Last active
3 years, 5 months ago
  • If a 30 year old healthy man decides that $200-300 a month is not worth it to him to have any health insurance, then he is the equivalent of someone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet. People who ride a motorcycle without a helmet and have an accident tend to die. People whop ride a motorcycle without a helmet and are lucky enough not to have an accident get to feel the wind blow through their hair.

    But maybe this 30 year old has family or friends who think that his life is worth more to them than the cost of the treatment, and they will pay for it. But if he first decides not to purchase anytype of health insurance, and also has no friends or family who could get enough money together to do such (and remember wolf blitzer was not talking about someone who couldn’t afford it, “has a good job, makes a good living…and decides….” – so I am not going to accept any claims of “he can’t afford it”) then he is being a real a-hole to expect either a doctor and hospital to work for free for 6 months to save his life, or for society to pay his tab.

    Maybe there is a doctor or a hospital who out of the goodness of their heart want to save this man’s life for free…or someone who wants to collect money for them….or maybe the guy has enough saved up to defray the costs…the guy made the decision to play the odds, and made no accomodation for an emergency….just like the motorcycle driver without a helmet!

    If he is 30 and healthy and making a good wage, it might make absolute sense for him to have a policy which covers anything above $10k a year, because he could handle anything below that….that sort of policy, depending on what state your in would probably be pretty cheap, because the actuarial chances of you incurring more than $10k a year are low…..

    but this is the debate question equivalent of “a hostage taker has your wife and kid, and is threatening to kill one…which one should die?”

  • fromtheright commented on the blog post For A Better Model on Jobs, Look to Argentina, Not Europe

    2011-09-05 07:28:27View | Delete

    The areas where infrastructure would make the most sense is in areas with the greatest ability to grow their economies. Generally those would be the areas with the lowest and not the highest unemployment.

    Greece, Spain and Portugal all had giant infrastructure programs in the 90′s. The problem is the education levels and individual productivity and enttrepreneurial talent was not there, and all that infrastructure did not lead to meaningful and lasting jobs. Had that infrastructure money been spent in Germany, it would currently be being utilized.

    so the facts are that putting new and better highways and bridges in Michigan wouldn’t bring a long lasting uptick to the economy there….the cities are shrinking, the jobs have left, and they ain’t coming back. Offering the unemployed of Michigan and California jobs in Texas and North Dakota on infrastructure projects at $14 an hour (which is more than they would take home on welfare), would actually have long term benefits.

    Just to break some more allusions about Argentina….the jobs there aren’t union scale….neither were those in the New Deal. And the obsession with the debt, is mainly because there is no belief that the government could ever institute something like a “one time expenditure”….everything, once implemented seems to be something that can never be parted with.