domestic industries anyway. So you "protected" your local crappy car company, but a "local" Honda plant puts Crappy Inc out of business anyway. Now all your employees at CrappyInc are out of work, or working at Honda, and the profits are still going back to Japan. If you're lucky, you don't have a net loss of jobs. And if Honda decides one day that it can make cars in Estonia far cheaper and still profitable, your local Honda factory goes bye bye, and your French froggies will be protesting in the streets and burning down McDonalds.
Simply put, the protectionism has lots of negative effects
1) goods are much expensive than they should be for EU citizens
2) FDI branches of overseas companies will close down local factories as soon as tariff's change or the costs become cheaper elsewhere even with the tariff
3) investment is driven away, net capital flow outward
4) retaliation against your exports. You protect one firm, but another one, that might be efficient gets retaliated against
It sucks, and doesn't solve the problem behind the fundamentals: if your economy is too rigid and has a high regulatory overhead, businesses will gravitate away. Just look at some of the tax and regulation cutting going on now.
Protectism isn't going to stop the global sync-up that's going to happen with wages and regulations.
Willmeister
Newcomer
Well, first, the Canadian health system tends to be much more efficient, historically we ignored those who denigrated it as merely a 'Canadian' solution, especially on a per capita basis, depsite various successive governments basically undermining them by slow-motion, but that's another thread. Just remember, and Canadians here should note, that government unionization is higher than the private sector, and listening to some of the stories about management, it's no wonder.
Pax, you're in a union. Were you 'forced' into the union? Did they say 'join the union or else?'
What one hand gives, the other can take away. The more you have, the more time you need to upkeep it and defend it. Do we really need all the crap we have today? Do we need 3000 sq-ft houses? Do we need three-car garages? Do we need to have the perfect lawn or the latest technical gizmos? Honestly. Will the earth open up and swallow me whole because I refuse to upgrade my ATI 8500, 1400+ and my two-year old motherboard? There is way too much pressure on people to support the economy with calls to 'buy, buy, buy'.
I agree with Democoder, it isn't that the US does not have highly educated individuals, rather the US economy is such a massive lucrative market that when it expands even at an average rate the demand for skilled labor outpaces domestic supply. Canada was nearly in a state of crisis at one point (I still think this is a problem to some degree.) with the "brain drain" to the US. The economic benefits of many of these employment areas where these people are being pulled into are significant.
Willmeister said:
The key here to bear in mind is that while people may be able to accumulate hefty shares of currency, (and they should be permitted too.) they are not being required at gun point to spend their wealth on anything. You can choose what you want to spend your hard earned cash on. You see, you are able to decide not to upgrade your system, however if you wanted too, there are all sorts of choices for you available. Sure there is pressure to buy things that other people and companies sell but you are not indebted to buy them, ever. Conversely in a system of high taxation it is more difficult to save money people are forced to find loopholes and the like in attempt to preserve their hard earned cash and so their liberty with regards to their next computer upgrade may be significantly reduced. Tax tax tax is a far worse scenario then buy buy buy.....
Willmeister said:
What you call efficiency, I call waiting 3 months for an MRI. I guarantee you that my healthcare is better than yours. I can get an appointment usually the same day to see a doctor, and I don't have to wait more than a few days for any "in demand" capital equipment (MRIs, lab work, XRays, etc) Do I "need" this level of care? Nope, but it's great to have it. Like business class vs coach when flying, it's a matter of comfort and service.
Well hypocrite, why don't you go back to living in nature then? I am sick of leftist wackos complaining about modern amenities, whilst simultaneously pushing such diatribes through such amenities, and then criticizing governments for not providing freebies to them or third world peasants living without them. No one's forcing you to have a computer at all. Do you really NEED a computer? Can't you just read books? Come to think of it, do we really NEED LITERACY? Why, human beings used to live without electricity, so golly gee, it must be bad! Hey, why don't we all live on the minimum neccessary technology and goods and services in order to live some pre-defined socialist ideal lifespan with only what we "need"
Anyway, Speak for yourself. I don't care about what you deem people "need", there are only "wants". I want my 3000sqft house. Sorry, I don't like sharing bedrooms or feeling cramped. I want my 120" projection screen, and $20,000 home theater setup. I want my P4 3Ghz, Radeon 9800, and 1TB RAID. I want my XBox, PS2, and Cube.
I will continue to buy more and more powerful technology as it becomes available, because of the new things it enables me to do. If you're content to live a life of drudgery with a minimum of luxury, then keep your 286 until you're 80 yrs old. Or better yet, go to Cuba or NK. I've only got a limited time on this earth, and I am going to maximize the enjoyment I get out of it.
p.s. and the reason I'll keep using the left/socialist label, is because, with the exception of some wacko rightwing fundamentalists, it is primarily the left/greens who have this bizarrre conception of morals that makes technology, consumption, and economic progress a sin, a kind of evil. A kind of sick ideal that sacrifice and suffering are goods, and those who don't suffer are bad.
RM. Andersson
Newcomer
pax said:
Perhaps you should try to live in Europe for a few years and learn how things really work?
Public health care is not very good. In Sweden you must wait for some types of health care for 18 months.
Sometimes doctors just send sick people home because the system can´t afford to help them. There is not enough money. Positive rights on a piece of paper means nothing if society can´t afford to give them to everyone.
-You have these rights. But....
In reality it´s not available to all. Far from it.
Do you think it´s nice to be in pain every day and wait for 18 months to get help?
Or get told:
-Sorry, it´s not serious enough. We can´t afford to help you.
As far as I know the public health care in Canada does not include everything and it´s clearly defined what type of health care you have the right to get for free. The rest, that´s not included, you will have to pay for and you might need private health insurance for that.
In Sweden it´s much worse and I doubt that you would really want that health care system.
We are talking about 60% or more in total taxes. And what you get for all that taxe money is a very bad joke.
Regards!
Willmeister
Newcomer
Well, that's because MRI clinics operate 24 hours a day in the USA, usually. In Canada, it's 8 am to 5 pm usually. Our funding problems are largely self-inflicted, where administrators reduce costs through labour expenditures. The waiting lists basically started because of rank politics. In the 1990s, governments up here were extremely wary of directly cutting the system in any public way, so the first round of cuts occurred in the backrooms of the system, in particularly testing labs. That's why surgery units became behind schedule (and why dentists now get the OR rooms at least once a week because these surgery rooms are idle). There are other reasons to include into this, but I'm not going into them, even though Democoder lies in wait to pounce on my omissions; he's predictable, you can set your watch to him.
Neither have I actually. When I had to get an x-ray for an opthomologist, it was an in-and-out affair. Took me longer to find a parking spot than filling out the paperwork and the x-ray itself. And this was in a Northern NB hospital (serves about 7,000). A lot of medical diagnostics are being demanded by patients where they'd be inappropriate, as a lot of doctors will tell you. It also is worse in the USA since there since any tiny error on the part of a doctor usually leads to a lawsuit, so doctors are acting in their own self-interest (I suppose you cannot blame them in this case) and covering their asses.
Democoder, how can you be so intransigent? Seriously, it looks like you expend considerable effort to malign just about anything others say, usually with copious amounts of misrepresentation. That, or you're utterly incapable of putting your own rigid ideology aside when replying posts written by others. I don't recall every bringing up the Third-World did it?
Notice every modern convenience I maligned would not result in death of people? Was I telling people to abandon the modern world and a return to some idealist Amish-like existence or where we pick berries and run around half-naked? No I wasn't, was I now?! I want people to honestly ask themselves, do I really need this?
You'll notice that I wasn't referring to most modern 'amenties' like, shall we say, clean drinking water, consistent power supply, safe food, public education, etc, now was I? As much as you'd like to label me as some granola-eating hermit, I never made myself out to be one. If I believed that, you must know by now that being a direct person who usually chooses his words carefully, I would have come right out and said it. Do I have to spoonfeed everything for you like a little child? I guess from now one we'll have to account for every possibility so that Democoder doesn't explode into tirades when you leave items most sensible people could figure out on their own.
See, here you off into the deep end. Do you need something if you'll never use it? I have a computer and use it, obviously. If I bought a 9800, like friends are pressuring me to, I'd never use it. So it's a waste now isn't it? Can you figure out that was what I was asking? You seem to be the only person here that couldn't figure that out. Or you did, but decided to take the oppurtunity to launch into some hyperbole you seem to be very proficient at. Your claim I was pushing for everyone to a return to Amish-like existence is a good example.
See, hyperbole. I've never heard of leftists referring to something as evil, Unabomber excepted though I'm unsure where he used the term 'evil'. 'Evil' is a copyright held by right-wing religous crackpots. Besides, you'll never give up your absurd fixation of 'left/socialist' labels because that's your modus operandi. It is step one in a many of your posts. If it's not near the beginning of your post, you invariably get around to using it later.
RM. Andersson said:
Health care in Canada isn't all it is cracked up to be ether. I know allot of people here in Fredericton not more then a year or so ago that couldn't even get a general practitioner at all for an extended period of time.
There is no dental, eye or aesthetic procedures covered in the Canadian health care system. Prescription drugs are not "free" unless of course you are on welfare. People have to get blue cross coverage in order to get prescriptions at discounts. There are some perks to the Canadian system in that we do pay less for some of our prescriptions however.
Years ago now, I broke my back in a car accident. I sued the driver of the car. It took me a full seven years to have my damages assessed. That included 6 ++ months to see just about any sort of specialist. Once I missed an appointment and to reschedule it was another 4 months, a full year to see one specialist. My initial stay at the hospital was cut short. Because I was able to get out of bed and walk around with a back brace on after only 2 weeks I was discharged. The normal stay for similar accidents is considerably longer but since I was so able they sent me home early. But while I was in the hospital my legs were very sore on my front lower legs. This was because I was smashed into the back of the drivers seat on impact. I complained regular about them.(When I first woke I thought that both my legs were broken because they hurt so much.) But there were no bruises and so there was no investigation into it. Not more then one week after I left the hospital I noticed a slight discoloration on both my shins, it was still painful. A full 12 years now and multiple inquires with my physicians about these discolorations I noticed not more then a week after my discharge both my lower legs are now covered with what appears to be massive bruises that won't go away. Doctors shrug their shoulders and they can do nothing about the matter it seems. I believe doing something about it would fall under their seemly rather broad definition of an aesthetic procedure. You see a malpractice suit is a kin to suing the government getting another doctor to say that another was neglectful is difficult as well.
EDIT: I might add that I had to pay $15,000 for all of the medical assessments, correct me if I am wrong here but that doesn't qualify as "free" in any way.
Medicare is the single largest expense to the government in Canada. The government should allow for private practitioners. Anyone whom says to you that Canadian health care is "free" is not considering that Canadians pay significantly more in taxes then Americans and Medicare is a large portion of why we pay so much more. For approximately $60-70 a month in the US one can buy their own Medicare that gives you relatively the same coverage you get in Canada.
Willmeister
Newcomer
There are problems in the Canadian system. The first problem is that it's essential private delivery, but publicly-funded. This will slowly evolve into something a bit more proper to plug up loopholes that have arisen.
Willmeister said:
I don't know that it would have to be publicly funded at all. I do know however that private practice medicine would have difficulty competing with a highly subsidized counterpart. Surely there must be a market for them but I don't know what it is. As it is the government does not allow for any privately run clinics at all which seems absurd to me.
Willmeister
Newcomer
I think health care is a public safety issue, so it should be publicly funded.