Suck it, Bush!

[Ben Kenobi]

The question is, if all this were replaced by a socialized system ala Canada or Britain, funded by income taxes, would we be paying more (or less)? How much?

Hmm.

I pay about 100 a month in medical. Plus about 200 for a visit to my eye doctor (not covered) and another 200 for a new pair of lenses and frames.

Then I have to pay about 200 a visit if I want to get my hearing checked out, and a 100 for batteries every 4 months or so.

Then add about 200 a visit to my dentist.

So given that I'm on a socialised system I still pay about 2400 a year, and I haven't even got into any kinds of medication.

Is it really worth doubling your tax burden for 800 a year?

The top rate in Canada, which kicks in at about 200k is around 40 percent.

[DinoDoc]

Because the type of folks who you'd vote for would object more strenuously to, say, increased income taxes.

You can't actually come up with a cogent reason for this can you? The type of folks I'd be likely to vote for if they were to support a program like this wouldn't choose to provide funding for it from the most assanine source imaginable.

PS Why are people holding up Canada's system as something to emulate when thier own courts declared that the system they use to be a violation of a a person’s right to preserve his or her own health and are one of the few countries to penalize a person financially for seeking private care?

[Richelieu]

Just out of curiosity: how much does a pack of 25 cigarettes cost where you live? Right now in Quebec/Ontario (not sure how much it is in other provinces) it's about 10$

[Ming]

It really depends on where you live (additional local taxes) the brand you buy, and how many packs you buy at a time. It can vary dramatically for a standard pack of 20 cigarettes. In the city of Chicago, a major brand could be as high as 8 to $9 per pack. Where I live, a carton (10 packs) for a major brand. works out to 4 to $5 per pack. You can get generic brands for $3 per pack.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've seen it listed at 2 dollars a pack in Texas.

One of the reasons why I thought it was heaven. All the prices are similar.

[Arrian]

Is it really worth doubling your tax burden for 800 a year?

The top rate in Canada, which kicks in at about 200k is around 40 percent.

\

That doesn't sound like "doubling my tax burden."

As for the other stuff, thanks. Interesting info on things that aren't covered by Canada's plan.

DD - I personally am not holding Canada's system up for emulation... I'm simply referring to it for shorthand comparison, seeing as they're our neighbors and have socialized medicine. Nothing more.

-Arrian

p.s. Cigs are ~$5.50 for a pack of 20 here in CT.

[Ben Kenobi]

As for the other stuff, thanks. Interesting info on things that aren't covered by Canada's plan.

The other thing you have to remember is that Canada's plan isn't a national plan. It's provincial jurisdiction. If Obama were to apply Canada's plan to the US, then each state would get to decide what it wants to fund, and how much coverage would cost.

Funding it at a national level is uncharted waters.

The reason why it's funded provincially is so that tax dollars are relatively evenly distributed across the nation. With a national plan, there's nothing stopping the dollars from being spent in CA and NY and paid by taxpayers elsewhere.

As for 'doubling the burden', you live in CT. I was referring to freedom loving states.

[Arrian]

With a national plan, there's nothing stopping the dollars from being spent in CA and NY and paid by taxpayers elsewhere.

That doesn't bother me especially. Btw, it will likely be the other way 'round. NY will be paying for stuff in other states. So will CT. As with anything, it can be taken too far, but in general it doesn't bother me.

-Arrian

[Fake Boris]

How would having a national health service like we Brits change America? How much do you pay for health insurance every year, and how much would your taxes have to increase to implement it nationwide?

Americans could spend as much as they're already doing on healthcare and have the best universal system in the world (or something close to it). You just have to shift the money from the private sector to the government.

[Ben Kenobi]

That doesn't bother me especially. Btw, it will likely be the other way 'round. NY will be paying for stuff in other states. So will CT. As with anything, it can be taken too far, but in general it doesn't bother me.

It's not the way it works up here.

Per capita health spending is way higher for urban concentrations, then it is for rural areas.

The reason being is that health care is very infrastructure heavy. It tends to pool and concentrate. I'll guarantee you that it will be a good deal for NY and California. The rest of the nation, not so much.

[Ben Kenobi]

Americans could spend as much as they're already doing on healthcare and have the best universal system in the world (or something close to it). You just have to shift the money from the private sector to the government.

The cost being that you no longer have a choice to opt-out. You have to pay into the system. I would gladly opt out of the Canadian one and pay for private insurance, if I'm going to be paying 2400 dollars a year, I'd much rather spend it according to how I see fit rather then have it taken away from me.

[Fake Boris]

So what Ben?

Obviously a specialized heart surgery department will be built in a densely populated area, private or public. It just means that people from rural areas have to move to a city to get specialized care.

[Ming]

Currently in America, too much of healthcare spending is spent on the administrative side of all the different plans. Much of the money spent has absolutely nothing to do with actually providing the healthcare. While there will always be administrative costs, they could be reduced dramatically with a single plan, the same rules, and centralized support instead of it being spread out all over the place. I'm not a big fan of high cost government programs. But in this case, it might be the right way to go. As Oncle Boris points out, we already spend a ton on healthcare as it is. I think the money could be spent better with a single national plan, with consistent rules, and consolidated adimiinistration. (just think how much money the different insurance companies spend on marketing their plan vs others). I think we can get similar healthcare, and have enough money to pay for those that aren't currently covered. The only question is how does the funding work. Do employers still have to pay up, is it a raise in income tax (with people actually paying the same but just in a different fashion), a national sales tax... who knows. But we are spending way too much on healthcare, and not getting what we should from the spending.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming, the solution is more competition, not a single payer system.

If you think the administration is bad now, just wait for the new one.

As for Oncle Boris' advice, I'd rather move to America. If I have to move to get decent care, I might as well be happy, and live in a place that has a future.

[Kontiki]

Do Americans realize that in addition to having vastly higher total per capita health care expenditures than pretty much everyone else, that your government per capita health care expenditures are also really high? According the World Health Organization, government spending on health care is almost 20% higher in the US than in Canada and more than 10% more than the UK per capita.