[andyt]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

They don't deduct anything from your pay for this plan?

I pay a nominal fee per paycheck due to the number of dependents I have and the fact that I took the company "gold plan".

Don't mind because I have utilized far more in services (for one dependent never mind the three combined) than the fee has cost me.

Kids are bloody expensive.

$1:

I mean what's to stop your employer from padding his profits by lowering your wages or removing your health plan right now? They're balancing their profit with wanting to attract good workers.

The company couldn't swallow the exodus that would result.

EXactly. So if the govt took this over, your company couldn't handle the exodus to companies that returned their savings in the form of higher wages.

[herbie]

What? Companies aren't in business to SAVE YOU MONEY?

[Regina]

This has been the model for years and someone just figured it out? They get a percentage of the total health spend and it's really not to their advantage to see reduced costs and rising premiums. These people aren't all that thrilled when someone comes to them and says they can get the same for their clients but at a cheaper cost. They got a good hair cut when the provinces reduced the price for generic drugs, which they weren't a big fan of to start with.

[Regina]

andyt andyt:

EXactly. So if the govt took this over, your company couldn't handle the exodus to companies that returned their savings in the form of higher wages.

That all sounds like kittens and rainbows in your world andy but what happens the following year if there's higher health spends? Take away the wages? And if there's another the following year? Sounds kind of dumb... right.

[BeaverFever]

People will quit their job over pay, but they won't quit their job over benefits (or lack thereof). And if this benefits suddenly became government-paid, don't expect employers to automatically start handing out windfall savings to employees, it would be a first.

[Regina]

I am in no way trying to protect these private health companies but another piece they offer is the life insurance benefit which you don't ever need.........well actually it's your family who gets it because you'll be gone. There's a cost and risk for that portion as well.

[BeaverFever]

Regina Regina:

I am in no way trying to protect these private health companies but another piece they offer is the life insurance benefit which you don't ever need.........well actually it's your family who gets it because you'll be gone. There's a cost and risk for that portion as well.

Well if you have a mortgage, funeral costs, etc. you probably want Life Insurance so that your demise doesn't drown your family in debt. Employers, if they are large enough and have any sophistication, can get better rates and savings by having a third-party consultant provide them expert advice and negotiate rates with their insurer.

My own employer does this, every few year we have the consultants review the plan's experience and demographics, and if the news is positive, we have the insurer lower life insurance/LTD premiums at the next contract window. This has worked pretty well for us in terms of getting rate reductions. The insurer complies because of the stated or implied threat of taking the business elsewhere, which the consultants are always more than happy to negotiate on our behalf.

My employer is also large enough that we can self-insure health care and dental, meaning that the employer pays the claims directly with its own money instead of paying premiums to an insurer; self-insured plans like this seem to be holding up well. Most large employers are self-insured for health and dental, although the employees themselves wouldn't know it since the insurance company still facilitates the payment transaction, but they pay the claim via direct debit from the employer's bank account.

G&M had a better article on this story:

$1:

The researchers found that, for group plans that serve small and medium-sized businesses, the percentage of premium revenue paid out in benefits dropped to 74 per cent in 2011 from 92 per cent in 1991 when adjusted for inflation, as all the figures in the analysis were.

For individual insurance plans, the figure dropped to 38 per cent in 2011 from 46 per cent in 1991.

There was one exception to the trend: Large corporations and organizations that self-insure, meaning that they pay an outside company only to administer their plans, saw their numbers improve slightly over the 20-year period.

In 2011, they paid out 95 per cent of their premium revenue in benefits, up from 94 per cent in 1991.

The people who really get hosed are those who buy individual (retail) plans, but that's because they are riskier to insure:

$1:

For individual insurance plans, the figure dropped to 38 per cent in 2011 from 46 per cent in 1991.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... e17645838/

[andyt]

Regina Regina:

andyt andyt:

EXactly. So if the govt took this over, your company couldn't handle the exodus to companies that returned their savings in the form of higher wages.

That all sounds like kittens and rainbows in your world andy but what happens the following year if there's higher health spends? Take away the wages? And if there's another the following year? Sounds kind of dumb... right.

WTF do you mean. The only issue is if the govt supplies this this coverage or private insurance. As has been shown, and been shown in the US, private is less efficient at it. So there's a savings to be had.

Now, extending the coverage to all Canadians, yes, that will add cost. So if your attitude is, fuck everybody else, I got mine, then yes, your reasoning makes sense.

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

But here's a way to save even more money for the govt - make all healthcare charges a taxable benefit. Ie you use the system the charges are treated as income and you pay taxes on it. So those actually using the system would pay more. Of course they'd have to be a limit on it, depending on your income.

Now that's a great idea if I've ever heard one.

You've got an aging population with a lot of them living on fixed incomes and you want to raise their taxes to pay for the right to be kept alive and knowing how all Gov'ts work, if you had a limit based on income it'd drive the ones with a moderate income over the line into poverty.

So who sets the ceiling anyway? The Federal Gov't, the Province because we know how well that'd work if it was the Province with Crispy in power. Anyone making over 1200 bucks a year would be paying.

But here's a thought. How about we cut all programs to drug addicts, alcoholics, welfare recipients and Vancouver East Side NDP politicians. Sounds about as fair as taxing the elderly for the privilege of being kept alive.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

taxing the elderly for the privilege of being kept alive.

Isn't that how our healthcare system works currently?

[andyt]

Some version of it is probably coming. People don't want to pay taxes, but health care costs keep rising, especially with an aging population. People are also asking why seniors are exempt from the MSP premium, and rightly so. Why should a senior with good pension income not pay while they use the system, while a lower income young worker has to pay? It's coming one way or another.

Cut the programs you mention, and good luck with that. Jail and hospitals cost way more than those programs, so unless you're willing to shoot them all it won't work. I'm sure the mess would even reach your little slice of heaven.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Why should a senior with good pension income not pay while they use the system, while a lower income young worker has to pay? It's coming one way or another.

I don't think this will be coming because of "good pension income" I think it will likely be coming beacuse the boomers will all be seniors and the rest of society won't be able to carry their weight. Also, many future seniors won't be able to afford to retire, if the concept of retirement isn't done away with altogether (see OAS age raised to 67, disappearing pension plans, etc.) so many seniors in the future will still be working and not on fixed income.

[Regina]

andyt andyt:

Regina Regina:

andyt andyt:

EXactly. So if the govt took this over, your company couldn't handle the exodus to companies that returned their savings in the form of higher wages.

That all sounds like kittens and rainbows in your world andy but what happens the following year if there's higher health spends? Take away the wages? And if there's another the following year? Sounds kind of dumb... right.

WTF do you mean. The only issue is if the govt supplies this this coverage or private insurance. As has been shown, and been shown in the US, private is less efficient at it. So there's a savings to be had.

Now, extending the coverage to all Canadians, yes, that will add cost. So if your attitude is, fuck everybody else, I got mine, then yes, your reasoning makes sense.

Well genius....where are the higher wages coming from?

[commanderkai]

People do realize that, although the American system is less efficient than ours, Europe is far more efficient with us, when they have a well established two-tiered health care system, correct?

Seriously, "COMPANIES MAKE PROFIT!" is not a good reason for us to suddenly nationalize the whole private health insurance industry in Canada. More critically, I'm somewhat skeptical where this theory that the government will handle this better.

[Freakinoldguy]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

taxing the elderly for the privilege of being kept alive.

Isn't that how our healthcare system works currently?

In a sense yes except it's spread out through a spectrum of society. But basing the price for health care on your age state of health and income is just plain wrong especially for the elderly. They, no matter what their current state of finances are have paid taxes for their health care from 1964 on and now you want them to pay again to use a system that they stockpiled their money in for just such an eventuality.

Beside your assumption that seniors will put up with this is crap, the boomers are just as narcissistic and self serving as the gen X, Y, or Z crowd so charging them twice for what they already paid for likely won't fly at all and income isn't the reason.

Just because the system has started to implode because of mismanagement, outrageous wages, lies and abuse it would be one hell of alot better to identify the problems and refine the system rather than try and force people to pay even more for something that they've already paid for.

Here's a deal. When the crackheads and homeless on Vancouver's East Side who, lost their homes, job's, families and support because of drug abuse or other cause within their power start paying, then I'll agree that seniors should pay. But, until then if the Gov't wants to give my tax dollars away to groups of "select disadvantaged" people for, their addictions, their housing, their clean injection sites and their health care, then they can give it to everyone because self inflicted "mistakes" shouldn't make one single person anymore eligible for health care than anyone else.

Some people keep saying that the free clean injection sites, free gov't funded drugs and free health care are instrumental in keeping those addicts healthy thus saving the system money because it costs alot more when they get sick.

So, could someone explain to me what the difference between a sick crackhead and a sick senior is other than age and lifestyle choices?