Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
It has nothing to do with transfer of wealth, it's about adverse selection and the premise that the health care system isn't sustainable if it's biased towards the high risk participants. That's one of the principal reasons premiums have risen so fast the past few decades...
-spence
|
It has much to do with transfer of wealth, because it represents a massive transfer of wealth, from young to old.
Sandman, I can't come up with a great rebuttal of what you raise, except to say this...if we don't take some money from the young/healthy folks to pay for the care needed by the old/sick...then what do we do with the old/sick? Kick them to the curb?
I'm not saying I support this law. I'm saying that a case can be made that it's not immoral to ask everyone to pay into the system, knowing that some will never need the system, and some will be a huge drain on the system.
When you consider this wealth transfer (from young to old) in conjunction with social security and medicare, as well as the $17 trillion in debt that we are passing on...well, you could make a very compelling case that we are screwing subsequent generations, over things that they had no say in. In fact, I can't see what any argument would be against that.
Spence, please check the union 14.5% raise thread, I think I mathematicaly proved that you are full of BS.