run4yourlives
I exist outside of HN.
HN though is where I want to see technology articles and discussion, not politics.
From the guidelines:
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
Seriously, this article, and all 22 comments of this discussion belong on reddit.
One wonders if we are doing ourselves a disservice maintaining a term more inline with shared symptoms instead of separating the diseases into shared causes.
At any rate I'm digressing, but cancer is a fascinating (while horrible) concept that exists in our reality. When you think about it, it is probably more responsible for what we are today than any other force on the planet, in evolutionary terms.
As for AIDS: The fact that it was a "gay disease" hampered everything about our response to it. I'd like to think that we would be much more in tune with emerging health threats these days, but somehow I doubt it. I really hope we have HIV licked in a few years though, because Africa really, really needs a vaccine before it can do anything else really.
I can only speak for myself, but I rarely, if ever, watch website videos, especially at work.
I made it through this entire thing by scrolling.
While I understand video is sometimes the best way to convey an idea, I fricken hate it. It would need to be something very, very intriguing for me to watch. 99% of websites selling things don't fall into that category.
Sorry, but change means getting off your fat ass.
You cannot concern yourself with politics all the damn time any more than you can concern yourself with anything else exclusively.
You make this statement as if it was some sort of new happening. This is as old as technology itself. Finding new ways to kill each other has been the number one driver of technology progress, and always has been.
HN has made an exception for all things US gov't spying related. I even lost my flagging rights for flagging all the snowden stuff (which I thought was exactly what you were supposed to do when you thought something was off topic... not my fault it was the entire front page!)
It's an important topic, but like you I preferred when HN was an oasis of tech away from this nonsense.
Thank God.
The first post was okay, this one is basically writing for the sake of writing something.
Your views and experiences are reinforcing your own beliefs that your parents are not accepting the "facts" you know. Seeing one side as "unreasonable" to logic while your view is "obvious" is exactly the type of behaviour the article is attempting to underline.
The article also answers your question directly.
Somewhat? That's like saying that black is a dark colour like navy blue and white is more like royal blue.
Personally, I think the US would benefit by understanding just where in the overall spectrum they fit politically and how limited their "typical" options are.
Americans probably have the most limited options of any modern democracy on the planet, and yet most people think they are so different.
Bees are some of the best pollinators, but they aren't exclusive in this regard.
You were saying?
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.
2. That's your plan, not the carriers themselves. Both offer everything from nothing to 100% coverage. Sounds like you have a pretty low end plan. Seriously, talk to your employer about an HCSA... you can use it to pay deductibles and it is designed exactly for plans like yours.
3. The company won't stop paying for it though, because they want the $60k they'll get if I die or am permanently disabled.
Pretty sure this isn't happening. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's not even legal. They may have an additional benefit as part of their general insurance policies (key man, etc.) but all the payout for a life/add claim goes 100% to the people you've designated as a beneficiary.
5. Getting 15k-20k of CI for under $10 a month is the average rate. That's probably less than you spend on coffee. Given your LTD is probably about as good as the 75% EHC you have, I'd look into it. Nothing like not having to worry about expenses when(if) you get sick. Covers everything from heart attacks to cancer. You can usually insure your spouse too.
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?
See here: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/her...
In other words, 62% of your revenue goes back to the taxpayers that provided that revenue. If anything, I'd be complaining about the other 48% if I were you.
>Implementing Obamacare
The argument that Medicare costs x and support y people, and Obamacare costs 2x and supports 2y people, therefore full universal care would cost 100x and support 100y people is flawed.
Clearly, if the US went universal, the massive administration costs associated with HMOs and such would no longer be an expense to be paid. Instead of being a large employer within your currently broken system, you replace the system.
There is a reason your health spending is almost double per capita to the next highest nation, and it has nothing to do with your population.
I still don't understand this. What difference does it make? In most cases, you're getting a deal.
It's a benefit. The same way free coffee is a benefit. What you are suggesting is akin to saying that because you aren't a coffee drinker, there's something fundamentally wrong with employers providing coffee a little/no cost. Nothing is stopping you from paying for better coverage on your own the same way nothing is stopping you from going to Starbucks.
It might not matter that much to you, which is certainly fair. Tell your employer as much. I can tell you that most would relish not having to fork out as much cash as they do for their plans if they didn't have to.
Couple of things to note first however:
1. It's not impossible, but it isn't likely that you'll be able to find the same coverage on an individual plan for the same price. You could choose to opt for less/different coverage of course that is more to your liking.
2. Talk to your employer... they may be quite interested in learning why you don't care for the plan. One of the reasons I so like HCSA's is that you aren't limited to such a narrow scope of services... it is basically your company saying "Hey, for medical and dental here's $2K a year. Spend it on whatever CRA figures is a medical expense." A good benefit consultant should be able to work with your employer to make their plan something that is attractive to employees.
3. Pay attention to the things your employer pays for beyond health and dental. They're probably paying for Life Insurance, Dependent Life, ADD, LTD etc etc. Some of these benefits can be a lot cheaper in the plan, and are nothing to top up. Life Insurance for example you can buy as much as you want.
4. Make sure you qualify health wise. Apply for some optional life through your employer before you go out on your own. It would really suck to be rejected privately, then not qualify for re-entry in your employers plan either.
5. I'll say this to anyone - Buy Critical Illness insurance. As much as you can afford. This benefit is such a gimmie it's not even funny. It is basically free money to you (for anything) if you contract a major illness. Buy a house with it if you want. Take a vacation. No restrictions, no caveats. With cancer rates approaching 50%, it sure would be nice to temper your chemo treatment with a new Porche or a trip to Europe wouldn't it?
It works in every other developed nation on the planet AND we spend close to 50% per capita you do right now.
You spend so much on Medicare/Medicaid because of your system; the US government is simply just a big employer.
The idea that the US is somehow operating under a different set of rules for basic math is mind boggling to me.
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.