Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most people who consider themselves middle class (whether they are or not) can't put together $5k in cold hard cash. Expecting the working poor to do that is like wishing for a unicorn
And another liberal enters the fray!
First, I said they would be given five years to save that $5,000 - and that is $1,000 a year. (And the working poor get Medicaid.....I'm talking about people earning $35,000, $40,000, $45,000. That is not POOR.)
Please explain to me why there is NO sympathy or compassion for a middle-class worker earning $50,000 a year who has to pay $1,000 a month in premiums - and total insistence that people earning $40,000 cannot save $1,000 a YEAR?
I will tell you why. Because liberals are totally and exclusively focused on what the lower-income people need. I say that if Obama put in place a plan that forces moderate earners ($50,000) to have to figure out a way to come up with $1,000 a month (a MONTH!), then lower earners have to figure out a way to come up with $1,000 a YEAR. This insistence that "we have to provide for everything" while requiring so much of moderate earners is, yet again, a big reason you will lose the election.
Liberals will have to compromise. Lower-income people simply cannot continue to get excellent coverage (annual deductibles of $150 a year and co-pays of $5) while paying $30 a month for insurance, while people slightly higher up the ladder, after paying $1000 a month, are forced to skip recommended medical treatments and exams that the lower-income get for free. Obama created a scheme where lower-income people, who pay next to nothing for insurance, have better access to medical care than middle-income people, who pay up the wazoo.
The low income and poor make up the majority of this country due to the hierarchy of the job market
And they've got to pitch in a little. Not the actual poor, but the low-income: they need to get away from the idea that OPM will provide for whatever they need - an idea advanced by Democratic socialists.
(You know what OPM is, I hope. It's what Margaret Thatcher said socialists would eventually run out of.)
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,585,101 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
And another liberal enters the fray!
First, I said they would be given five years to save that $5,000 - and that is $1,000 a year. (And the working poor get Medicaid.....I'm talking about people earning $35,000, $40,000, $45,000. That is not POOR.)
Please explain to me why there is NO sympathy or compassion for a middle-class worker earning $50,000 a year who has to pay $1,000 a month in premiums - and total insistence that people earning $40,000 cannot save $1,000 a YEAR?
I will tell you why. Because liberals are totally and exclusively focused on what the lower-income people need. I say that if Obama put in place a plan that forces moderate earners ($50,000) to have to figure out a way to come up with $1,000 a month (a MONTH!), then lower earners have to figure out a way to come up with $1,000 a YEAR. This insistence that "we have to provide for everything" while requiring so much of moderate earners is, yet again, a big reason you will lose the election.
Liberals will have to compromise. Lower-income people simply cannot continue to get excellent coverage (annual deductibles of $150 a year and co-pays of $5) while paying $30 a month for insurance, while people slightly higher up the ladder, after paying $1000 a month, are forced to skip recommended medical treatments and exams that the lower-income get for free. Obama created a scheme where lower-income people, who pay next to nothing for insurance, have better access to medical care than middle-income people, who pay up the wazoo.
I earn more than $50k, and I don't pay anywhere near $1,000/month for my insurance (yes it's employer subsidized). Imo, if you're only going to make $50k/year, you're better off working for a company than being a proprietor
The low income and poor make up the majority of this country due to the hierarchy of the job market
So you're saying we need to provide medical care free-of-charge to the majority of the country? Who's going to pay for that? There aren't enough of the "evil" rich people to cover trillions and trillions of new expenses.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,585,101 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
And they've got to pitch in a little. Not the actual poor, but the low-income: they need to get away from the idea that OPM will provide for whatever they need - an idea advanced by Democratic socialists.
(You know what OPM is, I hope. It's what Margaret Thatcher said socialists would eventually run out of.)
In terms of healthcare, no they don't. They should gravitate more towards it. Our healthcare system is one huge moral hazard (unless you're in the top 1%, then maybe it's good, but it sucks *** for everyone else, even with insurance, thanks to deductibles and copays)
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,585,101 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
So you're saying we need to provide medical care free-of-charge to the majority of the country? Who's going to pay for that? There aren't enough of the "evil" rich people to cover trillions and trillions of new expenses.
It should be provided to everyone, regardless of income, like in Canada. I had neighbors back in NY who were dual citizens of the US&Canada, and they would make the drive to St. Catherines, ON, every time they needed to see a doctor or a dentist, and they were upper class, so it wasn't like they couldn't afford to get medical care here. That should tell you something.
Everyone pays in, via a national sales tax, like Canada's GST, and everyone can use it when they need it (note:Canada also has more progressive national and provincial income taxes than the US as well)
OK, and now we hear from the liberal who claims that "$2,500 won't cut it" for the poor (conflating low-income with poor, who would still get Medicaid). I am talking about someone earning $35,000 - now getting subsidies that costs taxpayers as much as $10,000 a year! - pitching in a bit more. He will still get help, via the $2,500, and he will have catastrophic care for a major calamity. The true poor would still get Medicaid, but those above that need to have some responsibility.
You are demonstrating how liberals would destroy a reasonable compromise such as I am putting out, since they are focused totally on the low-income and poor, and what they need. The problem is that being giving, giving, giving them everything, to cover every little medical need, the middle class is unable to afford the health care THEY need. There's got to be a middle ground, and low-income earners above the Medicaid level need to pitch in. Don't tell me that someone earning $40,000 cannot manage to reduce spending by $100 a month. People earning $50,000, after all, have been asked to reduce spending by $1,000 to cover their ridiculous premiums.
I am demonstrating as a real doc on the realities of taking care of the the poorer of us over the long term.
I don't disagree that we should all have some skin in the game. But what happens with the near poor is that they scrimp on services. And then suffer more HC consequences and then exaggerated down the road. Or can't pay at the time of service. And that can only hurt the docs/providers. These folks can't typically save in the amounts you suggest.
While I don't wholly disagree with your proposal, what is does is put more burden on our poorer folks and families and does nothing to address more UHC or any real overall HC cost savings.
It is a feel good exercise for those concerned about the fairness involved with HC subsidies.
So you're saying we need to provide medical care free-of-charge to the majority of the country? Who's going to pay for that? There aren't enough of the "evil" rich people to cover trillions and trillions of new expenses.
Annual healthcare costs, public and private, about $3.5 trillion per year
USA GDP = $20 trillion per year
Ratchet up the income tax on the wealthy plus about a 10% VAT ($2 trillion) will cover it.
I earn more than $50k, and I don't pay anywhere near $1,000/month for my insurance (yes it's employer subsidized). Imo, if you're only going to make $50k/year, you're better off working for a company than being a proprietor
First, I am not talking about myself (as far as the $50K goes), but I AM paying $1000 a month. I am using the $50K worker as an example since that's where the subsidy cliff ends.
But, let's say I am earning $50K as a self-employed whatyamacallit. I am in now my early 60s. Who do you think is going to hire me? Age discrimination is rampant, and employers start to push people out beginning in their early 50s. (How old are YOU? Just curious.)
And again, I steer you back to what you're doing: telling a middle class earner what he should do (get a better job!) to solve his health insurance needs. Are you telling the lower-income people to "get a job" with health care benefits? NO, you're not. And that's because you, like most liberals, have infantilized low-income people as "awwww.....can't expect THEM to get a better job" so we need to give, give, give....while putting all the onus on moderate earners, and telling them "get a job" and solve their problems.
Please explain to me why there is NO sympathy or compassion for a middle-class worker earning $50,000 a year who has to pay $1,000 a month in premiums - and total insistence that people earning $40,000 cannot save $1,000 a YEAR?
I wouldn't disagree that more fairness may be needed. But I wouldn't burden our poorer more, I'd unburden the broader middle class more.
We care for our poor. I wouldn't want to stop that. IMO we need to augment our broader middle class more.
If I were king, the broader middle class would get an annual 1/3 rebate on all legitimate HC related OOP spending. Assuming they tow their medical line and don't overuse HC services.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
