ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax


I guess this is supposed to sound really bad, but what does this actually mean? It could mean that you spend 5% of your income a year on healthcare most years, amd about once a decade you get sick and spend 70% for one year.
If that was the case, I certainly wouldn't be weeping for seniors; most of them own their own homes, have no kids to support, no expenses associated with working, and food and manufactured goods are getting so cheap that they're almost free. Seniors are both the richest and sickest segment of the population. Why shouldn't they spend, say, 20% or even 30% of their income on health care?
They're assuming seniors will purchase all the latest and greatest healthcare. Why do you need wheelchair lifts, private nurses, and high-quality nursing homes? What's wrong with a 1 story home, public nurses, and average quality nursing homes?
I think what people need is some kind of option. We don't know what healthcare costs will be, therefore we won't save for it now. Insurance is a bad system, because if we stop paying we lose what we put in. There should be a way to save and invest for future health care costs.
a rationale for social insurance? I think NOT! So, because a particular good has a high cost (due to various and sundry non-market factors), those that DESIRE the good should be subsidized by those that have no current need? Isn't this just a form of inter-generational slavery? and I have no doubt that the slaves will revolt - just look at all those tattoos!