Small Families Subsidizing Large Families.

[RadiomanATL]

So..... the bigger the group, the more efficient the administration and the lower the cost, eh?

I see where you're going with this...and I will only add this truth....anytime the government gets involved with anything the costs increase 10-fold.

Bullshit.

10 fold? Link please.

Social Security runs at an efficiency of 1.2% for disability and retirement insurance.

The best private insurance companies run at an efficiency of 22% to 25% - that statistic shows government involvement decreasing costs by more than 20 fold.

Social Security Online - The Official Website of the U.S. Social Security Administration

...and social security is going broke due to government meddling and treating it like their own private cookie jar.


Great example.

 

[AVG-JOE]

What if they broke their legs too. What if dad got lung cancer at THE SAME TIME (OMFG!!), and then momma got the incurable shits?


Sorry, I don't play hypotheticals.

If the 'insurance' game is not about hypotheticals, then what is it about?

Hypothetically then, I am the richest man in the world and I don't care what kind of insurance you choose to purchase.

Hypothetically, if I had $100,000 in the bank I would 'self insure' (take the risk on to myself) and tell the insurance industry to pound sand.

Insurance isn't rocket science... all you need is money and a computer.

Correction... in 21st century America, all you need is money, a computer and permission to compete from the insurance lobby.​

 

[AVG-JOE]

I see where you're going with this...and I will only add this truth....anytime the government gets involved with anything the costs increase 10-fold.

Bullshit.

10 fold? Link please.

Social Security runs at an efficiency of 1.2% for disability and retirement insurance.

The best private insurance companies run at an efficiency of 22% to 25% - that statistic shows government involvement decreasing costs by more than 20 fold.

Social Security Online - The Official Website of the U.S. Social Security Administration

...and social security is going broke due to government meddling and treating it like their own private cookie jar.


Great example.

It's the BEST example! Social Security runs at 1.2% in spite of congress! It is an AMAZING insurance program.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Bullshit.

10 fold? Link please.

Social Security runs at an efficiency of 1.2% for disability and retirement insurance.

The best private insurance companies run at an efficiency of 22% to 25% - that statistic shows government involvement decreasing costs by more than 20 fold.

Social Security Online - The Official Website of the U.S. Social Security Administration

...and social security is going broke due to government meddling and treating it like their own private cookie jar.


Great example.

It's the BEST example! Social Security runs at 1.2% in spite of congress! It is an AMAZING insurance program.

...that is going broke.

 

[Ravi]

No it isn't.

The Congressional Budget Office:

CBO’s projections indicate that future Social Security beneficiaries will receive larger benefits in retirement—and will have paid higher payroll taxes—than current beneficiaries do, even after adjustments have been made for inflation and even if the scheduled payments are reduced because the trust funds are exhausted.
​

Oh, and CBO projects that the trust funds will last until 2049.

Social Security zombies - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[RadiomanATL]

No it isn't.

The Congressional Budget Office:

CBO’s projections indicate that future Social Security beneficiaries will receive larger benefits in retirement—and will have paid higher payroll taxes—than current beneficiaries do, even after adjustments have been made for inflation and even if the scheduled payments are reduced because the trust funds are exhausted.
​

Oh, and CBO projects that the trust funds will last until 2049.

Social Security zombies - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

So it's not going broke....but it is?

It's going to go broke, according to your own link, when I turn 72.

Yar, I'm a real fan. I'm going to be paying for 50+ years of premiums, and only collect for 7 years.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

So..... the bigger the group, the more efficient the administration and the lower the cost, eh?

I see where you're going with this...and I will only add this truth....anytime the government gets involved with anything the costs increase 10-fold.

Bullshit.

10 fold? Link please.

Social Security runs at an efficiency of 1.2% for disability and retirement insurance.

The best private insurance companies run at an efficiency of 22% to 25% - that statistic shows government involvement decreasing costs by more than 20 fold.

Social Security Online - The Official Website of the U.S. Social Security Administration

Sorry to burst your bubble....your attempt to say the government can run an "insurance" company efficiently is not only the heighth of stupidity but completely ignores the fact that there are a myriad of other costs associated with the program that are covered by OTHER AGENCIES BUDGETS. So please...do continue on how great of a business the U.S. government is...and then realize one thing. Governments aren't in business to make money..they are in business to increase in size and separate you from your money.

 

[Emma]

Given that insurance companies are all about $$$, I'd be willing to bet they don't calculate their family rates based upon only one child. They no doubt take an average (maybe a bit more) and go from there.

At my last job, the only choices were 'employee' and 'family'.

And finally the truth is skirted around.

Instead of taking the time to figure actual costs, the insurance lobby paid congress to allow them to charge small families, who decided to restrict the number of children they had for whatever reason, the same as large families, increasing their profits in doing so.

Since virtually all of the insurance plans sold through employers are like this and since employer provided insurance pretty much IS the marketplace here in America, I say with confidence, so much for the concept of 'competition' in the current insurance market.

How do you propose they figure "actual costs"?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Given that insurance companies are all about $$$, I'd be willing to bet they don't calculate their family rates based upon only one child. They no doubt take an average (maybe a bit more) and go from there.

At my last job, the only choices were 'employee' and 'family'.

And finally the truth is skirted around.

Instead of taking the time to figure actual costs, the insurance lobby paid congress to allow them to charge small families, who decided to restrict the number of children they had for whatever reason, the same as large families, increasing their profits in doing so.

Since virtually all of the insurance plans sold through employers are like this and since employer provided insurance pretty much IS the marketplace here in America, I say with confidence, so much for the concept of 'competition' in the current insurance market.

How do you propose they figure "actual costs"?

By spending more money to research each individual unique scenario for the users....thus increasing overhead and increasing premiums.

 

[saveliberty]

The government doesn't think that way. They will just form a parenting department to compete against parents for their children. THe children can then choose who they get the best deal from and go there. It will be quality care for all children at a reduced cost.

 

[Polk]

I kinda have to doubt this, since I've never seen a private insurance plan that doesn't charge more for each person you're paying for.

I don't know... every insurance plan I have ever considered, and there have been many, has had 4 categories for premiums:

1. Employee​

2. Employee + Spouse​

3. Employee + Children​

4. Employee + Spouse + Children​

I have never seen one that charges more for more kids. It's always 'all or nothing'.

*Shrug*

So opt out of the company plan and get a private plan.

In which you'd still be doing the same thing, plus it would be more expensive to boot.

 

[saveliberty]

The whole health insurance deal is frustrating. Adding politicans to the equation isn't going to help.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I don't know... every insurance plan I have ever considered, and there have been many, has had 4 categories for premiums:

1. Employee​

2. Employee + Spouse​

3. Employee + Children​

4. Employee + Spouse + Children​

I have never seen one that charges more for more kids. It's always 'all or nothing'.

*Shrug*

So opt out of the company plan and get a private plan.

In which you'd still be doing the same thing, plus it would be more expensive to boot.

I know. Thats the point I was trying to make.

 

[Anguille]

You can not like the way an internal combustion engine works either, but talking about it isn't going to change the way it actually works.

Either sign up, or don't. Either use the engine, or don't.

Or become an activist for insurance reform.

 

[Polk]

I see where you're going with this...and I will only add this truth....anytime the government gets involved with anything the costs increase 10-fold.

Bullshit.

10 fold? Link please.

Social Security runs at an efficiency of 1.2% for disability and retirement insurance.

The best private insurance companies run at an efficiency of 22% to 25% - that statistic shows government involvement decreasing costs by more than 20 fold.

Social Security Online - The Official Website of the U.S. Social Security Administration

Sorry to burst your bubble....your attempt to say the government can run an "insurance" company efficiently is not only the heighth of stupidity but completely ignores the fact that there are a myriad of other costs associated with the program that are covered by OTHER AGENCIES BUDGETS. So please...do continue on how great of a business the U.S. government is...and then realize one thing. Governments aren't in business to make money..they are in business to increase in size and separate you from your money.

Because, clearly, the government spending less than two percent on administrative costs while private insurers are spending a percentage that's ten time higher on it proves that private insurers are much more efficient.

 

[Anguille]

You always may choose to opt out and research an individual policy. In that arena the insurance companies do compete for your business.

Don't like your current benefits package? Get a new employer. Your complaints have no basis in reality.

Do you work for an insurance company? It sounds like you are saying people should just accept however they want things to be.

Individual policies are more expensive and changing jobs is not as easy as you present it to be.
It's actually your suggestions which have no basis in reality

 

[Anguille]

Either way, it's a dumb idea that would be too expensive to administer.

Don't insurance companies already waste a ridiculous percentage of their profits on paperwork? I've read somewhere that they spend more on administrative costs than actual healthcare.

 

[Care4all]

I kinda have to doubt this, since I've never seen a private insurance plan that doesn't charge more for each person you're paying for.

I don't know... every insurance plan I have ever considered, and there have been many, has had 4 categories for premiums:

1. Employee​

2. Employee + Spouse​

3. Employee + Children​

4. Employee + Spouse + Children​

I have never seen one that charges more for more kids. It's always 'all or nothing'.

*Shrug*

So opt out of the company plan and get a private plan.

You are OFF BASE on this Radio....

I have just looked in to getting an individual private health insurance plan here in maine, and for the 2 of us it is over $25,000 a year for the 2 of us and $12,000 plus a year to just cover me, while the group policy at my husband's work was around $400 a month for the 2 of us....no one really has a choice but to go with the plan that ones company chooses.

Cares

 

[AVG-JOE]

No it isn't.

The Congressional Budget Office:

CBO’s projections indicate that future Social Security beneficiaries will receive larger benefits in retirement—and will have paid higher payroll taxes—than current beneficiaries do, even after adjustments have been made for inflation and even if the scheduled payments are reduced because the trust funds are exhausted.
​

Oh, and CBO projects that the trust funds will last until 2049.

Social Security zombies - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

These projections assume congress does nothing between now and 2049.

Since 1984, all newly hired Federal Employees including congresscritters are on Social Security instead of the Civil Service Plan. This means that as soon as we get rid of the incumbents that were hired prior to 1984, and there are a LOT, especially in leadership positions, Congress will have a personal vested interest in shoring up the trust funds and the program.

The point? Dump an incumbent and assure your retirement.

 

[AVG-JOE]

No it isn't.

The Congressional Budget Office:

CBO’s projections indicate that future Social Security beneficiaries will receive larger benefits in retirement—and will have paid higher payroll taxes—than current beneficiaries do, even after adjustments have been made for inflation and even if the scheduled payments are reduced because the trust funds are exhausted.
​

Oh, and CBO projects that the trust funds will last until 2049.

Social Security zombies - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

So it's not going broke....but it is?

It's going to go broke, according to your own link, when I turn 72.

Yar, I'm a real fan. I'm going to be paying for 50+ years of premiums, and only collect for 7 years.

Not if you work to hire a representative and a couple of senators who aren't already pre-1984 geezers.