I agree that Canada and the USA have different health insurance initiatives with the Canadian version being universal. In essence, the Canadian population can benefit from the health programs that are similar to all individuals operating in the country. The privatization of the production, as well as the dispensation of the health care services in Canada under the single-payer system, makes the healthcare insurance initiative in the country more effective compared to the one in the USA. The physicians in Canada are provided with payments of the negotiated fees for the services that are provided in the country. In the US, the healthcare insurance initiative is not universal, which means that companies can select the programs that they will implement for the employees. Therefore, a company will only go for that program that will give it value and reduce the cost of health care provided to the employees.
Employee benefit usually depends on the economic situation in the company or country. An economic downturn may reduce the amount of revenue collected by a company and subsequently affect the company’s ability to handle the affairs of the employees such as benefits. Therefore, the company would have to cut some of the payments made by the employees or reduce the number of employees. I agree that the HR department must always ensure that the employee benefits are weighed to ensure that they are in line with the economic situation of a company. The issue of healthcare also affects the benefits received by the employees. An increase in healthcare costs will subsequently reduce the number and amounts of benefits received by the employees. The ability of the company to find low premiums means that it can continue to transfer the employees the benefits they have been receiving effectively.