Things that are different in Canada

LoicFarris

Vice Admiral
Donor
Mar 1, 2019
884
3,077
500
RSI Handle
LoicFarris
You want to know what I love about Canada!?

The expensive headlights in my car do what they were designed to do, where as in the US whatever bureaucracy is in charge of that stuff hasn't gotten around to legalizing advancements from the last decade.

So my car has this feature, but it's disabled in the United States.
 

SoloFlyer

Grand Admiral
May 27, 2018
966
3,608
1,000
RSI Handle
housebroken
In the US we may have the best healthcare in the world, but chances are if you or one of your loved ones ever gets seriously sick, somebody is going bankrupt.
Unfortunate but true. I've had two different jobs involving health insurance, one dealing with medicare and one dealing with private insurance. I have had to speak with a lot of people, including at least 10 or so that I can remember in the 6 or 7 figure range, dealing with medical bills that were not going to be paid out by insurance. In one case in the private insurance job, my department was being told that for a period of about 2-3 weeks another department covering one state was giving blanket denials on claims because they were so overwhelmed and only reopening them if an appeal was made.
 

Sraika

Space Marshal
Nov 7, 2017
2,750
10,555
2,860
RSI Handle
Sraika
You want to know what I love about Canada!?

The expensive headlights in my car do what they were designed to do, where as in the US whatever bureaucracy is in charge of that stuff hasn't gotten around to legalizing advancements from the last decade.

So my car has this feature, but it's disabled in the United States.
i mean, the fancy headlight stuff only works in winter if you remember to wash them every so often
otherwise they just get covered in salt and barely light up anything :p
 

ColdDog

Space Marshal
Donor
Oct 3, 2014
1,371
3,680
2,560
RSI Handle
FatalisSmilodon
In America, as long as you have money, you can take care of all your health needs!
@Montoya is correct in his limited/simplistic example - I know he understands the topic.
Let me say this, I get the "Cadillac" plan because I want a low deductible in the event something happens - that is why it is called insurance.

We have two plans to chose from at my job - I can choose the cheap plan with a $6000 dollar deductible or I can chose the expensive plan with a $1000 deductible.

It is just like your car, you pay premium for the deductible options. So, if I got sick I would want to pay as little out of pocket expenses as possible. Some people can't afford that and have to roll the dice with the more expensive deductible... and this is where people end up in financial trouble.
 

Thalstan

Space Marshal
Jun 5, 2016
2,008
7,063
2,850
RSI Handle
Thalstan
I can see what I said needed to be rephrased as it seems to have elicited an answer that was not what I was going for. While it is easy to say insurance or the government will pay for all the medical care you need the question is where does the money come from to pay for everyone's medical care? At what point does the cost of medical care exceed the ability of society to pay for. Be it either privately funded through individuals paying more into a common pool than collecting over their lifetime or society as a whole paying into a common pool than collecting over their lifetime. And while I do understand it an emotionally charged hot topic when you look at the financial data available across any of the known medical payment solutions they all point toward the same answer. It really doesn't seem to be sustainable in the long run for anyone. It only works when there are more contributing to the system then withdrawing from it be it from a combination of population growth as well as a quick accidental death at middle age.

So look at your own medical history so far and ask yourself, have you contributed more in medical payments be it through taxes either personally given or through work contributed through a corporation tax (corporate taxes, in the end, are still taxes on the individual work's contribution, just not paid directly by the individual). then medical services you have collected? Then look at those around you your friends and family members, as a group have you paid more then you've collected?

I honestly do not have any answers to these questions. I just know that when I started digging into the world macroeconomics there were a lot of questions that no one was answering or the answers given did not have a very positive outlook.

So no I was not asking about how the American medical system compared against the Canadian or Australian or even Russian. I feel that while we like to say one way is better then the other the question I am asking is how can we continue to pay for the medical system we currently demand. Or if the medical system we currently demand is not sustainable within the current economic trajectories.
One reason you can have it is that everyone pays for it. In the US, not everyone (or at least it used to be not everyone) would buy health insurance, especially those that were very young, 20sor so. That means that people not very likely to be sick in countries like Canada are paying high costs for health care coverage they don’t use in early life.

another, the lack of for profit health insurance means less taken out of the system, but i am sure some of this is removed by inefficient government programs and bureaucracies.

I have a good plan. I am very lucky and I know it. That said, I would be open to a single plan, provided that the costs of what is paid for my plan is close to what would be paid in taxes. I believe this should also be a corporate tax, but how that’s done to prevent some big corporations from cheating the system I don’t know. If you tried to institute it as a VAT or National sales tax, the screaming would be immense. From both people and politicians.
 

Mich Angel

Space Marshal
Donor
Sep 19, 2016
3,625
13,726
2,910
RSI Handle
ARCHANGEL_666
HA HA... you would feel right at home in Sweden then...
Canada seem to be a perfect ripoff of Sweden...

Different colored bills
Gas/fuel and other liquids are in Litres
All road signs are in km.. speed in km/h
If a politician does the same here the effect would be the same... "a shit storm" ha ha ha...
Here it is direct translated - jogging shoes or running shoes, would in brevity speaking translate to "runners"

And taxes are about the same here but the healthcare is free.. you pay a symbolic fee about $10 at entry. Dental care is free up to age 25 if I recall right.
Then if you're hospitalized like i was when my lungs collapsed years back,
included emergency ambulance 4 times 3 different hospitals operations then 2 month in hospital to recover $175.- and there is a max fee for hospital care regardless injury.

Now the important question is.. the beer.. how is the beer in Canada...?

🍻
 
Last edited:

Sraika

Space Marshal
Nov 7, 2017
2,750
10,555
2,860
RSI Handle
Sraika
HA HA... you would feel right at home in Sweden then...
Canada seem to be a perfect ripoff of Sweden...

Different colored bills
Gas/fuel and other liquids are in Litres
All road signs are in km.. speed in km/h
If a politician does the same here the effect would be the same... "a shit storm" ha ha ha...
Here it is direct translated - jogging shoes or running shoes, would in brevity speaking translate to "runners"

And taxes are about the same here but the healthcare is free.. you pay a symbolic fee about $10 at entry. Dental care is free up to age 25 if I recall right.
Then if you're hospitalized like i was when my lungs collapsed years back,
included emergency ambulance 4 times 3 different hospitals operations then 2 month in hospital to recover $175.- and there is a max fee for hospital care regardless injury.

Now the important question is.. the beer.. how is the beer in Canada...?

🍻
depends on the brand, really
some good
some bad
most are somewhere in the middle

i've been having a lot of alexander keith's when i go out for wings lately
 

FZD

Space Marshal
Nov 22, 2016
1,353
5,026
2,750
RSI Handle
FZD
While this is correct on how its currently working with in the individual level. The question is both the American and Canadian do not pay into the system over their career the amount they take out over their lifetime. At what point does it become no longer economically feasible to support the current medical expectations?
One important thing to remember, especially on a collective system, is that the calculation is not just "(Healthcare cost) - (individual contribution) must equal zero or more". It's more like
"(Healthcare cost for individual) - (individuals contribution) - (the increased condition of the individual prevents the loss of X in profits / taxes) must equal zero or more"

That is, if you had 10 islanders who produced 200 barrels of coconut beer a month.
Without any sort of healthcare on average 2 of them would be sick all of the time, reducing the production to 160 barrels of coconut beer a month.
However, if for the profits of selling 20 barrels of coconut beer a month you could provide a healthcare program that reduced the on average sickness to 1 islander every other month, you'd net on average 10 more barrels of coconut beer a month. Therefore providing such healthcare service would make financial sense, even if the individuals weren't paying enough to cover its costs. (Not to mention providing such service would probably be a pretty popular move, earning you their undying loyalty)
 

Vavrik

Space Marshal
Donor
Sep 19, 2017
5,453
21,836
3,025
RSI Handle
Vavrik
Now the important question is.. the beer.. how is the beer..?
i've been having a lot of alexander keith's when i go out for wings lately
Heh, Alexander Keith's IPA was one of my favorites. There are some craft breweries that have good product. Most of the rest is wet, so maybe? But I mean moose piss is wet so they generally weren't my first choice. Overall it's not exactly impressive, but there are a few gems.
 

FZD

Space Marshal
Nov 22, 2016
1,353
5,026
2,750
RSI Handle
FZD
We have two plans to chose from at my job - I can choose the cheap plan with a $6000 dollar deductible or I can chose the expensive plan with a $1000 deductible.
$1000 deductible? Wow, you could buy a car for that price. So do you have like a separate insurance if it's anything less than a severed arm?
 

LoicFarris

Vice Admiral
Donor
Mar 1, 2019
884
3,077
500
RSI Handle
LoicFarris
i mean, the fancy headlight stuff only works in winter if you remember to wash them every so often
otherwise they just get covered in salt and barely light up anything :p
Ahhh yes except there's one cool thing the car has that helps with that! Headlight washers!! 😁

51657199141_1.jpg
 

ColdDog

Space Marshal
Donor
Oct 3, 2014
1,371
3,680
2,560
RSI Handle
FatalisSmilodon
$1000 deductible? Wow, you could buy a car for that price. So do you have like a separate insurance if it's anything less than a severed arm?
Its never been that way until after Obama Care... That is why Obama Care is SO controversial. I would say my options were diminished significantly - we use to have 5 options, now I have two options, and they both SUCK... Special thanks Obama for destroying the medical system. My healthcare cost increased significantly, I would estimate almost 50% and gets more expensive every year.

People want something for FREE... and there is NOTHING for free. People have a choice, they can pay their own tab or rob from their neighbors (IE make me pay more in taxes and insurance to cover them). What people don't understand, especially the snowflake do-gooders... is that for-profit makes the world go round. Even Canada has for-profit elements, so those people who say they stick up for the little guy, drive costs up and move to some other country, leaving the rest of us with a mess.
 

Bambooza

Space Marshal
Donor
Sep 25, 2017
5,693
17,928
2,875
RSI Handle
MrBambooza
We can't continue to sustain the status quo, and that includes in social healthcare systems as well as private. Social healthcare systems are not immune to the fallout. All they can do is delay the problem a few years at most, if that. And as it collapses, we'll see it impact people who are on the income edge first. This is something that is far bigger than just healthcare though, it impacts our whole economic system, globally. It might impact food production first. Almost anything else could be resolved peacefully, but food... that's a primary need. "Screw healthcare, I'm fuggin hungry" will quickly devolve the rest of society.
One reason you can have it is that everyone pays for it. In the US, not everyone (or at least it used to be not everyone) would buy health insurance, especially those that were very young, 20sor so. That means that people not very likely to be sick in countries like Canada are paying high costs for health care coverage they don’t use in early life.

another, the lack of for profit health insurance means less taken out of the system, but i am sure some of this is removed by inefficient government programs and bureaucracies.

I have a good plan. I am very lucky and I know it. That said, I would be open to a single plan, provided that the costs of what is paid for my plan is close to what would be paid in taxes. I believe this should also be a corporate tax, but how that’s done to prevent some big corporations from cheating the system I don’t know. If you tried to institute it as a VAT or National sales tax, the screaming would be immense. From both people and politicians.

I think this is a fallacy in the argument. While it is true that everyone pays into it vs a smaller pool with private insurance they both suffer from the same issue that those same individuals also withdrawal from it and often in far greater amounts then they contributed. It's only soluble due to the fact that currently, the population withdrawing from the accounts is less than the contributors. But this also means that the amount currently contributed to the health insurance pool is not being invested and so current contributors will either not have the same health benefits once they reach old age or the next generations' tax rate will need an increase to make up the difference. As of 2018, Canada spends 11.3% of its GDP on health costs which boils down to about $ 6,839 per individual so a family of 4 would need to contribute $ 26,975 a year to cover the current medical cost break-even. And this doesn't count all the other social services that come out of the tax burden.

So my concern is not about which system is better (honestly at this point the Canadian one is head and shoulders over the bastardized one the US attempted to implement) , but about the future of any medical program in the next 10 to 20 years as this cost is only expecting to climb as the population distribution grows older and requires more medical services.

One important thing to remember, especially on a collective system, is that the calculation is not just "(Healthcare cost) - (individual contribution) must equal zero or more". It's more like
"(Healthcare cost for individual) - (individuals contribution) - (the increased condition of the individual prevents the loss of X in profits / taxes) must equal zero or more"

That is, if you had 10 islanders who produced 200 barrels of coconut beer a month.
Without any sort of healthcare on average 2 of them would be sick all of the time, reducing the production to 160 barrels of coconut beer a month.
However, if for the profits of selling 20 barrels of coconut beer a month you could provide a healthcare program that reduced the on average sickness to 1 islander every other month, you'd net on average 10 more barrels of coconut beer a month. Therefore providing such healthcare service would make financial sense, even if the individuals weren't paying enough to cover its costs. (Not to mention providing such service would probably be a pretty popular move, earning you their undying loyalty)
While this works for those working it does not take into account those not working either to being too young or retired.
 
Last edited:

Thalstan

Space Marshal
Jun 5, 2016
2,008
7,063
2,850
RSI Handle
Thalstan
I think this is a fallacy in the argument. While it is true that everyone pays into it vs a smaller pool with private insurance they both suffer from the same issue that those same individuals also withdrawal from it and often in far greater amounts then they contributed. It's only soluble due to the fact that currently, the population withdrawing from the accounts is less than the contributors. But this also means that the amount currently contributed to the health insurance pool is not being invested and so current contributors will either not have the same health benefits once they reach old age or the next generations' tax rate will need an increase to make up the difference. As of 2018, Canada spends 11.3% of its GDP on health costs which boils down to about $ 6,839 per individual so a family of 4 would need to contribute $ 26,975 a year to cover the current medical cost break-even. And this doesn't count all the other social services that come out of the tax burden.

So my concern is not about which system is better (honestly at this point the Canadian one is head and shoulders over the bastardized one the US attempted to implement) , but about the future of any medical program in the next 10 to 20 years as this cost is only expecting to climb as the population distribution grows older and requires more medical services.
actually, it's not.

The costs of out healthcare plan the next year is dictated by the costs paid out this year and last year plus expected growth. My health insurance company wants a 20 percent gross profit margin to cover their costs and their shareholders' profits. So that means that if they expect to pay out $800,000 US in terms of benefits for the company I work for, our premiums end up being $1,000,000 combined.

ALL health insurance programs work like that, in fact all insurance programs work like that. You will always pay more in premiums than you get in benefits on average. If you didn't, the insurance company would become insolvent and would go out of business. Since companies like Aetna, Cigna, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, etc all manage to stay solvent, as does your State Farm, Allstate, Farmers, etc, It makes sense that insurance companies know how much to charge on average to cover their costs.

So, you would need to have a single payer system that actually kept track of the costs and taxed accordingly. yes, there will be some years where you don't use much and pay a lot. There are other years where you will pay a lot and use a lot more. On average though, costs should be predictable and premiums (taxes) adjusted for.. Good years would have to be carried over, while in lean years, you might have to use some of the reserves...but in the US, that just means it's another way to spend excess money on other projects...

In addition, rates would become much more standardized. If you would look at what the doctors/hospital systems would charge you for procedures vs the rate the insurance company negotiated for you. A walk in patient might be charged $3-4,000 US vs the insurance patient at the same facility, with the same technicians and readers gets charged $800. If they have a 20 percent co-pay, they would have to pay 160, with the insurance covering the rest. In a single rate system, everyone would be charged the 800 or so, and how much it cost you will depend on the insurance company/plan you have.
 
Forgot your password?