02-16-2018 12:28:03 PM -0800
01-23-2018 09:55:12 AM -0800
01-18-2018 11:02:22 AM -0800
01-09-2018 01:54:15 PM -0800
12-22-2017 09:40:32 AM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

The Young Aren’t Signing Up for Obamacare. So What if They Did?

For centuries, we've been trying to frame the reality of redistributionism in a language the liberal side can understand; nothing gets through. Maggie Thatcher did a bang-up job -- “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” -- but even that elegant gem didn't take. Can anything ever work? How much simpler can we make this?

Person A wants a good produced by Person B. If the price is too high, Person A cannot afford it. If the price is too low, Person B cannot continue to sell it. If either party is made whole to rectify an inefficient fixed price, that money has to come from a Party C. Person C runs out of money just like Person A or B would have. In a from-scratch socialist society, Party C never exists.

Redistribution has an unsolvable "No C(apital)" problem.

They say that the "bros" are not buying health insurance in numbers needed to sustain the project, and perhaps this can be fixed with marketing. We have consistently pointed out that the young will not purchase enough plans because on average the demographic gets cleaned out on the deal, but we haven’t forced the liberals to answer the bigger questions:

Why did Obamacare need the young? Why did it need a Party C to survive? If Party C is losing money on the deal -- as they do by definition, otherwise they would be indistinguishable from Party A -- they can't be the source for long. So why did you proceed with a plan without addressing its built-in death sentence?

Seems too simplistic and past-tense, so the liberals glossed over the only questions that mattered again.