I agree 100%. I’m just pointing out that insurance companies aren’t in the business for altruistic motives. They make money on most of us, so it disturbs me when they whine about losing money on a few of us.
If you or other Dopers haven’t read this Time magazine article, I strongly suggest you do so.
Absolutely. I would wager each major insurer has a whole floor of people whose performance measures are in dollars of claims denied. Their game is to deny your claim in hopes that you give up or die before you get done fighting them. If we could somehow remove profit incentives from the equation, perhaps create a government program to cover medical bills… that would be terrific.
But somehow they had been convinced that those deductions were being put in a trust fund for their own retirement. So it was OK. If SS and Medicare were privatized, then younger folks would be stuck paying for BOTH their own future retirement and their parents. And having to do that through their own self-control.
A more unlikely and politically explosive situation would be hard to imagine. I know the republicans (who have admirable self-control) would see this situation as theoretically better, but I can’t imagine even they thinking it would be anything but a national and political disaster for them and the country.
Far more likely is to figure out a “reform” that lets the few republicans who have the money, investment luck, and self-control to do better than SS and Medicare opt out so they just go away and be quiet on the subject and keep the existing system for the 95% of us who rely on it. With the cap on income taxed by SS, it wouldn’t be that much money lost compared to the total collected.
Governments still have to meet budgets. In fact, the whole reason single payer works is because it’s easier for the government to say no. Politicians want to get reelected and they don’t get reelected if they have to raise taxes to cover increasing health costs. High health costs also squeeze out discretionary spending, meaning less money for home projects. And they know that supporters of single payer will support the program and ignore anecdotal evidence of life saving care denied due to cost. After all, that will only happen to a small minority of people. Just don’t be one of the unlucky ones.
This might be a useful sensical observation if it were the private banks which bailed out the federal government during the 2008 credit crisis. IIRC the opposite occurred.
That’s kinda the point. The only way to bailout SS is to sell government assets.
I’ve never quite understood what privatizing meant in this situation. That Social Security’s giant funds would be divvied up among private companies, who would essentially administer de facto retirement pensions for 300 million Americans?
Now if the idea was to call off Social Security entirely and stop making payments, there’d be massive rage from people who paid into the system for decades. Again, you don’t pay into it to get benefits, you pay so other people can get benefits, but good luck making the voters see it that way…
I think privatizing Medicare would be simpler but just as devastating. Instead of subsidized insurance, you get a voucher to buy one on the open market. From private companies who will set your rates according to your age. When all the Tea Partiers who went to anti-ACA rallies in their Medicare-supplied wheelchair and breathing out of Medicare-supplied oxygen tanks find out that they’re going to be unable to afford what Democrats have been giving them for decades, they’re going to be mad. Probably at Obama, but still mad.
Privatizing SS seems impossible. You can’t tell people that had been paying payroll taxes for decades that they can’t have what they were counting on. But there won’t be money to pay them if the younger workers are able to stop their contributions.
Essentially yes… So that the fund’s top management can syphon off a percentage each year, making them even richer than they already are. Essentially it is a way to move more money from the people working and paying into SS into the hands of the top managers and CEO’s of investment firms.
That’s if they are all honest. If things go like they have in the past, some of these top managers and CEO’s will find ways to get their hands on even MORE of the SS pile, through means that are less than ethical.
Of course, this will result in LESS money being available to retirees, but who cares, as long as the top folks go from being multi-millionaires to billionaires.
And who will the Republican Base blame? Why, the Democrats, of course, topped by Obama. Everything that goes wrong in the next 20 years will be blamed on Obama.
One thing I don’t really get about this plan is - are there really any insurance companies that are chomping at the bit to pick up the over-65 market? Just being that old is a hell of a pre-existing condition, not to mention that they haven’t had to underwrite over-65s for 50 years now. Medicine has changed just a little bit over that time and they probably don’t even know how to do the underwriting anymore.
I’m just looking at the recent experience of our family, when my grandmother basically collapsed in her last year of life and had multiple serious hospitalizations. If she was charged an actuarially appropriate premium then she would have been looking at $25,000 a month or even more than that at a minimum. Clearly the premium support is not going to be anywhere near that, so presumably she just wouldn’t have been able to get insurance at all and wouldn’t have gotten the treatments she got. So who profits if the services aren’t used?
I don’t think the insurers want anything to do with the elderly. Yet I keep hearing this voucher idea floated about. I suspect they’re talking about doing these vouchers in theory, realizing that it could never be implemented in reality.
Based on the large number of ads on daytime TV during Medicare open enrollment, there are plenty of insurers who want to provide supplemental insurance to the elderly.
I don’t understand why some people think a single payer system that covers everyone in the US would mean no more insurance companies. I’ve always figured that there would be a basic plan that provides a safety net for everyone, with supplemental coverage available to those who can afford it. I think that most larger employers would provide some supplemental health insurance, in the same way that they provide dental and vision insurance now.
Which is exactly what happens in other countries.
Yes, but they’re evil, godless, socialists!
Instead, let’s take away completely the safety net for the poorest (if they’re poor, it’s because God doesn’t like them, so we don’t either), let’s make the old folks pay more for their coverage because, well, they’re old and will die soon anyway. Let’s make it hard and expensive for people to get coverage who are already sick with something pesky like cancer, MS, ALS, diabetes, or maybe a birth defect, because, well, we prefer people who don’t get sick. And we sure don’t like the ones who are born sick. Yuck. Courtesy of your new Sec of HHS Price.
Members of Congress will have First Class Coverage, of course. At reasonable prices.
Well, we may find out.. Then again, it’s unclear how serious this latest effort is, or if it’s kind of pro forma. I’m kind of skeptical it’ll go anywhere that previous attempts have not gone, but here you go.