Health insurance ‘haves’ to pay for ‘have-nots’?

[Clyde]

Can you provide an example of where government has provided this type of "net result" for you in the past?

 

No. I don't recall it ever being attempted.

[swamprat]

No. I don't recall it ever being attempted.

Really. Wait until it comes time to collect SSI, .... or not.

[Gunner11]

No. I don't recall it ever being attempted.

 

Tax increases have been tried to be "sold" to the public this way nearly every time they are implemented. The notion that, you will get more money back in the form of services that government will provide is a non-starter. If this were the case, shouldn't you be able to provide me with numerous examples of government programs that have been able to make this claim (of providing lower cost/higher quality service or product than what is available in the private sector)? I have yet to hear an example where the government does a better job than the private sector equivalent?

[woodsrider]

The concept (from my limited understanding) is that if the govt is an option for folks like me and you (however NOT MANDATORY) then our current providers will have to be more competitive. How will they be more competitive? Right. Premiums go down. More stuff gets covered. A multitude of possibilities that do not exist today due to the strong lobby in DC.

So we just wait until it passes and see if it works? And if it doesn't it really won't matter because by then it's too late, we're stuck with it.

[Clyde]

Really. Wait until it comes time to collect SSI, .... or not.

 

Unless you're collecting in a few years it IMO would be unwise to bank on SSI.

[Clyde]

I have yet to hear an example where the government does a better job than the private sector equivalent?

 

Who said anything about "better?" Its not an either/or.

[Clyde]

So we just wait until it passes and see if it works? And if it doesn't it really won't matter because by then it's too late, we're stuck with it.

 

Yes.

[Clyde]

I get the skepticism when it comes to govt. However, that might be more of a "service" issue that doesn't really address this from a financial standpoint.

 

Lets say that the people that choose to go with the govt option do so even knowing that they won't get great customer service. So what?

[Gunner11]

Who said anything about "better?" Its not an either/or.

 

If it is not a better option then why take more money out of everyones pocket to provide a lesser service than what exists???

[Gunner11]

The "so what" that you speak of, is the problem. The "so what" is that it makes the same product and service more costly in the long run for everyone, via higher taxes for a substandard product/service.

[woodsrider]

Yes.

Yeah, that makes sense. Why would you sit no your hands and hope it works out in the long run while in the mean time have more money taken out of your pocket?

[Clyde]

If it is not a better option then why take more money out of everyones pocket to provide a lesser service than what exists???

 

Lets say you have an employer-based plan that you are completely satisfied with. I am self-employed or my employer's plan is too expensive for me and my family.

 

With the govt planning on getting into the game, you and I both now have choices for our plan. We can continue with our employer-based plan OR we can go with the govt's plan. No one , as far as I know, will be forced to swtich away from their current employer's plan.

 

However, if the govt plan is , say, significantly cheaper what will potentially happen? You and both might start looking into the govt's plan in order to save on premiums. We might even do that knowing that the service we get might not be as good as our current provider.

 

What might the result of that be? Employer-based plans losing members is not a good thing for them. So, they start to get more competitive in order to stave off real or potential defections.

 

So, now you get to keep your plan of choice and that plan may have to lower its premiums, lower its deductible, etc which means you have money in your pocket to offset any POTENTIAL additional taxes.

 

Could this blow up? Absolutely. It could blow up IF the govt's plan is either so poor in service or not much less than current employer plans. IF its not much of a savings, we won't switch. If we dont switch, plans won't be forced to be more competitive. Thus, we will be paying more in taxes but NOT getting savings on the back end.

[Clyde]

Yeah, that makes sense. Why would you sit no your hands and hope it works out in the long run while in the mean time have more money taken out of your pocket?

 

Why do people invest in the stock market without knowing that they'll get money in return somewhere down the road?

[lynks66]

Why do people invest in the stock market without knowing that they'll get money in return somewhere down the road?

 

Because the stock market is driven by companies that must make a profit to survive. (or at least that used to be the case) Therefore, my investments are with people and companies who are fighting day in and day out for survival. To me that is a better investment than in government which does not require efficiency or profits to survive.

 

Just my thoughts.

[Gunner11]

Why do people invest in the stock market without knowing that they'll get money in return somewhere down the road?

 

When the federal government's ROI goes above 0, I'll start to think about wanting them to have any additional income of mine. When it gets closer to 10%, then I will listen to what they have to say, until then, not so much.