Aa
Surrogates Admit Romney Will Cut Medicare Benefits For Current Seniors
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to neutralize Democratic attacks on their plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program for future seniors by replaying the GOP’s 2010 campaign against Democratic members of Congress: by attacking President Obama for Medicare cuts he signed into law.
As has been noted repeatedly, that strategy requires Romney and Ryan to disavow Medicare reforms the GOP recently endorsed overwhelmingly as a part of the party’s budget, which Ryan authored.
But the ticket also contends that a key difference between Obama and Romney is that Romney won’t change Medicare at all for existing beneficiaries — only future ones. Recent statements from his advisers and surrogates, suggest the claim is false.
As outlined in a memo the campaign released Saturday, Romney plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, and thus to spend over $700 billion more on the program in the coming decade than the government would spend if the health care law stands.
That commitment would leave Medicare poised for insolvency in 2016, years before he proposes to phase in the voucher system. Which means Romney would have two options: find new Medicare cuts or taxes to extend the life of the program, or preside over its demise.
On Fox News Sunday, Romney adviser Ed Gillespie tried to address the conundrum. “There are other reforms as well. As you know Governor Romney supports increasing over time bringing the Medicare eligibility age in line with the Social Security retirement age.”
But raising the Medicare eligibility age is a benefit cut, and implementing the increase before 2016 would violate Romney’s pledge to leave the program unchanged for people between ages 55 and 65.
Avik Roy, an outside health care adviser to the Romney campaign, admits that committing to billions of dollars in higher Medicare spending in the near-term will make it difficult for Romney to achieve its separate goal of reducing overall federal spending to modern lows. But he notes that Romney could make up the difference elsewhere in the budget or, by “mak[ing] other changes to the Medicare program, such as increased means-testing, that don’t alter the program’s basic structure.”
Further means-testing of Medicare would amount to a benefit cut to current seniors.
These admissions rest on top of the fact that by repealing the Affordable Care Act, Romney would wipe out new Medicare benefits included in the law. Repeal would result in higher payments to doctors and hospitals, and the restoration of overpayments to insurers participating in Medicare advantage. But for beneficiaries, it would re-open the Medicare prescription drug donut hole and eliminate coverage for preventive services and annual checkups that the ACA created.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/surrogates-admit-romney-will-cut-medicare-benefits-for-current-seniors.php
As has been noted repeatedly, that strategy requires Romney and Ryan to disavow Medicare reforms the GOP recently endorsed overwhelmingly as a part of the party’s budget, which Ryan authored.
But the ticket also contends that a key difference between Obama and Romney is that Romney won’t change Medicare at all for existing beneficiaries — only future ones. Recent statements from his advisers and surrogates, suggest the claim is false.
As outlined in a memo the campaign released Saturday, Romney plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, and thus to spend over $700 billion more on the program in the coming decade than the government would spend if the health care law stands.
That commitment would leave Medicare poised for insolvency in 2016, years before he proposes to phase in the voucher system. Which means Romney would have two options: find new Medicare cuts or taxes to extend the life of the program, or preside over its demise.
On Fox News Sunday, Romney adviser Ed Gillespie tried to address the conundrum. “There are other reforms as well. As you know Governor Romney supports increasing over time bringing the Medicare eligibility age in line with the Social Security retirement age.”
But raising the Medicare eligibility age is a benefit cut, and implementing the increase before 2016 would violate Romney’s pledge to leave the program unchanged for people between ages 55 and 65.
Avik Roy, an outside health care adviser to the Romney campaign, admits that committing to billions of dollars in higher Medicare spending in the near-term will make it difficult for Romney to achieve its separate goal of reducing overall federal spending to modern lows. But he notes that Romney could make up the difference elsewhere in the budget or, by “mak[ing] other changes to the Medicare program, such as increased means-testing, that don’t alter the program’s basic structure.”
Further means-testing of Medicare would amount to a benefit cut to current seniors.
These admissions rest on top of the fact that by repealing the Affordable Care Act, Romney would wipe out new Medicare benefits included in the law. Repeal would result in higher payments to doctors and hospitals, and the restoration of overpayments to insurers participating in Medicare advantage. But for beneficiaries, it would re-open the Medicare prescription drug donut hole and eliminate coverage for preventive services and annual checkups that the ACA created.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/surrogates-admit-romney-will-cut-medicare-benefits-for-current-seniors.php
Yeah, yeah, yeah.... and there's also people saying that Obama is "stealing" money from Medicare to fund other things.... so what? What's it going to be?
There will have to be a tax rate increase at some time people. We have to pay for this stuff, kids. When you don't pay for stuff, you find yourself in the very situation we are in today. Crumby business practices know no party lines and both sides participate in crumby business practices.
Either side finds something to throw money at without looking down the financial line. It's been happening for a long time in this country.
There will have to be a tax rate increase at some time people. We have to pay for this stuff, kids. When you don't pay for stuff, you find yourself in the very situation we are in today. Crumby business practices know no party lines and both sides participate in crumby business practices.
Either side finds something to throw money at without looking down the financial line. It's been happening for a long time in this country.
I also did not say stop funding the military, I said stop the wars, and stop spending more money on more ways to kill people.
I'll go with animals for the folks your referring to. I'd like to show a few of them what it feels like to be stoned, have acid thrown in their faces or sold to a big mean old man at the age of 9. Yep, I have no problem with the use of the term animals with regards to those guys.
Now, off to find me a unicorn...lol. Oh El, I do pick on you don't I...lol.
Now, off to find me a unicorn...lol. Oh El, I do pick on you don't I...lol.
The "animals" I was referring to, are the people that are doing the stoning, and the Taliban, and the terrorists, and the insurgents.
I'm sure the general population is all unicorns & rainbows and sugar & spice and all things nice. But the ANIMALS are the people still fighting against and killing my brothers & sisters.
ANIMALS, and I'll stand by that statement!
I'm sure the general population is all unicorns & rainbows and sugar & spice and all things nice. But the ANIMALS are the people still fighting against and killing my brothers & sisters.
ANIMALS, and I'll stand by that statement!
I also believe it's time to end things in Afghanistan. I know the last of the Canadian troops are now home from there, and I'm glad. THey need to sort things out on their own..fully agreed.
However, they are not animals. They are people, most of them decent and good and have been through a pretty awful time due primarily to a gov't who was oppressive in ways you cannot possibly imagine. We have so many refuges from there and I have met many of them. What these people have lived through is just the most horrific thing I have ever heard. Young girls raped and tortured for wanting to be educated. Women stoned for being raped and then accused of adultry. No, they aren't animals, they are real life people.
However, they are not animals. They are people, most of them decent and good and have been through a pretty awful time due primarily to a gov't who was oppressive in ways you cannot possibly imagine. We have so many refuges from there and I have met many of them. What these people have lived through is just the most horrific thing I have ever heard. Young girls raped and tortured for wanting to be educated. Women stoned for being raped and then accused of adultry. No, they aren't animals, they are real life people.
I never said "defund the military".
I said take the $$$ we're spending on the 2 wars, and spend it at home. Of course, we'll need to withdraw the troops, etc, but being in Iraq & Afganistan at present is futile and only costing countless billions of dollars and wasting American lives.
Let those animals fight amongst themselves and kill each other. Not certain why we're still there. I understand why we WENT there in the first place, and I think it was justified, but our continued presence is a waste of American resources that are sorely needed at home.
I said take the $$$ we're spending on the 2 wars, and spend it at home. Of course, we'll need to withdraw the troops, etc, but being in Iraq & Afganistan at present is futile and only costing countless billions of dollars and wasting American lives.
Let those animals fight amongst themselves and kill each other. Not certain why we're still there. I understand why we WENT there in the first place, and I think it was justified, but our continued presence is a waste of American resources that are sorely needed at home.
So defund the military and when a conflict comes up we are not prepared.
Remember 9/11? Well we are still cleaning up when they started so why are we going to leave an unfinished job?
Also no troops left in Iraq just Afghanstain.
Remember 9/11? Well we are still cleaning up when they started so why are we going to leave an unfinished job?
Also no troops left in Iraq just Afghanstain.
The thought of gov't being in charge of the healthcare system in this country, scares the ever living $hit out of me.
Just ask any veteran about their experience with the VA hospital, and you'll have a fairly comprehensive look into what a gov't run healthcare system would look like.
Whatever the gov't touches will turn into $hit shortly thereafter.
That said, taking the $$$'s we're spending in Afganistan & Iraq, and putting it to work at home, is fine with me!
Just ask any veteran about their experience with the VA hospital, and you'll have a fairly comprehensive look into what a gov't run healthcare system would look like.
Whatever the gov't touches will turn into $hit shortly thereafter.
That said, taking the $$$'s we're spending in Afganistan & Iraq, and putting it to work at home, is fine with me!
Hmm, I was referring to health care and unemployment specifically. Of course some things were worse as is always the case.
Pros and cons to everything.
What I propose is we stop all military spending on wars and funding for things like new weapons and put that money to work, putting our people to work and improving our country.
Pros and cons to everything.
What I propose is we stop all military spending on wars and funding for things like new weapons and put that money to work, putting our people to work and improving our country.
Ask a black man or women why life was better in the 1960's and see what answer you get.
Everything you propose costs a lot of government $$$$$$$$.
Everything you propose costs a lot of government $$$$$$$$.
Vance, I don't have all the answers, never claimed I did.
We didn't use to have these huge insurance companies i between us and our doctors and we had less unemployment. Why was life better in the 1960s ??
I see the jobs that need to be done, everywhere around me. Our entire infrastructures need rebuilding. Our forests need care, as do our rivers and bays. We could put our energy, our great minds to work improving our energy systems. There is no reason every building in the West does not have at least solar heated water.
They have them in Turkey, we can have them here.
We can turn empty lots into small farms to help feed people, put them to work helping their communities. There are many ways we could improve life for all, but it would take willingness to change.
Like I said to El, there are a lot of things I'd like to see change but I'm realistic enough to know that it's not likely to happen.
Personally, I think the chaos we're seeing is what happens at the end of empires. Don't ask me to elaborate. It's just my thought, noting more or less.
We didn't use to have these huge insurance companies i between us and our doctors and we had less unemployment. Why was life better in the 1960s ??
I see the jobs that need to be done, everywhere around me. Our entire infrastructures need rebuilding. Our forests need care, as do our rivers and bays. We could put our energy, our great minds to work improving our energy systems. There is no reason every building in the West does not have at least solar heated water.
They have them in Turkey, we can have them here.
We can turn empty lots into small farms to help feed people, put them to work helping their communities. There are many ways we could improve life for all, but it would take willingness to change.
Like I said to El, there are a lot of things I'd like to see change but I'm realistic enough to know that it's not likely to happen.
Personally, I think the chaos we're seeing is what happens at the end of empires. Don't ask me to elaborate. It's just my thought, noting more or less.
Insurance companies are put out of business then what is next to be put out of business? Where do all of those people go for work?
I have never had a claim denied, as I have a well respected insurance. Yes some companies are only out to make money others are not.
I have never had a claim denied, as I have a well respected insurance. Yes some companies are only out to make money others are not.
No, I don't mean it from an our doctor's suck, point of view. I have a wonderful doctor and my surgeon in Taiwan was trained in the US.
Did you know I didn't have insurance and even with cash in the bank, I could not get pre-testing for a transplant ? It was required that I have insurance regardless of how much money I had.
I landed up going abroad and for less than 1/10th of the cost here, had an amazing successful surgery. We won't talk about the after care which was archaic and I am digressing.
I think the insurance racket has become just that~ a racket. It's like the protection racket. Maybe those in the Mafia weren't dumb. They went legal by forcing us to use insurance.
Insurance companies are responsible for a lot of the high prices.
If you pay cash, you get an automatic reduction, often 1/3 or more off the bill. Why? One, because the insurance companies aren't getting a cut and two, because they get their money quicker.
Insurance companies take a long time to pay up.
People show up on the hep C forum quite often with insurance companies refusing to pay for the meds ordered by their doctors. This is flat our wrong.
We had one member who used to work for one and quit. Her conscience got to here.She was instructed to initially always deny any claim.
Barb and I recall when people could easily afford to see the doctor, when no one was turned away from the ER and yes, doctor's still made quite a good living. Why when I was a kid with the flu and a high fever, the doctor even came to the house.
Our health care system is broken. Individual doctors, nurses, et al are wonderful ( of course there are exceptions).
To me it's the same problem as the big banks, corporations run for profit and f*** you to the little guy.
BTW: I am not gung-ho about Obama's health care plan though I don't really feel like I know enough about it to comment. I applaud him for trying. I wish the insurance companies were cut out of it but hey, I wish I could ride a flying horse too.
Did you know I didn't have insurance and even with cash in the bank, I could not get pre-testing for a transplant ? It was required that I have insurance regardless of how much money I had.
I landed up going abroad and for less than 1/10th of the cost here, had an amazing successful surgery. We won't talk about the after care which was archaic and I am digressing.
I think the insurance racket has become just that~ a racket. It's like the protection racket. Maybe those in the Mafia weren't dumb. They went legal by forcing us to use insurance.
Insurance companies are responsible for a lot of the high prices.
If you pay cash, you get an automatic reduction, often 1/3 or more off the bill. Why? One, because the insurance companies aren't getting a cut and two, because they get their money quicker.
Insurance companies take a long time to pay up.
People show up on the hep C forum quite often with insurance companies refusing to pay for the meds ordered by their doctors. This is flat our wrong.
We had one member who used to work for one and quit. Her conscience got to here.She was instructed to initially always deny any claim.
Barb and I recall when people could easily afford to see the doctor, when no one was turned away from the ER and yes, doctor's still made quite a good living. Why when I was a kid with the flu and a high fever, the doctor even came to the house.
Our health care system is broken. Individual doctors, nurses, et al are wonderful ( of course there are exceptions).
To me it's the same problem as the big banks, corporations run for profit and f*** you to the little guy.
BTW: I am not gung-ho about Obama's health care plan though I don't really feel like I know enough about it to comment. I applaud him for trying. I wish the insurance companies were cut out of it but hey, I wish I could ride a flying horse too.
The healthcare system in this country is deplorable?
I'm hoping you mean that from a "we don't have universal healthcare" point of view/opinion, and not from a "our doctors and hospitals suck" point of view/opinion.
You mention paying for the programs by increasing the corporate tax-rate. PLEASE, PLEASE tell me that you're either kidding, or didn't think that comment through.
If you'd like to see yet MORE of our jobs disappear into thin air (ie: be outsourced outside the USA), then please raise the corporate tax-rate. It's hovering right around 35% at present (the highest on the planet Earth), and raising it further would further encourage corporations to outsource overseas.
If you're trying to create an environment that's bad for business, go ahead and raise taxes on corporations in order to fund universal healthcare, please.
Seriously Orphan, I understand what you're saying about universal-healthcare, and the need for healthcare reform, but PLEASE, don't think of funding those programs at the expense of the entire country. If you think unemployment is bad now and that the economy is in the crapper, raise the corporate tax-rate and see what happens.
Stop the wars, by all means, Take all the money from wars and fund your universal healthcare program. It won't be enough, I promise you, it won't be enough. You'll come to me with your hand open, asking for another corporate tax increase, within 12 months (which will push corporations, corporate jobs, corporate manufacturing, etc FURTHER away from home).
Healthcare REFORM is what's necessary, not a sweeping program like "Universal Healthcare". Bankrupt the nation in order to give 10million people healthcare... I think not.
Sacrifice the many for the benefit of the few? Not the America I want to live in.
I'm hoping you mean that from a "we don't have universal healthcare" point of view/opinion, and not from a "our doctors and hospitals suck" point of view/opinion.
You mention paying for the programs by increasing the corporate tax-rate. PLEASE, PLEASE tell me that you're either kidding, or didn't think that comment through.
If you'd like to see yet MORE of our jobs disappear into thin air (ie: be outsourced outside the USA), then please raise the corporate tax-rate. It's hovering right around 35% at present (the highest on the planet Earth), and raising it further would further encourage corporations to outsource overseas.
If you're trying to create an environment that's bad for business, go ahead and raise taxes on corporations in order to fund universal healthcare, please.
Seriously Orphan, I understand what you're saying about universal-healthcare, and the need for healthcare reform, but PLEASE, don't think of funding those programs at the expense of the entire country. If you think unemployment is bad now and that the economy is in the crapper, raise the corporate tax-rate and see what happens.
Stop the wars, by all means, Take all the money from wars and fund your universal healthcare program. It won't be enough, I promise you, it won't be enough. You'll come to me with your hand open, asking for another corporate tax increase, within 12 months (which will push corporations, corporate jobs, corporate manufacturing, etc FURTHER away from home).
Healthcare REFORM is what's necessary, not a sweeping program like "Universal Healthcare". Bankrupt the nation in order to give 10million people healthcare... I think not.
Sacrifice the many for the benefit of the few? Not the America I want to live in.
"In a privatized system the Insurance companies dictate what Dr. you can see, when you can go to a hospital, whether or not you get certain meds or procedures."
I can only speak for my own insurance company, but they do not tell me what doctor I can go to. They have a list of participating physicians (those that will accept the amounts offered) and you choose from that. That goes for specialists, too. If I choose a doctor, not on the list, I simply pay a higher portion of the cost. I've never been told I couldn't go to a hospital, when I needed to, in fact, I had to make a trip to the ER on our recent vacation in another state. They also do not tell me what meds I can get, though meds are covered at different rates, with insurance covering some generics 100%, while brand names are more expensive. While many procedures must have prior approval, I've never been denied anything I needed, nor have I had to wait several months to get something done.
All my blood work is covered at no charge to me (I do have to go to a participating lab), as are basic preventative procedures/tests, such as mammogram, pap, bone density, colonoscopy, among others.
It's not perfect by any means, and it's expensive (as noted in my post above), but I've never been left to suffer. I think we've all heard horror stories about each others health care systems, which are probably exaggerated considerably.
OH - I, too, remember when health care was affordable; insurance (if you had it) was reserved for major medical issues. Even back then, doctors made a good living.
I can only speak for my own insurance company, but they do not tell me what doctor I can go to. They have a list of participating physicians (those that will accept the amounts offered) and you choose from that. That goes for specialists, too. If I choose a doctor, not on the list, I simply pay a higher portion of the cost. I've never been told I couldn't go to a hospital, when I needed to, in fact, I had to make a trip to the ER on our recent vacation in another state. They also do not tell me what meds I can get, though meds are covered at different rates, with insurance covering some generics 100%, while brand names are more expensive. While many procedures must have prior approval, I've never been denied anything I needed, nor have I had to wait several months to get something done.
All my blood work is covered at no charge to me (I do have to go to a participating lab), as are basic preventative procedures/tests, such as mammogram, pap, bone density, colonoscopy, among others.
It's not perfect by any means, and it's expensive (as noted in my post above), but I've never been left to suffer. I think we've all heard horror stories about each others health care systems, which are probably exaggerated considerably.
OH - I, too, remember when health care was affordable; insurance (if you had it) was reserved for major medical issues. Even back then, doctors made a good living.
No, I didn't know about Bhutan, but sounds to me like they have their priorities straight. I like that...gnh. And really, when people are happy they are more productive and prosperous and I bet if one looked, there is a low crime rate as well. Probably low substance abuse too. I remember having a moment in Jamaica. I'm not much of a resort dweller, I like to meet real people living their lives. I was up in the mountains in a small village. These folks were living in little one room shacks. They had very little in terms of material things. But they looked out for one another. They had music, they were smiling, and what little they had they were happy to share with me if I wanted. I remember thinking these folks know some secret to life that we in North America don't. I have had experiences like that in so many countries....it makes one think doesn't it.
Do you know about Bhutan that small Himalayan country ?
The judge how well the country is doing not by the GNP but by GNH, gross national happiness.
I feel it is a human rights issue. When in Thailand, the people I spoke with were shocked when we described health care in the US.
They have different levels of hospitals there depending on what you can afford.
When a street person disappeared from his usual spot, I asked about him only to discover he'd been taken to the hospital.
How anyone can still claim that we are the greatest country with such a lack of care for our citizens, is beyond me. It's sad, really.
The judge how well the country is doing not by the GNP but by GNH, gross national happiness.
I feel it is a human rights issue. When in Thailand, the people I spoke with were shocked when we described health care in the US.
They have different levels of hospitals there depending on what you can afford.
When a street person disappeared from his usual spot, I asked about him only to discover he'd been taken to the hospital.
How anyone can still claim that we are the greatest country with such a lack of care for our citizens, is beyond me. It's sad, really.
I think that would be my fear over health care becoming privatized here. I have no issue with Dr.'s making lots of money...they have a whole lot of education and knowledge and I completely respect that. I do have a problem with other companies profiting that have no real vested interest in keeping people healthy. Universal is run as non profit (not the Dr.'s, just the administration) and I know that helps keep costs down. Plus, preventative care is proven to keep costs down as well. And we know what happens to a society in general when it's population does not have access to health care. We know how important it is.
Yes, I can't help it. I do see it as a basic human right and think it very important to any country. The Dr.s should continue to be well paid, but that middle man must cost gazillions.
Yes, I can't help it. I do see it as a basic human right and think it very important to any country. The Dr.s should continue to be well paid, but that middle man must cost gazillions.
I'm old enough to remember when the insurance companies didn't run everything. Health care was affordable.
In my opinion the mafia protection racket went legal, now they call it health insurance.
As someone who hasn't had it I can tell you that if you are self pay, you automatically get a huge price reduction because you aren't' paying to keep the middle man, the insurance companies afloat.
Health care decisions should not be made by insurance companies. They are in it for the health of their business not for the health keeping people healthy.
In my opinion the mafia protection racket went legal, now they call it health insurance.
As someone who hasn't had it I can tell you that if you are self pay, you automatically get a huge price reduction because you aren't' paying to keep the middle man, the insurance companies afloat.
Health care decisions should not be made by insurance companies. They are in it for the health of their business not for the health keeping people healthy.
I do consider it a basic human right and yes, that is probably very much a liberal thought process. Although not sure if it's just a liberal thought as here, when there is an election, the issue of changing the basic structure does not come up at all. Like your system, changes are necessary - we have an incredible amount of fraud and no question it's a huge problem, but the basic structure is good. We also have excellent Dr.'s and as I said I am very happy personally. You'll meet people who are not happy just as you will anywhere, but for people I know, it works. I believe that all should have access to as a healthy population is both more successful and more productive. Preventative is a big deal for sure. And trust me, our Dr's still make a lot of money and, like everywhere, we have good ones and bad ones. We have some world class medical schools.
Here is what I have been told about the US system (now, keep in mind, I have no doubt we too are fed lies about a privatized system just as you are about a Universal system - that's why I say the truth is probably somewhere in the middle).
In a privatized system the Insurance companies dictate what Dr. you can see, when you can go to a hospital, whether or not you get certain meds or procedures. Here, that is completely between the Dr. and patient. No interference. In a privatized system they can cancel if they want to should you become too expensive, or if they consider it a pre existing condition. Here, you are covered at birth end of story until you die. No need for special programs for seniors, etc. You cannot, under any circumstances, lose your insurance. I have heard your premiums can be really expensive. Here, I guess it depends on where you live.
El - as for taxes. The percentage you pay is based on income. I make around $60 K, my husband just over $100. We file as a family. We pay federal taxes of about 36%. We pay no Provincial taxes here at all - it doesn't exist in Alberta. We do both pay Unemployment Insurance and CPP (Canada Pension Plan) on top of it, but that is fairly minimal). Ontario is for sure higher (they have a provincial tax of about 6 or 7 % I believe, so on $100,000 they pay about 43% on average. That's if your single..it's lower if you have children. Highest in the country is Quebec at app. 45%, lowest is Nunavut at 35%. Again, this rate is based on $100,000 a year. Percentages are based on income, but of course you have things like RRSP (same as your 401K) and other things you can do to lower your taxes just like the US. Hope that helps a bit.
Here is what I have been told about the US system (now, keep in mind, I have no doubt we too are fed lies about a privatized system just as you are about a Universal system - that's why I say the truth is probably somewhere in the middle).
In a privatized system the Insurance companies dictate what Dr. you can see, when you can go to a hospital, whether or not you get certain meds or procedures. Here, that is completely between the Dr. and patient. No interference. In a privatized system they can cancel if they want to should you become too expensive, or if they consider it a pre existing condition. Here, you are covered at birth end of story until you die. No need for special programs for seniors, etc. You cannot, under any circumstances, lose your insurance. I have heard your premiums can be really expensive. Here, I guess it depends on where you live.
El - as for taxes. The percentage you pay is based on income. I make around $60 K, my husband just over $100. We file as a family. We pay federal taxes of about 36%. We pay no Provincial taxes here at all - it doesn't exist in Alberta. We do both pay Unemployment Insurance and CPP (Canada Pension Plan) on top of it, but that is fairly minimal). Ontario is for sure higher (they have a provincial tax of about 6 or 7 % I believe, so on $100,000 they pay about 43% on average. That's if your single..it's lower if you have children. Highest in the country is Quebec at app. 45%, lowest is Nunavut at 35%. Again, this rate is based on $100,000 a year. Percentages are based on income, but of course you have things like RRSP (same as your 401K) and other things you can do to lower your taxes just like the US. Hope that helps a bit.
Many countries believe the health and welfare of their residents is important and they all are not necessarily ones considered liberal by any means. Some have horrid governments yet they manage to take care of the basic needs of their people.
The health care system in this country is deplorable.
If we stopped the wars right now, we could fund these programs. The only taxes that should be increased are corporate taxes, and ones on the very top.
The health care system in this country is deplorable.
If we stopped the wars right now, we could fund these programs. The only taxes that should be increased are corporate taxes, and ones on the very top.
Employer sponsored health insurance is relatively inexpensive, for many; however, once you no longer have the employer paying part of it, the whole ballgame changes, drastically.
When my husband and I both worked, we each had insurance from our individual work, which cost us each approx $30/week..... not bad and the coverage was pretty good............ now that we are both retired and no longer have the employer kicking in a portion, we pay nearly $1000/mo for that same coverage (we used to pay less than that to cover our whole family for a year)...... not to mention that when my husband's cobra ran out, he couldn't get another policy because of high cholesterol, even though he has no other medical issues, so he had to go on my policy.... Because I was able to maintain the same policy I had when I worked (just have to pay the whole premium myself), it's a group policy so we wouldn't get cancelled if one of us gets ill, but if it weren't a group policy, we would.
We've already been told that premiums will go up the first of the year, so we'll probably have to opt for a higher deductible and less coverage in order to keep premiums where they are.
When my husband and I both worked, we each had insurance from our individual work, which cost us each approx $30/week..... not bad and the coverage was pretty good............ now that we are both retired and no longer have the employer kicking in a portion, we pay nearly $1000/mo for that same coverage (we used to pay less than that to cover our whole family for a year)...... not to mention that when my husband's cobra ran out, he couldn't get another policy because of high cholesterol, even though he has no other medical issues, so he had to go on my policy.... Because I was able to maintain the same policy I had when I worked (just have to pay the whole premium myself), it's a group policy so we wouldn't get cancelled if one of us gets ill, but if it weren't a group policy, we would.
We've already been told that premiums will go up the first of the year, so we'll probably have to opt for a higher deductible and less coverage in order to keep premiums where they are.
I think the "Voucher Plan" will include a "Legalize Euthanasia" clause and a free gun to commit suicide!
The old people will need it when their health care money runs out!!!
I keed, I keed!
The old people will need it when their health care money runs out!!!
I keed, I keed!
Premiums from an employer can vary. Mine is on the low side and insurance is not cancelled because I get cancer or something like that where your bills are going to be high. Some cheap run by night companies where people buy insurance might be a little fradulent but the major companies are very good.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
