Fraser Institute
Health-care costs for typical Canadian family will reach almost $18,000 this year
From the Fraser Institute
By Nathaniel Li and Milagros Palacios and Nadeem Esmail
A typical Canadian family of four will pay an estimated $17,713 for public health-care insurance this year, finds a new study released today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
“Canadians pay a substantial amount of money for health care through a variety of taxes—even if we don’t pay directly for medical services,” said Nadeem Esmail, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and co-author of The Price of Public Health Care Insurance, 2024.
Most Canadians are unaware of the true cost of health care because they never see a bill for medical services, may only be aware of partial costs collected via employer health taxes and contributions (in provinces that impose them), and because general government revenue—not a dedicated tax—funds Canada’s public health-care system.
The study estimates that a typical Canadian family consisting of two parents and two children with an average household income of $176,266 will pay $17,713 for public health care this year. Couples without dependent children will pay an estimated $16,528. Single Canadians will pay $5,629 for health care insurance, and single parents with one child will pay $5,345.
Since 1997, the first year for which data is available, the cost of healthcare for the average Canadian family has increased substantially, and has risen more quickly than its income. In fact, the cost of public health care insurance for the average Canadian family increased 2.2 times as fast as the cost of food, 1.6 times as fast as the cost of housing, and 1.7 times as fast as the average income.
“Understanding how much Canadians actually pay for health care, and how much that amount has increased over time, is an important first step for taxpayers to assess the value and performance of the health-care system, and whether it’s financially sustainable,” Esmail said.
- Canadians often misunderstand the true cost of our public health care system. This occurs partly because Canadians do not incur direct expenses for their use of health care, and partly because Canadians cannot readily determine the value of their contribution to public health care insurance.
- In 2024, preliminary estimates suggest the average payment for public health care insurance ranges from $4,908 to $17,713 for six common Canadian family types, depending on the type of family.
- Between 1997 and 2024, the cost of public health care insurance for the average Canadian family increased 2.2 times as fast as the cost of food, 1.7 times as fast as the average income, and 1.6 times as fast as the cost of shelter. It also increased much more rapidly than the cost of clothing, which has been falling in recent years.
- The 10 percent of Canadian families with the lowest incomes will pay an average of about $639 for public health care insurance in 2024. The 10 percent of Canadian families who earn an average income of $81,825 will pay an average of $7,758 for public health care insurance, and the families among the top 10 percent of income earners in Canada will pay $47,071.
Authors:
From the Fraser Institute
Based on the recent throne speech (delivered by a King, no less) and subsequent periodic statements from Prime Minister Carney, the new federal government seems stuck in an ambiguous and ill-defined state of energy policy, leaving much open to question.
After meeting with the premiers earlier this month, the prime minister talked about “decarbonized barrels” of oil, which didn’t clarify matters much. We also have a stated goal of making Canada the world’s “leading energy superpower” in both clean and conventional energy. If “conventional energy” includes oil and gas (although we’re not sure), this could represent a reversal of the Trudeau government’s plan to phase-out fossil fuel use in Canada over the next few decades. Of course, if it only refers to hydro and nuclear (also forms of conventional energy) it might not.
According to the throne speech, the Carney government will work “closely with provinces, territories, and Indigenous Peoples to identify and catalyse projects of national significance. Projects that will connect Canada, that will deepen Canada’s ties with the world, and that will create high-paying jobs for generations.” That could mean more oil and gas pipelines, but then again, it might not—it might only refer to power transmission infrastructure for wind and solar power. Again, the government hasn’t been specific.
The throne speech was a bit more specific on the topic of regulatory reform and the federal impact assessment process for energy projects. Per the speech, a new “Major Federal Project Office” will ensure the time needed to approve projects will be reduced from the currently statutory limit of five years to two. Also, the government will strike cooperation agreements with interested provinces and territories within six months to establish a review standard of “one project, one review.” All of this, of course, is to take place while “upholding Canada’s world-leading environmental standards and its constitutional obligations to Indigenous Peoples.” However, what types of projects are likely to be approved is not discussed. Could be oil and gas, could be only wind and solar.
Potentially good stuff, but ill-defined, and without reference to the hard roadblocks the Trudeau government erected over the last decade that might thwart this vision.
For example, in 2019 the Trudeau government enacted Bill C-48 (a.k.a. the “Tanker Ban Bill”), which changed regulations for large oil transports coming and going from ports on British Columbia’s northern coast, effectively banning such shipments and limiting the ability of Canadian firms to export to non-U.S. markets. Scrapping C-48 would remove one obstacle from the government’s agenda.
In 2023, the Trudeau government introduced a cap on Canadian oil and gas-related greenhouse gas emissions, and in 2024, adopted major new regulations for methane emissions in the oil and gas sector, which will almost inevitably raise costs and curtail production. Removing these regulatory burdens from Canada’s energy sector would also help Canada achieve energy superpower status.
Finally, in 2024, the Trudeau government instituted new electricity regulations that will likely drive electricity rates through the roof, while ushering in an age of less-reliable electricity supply: a two-handed slap to Canadian energy consumers. Remember, the throne speech also called for building a more “affordable” Canada—eliminating these onerous regulations would help.
In summation, while the waters remain somewhat muddy, the Carney government appears to have some good ideas for Canadian energy policy. But it must act and enact some hard legislative and regulatory reforms to realize the positive promises of good policy.
From the Fraser Institute
Myths, fallacies and ideological rhetoric continue to dominate the climate policy discussion, leading to costly and ineffective government policies,
according to a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, nonpartisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
“When considering climate policies, it’s important to understand what the science and analysis actually show instead of what the climate alarmists believe to be true,” said Kenneth P. Green, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Four Climate Fallacies.
The study dispels several myths about climate change and popular—but ineffective—emission reduction policies, specifically:
• Capitalism causes climate change: In fact, according to several environment/climate indices and the Fraser Institute’s annual Economic Freedom of the World Index, the more economically free a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.
• Even small-emitting countries can do their part to fight climate change: Even if Canada reduced its greenhouse gas emissions to zero, there would be
little to no measurable impact in global emissions, and it distracts people from the main drivers of emissions, which are China, India and the developing
world.
• Vehicle electrification will reduce climate risk and clean the air: Research has shown that while EVs can reduce GHG emissions when powered with
low-GHG energy, they often are not, and further, have offsetting environmental harms, reducing net environmental/climate benefits.
• Carbon capture and storage is a viable strategy to combat climate change: While effective at a small scale, the benefits of carbon capture and
storage to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions on a massive scale are limited and questionable.
“Citizens and their governments around the world need to be guided by scientific evidence when it comes to what climate policies make the most sense,” Green said.
“Unfortunately, the climate policy debate is too often dominated by myths, fallacies and false claims by activists and alarmists, with costly and ineffective results.”
Kenneth P. Green
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Alberta’s grand bargain with Canada includes a new pipeline to Prince Rupert
Central Alberta MP resigns to give Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre a chance to regain a seat in Parliament
Alberta health care blockbuster: Province eliminating AHS Health Zones in favour of local decision-making!
UK finally admits clear evidence linking Pakistanis and child grooming gangs
-
Alberta1 day ago
Central Alberta MP resigns to give Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre a chance to regain a seat in Parliament
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta health care blockbuster: Province eliminating AHS Health Zones in favour of local decision-making!
-
Alberta1 day agoCalls for a new pipeline to the coast are only getting louder
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta pro-life group says health officials admit many babies are left to die after failed abortions
-
Alberta21 hours agoUnified message for Ottawa: Premier Danielle Smith and Premier Scott Moe call for change to federal policies
-
Daily Caller2 days ago‘Not Held Hostage Anymore’: Economist Explains How America Benefits If Trump Gets Oil And Gas Expansion
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoJordan Peterson reveals DEI ‘expert’ serving as his ‘re-education coach’ for opposing LGBT agenda
-
Business2 days agoTrump makes impact on G7 before he makes his exit