I can't believe, based off this article, that we're debating adding a Canadian healthcare system that we can't afford right now that many Canadians think sucks. The meat of the article is about the Canadian banking system, which is clearly better than ours.
In addition, home loans in the United States are "non-recourse," which basically means that if you go belly up on a bad mortgage, it's mostly the bank's problem. . To me, that is the most important sentence in the article (even if it is not really true- all residential mortgages are full recourse). Our main problem right now stems from our government's mandate that lenders make bad loans to people who can't qualify for mortgages. Once the government forced the banks to make poor underwriting decisions, it spiraled down hill from there. Canada obviously takes an approach which demands personal responsibility, and encourages stricter lender underwriting standards.
We’re hurting, but not as much as you are. You have to remember that 80% of our exports go to the US, so when the US stops buying that has a very major impact on our balance of trade. Also note that the great depression was one of the events that prompted Canada to institute its strong social programs. Canada today is a much, much, different place than it was then. I would say that the loss of a bank would cause panic and financial chaos, and that would have a big impact on manufacturing. I don’t think a bank can fail without there being a large amount of collateral damage. Other notes: Even the Conservative party in Canada strongly favours out health care system over the American one. No one outside of the US favours the US system over any other first world country’s system, and I think even in the US now it’s only the wingiest of wingnuts who claim to favour it. That doesn’t mean that the Canadian system, exactly as it is, is the right one for the US, however. I think you should seek to adapt and improve on any system current system. Also note that there is no “rationing” of healthcare in the Canadian system.
A Canadian style system would save you a great deal of money. You're paying something like 30% more as a percentage of GDP and and you still have a large percentage of you population without coverage. 100% of Canadians are covered by the Canadian system. Also note that while there have been an number of issues arise with out system of the last decade or so - many of which have been resolved now, btw - that certainly does not mean that people would prefer the US system to the Canadian one. Our system is 40 years old now and some things needed updating, but no one is suggesting that we should go back to what we had 40 years ago, which is essentially what you have now.
(I'm going to let myself get sucked in.) Not bashing you, because you are just parroting the sales pitch, but this is a completely ridiculous and baseless statement. Just because Canada pays less for government-provided universal healthcare than the US does for half-government-provided non-universal healthcare doesn't mean that the US can save money by adding 50 million or so people to government healthcare. Here's a basis for comparison: Is Canada paying less for healthcare now than they did before they had Universal Healthcare? That's an apples-to-apples comparison.
source [rquoter] Our final point concerns health care rationing in Canada. Clearly rationing occurs, mostly through the use of cues for certan expensive services and diagnostic procedures, such as bypass surgery and MRI scans. [/rquoter] Additional sources: Health Care Politics, Policy, and Distributive Justice Canada Health Act and Health Care Rationing ...and you can find 1,000,000 more hits via Google. It is 'supply side' rationing. Costs are reduced by simply saying, "This is how much money we have available to give people for 'treatment x'." If the funds are sufficient to give 500,000 instances of 'treatment x', but 600,000 people need the treatment, then there will be 100,000 people waiting around, twiddling their thumbs in queues for the next funding cycle. The system doesn't concentrate on increasing the cost-efficiency per patient as with France.
You really need to do some research on this issue. A lot of research has been done on this and there is a lot of information readily available on the net. One of the key features of Canadian style single payer systems is that they cut out a huge amount of the waste out of your system. Much of the savings comes straight from a reduction in overhead. Overall the savings are usually said to be around 30%. Here’s a primer for you:
I didn’t both looking up the suggestion that health care is “rationed" in Canada. So, you’re talking about waiting lists, are you? Yes, that has been an issue, and there was a public outcry, and the problem has largely been addressed, mostly by the government putting more money into the system. That’s the short of the story anyway. The Canadian system is certainly not perfect. I’m sure no system is, which is why the US should seek to address some of the problems in other country’s systems when it implements its own. In general the single payer system is the way to go, however.
The government never mandated anything like this - banks did that on their own assuming home values would keep rising. The gov't did encourage community lending through the community reinvestment act - but the banks that primarily engage in that stuff are doing just fine. The housing crisis started on the coasts - where there was the most speculative home & condo flipping. That was purely people trying to make lots of money - both the banks and the speculators.
i like this one: <object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xdARfegZDns&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xdARfegZDns&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>
Well, his accent suggests that he’s not Canadian, and none of the rest of that is even close to being true either. Is this your way of telling us that you’ve got nothing basso? Is this your white flag of surrender?
HUD required that FNMA and Freddie Mac purchase low income mortgage. That most certainly was a mandate. Then, HUD allowed sub-prime mortgages to be counted as "affordable" low income mortgages. The ironic part of this mess is that it is government regulation that caused the subprime crisis. If the banks knew the government would never bail them out, and the government didn't make mandates that lowered underwriting standards, then none of this ever would have happened.
The guy is probably a libertarian. Bless his heart. He is probably funded by the pharmaceutical industry. This is an appeal to the suburban hip hop crowd. He will soon by hired by the RNC to appeal to the suburban hip hop crowd.
This is not entirely true. If you get foreclosed on and there is a deficiency balance, the mortgage company can go after you for it. They generally don't because they know you will never be able to pay it. They could sue you for it, but what is the point if you cannot pay it? They used to be able (and often did) formally forgive the debt and send you a 1099 for forgiveness of debt income which you would then pay taxes on.
The real problem is that it’s factually untrue. For example, prescription drugs, other than in hospital drugs, are not part of Canada’s universal health care system. They are not part of the Canada Health Act. A number of provinces do have programs to offset the cost of prescription drugs, but they do that on their own on a province by province basis. And, of course, the drug companies do get paid. Drug prices are set by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, but the price guidelines are quite reasonable for the pharmaceutical companies. http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/english/View.asp?x=272 http://www.pmprb-cepmb.gc.ca/english/View.asp?x=272#12
That may be true, but it's not true in this case. This is an insurance system like any other insurance system. People pay into a pool and they draw on that pool if they should happen to get sick or hurt. You can be sure that the British aren't paying for the French health care system. The French, and the Americans who live there, are paying for it themselves.
You can still get a 1099 for debt forgiveness, but you rarely ever had to actaully pay tax on debt forgiveness. If you have a $90,000 mortgage on a $100,000 house, you actually have a loss, which is not deductible in this situation, but there is no gain, so there is not tax. If people didn't destroy their homes when they were in foreclosure, things would probably work out for all parties.
