[me-vs-cat]

> Wtf is that $400 price for then?

Insurance: "Look how much we saved you! (Don't question our value.)"

And maybe even the medical provider being able to write off the difference as a business loss or being able to say: "Look how much we discounted your service!"

[lannisterstark]

This only matters to end user if they actually pay for insurance themselves. If their employer covers it (as mine does), I don't think they care that much how much their insurance 'saved' them if the net cost ends up being $0.

[me-vs-cat]

Very, very few employers offer an insurance plan without any employee premium. And I would be shocked if those insurance companies didn't highlight to the employer how much was "saved".

Even those employers that do pay 100% of the insurance premium could have paid more to their workers if the insurance costs were less.

[lannisterstark]

I do see the "employers could have paid you more if they didn't pay 100% premiums" all the time but has it actually ever been true?

Not trying to fight, I've just never seen it.

[me-vs-cat]

Employers who pay less on benefits (pay less health insurance premium, pay fewer vacation days, pay less FICA, etc.) have more cash available. They could use that to pay higher salaries. I'm sure you've heard and that you actually do take into consideration the "full compensation package" when evaluating one job against another.

Also not trying to fight. "Could have paid you more" does actually happen in the right type of competitive environment -- though most employers are more likely to avoid direct salary increases to instead increase other parts of the "full compensation package". It's relatively much easier to later reduce those other things than it is to reduce direct salary, if things go sideways down the road.

[peteradio]

Sounds like some kind of fraud assuming you are correct.

[me-vs-cat]

> Sounds like some kind of fraud

Well, that's one way to characterize tax laws, sure. The American healthcare system too, for that matter.