Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Social Security a government backed public annuity plan does not destroy competition in the private sector why would it all of a sudden destroy private health care insurance????
Does anyone have any data to refute this claim? When social security started in 1937, did the private annuity industry fall apart or expand services?
People get social security, money that could potentially go to the private sector, but government spending on these Annuity plans, has yet to have a serious or detrimental effect on the private Annuity Industry. The program has been place for almost 80 years.
Has government involvement in Social Security had a Negative Effect on the Private Life/Insurance and Annuity Industry? Answer the question
4.2 Trillion Dollar Industry that compete directly with government. Worse part is we don't have a public option to opt out of Social Security (see how the Right is herding you dumb sheep into a plan that is not going to allow you to opt out, they don't want to give you choice wake up sheep)
U.S. Top 10 Individual Annuity Sellers
Note: Based on 2006 sales
Source: LIMRA International, Inc.
Rank Company Name Total
1 AIG 17 ,674,107
2 Met Life 16,297,614
3 ING 14,392,993
4 Hartford Life 13,996,756
5 TIAA-CR EF 13,874,535
6 AXA Equitable 13 ,5 0 0 ,788
7 Lincoln Financial 12,651,942
8 Prudential Annuities 10,410,050
9 John Hancock 10,398,221
10 River Source Life Insurance 10,238,071
The Federal Government currently runs a almost a Trillion Dollar Annuity Program along side of Private Life/Annuity Providers and they seem to function fine, with the coerced government competition, so how can you argue a government run public option (which actually gives us the option) could not operate alongside the medical insurance industry!!! HOW CAN YOU!!!!!????
SHEEP SHEEP SHEEP YOU"RE BEING TRICKED FAR RIGHT SHEEP (THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY THE OPTION OF A PUBLIC HEALTH ALTERNATIVE, SO THE REPUBS REALLY WANT YOU IN A SOCIAL SECURITY STRUCTURED HEALTH SYSTEM AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I"M NOT A MEMBER OF THE PARTY ANYMORE AND WILL NEVER BE IN THE NEAR FUTURE) Perhaps you under stand this better bah bah bah bah feed me some more Kentucky blue grass um yummy nothing better than eating grass all day and cut my wholly sheep hair oh thanks Mr. republican sheep herder bah bah bah bah feed me more grass bah bah
Social security was never meant to replace retirement, but to subsidize it - a safety net. A person would be crazy to rely on SS for retirement (although some do, and end up living on cat food). That's like arguing why didn't EMTALA destroy the medical insurance business - and indeed, you do have people that choose not to be insured and want to go to the ER instead for free medical care, but no one with any intellegence will rely on that or SS for retirement.
It could be argued that business retirement programs have for all intents ceased (although I would not argue that is is related to SS).
YIKES - you edited your post. What's with your incoherent SHEEP SHEEP rant at the end? Kinda scary. My God man, calm yourself!
Social security was never meant to replace retirement, but to subsidize it - a safety net. A person would be crazy to rely on SS for retirement (although some do, and end up living on cat food). That's like arguing why didn't EMTALA destroy the medical insurance business - and indeed, you do have people that choose not to be insured and want to go to the ER instead for free medical care, but no one with any intellegence will rely on that or SS for retirement.
It could be argued that business retirement programs have for all intents ceased (although I would not argue that is is related to SS).
Dd714, that is not my point. I agree with your argument, but it acts as a government backed direct competitor to the private annuity business. Who is to say if we did not contribute to social security the money would find its way to the private sector via the stock market, private annuities, government debt. The government is using SS to fund it's debt, they coerce us into paying for their debt, that all they are doing, that what SS Annuities invest in, so is a ploy. The republicans want us to have no option like Social Security, that don't want us to opt. Why do you think they don't want the public option?
If hey get elected in 4 years, they going to create that kind of public plan, without an option to opt out and they're going to use our prems to fund their government expansion just like the dems. Name one large insurance provider that does not make a significant profit. The gov will make a profit on this plan I just want the option to opt out of it, i don't want to get pulled into another Social Security type racketeering Ponzi Scheme.
The point is Government operates a 1 Trillion Dollar Annuity Business, that doesn't even give citizens the option to opt out. The Private Annuity business is 4.2 Trillion and still operates alongside the government backed public annuity program that is Social Security. This is the point!!!!!!! Why the President as smart as he is has not said it.....Oh wait you know why he hasn't mentioned it, because they're going to use the additional money they make from Health-care to pay down the debt and fund other government expansionist programs, mark my words, i'm on to both sides
Social security takes the monies "contributed" today to pay the "benefits" owed to those who qualified.
I can personally attest that if those who "contribute" to Social Security were instead allowed to invest the same amount of money to private investments, they would be better off.
When I stopped "contributing" to Social Security almost 40 years ago, I took the same amount that I would have put into SS instead into private investments. And today, the amount of money I can get, for life, is almost 500% more than I could have gotten from SS.
If Social Security a government backed public annuity plan does not destroy competition in the private sector why would it all of a sudden destroy private health care insurance????
Does anyone have any data to refute this claim? When social security started in 1937, did the private annuity industry fall apart or expand services?
People get social security, money that could potentially go to the private sector, but government spending on these Annuity plans, has yet to have a serious or detrimental effect on the private Annuity Industry. The program has been place for almost 80 years.
Has government involvement in Social Security had a Negative Effect on the Private Life/Insurance and Annuity Industry? Answer the question
4.2 Trillion Dollar Industry that compete directly with government. Worse part is we don't have a public option to opt out of Social Security (see how the Right is herding you dumb sheep into a plan that is not going to allow you to opt out, they don't want to give you choice wake up sheep)
U.S. Top 10 Individual Annuity Sellers
Note: Based on 2006 sales
Source: LIMRA International, Inc.
Rank Company Name Total
1 AIG 17 ,674,107
2 Met Life 16,297,614
3 ING 14,392,993
4 Hartford Life 13,996,756
5 TIAA-CR EF 13,874,535
6 AXA Equitable 13 ,5 0 0 ,788
7 Lincoln Financial 12,651,942
8 Prudential Annuities 10,410,050
9 John Hancock 10,398,221
10 River Source Life Insurance 10,238,071
The Federal Government currently runs a almost a Trillion Dollar Annuity Program along side of Private Life/Annuity Providers and they seem to function fine, with the coerced government competition, so how can you argue a government run public option (which actually gives us the option) could not operate alongside the medical insurance industry!!! HOW CAN YOU!!!!!????
SHEEP SHEEP SHEEP YOU"RE BEING TRICKED FAR RIGHT SHEEP (THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY THE OPTION OF A PUBLIC HEALTH ALTERNATIVE, SO THE REPUBS REALLY WANT YOU IN A SOCIAL SECURITY STRUCTURED HEALTH SYSTEM AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I"M NOT A MEMBER OF THE PARTY ANYMORE AND WILL NEVER BE IN THE NEAR FUTURE) Perhaps you under stand this better bah bah bah bah feed me some more Kentucky blue grass um yummy nothing better than eating grass all day and cut my wholly sheep hair oh thanks Mr. republican sheep herder bah bah bah bah feed me more grass bah bah
I guess you haven't thought too hard about it. Do you really think that ANY company would keep paying for private insurance out of their pocket if the you are already being taxed for the public option? NO WAY! Who would? Employees will be dropped to the public option in a heartbeat and private insurers will go out of business. The things you are talking about are for a select bunch of people, not everybody, that's why private insurers can still exist. There are still customers buying their insurance.
Social security takes the monies "contributed" today to pay the "benefits" owed to those who qualified.
I can personally attest that if those who "contribute" to Social Security were instead allowed to invest the same amount of money to private investments, they would be better off.
When I stopped "contributing" to Social Security almost 40 years ago, I took the same amount that I would have put into SS instead into private investments. And today, the amount of money I can get, for life, is almost 500% more than I could have gotten from SS.
Yea Greatday again this is an area you and i see eye to eye on and we are in 100% argument, but forget the argument for What Social Security is for, focus on the argument,that it is a government Sponsored Insurance and Annuity Program, that has had no ill effects, on the Private Insurance and Annuity Industry.
If Government involvement in Public Annuities/ Life Insurance has not hurt that industyr in 80 years where is the justification and evidence government involvement in Health Care will hurt the Private Health Care Industry????? THERE IS NONE IS MY POINT. THEY"RE ALL LIES, THAT WOULD HURT US MORE THAN HELP US.
Not to mention this is the first government program of its kinds that actually gives the public the choice to opt in our stay with their current provider. Did Social Security give you that option? Did they say, "Hey Folks, we are offering you the options to opt out of your plan in favor of a private annuity?"
Sure i agree Social Security was not meant to be a retirement program, but 80 years later, for most people receiving the benefit that is exactly what it has become, but it has had no ill effects on the Private Annuity Sector, so how could the arguments currently being made for a public option hold true, when we can look directly at the Social Securities system on the Private Insurance/ Annuity industry?
THE PEOPLE THAT ARE TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHT TO CHOICE ARE OUR ENEMIES ANYONE THAT WILL TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE IS FOE. THEY MAY COME DRESSED AS A FRIEND, BUT THEY ARE NOT FRIEND THEY ARE CERTAINLY FOE!
I guess you haven't thought too hard about it. Do you really think that ANY company would keep paying for private insurance out of their pocket if the you are already being taxed for the public option? NO WAY! Who would? Employees will be dropped to the public option in a heartbeat and private insurers will go out of business. The things you are talking about are for a select bunch of people, not everybody, that's why private insurers can still exist. There are still customers buying their insurance.
Robert, did that happen with Social Security??? Most publicly traded large companies offer both Medical Coverage and Life Insurance Coverage do they not?
However, they are still taxed by the government for both Social Security OASI and Life Insurance, so how can you argue what you just did??
Did companies drop Life Insurance for employees even though the government mandated the Social Security OASI tax?????
NO THE ANSWER IS NO THERE IS NOT ONE PERSON THAT CAN ARGUE THEIR WAY OUT OF THIS ONE.
How do you know what is more expensive???? If the government enters the market as a competitor won't that reduce cost???
In all my economics books when you expand choice (you increase freedom) and you also increase competition, thus you get lower prices right?
"Byline: Gary S. Mogel NEW YORK - Life insurance companies need to compete more aggressively for the estimated $90 trillion in global personal financial assets. That is the conclusion of a report released last week by New York-based Mercer Oliver Wyman, a financial services consultant. "
Dd714, that is not my point. I agree with your argument, but it acts as a government backed direct competitor to the private annuity business.
Ahh OK I see your point now, not sure I agree with your conclusions of either the presidents goals or the republicans goals. But I agree we must keep the free market choice. I see the Obama as truly wanting to expand the government, at whatever cost, but I don't see it being a profit making venture by any means. Insurance companies don't make that much profit - maybe 4 or 5%. And they indeed have to compete in the private sector. Not so the government, who will be funded by tax and the difference will be added to the deficit - they have no incentive to operate efficiently. Lets look at other entitlments - SS is in trouble. Social Security is quickly running into a deficit as the demographics of the ponzi scheme are coming into fruitation, so is Medicare, so is Medicaid. The amount of aging population that will require SS, and health, is increasing exponentially.
The republicans have suggested an opt out program for SS, for private investment. That never worked, but I think their goals are for limited goverenment as much as Obama is for increasing government. It's an ideological difference - Obama thinks goverenment and society is needed to solve the problems of the individual, replublicans think it should be individual choice. You have an interesting theory, but I see no huge conspiracy with the left and right acting with a hidden agenda.
But, dude, that SHEEP outburst in your first post scared me!
Robert, did that happen with Social Security??? Most publicly traded large companies offer both Medical Coverage and Life Insurance Coverage do they not?
However, they are still taxed by the government for both Social Security OASI and Life Insurance, so how can you argue what you just did??
Did companies drop Life Insurance for employees even though the government mandated the Social Security OASI tax?????
NO THE ANSWER IS NO THERE IS NOT ONE PERSON THAT CAN ARGUE THEIR WAY OUT OF THIS ONE.
How do you know what is more expensive???? If the government enters the market as a competitor won't that reduce cost???
In all my economics books when you expand choice (you increase freedom) and you also increase competition, thus you get lower prices right?
Social Security for starters is not life insurance, so what are you even talking about?
Ahh OK I see your point now, not sure I agree with your conclusions of either the presidents goals or the republicans goals. But I agree we must keep the free market choice. I see the Obama as truly wanting to expand the government, at whatever cost, but I don't see it being a profit making venture by any means. Insurance companies don't make that much profit - maybe 4 or 5%. And they indeed have to compete in the private sector. Not so the government, who will be funded by tax and the difference will be added to the deficit - they have no incentive to operate efficiently. Lets look at other entitlments - SS is in trouble. Social Security is quickly running into a deficit as the demographics of the ponzi scheme are coming into fruitation, so is Medicare, so is Medicaid. The amount of aging population that will require SS, and health, is increasing exponentially.
The republicans have suggested an opt out program for SS, for private investment. That never worked, but I think their goals are for limited goverenment as much as Obama is for increasing government. It's an ideological difference - Obama thinks goverenment and society is needed to solve the problems of the individual, replublicans think it should be individual choice. You have an interesting theory, but I see no huge conspiracy with the left and right acting with a hidden agenda.
But, dude, that SHEEP outburst in your first post scared me!
Haha i did the sheep outburst for dramatic effect (i'm trying to interest as many people as possible in debating the topic, that's a good way to do it) and i thought it was funny, hard to convey emotion on a thread lol.
Anyway, it is not a conspiracy theory at all dude. I'm merely pointing out another area that government has poked its head to a substantial extent, and it has not had an adverse effect on the Private Sector.
Look Social Security provided the Government with Extra Money Early on when the Government Sponsored Annuity Program began, and i think Universal Health Care will as well. I do not think the government is going to be as profit hungry as a private company, but they will make a profit.
If they get 100 dollars of Premiums from 30 Million People
That's 30,000,000 *100 = 3,000,000,000 (billion in prems they'll take in)
Not to mention the 1-3 Million people that may still choose not to have and they'll have to pay a 2.5% tax on their income
Now, they'll have a mix of individuals on these plans from children, young adults, to the elderly ( I suspect they are betting the young adults and children will not heavily weigh on the cost, thus the only population that will cost them more are the elderly, the out of shape, and those with pre-existing conditions)
I can bet they'll only pay out maybe 2/3 of what they take in from premiums and the difference between 75% and taking in 3 Billion in Premiums is profit to the government, which they'll re-invest in the program or use to expand some other program...
Gov Take in 3 Billion
Pay out in claims and services 2.2 Billion
Difference is profit of almost 1 billion about 800 Million
Government will invest some of that profit back into the program use a small percent to pay down debt or funded whatever the heck it is they want
I think 50-80 years down the road the program could turn into a single payer system just like social security never was designed to be the only sole retirement plan, but it has become one, because over time the government made concession to make it possible. They kept raising the tax to fund the program beyond its initial use
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
