Well, no. What I was asking for were examples where liberal financial systems succeeded.
...
As to Republicans screwing things up, you're right. George Bush was a terrible President, especially at finance. He .... ran huge deficits thinking it would improve the economy. Instead, it ruined the economy.
And so did Bush senior and so did Reagan, and the biggest part of all those deficits has been from tax cuts to the rich. I know you're a troll, but you seem to be arguing both sides of the issue in a singe post.
Yeah, applying psychology to the understanding of human activity is very original.
Using psychology as a replacement for economics is not only original, it's just stupid. Sorry, but there's no other way to describe it. You sound about as well informed as a creationist. And it's why you come to conclusions that have been shown to be wrong again and again. Conclusions that aren't supported by anyone with even a basic understanding of economics, regardless of their political stripes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
And so did Bush senior and so did Reagan, and the biggest part of all those deficits has been from tax cuts to the rich. I know you're a troll, but you seem to be arguing both sides of the issue in a singe post.
I noticed you clipped out all my discussion of liberal economy systems like education and Medicaid to make your point. That's significant because those systems are the drivers of our current debt. They are the cause. They cannot be fixed by any amount of reasonable tax increases. Medicaid/Medicare cannot be fixed by any tax increase as they will eventually consume 300% of GDP.http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2933
The reason you think I'm trying to argue booths sides is you think I'm trying to push a Republican agenda. I am not. I am talking about how liberal economics behaves as a system. It doesn't matter whether or not a Democrat in California or a Republican in Texas implements those economic policies. The same policies will have the same behavior.
That behavior is it has failed everywhere and every time it's been implemented.
All the evidence points in the other direction. An important aspect that you're overlooking is that the wealthy are not just trading their time for money. They are risking their capital. Risking one's capital may be a good bet if you get to keep your winning. But when the government steals most of your winning, that risk often becomes a very bad bet. That means the rich don't fund so many risky new ventures, we all enjoy less innovation, and there are fewer jobs for the working stiffs.
Socialism has produced poverty and misery everywhere it's been tried.
I think that you're making an overly sweeping generalization.
Take a look at Canada, which has a completely socialized healthcare program. Comparing it to the US, the system in Canada is far superior for about 80% of the population (compared to the US).
As a Canadian with a chronic health problem, and one who currently spends most of his time working in the US (I'm a dual citizen contracted to run a US company), I can tell you that the Canadian system removes a huge burden of fear, stress and uncertainty from me. This allows me to do my job much better.
The Canadian economy is in much better shape than almost any other country in the world right now, due mostly to better regulation of the banking and finance industries (which many believe is a socialist behaviour).
The fact is, the US and most of the world is in trouble due to deregulation and military spending, arguably, forms of corporate socialism.
It seems to me, that like most things, a moderate approach, combining the best of various systems, is the most stable.
One, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head asking them to sell the patents. Two, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head asking them to sell the patents at that price. Three, the folks getting a billion (assuming that's what it's sold at) are better off with that than getting zero. Fourth, the only obscene thing is people like you getting all judgmental about a perfectly arms-length transaction in a private market between willing adults.
Actually, former Nortel employees and shareholders ARE holding a gun to their head. Nortel made some horrible decisions that enriched the "C" level executives in the short term and eventually killed the company.
As far as the employees and shareholders are concerned, every penny that Nortel can get for their patents is important.
Given AAPL's history of primarily using patents as a defence, I don't think that the DoJ will find any reason to halt AAPL's bid.
Take a look at Canada, which has a completely socialized healthcare program. Comparing it to the US, the system in Canada is far superior for about 80% of the population (compared to the US).
See in particular Section 1.3 "A Strong Pressure On The Goverment's Other Missions" and Section 1.4 "A Status Quo That Is Becoming Impossible To Maintain In The Present Context".
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTMP
The fact is, the US and most of the world is in trouble due to deregulation and military spending, arguably, forms of corporate socialism.
Deregulation caused much of the current crisis, that is true, but is not a driver of debt. By this I mean that if you fix the problem of deregulation, the debt does not go away. The same is true of military spending. Get rid of military spending entirely and you still have a long term problem of increasing debt.
The drivers of the debt are the social programs. The debt cannot be solved until we figure out a way to make social programs sustainable.
Not really, what's stupid is to think that economic theory that ignores human nature is useful.
anonymouse, there are branches of economics that take human nature into consideration. But they are branches of economics, not branches of psychology. And they do not predict that raising taxes causes production to go up.
anonymouse, there are branches of economics that take human nature into consideration. But they are branches of economics, not branches of psychology. And they do not predict that raising taxes causes production to go up.
Yes, exactly, current economic theory is pretty much worthless, as I said earlier, because cutting taxes hasn't led to any of the outcomes predicted, but has instead been an unmitigated disaster. If your theory is falsified, but you continue to follow it, that's not science, it's just foolishness.
See in particular Section 1.3 "A Strong Pressure On The Goverment's Other Missions" and Section 1.4 "A Status Quo That Is Becoming Impossible To Maintain....."
Raising taxes on the wealthy isn't political class warfare, it is just an extension of commonly accepted practices. In most countries, the poorest are taxed at a lower rate (I can't speak for the US)
...
So, if you taxed the richest 1% at 100%, you'd get $1.39 trillion per year. Not really "only a drop in the bucket"
I'm not arguing that it is right to tax the richest at a higher rate, but you should try to be factual when making such a claim.
After working next to some people that make double what I make and have a lower tax rate because they,re able to play the tax game and incorporate themselves as a company, etc, etc, ... I'd guess the amount of tax money would go up substantially if a flat rate of 15% was invoked. 15% of the richest 1% would be a windfall. Do you think this group of people even noticed the recession??? They, like me even benefit as I still have my job and prices on big ticket items have gone down.
To put it another way, if you want to tax your way out of the problem, you have to raise taxes on everyone by more than 7.5% every year (it's more because children don't pay taxes, but get health care).
To put it another way, if you want to tax your way out of the problem, you have to raise taxes on everyone by more than 7.5% every year (it's more because children don't pay taxes, but get health care).
The article you cite is written by two people from the 'Fraser Institute'. Out of curiosity, I googled them, and here's the first para of the Wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute):
"The Fraser Institute is a conservative and libertarian think tank based in Canada that espouses free market principles. Its stated mandate is to advocate for freedom and competitive markets. It generally opposes public policy solutions based on government spending, taxes, deficits, and regulation. Some of the public policy stands taken by the Institute include: greater free trade throughout the world, privatization of various government services, marijuana decriminalization, competition in primary schooling, and greater private sector involvement in the delivery of healthcare insurance and services. The Fraser Institute opposes Canadian gun control laws, including firearms registry."
I have nothing against their political stance per se -- in fact, I am on the side of their professed adherence to free market principles, competitive markets, and free trade (assuming the issue at hand does not involve externalities whose costs have not been internalized by those professing such principles).
It is important, however, to note that their take on government-run health care is not unbiased. Just as the pov of someone from the Left would be the obverse.
I do not trust biased commentaries, whether from the Left or the Right.
All well and good, but still original research on your part.
Can you provide examples where your ideas have succeeded financially? Because I'm looking at the places where they've applied liberal economics, California, New York, Detroit, the U.S. Federal Government, most of Europe, and all I see is debt piled on top of debt. I see a left wing in America who hasn't even produced a budget in 2 years.
In a nutshell, the problem with giving a government an extra $10.00 to spend in new taxes is it just means that they'll actually spend an extra $15.00. And all we get for is reduced production or reduced consumption.
Canada.
No housing crash because of a regulated mortgage industry and no mortgage tax write-offs. Many of those regulations put in place by previous Liberal and Conservatives governments.
A decade of budget surpluses (almost all under a Liberal government that too). We've only had deficits in this recession and the government is already on its way to a balanced budget. The deficit came in 5 billion lower than forecast this year (which is a lost over here).
Lower spending on health care as a percentage of GDP with better health outcomes that the US.
And by the way, our combined (federal/provincial) income and capital gains tax rates are lower than most of the USA too.
The problem with the American right is that they think every policy from the left is 'socialist' and 'liberal' and they don't even know what socialism or liberalism is!
For that matter, most Americans don't even know what economic conservatism is. I'm an economic conservative and I would never support any of the policies put forward by Republicans in the USA. They aren't economically conservatives. They are economically and fiscally irresponsible, is what they are.
In any event, keep your rising income disparity. It'll simply lead to another 'French Revolution' type of moment when the plebes get sick of being treated like slaves and a piggybank for the rich. Do you really think the average American is going to buy some economic argument about the 'Laffer curve' when he's struggling to put food on the table? Keep destroying and impoverishing the middle class. Take away their health care and social security.
But remember, as people get older they tend to vote more often. Once the baby boomers are gone, that'll be the end of the right for the US, as the echo boomers aren't likely to forget the shaft they've gotten. And that's if people don't actually rise up before.
See in particular Section 1.3 "A Strong Pressure On The Goverment's Other Missions" and Section 1.4 "A Status Quo That Is Becoming Impossible To Maintain In The Present Context".
Deregulation caused much of the current crisis, that is true, but is not a driver of debt. By this I mean that if you fix the problem of deregulation, the debt does not go away. The same is true of military spending. Get rid of military spending entirely and you still have a long term problem of increasing debt.
The drivers of the debt are the social programs. The debt cannot be solved until we figure out a way to make social programs sustainable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
The article you cite is written by two people from the 'Fraser Institute'. Out of curiosity, I googled them, and here's the first para of the Wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute):
"The Fraser Institute is a conservative and libertarian think tank based in Canada that espouses free market principles. Its stated mandate is to advocate for freedom and competitive markets. It generally opposes public policy solutions based on government spending, taxes, deficits, and regulation. Some of the public policy stands taken by the Institute include: greater free trade throughout the world, privatization of various government services, marijuana decriminalization, competition in primary schooling, and greater private sector involvement in the delivery of healthcare insurance and services. The Fraser Institute opposes Canadian gun control laws, including firearms registry."
I have nothing against their political stance per se -- in fact, I am on the side of their professed adherence to free market principles, competitive markets, and free trade (assuming the issue at hand does not involve externalities whose costs have not been internalized by those professing such principles).
It is important, however, to note that their take on government-run health care is not unbiased. Just as the pov of someone from the Left would be the obverse.
I do not trust biased commentaries, whether from the Left or the Right.
The Fraser Institute is a lot like the Cato Institute in the US. They've been crying about health care going broke for decades. Guess what. Hasn't happened yet.
Health care costs are rising to be sure. And there will probably be more private sector involvement in the years to come. But to suggest that the system is 'broke' is ridiculous. It's a PAYGO single payer system. That makes it incredibly efficient. And it's recognized here as a distinct economic advantage. Take a guess why auto jobs are moving back to Canada despite the Canadian dollar going up.
By the way, it's not like private sector participation isn't allowed. It's just double-dipping that's banned in Canada. A doctor cannot bill the public health care system and run a private practice simultaneously. One or the other. All in to the public system or all out. So there are some doctors who cater to the very rich or corporate clients (athletes, military, corporate executives). But the rest of the medical professionals see a better income in building a public practice.
By the way, when it comes to Quebec, keep in mind this is also a province that has $7/day daycare and receives huge federal grants. They're social services might be broke because they provide services other Canadians don't get. They aren't representative of the rest of Canada at all.
To put it another way, if you want to tax your way out of the problem, you have to raise taxes on everyone by more than 7.5% every year (it's more because children don't pay taxes, but get health care).
Yet remarkably, before this recession we had a decade of surpluses. And governments will be heading there shortly or voters will turf them out.
Here's what you don't get. Governments can do somethings more efficiently. And health care is one of them.
Comments
All well and good, but still original research on your part. ...
Yeah, applying psychology to the understanding of human activity is very original.
Well, no. What I was asking for were examples where liberal financial systems succeeded.
...
As to Republicans screwing things up, you're right. George Bush was a terrible President, especially at finance. He .... ran huge deficits thinking it would improve the economy. Instead, it ruined the economy.
And so did Bush senior and so did Reagan, and the biggest part of all those deficits has been from tax cuts to the rich. I know you're a troll, but you seem to be arguing both sides of the issue in a singe post.
Yeah, applying psychology to the understanding of human activity is very original.
Using psychology as a replacement for economics is not only original, it's just stupid. Sorry, but there's no other way to describe it. You sound about as well informed as a creationist. And it's why you come to conclusions that have been shown to be wrong again and again. Conclusions that aren't supported by anyone with even a basic understanding of economics, regardless of their political stripes.
And so did Bush senior and so did Reagan, and the biggest part of all those deficits has been from tax cuts to the rich. I know you're a troll, but you seem to be arguing both sides of the issue in a singe post.
I noticed you clipped out all my discussion of liberal economy systems like education and Medicaid to make your point. That's significant because those systems are the drivers of our current debt. They are the cause. They cannot be fixed by any amount of reasonable tax increases. Medicaid/Medicare cannot be fixed by any tax increase as they will eventually consume 300% of GDP. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2933
The reason you think I'm trying to argue booths sides is you think I'm trying to push a Republican agenda. I am not. I am talking about how liberal economics behaves as a system. It doesn't matter whether or not a Democrat in California or a Republican in Texas implements those economic policies. The same policies will have the same behavior.
That behavior is it has failed everywhere and every time it's been implemented.
All the evidence points in the other direction. An important aspect that you're overlooking is that the wealthy are not just trading their time for money. They are risking their capital. Risking one's capital may be a good bet if you get to keep your winning. But when the government steals most of your winning, that risk often becomes a very bad bet. That means the rich don't fund so many risky new ventures, we all enjoy less innovation, and there are fewer jobs for the working stiffs.
Socialism has produced poverty and misery everywhere it's been tried.
I think that you're making an overly sweeping generalization.
Take a look at Canada, which has a completely socialized healthcare program. Comparing it to the US, the system in Canada is far superior for about 80% of the population (compared to the US).
As a Canadian with a chronic health problem, and one who currently spends most of his time working in the US (I'm a dual citizen contracted to run a US company), I can tell you that the Canadian system removes a huge burden of fear, stress and uncertainty from me. This allows me to do my job much better.
The Canadian economy is in much better shape than almost any other country in the world right now, due mostly to better regulation of the banking and finance industries (which many believe is a socialist behaviour).
The fact is, the US and most of the world is in trouble due to deregulation and military spending, arguably, forms of corporate socialism.
It seems to me, that like most things, a moderate approach, combining the best of various systems, is the most stable.
Using psychology as a replacement for economics is not only original, it's just stupid. ...
Not really, what's stupid is to think that economic theory that ignores human nature is useful.
One, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head asking them to sell the patents. Two, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head asking them to sell the patents at that price. Three, the folks getting a billion (assuming that's what it's sold at) are better off with that than getting zero. Fourth, the only obscene thing is people like you getting all judgmental about a perfectly arms-length transaction in a private market between willing adults.
Actually, former Nortel employees and shareholders ARE holding a gun to their head. Nortel made some horrible decisions that enriched the "C" level executives in the short term and eventually killed the company.
As far as the employees and shareholders are concerned, every penny that Nortel can get for their patents is important.
Given AAPL's history of primarily using patents as a defence, I don't think that the DoJ will find any reason to halt AAPL's bid.
Take a look at Canada, which has a completely socialized healthcare program. Comparing it to the US, the system in Canada is far superior for about 80% of the population (compared to the US).
Canada health care system is also going broke.
http://www.budget.finances.gouv.qc.c...eEfficient.pdf
See in particular Section 1.3 "A Strong Pressure On The Goverment's Other Missions" and Section 1.4 "A Status Quo That Is Becoming Impossible To Maintain In The Present Context".
The fact is, the US and most of the world is in trouble due to deregulation and military spending, arguably, forms of corporate socialism.
Deregulation caused much of the current crisis, that is true, but is not a driver of debt. By this I mean that if you fix the problem of deregulation, the debt does not go away. The same is true of military spending. Get rid of military spending entirely and you still have a long term problem of increasing debt.
The drivers of the debt are the social programs. The debt cannot be solved until we figure out a way to make social programs sustainable.
Not really, what's stupid is to think that economic theory that ignores human nature is useful.
anonymouse, there are branches of economics that take human nature into consideration. But they are branches of economics, not branches of psychology. And they do not predict that raising taxes causes production to go up.
anonymouse, there are branches of economics that take human nature into consideration. But they are branches of economics, not branches of psychology. And they do not predict that raising taxes causes production to go up.
Yes, exactly, current economic theory is pretty much worthless, as I said earlier, because cutting taxes hasn't led to any of the outcomes predicted, but has instead been an unmitigated disaster. If your theory is falsified, but you continue to follow it, that's not science, it's just foolishness.
Actually, former Nortel employees and shareholders ARE holding a gun to their head.
How so?
What could the employees and shareholders do if Nortel management decides not to sell the patents?
Canada health care system is also going broke.
http://www.budget.finances.gouv.qc.c...eEfficient.pdf
See in particular Section 1.3 "A Strong Pressure On The Goverment's Other Missions" and Section 1.4 "A Status Quo That Is Becoming Impossible To Maintain....."
The report you cite covers only Quebec.
Raising taxes on the wealthy isn't political class warfare, it is just an extension of commonly accepted practices. In most countries, the poorest are taxed at a lower rate (I can't speak for the US)
...
So, if you taxed the richest 1% at 100%, you'd get $1.39 trillion per year. Not really "only a drop in the bucket"
I'm not arguing that it is right to tax the richest at a higher rate, but you should try to be factual when making such a claim.
After working next to some people that make double what I make and have a lower tax rate because they,re able to play the tax game and incorporate themselves as a company, etc, etc, ... I'd guess the amount of tax money would go up substantially if a flat rate of 15% was invoked. 15% of the richest 1% would be a windfall. Do you think this group of people even noticed the recession??? They, like me even benefit as I still have my job and prices on big ticket items have gone down.
How is this related to tech again?...
The report you cite covers only Quebec.
*) Both Ontario and Quebec will pay more than 50% of government revenues to health care by the end of this year.
*) Health care costs are expected to grow to over 50% of government revenue in Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, and New Brunswick by 2017.
*) Health care costs are expected to grow to over 50% of government revenue in 8 of 10 Canadian provinces by 2028.
*) Costs are growing at a rate of 7.5% per year (faster than even RomnyCare).
http://www.troymedia.com/2011/04/19/...ement-problem/
Edit:
To put it another way, if you want to tax your way out of the problem, you have to raise taxes on everyone by more than 7.5% every year (it's more because children don't pay taxes, but get health care).
*) Both Ontario and Quebec will pay more than 50% of government revenues to health care by the end of this year.
*) Health care costs are expected to grow to over 50% of government revenue in Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, and New Brunswick by 2017.
*) Health care costs are expected to grow to over 50% of government revenue in 8 of 10 Canadian provinces by 2028.
*) Costs are growing at a rate of 7.5% per year (faster than even RomnyCare).
http://www.troymedia.com/2011/04/19/...ement-problem/
Edit:
To put it another way, if you want to tax your way out of the problem, you have to raise taxes on everyone by more than 7.5% every year (it's more because children don't pay taxes, but get health care).
The article you cite is written by two people from the 'Fraser Institute'. Out of curiosity, I googled them, and here's the first para of the Wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute):
"The Fraser Institute is a conservative and libertarian think tank based in Canada that espouses free market principles. Its stated mandate is to advocate for freedom and competitive markets. It generally opposes public policy solutions based on government spending, taxes, deficits, and regulation. Some of the public policy stands taken by the Institute include: greater free trade throughout the world, privatization of various government services, marijuana decriminalization, competition in primary schooling, and greater private sector involvement in the delivery of healthcare insurance and services. The Fraser Institute opposes Canadian gun control laws, including firearms registry."
I have nothing against their political stance per se -- in fact, I am on the side of their professed adherence to free market principles, competitive markets, and free trade (assuming the issue at hand does not involve externalities whose costs have not been internalized by those professing such principles).
It is important, however, to note that their take on government-run health care is not unbiased. Just as the pov of someone from the Left would be the obverse.
I do not trust biased commentaries, whether from the Left or the Right.
I do not trust biased commentaries, whether from the Left or the Right.
Math is math. Do you have anything showing their math is wrong?
Or are you just pulling an annonymouse and holding on to your beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary?
Math is math. Do you have anything showing their math is wrong?
Or are you just pulling an annonymouse and holding on to your beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary?
Math is math, but not all data are data. Especially when it comes from ideologues.
I have no clue about their base data -- they don't source it.
All well and good, but still original research on your part.
Can you provide examples where your ideas have succeeded financially? Because I'm looking at the places where they've applied liberal economics, California, New York, Detroit, the U.S. Federal Government, most of Europe, and all I see is debt piled on top of debt. I see a left wing in America who hasn't even produced a budget in 2 years.
In a nutshell, the problem with giving a government an extra $10.00 to spend in new taxes is it just means that they'll actually spend an extra $15.00. And all we get for is reduced production or reduced consumption.
Canada.
No housing crash because of a regulated mortgage industry and no mortgage tax write-offs. Many of those regulations put in place by previous Liberal and Conservatives governments.
A decade of budget surpluses (almost all under a Liberal government that too). We've only had deficits in this recession and the government is already on its way to a balanced budget. The deficit came in 5 billion lower than forecast this year (which is a lost over here).
Lower spending on health care as a percentage of GDP with better health outcomes that the US.
And by the way, our combined (federal/provincial) income and capital gains tax rates are lower than most of the USA too.
The problem with the American right is that they think every policy from the left is 'socialist' and 'liberal' and they don't even know what socialism or liberalism is!
For that matter, most Americans don't even know what economic conservatism is. I'm an economic conservative and I would never support any of the policies put forward by Republicans in the USA. They aren't economically conservatives. They are economically and fiscally irresponsible, is what they are.
In any event, keep your rising income disparity. It'll simply lead to another 'French Revolution' type of moment when the plebes get sick of being treated like slaves and a piggybank for the rich. Do you really think the average American is going to buy some economic argument about the 'Laffer curve' when he's struggling to put food on the table? Keep destroying and impoverishing the middle class. Take away their health care and social security.
But remember, as people get older they tend to vote more often. Once the baby boomers are gone, that'll be the end of the right for the US, as the echo boomers aren't likely to forget the shaft they've gotten. And that's if people don't actually rise up before.
Canada health care system is also going broke.
http://www.budget.finances.gouv.qc.c...eEfficient.pdf
See in particular Section 1.3 "A Strong Pressure On The Goverment's Other Missions" and Section 1.4 "A Status Quo That Is Becoming Impossible To Maintain In The Present Context".
Deregulation caused much of the current crisis, that is true, but is not a driver of debt. By this I mean that if you fix the problem of deregulation, the debt does not go away. The same is true of military spending. Get rid of military spending entirely and you still have a long term problem of increasing debt.
The drivers of the debt are the social programs. The debt cannot be solved until we figure out a way to make social programs sustainable.
The article you cite is written by two people from the 'Fraser Institute'. Out of curiosity, I googled them, and here's the first para of the Wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute):
"The Fraser Institute is a conservative and libertarian think tank based in Canada that espouses free market principles. Its stated mandate is to advocate for freedom and competitive markets. It generally opposes public policy solutions based on government spending, taxes, deficits, and regulation. Some of the public policy stands taken by the Institute include: greater free trade throughout the world, privatization of various government services, marijuana decriminalization, competition in primary schooling, and greater private sector involvement in the delivery of healthcare insurance and services. The Fraser Institute opposes Canadian gun control laws, including firearms registry."
I have nothing against their political stance per se -- in fact, I am on the side of their professed adherence to free market principles, competitive markets, and free trade (assuming the issue at hand does not involve externalities whose costs have not been internalized by those professing such principles).
It is important, however, to note that their take on government-run health care is not unbiased. Just as the pov of someone from the Left would be the obverse.
I do not trust biased commentaries, whether from the Left or the Right.
The Fraser Institute is a lot like the Cato Institute in the US. They've been crying about health care going broke for decades. Guess what. Hasn't happened yet.
Health care costs are rising to be sure. And there will probably be more private sector involvement in the years to come. But to suggest that the system is 'broke' is ridiculous. It's a PAYGO single payer system. That makes it incredibly efficient. And it's recognized here as a distinct economic advantage. Take a guess why auto jobs are moving back to Canada despite the Canadian dollar going up.
By the way, it's not like private sector participation isn't allowed. It's just double-dipping that's banned in Canada. A doctor cannot bill the public health care system and run a private practice simultaneously. One or the other. All in to the public system or all out. So there are some doctors who cater to the very rich or corporate clients (athletes, military, corporate executives). But the rest of the medical professionals see a better income in building a public practice.
By the way, when it comes to Quebec, keep in mind this is also a province that has $7/day daycare and receives huge federal grants. They're social services might be broke because they provide services other Canadians don't get. They aren't representative of the rest of Canada at all.
*) Both Ontario and Quebec will pay more than 50% of government revenues to health care by the end of this year.
*) Health care costs are expected to grow to over 50% of government revenue in Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, and New Brunswick by 2017.
*) Health care costs are expected to grow to over 50% of government revenue in 8 of 10 Canadian provinces by 2028.
*) Costs are growing at a rate of 7.5% per year (faster than even RomnyCare).
http://www.troymedia.com/2011/04/19/...ement-problem/
Edit:
To put it another way, if you want to tax your way out of the problem, you have to raise taxes on everyone by more than 7.5% every year (it's more because children don't pay taxes, but get health care).
Yet remarkably, before this recession we had a decade of surpluses. And governments will be heading there shortly or voters will turf them out.
Here's what you don't get. Governments can do somethings more efficiently. And health care is one of them.
Here's our tax rates:
http://www.ey.com/CA/en/Services/Tax...1-Personal-Tax
Add up your tax rates on your paycheque and add up your co-payments for your company health plan and tell me if it's less than what you pay in Canada.
ps. Our health care system also includes the cost of drugs for seniors and homecare as well.