The same thing with the debate over contraception. Its framed by the right as: Should the government force religious institutions to do things in conflict with their beliefs?
Its framed by the left as: Should your employer's religious beliefs control your access to contraception?

It seems to me that health insurance should be purchased directly from the insurer without the government or your employer involved. Basically like do you want HBO with cable. It should be like life insurance presumably anyone who purchases it wants it for life, which is almost everyone who isn't a "christian scientist." Instead we have this hop around cobra job provided bull**** situation that has built up over the years and unwinding it isn't even on the table.

Obv anyone can do this, its all about the cost though.

I don't know if it's politically feasible to take the steps to lower the costs of health care in the US currently. I think it's clear that obamacare prolly won't be the answer.

+1, high five!

Simply taxing health care benefits would probably end this whole issue eventually. Who would want to be tied to an employer for health benefits especially in today's economy with people so frequently changing jobs and careers.

Here is a constitutional challenge for you. Medicare, our special universal health care, benefits a certain class of people more. Rich white women get way more out of this than poor black men right? They live far longer.

Poor black men also enter the work force earlier and work more years.

What is the constitutional challenge? Where does it say black men have to love as long as white women?

A black man lives to about 70. 5 years of medicaid.
A white woman lives to about 80. 15 years of medicaid.

Think of receiving medicaid as a law school admission. You are handing out benefits paid for with tax dollars to a certain class dis proportionally.

I'm not serious about a 14th amendment challenge. I am serious that medicaid is extremely unfair to black men vis a vis white women.

Playing along with that hypothetical, how much cash does each one draw, on average?

Heres a link to the lifespan data.

I don't know how much they draw down. Do you think theres a chance that black men spend more in that short time then white women do in that long of a time? I doubt it. Many of them must not draw anything based on the bell curve. Why are you interested?

Re black men vs. white women:

The majority of medicare costs (health care costs overall) come in the last year of life, whether or not that year happens at 70 or 80.

Obviously that last year of life is way more likely to occur at an age greater than 65 for white women.

edit: Maybe I should be more clear about this. Lots of black men are dying before reaching 65.

Partially what goofball said, but also partially because I was thinking of social security for some reason. I don't know terribly well how Medicaid works so I'd have lots to learn about before being a meaningful participant of any hypothetical discussion.

How would you rectify that?

You could completely get the government out and let the market handle it. You'd have to ween people off their dependency though.

You could provide universal health care.


I don't know what I think is best necessarily. That argument will never be won either.

Basically I'm critical of Medicare as unfair and inconsistent. Its one of those things where people don't think about where the government gets its money or how unfair things really are if you break them down on a logical level or look at the big picture. In effect our government has a policy of:

"Someone old is sick lets pay for this no matter what the cost"

"Someone young is sick **** them they're on their own."

Obviously this wasn't the rationale but its what happened and to add to the irony the reason was in fact because the old are so expensive to insure.

Would the free market not just punish black men who lived a long time and reward white women who died young?

What do you mean, why would it?

I think the ideal free market health insurance would be bought directly and paid with the intention of lasting your whole life like fire insurance on your house but I can't speak to how that would play out.

My point is pretty simple. Its just as bad, society should be just as willing to take action, if a 35 year old gets cancer as a 65 year old gets cancer.

My assumption is that a health insurance company knows black men have shorter lives than white women and would raise the rates of black men sooner in their lives, say at 55. White women, living longer usually, wouldn't need their rates raised till they were a little older, maybe 60. (I forge the exact age numbers from earlier)

The rates are raised to coincide with when each group needs more benefits, to offset those benefits, I would guess. So if a black man lives longer, he does so with higher rates. And a white woman dying younger does so without ever experiencing higher rates, no?

If I'm way off, I won't be offended, I know **** all about this but it seems an intuitive way for insurance to work in theory.

More, even.

I bet a 65 year old wants to continue living just as much as the 35 year old. #subjectiveissues

Well, on average I doubt that very much. 35-year old much more often have dependent children just as a start.


Also check out article below for a discussion of under-representation of old people in clinical cancer trials. Obviously who's to say which way the causality runs there, but still.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...99912303412706

Not saying younger folks dont have more to live for

Nice try at dodging. Why does your argument not apply to States? Why are you not worried that State Governments are going to go crazy and force an individual to purchase Broccoli?

Did the government force people to buy cars?

But that doesn't mean you're right and he's wrong.