Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Marduk wrote:At any rate, it is against the law in this country, and I would bet most other industrialized countries, to charge men and women different costs based solely on gender considerations. Race is the same.

Such "gender rating" (taking gender into account when deciding what to charge) is actually not illegal, yet, at least not at a national level...14 states have laws against it, and it will become illegal nationwide in 2014 due to Obamacare (depending on the upcoming decision by the Supreme Court about the health care bill's Constitutionality). But for right now, many insurance companies do charge women higher rates, legally.

Laser Jock wrote:

Marduk wrote:At any rate, it is against the law in this country, and I would bet most other industrialized countries, to charge men and women different costs based solely on gender considerations. Race is the same.

Such "gender rating" (taking gender into account when deciding what to charge) is actually not illegal, yet, at least not at a national level...14 states have laws against it, and it will become illegal nationwide in 2014 due to Obamacare (depending on the upcoming decision by the Supreme Court about the health care bill's Constitutionality). But for right now, many insurance companies do charge women higher rates, legally.

Is the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the entire health care bill? I thought they were only ruling on the (so-called) individual mandate. (Or maybe that's just the part that's getting the most attention.)

Tao wrote:I'm a little surprised anyone would think size doesn't matter.

It's not that I think that size doesn't matter, I just want the people who are saying that size breaks the model to articulate why and how instead of passing it off as a given. (And I agree with you that national governments are different from local governments, but the US and Sweden are both national governments. Would you argue that Sweden and Michigan are more similar than Sweden and the US, because the former pair have close to the same population?)

My mistake LJ, I had thought that was a portion already in effect.

Katya wrote: Is the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the entire health care bill? I thought they were only ruling on the (so-called) individual mandate. (Or maybe that's just the part that's getting the most attention.)

They may be. One of the points they have to decide is the issue of "severability": namely, if the individual mandate is struck down, does that invalidate everything else, or not? Normally when Congress passes a law they include specific language covering what they wish to happen if some provisions of the law are struck down. In this case, there was a severability clause in an earlier version of the bill, but the version that got passed omitted it (either by accident or on purpose, I don't know).

Normally the Supreme Court has affirmed a "presumption in favor of severability" (striking down only specific parts that they deemed unconstitutional), but there's a pretty good chance this time that they might strike the whole thing down. We won't know until June, though. In any case, both the Obama administration and opponents of the law are arguing against severability. (The Court had to appoint an independent lawyer specifically to argue in favor of severability.) Obviously the Obama administration would like the law to stand and opponents would like it to fall, but if the individual mandate is struck down, both sides want the law to fail completely, arguing that striking the individual mandate makes everything else unravel, leaving an unreasonable burden on insurance companies and thus on consumers, due to higher prices.

Justices are divided on the issue of severability, with some saying that it's best to at least salvage the rest of the law, and others saying that that would be an even more radical option, since removing the individual mandate would dramatically alter everything else, and we'd end up with a law that neither party in Congress actually wanted.

If you want more specifics, I think these are good places to read further: here and here.

Katya wrote:

Tao wrote:I'm a little surprised anyone would think size doesn't matter.

It's not that I think that size doesn't matter, I just want the people who are saying that size breaks the model to articulate why and how instead of passing it off as a given. (And I agree with you that national governments are different from local governments, but the US and Sweden are both national governments. Would you argue that Sweden and Michigan are more similar than Sweden and the US, because the former pair have close to the same population?)

I would argue that Michigan and Sweden are more similar to each other than the United States and Sweden.

Because they are both sovereign nations?

wired wrote:

Katya wrote:

Tao wrote:I'm a little surprised anyone would think size doesn't matter.

It's not that I think that size doesn't matter, I just want the people who are saying that size breaks the model to articulate why and how instead of passing it off as a given. (And I agree with you that national governments are different from local governments, but the US and Sweden are both national governments. Would you argue that Sweden and Michigan are more similar than Sweden and the US, because the former pair have close to the same population?)

I would argue that Michigan and Sweden are more similar to each other than the United States and Sweden.

Across the board?

Marduk wrote:Because they are both sovereign nations?

That's one of the reasons. See 11th Amendment.

Katya wrote:Across the board?

Probably not in every way conceivable; I am sure there is some measure that would make Sweden more like the United States than like Michigan. But in the vast majority of ways, I would say they are more alike than the United States for demographic purposes.

My guesses where the United States would be closer to Sweden than Michigan would be: percentage of black people in the population (my impression is Michigan has a higher black population than America, putting American much closer to Sweden's ridiculously non-diverse population) and adults with post-secondary education (I think that Michigan tends to have lower numbers of college graduates than the US average, meaning the US as whole will be closer to Sweden's high rate for post-secondary education). I can't think of too many other big demographics that I think would favor a comparison between the US v. Sweden vis-a-vis Michigan v. Sweden.

Minnesota, Utah, and Washington all have a high proportion of Swedish immigrants and well-educated populaces.

I agree that using "the Nordic model" in the US would probably be hard, at least in the beginning. But, that's not why I'm here. I'm here to point out this relevant comic at Scandinavia and the World: http://satwcomic.com/healthcare