http://www.marketwatch.com/story/to-cut-health-bills-boomers-need-20-somethings-2013-04-25?siteid=yhoof2

I'm sure all those Gen Yers and Millennials are standing by their votes. There is no reason any healthy male under 30 or so should be forced to purchase any type of health insurance (if at all) other than catastrophic with high deductibles. It is a waste of money for them.

I wonder how the voters would react if auto insurance was treated in the same manner.

Obamacare = complete shit.

It blows my mind that I still have friends that defend this monstrosity.

Manhattan Buckeye;1433278 wrote:http://www.marketwatch.com/story/to-cut-health-bills-boomers-need-20-somethings-2013-04-25?siteid=yhoof2

I'm sure all those Gen Yers and Millennials are standing by their votes. There is no reason any healthy male under 30 or so should be forced to purchase any type of health insurance (if at all) other than catastrophic with high deductibles. It is a waste of money for them.

I wonder how the voters would react if auto insurance was treated in the same manner.

Under Obamacare, individuals are required to make the personally responsible choice and buy health insurance of some kind....catastrophic with high deductibles if you so desire.

As it stands right now...young people make what appears to be the economic choice to them and not buy insurance because of the inherent biases we all act on and this causes a number of problems in the macroeconomy....1. When the 25 year old male gets testicular cancer he is fucked and that raises costs for everyone in the macroeconomy.....2. Insurance companies raise costs anyways for everyone else to cover that risk.

Under Obamacare...Males under 30 don't have to buy extravagant health insurance....but they have to buy something.


Medicare for all would've been better, cheaper and would've eliminated health insurance as a cost of doing business (which Obamcare makes worse) but it is better than nothing and is similar to the Swiss model and the Massachussetts model which have both proven fairly successful. It is too bad however that we didn't pursue a New Deal style full employment program concurrently however because it cannot only hurt unemployment for the time being.

I'm not sure that's the case, they might be forced into a comprehensive plan. I find it difficult to believe that anyone knows at this point.

At any rate, would you welcome a New Deal single payer system for the automobile insurance industry?

-edit, reading the article above, it doesn't appear that a low-cost catastrophic plan would be considered. If it would there would be no reduction in the extra costs for lowering the insurance for seniors. The tenor of the article is that we need young people to pay more so that older people can pay less. Hence, more generational theft.

Manhattan Buckeye;1433338 wrote:I'm not sure that's the case, they might be forced into a comprehensive plan. I find it difficult to believe that anyone knows at this point.

At any rate, would you welcome a New Deal single payer system for the automobile insurance industry?

Well...The New Deal really had nothing to do with anything Single Payer...but, would I support a single payer for auto insurance...the problems in the automobile insurance market aren't like what we're facing in the health insurance market to be sure...costs aren't rising exorbitantly...but in reality automobile insurance markets suffer a lot of the same problems. However, the state level mandates to require minimum coverage are effective in getting even a lot of poor college students to buy it for instance...because the risk of being pulled over and having to show proof insurance any day seems to be effective in getting people to adhere to the mandate and buy minimum coverage. Young college kids without health insurance and a job at Wendy's don't buy even cheap, high deductible catastrophich coverage because the risk doesn't seem apparent...unlike with auto insurance.

However, if the nation as a whole decided to nationalize automobile insurance to avoid free-loader problems I wouldn't be opposed probably but I don't really think it's necessary....the state level mandates have been effective in getting people to insure themselves for the most part. Could it be better, sure but we have bigger fish to fry.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/07/13/obamacare-could-kill-one-type-of-cheap-health-insurance/

Doesn't appear that catastrophic coverage would be allowed

- edit again, from the article:

"Losing HDHPs might not seem like a huge deal. But they actually represent one of the best chances to rein in health-care costs over the long haul, for one key reason: They give you the patient an economic incentive to pay more attention to what you spend on your care."

I see where they are getting this. As I was employed in my mid-late 20's I took my employer's subsidized health insurance, I'm going to conservatively estimate that my premiums averaged $175/month (pre-tax with the employer subsidy) over 5 years making me spend $10,500 (again pre-tax).

The number of health-care bills I received in that time = zero. The insurance company should erect a statue of me.

No unmarried healthy young male is going to purchase a comprehensive plan that costs a multiple of that if there are alternatives. But if there are alternatives it destroys Obamacare's "affordability" for the group that costs more to insure.

The entire bill is a mess. But it is screwing the young.

Manhattan Buckeye;1433338 wrote:The tenor of the article is that we need young people to pay more so that older people can pay less. Hence, more generational theft.

That's exactly how it's designed to work - social program where the young and working are going to subsidize the sponges and retirees. This BS about more buyers and more "competition" reducing costs only works on idiots and keynesians.

The one good thing I've heard about Obamakare is covering pre-existing conditions. But that MUST cause a significant hike in premiums because you've now exposed insurers to the fat tails, which is always where you lose your ass.

Manhattan Buckeye;1433338 wrote:Hence, more generational theft.

To be fair, there's really nothing left to steal from future generations. All the growth has been pulled forward already.

When you look at the current debt and the trajectory, and all the unfunded liabilities...we are already in technical default. 100% insolvent. The music stops when, not if, inflation returns.

gut;1433626 wrote:To be fair, there's really nothing left to steal from future generations. All the growth has been pulled forward already.

When you look at the current debt and the trajectory, and all the unfunded liabilities...we are already in technical default. 100% insolvent. The music stops when, not if, inflation returns.

Oh neat...more predictions of yours that will be 100% wrong!!!:thumbup:

BoatShoes;1433633 wrote:Oh neat...more predictions of yours that will be 100% wrong!!!:thumbup:

Just plain stupid. Do you have any idea, at all, what interest payments alone will do to the deficit when rates rise to 4-5%, which is still historically low for good economic times?

A smart person might question the efficacy of the half-arsed keynesian economics we practice when it's only sustainable with crappy growth to help keep rates artificially low.

gut;1433641 wrote:Just plain stupid. Do you have any idea, at all, what interest payments alone will do to the deficit when rates rise to 4-5%, which is still historically low for good economic times?

A smart person might question the efficacy of the half-arsed keynesian economics we practice when it's only sustainable with crappy growth to help keep rates artificially low.

We can just print more money, right Boat!

WebFire;1433676 wrote:We can just print more money, right Boat!

Please don't help him.

BoatShoes;1433333 wrote:Under Obamacare, individuals are required to make the personally responsible choice and buy health insurance of some kind....catastrophic with high deductibles if you so desire.

How can you require a purchase and call it choice?

WebFire;1433676 wrote:We can just print more money, right Boat!

Please don't help him.

gut;1433641 wrote:Just plain stupid. Do you have any idea, at all, what interest payments alone will do to the deficit when rates rise to 4-5%, which is still historically low for good economic times?

A smart person might question the efficacy of the half-arsed keynesian economics we practice when it's only sustainable with crappy growth to help keep rates artificially low.

WebFire;1433676 wrote:We can just print more money, right Boat!

Look Gut, even your boy Bill Gross is starting to see the light. Surely you will soon.

"The UK and almost all of Europe have erred in terms of believing that austerity, fiscal austerity in the short term, is the way to produce real growth. It is not," Mr Gross told the Financial Times. "You've got to spend money."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6c023bdc-a93c-11e2-a096-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2RZh9T8FR

And Webfire it's more like putting numbers into an excel spreadsheet and changing some numbers on a computer screen.

believer;1434169 wrote:How can you require a purchase and call it choice?



Please don't help him.

Well actually requirement is really a bad word choice on my part according to the Supreme Court. People who don't take the personally responsible choice to insure their own health and not be a free loader are taxed in order to discourage this bad behavior.

Bill Gross is retiring and heading for the hills; he sees the writing on the wall and wants to enjoy a couple of golden years before all hel! breaks loose.

justincredible;1433279 wrote:Obamacare = complete ****.

It blows my mind that I still have friends that defend this monstrosity.

You need new friends, because the destruction of the greatest health care system in the world is simply indefensible.

BoatShoes;1434205 wrote:Look Gut, even your boy Bill Gross is starting to see the light. Surely you will soon.

We've been over this. Other countries - even your favorite state CA (what's that like the 7th biggest economy in the world) - have achieved results with "austerity". And nothing practiced or on the table in the US can be remotely called austerity. Maybe "austerity" is failing in Europe because it's too far gone with it reckless social policies. Europe and "growth" are almost oxymorons.

How is that "the sky is falling" schtick coming with an $80B budget cut?

"Maybe "austerity" is failing in Europe because it's too far gone with it reckless social policies."

That and other reasons, mostly demographics. The Eurozone has a huge problem with an aging population and relying on immigrant labor to keep them afloat. The U.S. has somewhat of a similar problem, but not the same degree.

gut;1434486 wrote:We've been over this. Other countries - even your favorite state CA (what's that like the 7th biggest economy in the world) - have achieved results with "austerity". And nothing practiced or on the table in the US can be remotely called austerity. Maybe "austerity" is failing in Europe because it's too far gone with it reckless social policies. Europe and "growth" are almost oxymorons.

How is that "the sky is falling" schtick coming with an $80B budget cut?

I never said the "sky would fall"...I said that growth would slow and the economy would not be saved by inspired confidence leaving unemployment still painfully high, etc....did you look at the numbers?

1.2% inflation....still below the Fed's target rate despite Quantitative Easing

Government Spending Cuts subtracting from GDP 10 out of the last 11 quarters subtracting 0.8% points off of GDP this time round as GDP is 2.5% and under the projected 3.2%. What do you know??? Tax Raises and Spending Cuts which take money out of the economy, indeed, contract that economy when monetary policy has reached near impotence!

Also, can't believe you're turning on your boy Bill Gross now....The guy you've cited for his wisdom before!!

(And you should know buy now that economies that were able to grow when they cut spending or raised taxes...both U.S. and Cananada in the 90's had the contractionary effects of fiscal tightening offset by looser monetary policy...namely lowering interest rates...but I've pointed that out to you before and you don't acknowledge it!)

Why are you leaving your boy Bill out to dry...he knows what an economy needs when it is depressed....more spending!!! It has to come from somewhere...either more direct government spending or more private sector spending from tax cuts...tax rebates....large direct transfers fresh off the printing press or increased spending stimulated by the central bank. He's figuring it out...you should too!

Manhattan Buckeye;1434491 wrote:"Maybe "austerity" is failing in Europe because it's too far gone with it reckless social policies."

That and other reasons, mostly demographics. The Eurozone has a huge problem with an aging population and relying on immigrant labor to keep them afloat. The U.S. has somewhat of a similar problem, but not the same degree.

The country with the most generous welfare state in the world, Denmark...right on the edge of Euro territory...has 4-5% unemployment. Amazing...all those disincentives to work for teh p00rz that even the NY times wrote about lately and they still have a better unemployment rate than Spain...which has disastrous levels of unemployment...near 30%...an all time record....when Spain had a much less generous welfare state that it is cutting and ran budget surpluses before the crises.





What is the difference....it is the Euro and the forced austerity being put into place by the Creditor nations. Denmark still has the Krone and has kept its sovereign power over its own currency (while also not pursuing an austerity agenda like the UK which is struggling despite having its own currency).

Denmark also controls its borders and has a problem with an aging population and is facing problems as well. There was a great article a few days ago about a person who hasn't worked in over a decade because being on welfare in Denmark pays more than being employed. That isn't going to last forever.

If you haven't to Europe, you don't understand how poorly it is doing as a whole. Go 20 miles outside of London and you would think you were in Detroit. Downton Abbey is a myth, the UK is more like The Full Monty. Europe is collapsing on its aging population and lack of younger people to pay for the generation cradle-to-grave social network.

BoatShoes;1434521 wrote: Why are you leaving your boy Bill out to dry...he knows what an economy needs when it is depressed....more spending!!! It has to come from somewhere...either more direct government spending or more private sector spending from tax cuts...tax rebates....large direct transfers fresh off the printing press or increased spending stimulated by the central bank. He's figuring it out...you should too!

You should try reading Bill Gross, actually reading him instead of completely flubbing it on some soundbite in a paper.

Gee, biggest bond manager in the world nearing retirement. It's going to suck when rates rise for those guys, and here's Bill basically saying keep the easy money coming.

One more time....You keep crying about the unemployment and growth rates here and don't realize that has been the norm in Europe for DECADES in part because of the same policies you keep advocating.

High taxes and deficits choke off growth and kill jobs. That's what we have. And calling for more spending just chokes the golden goose that much more.

Depending on younger generations to shoulder the burden so older ones can benefit, sounds familiar.

QuakerOats;1434389 wrote:You need new friends, because the destruction of the greatest health care system in the world is simply indefensible.

Mainly friends from college that I only keep in touch with on Facebook.