How's that Obamacare Repeal Working Out For You?

[Martin Hash]

Medicare for people who break the Insurance Industry's actuarial tables.

[Ph64]

Medicare for people who break the Insurance Industry's actuarial tables.

Obamacare broke the actuarial tables. Even saying they couldn't decline coverage for existing conditions wouldn't have done that by itself, because they'd just say "OK, we'll offer you this policy for $5000/month", which you'd say no to because you couldn't afford it...

But when the government gets involved and said you can't charge more than "x times" what you charge at 25y/o for a 60y/o, no matter what their condition... That's what broke the actuarial tables.

Same reason 18y/o guys are paying $1200/yr for basic liability insurance, the actuarial statistics show they are a bigger risk, and god forbid they get into a fender bender and prove it, might as well double+ that amount. If the government got involved and said "you can't charge an 18y/o kid more than a 50y/o with a clean driving record", boom, you could expect to see *your* insurance rates go up to cover their risk.

[Martin Hash]

I agree.

Putting High Risk on Medicare will cure it.

[Ph64]

I agree.

Putting High Risk on Medicare will cure it.

So we should give government auto insurance to males under 25 too, right? Because they're the highest risk drivers, it'll help keep auto insurance cheap for the rest of us.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but... Are we giving medicare to a 40y/o type-2 diabetic ("high risk") who refuses to give up Twinkies, Doritos, and HFCS laden soda for a healthy diet that would keep them healthier?

[Martin Hash]

The What-Should-Be-Socialist argument has come up many times in the past. (I do a podcast on it for chrissakes.) Democracy ultimately determines that list. Personally, I think healthcare should be 1 of the 5 things (also protection, jurisprudence, environment & the social safetynet), but not car insurance.

[Ph64]

The What-Should-Be-Socialist argument has come up many times in the past. (I do a podcast on it for chrissakes.) Democracy ultimately determines that list. Personally, I think healthcare should be 1 of the 5 things (also protection, jurisprudence, environment & the social safetynet), but not car insurance.

So here's a question, if "healthcare" should be controlled by government, and things like alcohol and cigarettes - obvious health hazards - are taxed and age controlled (lol), should government then tax meats for their cholesterol (health hazard in excess), soda/candy/etc (makes you fat/unhealthy and/or diabetic), etc? Or maybe in the new "cashless we track everything society" they combine your medical health status with what you eat, and tax you on excess fats, sugars, etc? After all, it affects your health, and "the government is there to keep you healthy" right? BMI goes up a point, sorry, that's $1 more for that ice cream cone now. Cholesterol went up 5 points, sorry, that cheeseburger costs you 25% more. But don't worry, it all goes into funding medicare, so when you have that massive heart attack you're covered.

Again, devil's advocate... As the saying goes every complex problem has several simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.

[Martin Hash]

Do you mean taxation as a way to discourage the activity, or as a method to raise revenue to pay for treatment? If either worked then fine, but they don't. Placing blame never works; look at our penal system.

[Martin Hash]

The Left thinks people are obligated to one another, and The Right says they're not, but The Middle knows you need allies to survive.

[SuburbanFarmer]

As the saying goes every complex problem has several simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.

Quotable.

[Ph64]

Do you mean taxation as a way to discourage the activity, or as a method to raise revenue to pay for treatment? If either worked then fine, but they don't. Placing blame never works; look at our penal system.

Yeah, well like the cigarette settlement money to the states, and all the taxes on alcohol & cigs just winds up in the state coffers as slush money for roads, pension funding, and whatever else. Almost none of it gets spent on rehabilitation or smoking cessation ads/programs. Heck, Illinois was withholding lottery payouts - which in reality should be "fully funded" since the jackpot comes purely from ticket sales, right? Oops, guess it got "spent elsewhere"? Didn't even "balance the budget".

The Left thinks people are obligated to one another, and The Right says they're not, but The Middle knows you need allies to survive.

Allies is good. I don't argue things like unemployment, it gets paid into for each worker, and its there if you (or whoever) gets laid off, for a limited time to bridge you to finding another job. I think that serves a good short term bridge solution. Sure, if you get laid off my contribution is paying for you, but the same goes in reverse. I'm your ally, or you mine, until whichever of us was effected finds another job. Even the extension after the GFC didn't bother me, it made sense given the economy.

But where do you draw the line between an ally and a taker? In other words, in terms of being "obligated to one another" - well, DC brought up Nick Dupree a couple podcasts ago... OK, there's someone who was dealt a bad hand in life through no result of his own, I have no problem funding help for someone like that. IMHO that's a good place for a "bleeding heart liberal" social obligation. But flip that around to that woman in FL (iirc) a few months back, popping out a dozen+ kids from various fathers mostly not in the picture crying how "the state owes her" for what IMHO is her own poor choices. Really, wtf is she contributing as an "ally" to anyone? Not only nothing, but its probable her kids won't either with her stellar example of responsible parenting? She's a taker, and not because of something not of her own doing.

Its a complex problem, and both the left and right have simple wrong answers. I don't want to see people suffer, but I also don't want to subsidize those who only want to take and have no interest in (even eventually) becoming another "ally" when they are fully capable of it. I have a problem with paying (over 1/2 my property taxes) for someone who go a free K-12 education to "graduate" into a mooch off the system who then expects free healthcare for the problems their poor choices created. Now, you could argue there's other causes, social causes, for that... The drug war imprisioning victimless criminals for drug possession, predominantly black, leading to fatherless black children... I'd agree with that, and I'd agree ending the drug war would be a good start to that "complex problem" - though only a start.

But do "free handouts" fix anything, or just create more of the thing requiring free handouts?

I've had friends hit on rough financial times, and I've learned over the years handouts rarely get repaid or reciprocated. So instead, hey, come over an spend a couple hours weed whacking the back yard, maybe give me a hand for another 30 mins cleaning/organizing the shed (having an extra set of hands might help motivate me), I'll give you $80 for it - I get something, you get something. (Might not be something I desperately need right then, or that I couldn't do myself, but its not just a handout).