7 ms·

No, it's not. I pay $120/month for a family of three, and get pretty good care for it. I know that smug Canadians are a cliche in any discussion of health care

by cwp 16y ago

No, it's not. I pay $120/month for a family of three, and get pretty good care for it. I know that smug Canadians are a cliche in any discussion of health care, but we are an existence proof that acabal's expectations are totally reasonable.

Groxx 16y ago
How much of that is subsidized by your taxes? That counts towards the final cost. Spreading it out doesn't make it less real. edit: answered for you: >In 2009, the government funded about 70% of Canadians' health care costs. >Per capita expenditure in 2009: 3,895 $227 per month, per person, comes from the government, which gets its funding from your taxes. So you're paying $801/month for that plan (three people). Significantly less than many Americans, there's no debating that, but $120/month isn't anywhere near correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
- billjings 16y ago
  Two points - one, is that odds are he's not paying $807/mo out of his taxes due to a progressive income tax. He's probably paying a good portion out of his taxes, but not $807/mo. Point two - and this isn't a rebuttal of any kind against your claims, just an observation - that same graph shows that Canada spends a lower portion of government revenue on health care than we do. And we don't even have universal coverage!
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    The takeaway - you're actually paying for what should be your healthcare in your taxes as an American, but you're not actually getting the healthcare, because that would be socialism.
    - Groxx 16y ago
      >that would be socialism. That is a massively incorrect statement, which pops up every time government-mandated healthcare debates appear, which I wish to squash ASAP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism Universal healthcare != socialism. Not even remotely. It's a political mud-slinging attempt to equate healthcare changes with the historical fear of the USSR that seems to have infected far more people than it should even have reached. Yes, fear the Reds, they'll lob bombs at you now that the cold war is over. They've just been waiting. At the absolute closest would be if the government were to run all the healthcare directly (it's not - there are and will be many private healthcare markets), and then it would be a socialist action, not socialism (a socialist government). To make matters worse for this use, any form of taxation can be described as a socialist action. That doesn't make any government that taxes its citizens a socialist government.
      - hoprocker 16y ago
        Oh yeah -- the fear-mongering against "Obamacare" has definitely pulled heavily from imagery surrounding breadlines and gulags. But I imagine vivtek's comment was a sarcastic jab at the acceptance of pouring money into the health care industry w/o getting a commensurate benefit out of it. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
      - joe_the_user 16y ago
        I think the parent meant "pundits would say 'that would be socialism'". I think most here know nationalize health isn't socialism.
      - Vivtek 16y ago
        You've heard of irony, I take it? Of course I don't think it's socialism - but everybody around me in Indiana damn well thinks so. Not that they know what socialism is, mind you - but they know it's really Evil, and it's something liberal people on the East Coast force down our throats in order to pay for all the welfare queens in the cities.... ah, hell, there's that pounding in my temple again.
        Groxx 16y ago
- s3graham 16y ago
  There is also corporate tax, and personal tax is assessed at graduated rates depending on income. If their income is low, say ~60k split between husband and wife, they would pay roughly ~0 for health care.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    Corporate taxes come out of paychecks. Unless all that is refunded if that's their income, then they're still paying something for it in addition to their direct monthly bill. It can be carried further: money they get refunded comes out of other areas' funding, as the difference gets made up somehow. Their property taxes go up, the cost of food goes up because others are carrying a heavier burden, jobs across the board pay less / hire fewer, everything always costs something, even refunds. Less in some situations, but not zero. And we're still not reaching $50-$100.
    - jbri 16y ago
      And breaking a window stimulates the economy because it means the window-fitter gets more business.
      - Groxx 16y ago
        I don't see how it's possible to have a cost of less than $50-100/month for healthcare. And all forms of cost have to be accounted for - direct + taxes being by far the easiest to measure, but when people start claiming that it "costs nothing" they're ignoring the bigger picture of the economy as a whole. Especially when $60k/year is your bottom margin - that includes a lot of people => a lot of drain on the rest if it doesn't come from them. Nice reply, btw :)
        jbri 16y ago
        The issue, I think, is that government spending is really in a different boat to private expenditure when it comes to the effect on the economy. Trying to model it as "you spend $X in taxes to pay for that healthcare" is a drastic oversimplification. If you instead look at all government spending as economic stimulus, and all taxation as a factor in inflation management, you get quite a different picture.
- cwp 16y ago
  So my taxes count, but acabal's don't?

by cwp 16y ago

Groxx 16y ago

How much of that is subsidized by your taxes? That counts towards the final cost. Spreading it out doesn't make it less real. edit: answered for you: >In 2009, the government funded about 70% of Canadians' health care costs. >Per capita expenditure in 2009: 3,895 $227 per month, per person, comes from the government, which gets its funding from your taxes. So you're paying $801/month for that plan (three people). Significantly less than many Americans, there's no debating that, but $120/month isn't anywhere near correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

billjings 16y ago
Two points - one, is that odds are he's not paying $807/mo out of his taxes due to a progressive income tax. He's probably paying a good portion out of his taxes, but not $807/mo. Point two - and this isn't a rebuttal of any kind against your claims, just an observation - that same graph shows that Canada spends a lower portion of government revenue on health care than we do. And we don't even have universal coverage!
- Vivtek 16y ago
  The takeaway - you're actually paying for what should be your healthcare in your taxes as an American, but you're not actually getting the healthcare, because that would be socialism.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    >that would be socialism. That is a massively incorrect statement, which pops up every time government-mandated healthcare debates appear, which I wish to squash ASAP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism Universal healthcare != socialism. Not even remotely. It's a political mud-slinging attempt to equate healthcare changes with the historical fear of the USSR that seems to have infected far more people than it should even have reached. Yes, fear the Reds, they'll lob bombs at you now that the cold war is over. They've just been waiting. At the absolute closest would be if the government were to run all the healthcare directly (it's not - there are and will be many private healthcare markets), and then it would be a socialist action, not socialism (a socialist government). To make matters worse for this use, any form of taxation can be described as a socialist action. That doesn't make any government that taxes its citizens a socialist government.
    - hoprocker 16y ago
      Oh yeah -- the fear-mongering against "Obamacare" has definitely pulled heavily from imagery surrounding breadlines and gulags. But I imagine vivtek's comment was a sarcastic jab at the acceptance of pouring money into the health care industry w/o getting a commensurate benefit out of it. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
    - joe_the_user 16y ago
      I think the parent meant "pundits would say 'that would be socialism'". I think most here know nationalize health isn't socialism.
    - Vivtek 16y ago
      You've heard of irony, I take it? Of course I don't think it's socialism - but everybody around me in Indiana damn well thinks so. Not that they know what socialism is, mind you - but they know it's really Evil, and it's something liberal people on the East Coast force down our throats in order to pay for all the welfare queens in the cities.... ah, hell, there's that pounding in my temple again.
      - Groxx 16y ago
s3graham 16y ago
There is also corporate tax, and personal tax is assessed at graduated rates depending on income. If their income is low, say ~60k split between husband and wife, they would pay roughly ~0 for health care.
- Groxx 16y ago
  Corporate taxes come out of paychecks. Unless all that is refunded if that's their income, then they're still paying something for it in addition to their direct monthly bill. It can be carried further: money they get refunded comes out of other areas' funding, as the difference gets made up somehow. Their property taxes go up, the cost of food goes up because others are carrying a heavier burden, jobs across the board pay less / hire fewer, everything always costs something, even refunds. Less in some situations, but not zero. And we're still not reaching $50-$100.
  - jbri 16y ago
    And breaking a window stimulates the economy because it means the window-fitter gets more business.
    - Groxx 16y ago
      I don't see how it's possible to have a cost of less than $50-100/month for healthcare. And all forms of cost have to be accounted for - direct + taxes being by far the easiest to measure, but when people start claiming that it "costs nothing" they're ignoring the bigger picture of the economy as a whole. Especially when $60k/year is your bottom margin - that includes a lot of people => a lot of drain on the rest if it doesn't come from them. Nice reply, btw :)
      - jbri 16y ago
        The issue, I think, is that government spending is really in a different boat to private expenditure when it comes to the effect on the economy. Trying to model it as "you spend $X in taxes to pay for that healthcare" is a drastic oversimplification. If you instead look at all government spending as economic stimulus, and all taxation as a factor in inflation management, you get quite a different picture.
cwp 16y ago
So my taxes count, but acabal's don't?