4 ms·

So you're comfortable pushing those costs onto healthy young men?

by uuilly 16y ago

hmottestad 16y ago
In Norway healthy young men make the most money, so they pay the most taxes. Essentially it's a lot harder to get super rich in Norway, but then again it's a hell of a lot harder to become super poor. We find that if everyone is moderately rich things work fairly well. Edit: And there would be very few healthy young men if there were no healthy young women giving birth. Just check out Japan.
sp332 16y ago
I don't know anyone who would mind pitching in a bit for a pregnant woman with complications.
- uuilly 16y ago
  I can't imagine that many ramen profitable founders would prioritize the finances of pregnant women over the finances of their company.
- jongraehl 16y ago
  You don't know anyone who would admit to minding, true.
andrewljohnson 16y ago
And you're comfortable with a system of laws that preempts women from doing start-ups? For one, that seems like it's not going to lead to good outcomes - it's in the country's and the world's best interest to have all capable young people able to be entrepreneurs. Second, of course I'm comfortable subsidizing women, young people, poor people, and other groups, because I view the world in a Rawlsian fashion. That is, it is just chance that I am a healthy, young, and relatively wealthy young man. But if I were a woman, or an immigrant, or subject to any other set of circumstances, then I would want the same opportunities as anyone else. As for the specific case of whether or not the healthcare laws should provide a way for all women to safely and affordably make babies - then I would say a hearty yes to this too. And as far as I can tell, this law benefits men and women equally. Unless there is a test tube involved, all babies need a man and a woman, so I really can't see how healthcare coverage for pregnancies has a sexist bias. I hope you enjoy your youth and health, but when you get sick or old, I think you'll change your tune.
- uuilly 16y ago
  I don't think founders should concern themselves with fixing the inequities of the world. And I think it's in society's interest to place as little burden as possible on people who make goods or provide services that improve productivity. I also don't think that you should presume to know anything about what my future tune may be.
- warrenwilkinson 16y ago
  'will not pay for' is not the same as 'law preempting' and countries don't have 'best interests' only people do, so speak plainly: you see greater financial equality as a good thing. Insurers who share your philosophy would drive men away. So you advocate market-meddling as the solution. Which adds regulation, compliance, bureaucracy, etc, costs that are pushed onto everybody. OR realize that women marry men (and thus buy share insurance). OR charities exist to support single mothers. OR they can use contraceptives --- unless you're arguing that women have a right to take risky business ventures while pregnant on other peoples dime.
jberryman 16y ago
Straw man. By buying health insurance as a healthy young man you are essentially voluntarily taking on those costs. It is not a question of whether she wants others to fit the bill for her medical expenses, but whether society as a whole decides to accept an amount of responsibility for the health of its people.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  You are only voluntarily taking on those costs because of threats of violence against anyone who would give you the opportunity to purchase insurance without those costs. Insurers have been completely willing to sell maternity-free insurance, at least until men with guns threatened violence against them for doing so. It's not exactly voluntary when threats of violence eliminate all competing alternatives. (As of 2014, it's not voluntary at all.)

So you're comfortable pushing those costs onto healthy young men?

by uuilly 16y ago

So you're comfortable pushing those costs onto healthy young men?

In Norway healthy young men make the most money, so they pay the most taxes. Essentially it's a lot harder to get super rich in Norway, but then again it's a hell of a lot harder to become super poor. We find that if everyone is moderately rich things work fairly well. Edit: And there would be very few healthy young men if there were no healthy young women giving birth. Just check out Japan.

sp332 16y ago

I don't know anyone who would mind pitching in a bit for a pregnant woman with complications.

uuilly 16y ago
I can't imagine that many ramen profitable founders would prioritize the finances of pregnant women over the finances of their company.
jongraehl 16y ago
You don't know anyone who would admit to minding, true.

andrewljohnson 16y ago

And you're comfortable with a system of laws that preempts women from doing start-ups? For one, that seems like it's not going to lead to good outcomes - it's in the country's and the world's best interest to have all capable young people able to be entrepreneurs. Second, of course I'm comfortable subsidizing women, young people, poor people, and other groups, because I view the world in a Rawlsian fashion. That is, it is just chance that I am a healthy, young, and relatively wealthy young man. But if I were a woman, or an immigrant, or subject to any other set of circumstances, then I would want the same opportunities as anyone else. As for the specific case of whether or not the healthcare laws should provide a way for all women to safely and affordably make babies - then I would say a hearty yes to this too. And as far as I can tell, this law benefits men and women equally. Unless there is a test tube involved, all babies need a man and a woman, so I really can't see how healthcare coverage for pregnancies has a sexist bias. I hope you enjoy your youth and health, but when you get sick or old, I think you'll change your tune.

uuilly 16y ago
I don't think founders should concern themselves with fixing the inequities of the world. And I think it's in society's interest to place as little burden as possible on people who make goods or provide services that improve productivity. I also don't think that you should presume to know anything about what my future tune may be.
warrenwilkinson 16y ago
'will not pay for' is not the same as 'law preempting' and countries don't have 'best interests' only people do, so speak plainly: you see greater financial equality as a good thing. Insurers who share your philosophy would drive men away. So you advocate market-meddling as the solution. Which adds regulation, compliance, bureaucracy, etc, costs that are pushed onto everybody. OR realize that women marry men (and thus buy share insurance). OR charities exist to support single mothers. OR they can use contraceptives --- unless you're arguing that women have a right to take risky business ventures while pregnant on other peoples dime.

jberryman 16y ago

Straw man. By buying health insurance as a healthy young man you are essentially voluntarily taking on those costs. It is not a question of whether she wants others to fit the bill for her medical expenses, but whether society as a whole decides to accept an amount of responsibility for the health of its people.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
You are only voluntarily taking on those costs because of threats of violence against anyone who would give you the opportunity to purchase insurance without those costs. Insurers have been completely willing to sell maternity-free insurance, at least until men with guns threatened violence against them for doing so. It's not exactly voluntary when threats of violence eliminate all competing alternatives. (As of 2014, it's not voluntary at all.)