All errors should be reported to

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Young workers should thank Trump

The worst part of Obamacare was forcing young workers to buy health insurance they were unlikely to use. Not only that, but Obamacare drove up the premiums young people pay, which then subsidized the premiums for older people.

It was another generational transfer of money, from the young to the old.

President Trump is stopping that.

Naturally, the media is casting this as villainy.

"This week, the Department of Health and Human Services, along with two other agencies, issued a proposed rule that expands a category of insurance plans exempt from Obamacare’s consumer protections, including the requirement that plans cover people with pre-existing conditions. These short-term plans are designed for consumers who have a short gap in insurance coverage. The Obama administration defined short-term as three months or less, effectively steering consumers to Obamacare’s insurance markets. Under the proposed rule, these short-term plans could provide coverage for up to a year," Danny Vinik of Politico reported.

Oh no.

People will be able to have cheap health insurance.

"Supporters say the expansion will allow consumers who face high premiums on Obamacare’s marketplaces to purchase cheaper coverage that better meets their needs. But critics decry the plans as junk insurance that will undermine Obamacare by siphoning young, healthy people away from the main insurance marketplaces, where they’re critical to keep the system afloat," Vinik wrote.

By siphoning, he means liberating.

Under Obamacare, the young and healthy paid higher premiums so the old and sick did not have to pay as much.

Car insurance works the other way.

With the end of the health insurance mandate under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the worst of Obamacare are gone.

Hmm, sounds a lot like repeal and replace -- without the repeal.

Congress might want to do this by law, rather than regulations that can be reversed by the next president.


From Leslie Eastman's review at Legal Insurrection:
Surber, a recovering journalist with over 30 years of experience, has been cataloging the #FakeNews that has been regularly offered as serious analysis of President Donald Trump’s actions, policies, and opinions. He has brought his enormous collection together in the longest, most serious book he has yet written: Fake News Follies of 2017.
Fake News Follies of 2017 is available on Kindle and in paperback.

Autographed copies are available. Email me at for details. I am including a "director's cut." I will give you the original Chapter 1 that I cut because while the chapter was amusing, it really had nothing to do with the Fake News Follies of 2017.


  1. Congress must do this as a law so that the next DEMOCRAT president can’t undo this. I don’t expect them to act - sadly.

  2. More projection. Exactly who is doing the siphoning here?

  3. Obama Care is not insurance. Insurance is a product based on shared risk. The preexisting condition laws and mandatory excessive coverage make it an entitlement which is why it is so hard to destroy and probably never will be. The criminal Obama ally John Roberts knew this so sprayed SC graffiti on it to cover its weak structural lie.
    Trump will have many corporate enemies in this struggle. They do not want to bear the cost burden of good health care or extensive coverage. To compete on a global scale they want indifferent mostly lousy care paid for by someone else,like that of their competition, because it does not weigh on their balance sheets.
    It is a shame really. A perfectly good system was ruined to make a few liberal assholes feel good about themselves. There were much better solutions to be had for the long term support of an exceptional system unique in the world.

  4. It's partly an accident of history that insurance is so lopsided in the direction of employers in this country.

    In WWII there were wage and price controls and companies couldn't compete for employees on the basis of wages, so they began competing on the basis of benefits, including health insurance, then they began lobbying to maid that benefit tax deductible to lessen the burden on themselves (just like they are doing in trying to fob it off on government now).

    Every effort to reverse the trend to lessening the tie between employment and health insurance has been stifled for various reasons. The Dems don't want it because a good private system makes it harder to force in a government system. The employers actually prefer this to a freer private system because the freer one would make it easier for employees to change jobs, making them less serf-like. And insurers like the current system because it is actuarially easier to manage because employment implies relative health: if people can hold down a job, they are usually healthier than those that can't. The employment-based system allows them to discriminate without saying that they are.

    Getting out of this into something more rational is going to require an educated public and a ton of political will.

    Which means we are unlikely to get it.

    1. Make, instead of maid. Stupid autocorrect. I actually changed it and the damn system changed it back when I hit "publish".

  5. I notice you have this problem a lot.

    I don't use "autocorrect" - mine just red-underlines a word it doesn't agree with, and it's MY choice whether to use it or not.

  6. Never forget, this is the crowd that eats Tide pods.

  7. My autocorrect (and autofill) is turned off, but like Doc, sometimes whatever system my comments go through to get to a website makes its own changes. - Elric

  8. "...where they’re critical to keep the system afloat." Exactly. The young, healthy working people were forced to pay for the health care of the welfare sponges. Obamacare was a governmentally enforced Pyramid scheme.

  9. I thought young drivers had to pay more for car insurance because they have no driving record.