You folks (by which I mostly mean, 'Ray') understand that "unaffordable" is a relative term, right? Something can be "unaffordable" for someone and affordable for someone else. It's perfectly legitimate to say that something is unaffordable for lots of people even though others can easily afford it.

1. being within the financial means of most people <once those electronic devices became affordable, sales skyrocketed>

2. costing little <they've added some affordable options>

Affordable also has a relative sense, which Ray is bizarrely keen on denying. A $3000 suit is affordable for a rich person, but unaffordable for a poor person. This is perfectly normal language use.

My overall point - this is not semantics - is that people use language in order to distract from what is actually going on. If one supports doing X, one should be honest about what X is.

My overall point - this is not semantics - is that people use language in order to distract from what is actually going on.

Please stop describing a situation where some people get health care for nothing as making it "affordable" to them.

But objecting to "affordable" really is a surface complaint, right?

And aren't you the one always telling us that marketing and advertising has no impact on behavior?

And aren't you the one always telling us that marketing and advertising has no impact on behavior?

You know Ray I've never felt you were trolling before. I think you are now.

No, that's David, who thinks that demand for anything other than a specific brand is the product of a virgin birth.

This is a completely ridiculous usage of the word, and it's shameful that people here are stooping to this level of debate.

The health insurance is affordable, by definition, because the vast majority of people can afford it.

But you folks seem fairly smart. So tell me why I can't/shouldn't do the following

I don't think it's illegal under the ACA...

I'm not sure this is really even true - lots and lots of people have health insurance because their employer pays for most or all of it, and those payments are subsidized by the government in the form of tax exemptions. If people all had to pay market rates for their own health insurance, it's not at all clear that it would be "affordable" for vast swathes of the population.

But how is this helpful? The issue is whether health insurance is affordable. It is.

Option A admits that all readings of constitutionality are textual interpretations. Now, I have no problem with that, nor does, say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but David and Ray and the "reality determines itself" brigades (inclusive of the Thomases and Scalias of the court) are violently opposed* to admitting that basic, obvious truth.

Yes, but the Court is the final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional. Feel free to argue the decision, but for now, the ACA is constitutional.

Nobody's saying that court decisions can't be subjectively "wrong", according to one's various premises.

This sounds like the ACA, though. People are given a choice whether to (A) to invest a portion of one's money in a private account or (B) leave their tax dollars with Social Security, but one is not free to not save for retirement. It's not called a mandate, but it acts in exactly that manner, since it requires everyone to become actors in that particular market.

But how is this helpful? The issue is whether health insurance is affordable. It is.

I think this is sort of factually incorrect.

It can't be, if the vast majority of people were affording it.

The issue is that the government is well within its power to require people to purchase insurance. The collective maintenance of insurance for certain things (automobile insurance, home insurance) is taken for granted as an obvious and necessary thing.

The comparison actually would be if you could opt out of say, service by the local fire department and because of whatever reason you refuse to pay the annual, and then your house catches on fire. You're pleading with the fire department, who shows on your doorstep and *they* refuse to do anything to stop the fire, and are only really there because they want to make sure the fire doesn't spread out to other houses who did pay the annual fee. You might think this is ridicoulious and it doesn't happen, but read this story.

Now, that's evil and cold blooded.

Exactly. That's what I've been saying forever. Health outcomes don't function properly on a profit/loss, "free market" mechanism.

Well since 60% of bankruptcy is caused by medical bills, then yeah it just might here in the real world.

Is this bill title more to your liking?

For a point of comparison, the price of gas in 1990 was $2.24 (in 2008 dollars). If gas prices had risen at the same rate as healthcare, gas in 2008 would have cost $5.71 per gallon. Would you call that affordable?

The problem is not that the cost of health insurance is too high; the problem is that some people can't support themselves. It may be good policy to provide health care for them, but people should stop pretending that the core problem is the cost of the health insurance.

No, it isn't. It's reasonable and just.

Well since 60% of bankruptcy is caused by medical bills, then yeah it just might here in the real world.

Uh, no.

Study Links Medical Costs and Personal Bankruptcy

By Catherine Arnst

Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. And in a finding that surprised even the researchers, 78% of those filers had medical insurance at the start of their illness, including 60.3% who had private coverage, not Medicare or Medicaid.

Medically related bankruptcies have been rising steadily for decades. In 1981, only 8% of families filing for bankruptcy cited a serious medical problem as the reason, while a 2001 study of bankruptcies in five states by the same researchers found that illness or medical bills contributed to 50% of all filings.

10 Leading Causes of Bankruptcy

Percentages represent reasons an individual files bankruptcy. Sources were combined to average top reasons Americans filed.

Medical Expenses (42%)
Recent studies have shown that 42% of all personal bankruptcies are a result of medical expenses. The study also reveals that 78% of those who filed had insurance.

Job Loss (22%)
Millions of Americans are unemployed, which makes them much more likely to file for bankruptcy. Unemployed individuals often pay for insurance out-of-pocket.

Uncontrolled Spending (15%)
Credit card bills, large mortgages, and expensive car payments contribute to bankruptcy. Uncontrolled spending habits can put Americans on a path to filing.

Divorce (8%)
Legal fees, child support, alimony and the burden of providing for a household on one income can result in ample financial stress. Divorce rates are nearly 50% in America.

Unexpected Disaster (7%)
Unexpected disasters such as earthquakes, floods, or hurricanes can be nearly impossible to prepare for. If a homeowner is without insurance, this can possibly lead to bankruptcy.

Avoiding Foreclosure (1.5%)
An individual can spend a life time preparing to purchase a home. Just to avoid foreclosure, some Americans will file for bankruptcy to re-organize debt.

Poor Financial Planning (1.5%)
Not having a sound financial plan can lead to bankruptcy. Financial experts recommend establishing savings for expenses that could lead to debt.

Preventing Loss of Utilities (1%)
Along with home foreclosure is the risk of losing utilities. Keeping lights on and a house warm can be a factor for someone to file.

Student Loans (1%)
Student loans won't be eliminated like other unsecured debt, but it may be possible to consolidate student loans with a bankruptcy.

Preventing Repossession (1%)
If a creditor repossessed your vehicle, filing bankruptcy may force them to return the car, and any other personal property that may have been repossessed.

BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and bankruptcy laws have tightened.

METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as “medical” based on debtors’ stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts.

RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors,
the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001.

CONCLUSIONS: Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies.

It's incredibly stupid to live in a city and say "Whether my neighbour's house burns down or not is none of my business". Even if you're maximally callous - fires don't work that way. If the fire department just lets houses burn, the city is going to burn down. And since they know the city is going to burn down, insurance companies won't offer you fire insurance.

I agree, but this wasn't in a city. In a place with detached homes, the considerations are quite different.

I assume you have some reason to dismiss either the figures in the Harvard study, or the facts that even at a lower figure it blows non-medical reasons out of the water. I didn't have much of a chance to look for the opposing figures, which I'm sure exist.

No, it isn't. It's reasonable and just.

Have you never actually seen a fire? Good lord.

First, it defined "medical" to include things that weren't medical, like gambling debt

(It also included lost income due to illness, which - though related to health - doesn't make any analytic sense.

My point is that you guys are identifying the wrong problem. The problem is not that the cost of health insurance is too high; the problem is that some people can't support themselves. It may be good policy to provide health care for them, but people should stop pretending that the core problem is the cost of the health insurance.

I'd also like to know how you think you can lift the American worker into a place where they're making as much money (after paying for healthcare and housing) as they were 20 years ago. You hate wealth re-distribution. What policies that are not re-distributive address the problem?

Being unable to pay your medical bills only means one thing - the free market has determined that you don't generate enough value to be worth keeping alive.

No, it isn't. It's reasonable and just.

And that, my dear ones, is why those of us in the know just sort of throw rocks at David. He has no idea what reasonable or just means.

Nobody's saying that court decisions can't be subjectively "wrong", according to one's various premises.

I'd also like to know how you think you can lift the American worker into a place where they're making as much money (after paying for healthcare and housing) as they were 20 years ago. You hate wealth re-distribution. What policies that are not re-distributive address the problem?

The key is to be patient enough to let him actually make them, lest he otherwise accuse you of attacking a strawman.

Putting your "all government regulations are slavery" nonsense, in the list Gonfalon posted in #147, which regulations do you find unbearable?

You miss his point. He doesn't think it's a problem. That's just how the market has worked.

I suspect the obvious answer to this is that he doesn't agree with the premise that anything needs to be done to address it, and that any government-driven attempt to do so would likely be 1) an unjustified imposition and 2) not efficient or effective. (Really the clue is in the word "lifting" -- I think once you talk about lifting people up, you're already (in most cases) past what he and others with similar views would consider to be the proper function of government. People should only ever be lifting themselves up, or being lifted by those who have specifically and voluntarily agreed to do so, in this worldview.)

They guy did offer to pay the $75 annual fee on the spot, which the fire department refused. I don't think you can reasonably have much of a problem with that. If they put out all fires, nobody would pay (or very few people, anyhow), and they'd soon be bankrupt. Only by forcing everyone to pay can you avoid all your houses burning down. (Or the Crassus method, of course. But a Fire Department that only got paid when they actually put out a fire would more or less have to go the Crassus method.)

Isn't it a bit disingenuous for him to be saying that healthcare isn't the problem when he doesn't think that there is, in fact, a problem?

But don't imply [...] that the issue is the cost of health insurance when the issue is not the cost of health insurance, but is simply that some people, for whatever reason, don't have the means to support themselves.

Isn't it a bit disingenuous for him to be saying that healthcare isn't the problem when he doesn't think that there is, in fact, a problem?

Edit: I mean, I'm not an idiot, so obviously the above occurred to me as well. My point is simply that his phrasing indicated that he thought that there was a problem, so I was asking the question sincerely.

This is a fun game you guys are playing, where you ask me questions and then answer them for me while forming a circle with each other and taking your high fives.

I think I'm just going to stock up on popcorn now to beat the rush for the coming day when the Black Bloc anarchists on the left and the glibertarian "TAXES ARE SLAVERY!!!" set on the right finally realize that they want close enough to the same thing that they decide to march on DC together and let the chips fall where they may afterwards.

First, it defined "medical" to include things that weren't medical, like gambling debt

Someone who feels so compelled to gamble that they completely destroy their finances obviously suffers from a bit of mental illness. That would be a medical issue.

(It also included lost income due to illness, which - though related to health - doesn't make any analytic sense.

It makes perfect sense. They can't work because they are sick? Why, I do believe that is a medical issue! And, more than likely, they couldn't afford treatment to get better.

the army's actions necessary to protect Bill's house also protects Rick's house

Once you start whining that crap like this isn't covered, you lose people.

It is not an issue of insurance. It's an issue of not being able to earn the same income that the person did before.

Have you never actually seen a fire? Good lord.

Anyhow, Colorado and much of the Pacific Southwest disagrees.

Someone who feels so compelled to gamble that they completely destroy their finances obviously suffers from a bit of mental illness. That would be a medical issue.

I was going to write something about that, but I figured it was so obviously irrelevant that nobody would need it pointed out. Yes, wildfires present an entirely different scenario than house fires. When there are wildfires, the people trying to stop them aren't trying to put out individual homes at all; they're trying to stop the spread of the fire.

Now, that's not to say a universal health care system can't be a positive idea for other reasons (I'm not going into that one), but it's not because of free riders