(no title)
wtbob | 8 years ago
They also, of course, decrease other costs due to the deaths of the beneficiaries. Is that a net win or a net loss, financially speaking?
And are you so sure of your analysis that you would use violence to take your fellow citizens' money?
Zungaron|8 years ago
sctb|8 years ago
wtbob|8 years ago
It's not an ideological talking point that people who die earlier due to health problems don't cost extra in pension funds. It's just a fact: if someone dies at 55, he won't cost a pension system which starts paying out at 65 a penny. fpgaminer posted much the same thing.
Nor, I think, was my aside about taxes being enforced with violence an ideological talking point: it's a fact that any law is ultimately enforced with violence. I honestly don't see how mentioning a social cost in the context of cost-benefit analyses could be considered a violation of any of the HN guidelines.
I'm not trying to derail or be argumentative; I'm honestly trying to understand how a fair moderator could threaten me with a ban for my comment.
threeseed|8 years ago
And these policies have been pioneered in other countries e.g. Australia first where they have been wildly successful in reducing overall health care cost.
wtbob|8 years ago