Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (214540)	1/24/2007 11:36:10 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The main reason the private sector pension plans in trouble is failure of companies to fully fund their future liabilities. In some sense yes. However, how long do you think GM would stay in business if it did manage to fully fund their retirement liabilities at the old benefits, including generous health care in retirement? That's what I mean when I say the private sector adjusts to reality. The public sector keeps such generous benefits until there is a tax payer revolt over the issue. Read up on it. States like New Jersey are coming to a critical point on it. I don't think you understand yet what I was saying regarding a single payer system costing a theoretical 30% less. You have not separated out the issues that you claim contribute to this 30% savings. Single payer, and 100% enrollment are two totally separate issues. You need to compare mandatory insurance coverage in a multi-payer system vs. single payer system. It should be like auto insurance, you are required to carry it. Then go get the best deal from the best company. Competition makes the system more efficient. Single payer without competition does not.