[run4yourlives]

>You've been tricked by marketing, and you're eating it up.

Um, no... I've seen the actuarial tables, understand them and program systems to support them for the industry. Unless you are in exceptional health and remain so, group insurance is by far the better deal in most cases. That's why employers offer it!

Please just concede this point until you actually understand how actuarial science works. There are indeed some bad deals out there (looking at you flex plans), but group vs. individual insurance isn't one of them.

> it's coming out of your salary, and the choices are being made for you.

No, not really. This may be true of your specific plan but many plans are 100% employer paid. Employers offer benefit plans in lieu of salary because there are different tax breaks and such associated with not paying salary directly - ei and cpp contributions, for instance. If an employer pays you $300 a month in benefits it does NOT mean that they could pay you $300 more in salary and it would be a wash.

>"Employees in Australia are treated much better than Employees in Canada.

That may be, and I'm sure it varies greatly by industry and other variables... but that isn't at all what we are discussing here, is it?

[grecy]

The parent comment we're replying to, and the highest rated comment in this thread starts with:

> Linking basic health care to employment as a default is ridiculously stupid.

People are agreeing with that, and I'm saying it also applies to extended healthcare.

My argument: health and employment should be divorced.

Your argument: you get a better deal when they are connected.

I think you're being naive because you're being tricked by marketing and the current system and rules. If they entire system were overhauled to divorce them, there is no reason it needs to cost more to buy as an individual. I ask you - how much profit are health care providers making in Canada under the current system? With those billions in profit, surely there is room to change the pricing scheme so it doesn't cost more for individuals.

[run4yourlives]

I made the parent comment. I also pointed out as to why employers offering extended services works in the very next sentence. You are providing no real evidence to the contrary other than the fact that Australia doesn't do it. Apples to oranges.

There is no viable reason why employers should be banned outright from offering extended benefits as a condition of employment to compete for talent.

If they entire system were overhauled to divorce them, there is no reason it needs to cost more to buy as an individual.

This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of actuarial science, which is the basis of all insurance. See Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuarial_science

A simplistic example: Employer A, hiring white collar office workers will get better rates when they say that they won't hire someone that is a (for example) a pilot, so the insurance company excludes all pilots from the base tables they use to rate the group. You as an individual don't get this luxury. You use a larger pool of people, but they aren't predefined as much into your own lifestyle subset, ergo, you don't get the benefit of lower rates. Even better, your employer's annual renewal actually takes into account the actual experience of your company directly. So, if everyone in your office sees the doctor one less time this year over last, your rates go down. You don't get this benefit in individual insurance - the pool is just too big to make a meaningful difference to a single data point.

At any rate, HN comments is not the right environment to teach someone actuarial math. Read the link for more details.

how much profit are health care providers making in Canada under the current system?

The nice thing about using math is that everything is out in the open. Profit on insurance premium is actually pretty low - in the 5-10% range. It's strength though is that it is entirely predictable, so it is rare that the profit is suddenly a loss. Insurance companies make most of their money through selling services and via investments.

My conclusion here is that although well intentioned, I think you are entirely ignorant of the topic at hand.

[grecy]

> I made the parent comment.

D'oh, I didn't see that.

> Linking basic health care to employment as a default is ridiculously stupid. There is no real relation between a person's health and their job. Basic health care needs to be connected to the individual, while "extended health care" (or additional options, etc) can certainly be offered as a benefit.

I put it to you that no white collar (and a chunk of Blue collar) employers in Canada don't give "extended health care" as part of employment.. which is to say the basic health care provided in Canada is not sufficient for those people. They need those extras. For those people to have sufficient coverage, their healthcare is now tied to their employment, which you yourself said is "ridiculously stupid". There is no moral justification for this, only the monetary one (which I'll address below)

> There is no viable reason why employers should be banned outright from offering extended benefits as a condition of employment to compete for talent.

There absolutely is when those extended benefits are required to live at an acceptable standard for lots of people, which essentially makes them basic benefits, just using different semantics.

Of course, the Canadian government only wants to scale-back the basic benefits and increase the public's reliance on "extended health care", thus transitioning the system to more closely match the current US system, where if you don't have a job with "extended health care", your health care sucks.

> Interestingly enough, a socialized (single payer/universal, etc.) system of basic health care with privatized add on's and extras is basically the way every civilized society on the planet operates

Yep, and Canada is one of the few where your employer gets to stick it's nose into those add on's and extras, which is, as you say "ridiculously stupid"

> This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of actuarial science, which is the basis of all insurance. See Here: ...

It's very interesting to me that I'm talking about trying to increase the standard of living, freedom of choice, and people's HEALTH, and you're constantly talking about bean counting, expenses and accounting.

It's sad that you actually work in the health industry in Canada, and you're more interested in schooling me on basic accounting principles than having a discussion on how the system could be modified to actually increase people's standard of living.

That's exactly what's wrong with the American system - accounting is more important than health care - and you're so far into the Canadian system you can't even see you're justifying the way in which Canadian system is doing the same thing on the basis of accounting.