Every major study has shown that Canadians get better coverage (both in termss of population and treatments) than Americans do for their health care dollars. That is, it is simply a more effecient and comprehensive system.
And back to my Dad. The fact is that he pays not only for his health care but also for the health care of those below the income cut off. And that is fine by him and fine by me. As a student I pay zero in health premiums and zero in income tax because I make so little money coupled with my tuition credits. When I do start full time emplyment I too will begin paying for myself and contributing to those below the income cut-off. And Unlike your stealth bomber I actually get to enjoy using what I pay for and enjoy seeing others use what I have paid for. Now please tell me you derive that same sense of joy when you see your tax bomber fly over Bagdad.
I should also point out that in British Columbia, the province where my dad lives, there is now also a pharmacare benifit. Kinda like you getting a stealth bomber with the bombs for your tax contribution. It is true, however that you will get to babylon before me.
Travis
Quoting Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com>:
> > My dad pays about $1400 a year in premiums in British
> > Columbia to insure himself and his wife and they make
> > over the median average income.
>
> Before you all go thinking that two people get great health care
> coverage for $1400/year, the last time we discussed this, I pointed out
> that these premiums are _in addition_ to the estimated $0.43/$ of income
> taxes that go to the health program. So ... it's quite a bit more than
> $1400. If your dad is above median, he's probably in the 45% bracket or
> so, so figure in addition to the $1400 about 25% of his gross income.
>
> It's true: you don't have to pay for stealth bombers in Canada, but
> although the health care coverage is comprehensive, it isn't, uh, cheap.
>
> /jordan
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>