7 ms·

Disclaimer: I work in the health insurance industry in Canada, for a Third Party Provider. Canada and Australia are basically the same, but in Canada there is

Disclaimer: I work in the health insurance industry in Canada, for a Third Party Provider. Canada and Australia are basically the same, but in Canada there is a default understanding that most employers will help to sponsor an extended health/insurance plan. I see no real issue with this, as it certainly does NOT mean they in any way control your options. As healthcare becomes increasingly expensive, the ability for employers to offer this benefit is degraded. None of that prevents you from doing what you want in terms of extra coverage though. Most full time jobs that are also considered "careers" will offer some form of insurance benefits, and that usually includes health care. Aside from cost, the benefits of Group Insurance is that there are no pre-existing condition exceptions. You have guaranteed acceptance as a nature of your employment. This is a huge upside for people that aren't prefect medical specimens, and as a result employer offered extended coverage is significantly cheaper for the individual. As I said you are starting to see changes mainly due to demographics and cost increases. The switch to Flex benefits, health spending accounts and such will see more "individualization" of health care costs in the future. Personally, I think HSA's are the best possible way to offer extended health benefits to employees, and I expect they will grow in popularity; analogous to what RRSP's have done to pension plans. I find giving my employer power over my healthcare You simply don't do this in Canada, although many people do have that impression. Example: Me. I have my government health care, my employer health care that I pay a portion of, and some extra private care that I elect to pay for.

grecy 13y ago
I think you and I have discussed this before on HN. >I see no real issue with this, as it certainly does NOT mean they in any way control your options. Of course it does. In Canada I'm looking at moving jobs right now, and one of the things I'm weighing up is the health benefits now vs. the new position. I also would love to take 2 years off work to pursue my photography and writing passions, but I worry what I'll do without my company paying my my group plan. My options are without question controlled by my employer. In Australia, that is not so. > Aside from cost, the benefits of Group Insurance is that there are no pre-existing condition exceptions. You have guaranteed acceptance as a nature of your employment. If the care provided by my taxes was sufficient (as it is in Australia) there would be no pre-existing condition exceptions. In Australia, you have guaranteed acceptance as a nature of being born. > and as a result employer offered extended coverage is significantly cheaper for the individual. You've been tricked into thinking group plans are cheaper... if the government was buying a group plan for everyone, it would be drastically cheaper again. > Personally, I think HSA's are the best possible way to offer extended health benefits to employees Why do health benefits need to be offered to employees? Why only offer them to a subset of the population, that is, those with jobs? Surely it's better to offer them to everyone.
- run4yourlives 13y ago
  My options are without question controlled by my employer. Eh? Google search "Private Insurance Canada" and tell me how your healthcare is "controlled" by your employer. This is like suggesting your employer "controls" how you can use your car because they offer you free parking. >If the care provided by my taxes was sufficient How is Canada's healthcare not sufficient, exactly? >You've been tricked into thinking group plans are cheaper.. Erm, remember that part where I said I was in the industry? Yeah, I know they are on the average cheaper. Plans vary though, of course, but pooling is a significant part of insurance. In 99% of cases, a pool of white collar office workers performs better than a pool of everyone. >Why do health benefits need to be offered to employees? They don't. That's why they call them benefits. >Why only offer them to a subset of the population We don't. Canada has universal health care and extended insurance is available for everyone that wants to pay for it. >Surely it's better to offer them to everyone. They are. The idea that every possible health problem and treatment that one can conceive of should be offered to everyone for free is about as dumb as saying someone should pay for everything themselves. Extended benefits are for services that we've already determined are "extras" to basic, guaranteed health care. I'm not sure you have a strong understanding of the purpose of our system to be honest.
  - grecy 13y ago
    > I'm not sure you have a strong understanding of the purpose of our system to be honest. I've been here for 7 years, I think I have a pretty good understanding. I'm just not expressing to you well enough what I mean. I know Canada has health care for all, and I know you can optionally buy more with your own money. Great. All I'm saying is I wish employers were not involved in buying it for me. Healthcare should be divorced from employment for a whole range of reasons. Go and live in a country where healthcare and employment have nothing to do with each other and you'll see what I mean. I'm not just talking about me either, I'm talking about my friends, neighbors, workmates. Their options are all limited because they don't want to change employer because of the health benefits.
    - inafield 13y ago
sinnerswing 13y ago
Socialized health care might work in Canada (pop. 34.48 million) or Australia (pop. 22.32 million), but it will never work in the US (pop. 313.9 million). It's way too expensive. US federal spending for both Medicare/Medicaid is already 23% (Social Security is 22%) of the federal budget in 2012. You want to add another unfunded entitlement program that will cost tax payers $4-$6 trillion? Here's a little fun fact: Canada and Australia's GDP COMBINED won't be enough to pay for Obamacare. "How Obamacare Will Further Explode the Deficit" http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/06/16/how-obamacare-will-further-explode-the-deficit/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/06/16/how-obam... "CBO: Obamacare to Cost $1.930 Trillion, Leave 30 Million Uninsured" http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-cost-1930-trillion-leave-30-million-uninsured_649066.html http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-cost-1930-...
- grecy 13y ago
  I hear this argument all the time and it's complete nonsense. Yes, America has a large population, but that means it also has a very large number of taxpayers, therefore an enormous budget. If anything, economies of scale mean America can provide health care at a lower per capita cost than smaller countries. Your argument is such nonsense it suggests that merely dividing America up into 10 countries each of 30 million would mean it could provide healthcare at a more affordable rate. Nonsensical at best.
  - sinnerswing 13y ago
    >Yes, America has a large population, but that means it also has a very large number of taxpayers, therefore an enormous budget. I don't blame you if you think this way. You're canadian. You don't know wtf you're talking about. ;) 1. Not everyone in the US has a job. More than 23 million Americans are unemployed/underemployed.[1] And are therefore paying very little/not paying taxes. A large population means a large pool of tax payers, and an even larger pool of non-tax payers. 2. Income inequality. The middle-class/rich are paying more taxes."CNN: The rich pay majority of U.S. income taxes"[2] The top 10% earners of this country already pays more than 70% of all the income taxes. 3. Entitlements are already killing the US economy. 62% of the federal budget goes to entitlement.[3] Where are you going to get the $4-$6 trillion to pay for Obamacare??? OH RIGHT, 4 straight years of trillion dollar deficit under Obama. The government is already borrowing money to pay for existing entitlements![4]OR tax wealthy people! (those earning more than $250K under Obama's plan). you are laughably uninformed about the issues regarding entitlements in America. [1]http://www.cnbc.com/id/49450120 http://www.cnbc.com/id/49450120 [2]http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/inde... [3]http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spe... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_Sta...

grecy 13y ago

I think you and I have discussed this before on HN. >I see no real issue with this, as it certainly does NOT mean they in any way control your options. Of course it does. In Canada I'm looking at moving jobs right now, and one of the things I'm weighing up is the health benefits now vs. the new position. I also would love to take 2 years off work to pursue my photography and writing passions, but I worry what I'll do without my company paying my my group plan. My options are without question controlled by my employer. In Australia, that is not so. > Aside from cost, the benefits of Group Insurance is that there are no pre-existing condition exceptions. You have guaranteed acceptance as a nature of your employment. If the care provided by my taxes was sufficient (as it is in Australia) there would be no pre-existing condition exceptions. In Australia, you have guaranteed acceptance as a nature of being born. > and as a result employer offered extended coverage is significantly cheaper for the individual. You've been tricked into thinking group plans are cheaper... if the government was buying a group plan for everyone, it would be drastically cheaper again. > Personally, I think HSA's are the best possible way to offer extended health benefits to employees Why do health benefits need to be offered to employees? Why only offer them to a subset of the population, that is, those with jobs? Surely it's better to offer them to everyone.

run4yourlives 13y ago
My options are without question controlled by my employer. Eh? Google search "Private Insurance Canada" and tell me how your healthcare is "controlled" by your employer. This is like suggesting your employer "controls" how you can use your car because they offer you free parking. >If the care provided by my taxes was sufficient How is Canada's healthcare not sufficient, exactly? >You've been tricked into thinking group plans are cheaper.. Erm, remember that part where I said I was in the industry? Yeah, I know they are on the average cheaper. Plans vary though, of course, but pooling is a significant part of insurance. In 99% of cases, a pool of white collar office workers performs better than a pool of everyone. >Why do health benefits need to be offered to employees? They don't. That's why they call them benefits. >Why only offer them to a subset of the population We don't. Canada has universal health care and extended insurance is available for everyone that wants to pay for it. >Surely it's better to offer them to everyone. They are. The idea that every possible health problem and treatment that one can conceive of should be offered to everyone for free is about as dumb as saying someone should pay for everything themselves. Extended benefits are for services that we've already determined are "extras" to basic, guaranteed health care. I'm not sure you have a strong understanding of the purpose of our system to be honest.
- grecy 13y ago
  > I'm not sure you have a strong understanding of the purpose of our system to be honest. I've been here for 7 years, I think I have a pretty good understanding. I'm just not expressing to you well enough what I mean. I know Canada has health care for all, and I know you can optionally buy more with your own money. Great. All I'm saying is I wish employers were not involved in buying it for me. Healthcare should be divorced from employment for a whole range of reasons. Go and live in a country where healthcare and employment have nothing to do with each other and you'll see what I mean. I'm not just talking about me either, I'm talking about my friends, neighbors, workmates. Their options are all limited because they don't want to change employer because of the health benefits.
  - inafield 13y ago

sinnerswing 13y ago

Socialized health care might work in Canada (pop. 34.48 million) or Australia (pop. 22.32 million), but it will never work in the US (pop. 313.9 million). It's way too expensive. US federal spending for both Medicare/Medicaid is already 23% (Social Security is 22%) of the federal budget in 2012. You want to add another unfunded entitlement program that will cost tax payers $4-$6 trillion? Here's a little fun fact: Canada and Australia's GDP COMBINED won't be enough to pay for Obamacare. "How Obamacare Will Further Explode the Deficit" http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/06/16/how-obamacare-will-further-explode-the-deficit/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/06/16/how-obam... "CBO: Obamacare to Cost $1.930 Trillion, Leave 30 Million Uninsured" http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-cost-1930-trillion-leave-30-million-uninsured_649066.html http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-cost-1930-...

grecy 13y ago
I hear this argument all the time and it's complete nonsense. Yes, America has a large population, but that means it also has a very large number of taxpayers, therefore an enormous budget. If anything, economies of scale mean America can provide health care at a lower per capita cost than smaller countries. Your argument is such nonsense it suggests that merely dividing America up into 10 countries each of 30 million would mean it could provide healthcare at a more affordable rate. Nonsensical at best.
- sinnerswing 13y ago
  >Yes, America has a large population, but that means it also has a very large number of taxpayers, therefore an enormous budget. I don't blame you if you think this way. You're canadian. You don't know wtf you're talking about. ;) 1. Not everyone in the US has a job. More than 23 million Americans are unemployed/underemployed.[1] And are therefore paying very little/not paying taxes. A large population means a large pool of tax payers, and an even larger pool of non-tax payers. 2. Income inequality. The middle-class/rich are paying more taxes."CNN: The rich pay majority of U.S. income taxes"[2] The top 10% earners of this country already pays more than 70% of all the income taxes. 3. Entitlements are already killing the US economy. 62% of the federal budget goes to entitlement.[3] Where are you going to get the $4-$6 trillion to pay for Obamacare??? OH RIGHT, 4 straight years of trillion dollar deficit under Obama. The government is already borrowing money to pay for existing entitlements![4]OR tax wealthy people! (those earning more than $250K under Obama's plan). you are laughably uninformed about the issues regarding entitlements in America. [1]http://www.cnbc.com/id/49450120 http://www.cnbc.com/id/49450120 [2]http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/inde... [3]http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spe... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_Sta...