The cost of Medicare is also ... uninsured children?

Richard Drooling has an amazingly original op-ed in the NYT that includes something to piss off everybody on all sides of the health care debate [that's my standard for an excellent piece of work].

This is the sentence that struck me:

Eight million children have no health insurance, but their parents pay 3 percent of their salaries to Medicare to make sure that seniors get the very best money can buy in prescription drugs for everything from restless leg syndrome to erectile dysfunction, scooters and end-of-life intensive care.

I have to admit that I had never thought of that one. Let's unpack it.

Nearly 22% of non-elderly uninsured families earn more than $40K per year. About 5% of non-elderly uninsured families earn more than $80K per year.

Those families, who cannot afford to pay for their own children to be insured, pay as much as $1,200-$2,400/year in Medicare taxes to provide national health insurance for seniors.

This makes sense, exactly how?

I'm sure someone will be glad to explain it to me, the reason why senior citizens automatically deserve the power of the State to be used to transfer money from families who cannot afford to pay for their own children's health insurance.

Holding breath.

Comments

Brian Shields said…

Everyone who is uninsured is paying for the health insurance of seniors. I am paying 3%, My employer is matching my 3%. Making only $18k/year between my employer and myself we are shelling out $1100/year towards Medicare.

My company held health insurance plan, which I cannot afford, costs $220/month, or $2640/year. (My employer pays half of the cost, for what is very good coverage)

If I could opt out of Medicare, and put that money towards my own health insurance plan, I would only have to shell out an additional $30 a week to pay for my company held health insurance plan.

August 18, 2009 at 10:21 PM

Tyler Nixon said…

Wealth redistribution at its finest.

August 19, 2009 at 8:35 AM

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog