tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7085195159661027971.post8431299589171791079..comments2024-03-15T16:14:36.387-04:00Comments on Just the social facts, ma'am: Exercising their rightsDavid Weakliemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02336229317604663975noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7085195159661027971.post-31618845623671537222013-08-24T16:31:47.653-04:002013-08-24T16:31:47.653-04:00True, it's hard to draw an exact line between ...True, it's hard to draw an exact line between voluntary and involuntary, especially without knowing much about individual circumstances. My main point that even among the relatively affluent and healthy uninsured, the demographic profile suggests that they're not just people with a high tolerance for risk: financial reasons are likely to be important. <br /><br />David Weakliemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02336229317604663975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7085195159661027971.post-13814041381680249992013-08-22T13:22:35.802-04:002013-08-22T13:22:35.802-04:00That strikes me as a very restrictive definition o...That strikes me as a very restrictive definition of "voluntary." Someone who spends their disposable income - or prioritizes their non-disposable income - on many items other than health "insurance" (a phrase that as generally used really means health coverage) has in more than an abstract sense made a choice to do so, and should be included in the category of voluntarily uninsured.<br /><br />For example, some people who answered "yes" to question (c) may own a cell phone (perhaps even a smart phone), a car or clothes or electronics that are more expensive than simple functionality requires; may spend money on movies or fast food; etc. It's not obvious to me that those people should be classified as involuntarily uninsured.<br /> Earle Millernoreply@blogger.com