A comparison of US and Canadian healthcare, Using babies! Options

[mipadi]

United States

• Wife with previa placenta, c-section, 9 days hospital - $50k+
• Son 3 weeks immature, 3 weeks in NICU - $140K+

Welcome to American health care. I do have insurance so with that it will be about $20K out of pocket for me. And most importantly my son is now 5 weeks old and thriving.

Canada

I'm a Canadian in Canada, father of two. I created an account specifically after reading the above comment. This isn't a horror story, or even a story of near-disaster, just what happened, but I couldn't help but notice a contrast.

In the last weeks of my wife's first pregnancy, she began experiencing some stomach pain. We went to the hospital, she was checked out with a bevy of tests, discharged, and sent home when she appeared to be doing better. Gas, we all thought. After more pain a few days later, and some discussion with the nurse over the phone, we agreed that this needed to be checked again. My wife was diagnosed with an unusual affliction that can affect pregnant women, and that it was best treated with the baby removed.

They tried to induce labour (to no effect), she was given an epidural, and eventually it was decided that this was best handled with a cesarean. The deed done, all was well. Mom and child #1 stayed in the hospital for a few days, receiving checkups and the assorted 200-point-inspections that newborns seem to need. I brought them home, life was good. A nurse came to our home within a couple of weeks to see if we needed anything. At some point my wife went in to a nursing clinic at the hospital to get help with breastfeeding.

Pregnancy #2 came along a couple of years later. As a consequence of history, there were a couple of extra appointments with the obstetrician, an extra ultrasound (I think)...and about three weeks before the due date, my wife started getting pains again. The ob's general take was "let's not mess around - let's just go with the cesarean...how 'bout this weekend?" Another surgery, another stay of a few days.

I paid for parking. I paid to get some photos of the ultrasound in a cutesy envelope, and I paid something like $10 or $15 so my wife would have a phone in the hospital room. I never saw a bill. I don't know how much all this cost. I'd never think this is all that remarkable except that I keep hearing that it is.

I don't really know what things are like in the U.S. I hear horror stories, of course, but I've learned not to trust what you're told about a foreign health care system. I don't know what it's like in the UK or France since I've never lived there.

As for what goes on in Canada...I don't suppose it comes as a surprise to most of the crowd on this particular board to be told that you are being lied to. Horribly, horribly lied to. As the debate rages on in your country, my wife and I are frequently exposed to the things you're being told about the system in my country. She laughs out loud, and my stomach turns.

This isn't a polemic. I don't know that you can really walk away with more than "I heard from some guy that it's not so bad." You folks should do what's best for you and your country, but you deserve good information and a good debate to make your choice.

[NoSex]

You prove my point perfectly. Minimum wage adds a price floor on labor, meaning that the business must raise the price of their goods/services... in order to stay competitive, the board is free to give themselves raises.

your premise is false because minimum wage has been steadily decreasing while profits have been increasing.

secondly, you can't argue that fair compensation is what the free market creates when you're going to say that minimum wage is an unfair government regulation that hurts the economy. you can't have your cake and eat it too. either the free market works out fair compensation and gives workers what they deserve or we need regulations like minimum wage in order to give workers proper compensation for their work.

False. In fact, if the healthcare surtax goes through... Next time, try doing a little more research.

are you f*cking kidding me? you can't claim you're a good soccer player IF YOU MOVE THE GOAL POST INTO YOUR SHOTS. you said that people are being, currently, taxed half of their assets. i said that they weren't. i was right. you were wrong. you can't pretend you're right because, maybe, perhaps, sometime in the future, someone may be taxed over half of their assets.

LEARN TO HAVE A FAIR AND HONEST DEBATE. YOU JUST LOOK LIKE A DOUCHEBAG.

Again, anyone who is able to save/reinvest/buy nonessential items has by definition "too much money." I'd love for you to tell the mom and dad with the $20k a year income busting their ass to put aside money every year in order to send their kid to school that they have "too much money."

what the hell are you talking about? even when i try to correct you, it's as if you're f*cking illiterate.

So according to you, banker sits on his ass all day in an air conditioned office lending money to people so that they can buy houses and starts businesses doesn't deserve his salary as much as the mexican dude that sweats his ass off mowing lawn.

is the banker white?

False. We enter the world with no possessions, we leave with no possessions.

what the f*ck is this psycho-babel-bullshit? capitalism creates class divides which lead to institutionalized poverty. inheritance exits, and wealth is mostly hereditary. in other words, legitimate social mobility does not exist in america.

Really now, so the person who commands the most money, the one who can hire or fire thousands of laborers, are less of an asset to the economy than one laborer?

we don't need someone who doesn't know how to build a car, to tell someone, who knows how to build a car, to build a car. yes, a single laborer is more important.

And the world was better of because of that. What are you complaining about here?

you are f*cking dense. when the slaves were emancipated and began to earn salaries, do you think that they were being fairly compensated for their work?

There was a functional society prior to the 16th amendment.

it was functional because we had taxation.

i don't believe in your infantile shit morality. you can't define stealing as wrong, except when rich people are the victims. equal protection under the law?

the law is taxation. and, a tiered tax bracket at that -- those who earn more are obligated, under law, to contribute more.

No, the government's job (at least under the Constitution) is to make sure no one is infringing on your rights. The Constitution does not give the government the responsibility of babying our citizens.

i care about a progressive socio-economic world. because of this, i think that the government has an obligation to make society healthier, happier, and more fair. that's what the people want. if it is true that we own the government, than that is the democratic purpose of our state.

[kryogenix]

your premise is false because minimum wage has been steadily decreasing while profits have been increasing.

Decreasing? What world do you live in?

inb4 you bring up inflation as an excuse, which is largely caused by the government's inflationary policies.

You can't legislate prosperity. If you could, then I'd be all for setting the minimum wage to $1 million/hour so that we could all be rich.

are you f*cking kidding me? you can't claim you're a good soccer player IF YOU MOVE THE GOAL POST INTO YOUR SHOTS. you said that people are being, currently, taxed half of their assets. i said that they weren't. i was right. you were wrong. you can't pretend you're right because, maybe, perhaps, sometime in the future, someone may be taxed over half of their assets.

LEARN TO HAVE A FAIR AND HONEST DEBATE. YOU JUST LOOK LIKE A DOUCHEBAG.

How about you learn to read and do a little mental math, you simpleton. There is already a number of people being taxed over 50%. The link I posted simply stated that number will increase, which is PERFECTLY f*ckING RELEVANT considering it's in direct consequence to the issue of healthcare we are discussing.

You claim to have passed highschool, so I'm sure you can grasp the concept that if a tax claims 58% of someone's income as a result of the addition of a 5.4% surtax, they were already having more than 50% of their income being taken away from them prior to that surtax being added.

LEARN TO USE MORE THAN 2 OF YOUR BRAIN CELLS. YOU JUST SOUND LIKE A DUMBASS.

what the hell are you talking about? even when i try to correct you, it's as if you're f*cking illiterate.

I'm talking about your shitty criteria, as anyone who is able to save/invest has excess wealth by definition since they are not consuming all their wealth. Your criteria punishes good behavior by discouraging savings and increased productivity.

I don't think you're illiterate, just unwilling to admit you're dead wrong.

is the banker white?

Why does it matter?

what the f*ck is this psycho-babel-bullshit? capitalism creates class divides which lead to institutionalized poverty. inheritance exits, and wealth is mostly hereditary. in other words, legitimate social mobility does not exist in america.

Socialism creates class divides: there's the poor, and there's the State.

we don't need someone who doesn't know how to build a car, to tell someone, who knows how to build a car, to build a car. yes, a single laborer is more important.

We need someone who owns capital to hire someone who they train to build a car. We need someone who owns capital to invest in research to create better cars.

We do not need to forfeit our property rights to a corrupt government that does not know how to run a business.

you are f*cking dense. when the slaves were emancipated and began to earn salaries, do you think that they were being fairly compensated for their work?

As long as honest contracts were being made, yes, they were being fairly compensated.

it was functional because we had taxation.

But not because of a FEDERAL INCOME TAX. Wow you are thick headed. You've gotta be kidding if you think taxes back then were anything like taxes now.

the law is taxation. and, a tiered tax bracket at that -- those who earn more are obligated, under law, to contribute more.

The law discriminates against the productive, and favors the unproductive.

i care about a progressive socio-economic world. because of this, i think that the government has an obligation to make society healthier, happier, and more fair. that's what the people want. if it is true that we own the government, than that is the democratic purpose of our state.

Do we own the government, or does the government own us? If we surrender our property rights to the government, we are surrendering ourselves to the government.

[NoSex]

Decreasing? What world do you live in?

inb4 you bring up inflation as an excuse, which is largely caused by the government's inflationary policies.

doesn't matter what the hell it's caused by, you're argument is demonstratively wrong:
in 2005 & since 1990, minimum wage has decreased by 9.3% whereas ceo pay has increased by 298.2%. [1]

not to mention, minimum wage isn't what puts small business out to pasture. what does that is competition from big business. having to pay their employers a menial wage has very little to actually do with it.

You can't legislate prosperity. If you could, then I'd be all for setting the minimum wage to $1 million/hour so that we could all be rich.

if we redistributed wealth, we could probably make everyone in america a millionaire.

How about you learn to read and do a little mental math, you simpleton.

you're link was misleading. i only read the first few paragraphs in it. you should have clarified. nonetheless, i don't give a f*ck about taxation; i think it's a good thing.

p.s. note how these wealthy people aren't leaving america to escape "unfair" taxation. part of that is probably because with all of their reductions and deductions... they probably pay far less (which you know is true). another part is probably that they couldn't make the same wages anywhere else, quite as easily. that's why doctors come here to work, because they want six cars and two summer homes (i.e. things no one showed have).

I'm talking about your shitty criteria

i already clarified this like twice, my "criteria" is not "anyone who can do more than simply survive." i was simply drawing a comparison, saying that certain persons can easily EASILY afford to be taxed a significant sum of their wealth. others, obviously, cannot.

Socialism creates class divides: there's the poor, and there's the State.

you don't know much about socialism.

We need someone who owns capital to hire someone who they train to build a car. We need someone who owns capital to invest in research to create better cars.

who better than the proletariat himself? in a socialist system, the workers could own the means of production themselves.

As long as honest contracts were being made, yes, they were being fairly compensated.

alright, i just want to talk about this point. that's it. just this point.

there inherently no such thing as an "honest" or fair contract when you are considering an "agreement" between two vastly unequal parties. if a starving, desperate person comes to an exceptionally wealthy, and powerful individual and this desperate person wants work... any contract that person forms will be controlled by the person in a position of power. i'm going to ask you the same question again, were those former slaves fairly compensated for their work?

we are surrendering ourselves to the government.

not if we own the government.