Agree, if not handled responsibly this can potentially hurt the system more than what they can relieve it. I hope it has some feature that tells you that you need to go to the hospital.
“Marriage is great. And it is true that a household with two adult members in it is much less likely to be poor than a household with one adult member.”
There are many other factors that contribute to whether a household is in poverty or not. Saying marriage alone leads to decreased poverty is superficial.
“Healthy and young people don’t think Obamacare’s insurance plans are a good deal for them.”
Why wouldn’t they have accounted for this? Is it unheard of that young people are not as risk averse and tend to not require extensive medical coverage?
Yglesias: “Marriage ‘lifts’ families out of poverty not by increasing their incomes but by reducing what the federal government assumes their expenses to be.”
I believe marriage also imparts more benefits than merely making a couple look richer on paper. There is the security of (hopefully) not having continual breakups, living apart in two separate households and having two parents to help support the family.
Yglesias is even wrong to assert that it only makes them look richer on paper. The same logic could be used to assert that a single mother only became poorer on paper when she had a child out of wedlock. Expenses matter when discussing poverty.
It is cheaper to make rice for two than making it just for one that’s a reason why the Federal Government believes that a family of two does not duplicate the expenses of those living alone. What Rubio meant with his statement is that the stability marriage brings benefits the family, and that the government should support marriages.
Companies are more efficient when they face competition. That is why free-market has been successful. It is hard to argue the effect of bureaucratic management in efficiency. Becker tries to do this, but ends with no specific conclusion.
Yglesias: “Marriage ‘lifts’ families out of poverty not by increasing their incomes but by reducing what the federal government assumes their expenses to be.”
“CGI fired!”
They shouldn’t have been hired in the first place.
They only got it by asking their friends for a favor.
Canada beat us to the punch a long time ago. We should have taken that as a cue and never hired them.
That would require logic.
If you couple the Star Trek inspired Scanadu Scout along with WebMD, there will be a whole new wave of hypochondriacs.
And a boom in the medical field as those hypochondriacs seek treatment for minor problems.
And a crunch on our already over-stretched system.
Agree, if not handled responsibly this can potentially hurt the system more than what they can relieve it. I hope it has some feature that tells you that you need to go to the hospital.
“My heart rate is slightly high, lets Google search… and I have cancer.”
“Handheld gadget scans body, diagnoses illnesses in seconds”
It was only a matter of time.
“Beam me up, Scotty.”
“Marriage is great. And it is true that a household with two adult members in it is much less likely to be poor than a household with one adult member.”
There are many other factors that contribute to whether a household is in poverty or not. Saying marriage alone leads to decreased poverty is superficial.
“Healthy and young people don’t think Obamacare’s insurance plans are a good deal for them.”
Why wouldn’t they have accounted for this? Is it unheard of that young people are not as risk averse and tend to not require extensive medical coverage?
Yglesias: “Marriage ‘lifts’ families out of poverty not by increasing their incomes but by reducing what the federal government assumes their expenses to be.”
I believe marriage also imparts more benefits than merely making a couple look richer on paper. There is the security of (hopefully) not having continual breakups, living apart in two separate households and having two parents to help support the family.
All of that security is fundamentally undermined by no-fault divorce and the culture that has sprung up around it.
Yglesias is even wrong to assert that it only makes them look richer on paper. The same logic could be used to assert that a single mother only became poorer on paper when she had a child out of wedlock. Expenses matter when discussing poverty.
It is cheaper to make rice for two than making it just for one that’s a reason why the Federal Government believes that a family of two does not duplicate the expenses of those living alone. What Rubio meant with his statement is that the stability marriage brings benefits the family, and that the government should support marriages.
Companies are more efficient when they face competition. That is why free-market has been successful. It is hard to argue the effect of bureaucratic management in efficiency. Becker tries to do this, but ends with no specific conclusion.
Yglesias: “Marriage ‘lifts’ families out of poverty not by increasing their incomes but by reducing what the federal government assumes their expenses to be.”
Married men make a lot more money than single men. In the NLSY, married men make 44% extra, even after controlling for education, experience, IQ, race, and number of children. How is this possible?