Canada - Doing it right.

[WhiskeyGirl]

Among industrialized countries, Canada is the only one not to have seen a major bank fail. The World Economic Forum ranked Canada's banking system as the healthiest in the world in 2008, while the US took the 40th spot. And while Canada's largest five banks reaped profits of $8.2 billion, the top five US banks lost a combined total of $8.3 billion last year.

Think Toyota and GM.

Stronger federal regulations and lower leverage ratios borne by Canadian banks have allowed them to weather the global banking storm. Canadian financial institutions didn't engage in the subprime mortgage lending that sideswiped the US banking industry and forced millions of American homeowners into foreclosure.

I wonder how they treat carpetbaggers?

But analysts believe Canada's strong balance sheet will position it better than other embattled countries to weather this recessionary storm. For 12 consecutive years, Canada has posted budgetary surpluses, compared with the $1 trillion US federal deficit – a figure that doesn't include the $787 billion stimulus package signed into law this week.

Cash is king in a depression...

And healthcare costs are lower in Canada, accounting for 9.7 percent of the GDP, compared with 15.2 percent in the US.

Higher taxes or regulation and a vibrant economy aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, Haglund says. "If Barack Obama can take away any lesson from the Canadian experience, it's that things can be changed while preserving what's best in North American life."

Obama could look to making a better more cost effective healthcare system.  The money is already there.  In America we seem to spend more and get less, we spend more and foolishly.  Keep throwing money at programs that aren't working...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0220/p25s16-woam.html

jmho

[WhiskeyGirl]

Canada, the World’s Soundest Banking System

Feb 26th, 2009 | By Mark Skousen | Category: Featured, International Investing

The U.S. financial system is a mess - according to the World Economic Forum, the United States ranks 40th among banking systems around the world. Without federal bailouts, the two largest banks in the country, Citibank (NYSE: C) and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC), would be in bankruptcy, and the good ol’ USA would be headed for the Greater Depression, as my friend Doug Casey likes to call it.

Canada’s stock has been rising quietly - the Canadians are known for their modesty and self-restraint - as American financiers and media are astonished to find that their northern neighbors have somehow avoided the subprime lending scandal and the housing market mess.

What’s Canada’s secret? With the exception of oil-rich Alberta, Canada did not have a strong construction surge as the United States did during the boom years. And mortgage interest is not tax deductible in Canada.

Canadian banks are national in scope; the top five banks have branches in all 10 Canadian provinces, making them less susceptible to downturns. They have large numbers of loyal depositors and a more solid base of capital. They are more tightly regulated than their U.S. counterparts, more liquid and less leveraged.

http://www.contrarianprofits.com/articles/canada-the-world%E2%80%99s-soundest-banking-system/14179

In the U.S., I'm not sure they know who, when, or why the money disappeared.  mo

[crazybabyborg]

As far as healthcare goes, I'm not sure that the Canadian people would agree that Canada does it best. There is a severe shortage of medical providers in Canada, and many people die waiting for treatment. Because of the nature of a National System, the elderly are particularly impacted. If a 70 yr. old needs a heart valve for example, the availability of the valve is determined by the prospects of it's usefulness and a major criteria is age. It's figured on a formula and if avg. life expectancy is 80 years, then that patient will be passed over for someone who is younger in need of it. Bring that home and apply it to yourself and your loved ones and know that you could very well be facing watching your loved one die with the knowledge that securing proper treatment would completely restore perfect health.

Additionally, the instances of highly resistant strains of infection, contracted inside Canadian Hospitals (and similarly England's) is quadruple that of US hospitals. The reason? Instead of a private room, hospitals have been forced to house patients in wards of 8-10 people due to lack of funds. Cleaning staff is minimal, as well.

It all sounds so good, until you insert your own child or Mother in the situation of having their life depend on the quality of the healthcare provided. There's a reason so many Canadians cross the border into America when they are sick.

As we slide down this slope into American mediocrity, I have no hope that healthcare will be spared, but we should go into the pit with our eyes open.

[WhiskeyGirl]

As far as healthcare goes, I'm not sure that the Canadian people would agree that Canada does it best. There is a severe shortage of medical providers in Canada, and many people die waiting for treatment. Because of the nature of a National System, the elderly are particularly impacted. If a 70 yr. old needs a heart valve for example, the availability of the valve is determined by the prospects of it's usefulness and a major criteria is age. It's figured on a formula and if avg. life expectancy is 80 years, then that patient will be passed over for someone who is younger in need of it. Bring that home and apply it to yourself and your loved ones and know that you could very well be facing watching your loved one die with the knowledge that securing proper treatment would completely restore perfect health.

Additionally, the instances of highly resistant strains of infection, contracted inside Canadian Hospitals (and similarly England's) is quadruple that of US hospitals. The reason? Instead of a private room, hospitals have been forced to house patients in wards of 8-10 people due to lack of funds. Cleaning staff is minimal, as well.

It all sounds so good, until you insert your own child or Mother in the situation of having their life depend on the quality of the healthcare provided. There's a reason so many Canadians cross the border into America when they are sick.

As we slide down this slope into American mediocrity, I have no hope that healthcare will be spared, but we should go into the pit with our eyes open.

Yes, go into the pit with eyes open.  I recall reading in the Obama plan that one purpose of the data base would be related to decision making based on results.  At some point in time I imagine that someone in Washington, or an outsourced location will decide if procedure X for three years of life is worth it for a 30 year old or an 80 year old.  It's one of the decisions they make in socialized medicine.  Death saves the government money on future social payments (Social Security, Pensions, Medicare).  The patient dies, government collects death/estate taxes and everything is good for the government.  There is no moral or economic incentive to keep people alive in many cases.  Special interest cases would be an exception.

These healthcare decisions are already being made in the Obama budget.  Obama plans to end Medicare Advantage plans for senior citizens.  It's an alternative to traditional Medicare that often offers low or no premiums to seniors.  So, a senior with limited means thinks...I can't afford to pay more for healthcare, what's the cheapest? 

When the Medicare Advantage goes away, the senior that may have zero premium today and low co-pays (like $35 doctor or $275 hospital) now is forced into traditional Medicare.  A deductible for a hospital admission in traditional Medicare may cost more than $1,000.  The deductible may be paid several times a year if you are unlucky.  The medical, Part B, has a 2009 deductible of $135 and 20% expense share.  There are a 'few' things that Medicare covers at 100%.

Medigap policies start at about $100 dollars and seem to escalate every year.  Not an affordable option for those living on a fixed income.  The Part B premium is just under $100 a month.  No prescription coverage unless you pay out of pocket or buy a Part D plan at market rates.  If you are unlucky to take just four prescriptions and the monthly co-pay is like $100 each, your bill for drugs could be another $400 a month.  The private pay insurance drug formulary may change every year.  The cheap $4 a month drug last year could turn into a $100 drug this year.  Seniors may spend thousands of dollars a year or even a month if they are unlucky.

What are the choices for someone who doesn't have $1000 or more for deductibles?  Delay medical care.  Poor people on fixed incomes have to pay more.  The Obama said this will save about $1000 that Medicare pays above the traditional Medicare payment.  It doesn't seem to take in the human cost to people on those plans.  Some MA plans even include their prescription drugs.

Prescription drugs, I'm glad you asked.  In Wisconsin, there is a program 'SeniorCare' that existed long before Medicare Part D.  The cost to provide drugs for those on SeniorCare is about $600 a year.  The cost for a person on Medicare is about $1,600 a year. 

Why the difference?   The State of Wisconsin bargains with drug companies to get the best prices, and rebates.  It lowers the cost for Seniors and taxpayers.  Washington and Traditional Medicare does not.  Seniors and taxpayers are the ones that pay the price.  The VA does bargain and does a good job (from what I'm told) too.  Why doesn't Washington bargain for the masses in Medicare and other programs?

The savings due to SeniorCare is over $1,000 a year.  More than enough to make up for the little bit extra Medicare pays companies with programs like Medicare Advantage.  MA plans are not perfect.  For many, they provide access to healthcare they may not have with traditional Medicare. 

Obama seems to think those people need to pay more.  Dig deep into your own limited resources.  Government isn't there for you anymore, but we'll drive up the national debt, but not raise your taxes. 

just my opinions