Palin went to Canada to get health care

[Trinity]

the rediculous arguments by Trinity- of course people with money get better care and Canada can't stop this capitalistic and greedy bribery and of course there are lines and delays everywhere, gosh, even at the Olive Garden and Disneyland lo and behold, but Canadians still love their health care and improvements will come- but the fact remains in the USA 45,000 people die each year because they don't have medical insurance and can't get care because they can't afford it. That is terrorism...domestic terrorism. That is war. The health insurance companies are terrorists and should be tried and hanged as terrorists. End of story.

I've been discussing the issue of healthcare for months and I know of what I speak. I back up my arguments.

There are more issues with Canadian healthcare and similar systems touted as the way we should go here in the U.S. That was merely one post from before that I referred to however, the argument is that the uninsured in America will not be better off going with anything like the Canadian Healthcare system and certainly won't benefit from the mess that is Obamascare. The major problems facing the Canadian System and others like it, will devastate our economy and reduce quality of care, increase premiums and only dramatically increase costs and deficits.

Lines and delays are serious when you are dealing with healthcare. Delaying surgery is dangerous. If you cannot understand that healthcare queues are different than waiting an hour at a restaurant or recreation park then that's your failure of understanding.

As previously posted...I have backed up that argument:

We've done this before but...why not do it again.

I stated that Canada's healthcare system has issues of unsustainability.

"It is important to remember that health costs are increasing at a rate faster than general government revenue. Should current trends continue, future health expenditures will exceed available resources by a significant and substantial amount. The historical practice of increasing health expenditures at the expense of other important public services is not a feasible, practical or advisable approach." - Roy Romanow, Commission on the Future of Healthcare

1. The status-quo of the Canadian health-care system is completely unsustainable; and

2. Rather than having a debate in Canada about how to fix our health-care system (since the "generational fix" of five-years ago didn't quite get us there), we are off bragging about the unsustainable status-quo to other countries, convincing them we have the magic answer to health care.

There is of course some reason to brag about our health-care system. It has largely served our country well. For my entire lifetime, our system, while far from perfect, has been part of our country's identity (and to be clear, there is no such thing as a perfect health-care system, every jurisdiction is struggling at all times with how to allocate scarce resources to meet insatiable demands).
So while I am a big defender of aspects of our health system, there is nothing magical about it. At least not anymore.

The Globe and Mail.com

While I'm sure you are proud that Canada has universal coverage,( believe me America would love to get there and be proud of that too)...it is NOT sustainable and in our current economic instability and debt - would break us!

Need more?

Soaring costs could force most provinces to spend more than 50 per cent of their revenue on health care by 2036, says a new report, which urges Canadians to consider alternatives to the status quo if they "want a sustainable, high-quality health-care system."

"Over the past 10 years, health-care spending in nine out of 10 provinces has grown at an unsustainable rate," says Brett Skinner, the lead author of the Fraser Institute report. "Unless governments find a better way to finance health care, then provincial governments will likely be looking at tax hikes, further rationing of medical goods and services or ugly tradeoffs with other important spending areas."

Canada.com, VancouverSun

Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec - then the largest and most affluent in the country - adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.
Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits, by David Gratzer, IBDEditorials.com

Friday, April 17, 2009

Debate on Alberta health insurance overhaul boils over


Alberta Health Minister Ron Liepert (left) made a big splash this week -- even by his infamous "Rockin' Ron" standards -- when he declared that because the province's healthcare costs are growing at an unsustainable rate, some medical services currently covered by the public insurance plan would have to be "de-listed." [Calgary Herald]

Mr Liepert said the government may establish a panel to make recommendations on "what is medically necessary, what is essential, what needs to be covered, what doesn't need to be covered."

"We, 3.5 million Albertans, can't afford to cover what we've got right now," he said. [Calgary Sun]

Wait times problems exist. Rationing exists. And they are problems. These problems are not what Obama and the Democrats are promising with ObamaCare and Americans don't want it. We also don't want an economically unsustainable system that will add to our deficit or break our economy.

The numbers don't lie. Obamascare is a fallacy. Canada's outcomes are reality: higher costs, longer waits for care and rationing. Higher taxes for rationed care.

Same old same old. It's odd how you seem to think that I have a "position". I am not compulsively trolling websites for ideological propaganda, using slanted op-ed pieces and taking media quotes out of context. I previously addressed your cliches, but you simply tune out or shift ground.

I have related my experiences within our health care system. If you choose not to believe me, that's just fine. Canadians couldn't care less what the US does with its health care. But we do not appreciate being misrepresented and lied about.

You certainly made claims you were unable support. Everything you claimed was debunked repeatedly. Despite your experiences with the system, sources proved that Canadian Healthcare has major problems. The sources are hard journalism from Canada - not anything slanted or used for propaganda.

 

[cdarro]

I've been discussing the issue of healthcare for months and I know of what I speak. I back up my arguments.

There are more issues with Canadian healthcare and similar systems touted as the way we should go here in the U.S. That was merely one post from before that I referred to however, the argument is that the uninsured in America will not be better off going with anything like the Canadian Healthcare system and certainly won't benefit from the mess that is Obamascare. The major problems facing the Canadian System and others like it, will devastate our economy and reduce quality of care, increase premiums and only dramatically increase costs and deficits.

Lines and delays are serious when you are dealing with healthcare. Delaying surgery is dangerous. If you cannot understand that healthcare queues are different than waiting an hour at a restaurant or recreation park then that's your failure of understanding.

As previously posted...I have backed up that argument:





You certainly made claims you were unable support. Everything you claimed was debunked repeatedly. Despite your experiences with the system, sources proved that Canadian Healthcare has major problems. The sources are hard journalism from Canada - not anything slanted or used for propaganda.

Yet Again.


The Romanow report was released eight years ago and has gathered dust ever since, as no one took it seriously. Mr. Romanow himself has credibility issues, being a former NDP Premier of Saskatchewan

In your next instance you are quoting part of an op-ed piece from the Globe and Mail. Robert Silver claims our system will essentially implode in five years or less, but offers nothing other than vaubge budget numbers nor any ideas to counteract this doomsday scenario. And we are unable to see Mr. Powers rebuttal, for whatever reasons.

In your third instance you quote from the Vancouver Sun which itself quotes a "report" from the Fraser Institute that health care spending will reach 50% of provincial budgets by 2036. The Fraser institute has little or no credibility here, being, as the article itself admits, a right wing thinktank.


In your fourth instance you quote David Gratzer from IBDEditiorial. After visiting its homepage, it's obvious that this is another of those profuse right wing propaganda websites that litter the internet. He doesn't get his facts straight, as Claude Castonguay was not the charman of a committee to study healthcare in Quebec, he was the junior co-chairnan of Prime Minister Pearson's royal commission on the need for national standards in healthcare. Emmett Hall, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada was chairman, and Castonguay, who contributed almost nothing to the commission, was a political appointment to soothe the ruffled feathers of the government's Quebce wing.

It your fifth instance you quote from the Calgary Herald and Sun regarding Alberta Health Minister Ron Liepert's statements on the unsustaianability of health care. It might interest you to know that Mr Liepert is no longer the Health Minister here, having been demoted in January to the position of President of the Treasury Board (not the Minister of Finance), due to his tendency to contradict his Premier and the party's stated position on among other things, health care.

I've brought up some of these point to you before, but I have no faith you'll pay any attention now either. Keep on believing what you need to believe. Happy Trolling.

 

[Industrialsize]

Yet Again.


The Romanow report was released eight years ago and has gathered dust ever since, as no one took it seriously. Mr. Romanow himself has credibility issues, being a former NDP Premier of Saskatchewan

In your next instance you are quoting part of an op-ed piece from the Globe and Mail. Robert Silver claims our system will essentially implode in five years or less, but offers nothing other than vaubge budget numbers nor any ideas to counteract this doomsday scenario. And we are unable to see Mr. Powers rebuttal, for whatever reasons.

In your third instance you quote from the Vancouver Sun which itself quotes a "report" from the Fraser Institute that health care spending will reach 50% of provincial budgets by 2036. The Fraser institute has little or no credibility here, being, as the article itself admits, a right wing thinktank.


In your fourth instance you quote David Gratzer from IBDEditiorial. After visiting its homepage, it's obvious that this is another of those profuse right wing propaganda websites that litter the internet. He doesn't get his facts straight, as Claude Castonguay was not the charman of a committee to study healthcare in Quebec, he was the junior co-chairnan of Prime Minister Pearson's royal commission on the need for national standards in healthcare. Emmett Hall, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada was chairman, and Castonguay, who contributed almost nothing to the commission, was a political appointment to soothe the ruffled feathers of the government's Quebce wing.

It your fifth instance you quote from the Calgary Herald and Sun regarding Alberta Health Minister Ron Liepert's statements on the unsustaianability of health care. It might interest you to know that Mr Liepert is no longer the Health Minister here, having been demoted in January to the position of President of the Treasury Board (not the Minister of Finance), due to his tendency to contradict his Premier and the party's stated position on among other things, health care.

I've brought up some of these point to you before, but I have no faith you'll pay any attention now either. Keep on believing what you need to believe. Happy Trolling.

Well done.......

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Yes, she has. It's kinda funny.

Kind of funny? It's downright hilarious!

I can't wait for about 2-3weeks from now when the HCR bill is signed into law by Obama. Maybe then reality will begin to sink in with the wingnuts; you have lost your hold on power in this country, and you will NEVER get it back! Feel free to live life as if you will again someday though. It provides endless entertainment for the rest of us as we watch you age and die off, only to be replaced by people who value everything you hate about America... lolololol

 

[cdarro]

Well done.......

Thanks. But I sincerely doubt it will make any difference at all, she'll just keep throwing up smoke. Best not to even acknowledge anymore. Better things to waste time and effort on.

 

[midlifebear]

Well, I believe cdarro deserves a six-pack of Moosehead or Labatts for his incisive rebuttal to the ephemeral He/She and Holy It.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

Well, I believe cdarro deserves a six-pack of Moosehead or Labatts for his incisive rebuttal to the ephemeral He/She and Holy It.

I'll double that. Hell, make it a keg! Black holes exist in nature just to suck the life out of you, as they have none of their own. Best just to avoid them.

MAX, fwit, Kaiser, which I have, has gotten better, and the pricing, except for my relatively high per visit fee, seems equivalent to what the Canadians are paying (on avg.) in both taxes and premiums (tho' I did get a 20% premium jump this year). For instance: for emergency care, here in NorCal, the few times I have been in, I've been seen in 30 minutes, or less, and I can get an appointment with my general, or most referral docs, in two weeks or less; one or twice I've even gotten same day.

However, it's an allopathic care system, and those typically don't handle chronic conditions well (such as your migranes), but if you can find a more open minded doc in their system, you can get good care in the areas they are designed to handle, and occasionally suggestions for alternate therapies in areas they don't (herbs, accupuncture, meditation/yoga, etc.).

 

[Trinity]

Yet Again.

Let's do this again...

The Romanow report was released eight years ago and has gathered dust ever since, as no one took it seriously. Mr. Romanow himself has credibility issues, being a former NDP Premier of Saskatchewan

You fail to rebut the Romanow report findings that the Canadian Healthcare costs are rising faster than revenues to cover costs.

In your next instance you are quoting part of an op-ed piece from the Globe and Mail. Robert Silver claims our system will essentially implode in five years or less, but offers nothing other than vaubge budget numbers nor any ideas to counteract this doomsday scenario. And we are unable to see Mr. Powers rebuttal, for whatever reasons.

You fail to rebut this article as well.

In your third instance you quote from the Vancouver Sun which itself quotes a "report" from the Fraser Institute that health care spending will reach 50% of provincial budgets by 2036. The Fraser institute has little or no credibility here, being, as the article itself admits, a right wing thinktank.

You make an assertion that the Fraiser Institute has no credibility without backing it up. You fail to rebut that article as well.

In your fourth instance you quote David Gratzer from IBDEditiorial. After visiting its homepage, it's obvious that this is another of those profuse right wing propaganda websites that litter the internet. He doesn't get his facts straight, as Claude Castonguay was not the charman of a committee to study healthcare in Quebec, he was the junior co-chairnan of Prime Minister Pearson's royal commission on the need for national standards in healthcare. Emmett Hall, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada was chairman, and Castonguay, who contributed almost nothing to the commission, was a political appointment to soothe the ruffled feathers of the government's Quebce wing.

You fail to rebut this article as well. You have a penchant for dismissing opposition as proganda if it is on the right. You failed to back up all your other statements too.

It your fifth instance you quote from the Calgary Herald and Sun regarding Alberta Health Minister Ron Liepert's statements on the unsustaianability of health care. It might interest you to know that Mr Liepert is no longer the Health Minister here, having been demoted in January to the position of President of the Treasury Board (not the Minister of Finance), due to his tendency to contradict his Premier and the party's stated position on among other things, health care.

Well, then since Minister Liepert is gone and no longer able to contradict his Premier I'm sure that health care costs in Alberta are fine...oops. NOPE!

How our health-care system got so unhealthy

By Herb Emery And Ron Kneebone, For The Calgary Herald
February 27, 2010​

Canada's publicly funded, single payer system of health care has been sustained by a combination of provincial government deficits (borrowing) and transfers from the federal government.


In its latest budget, the government of Alberta announced a further $2 billion in funding for health care but nary a hint at how this would be paid for beyond running down the province's savings.​

The next quote just about wraps it up:​

​

Let's be clear -- we are approaching a crisis. Canadians no longer want governments to run deficits and push the cost of health care on to future generations. Instead, they want fiscally responsible behaviour and balanced budgets. It would not come as a surprise if the federal government, facing its own deficit issues, balks at the idea of increasing its share of funding of what is, after all, a provincial responsibility.

What happens then? Then hard choices will need to be made. The "average voter," the person whose demands governments seek to satisfy, is a middle-aged and relatively healthy person. She has not, to this point, borne the full cost of health care but very soon she will. What will be her reaction?​

Maybe she will be willing to accept an increased tax burden. If so, it will be a big one.
In an earlier research paper released by the school, one of our researchers shows that if spending on health care continues at the pace of recent years, then by 2030 the healthcare budget will eat up more than 80 per cent of provincial revenues.​

​

​

​

 

[maxcok]

Let's do this again...

Let's not.

Blah,

Blah,

Blah,

Moving on . . .

Well, I believe cdarro deserves a six-pack of Moosehead or Labatts for his incisive rebuttal to the ephemeral He/She and Holy It.

What evah he wants. Well done!

 

[DaveUSADAV]

Well I think everyone is too hard on Trinity and we need to calm down at bit- it is getting too emotional. As they say everyone is entitled to their own opinions just not their own facts. I think we all want affordable health care and there is a limit to that affordability to be sure, as Trinity tries but fails to argue well: if the world population continues to grow to nine or ten billion, yes, not everyone is going to have access to triple by pass surgery, but we will have far more other serious problems then than heart disease in old age. Canada, with blessed and rich natural resources, will eventually struggle to maintain the affordability of its care if its population continues to grow- the baby boomers are not just an American phenomenon. But already even rich Americans are moving to Mexico, Chile- and may even follow Rush Limbaugh to Costa Rico- to use these nation's affordable health care based upon socialized medicine. What Conservative idiots do not realize yet is that the emigration flight from this so called Paradise is beginning and is growing year by year. If you got any money buy your condo in Vancouver now!

 

[vince]

If you got a lot of money buy your condo in Vancouver now!

Fixed that for ya!

 

[DaveUSADAV]

Yea, Vince, you are right- one of my dreams is to afford one of those homes that overlooks the bay in Victoria...yea, just a dream

 

[SilverTrain]

My experience with the US health care system has not been a horror story with respect to access to care, or the actual treatment received. I have almost always had some sort of health insurance through the various employers I've had over the years. I've had, at different times, HMO and PPO plans.

In the main, I have been able to schedule an appointment either the same day or the following day for an illness. For "checkups", diagnostic explorations, and especially "well-baby" appointments, they generally look to schedule one out a few weeks in the future.

The quality of care has of course varied. But overall, I have been relatively pleased with the care I have received. I have been to some doctors who did not inspire confidence in me, and I have been to offices that were less than bright, shiny beacons of design and upkeep. But I've also had some ace specialists, and some family doctors that were very, very good.

My problem with the system is that, even after paying hundreds a month for "insurance", one still faces monumental expenses for anything other than a regular office visit to treat a garden variety illness. Need some pictures taken? Lab work? A referral to a specialist? Be prepared to cough up a considerable amount of cash. Need some super-special-pictures (e.g., CT scans, MRI)? Be prepared for a 4-figure bill. Need hospitalization, surgery, or other "exotic" procedure? You'd better be very wealthy, or else you're looking at a major life change (see, for example, bankruptcy, a second mortgage on your house (if you have one, and can qualify), a crushing loan that will hang over you like a dark shroud for the rest of your life, etc., etc.).

Facing shockingly oppressive financial burdens merely by virtue of accessing the health care system is a BIG PROBLEM. It's indicative of a broken system. Good quality care is worthless if you can't access it, and it's a cruel system that offers health care, and then ruins a person for trying to accept the offer. Anyone defending the current system is either filthy rich, married to someone who is filthy rich, or a heartless partisan hack.*



*Or perhaps a major shareholder in a health insurance company.

 

[Trinity]

Trinity tries but fails to argue well: if the world population continues to grow to nine or ten billion, yes, not everyone is going to have access to triple by pass surgery, but we will have far more other serious problems then than heart disease in old age. Canada, with blessed and rich natural resources, will eventually struggle to maintain the affordability of its care if its population continues to grow- the baby boomers are not just an American phenomenon.

I don't believe I made that argument: "limited access to triple bypass surgery in old age..."

If you look back at my posts my arguments are clear. You are correct about Canada's aging population however the larger point is the Canadian Healthcare system is unsustainable due to costs which cause long lines, long wait times, rationing of care and extremely high taxes and still...the system is in crisis due to rising costs.

But already even rich Americans are moving to Mexico, Chile- and may even follow Rush Limbaugh to Costa Rico- to use these nation's affordable health care based upon socialized medicine. What Conservative idiots do not realize yet is that the emigration flight from this so called Paradise is beginning and is growing year by year. If you got any money buy your condo in Vancouver now!

Since Limbaugh was deriding government run healthcare in saying he'd go to Costa Rico for medical treatment...he meant he'd be using his wealth in the private healthcare market and not waiting in any lines, putting up with delays and he wouldn't be supporting Obamascare.

We can fix what is wrong with our current healthcare system without ruining what is right with our system. More than 70% of Americans with health insurance, like their health insurance. Obama has not presented a plan that will work - that controls costs and protects quality of care - that also covers the uninsured. Obamascare uses accounting gimmicks to hide the true costs of the plan and to hide the fact that it increases the deficit and will damage our economy.

Canada continues to face the issue of unsustainable costs despite claims to the contrary:

Health costs push Alberta deficit to $4.7B
CBC News - February 9, 2010

Alberta's Progressive Conservative government is projecting a record $4.7-billion budget deficit and planning cuts in many departments while increasing health-care spending by 16.6 per cent.

"They're addicted to spending and not looking at where the money is going," he said, singling out the government's decision to cover the AHS deficit. "They're simply covering their asses."

Swann said he will call for an audit on health-care spending.

While Alberta NDP Leader Brian Mason had less of a problem with the amount of spending, he was concerned about the long-term effects of relying on the Sustainability Fund to reduce the deficit.

"It's postponing a greater problem and Alberta's revenues have not kept up with the expenditures," he said.
Concerns about the Sustainability Fund were shared by Scott Hennig, Alberta director of the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation.
"That's supposed to get them through the next two years?" he asked. "Good luck ... not if they're going to continue to run deficits at almost $5 billion a year."​

​

Wow...sounds so familiar. You wouldn't believe this is Canada...ALBERTA. If you believe one guys experience you'd think everything was peachy keen. ​

​

​

​

 

[Industrialsize]

Most Say Health Care System Working, No Appetite for Further Privatization
7-in-10 Canadians say that Canada’s health care system is working well.
By an overwhelming margin, Canadians prefer the Canadian health care system to the American one.
Overall, 82% said they preferred the Canadian system, fully ten times the number who said the American system is superior (8%).
Considering both cost and patient care factors, a majority of Canadians (55%) think that the health system should be more public, and only 12% think that more of the health system should be private.
Harris/Decima

But what would the CANADIANS know about their own Healthcare system.

 

[Trinity]

Most Say Health Care System Working, No Appetite for Further Privatization


But what would the CANADIANS know about their own Healthcare system.

Indeed. What would CANADIANS know about their own Healthcare system?

Canadians say rising health costs unsustainable

The majority of Canadians feel that the soaring costs of health care in Canada will hamper the ability of governments to provide other services, such as education and pension benefits, a new poll finds.
The survey, conducted for the Canadian Medical Association by Ipsos Reid, found 59 per cent of Canadians agree that governments will not be able to continue to afford the current health care system while continuing to provide other services.
When pressed as to how the sustainability crunch should be addressed, 91 per cent said making the health system more efficient was the best way to slow growing costs.
Yet, only 35 per cent said they were either very or somewhat confident in the ability of governments and administrators to find efficiencies in the system.

 

[maxcok]

Well I think everyone is too hard on Trinity and we need to calm down at bit- it is getting too emotional.

Have you been paying attention? I've only been hanging around the polithreads for @ three months, and I find that hilarious.

As for being too emotional (which incidentally I have not been in this thread, nor do I see where anyone else has) if you've been utterly screwed by the system as I have, and seen friends suffer much worse - suffer and actually die - as a direct result of diagnoses missed, services delayed, services denied and incompetent treatment - well I think one might be forgiven for being a little bit emotional about the notion of corporations feeding off the sick and dying for profit. Not to mention doing everything within their enormous power to not only maintain the status quo, but increase their dominance and their profit margins. Anyone who hasn't experienced these problems, and I hope you never do, you are naive to think the same can't or won't happen to you - regardless of the coverage you think you have. (Not addressing the poster here, just talking to the peeps.)

Anyone defending the current system is either filthy rich, married to someone who is filthy rich, or a heartless partisan hack.*

*Or perhaps a major shareholder in a health insurance company.

^ What he said. And I would add * ignorant, but that's nothing new.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

Anyone defending the current system is either filthy rich, married to someone who is filthy rich, or a heartless partisan hack.*

*Or perhaps a major shareholder in a health insurance company.

Amazingly most of pols agree that system is broken, but the ideological differences freeze each side from being able to compromise with the other. In fact, the current electorate, on both sides sadly, is so partisan that Congressional members, from both parties, are being attacked, and challenged by former supporters. In other words polarization is getting worse, not better. With so many models in the developed world to choose from, you'd think it would not be too hard to craft a compromise that would have something for all, and lower costs with some form of managed care. The lunacy of doing nothing condemns everyone to higher costs, as their are no cost checks in site. And it's not just the insurance companies, either. How many doctors to you know are willing to only make $60K, as many docs do in Germany, rather than the $150-500K they can make in the current system. Seems as if the Hippocratic oath has been devalued, as harm can either be from treatment, or it's cost.

 

[DaveUSADAV]

Amazingly most of pols agree that system is broken, but the ideological differences freeze each side from being able to compromise with the other. In fact, the current electorate, on both sides sadly, is so partisan that Congressional members, from both parties, are being attacked, and challenged by former supporters. In other words polarization is getting worse, not better. With so many models in the developed world to choose from, you'd think it would not be too hard to craft a compromise that would have something for all, and lower costs with some form of managed care. The lunacy of doing nothing condemns everyone to higher costs, as their are no cost checks in site. And it's not just the insurance companies, either. How many doctors to you know are willing to only make $60K, as many docs do in Germany, rather than the $150-500K they can make in the current system. Seems as if the Hippocratic oath has been devalued, as harm can either be from treatment, or it's cost.

I agree but the last I checked most German doctors get over the equivalent of $200,000/annum in German Marks ( the average wage in Germany is $47/hr ) but if I had free health care, superb public education to include vocational education, free college education for my brightest kids, great public transportation I could easily live on $60,000 a year too.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

I agree but the last I checked most German doctors get over the equivalent of $200,000/annum in German Marks ( the average wage in Germany is $47/hr ) but if I had free health care, superb public education to include vocational education, free college education for my brightest kids, great public transportation I could easily live on $60,000 a year too.

You could be right on this (although it's euros, not marks now). I really haven't looked into it. I was basing it on an NPR series which came out last year, or maybe '08. It took an indepth look at how medicine is practiced worldwide. I was partcularly taken with one German doctor, who's wages were capped at that $60K equivalency figure (which he did complain about as he had made up to $40K more before reforms were introduced into their system), and invariably he worked one week per month essentially for free. He would even climb 4 story walk ups to visit elderly shut ins who otherwise had no access to care. That's my ideal of a doc. I don' t know of any docs here in the US who practice medicine in this way.