[grecy]

Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful reply.

> It is an effective enticement to have a good benefit plan, hence the interview question.

A better enticement is to divorce health coverage and employment 100%. They should have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Imagine if the employer in Canada dictated where I can live, or what goods I can buy... that's how it feels for me when the employer dictates(or in fact has anything what-so-ever to do with) my health care.

> Keep in mind that self management also presents a fair amount of improperly covered people.

Those people are covered by Canada's public health care, which is exactly what it is there for.

> At least under an employer sponsored plan a trained professional is designing a plan that meets as many of the needs of the employer's workplace as they feel is required.

You are still not even accepting the option of no extended plan at all.

The number of people in Australia that opt for extended private care is small, because the public option is sufficient.

[run4yourlives]

>They should have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Says the healthy young guy. :-) Many people receive extended benefits at a significant cost advantage through group insurance.

Also most employers pay a significant portion (if not all) of the premium of these benefits! You and I may see a health questionnaire as a simple form where you answer "no" to everything and sign it, but many, many people not much older than you aren't able to do that.

>Imagine if the employer in Canada dictated where I can live, or what goods I can buy...

Um, your employer does dictate where you can live, since most roles expect you to come to a structure of the employer's choosing, and what you can buy through your paycheck. Regardless, there is no dictation here at all. You are being offered benefits, often paid at least in part by the employer as a condition of employment. It's like being offered a cell phone or a car allowance.

>You are still not even accepting the option of no extended plan at all.

As I already stated, this option does exist and IS USED. In almost any company of significant size (i.e. above 10 employees or so) you can refuse all coverage. All you have to do is do so with a written form. You can do so for Health and Dental in ALL cases if you are expected to pay the premium and have coverage elsewhere, inclusive of personal coverage.

Why in god's name you would turn down what in many cases is free money is beyond me, but that is your prerogative. To suggest you are unable to do so in Canada is incorrect.

[grecy]

> It's like being offered a cell phone or a car allowance.

Which reduces your overall salary - you might not be aware of it, and it might not be said in those terms, but it's absolutely true. All "side benefits" or "perks" of employment are just a way for the employer to give you something other than money. Too bad if the last thing you want is a cell phone.

> Why in god's name you would turn down what in many cases is free money is beyond me, but that is your prerogative.

Because it's not free money! My salary is being docked for that expense, as the "benefits overhead" (my company told me to my face it's about 26%). I'm perfectly happy with the public coverage, and want the rest of my salary in my hand, thank you.

[run4yourlives]

At this point though, you are evaluating employers, not health care systems.

It's pretty easy to find an employer in Canada that offers no benefit plan at all, just stay away from larger companies.

Most privately run businesses would be more than happy contracting you at a higher rate and not paying you any additional benefits, or their share of CPP or EI. They are a significant expense to the company. Go get yourself a GST number and have at 'er.

Seriously, if this is that much of an issue for you, you should talk to your boss. I can pretty much guarantee they'd be more than happy to work something out with you.

[grecy]

> you are evaluating employers, not health care systems.

No I'm not. One health care system outright makes that illegal, so it's the health care system defining this, not the employers.

On that note, have you ever lived&worked in a system other than Canada's?

I ask, because you think Canada is "right on the money" with their system... though it makes me think you've not seen how other systems do it.

Don't get me wrong, Canada's system is good, but if I were in a country about to radically overhaul health care, I would by no means adopt Canada's system as-is (or any other single country, for that matter)

> if this is that much of an issue for you

You miss the point here thinking this is about me... The overall effect on society is very interesting and speaks volumes about a given system. Without a doubt, because of this "group plan" idea, Canadians are tied much more strongly to their employer, and that results in employees being treated worse, and overall a "negative" impact on those around me.

I don't like that about Canada's way of doing it.