Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
If you file part of your income on a Schedule C, and by any stretch of imagination that work can be considered art, check out Fractured Atlas. That's how I got insured. Their packages are best in New York, but they offer SOMETHING in every state.
This is an artist's organization that uses collective bargaining in the form of membership to get self-employed artists group health care. I'm not old enough for Medicare either.
I voted no in the sense of the American system style of health insurance with private agencies, which I thought the question implies. But up here in Canada with our health care system being run by the government I would say yes because everyone is included.
Same here. We pay something called National Insurance which basically goes towards healthcare and benefits. Oh yeah, and the um, state pension, such as it is.
It's roughly just under 25%, but that includes our National Insurance contribution. Tax on it's own is 22% of your basic income, assuming you earn below a certain amount, it then goes up to 40% plus National Insurance.
Incidentally, not only do we pay out of our paycheck an amount for insurance, but our employers make a contribution also. These laws came about in an initial form some time in the early 1900's initially to protect people who worked in service to the aristocracy who made up a large amount of the workforce. Oddly, the workers themselves opposed it fearing it would mean they lost their jobs.
Hmm. I'm paying roughly 28% of my taxable earnings to taxes, and then must pay an additional 10% of my total earnings for health insurance (which - I am lucky, btw - is matched by my employer). AND my health insurance doesn't cover everything, only a portion of expenses, plus I need to meet deductables and copays. I think I like your system better.
Yeah, I'm going to have to say, that seems pretty pants to me. It's like I have said before, it really isn't a perfect system and you can wait a while for non-urgent care but it's there when you need it, and it seems, quite a bit cheaper too.
Good question. I think it's about £22,000 or thereabouts, the ONS website was not helpful in giving up that information. Think thats roughly...40-45,000 USD.
I pay about 22% of my income in taxes and another 25% in healthcare premiums. Last year i made just under $20,0000, but this year should be back up to $25,0000 or $28,000.
[1 point]4 years ago by dauguyReplyEdited 4 years ago by dauguy
I just don't get why people would be against a universal healthcare system based on contributions when these are the sorts of amounts getting paid out. How are people supposed to live?
I make just over $40,000 a year. I could be earning more, but I'm the sole caregiver for my mother, and since my business is seasonal, I get to spend some of the year working from home, which is good for her. I fret alot because I feel like I'm being asked to make a choice between her welfare and my paycheck.
It totally sucks that you're put in that position, as if being a caregiver isn't difficult enough without extra pressures. I am honestly at a loss to understand opposition to a different system. I have had fairly heated discussions elsewhere with people who are opposed to the whole concept. The fact is that it's not a handout, most of the population would contribute, just not the inflated premiums that, as someone else pointed out, the profit-hungry insurance companies demand.
It's years of brainwashing to make people believe that socialization of services equals communism. There is a perception that EVERYTHING has to be for profit, which is why our healthcare system sucks and 700,000 people a year cite medical costs as the cause for their bankruptcy. Something like 73% of those people started out insured when they fell ill.
They're not. And it's somehow their fault if they can't. We have perfected blaming the victim here. It's like you deserve bad things because bad things happen to you--like some medieval sign of God's displeasure.
I've often wondered this. Last year I paid about $15.8K on an income of $72K, or about 22% (I'm married with 2 kids). If I include my RRSP deduction then it was 17%. What would an American in the same income bracket pay? Seems to me if I'm also getting $10K worth of health benefits then I'm a lot better off living in Canada.
Hard to say...there is federal, and then state taxes. Your taxable basis is determined by the IRS and is all income minus certain credits. There is a standard deduction, but at your income level you would probably fill out a schedule A to increase your deduction. Also, you have to remember a lot of jobs here only meet a portion (if any) of your healthcare expenses, so you are matching their payments...figure for your family maybe $500 a month? Maybe someone out there with a similar income could help you...or you could try going to http://www.irs.gov and filling out a 1040.
Some of the high-deductible plans are actually better. My carrier offers one--premium about $125 American per month, $5000 deductible, certain exceptions for preventative care. After that $5000 is spent, 100% of everything is covered, no caps. That works out to a premium of about $550 per month, about what an HMO type plan with caps would cost me. I just can't afford to bank that extra $200 per month against a maybe illness this year, and probably not next year.
We do pay other taxes though, like GST (5%), PST (7% in BC) and a little more for booze, cigs and gas (I save about $12 on a fill up when I drive across the line).
We don't even have a choice, we're obliged to do so. If we don't pay for it we risk gettin a fine. I have to pay about 110 Euro's a month, and it doesn't cover everything.
Dam, I'm paying twice that ($350) and my business matches it, and that doesn't cover everything, plus I have deductables and copay. And I'm one of the lucky ones.
I do have insurance, and my company offers domestic partner benefits. The funny thing is that both the federal and state government do not recognize it as a legitimate benefit, so they will not give the usual tax break to the employer, and also charge me taxes on what they calculate to be the benefit amount. I actually pay more in taxes for this benefit than my employer charges me. Seems strange that the government would rather my partner (who is disabled) be getting coverage from the state than recognize the possibility of any legitimacy of our relationship.
[2 points]4 years ago by PhxMikeReplyEdited 4 years ago by PhxMike
If you and your partner were to go to California and get married, would your state then recognise your relationship as a legitimate union? I don't know how that works across state lines.
United States
Sort of. Covers part of most everything, all of nothing, has pretty low lifetime limits for anything serious.
no-cant afford it.
If you file part of your income on a Schedule C, and by any stretch of imagination that work can be considered art, check out Fractured Atlas. That's how I got insured. Their packages are best in New York, but they offer SOMETHING in every state.
Thanks, but all I have is SS--not old enough for Medicare.
????
This is an artist's organization that uses collective bargaining in the form of membership to get self-employed artists group health care. I'm not old enough for Medicare either.
Everyone does, here.
Thanks for providing me with this opportunity to grow as a human being by not hating you...;)
Or by constantly mentioning it!!
Bravo!
I voted no in the sense of the American system style of health insurance with private agencies, which I thought the question implies. But up here in Canada with our health care system being run by the government I would say yes because everyone is included.
Same here. We pay something called National Insurance which basically goes towards healthcare and benefits. Oh yeah, and the um, state pension, such as it is.
Out of curiousity, could you tell me what percentage of your paycheck goes to taxes?
It's roughly just under 25%, but that includes our National Insurance contribution. Tax on it's own is 22% of your basic income, assuming you earn below a certain amount, it then goes up to 40% plus National Insurance.
Incidentally, not only do we pay out of our paycheck an amount for insurance, but our employers make a contribution also. These laws came about in an initial form some time in the early 1900's initially to protect people who worked in service to the aristocracy who made up a large amount of the workforce. Oddly, the workers themselves opposed it fearing it would mean they lost their jobs.
Here it is: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm
Hmm. I'm paying roughly 28% of my taxable earnings to taxes, and then must pay an additional 10% of my total earnings for health insurance (which - I am lucky, btw - is matched by my employer). AND my health insurance doesn't cover everything, only a portion of expenses, plus I need to meet deductables and copays. I think I like your system better.
Yeah, I'm going to have to say, that seems pretty pants to me. It's like I have said before, it really isn't a perfect system and you can wait a while for non-urgent care but it's there when you need it, and it seems, quite a bit cheaper too.
What is the average wage there??
Good question. I think it's about £22,000 or thereabouts, the ONS website was not helpful in giving up that information. Think thats roughly...40-45,000 USD.
Dead average here is about 40,000 USD.
I pay about 22% of my income in taxes and another 25% in healthcare premiums. Last year i made just under $20,0000, but this year should be back up to $25,0000 or $28,000.
*insert expletive*
I just don't get why people would be against a universal healthcare system based on contributions when these are the sorts of amounts getting paid out. How are people supposed to live?
Thank you for saying that.
I make just over $40,000 a year. I could be earning more, but I'm the sole caregiver for my mother, and since my business is seasonal, I get to spend some of the year working from home, which is good for her. I fret alot because I feel like I'm being asked to make a choice between her welfare and my paycheck.
It totally sucks that you're put in that position, as if being a caregiver isn't difficult enough without extra pressures. I am honestly at a loss to understand opposition to a different system. I have had fairly heated discussions elsewhere with people who are opposed to the whole concept. The fact is that it's not a handout, most of the population would contribute, just not the inflated premiums that, as someone else pointed out, the profit-hungry insurance companies demand.
It's years of brainwashing to make people believe that socialization of services equals communism. There is a perception that EVERYTHING has to be for profit, which is why our healthcare system sucks and 700,000 people a year cite medical costs as the cause for their bankruptcy. Something like 73% of those people started out insured when they fell ill.
Frightening statistic.
This comment was deleted.
[4 points] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyThey're not. And it's somehow their fault if they can't. We have perfected blaming the victim here. It's like you deserve bad things because bad things happen to you--like some medieval sign of God's displeasure.
I've often wondered this. Last year I paid about $15.8K on an income of $72K, or about 22% (I'm married with 2 kids). If I include my RRSP deduction then it was 17%. What would an American in the same income bracket pay? Seems to me if I'm also getting $10K worth of health benefits then I'm a lot better off living in Canada.
Hard to say...there is federal, and then state taxes. Your taxable basis is determined by the IRS and is all income minus certain credits. There is a standard deduction, but at your income level you would probably fill out a schedule A to increase your deduction. Also, you have to remember a lot of jobs here only meet a portion (if any) of your healthcare expenses, so you are matching their payments...figure for your family maybe $500 a month? Maybe someone out there with a similar income could help you...or you could try going to http://www.irs.gov and filling out a 1040.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplySome of the high-deductible plans are actually better. My carrier offers one--premium about $125 American per month, $5000 deductible, certain exceptions for preventative care. After that $5000 is spent, 100% of everything is covered, no caps. That works out to a premium of about $550 per month, about what an HMO type plan with caps would cost me. I just can't afford to bank that extra $200 per month against a maybe illness this year, and probably not next year.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyWe do pay other taxes though, like GST (5%), PST (7% in BC) and a little more for booze, cigs and gas (I save about $12 on a fill up when I drive across the line).
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplySales tax in NYC is 8.75%.
We don't even have a choice, we're obliged to do so. If we don't pay for it we risk gettin a fine. I have to pay about 110 Euro's a month, and it doesn't cover everything.
We're paying 21,75 € a month and it covers pretty much everything (well, you still have to wait few months for operations, but that's it).
Capone Wow, thats 173$., is that for a fimaly or just you?
Our Medical Services Plan premiums are $108 per month for a family of 3 or more, which in my case are paid by my employer.
Premium assistance is available if you make less than $28,000 a year - less than $20,000, then they subsidize the full amount.
http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoben/premium.html
Dam, I'm paying twice that ($350) and my business matches it, and that doesn't cover everything, plus I have deductables and copay. And I'm one of the lucky ones.
In Slovenia everyone has it. It's mandatory - at least basic health insurance. There are also other 'extra' types of health insurances.
I do but dont really need it...( Mandatory sucks...)
Yet.
I do have insurance, and my company offers domestic partner benefits. The funny thing is that both the federal and state government do not recognize it as a legitimate benefit, so they will not give the usual tax break to the employer, and also charge me taxes on what they calculate to be the benefit amount. I actually pay more in taxes for this benefit than my employer charges me. Seems strange that the government would rather my partner (who is disabled) be getting coverage from the state than recognize the possibility of any legitimacy of our relationship.
If you and your partner were to go to California and get married, would your state then recognise your relationship as a legitimate union? I don't know how that works across state lines.
No, we could get married in California, but the federal and state governments other than California would not recognize it.
It's just not fair really is it...
I think NY State will...Governor Patterson said the law here sez they will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_York
For now, anyway...
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user Reply