Canadian Governments Replace Mafia In Pricing Alcohol

[Renee]

Any time I hear someone say "I like high taxes" (on anything), I have to cringe and think to myself, "WTF is wrong with that person?".  ac_wot

I can understand where she's coming from.



There's a big story in Canadian news media right now about a pregnant woman (6mos) who went on vacation in Hawaii, had a premature birth, had to be air-lifted, spend time in hospital, etc.  Their bill was nearly 1 million dollars.  She had insurance, but they decided not to cover her, on the basis that pregnancy was a pre-existing condition, or some such rot.  Now her, her husband and the newborn are likely declaring bankruptcy and selling their home.  We don't hear about this type of thing that often here, but I'm sure it's not a unique type of occurrence.



I'd rather pay higher taxes and not have this sort of thing happen to random innocent people.



Then, taxes on smoking cigarettes is similar to paying higher health insurance premiums.  I presume you have to do that if you smoke.  We don't pay health insurance, but smokers have a much higher likelihood to require the system, so taxes are the reflection of that.



I disagree on alcohol though because having a drink a day or every few days won't harm your health or make you more likely to need health care.  The tax on liquor is indeed a temperance era throw back and has become a cash cow for the government, with little justification other than increasing general revenues.

I saw that story too and unless I'm missing something it doesn't sound right. I thought your Canadian medical system covered you outside the country if the treatment was of an emergency type nature, necessary, unexpected, and done in an accredited hospital by a licensed medical professional.



"Provincial coverage for out of country medical services will consider the following:



treatment is medically required

the out of country service would be an insured benefit, if performed in BC

the service is provided by a licensed physician or oral surgeon

in-patient hospital services are provided in an accredited, acute care general hospital

appropriate, acceptable medical care is not available for the patient in Canada, or a delay in medical treatment will have medically significant, irreversible medical consequences for the patient

the service is generally accepted by the medical profession in B.C. to be non-controversial and a worthwhile treatment for the patient's medical condition."



http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoprac/oocc.html">http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoprac/oocc.html



I would think that being treated for an emergency premature birth and post neonatal care to save the life of a premature infant would qualify, would it not?

[reel]

Interesting.  I'm not sure.  I think they were from Manitoba or some other godforsaken swamp land.  Not sure if the rules are different there.  I also think that what they might do is refund you the cost of service that you would have received in BC.  So if that service would have cost $10k here, you get $10k even if they bill you $1M somewhere else.



Anyway, however it works, you aren't really covered for travelling.  I was diving in a tow tank in Maryland and sliced my hand right down to the tendon.  I had to 6 stitches and it was $100 per stitch.  That was covered by extended insurance, not by BC health.

[Renee]

Interesting.  I'm not sure.  I think they were from Manitoba or some other godforsaken swamp land.  Not sure if the rules are different there.  I also think that what they might do is refund you the cost of service that you would have received in BC.  So if that service would have cost $10k here, you get $10k even if they bill you $1M somewhere else.



Anyway, however it works, you aren't really covered for travelling.  I was diving in a tow tank in Maryland and sliced my hand right down to the tendon.  I had to 6 stitches and it was $100 per stitch.  That was covered by extended insurance, not by BC health.

To be honest as long as the woman was up front about being pregnant when they took out the travel insurance and as long as they were told that they were covered AND they have in writing within the premium I can't see how Blue Cross can deny their claim and get away with it legally.



Medical insurance in the US IS fucked up but if your coverage expressly says you are covered for the type of treatment you ultimately receive, they cannot deny you. They may fight with the hospital and doctor as to the amount they are willing to pay but they cannot flat out deny you.



BTW, under the Affordable Healthcare Act US citizens cannot be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. That was one of the major sticking points of the bill and was supposed to stop insurers from pulling that kind of crap. Not sure if it applies to non US residents or travel insurance.

[reel]

Interesting.  I'm not sure.  I think they were from Manitoba or some other godforsaken swamp land.  Not sure if the rules are different there.  I also think that what they might do is refund you the cost of service that you would have received in BC.  So if that service would have cost $10k here, you get $10k even if they bill you $1M somewhere else.



Anyway, however it works, you aren't really covered for travelling.  I was diving in a tow tank in Maryland and sliced my hand right down to the tendon.  I had to 6 stitches and it was $100 per stitch.  That was covered by extended insurance, not by BC health.

To be honest as long as the woman was up front about being pregnant when they took out the travel insurance and as long as they were told that they were covered AND they have in writing within the premium I can't see how Blue Cross can deny their claim and get away with it legally.



Medical insurance in the US IS fucked up but if your coverage expressly says you are covered for the type of treatment you ultimately receive, they cannot deny you. They may fight with the hospital and doctor as to the amount they are willing to pay but they cannot flat out deny you.



BTW, under the Affordable Healthcare Act US citizens cannot be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. That was one of the major sticking points of the bill and was supposed to stop insurers from pulling that kind of crap. Not sure if it applies to non US residents or travel insurance.

She had a urinary tract infection early in the pregnancy that caused some spotting.  Her doctor was aware of that and still cleared her for travel and the doctors in Hawaii say that it is completely unrelated to the premature birth, but Blue Cross claim that it was undisclosed, could have been a contributing factor, and thus the claim is denied.



PS.  Sorry, I was wrong about the pregnancy itself being the "pre-existing condition", it was this spotting thing.



I don't think the US bill would apply to non-US residents or travellers.  We get independent, Canadian insurance regardless of destination, so this is actually a fucked up Canadian insurance thing, not a US thing; I'd just initially assumed that similar things happened down there.  Good to hear that has been resolved.

[Anonymous]

France has extremely low costs for alcohol, extremely high rates of consumption (litres/person/year), and public healthcare.  However, they have low incidence of public drunkeness, drunk driving, and alcoholism.



I believe that problems with alcohol are rooted in cultural values, and are not prevented by government intervention by a nanny state.  In fact, I believe the opposite is true.  Most children in France are exposed to low levels of alcohol consumption relatively early on and in a family environment.  Thus, drinking is not a big deal and consumption is rooted in family values (ie. have a drink or two at dinner, don't drink too much, just as you wouldn't eat too much).  Contrast that to North America, where drinking underage is taboo and thus excessive drinking appeals enormously to rebellious teenagers.  People get drunk on weekends as teenagers and then later in life associate getting drunk on weekends with being young and free.  The government imposed temperance (via excessive taxes) promotes and prolongs the unhealthy attitude we have developed towards drinking.

I like high taxes on alcohol and cigarettes reel as a way to curb unhealthy behaviours..



Doesn't it also help to pay for the extra costs to our health care too?

I disagree that drinking alcohol is unhealthy.  It's unhealthy when done in excess, but so are potato chips, chocolate bars, soft drinks... the list is very long.  Should we have a public health tax on all those things as well?

I don't know reel?



Those questions are better answered by people more politically savvy than I..



Alcohol from what I have heard causes many social problems and for that reason alone I think it should be taxed at a high rate along with cigarettes.

[Anonymous]

I heard that alcohol costs my province 1.5 billion dollars per year..



I have not heard what cigarettes cost us though.

[Anonymous]

I'd rather pay higher taxes and not have this sort of thing happen to random innocent people.



Then, taxes on smoking cigarettes is similar to paying higher health insurance premiums.  I presume you have to do that if you smoke.  We don't pay health insurance, but smokers have a much higher likelihood to require the system, so taxes are the reflection of that.

Don't get me wrong reel, I have never smoked in my life. Smoking makes me sick. However, I remember reading that smokers are a cash cow too for government. Think about it, they die much younger, often never collect CPP/OAS and don't spend years in a nursing home. I'll bet the feds secretly wished more people smoked and died younger!!

[Anonymous]

High taxes on smokes are voluntary. I choose pay them every time I buy a carton of smokes. At least, I used to do that, but now I buy contraband smokes. How much revenue does the government collect for health care off of that? This is a consequence of making sin taxes too high.

[Anonymous]

High taxes on smokes are voluntary. I choose pay them every time I buy a carton of smokes. At least, I used to do that, but now I buy contraband smokes. How much revenue does the government collect for health care off of that? This is a consequence of making sin taxes too high.

Do you mean cigarettes that have been stolen?

[Anonymous]

High taxes on smokes are voluntary. I choose pay them every time I buy a carton of smokes. At least, I used to do that, but now I buy contraband smokes. How much revenue does the government collect for health care off of that? This is a consequence of making sin taxes too high.

Do you mean cigarettes that have been stolen?

Maybe, but more likely smuggled across the border by Aboriginal organized criminals.

[Obvious Li]

High taxes on smokes are voluntary. I choose pay them every time I buy a carton of smokes. At least, I used to do that, but now I buy contraband smokes. How much revenue does the government collect for health care off of that? This is a consequence of making sin taxes too high.

i'm with you brother......all govt.'s are criminal enterprises....anything and i mean even the littlest thing you can do to thwart their attempts to steal more of your hard earned dollars has my full support...power to the people..... ac_beating

[Gary Oak]

High taxes on smokes are voluntary. I choose pay them every time I buy a carton of smokes. At least, I used to do that, but now I buy contraband smokes. How much revenue does the government collect for health care off of that? This is a consequence of making sin taxes too high.

Notice how fan ching fuk ming Canadiscammers like Seoulfag take advantage of Canadians by using our services, but don't pay for them.  ac_angel  ac_sothere

[Anonymous]

High taxes on smokes are voluntary. I choose pay them every time I buy a carton of smokes. At least, I used to do that, but now I buy contraband smokes. How much revenue does the government collect for health care off of that? This is a consequence of making sin taxes too high.

Notice how fan ching fuk ming Canadiscammers like Seoulfag take advantage of Canadians by using our services, but don't pay for them.  ac_angel  ac_sothere

 ac_rollseyes

[Anonymous]

High taxes on smokes are voluntary. I choose pay them every time I buy a carton of smokes. At least, I used to do that, but now I buy contraband smokes. How much revenue does the government collect for health care off of that? This is a consequence of making sin taxes too high.

i'm with you brother......all govt.'s are criminal enterprises....anything and i mean even the littlest thing you can do to thwart their attempts to steal more of your hard earned dollars has my full support...power to the people..... ac_beating

The Ontario government has banned e-cigarettes in public places.  ac_rollseyes Only four more years of their incompetence. ac_rollseyes

[Anonymous]

High taxes on smokes are voluntary. I choose pay them every time I buy a carton of smokes. At least, I used to do that, but now I buy contraband smokes. How much revenue does the government collect for health care off of that? This is a consequence of making sin taxes too high.

i'm with you brother......all govt.'s are criminal enterprises....anything and i mean even the littlest thing you can do to thwart their attempts to steal more of your hard earned dollars has my full support...power to the people..... ac_beating

The Ontario government has banned e-cigarettes in public places.  ac_rollseyes Only four more years of their incompetence. ac_rollseyes

All levels of government want to regulate every aspect of our lives. Of course, they will need to raise our taxes in order to hire more useless, unnecessary wastes of skin who after hired will never be able to be eliminated because the earth will no longer rotate around the sun if their positions are cut. It goes without saying they will need a defined benefit pension and bankable paid sick days. What if we can't afford it you say? Who cares, My son will pick up the tab. acc_angry