Re: Senate Healthcare Bill Released
I appreciate the back and forth, Bodhi. I think we've both explained our views adequately and will have to just accept some disagreements.
Sorry I missed this post from the other day. I guess that’s what I get from not living on this board 24/7. This post is curious to me because it’s essentially a rehash of argument I dispatched earlier. Eh, I suppose I can go through this again. Disagreements are fine, but some positions really should be adequately supported (like how government is not a trillion-dollar waste machine). Government waste is not compassion; quite the opposite, actually.
I came across this tweet yesterday. It's from a nurse and mother of a 2-year-old son born with a number of syndromic organ defects. He's needed four open heart surgeries so far, and she posted the bill for his most recent operation
So, there are several problems here. One is that the extreme is not the norm. When one continually falls back on the extreme emotional example, it reveals that the statist argument is very narrow and lacks broader rational thought. An extreme example can be found for anything, and any tale of woe will understandably garner sympathy. But the extreme case should not be used to make policy for the entire country. You acknowledged that earlier, but you then circle back on this talking point. Second, this is a tweet. Are you basing your statist position on social media posts? Third, there’s so much missing regarding the information needed to make a legitimate argument. How old is this woman? What is her income? Is she married? What is her husband’s age and income? And on and on. And even then, this case is an extreme rarity. It’s not the norm.
I'll save you the math: it's $231k without the ACA. Multiply by four, take into account his non-surgical care, and you're over a million. What's your solution for this for this woman?
Instead of using emotions to justify government waste on a ridiculous scale, I use real life experience plus academic and practical knowledge of human nature, incentives, finance, economics, government, etc. I will not be using a tweet or any other social media post to base my argument.
Because I have no information on this case I’ll have to make assumptions. My solution for this woman will be based from my own experience, as well as that of my wife. One of our investments is for our daughter’s college tuition. When she turned one-year-old (I should have started when she was born) I started investing $100/paycheck for her future education. It’s been right at 10 years and, per the last quarterly statement, Lily currently has about $35k in that investment account. So, $100/paycheck over 10 years yields $35k. (Compounding interest on investments is awesome!)
So, now for the back-of-the-envelope calculations using the returns above of personal experience ….. I’m going to assume this lady’s health insurance premium for her family is the same as mine. So, $700/paycheck. If that money were invested instead and earmarked for health costs (including buying catastrophic coverage) …. Over 10 years that’s $245k.
But, she’s not investing for 10 years, she’s more than likely working for at least 40 years. That’s $980k.
Now what about her husband? He would add to that $980k. What about other family members who did the same thing and could help out if needed? (I know you have a cynical view of human nature, but families tend to help each other.) What about friends? (They also tend to help each other.) Her church? The kindness of strangers? As I have discussed before, I (and many others) provide assistance to a couple of families in our community who have fallen on hard times. Government intervention is impersonal destroys the sense of community.
So, while you list $231k as the cost (without my suggested catastrophic insurance coverage), this family has it covered. It’s a steep price for sure, but that’s why one invests for such events.
And that still leaves a lot of money for other potential incidents or to pass along to their children so that their investment is off to a great start. In no time (often within one generation), very few people would even consider turning to the government for help. (And that, of course, is why statists hate individual freedom and free market economics.)
The point is there is a massive amount of potential wealth out there. The plan you prefer strangles this wealth in the crib. The result is massive debt, waste, fraud, wealth redistribution, and economic stagnation. I know you’ve completely ignored all the government waste I’ve listed in this thread, but maybe you should think about it if you are serious about helping people. You can’t seriously think the government solution is favorable.
Do you wag your finger and say she should have invested in bitcoin 10 years ago to fund his care?
I see your low view of human nature include me as well. LOL! Um, no. I wouldn’t wag my finger at her. Why would I? Ever? I have a generally positive view of human nature. My default position is that people are intelligent enough to take care of their own business. It’s the statists with their cynical view of human nature that do the finger wagging. They think people are infants and can’t do anything without government assistance.
Strangely enough, though, while I have maintained throughout that I’m nothing special and that anyone can do basic investing if allowed to do so, it’s the statists that never seem to hold themselves to the same condescending view of other people. I wonder why that is? Care to tell us?
So, while I’m not the finger-wagging type, the group that deserves such a reaction are the statists who support policies that destroy billions of dollars in wealth and create trillions of dollars in waste. I would suggest that the statists smarten up before they drive this country to economic ruin.
That if only she had invested more each month, the invisible hand would help her reach her own bootstraps?
LOL! Again with the very low view of human nature. People aren’t as stupid as you think. This lady is a nurse. It’s not an easy profession; few people can do this work well. She rightly earns a good living, is working in a noble profession, and is deserving of respect.
And if you are going to use economic concepts, please use them correctly.
Even if she had catastrophic coverage, as you suggest, these continual visits would still leave her on the hook for $50k-100k minimum.
So, thank you for making my point. What was $231k is down to $50k per my preferred plan. Still a lot of money, but they have it covered.
And just a quick note on catastrophic coverage: I'm in favor of keeping it as an option, as the ACA does. But you argue that it should be baseline for everyone. Thing is, it just doesn't work for very poor people. If your pre-tax income is $10,000 annually, a plan with a $7k deductible is completely useless, no matter how low the monthly payments are. These people will just say screw it, live without insurance, and we'll end up paying their bills through EMTALA.
Again, the extreme is not the norm. Anyway, I’ve been clear that I would leave it to individual choice on how one invests (I would strongly suggest professional advice) and what type of insurance one purchases. $10,000? You have to work very hard at not working hard to only make $10k a year. My wife, her sister, her brother, and her dozens of friends came to this country with nothing, including no English language skills. Some ended up going to college; some kept going to graduate school; some bypassed higher education and went straight into the workforce. Now they are all very well off; some are millionaires many times over. This is all through achieving various job skills and hard work over 20-25 years. It’s not some secret on how to be a productive citizen. A little effort. If they did it, anyone can do it. If I did it, anyone can do it. Unfortunately, the government encourages many people to underachieve. And statists seem to be ok with that.
