In the state I live in it seems that the budget is poorly distributed. It seems that the areas that are rich tend to get the most money when the budgetary pie is sliced. It seems that the main function of the local government is to perpetuate the status quo, even with tighter budgetary restrictions. The poorest counties seem to get poorer because they lack the leverage and prestige that the richer counties have. If a school is designated as a magnet school, this must be maintained because it can be pointed to as a showcase of how well the beaurocracy is performing. The beaurocracy does not see wealth redistribution as being important. It would require too much real planning and ruffle alot of feathers. Rich counties don't want to share their tax money with poorer ones. If they did, it might seem that everyone was getting poorer. That simply wouldn't attract outside investment. Have you noticed this in your area?

I live in Eastern Europe, so that basically sums the financial situation of the area I live. However, the county where I live is one of the best funded, given the fact that we are an ethnic minority, we get funding not only from the Serbian government, but also some donations from Slovakia. My town is also officially recognized as the safest place in whole of South-Eastern Europe. Given that we are a cultural centre of all Slovaks in Serbia comes also some responsibility, namely certain institutions and infrastructure must be maintained. There is always something being built here, even though it takes ages to do it. I mean, the sewer system has been under construction for a decade and we still don't have gas in most areas. But as far as I'm concerned it is better to live here than any other place in the province. Plenty of job opportunities for the well educated, especially for those who know foreign languages.

Isn't this how it is in every U.S. state?

Well, each state is sovereign, so it depends. I've noticed in the Southern US it's horrible, while states in the NE and the W have a more "democratic" distribution of wealth. It might be a red state /blue state dichotomy

Damn republicans!

The general consensus is that Republican state governors are more moderate and pragmatic than their ideological-crusader counterparts in Washington.

Anyway, Canada has a relatively egalitarian distribution of wealth, I think. Poorer provinces ("have-nots") receive subsidies in the form of transfer payments from the richer provinces in order to stimulate their economies and ensure the disparities between regions don't become too drastic. Then of course there's our strong welfare state, which is a source of national pride (especially healthcare) because of its comprehensiveness and quality. We try to ensure citizens living in rural areas receive the same quality of services as much as possible.

While I've never gotten sick in Canada, why is Canada constantly lampooned as "the socialized medical system we DON'T want"? I'm not being facetious. I'm truly asking. The radio pundits constantly say "Candians always come to the US for treatment". While I have never witnessed throngs of Canadians coming for bariatric sxurgery

It's a fear tactic employed namely by Americans as a way to prevent the adoption of a more egalitarian health care system. By overgeneralizing that a great portion of Canadians go to the United States to get treatment, they can persuade people into believing that the adoption of a more socialized health care system will lead to the decline in medical innovations that can only be achieved in the United States' current privatized health care system.

The problem is, the majority of Americans know absolutely nothing about the Canadian health system, and that's what makes this argument quite sad. The most evident fallacy is that there aren't actually very many Canadians crossing the border merely to get 'better' treatment. The Canadians who do go to the United States do so because certain advancements or practices are not yet available in Canada. The same applies to Americans who come to Canada for medical treatment. Essentially, each and every country tends to focus on different areas of research, which enable them to specialize in certain domains better than other countries.

The second argument is that a socialized health care system leads to longer waiting periods, so these supposed Canadians cross the border for faster treatment. The obvious flaw with this is that Canada does have a private health care sector. If someone with the money really wants to get something done as soon as possible, they can. Taxes make no difference, since a Canadian will still be paying taxes for the main health care system, whether he goes through the local private sector or abroad. Thus, the private sector exists as a complementary system. The other flaw is that wait times are merely a parallel to how hospitals are organized. Some hospitals in the United States have much higher waiting periods than most in Canada, while many in Canada can be slow due to being understaffed (in regards to the population) and disorganized.

In reality though, most Canadians are quite proud of their health care system. Abuse occurs when people come in and bring their children all the time to the hospital for every little symptom, or when paranoid people return every so often to check up on whether a new treatment is miraculously available. Some Canadians would like to see these nuisances scared off by requiring a minimum fee (even if as low as 5$), so that people with actual issues can obtain faster service.

Well said.

In rankings of national healthcare, Canada is usually at least on par with the United States, and sometimes higher. Other nations with socialized medicine are at the very top so clearly the system isn't inherently flawed.

I'd rather put up with the problem of longer wait times than the problem of millions of people without coverage.

If you had a disease that was rapidly progressing you might decide to come to the States. But don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the US medical establishment. They are much too closely tied to big Pharma which has compromised the role of the FDA.