Here’s your annual bill for public health care

Notably, the amount paid by the average family has increased by 239.7 per cent since 1997 (the first year of available data).

According to a recent survey by Statistics Canada, almost half of Canadians said that rising prices are affecting their ability to meet day-to-day expenses. At the same time, Canadians are increasingly aware of their significant tax burden, with 74 per cent feeling the average family is overtaxed. This is not surprising given the average Canadian family spends more on taxes than food, clothing and shelter combined.

However, one contributor to this growing tax burden remains hidden—the price we pay public health care. You read that right. Public health care is not free—but it’s very difficult to figure out exactly how much we pay for it on an individual or family basis.

This is primarily because our public health-care system is funded through general government revenues. In other words, there’s no dedicated tax that fully funds the system. Our income taxes, sales taxes, business taxes and other taxes get poured into a fiscal vat, from which governments take a generous portion for health care.

While it’s easy enough to gauge total health-care spending by governments ($225.1 billion) or how much was spent per Canadian ($5,614), it remains nearly impossible for Canadian families of different sizes and incomes to calculate how much they contribute towards that vast amount.

But a recent study helps us get a general idea. According to the study, an average family of four (two parents and two children) with an average income of $176,266 will pay an estimated $17,713 (in taxes) for public health care this year. Single Canadians, with an average income of $55,925, will pay $5,629. Of course, these amounts vary by income with the poorest 10 per cent of income earners paying $639 while the top 10 per cent pay $47,071.

Notably, the amount paid by the average family has increased by 239.7 per cent since 1997 (the first year of available data). This increase is 3.1 times greater than the rate of inflation, 2.2 times greater than food cost increases, and 1.6 times greater than housing costs increases. And crucially, the cost of public health care for the average family has increased 1.7 times faster than their average incomes grew during the same period.

These figures are not only important for families who are interested in how their tax dollars are spent, they are one very important side of the equation when trying to understand whether we receive good value for our health-care dollars. Moreover, as politicians continue to promise ever increasing health-care spending to fix our crumbling system, it’s crucial for Canadians to understand exactly how that spending impacts their wallets.

One thing is clear. With nearly an $18,000 price tag for the average family of four, Canada’s public health-care system is anything but free.

Author:

Bacchus Barua

Director, Health Policy Studies, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#BacchusBarua #FraserInstitute CostOfPublicHealthCare PublicHealthCare

Up Next

Energy Notes From the Edge: EV Industry on Limp-Home Mode; Greenpeace’s Firehose Used Against Them and They’re Not Happy

Don't Miss

Canadian pandemic bill wants to regulate meat production, develop contract tracing

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Danielle Smith confirms Alberta will introduce bill to ban men from competing in women’s sports

International / 6 hours ago

Elon Musk, JD Vance, others to appear at Trump’s return rally in Butler, PA, on Saturday

Alberta / 6 hours ago

Danielle Smith hits back at Liberal ‘gender’ minister who attacked Alberta’s pro-family legislation

Economy

Ottawa’s proposed ‘electricity’ regulations may leave Canadians out in the cold

Published on October 4, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

In case you haven’t heard, the Trudeau government has proposed a new set of “Clean Electricity Regulations” (CERs) to purportedly reduce the use of fossil fuels in generating electricity. Basically, the CERs would establish new standards for the generation of electricity, limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted in the process, and would apply to any unit that uses fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil) to generate electricity.

The CERs would hit hardest provinces that rely on fossil fuels to generate electricity: Alberta (89 per cent fossil fuels), Saskatchewan (81 per cent), Nova Scotia (76 per cent) and New Brunswick (30 per cent). Not so much Ontario (7 per cent) and Quebec (1 per cent), which are blessed with vast hydro potential.

In theory, the government has been in “consultation” with electricity producers and the provinces that will be most impacted by the CERs, although some doubt the government’s sincerity.

For example, according to Francis Bradley, CEO of Electricity Canada, which advocates for electricity companies, there is “insufficient time to analyze and provide feedback that could meaningfully impact the regulatory design” adding that the “engagement process has failed to achieve its purpose.” And consequently, the current design of the CERS may impose “significant impairments to the reliability of the electricity system and severe affordability impacts in many parts of the country.”

This was not the first time folks observed a lack of meaningful consultation over the CERs. Earlier this year, Alberta Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz told CBC that an update to the CERs made “no meaningful corrections to the most destructive piece of Canadian electricity regulation in decades” and that CERs “would jeopardize reliability and affordability of power in the province.”

Simply put, with CERs the Trudeau government is gambling with high stakes—namely, the ability of Canadians to access reliable affordable electricity. Previous efforts at decarbonizing electrical systems in Ontario and around the world suggest that such efforts are relatively slow to develop, are expensive, and are often accompanied by periods of electrical system destabilization.

In Ontario, for example, while the provincial government removed coal-generation from its electricity generation from 2010 to 2016, Ontario’s residential electricity costs increased by 71 per cent, far outpacing the 34 per cent average growth in electricity prices across Canada at the time. In 2016, Toronto residents paid $60 more per month than the average Canadian for electricity. And between 2010 and 2016, large industrial users in Toronto and Ottawa experienced cost spikes of 53 per cent and 46 per cent, respectively, while the average increase in electric costs for the rest of Canada was only 14 per cent. Not encouraging stats, if you live in province targeted by CERs.

Reportedly, the Trudeau government plans to release a final version of the new CERs rules by the end of this year. Clearly, in light of the government’s failure to meaningfully consult with the electrical-generation sector and the provinces, the CERs should be put on hold to allow for longer and more sincere efforts to consult before these regulations go into effect and become too entrenched for reform by a future government.

Otherwise, Canadians may pay a steep price for Trudeau’s gamble.

Author:

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Economy

Taxpayer watchdog warns Canadians to fight against ‘guaranteed income schemes’

Published on October 3, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The House of Commons recently rejected a New Democratic Party-led bill that would have allowed for a universal basic income instead of ‘cutting taxes and letting Canadians keep more of their own money,’ said Franco Terrazzano of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Canada’s most respected taxpayer watchdog group called on citizens to oppose as much as possible the policies and laws pushed by the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and opposition parties.

“Taxpayers must stay vigilant and keep pushing back against this extremely costly scheme,” Franco Terrazzano, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), told LifeSiteNews.

“Bad ideas never seem to go away in Ottawa, so taxpayers must stay alert and continue to push politicians to fight against guaranteed income schemes.”

In recent weeks, the House of Commons voted down an extreme New Democratic Party-proposed law that would have allowed for a universal basic income (UBI) for all Canadians and refugee claimants.

Instead of focusing on handouts, Terrazzano noted, the government should instead be “making life more affordable by cutting taxes and letting Canadians keep more of their own money.”

“The government is broke and is more than $1 trillion in debt so this expensive scheme would mean massive tax hikes for average Canadians,” he told LifeSiteNews.

Terrazzano observed how the New Democratic Party’s UBI “scheme” would have been a “disaster for taxpayers, businesses and our economy, and all politicians should fight against this.”

“It would make it harder for Canadian businesses to find and retain talent because if the government pays people not to work, fewer people will work,” he said.

While the New Democratic Party’s attempt at passing a UBI bill into law failed, there is another similar bill before Canada’s Senate that, if passed, would establish “a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income.”

The cost of living in Canada has risen dramatically over the last few years under the Trudeau government, which continues to overspend and promote its ideologically charged agenda.

In June, LifeSiteNews reported that decades of progress in lowering the poverty rate in Canada has been wiped out in the last few years under Trudeau’s Liberal government.

Terrazzano previously told LifeSiteNews that he urged the Trudeau government to cut spending, balance the budget and “completely scrap” the “carbon tax,” as the best way to help struggling Canadians financially.