Federal dental plan | Page 3 | Your stories | Discussion forum

AltaRed said

Alexandre said

savemoresaveoften said
I think the cutoff for this is set at $90k ? That is way too generous in my mind. If

This is family net income. For married couple, each will need to be at just $45K to lose dental benefit, which is quite close to your proposed $40K per person.

So what? Why should the taxpayer be subsidizing family net income at the $90k income level? That is about median family incomes in Canada per StatsCan.  

1. You do realize, hopefully, that no solution will satisfy everyone. Pick any net income number you want, and even if it is zero (i.e., no benefit for virtually anyone at all) - someone would argue against that number.

2. "The basket of services will closely reflect the federal health benefits program for registered First Nations and Inuit people" they say. In my opinion it would be fair to set the same maximum threshold income level for everyone else. If you could find what it is for these two groups, and if it is less than $90K for family income, you'll have a good point. At least, for the fairness of that dental benefit.

I just ran Canadian tax calculator, the first I could find. For an individual (not married, no dependents) making $90,000 annually in employment income their total tax will be $23,000.

Federal budget allocated $500 per year in dental benefit for that person, on average. To put it differently, that person paid $23,000 in taxes for $500 dental tax credit.

You got it wrong: it is not some other taxpayers subsidizing individual with $90,000 employment income, it is that individual that subsidizes others through his/her taxes. Saying that someone who paid to government coffers $23,000 does not deserve measly $500 back is, indeed, socialist view on taxation gone amok.
The irony of you despising socialism and taking its side simultaneously.

None of it is socialism. Socialism is when means of production are owned by the state. In our system the wealth is generated by banks, mining companies, engineering companies, dentists and others. These firms, all these RBCs and Enbridges are privately owned. The wealth private industries generate allows for the government to spend on healthcare, etc.

What we do have is a high welfare system running amok and spending well beyond its means even before the new dental benefits. State collects larger and larger share of wealth, borrows more and more, thus killing incentives to work hard and produce. This new handout is one in a long row of handouts and shouldn’t be considered in isolation. This makes it tempting for highly educated hard working earners to take a step back, work less, retire early and enjoy the benefits rather than work.

We already reached a point when productivity is declining and this is going to accelerate the process. As a result the “pot” available for handouts will continue declining and at some point we’ll hit a crisis when basic services will no longer be available. Basic healthcare among them. But we’ll have very clean teeth.

serendipity said
Hopefully you can submit your claim directly to Sun Life vs allowing the dental office to submit electronically.

That way I can use my cash back credit card to pay and NOT allow my dental office to be aware of my family income.  

If you are enrolled you will get a physical card (similar to your health card), which would be presented at the dental office. The dental office would then bill Sun Life directly.

The dental office will not know your specific annual income. But they will know that your income is under/over $70k and up to $90k depending on how much coverage you are entitled to.

Loonie said
If you are THAT worried about your dentist having a vague idea of your income, then don't subscribe to the plan.
Much ado about very little.  

Yeah...and really, if a dentist for some perverse reason really wanted to know how much a patient made, it wouldn't be that difficult by looking at their job title, employer, etc.

But I can't imagine any (mentally healthy) dentist doing something like this.

The only thing I can see here is some dentists gold plating some services because they will be covered by insurance. But this isn't something exclusive to dentists. MDs do it as well. Heck, some vets are notorious for it...I remember once many years ago casually mentioning to my vet that I had insurance for my cat, and she instantly perked up and the whole dynamic changed. I ended up switching vets because it was so odious.

mordko said
None of it is socialism ... State collects larger and larger share of wealth, borrows more and more, thus killing incentives to work hard and produce.

Right, just like someone recently said here: people prefer to work 40 hours and collect government benefits instead of working 60 hours and losing them.

What kind of society it is, where people are not incentivized to work themselves to death? Not true capitalism, that's for sure.

mordko said

You’ll know its true socialism when the supermarket shelves are completely empty.

You mean, like on that photo taken in August 2023.

If text is too small to read, it starts with "We are experiencing supply challenges..."

mordko said
... shelves are completely empty ... permanently and everywhere ... 

OK, I'll bite. The year is 1975. How do Soviet people living in big cities, working 8 hours a day at factories, feed themselves every day? By photosynthesis?

savemoresaveoften: As Alexandre noted, the proposed federal $90K cutoff is per family, not per person. And for elderly patients, even with all the subsidies/payouts they MAY qualify for, dental expenses can easily dwarf them and the $500 benefit. A single bridge cost me a sudden $4,000 this year, a cleaning $250, an extraction $212.

I have never had or spoken to a dentist that charges half-price for uninsured patients. They use the fee guides, though SOME will knock 10% off for the elderly. (Two told me they dropped that discount because of COVID-19 patients not coming in.) I don't know for sure what they charge the insured, though. It was back in 1991 that I was briefly covered by an employer dental plan, and at the time the charge was strictly at the fee guide level.

mordko: The USA, which boasts of "lower waiting times," had 16+% uninsured citizens before the Affordable Care Act, which made a HUGE difference. I found this:

http://www.statista.com/topics.....-insurance

Caveat: some of the uninsured, in some states, can get minimal care at charity or public emergency rooms. Medicare (elderly) patients are already included in the "insured" category.

WHO statistics indicate that the most generous AND fair universal medical plans are found in the countries with the lowest income inequality. Those places don't motivate their richest to get out of their health plans. (The Scientific American reporting is behind a paywall. I get the hard-copy magazine.)

Canadians have a hard time finding family doctors, but they still have coverage. The unlimited fees for non-covered services and higher pay rates for specialists make family practice unappealing to new graduates.

High-income Canadians are not motivated to "step back" from work: they get far more from each quantum of work than almost all other Canadians and are still greatly motivated. Remember that our top tax bracket, in my youth, was 80%!

It's the people working for peanuts who are less motivated to put in the extra effort.

AltaRed: Not all Canadians will be using all their $500 credit.

"Just like OAS should start to be clawed back (not fully clawed back necessarily) at far less than $90k, so should other social programs not be available to those earning at that income level."

It is. The clawback begins at $70K, a measly $35K minus taxes and child-raising per person in a two-parent family.