Few Americans Would Sign Up For Public Health Insurance Plan

The New York Times: “More and more, the Great Health Care Debate of 2009 is a numbers game. And the longer the debate goes on, the squishier the numbers seem to get. For months, many leading Democrats, including President Obama, have pushed for the creation of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers. A main argument was that a public plan would save people money. It would not be under pressure to earn profits, pay high private-sector salaries or deny needed care.” After the release last Thursday of the House Democratic leaders’ health care bill, the Congressional Budget Office said “the public plan would cost more than private plans and only six million people would sign up” (Herszenhorn, 11/1).

The Associated Press: Coverage numbers regarding the Democrats’ legislative push “for a government insurance plan to compete with private carriers are finally in: Two percent. That’s the estimated share of Americans younger than 65 who’d sign up for the public option plan.” That statistic “is raising questions about whether the government plan will be the iron-fisted competitor that private insurers warn will shut them down or a niche operator that becomes a haven for patients with health insurance horror stories.” The CBO also said the plan would likely attract a “less healthy pool of enrollees” and would likely have premiums higher than the average for private plans (Alonso-Zaldivar, 11/1).

Kaiser Health News: The actual figure estimated to enroll in the public  option would be about six million. “And that number could shrink because states may decide to opt out of a public insurance plan, an escape clause that’s likely to be included in the Senate plan. … The CBO reasoned that the plan may not be able to

Plan For A Life Of Entitled Leisure

The transitions from employment to retirement can seem daunting; exposing many personal, social, domestic and financial uncertainties.

As a social institution, retirement implies the regulation of older workers’ withdrawal from the work force. As an experience, it refers to a multitude of life changes brought about by the decision to stop working.

The picture of retirement is changing dramatically. The process is radically different from that of our parents and grandparents short, and perhaps not so sweet, experience.

The traditional vision of retirement in our grandparent’s era was typically viewed as “an inevitable event,” around the age of 65, when one went abruptly from full employment to full non-employment. Work was predominantly physical, the body simply wore out, and retirement was usually a period of idleness, and in some cases declining health. It was a short period that began when they couldn’t work anymore, and ended when they died. The key to retirement during this era was simple: plan prudently and live frugally to ensure financial survival.

The twenty-first century version of retirement is rather different. We leave the workplace earlier; leave it part-time; leave later; leave and then return OR we follow the traditional model, and leave the workplace entirely in our mid-sixties. We are no longer required to pay attention to the demands of paid work; retirement is viewed as a long period of “entitled leisure.”

One reason that there has been a change in retirement is the increase in longevity, and an overall improvement in health.

There are two important variables to consider in regards to retirement, and the quality of a retired life;