RE: More on Risk: A Response to Mr Reischauer

[Javier Jimenez <jimenj@yahoo.com>]

>>>>>> James Wrote:
>From: Javier Jimenez 

>>>>Just because benefits remain constant during economic downturns
does not mean that beneficiaries have been shielded from the effect
of the downturn. The government of course has to balance the in
side of the equation with higher taxes, fees, etc. Even if those
taxes and fees are not levied on the beneficiaries, they affect
them, nonetheless, by changes in prices due to many factors; one
I could think is: the higher taxes now paid by the beneficiary's
doctor will cause the doctor's fees to go up. Ooops!, a hole in
the safety net; perhaps, then we should propose government controlled
pricing so that beneficiaries are truly protected. Or better yet,
why don't we all move to China and have the government protection
afforded to all Chinese.

What a response. To a post talking about differences between
individual and shared risks, you say to move to China. Maybe we
ought to tell that to those life insurance companies. They sell
policies that allow individuals to convert their individual risk
to a group risk. They don't automatically raise rates every time
somebody dies. For the gov't to average out the highs and lows does
not necessarily imply higher taxes or costs. The average IS the
average.

You don't seem to understand the concept of pooled risk. It is not
just a communist idea. Insurance companies thrive on it. It is a
real issue in the debate. We can disagree on its value to each of
us individually, but it deserves consideration before we do away
with it in SS reform.

<<<<<<<<
Yes, I understand the concept of pooled risk, but insurance companies
don't force people into their pooled risk scheme, the government
does.  Moreover, the insurance co. will make you a better deal too.
Freedom is what I have been a strong proponent of, and freedom of
choice very well applies here.  If I don't like pooled risk schemes,
I don't join them, if I think they are beneficial, I do.  The
government's is a very very bad one, so I don't want to join, well
I have no Freedom of CHOICE.  I think that the government can
regulate the ins. co., and investment co., and banks, etc. so that
I get a FAIR chance at selecting one that will most likely not
defraud me, but it shouldn't be in the business of performing the
functions that are better left to well paid professionals that have
an incentive to perform a good job.