Sickness Insurance Disadvantages

Sickness insurance is to provide financial security in cause of illness. The requirement for sickness and work injury benefits was reformed in recent times. Before 1980s, the rate of returns was around 100% for income loss, but as a result of the crisis in 1980s and 2008th the cost of insurance schemes increased due to increase in short-term and long-term expenses for sickness, and rise in injuries acquired at work. The income return level, as a most important issue, has been changed many times and now equal to 80% . In 1992 the payment for sickness was introduced, and it was established that the employers is to pay the compensation, which is last 14 days. Than the number of days were increased to 28 days in order to force the employers’ interest

The main evidence in cons is that Sweden government does not worry about financial failing in the contrast with private insurance firms which are possible could fail. No one is doubt about government’s ability to raise money in order to suite the requirements needed for social insurance program. The main reasons of government interest in social insurance is to make this benefits affordable for poor and widowed who are not able to afford this insurance by themselves in the private market. What is more, private insurances are not able to predict the level of inflation and thus to adjust the effect of it, so they only able to provide a fixed income, which is a main victim of inflation, for a recently finished his study worker and to assure him in their ability to predict inflation. But in case of actual inflation being less than predicted, the melting of retirement benefits is observed, while the actual inflation being higher than the predicted resulted in loss of possible benefits. Since the state in comparison to private insurance firms have both constant cash flow and can guarantee own existence in future. In addition, the government is possible to change the commerce law, thus setting and changing the retirement age. For example, government can increase the retirement age to 68, hence to delay the payments for a years and to save money. It is clear that the government has a unique position which could not being achieved by private insurance