As you folks know, the IRS decided that since I didn’t fill the first part of my Form 2555 out correctly, that I must owe them a bunch of taxes. And so they sent me a federal tax bill to my Canadian address, disallowing my Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (FEIE). Today, at last, after several tries at sending them the properly filled out form, the IRS has decided that I don’t owe them anything after all. I’ve only had to deal with this 2009 tax issue for quite awhile now–readers can retrace the multiple threatening letters and bills that I received from the IRS just by clicking the above link and the links in that link, and the links in those links. The IRS has wasted its time with me. I’ve been wasting my time. I owed no tax. Zero zip nada. I am not a rich tax evader but a Canadian taxpayer and I renounced my US citizenship because I hate the hassles, the threats, and the intimidation that comes part and parcel with being an US person.
Protection
Am I filled with love and feelings of patriotism now that the United States has decided I don’t owe anything for 2009? Hardly. Those who think it is worth the hassle of paying for a tax specialist every year and remaining in compliance, instead of relinquishing US citizenship as I did, should consider that the only “service” that US citizens abroad receive in return for their continued patriotic payment of taxes without representation is the “protection” of the United States. We are learning however that even a duly appointed ambassador of the United States, after repeated requests for protection, will not necessarily receive anything, and that the President of the United States is willing to allow an ambassador to be murdered. Kelly O’Donnell writes
Here is a brief description of what we know: US Ambassador Christopher Stevens traveled from Tripoli to Benghazi, Libya. Nervous over rising unrest in this Muslim African Mediterranean nation, Stevens asked repeatedly for more security but was refused. On the day of the attack he’d asked again. He was attacked after dark, and seven hours later he was dead, along with three others. And it now appears the US had notice of the event, time to respond, and resources within reach to mount a counter-assault. What is not clear is why the American military was not sent in to save our Ambassador. (The time-line of the attack is well laid out at Powerline. (Benghazigate: The state of the story)
Now let me ask the question: If the ambassador doesn’t receive protection from the enemies of the United States, than from whom is the US citizen abroad receiving “protection”. The answer: the compliant US citizen abroad is receiving protection, in principle, from the IRS threats of fines and imprisonment. The IRS has become the biggest threat of all to our well-being and security: bigger than the combined threats of Al Qaeda, Russia, China, and Iran, and any other threat you can think of. Thus, this is mafia-like protection money, very similar to the Sopranos criminal racket of protecting business in case a window might get broken, as shown in this scene:
Hurricane Sandy
Finally, Hurricane Sandy in the United States promises to do billions of dollars of damage. Will this be the straw that breaks the fragile back of the US economy? The problem is that the debt levels at Federal, state, municipal, corporate, business, and personal levels are so overextended that they have very little flexibility. The US economy is not resilient, as Chris Martenson of Peak Prosperity says. This means that things like hurricanes and droughts may push the US of the fiscal cliff–and spiraling hyper-inflation, when the Feds decide to infuse even more hyperbolic stimulus to try to rebuild what will be destroyed in tonight’s storm.
As a result of my trips to Africa (~11 trips between 1998 and 2007), I’ve paid out of pocket for most of the health care that I’ve received in Ontario. This is because OHIP does not cover travel-related vaccines and preventative consultations. OHIP no longer covers my eye exams; it never covered dental. So OHIP covers only a small fraction of my “free” health care. Yet as a working person and an employer, I pay all of the levies and taxes for everyone in the province. I pays a lot, but I gets little. I am not convinced that it is the best system, and I am far from a fan of Ayn Rand. I just hate a system which covers little of my actual needs, forces me to pay, and yet gives me no actual choice in the matter.
Yet the question of what the best system is a side issue (as is the whole question); I was just pointing out to Just Me that even if you are a rugged individualist, often you must take advantage of the system of benefits because that system has a monopoly and there is not other choice in the matter.
@Petros:
re; “even if you are a rugged individualist, often you must take advantage of
the system of benefits because that system has a monopoly and there is
not other choice in the matter.”
Having seen firsthand how the private healthcare system worked in a case of two close relatives with terminal cancer, in the US, with the participant having paid into a private plan, and yet still having to struggle with receiving the services they were entitled to, and the other having to raise funds from family for services not covered privately; I didn’t experience it as a viable alternative or better choice than paying into ‘socialized healthcare’ here in Canada – where I also have seen the same type of cases dealt with.
Reconciling the bills and errors and conflicts made by and between each private doctor, lab, department, service provider and US hospital, being subjected to relentless yet entirely erroneous contacts by collection agencies while the subject of the plan was dying, and seeing firsthand that the private system was chaotic and inefficient, did nothing to convince me that private plans provided savings, choices and quality that was not better provided through sharing costs and benefits – funded by taxes, under OHIP or another provincial equivalent. It should not take two years and participation by the individual patient to prove that nothing is owed because of the lengthy disputes between the billing departments of multiple private healthcare providers and private healthcare insurers and plan administrators.
In another instance, the exact same final diagnosis resulted in exactly the same wait time to see the same type of specialist – both in the US, and in Canada – but the private healthcare provider initially misdiagnosed it. The patient had to pay for the initial misdiagnosis anyway – no refund for private healthcare provider error.
Because catastrophic disease and illness is not totally or even mostly under the control of the individual, and we have no crystal balls to determine fate, being ‘self-reliant’ or a ‘rugged individualist’ is not really a sufficient strategy for making healthcare decisions and budgeting/paying for services.
For example one’s child is born with a significant and life altering disease or birth defect, how could one have planned for that financially as a libertarian? A spouse develops cancer – how does a ‘rugged individualist’ / libertarian plan to account for that possibility ahead of time – even if there is no mandated participation in a ‘socialized healthcare’ plan – and thus more ‘freedom’ to choose?
@Badger, The current system of health care in the USA is not free market, but has become a highly regulated inefficient industry. The government regulations in this case have a distorting affect on the system to the point that it is not a fair comparison: if a libertarian says that the free market should determine the price and method of payment in health care, that does not mean that a libertarian would necessarily accept that the US is a good example of that. It is not. In the case of your example, you can be sure that the US doesn’t provide a better system than Canada but one which has differences.
An example would be one of our friends had to rely on private funds to pay for her treatment for Lyme disease. The Ontario health care system was neither capable of diagnosing her illness nor treating it. The private sector thus was needed for her to recover. As far as I could see, OHIP would have let her continue to struggle, even die, because it had come to a political decision that she did not have Lyme Disease and there was nothing they could do to help her. When things like this happen, I am perfectly happy to remain an extremely cynical and abrasive critic of the socialized medicine here in Ontario (did I mention that I have to pay out of pocket for most of my health care?). We are not free to get the treatment that we think we need–rather the government decides what it thinks is best–not based on the considerations of saving life but on how much something costs and whether it can be fitted into the government overextended deficit budget.
@ConfederateH- There is absolutely no link of causality that can be demonstrated between ObamaCare and FATCA. If FATCA was caused by nationalized health care then all countriess with nationalized health care would have already had FATCA like tax regimes.
In case you didn’t notice there aren’t exactly a plethora of hearth surgeons plying their trade on the best corner lot. Treatments for cancer, heart disease, kidney dialysis etc. require specialized training and years of practise. If a mechanic makes a mistake with the repair of my car I can at least either go without a car or buy another one. You can’t manage life without a heart, kidney, or just live with prostate cancer.
Inc case you didn’t know it half of all bankruptcies in America are caused by medical expenses that can’t be paid for. This means that the cost of medical care is “socialized” through the bankruptcy courts but with worse harm to the individuals affected and the economy.
I can’t subscribe to the “Ayn Rand” view of the world. It it quite evident that her personality was deeply affected by what she witnessed as a child. I do believe that government does have a legitimate role in this world and I also believe strongly that humans were made to live in community.
@Roger Conklin- You are correct. FATCA was created as a means to fund the HIRE Act.
National health care in Canada does not pay for condoms. I do not believe that it pays for birth control pills either. I should also point out that the provinces are free to decide what is covered, beyond the basics, under the health care plan as it is administered within their jurisdictions.
Canada’s national health care doesn’t pay for routine or emergency dental services, nor does it pay for eye exams and glasses unless you are a senior.
I find that most Americans have a complete misconception about what Canada’s national health care covers. The truth is that it doesn’t just pay for any thing that is health related. They sad thing though is that when you tell Americans this fact they tend to react negatively and dismiss it as not being national health care just because it doesn’t cover everything. I find that rather hypocritical.
Here is an example of what I was saying about Lyme Disease (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/id-mi/lyme-fs-eng.php#s8 ). Certain clinics have extremely finicky means of diagnosing lyme disease, and they have aggressive means of treating the disease with battery of antibiotics and other therapy that often in stubborn cases take several months. These treatments are not accepted by the public health care “death panels” who have determined that those outlying physicians are out to lunch. The following paragraph tell us why Canada will not pay for a person to go to one of these clinics:
Thus, my friend who was cured of Lyme Disease last year by aggressive treatment could not be diagonosed in Canada, because the Canadian government has decided that its public testing facilities meet the standards of the public facilities in other countries and the physicians that cured my friend obtain false diagnoses. This is a clear example of the politicization of health care. The Ontario government is running severe deficits and will not pay for treatments it disagrees with. Our health care is in the hands of government bureaucrats. Ayn Rand seems vindicated.
@In the U.S. health care is in the hands of either the shareholder or the government. It all depends on you amount of income and whether or not you have a job that has health care benefits.
Private health insurance does not put your health care in your hands. Rather it puts your health care in the hands of shareholders whose primary interest is in getting a return on their investment. I would hate to be covered by an private health insurer who can tell me what hospital I can go to, what doctor I can see and what treatment I can get. The private insurers make all of the same dreaded decisions that are used to denounce government health coverage.
From a consumer point of view one of the other big advantages to public health insurance is that you, as a voter, have a seat at the table where health care policies are being made. This voice isn’t really available to you as a customer of private health care. Also so much of the private health care industries money is spent just on shuffling paper.
@Recalcitrant, when a private insurer refuses to pay for treatment, they can be sued. One can also change insurers. But if the government refuses, you can sue them, but the guy you’re suing also pays the salary of the judge. In a single-payer system, however, there is no other provider to turn to.
In any case, like with my friend and my own health care, the private sector pays for it in the end. So I am not sold on this terrible system. One of the worst managers in the world also manages my health care. His name is Dalton McGuinty. He has had to resign as a result of his incompetence. How did he get the job? 35% of the province wanted him and not any of the other bozos running for office.
@Petros, re: “We are not free to get the treatment that we think we need–rather the
government decides what it thinks is best–not based on the
considerations of saving life but on how much something costs and
whether it can be fitted into the government overextended deficit budget”
I do understand what you are saying about your Lyme disease example, and there are others where the decision by OHIP and the Ministry of Health is all about the budget, politics, etc. rather than what is best for the individual patient. However, private insurers also are essentially in a position of conflict of interest – because their overarching reason to be is to ensure a certain size of profit.
I’m afraid that I witnessed the same thing in the private realm – where the treatment plan for a pregnancy complication in the US was largely determined by what the insurer would cover, the number of hospital days the plan prescribed, etc. The doctors were very upfront that that was a significant factor in what they were advising for the patient. The fact that the patient and their employer were clients – paying directly for service, did not provide them with any influence with the insurer or the health provider.
The patient had no real say in the matter, whether with the insurer, or with the doctors/hospital. And, with a private insurer, it’s take it or leave it – there isn’t any recourse.
@Petros- although the insurere can be sued it is going to be a long and torturous process. Finding the money to launch a suit when you are sick and having to pay out of pocket for your care makes suing an unrealistic probability. The most that you can hope for is to launch an appeal with your states health insurance board but still you face the problem of how to live and pay for care.
Private insurers also commonly refuse to pay for treatment that they consider to be experimental or not worth the effort, if they feel the patient is too far along in the course of the disease.
@Recalictrant:
“If FATCA was caused by nationalized health care then all countriess with nationalized health care would have already had FATCA like tax regimes.”
Wow, that is quite an assumption. I wrote:
“Socialized medicine, and its supporters, are the reason why we have FATCA! ”
Both these bills (HIRE and ACA) were passed at the same time, and as I recall there was discussions linking the two concerning “making the rich pay their fair share”. I cannot find a link right now, so I cannot prove my point. However the to are indirectly joined at the hip, take all the IRS ACA and HIRE reporting requirements that are so similar.
As far as the benefits of socialized medicine I have an alternate Swiss viewpoint where we still exists a small semblance of a private market. Health insurance is mandatory here, premiums for low income wagon riders are subsidized by the wagon pullers, but at least it is not “free”.
I pay “half private” insurance at about 300CHF per month for myself plus a little more for my wife. I have a very high deductible (2500CHF) and have been blessed with relatively good health. Hence I have practically never had anything paid for by my health insurance. Another thing Switzerland does differently is that is separates
accident insurance from health insurance which is usually through your
employer and is not expensive. I have paid insurance for decades now and if I had been able to save this money for myself, my wife and my kids I would have hundreds of thousands of dollars in an account in a world where healthcare would remain uncorrupted by socialists, PCMC’s and the state. If my accumulated premiums belonged to me I could now afford the best healthcare on the planet with cash!. But certain groups of people have united together to rob me of this so that they can get their “free” healthcare.
And I don’t understand why if we can have student loans that we can’t have emergency health loans to cover catastrophic care. At least this way the patient would be spending “his own” money, he would be able to choose his own hospital and doctor and there would be a clear accounting of the real costs.
IMO health savings accounts, emergency healthcare loans and charity would provide all the safety net needed and would significantly increase most peoples freedom (especially the wagon pullers). Unfortunately many IBS posters would never allow that to happen, they prefer slavery.
@Petros- This discussion on health care coverage makes me wonder about what actually happens with those statements that the U.S. requests of those of give up U.S. citizenship? As I look at U.S. taxation policy anf FATCA, I can see no evidence that they are reading them. Or if they are reading them then I guess that they just don’t care. It really makes you wonder why they ask for them at all.
So what is the whole point of the exercise? Are they just hoping that we will come to our senses and not renounce?
@recalcitrant, the Reed Amendment makes one reticent to mention taxes or FATCA or any other thing that is sign of US stupidity in a sworn statement when renouncing. So I doubt they receive many statements like, “You are idiots when it comes to taxation so I am saying au revoir to my citizenship.”
@badger, One major difference is that socialized health care is based on violence. The payers who refuse to pay will be rounded up, their assets seized, and in many cases, they will receive criminal sentences. In the private care system, it is based upon contracts. I would rather have contract than a gun pointed at my head. All taxation is force.
In privatized health care, a person is free to find doctors to their liking. One can seek second and third opinions. One can pay out of pocket, or one can sign a contract with a number of insurance providers. There is obviously far more freedom in the private system. Since I already have had to pay my health care out of pocket in socialized Ontario, I am not sold on the OHIP. By the time I get around to be sick and can benefit from the system, they will decide that it is not covered any more, just like Lyme Disease.
In the case of Lyme Disease, there is a difference of opinion in the medical community. When medicine is not politicized, the consumer can decide for themselves if they will seek treatment. When it is politicized, the more powerful physicians and bureaucrats have the ability to define what is a disease and what are the tests that determine if the disease even exists or if a particular individual has the disease. Thus, the socialized system is the least flexible with the least amount of freedom, because bureaucrats on death panels decide whether you get treated. True, insurance companies have things they won’t pay for. But if it is in the contract, you can sue them.
@ConfederateH, Exactly! Health insurance should be only insurance, covering rare and very high costs like major surgeries or long treatments, not everyday costs like doctor consultations and ordinary drugs. I always liked the idea of health savings accounts (I have one where part of the premium goes to the account) and charity, but I had never thought of emergency loans. That’s a great idea too.
@recalcitrantexpat, Private health insurance that covers everything is not a free market, since it eliminates the sense of prices. I think a true free market in health care, where people actually pay for what they use or ask for charity, which is what existed for centuries, is the best system. Otherwise, I think socialized health care is not too bad, but private health insurance (as implemented in the US) is worse. Dealing with the US medical billing system is like dealing with the IRS.
Health insurance in Canada is not “free.” For years my husband’s installment payments included an amount applied to OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan); there was a period where that was not the case. Now it is back to a specific amount required to be applied based upon income.
Many things are not covered by our insurance. I was surprised they would not cover the cost of physician-ordered wearing of a device to measure blood pressure every hour over a period of days. Prostrate cancer bloodwork is not covered. Physiotherapy is no longer covered. Prescriptions are not covered. Canada has a mixed system and some who work for companies who have good group coverage fare better than others. Some companies will cover costs of naturopaths and alternative treatments. None of that is covered by our “free” insurance.
InOntario , you have to pay $200 to $800 a year for coverage, based on your income bracket, unless you make less than $20,000 a year, in which case you don’t pay this fee.
The main thing is OHIP covers the big stuff, particularly hospitalisation which could really bankrupt a person, and doctor’s visits, most tests, etc. It covers medication when
you’re in hospital, but otherwise you pay for your prescriptions.
As Noble Dreamer pointed out, many employers have a plan for covering what’s not covered under the provincial plan; if not, you can buy your own supplementary insurance (In my family, we self-insure for the supplementary stuff. We put $80 a month in an account so we can get some interest on it, and withdraw from it when we need dentistry, eyeglasses, prescription, travel insurance, etc.).
And Noble Dreamer is right — Health care here is not free. Besides the annual fee of $0-$800, it’s paid for through our regular taxes. But you don’t get socked with a big bill right when you have an accident or disease (and if you’re low-income, you’re paying less tax than a higher income), so whilst no system is perfect, it seems pretty fair to me
Does anyone know if the Canadian government subsidizes the price of medication. In other words, how do we explain the difference in price between the same medication sold in the US vs Canada, which can be 3 times less expensive in Canada and Mexico vs the US?
I would be curious to know if the Pharmaceutical companies sell their medicine for the same price and it’s subsidized by other governments, or if they just screw US customers, in the name of research.
Republicans are for free market. If so, they should let the consumers buy medication wherever they want, instead of forcing us to buy it in the US where it’s 3 times the price.
@Christophe,
Not sure if this is true or not, but I was told that the Government of Canada does not subsidize the price of medication but does mandate a maximum that can be charged for a specific drug in Canada. Also, I believe that many Americans feel the higher cost of medication in their country is the result of they (the Yanks) paying the cost of the drug companies research.
@all- there are no death panels in Canada. In my experience the Canadian health care system goes to great lengths to provide medical care even in the most hopeless of situations. I have a friend whose son is currently in the hospital and for whom the prognosis is not good. Yet the doctors have not deprieved their son of the care that is needed for their child to have every chance of extending his life. The same is true when my wife was afflicted with cancer. The medical system here did not deny to her the care that in the States would have been received only by an insured person. And that is assuming that the insurance policy would allow the medical profession to go that far.
The last thing that sick people need is to have to deal with a bill. The last thing that a grieveing family needs is to confront a medical bill for their loved one.
Taxation is not necessarily theft. We cannot put the fate of people into the hands of charities that may or may not be able to help them. I’d love to see the nation send men to war on the promise that a collection will be taken up to pay for their service. Charities are ill equipped to handle the needs of a modern society. Just because we may dislike citizenship based taxation does not mean that we should throw the baby out with the bath water.
If anyone knows anything about the health insurance providers in America you would know that that contract means nothing. Many people have faithfully paid their health care premiums for years and then been quickly dropped when they got sick.
Again I will say that suing is out of the question. Most people have never read their health insurance contract because it is indecipherable to the ordinary person. When it comes to the literacy level of the average American you will find that most people are at junior high. Insurance contracts are written by highly educated people and they are basically directed to other highly educated people who are lawyers and doctors.
@recalcitrant,
I agree with all you say.
All I know is that I would be a welfare mom or dead (and that is not an understatement) had I stayed in the US — all would have been “pre-existing”. Instead, through the medical care I have been able to receive since 1972 for Crohn’s Disease and for my son’s medical as well as developmental disability, I feel that I have been a somewhat contributing member of Canadian society. I have worked and paid taxes through all the years (minus the months of hospitalization for many surgeries). I have strived to volunteer my time to things I feel important. I’ve tried to make a difference as best I can. I have tried to pay back. I know that many here disagree. There but for the grace of God, go I (you). Any of us could have a life-changing accident at any time. The weaker and poorer of us would perish. That is a solution for many, but is it a moral solution? I have also tried to be responsible in conributing to an RDSP for future care of my son when I am no longer here and fear that can be sucked away by the US. I, for one, am glad I am here and did not stay in the US — for many reasons.
@Calgary, bravo. Your contributions here are very valuable, and help many. I have no doubt that you have done similarly in the other parts of your life. We are not masters of the universe, or of our own fates as far as illness and disability go – much of that is random chance. It is folly to think that those who have been lucky thus far, will escape entirely unscathed as time goes by. And, if they do, it is not a function of strength of mind, talents or of character – but rather just chance.
I agree with your reminder; “There but for the grace of God, go I (you)”. Any one of us could be struck down at any time. Should we then only have ourselves to fall back on?
It is hubris to claim that the outcome in life and health is entirely due to personal inner resources, or character, and not to the myriad of other factors that we cannot take credit for. Does not pride goeth before a fall?
recalcitrant –
I’m with you on the health care system in Canada. The US system is crippled with profiteering, entitled “professionals” and perhaps even more with systems that require exhaustive accounting for excruciating minutiae. The lower overall cost and better general outcomes in Canada = nobrainer. But …
I’d love to see the nation send men to war on the promise that a collection will be taken up to pay for their service.
Wow! Vets in both the US and Canada get ripped off beyond belief if they incur personal damage. To the extent that you mean that, I’m with you, especially because footsoldiering is so blatantly an exploitation of the underclass. But to ever say “I’d love to see the nation send men to war …” as a lead-in to anything chills my blood. Turns the blood to rock-hard ice as soon as you specify some ideological insanity like Afghanistan. “Send” means ship off somewhere else to pursue some idiocy of hegemony at a distance. “Take up a collection” also sounds totally weird, like “charity” needs to come into the picture. Military spending by a central government may be the single best reason to set a goal of paying as little tax as possible.
@USXCANADA- I meant that line in a rhetorical sense. I singled out the military because many who would oppose socialized medicine have no problems with socializing the expenses of the military or the police. I should make it clear though that most Libertarians are not supporters of the military. Rather they are adamant enemies of both the military and socialized medicine.
Rest assured that I am not a war monger. I view war as the result of failure on the part of the politicians of the conbatant nations. I don’t see the military as an instrument for economic development or job creation. Unfrotunately it is today promoted as providing both of these things to a modern society.
I do believe that the military is necessary but I also favor a small military. In other words I prefer a military that is not so big as to be feared by its citizens. Nor do a I want a military that is large enough to engage in wars of aggression abroad.
I am an adherent to the teachings of, Leopold Kohr, who advocated for small nations and aggregations of human communities. As Mr. Kohr would see things the problem with the U.S. is that it has grown too big.
“Wherever something is wrong, something is too big. If the stars in the sky or the atoms of uranium disintegrate in spontaneous explosion, it is not because their substance has lost its balance. It is because matter has attempted to expand beyond the impassable barriers set to every accumulation. Their mass has become too big. If the human body becomes diseased, it is, as in cancer, because a cell, or a group of cells, has begun to outgrow its allotted narrow limits. And if the body of a people becomes diseased with the fever of aggression, brutzdity, collectivism, or massive idiocy, it is not because it has fallen victim to bad leadership or mental derangement. It is because huma beings, so charming as individuals or in small aggregations, have been welded into overconcentrated social units such as mobs, unions, cartels, or great powers.”
― Leopold Kohr
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/280120.Leopold_Kohr?auto_login_attempted=true
The U.S. is just too big for the world and that makes it a threat to world security and not its protector and promoter.
Defense of the tribe is just about the only good reason to have a government. It is ludicrous to compare national defense with providing free health (or any other) benefits to those unwilling or even unable to look out for themselves. I am NOT “my brothers keeper” like Obama claims, I look out for my family. Once a country is willing to steal from one group of citizens to pay benefits to another that country is no longer free.
@ Calgary, Badger I was initially responding to Just Me’s comments about rugged Alaskans who accept Federal handouts. I was saying it was about being a part of the system of high taxation (because of the cost of living in Alaska salaries are higher) and then I made the point that even as rugged individualist, I still accept health care from OHIP (even though most of what I’ve paid in the last twelve years has been out of my pocket because less and less is covered by OHIP). This does not mean that the Canadian system is not in certain respects superior to the US. My point, however, is not to sidetrack the discussion. I only wished to engage Just Me in conversation, because I am myself an Alaskan by upbringing (I have renounced my state even if I’ve renounced the USA).
To understand where I am coming from, I recommend Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, (free PDF). Hazlitt refers to the seen and unseen. What Calgary is saying is that the seen is the multiple benefits of receiving Canadian healthcare and not having to personally worry about how she was going to pay for it. This is the seen benefit. The unseen? Taxation at the point of the gun to provide social welfare eventually destroys the cohesion of human society and will ultimately result in FBAR, FATCA, and the American population saying that expats are tax cheats. Why? Because they demand increasing benefits. In Greece and Spain and even in America, it leads to riots in the street, because people demand that the government steal ever increasing amounts of money from the rich in the form of taxes so as to continue to make handouts to those who depend on them. Socialism leads to poverty, as Thatcher has said, as eventually it runs out of other people’s money.
Canada has huge deficits. Ontario is run like California. The whole structure of social democracy around the world is falling apart before our eyes. Eventually, social democracy will collapse, like communism, under its own weight. Like the US, Canada has an aging population with a small number of children per family. That’s why we need a constant influx of immigrants to sustain our social programs. It is thus a ponzi scheme. And like all ponzi schemes, the whole thing collapses and people will look to imprison those who are responsible. But who are you going to imprison when government ponzis finally collapse: Bob Rae, Dalton McGuinty, Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty, George Bush, Barack Obama? Congress? Parliament? For running profligate deficits?
So we see the benefits of health care, do we see the collapsing economy as a part of that? Do we see the destruction of a cohesive society as part of that? Do we see the huge burden of taxation? Do we see government waste? Do we see how much poorer we are (as a result of severe taxation–we have only a fraction of the wealth that we would otherwise have), and how much poorer every non-governmental institution of our society that could possibly help us in need–such as family, church/synagogue, charitable hospitals, benevolent organizations? These institutions are impoverished in order to make room for the government ponzi which sucks up too much of people’s disposable income, and so that they have little left at the end of the day to pay for their own health care and that of their extended family, their friends, and their neighbors. The government in Canada has a monopoly on health care. We don’t see the unseen because people focus on the benefits.
But when the social health care system becomes poor, as in Ontario, the citizen has to continue paying high taxes (as I do) but he also has to pony up for every thing that the OHIP doesn’t cover anymore: My friend’s Lyme Disease cost thousands to cure because OHIP didn’t cover the consultations and most of the treatments. I have to pay out of pocket for most of my healthcare. Thus, the system fails us in very profound ways and we would be better off if government stayed out that business. In Ontario, healthcare is going to get worse, because Dalton McGuinty is leaving us with legacy: a huge pile of debt that we will never be able to pay back. This is just the way it is going to be because the world’s economy is about to collapse and Ontario with it.