# Should the government discriminate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986 "2014-08-30T18:59:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/1 "2014-08-30T18:59:56Z")
Discrimination is a big topic that gets mentioned in a lot of debates, ranging from affirmative action to equal pay laws. I’d like to focus on a type of discrimination that gets less attention: age discrimination. Unlike with government discrimination on the basis of race, which is always wrong, some age discrimination seems not only defensible but necessary. Human beings are born small and helpless, without any ability to take care of themselves or behave responsibly. Only a long, slow learning process allows each of us to become self-sufficient and responsible. Consequently, some rights must be denied to young people. The U.S. Constitution imposes lower age limits, for instance on voting and running for President. By the same token, lower age limits for purchasing beer and cigarettes and so forth also seem defensible. _Arbitrary_ age discrimination, on the other hand, looks like an obvious violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. An obvious example of this is the ACA, better known as “Obamacare”, which treats people of different ages differently. It allows people age 30 and younger to purchase a “catastrophic” health insurance plan, under which the health insurance company only covers large medical bills. A catastrophic plan is much cheaper than any of the other plans that can be legally offered. Those of us over 30 are legally banned from purchasing catastrophic plans. (There is one tiny exception–the [hardship exemption](https://www.healthcare.gov/can-i-buy-a-catastrophic-plan/)–but it applies to very few people.) We are required by law to purchase plans that cover a portion of doctors visits, prescriptions, birth control, and many other things. These plans are far more expensive. I have not seen anyone make a moral or constitutional defense of this blatant age discrimination. Should it be allowed? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/2 "2014-08-30T19:29:11Z")
You know that I’m no fan of the ACA, but of course this is defensible for the same reasons booze and smokes restrictions are reasonable: it is rationally related to a legitimate government objective and not based on arbitrary choices or stereotypes. Since you lucky bastards in your 20s are generally and as a rule healthy and fit, it makes sense to make an exception to allow you to purchase catastrophic only coverage. Us guys pushing 40 with increasing aches and pains? Probably not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/3 "2014-08-30T19:55:38Z")
I’m not sure it’s possible to have a health insurance program that doesn’t “violate” the constitution in pretty much exactly the same way. I’m not, for example, seeing a substantive difference between this, and the fact that every private health insurer on the planet is going to charge lower premiums for someone in their mid-twenties than they will for someone in their mid-fifties. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/4 "2014-08-30T21:00:44Z")
Are people just _looking_ for things to criticise these days? The situation described in the OP does not disturb me one bit. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/5 "2014-08-30T21:55:25Z")
[ul] [li]Is it discrimination? Yes.[/li][li]Is it unlawful? No.[/li][li]Do I support the OP’s concerns? No.[/li][/ul] I have my own healthcare insurance. I’m over 30. It has catastrophic coverage. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/6 "2014-08-30T22:01:39Z")
Are you being discriminated against? Certainly. Do I give a shit? Not at all. And I’ll bet I’m substantially older than you are. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2014, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/7 "2014-08-30T22:28:49Z")
> [@Duckster](#): > > [ul] > [li]Is it discrimination? Yes.[/li][li]Is it unlawful? No.[/li][li]Do I support the OP’s concerns? No.[/li][/ul] > I have my own healthcare insurance. I’m over 30. It has catastrophic coverage. Agreed. Also, to the OP. Why is government discrimination based on race ALWAYS wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/8 "2014-08-31T00:17:47Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Agreed. > > Also, to the OP. Why is government discrimination based on race ALWAYS wrong? It isn’t. Some degree of affirmative action is a good idea, to break up such things as the all-white police departments in places like Ferguson, MO. The government (city and county) should be actively trying to recruit black police officers. That could help avoid the appearance of racism in policing. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/9 "2014-08-31T00:56:15Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > _Arbitrary_ age discrimination, on the other hand, looks like an obvious violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. It’s not arbitrary, so your complaint is without merit. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/10 "2014-08-31T04:08:12Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Also, to the OP. Why is government discrimination based on race ALWAYS wrong? For starters, the Constitution says so. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/11 "2014-08-31T04:14:00Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m not sure it’s possible to have a health insurance program that doesn’t “violate” the constitution in pretty much exactly the same way. I’m not, for example, seeing a substantive difference between this, and the fact that every private health insurer on the planet is going to charge lower premiums for someone in their mid-twenties than they will for someone in their mid-fifties. In the case of different premiums for the old and the young, it’s the private insurer who is making the decision, not the government. The decision to charge more to old people is not arbitrary; the insurance companies base it on actuarial science. In the case of banning catastrophic insurance plans for those above a certain age, it is the government that is enforcing the ban, not a private company. Moreover there doesn’t seem to be any reason for the ban applying only to those over 30, or if there is a reason, no one can tell us exactly what it is. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/12 "2014-08-31T04:17:26Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > You know that I’m no fan of the ACA, but of course this is defensible for the same reasons booze and smokes restrictions are reasonable: it is rationally related to a legitimate government objective and not based on arbitrary choices or stereotypes. > > Since you lucky bastards in your 20s are generally and as a rule healthy and fit, it makes sense to make an exception to allow you to purchase catastrophic only coverage. Us guys pushing 40 with increasing aches and pains? Probably not so much. I’m afraid I don’t quite get it. What exactly is the “legitimate government objective” that is served by banning a 40-year-old with some aches and pains from purchasing a catastrophic insurance plan? It seems to me that even if I were a 40-year-old with some aches and pains, a catastrophic plan might well be the most sensible plan for me. What is the justification for the government preventing me from buying the health insurance that makes the most sense? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/13 "2014-08-31T05:07:31Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > In the case of banning catastrophic insurance plans for those above a certain age, it is the government that is enforcing the ban, not a private company. Moreover there doesn’t seem to be any reason for the ban applying only to those over 30, or if there is a reason, no one can tell us exactly what it is. The reason is that young people are generally the healthiest and generally have the least money to spend. This gives them insurance that costs the least and gives them protection in the event of the most likely problem (some kind of catastrophic injury or illness). So for their first four years or so in the insurance market, they have this inexpensive option that offers the protection they are most likely to need. This is neither complicated nor arbitrary, nor is it at all difficult to understand. And if this provision didn’t exist I suspect you would be complaining that the ACA was forcing young people to spend large amounts of money they don’t have on health insurance when a simple catastrophic plan would probably meet their needs. And I realize that kind of presumptive hypocrisy argument is often unfair. I feel I’m on extremely safe ground making it in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/14 "2014-08-31T06:17:29Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > For starters, the Constitution says so. So the fact that more blacks are in prison than whites, per capita, is a violation of the constitution? Nice to know. Or when the police put out an alert to be on the lookout for an Asian man, thirty years old, five feet nine inches tall, with dark hair, wearing a blue shirt – that’s an unconstitutional violating of civil rights. Super. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/15 "2014-08-31T12:44:38Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I’m afraid I don’t quite get it. What exactly is the “legitimate government objective” that is served by banning a 40-year-old with some aches and pains from purchasing a catastrophic insurance plan? It seems to me that even if I were a 40-year-old with some aches and pains, a catastrophic plan might well be the most sensible plan for me. What is the justification for the government preventing me from buying the health insurance that makes the most sense? As people age, the likelihood that they will need regular health care and not just catastrophic care increases. Therefore it is reasonable for the government to say that at age X, you need regular health insurance. What X ultimately is set at is a function of the democratic process. It might be 20, 30, 40, or 50 and we could argue about each, or argue that there should be no limit. But our representatives settled on 30. We might think it is an unwise choice (and I do) but that doesn’t make it unconstitutional. What if a 19 year old is really mature for his age? Is it unconstitutional to enforce the 21 year old drinking age against him? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/16 "2014-08-31T16:23:36Z")
It’s so cute how you all still treat **ITR Champion** ’s ACA trolling as relevant and sincere. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/17 "2014-08-31T16:35:02Z")
I don’t. It’s rather obvious what he is doing. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/18 "2014-08-31T17:25:18Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > It’s so cute how you all still treat **ITR Champion** ’s ACA trolling as relevant and sincere. If you want to accuse a poster of trolling, go open a thread in The BBQ Pit. Do not make such an accusation in Great Debates. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/19 "2014-08-31T20:15:32Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > As people age, the likelihood that they will need regular health care and not just catastrophic care increases. Therefore it is reasonable for the government to say that at age X, you need regular health insurance. Why is that reasonable? To me it seems completely unreasonable. Let’s suppose for the moment that an individual (call him Bob) needs regular health care. What government purpose is served by forcing Bob to buy insurance that covers some part of the expenses for that regular health care, as opposed to a catastrophic health insurance plan? If Bob looks at the options and prefers to pay for his own minor day-to-day health care costs and have a catastrophic plan, rather than to purchase a more expensive plan that covers some day-to-day costs, what government purpose is served by denying Bob what he wants? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2014, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986/20 "2014-08-31T20:47:01Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > What government purpose is served by forcing Bob to buy insurance that covers some part of the expenses for that regular health care, as opposed to a catastrophic health insurance plan? Of course no one except you knows how you’ve determined what kind of health care Bob needs. If Bob is an employed adult over 30, he’ll get the health care coverage that is most likely to meet his needs and covers things like visits to the doctor and the dentist and other (likely routine) items. Therefore other taxpayers are less likely to get stuck with the bill for those things. In other words, Bob has health insurance. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-government-discriminate/696986.md?page=2)