Those numbers look about right to me, Gorsnak, as a calculation of how much governments spend.
I wasn’t sure if duffer was asking what percentage of government expenditures go to health care, which can be sorta calculated the way you’re doing it, or if duffer was asking how much each Canadian contributes to health care, same as Social Security down south, which I was trying to explain is not an easy calculation on an individual basis.
Different takes on the question, different answers result.
Either way, we sent his Penguins not just Sid the Kid but also Super Mario, so if he complains about either answer we should rescind 5 Stanley Cups. 
Complicated issue, so I realize there’s no easy answer. I know it’s a numbers game down here, same as most schemes. In the US we pay a certain percentage to SS and Medicaid/Care. And that’s supposed to fund it. (Heh) But anyone listening to politicians/think tanks on both sides for 30 years knows it’s a pyramid scheme. Oh, and it was supposed to be bankrupt, like, yesterday. (Yes, I understand the borrowing and how people are still getting checks) Just curious about how Canada (And Norway, Sweden, England, Switzerland, et al) are able to do it without crushing taxes. I don’t mean to turn this into a political thing, so please don’t anyone jump in with that angle. Even if I opened the door to it.
And to avoid a second post to this, I’d like to ask why health care costs (here or in Canada or anywhere else) get deductions/credits based on how many people are declared on taxes? What I mean is, why would a single person pay full, while someone with 5 children pays less per person? If the person with more people using the service (parent) gets a monetary break per person, who’s paying for the discount? Again, not getting political. Just a financial question.
I did some back-of-an-envelope calculations for the UK, which came out at roughly 4-5% of gross income in direct taxes (income tax and National Insurance), higher for higher incomes, but lower for lower incomes (obviously), plus roughly 4% of whatever one spends on VAT and duties on alcohol, tobacco, petrol, air departures, and so on.
The thing is, if you are from the US, you have grown up with a system that is exceptionally -exceptionally- expensive. Compared to all other systems. And so your perspective on what is affordable in the area does not fit the normal costs well.
The answer to your question is; they can afford it because it is cheaper than the way you are doing it right now.
Not that easy to answer because as people have said, its not funded directly off income taxes. Different nations get different amounts of revenue from income tax compared to other income sources.
Of course, how much it costs is tracked. Government healthcare in the UK costs, if you spread the costs over the number of residents, about 2800 per head. Government healthcare in the US costs a bit short of 5000 per person. Not per patient, per person in the US. In Norway it is about 6600 $.
As a percentage of government income it is different. Government healthcare in the UK is 7,6 % of GDP. Norway spends 8,3 % of GDP. The US government healthcare costs are also 8,3 % of GDP exactly the same as Norway.
I don’t understand the question. Do you get deductions/credits to the cost of your military defence based on the number of people declared on taxes? How about education ?
I have always worked on the assumption that the government takes around 30% of my income. I was never a higher rate taxpayer, which would have upped the percentage, and never did a huge mileage in my cars (fuel taxes are a big source of revenue). I expect that an actuary, armed with all the data, could tell me that if I added on all the indirect taxes, the total is probably higher, but of course, my state and my NHS pension are both funded by current taxpayers.
duffer, the point I was trying to make is that health care costs are not allocated individually in Canada, since it just comes out of general tax revenue. It’s not like CPP and EI, where the deductions from your pay cheque are allocated individually, and eventually will determine how much CPP you are entitled to when you retire, or how much EI you get if you lose your job.
Health care is funded out of general tax revenue, so it’s not allocated individually. I was trying to make that point with my example, obviously not very clearly.
The single person in my example will pay more in taxes than the person with a stay-at-home spouse and two kids, not because of health care costs, but because our tax system lets the one with dependents claim deductions for them, lowering the tax bill. But that’s not tied in any way to health care costs. Assuming that everyone needs to go to the doctor the same amount, the family of four will get more health care benefits per year, on average, than the single person, while paying less in taxes. My point was just to show that when health care is considered a government service, funded out of general government revenue, there is no allocation of health care costs per individual. It’s not like premiums, deductibles, co-pays, and all those things in the US system, which are tied to the individual.
Short answer then, is that you can’t look at a Canadian’s pay stub and see a deduction for health care, any more than there is a deduction for police services, or roads, or education. Like other government services, it just comes out of general revenue. So, it’s funded from the income tax withholding, but you can’t allocate it.
There are a couple of general ways to try to allocate it. One way is to determine globally how much government and citizens spend on health care, and express that as a percentage of GDP. By that measure, Canada (and other western countries) spend less for UHC than does the US.
Another way to calculate it is to take the total amount spent by governments in Canada and divide it by the number of Canadians. That’s what Grim Render is doing for the UK and Norway health care systems.
I’m sure that number is available somewhere for Canada as well, as Gorsnak’s calculation shows that it is possible to get a rough estimate of the amount Canadian governments spend. Would take some more googling to try to nail it down.
Thanks for the info everyone! Helped clear up some of my misconceptions. Though when it comes to government spending I’ve kinda given up on trying to reason it out.
The health budget is around 18% of government expenditure, so 0.3x18 would be between 5 and 6%, and not all of that would go to the NHS - it includes other health-related expenditure as well. Even so, on net income after the basic allowance, that bit of both income tax and NI that goes to the NHS would be that little bit lower for someone on the standard income tax rate.
The assertion - “health care is like police services or roads or military” - is probably the best description. In any system, the Canadian like the US, there’s a Pareto Principle at work. One suggestion is that 80% of health care costs happen in the first 6 month and last 6 months of life. Another is that there is a cadre of really sick people who cost the system disproportionately a lot more than the average healthy person. But… everyone pays a share of taxes based on their ability to pay. Those patients with recurring cancer, or needing dialysis, or institutionalized or bed-ridden - they or their guardians pay no more in taxes - in fact they likely get a break based on less income, dependence, out o pocket expenses, etc. It’s simply not “pay to play”, it’s “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” - a very Christian concept perhaps.
Or Marxist, in the eyes of some folks … 
Thou hast said it…
The first provincial government to introduce this in Canada, providing the blueprint that all the others followed, was led by a Social Gospel influenced Baptist minister, Tommy Douglas, leading a new-at-the-time political party that was from its beginning intentionally built on the principles of that movement. (See the “Canada” section of the article at the link.)
So it all fits.
duffer, I went looking for an article I remembered reading last fall on this very point. Found it!
Canadians may pay more taxes than Americans, but here’s what they get for their money
The first point made in the article is that the US and Canadian tax loads aren’t that far apart. Per capita, Canadians pay bit above the average for OECD countries, Americans pay a bit below, but that’s not set in stone. There’s been a couple of times in the past 15 years where Canada was below the Americans.
What we get, though, for our higher taxes, is universal health care and other social services:
And what do we each get?
What do Americans get? A really, really, really strong defence, and a lot of targetted social programs that help certain groups, but don’t necessarily provide benefits to everyone.
It’s hard to put a number on what benefits you get for your taxes - especially richer people. In many third-world countries, kidnapping for money is a common problem. Many poorer countries, people with decent amounts of money live in walled compounds with gates and if decently rich, guards; they travel with bodyguards. In North America (and many European countries) you can leave your car on the street, you can have an open lawn up to a picture window and a simple (locked) door and 99.9% of the time, your possessions are intact when you get home after work. Your net worth usually approaches the tens to hundreds of millions before you really consider having a bodyguard, and more likely it’s to prevent harassment, not physical danger. What’s that level of law and order worth? Just as, how do you put a value on good roads and superhighways, electricity without brownouts, decent educational systems, etc.
Same with health care. There are no in/out of network physicians in Canada, you can go into any hospital emergency room and (a couple of hours later) it will not cost you anything or (try to) see any doctor. Simply calculating how much was spent for each physician does not take into account convenience and peace of mind.
And to make a fair comparison, the amounts that Americans pay for health insurance need to be included in the balance. Every time I have done this with actual costs, my taxes alone are higher, but my total costs for taxes plus health insurance end up lower than the total of the American I’m comparing with.
And the comparison on what we receive is pretty hard to make, because for as much as we pay for insurance, we often have no idea what it actually covers when it really matters, and there’s no real way to know in advance. If you trip and crack your skull tomorrow, you know how much the hospital will bill you. I don’t have the slightest idea whatsoever, and the possibilities range across several orders of magnitude.
And just to throw into the mix; If I trip and crack my skull tomorrow, I won’t have to pay a single penny. If it was a severe ‘crack’ I might need a mobile doctor at the scene; if it happens a long way from a major trauma unit, they may send a helicopter. I will get world-class diagnosis and treatment and all the costs will be paid for from a universal healthcare fund - we call it The NHS.
Healthcare is not the only thing governments spend their money on, and generally not the biggest either. I believe that is normally pensions. But taxes also go to free college for everyone, a years maternity/paternity leave per child, a minimum pension guarantee, unemployment benefits, police, military, infrastructure, etc, etc.
Actually, I don’t have any idea, because I never see any bill. The doctors involved will bill the provincial Medicare system, and the hospitals are publicly run, not-for-profit, paid for out of general tax revenues.
That’s why I use the police services example: asking a Canadian how much they pay for health care is the same type of question as asking an American how much they pay for police services.
In both cases, they’re paid for out of general tax revenue; they’re a public service; the cost is not allocated on an individual basis; and if you need to call on their services, you don’t get a bill.
ETA: the several orders of magnitude is scary stuff.