Where is another plan that would decouple employment and insurance? Is there one? It’s frustrating because it seems y’all continually wield some hypothetical pragmatic plan to get the same outcomes that we can’t argue against in the abstract.
I don't mean to say this antagonistically, but I view people with your mindset as one of the greatest barriers towards this country getting "better". There's a vicious cycle of successful Americans being unwilling or scared to make the drastic changes this country needs.
It's not my lack of wealth, or my material conditions that make me want to leave the country. It's the knowing that American culture is insurmountable. Grievances with economic inequality are dismissed as losers bemoaning their own ineptitude. For all the confidence you have towards hard work in America being rewarded, naive IMO, you have no answer when I ask you directly what should be done about people in necessary careers who don't even receive living wages. That's not exceptional. Capitalism has losers and winners, and our very society rests on those "losers" doing their jobs, day in day out, while you collect surplus profit from property you own and dont even manage. I recognize that you're just participating in normal entrepreneurship, but the combination of that mindset and the place you've made for yourself in society, is toxic. It's not villainous to be economically successful, but it is villainous to be a Randian objectivist & apathetic about the inherent cruelty of our society.
Last edited by myDeaconmyhand; 07-28-2020 at 03:48 PM.
Draxx them sklounst
It is villainous to be a landlord.
Is there another plan that makes care free at point of service?
As an addendum, its unfair of me to single out DG3 - no one else answered my question either, and its very likely that there are other landlords on the tunnels and even participating in this thread. I don't appreciate that vocation, but it's normal under capitalism.
Draxx them sklounst
I inherited four houses that have six apartment units and an office building/house that housed my father's old real estate practice with my brother and sister from my parents. Our tax practice has been one of the primary tenets of that office building for the past nineteen years. I actively manage the properties with my sister
Here’s the thing, I completely understand your line of thought. I appreciate it. But the very people on this board are on the .01% of the most intelligent and wealthy people in the history of humankind. Many of us, myself included, didn’t start with generational wealth. Also, I definitely had some advantages. Wealth isn’t inherently evil. I’m working my ass off so that my children will one day have that wealth. Isn’t that what we all want? My net gain in wealth didn’t equal a net loss to someone else. I feel that line of thinking is incredibly dangerous.
I’m concerned about the margins here though and how we define who can afford care. There are covered people now who ration prescriptions or doctor visits even with insurance. Or people who will choose not to receive care (or test themselves for Covid) for lack of transparency of cost. Or people who wouldn’t automatically be enrolled but still practically speaking afford insurance.
Plus no matter how many reforms you tack on, you’ll always have red states trying to claw back these benefits.
Yeah that's all fair. I think the Biden plan is modeled after Healthy America, so I'm guessing something similar to this:
I assume they chose those numbers to hit some specific budget target, but I'd prefer to see them start higher up the income ladder. People with incomes below the tax-filing threshold and others with incomes below 138 percent
of FPL would not be charged premiums if they enroll in a plan with premiums no higher than the
benchmark plan.
People with incomes between 138 and 150 percent of FPL would pay premiums ranging from 0
to 2 percent of income for the benchmark plan.
People with incomes between 150 and 200 percent of FPL would pay premiums ranging from 2
to 4 percent of income for the benchmark plan.
People with incomes between 200 and 250 percent of FPL would pay premiums ranging from 4
to 6 percent of income for the benchmark plan.
People with incomes between 250 and 300 percent of FPL would pay premiums ranging from 6
to 7 percent of income for the benchmark plan.
People with incomes between 300 and 400 percent of FPL would pay premiums ranging from 7
to 8.5 percent of income for the benchmark plan.
People with higher incomes would pay premiums of no more than 8.5 percent of income for the
benchmark plan.
Draxx them sklounst
Isnt 400 percent of the poverty line only like 50,000 dollars? 4,000 dollars in premiums?
Employer provided health insurance and ACA plans are both unaffordable for alot of people.Chipping at the edges with subsidy and reform is unacceptable.
Draxx them sklounst