>>>I pay $36 per month for public health insurance. Note this is not mandatory, but so cheap that almost everyone pays it. My income tax rate is 31% (Federal 22% + 9%). Could you post your month costs (insurance plus out of pocket) for health care plus your income tax rate? If what you are saying is true, then you should be spending less than me.
>>
>>UPDATE:
>>I wanted to update my post to make sure I'm being accurate. Prior to getting married I was paying $70/mo out of pocket for my own (company pays most, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to reveal the exact number). Now that I'm married I will start paying $246/mo for both of us ($123/ea). Certain known yearly medical costs (doctor's visits, prescriptions, etc) are known to me so I set aside pre-tax dollars in a medical savings account. I am in the 33%(fed)+9.3%(CA) bracket so each $1 set aside saves me $0.423 in income taxes. That savings more than makes up for my monthly out of pocket costs.
>>
>>-- Previously posted below
>>Before I was married my out of pocket share was around $50/mo. Now its around $150. However, I do get above the line tax savings by contributing to a medical savings account. The tax savings from that deduction makes my monthly out of pocket cost effectively $0.
>
>You've just shown that you would save a bunch money with universal medical insurance. So ideology aside, it just makes sense. A country doesn't have to have a public medical system, but having public insurance goes a long way to not only help with cost issues, but helping people that wouldn't otherwise be covered.

Last time I checked $0 < $36. Maybe you're using new math but that's how I was taught.

Now if you're just comparing out of pocket costs while disregarding my medical account savings, then please provide the percentage of income tax that your government spends on the universal health care system. This figure must be taken into account before we can compare like numbers.