Home › Blogs › Joel's blog

About those 'parasites'

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 05:46 — Joel

A few days ago, Ben H.L. Monkey registered particular disgust with the provision of health reform law that allows young adults to stay on their parents' insurance until age 27 -- urging the "miserable parasites" to kill themselves.

So I found this tidbit in today's Philadelphia Inquirer to be particularly interesting:

Young adults, ages 19 to 29, are the largest group of uninsured, and represent a third of the uninsured, according to data analyzed by Kaiser. Three in 10 don't have insurance, compared to 17 percent of those ages 30 to 64.

Half the uninsured young people work full time at jobs that don't offer health insurance. Many start at small companies, which are less likely to provide insurance.

Now there are undoubtedly some lazy still-living-with-their-parents Peter Pan wannabes among these twentysomethings who don't have insurance. But it appears that lots and lots of them do have full-time work -- and are unable to easily obtain insurance anyway. One could, I suppose, use the term "parasite" to describe businesses that use the labor of young adults without providing them the means to protect their health -- but I suspect reality is much too complicated for that to be a fair generalization. It usually is.

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • Twitter
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Buzz Up!
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • Icerocket

Trackback URL for this post:

http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=trackback/7197

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 03/24/2010 - 06:09 — Anonymous (not verified)

So much for logic

"unable to easily obtain health insurance"

That's a bit of stupidity dressed in sanctimony.

The logic is what?

Since they are unable to 'easily' obtain it,
...they don't have to?
...they are not responsible for not having it?
...they are victims of their employer?
...they are slaves to their employer?

We all know how in America everyone is a victim of everyone else, but maybe they:
...CHOOSE not to purchase it.
...CHOOSE to not look for work at a place that offers benefits.

Maybe they choose not to do these things because:
...there is no competition in the health insurance industry which leads to high insurance costs.
...there are so many regulations dictating minimum coverage standards that lead to high insurance costs.
...there is no competition for their labor due to an economy that is being destroyed by every increasing federal debt to pay for the current failing entitlements.

And when small companies are forced to provide benefits, will there be more small companies or less? Will this lead to more employment or less? Will this lead to more revenue to the government to pay for utopia, or less? Will this lead to more debt or less? Will small companies that currently exist be able to survive with this new mandate?

Obama has come out recently and (once again) told us that the plan is to move the country to Socialized medicine, so you don't have to lie for him anymore.

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 07:08 — Ben

Re: Parasites

I believe "parasites" was the mysterious H.L. Monkey's term, but, what the heck, I'm happy to sign on. Here's why:

Remaining tethered to your parents, whether by piggybacking on their health insurance until your 26th birthday or by living in their basement, is more harmful to society in the long-run than living in your 20s without health insurance. Deferred independence means, among other things, deferred marriage, deferred child-rearing, deferred career advancement. (I'm talking about the ones who do this by choice, rather than by necessity. Stuff happens. That's what family is for.)

And, by the way, somebody's paying. Maybe the parents. Maybe the parents' employer. Additional years of carrying additional dependents creates additional costs. How those costs are managed is anybody's guess right now; but in making that determination, I would simply remind you of the wisdom of Dean Martin in the original "Ocean's Eleven": "I keep telling you guys, the odds are always with the house. WITH...THE... HOUSE!"

If uninsured twentysomethings is a problem, then government should allow means for affordable, market solutions -- not by creating programs or mandates, but by creating space for the market to fill. But then you're still left with the "problem" of many twentysomethings who simply don't want to buy a product they feel like they don't need. For those who believe they do need insurance, however, an affordable pool might be the answer.

Finally, on "parasitic businesses." Why don't those employers offer health insurance? Because it's expensive. And it's going to get even more expensive. But there's something else at work here. It's called freedom of contract. Employers are free to set certain terms. You're free to work for that employer as long or as little as you like. Stay, walk away. Your call.

We need fewer parasites, and more producers. Which is centralized health care more likely to create?

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 08:48 — RobbL

Twenties

When I was in my early twenties, I did not have health insurance. This was not because it was unavailable to me at a reasonable rate, nor because I couldn't afford it, but simply because it was more "important" to me to have cable television and drive a more expensive car than I should have. I knew that if something went really wrong I could go to the emergency room, but mostly I just didn't think about it. When I got married, I immediately signed on to my employer's insurance because I was no longer living my life "just for me." The statistics cited simply have no way of differentiating between those who can't get health insurance and those who choose not to. But we do know this: 18-35 year old men are the prime target demographic for television advertisers because they are proven to have the most disposable income. That leads me to believe that a large percentage of young men who go without health insurance are doing so because they don't believe it is a priority.

Health insurance for most young people (particularly young men) is extremely inexpensive, even with local insurance monopolies. When my wife and I had our children, we were able to get PPO health insurance for them privately for less money than it would have cost to add them to my employer's "provided" HMO plan.

So even if I grant the premise that it's the national government's responsibility to ensure that everyone has access to affordable health care (and I don't) this "stay on your parents' insurance" plan still looks ridiculous compared to other options.

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 09:59 — Anonymous (not verified)

Twenty-one

I can't believe someone would debase himself and offer this article and stat as a way to support the 27 year old coverage clause.

Is this how hard it is to defend what was passed, that supporters have to project reasons on statistical samples? Why bother with the obfuscation anymore? Its not put there to cover 18 to 27 year olds that can't get insurance. Its there to put them into the mix so that they are already there when Single payer takes over, and they will then no notice the difference. It was 'free' before and it will still be 'free' after. Who cares when its someone else paying? Parents, Government, the rich, the young... their money spends the same everywhere.

Its just a way to rope people into dependency on the Government without them knowing the difference.

Q: What do you call a 22 year old man who doesn't bother to purchase health insurance, gets hurt playing football with his friends, and ends up with 10 years worth of hospital bill payments?

A: A warning to other 22 year olds who don't bother to purchase health insurance.