>>In all this discussion there is something that I cannot grasp. What stops the individual to go buy the prescription pills (or whatever else is not covered by the employer's insurance)? Or better yet, what stops the individual to go and buy a complimentary insurance that covers their needs?
>
>That's not the point (or at least not the one I was making). I have a problem with the employer deciding what will be covered and what won't be just because the employer thinks they're somehow morally superior.
>As far as buying insurance - I see that you're in Canada so perhaps you don't know how much it costs here - but buying additional health insurance isn't a practical (or possible) solution for most people.

Victor,

Of course the model you have down there is horrible from my point of view, but I think what I was saying is right on point. Let's say you get a job offer that pays $40/hr, you can accept it or go somewhere else, now apply the same concept they offered you $100/hr with a crappy health care coverage so you will need to buy extra coverage, let's say you can get an additional coverage for $50/hr, then is like instead of making $100/hr you make $50/hr, which is better than the $40/hr in the first place and so you decide to take it, isn't that the way capitalism work? The problem is that you (no, not you) accepted the $100/hr but then complain that the service provided is not as good as elsewhere and then try to force the employer to, effectively, raise your salary instead of buying the extra insurance. We would say in Argentina "Queres la chancha, los veinte y la máquina de hacer chorizos" (something like "You want the she-pig, the 20 (piglets) and the sausage-making machine" ('to have one's cake and eat it too)

Going back a little bit, you said you have a problem "I have a problem with the employer deciding what will be covered and what won't be just because the employer thinks they're somehow morally superior". OK, let me ask you if you be happier if they offer you an even worse plan for economical reasons, ie not moral, because they cannot (or they claim they cannot) pay the premiums for some treatments/medicines? Should they be forced to pay you anyways? For example there is a hot topic here in Canada for the health care system do not pay for a procedure that is supposed to cure MS or alleviate its symptoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_cerebrospinal_venous_insufficiency) for there is no scientific evidence to support the claims, but for argument sake lets say your insurance does not cover this either for it is too expensive, would it be ok to force a company to pay for it anyways?

>
>>On the other hand, the true discussion should be the current health care model in the USA and not some anecdotical issue with one group, but if this simple issue gets so hot... :)
>
>USA needs to..ummm " delete *.* " our healthcare model. ..but I don't have a solution to offer either.

I am very happy with the Canadian model.