You say "screwed", I say "contributing to society".
> Actual insurance markets without coercion are a net positive for all participants
How do you have a coercion-free market when the consequences of not buying in can include "you'll die or be bankrupt"?
I can choose not to own a boat, or a motorcycle, or a home. I can't really choose whether or not I get psoriasis or have a heart attack.
Because being overweight can lead to adult onset diabetes, I'm choosing to slim down so as to have a better chance at living.
Not every health condition is preventable.
> How do you have a coercion-free market when the consequences of not buying in can include "you'll die or be bankrupt"?
This is such a silly argument. Are any changes in your utility function "coercion"? Is the fact that you have to eat food "coercion"?
Coercion-free means that you're free to behave rationally and make decisions that optimize your utility. It doesn't mean that nothing bad will ever happen. I'm really not sure how people get from the former to the latter.
If you're worried about having a heart attack, you should be able to buy an insurance vehicle that charges you commensurately with the risk of that happening. (Unfortunately, you can't; you also have to pay for other people's quadruple-bypasses, geriatric medicine, and 8th child.)
I am seriously tired of being seen as nothing more than a bag of blood for society to suck on and then come and insult me by emplying I haven't contributed enough.
Dammit I don't mind paying a fair amount of tax to make society work, but when they also choose to insult me because I haven't contributed enough and then waste what I have contributed.
We pay the same health insurance rates as everyone else. If you consider that an insult and a waste, I'm not sure how to constructively discuss this with you.
> We pay the same health insurance rates as everyone else.
Did you miss everything I said? If it's a flat rate, it's not insurance. It's a mandatory subsidy pool.
And yes, it is an insult and a waste; certain groups are systematically forced to give up the results of their labor for the benefit of other groups. Besides obviously subverting useful market-based societal optimization mechanisms, it's also very similar to certain social institutions we sought to eliminate a while back...
How is a coercively collected subsidy for the health expenses of other demographics considered a contribution to society? Is trading one's labour for capital not enough?
> I can't really choose whether or not I get psoriasis or have a heart attack.
There are plenty of places throughout the United States where the only viable means of transportation is the automobile (or a motorcycle, as you point out). The consequences of not having auto insurance is also bankruptcy. Would you characterize the auto insurance market in those locales as similarly coercive?
No? I believe folks in a modern, developed-world society have slightly more obligation to their fellow citizens than that. Some people can't labor, so we have things like SCHIP (kids), SSDI (disabled), etc.
> Would you characterize the auto insurance market in those locales as similarly coercive?
The US focus on private cars is problematic, but the choice to move somewhere with better public transport or closer to a job is generally available (if potentially difficult).
No? Capital is absolutely meaningless in a society. Capital doesn't give society anything. Actual, physical goods do, services do, a healthy population that protects us through the herd effect do. Capital in itself? It is on the brink of being nefarious for society.
>There are plenty of places throughout the United States where the only viable means of transportation is the automobile (or a motorcycle, as you point out). The consequences of not having auto insurance is also bankruptcy. Would you characterize the auto insurance market in those locales as similarly coercive?
Aside from the fact that you will rarely suddenly end up in such a place without warning (which cannot be said when it comes to health), I would say that it's a problem of society. Why is there no public transport that could do most of the job of your car?