- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
No link, just some observations on the possible side effects of implementing universal health care or universal health insurance.
The industry I work in (Railroads) has a very unique retirement system, as compared to Social Security. You put 30 years in, you can retire when you are 60 with full $ benefits. But there is that gap between age 60 and 65 where health insurance costs make it prohibitive for a lot of them to retire, that otherwise could. More so if your spouse is younger than you.
If a government subsidized system was put into place for health insurance, it would not surprise me if the industry would suddenly loose 10% of its work force. My district has more than 10% of its force eligible to retire.
How many dual income families do you know that could, or would shed one of their incomes if health insurance were subsidized? I know a lot of them, even in my tiny little community. A lot of the resources the consume are directly related to their job.
How many of the boomers would choose to retire early, if it were not for the high cost of health insurance? I know a lot of them that would, also.
This could make a huge dent in unemployment numbers, and reduce consumption of resources drastically.
On the other side, it could leave a lot less people supporting a lot more retired people. It could mean a huge reduction in government revenue.
This is my biggest concern in implementing a system that is not revenue neutral. If the government subsidizes health care with borrowed money, and makes it cheap on purpose, I really do believe we will have millions of new retirees, virtually overnight.
I am not opposed to universal health care/insurance, BUT it does need to be done correctly. All of the consequences need to be considered.
The industry I work in (Railroads) has a very unique retirement system, as compared to Social Security. You put 30 years in, you can retire when you are 60 with full $ benefits. But there is that gap between age 60 and 65 where health insurance costs make it prohibitive for a lot of them to retire, that otherwise could. More so if your spouse is younger than you.
If a government subsidized system was put into place for health insurance, it would not surprise me if the industry would suddenly loose 10% of its work force. My district has more than 10% of its force eligible to retire.
How many dual income families do you know that could, or would shed one of their incomes if health insurance were subsidized? I know a lot of them, even in my tiny little community. A lot of the resources the consume are directly related to their job.
How many of the boomers would choose to retire early, if it were not for the high cost of health insurance? I know a lot of them that would, also.
This could make a huge dent in unemployment numbers, and reduce consumption of resources drastically.
On the other side, it could leave a lot less people supporting a lot more retired people. It could mean a huge reduction in government revenue.
This is my biggest concern in implementing a system that is not revenue neutral. If the government subsidizes health care with borrowed money, and makes it cheap on purpose, I really do believe we will have millions of new retirees, virtually overnight.
I am not opposed to universal health care/insurance, BUT it does need to be done correctly. All of the consequences need to be considered.
Facebook
Twitter