Let Lower Income "Pay Their Fair Share"!
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Pretty much. The concept of the ACA began in a conservative think tank but of course once a democratic president adopts it it becomes a terrible idea to conservatives! A single payer system woukd have done FAR more to control costs in the long run but long term thinking will never be a strength for our political system |
Anonymous
Oh, please. Japanese are healthier primarily because of their diet. Thinness is correlated strongly with longevity. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/10/japan-long-healthy-life_n_5876866.html |
Anonymous
Poor people are more obese than middle-class (geberally speaking), and that comprises their health. They also tend to be smokers to a greater degree. So, before poor people get their free care, two things.... 1) Must go to a diet education course. No go? No free medical. 2) Must go to smoking cessation program. No go? No free medical. Where does it say that we have to give poor people free care - on the backs of the middle class - without requiring anything of them? |
Anonymous
| If a family of 4 has a household income of $12,000, what is the appropriate level of tax? |
Anonymous
When the mother or one of her three children need healthcare, they should pay $10 per service. Birth control should be provided to the mother at no cost |
Anonymous
Nothing at that level, but she is getting thousands of dollars in government aid and subsidies. She has to pay $10 to see the doctor. Maybe she'll think twice before she runs to the doctor for every little sniffle and sneeze - and put less stress on the system. |
Anonymous
It is. Isn't that one of the Obamacare requirements? So she has no excuse for having children she can't afford - she's getting the birth control - and if she decides to be irresponsible and not bother with birth control, well....$10 for her kiddo to see the doctor. |
Anonymous
Have you not read the news lately? Donald Trump apparently has paid 0% in federal taxes for possibly up to almost 2 decades. Then there was Romney who paid around 13% since his income was from capital gains and not income per se. Capital gains really are income and many of the really rich get their income this way. Then don't forget that many of rich have made a lot of their money off the backs of the poor like the Waltons. I certainly think the uber wealthy can pay more in taxes especially in light of historically low income taxes for the rich. At the very least we can go back to what the income tax and capital gains taxes were under Clinton to start to right things. Then we could add more income tax brackets since the top tax bracket stops at around $400,000.00 and something. I really think there should be tax brackets for a million dollars (or a couple of million) per year and with small incremental reasonable increases on up. Loop holes should be cut as well. People forget that in the 1960s the top income tax bracket was 70% and our country was doing well inclduing both the middle class and the rich. I am not suggesting a 70% tax bracket but we certainly can stand to go up in the tax rate for the uber rich especially in light that the top 1% or so hold most the wealth in this country. As for the poor, you do realize that there are many folks who are barely scraping by even with working full time due to crappy minimum wages.I think below a certain point they should not have to pay federal taxes but remember they still pay sales taxes, medicare and social security taxes too. |
Anonymous
First of all the Republicans and anti-abortion people have been fighting free and readily available access to birth control for years. They fought free birth control with Obamacare. They constantly try to defund Planned Parenthood who is one of the main suppliers of birth control for poor women and birth control is 97% of their services from what I recall. They fight sex ed. They fight easy access to Planned B emergency contraception. I agree women should be more responsible but you forget birth control can fail and many people have such chaotic lives that they are barely able to function. Think maslow's hierarchy of needs. Lastly, we are a free country. Are going to say you have no right to children unless you can afford them or limit children like China? I think that would make America an awful place which I would hate to see. Instead, I would like to see sex ed, encouragement of waiting to have children, very easy free access to birth control, and incentives to not have more children to women who are dependent on welfare. For example, perhaps poor women could be given a more money so as not have more kids or something like that. |
Anonymous
They're paying Medicare and SS IF they're working. And for those who aren't working and are in welfare, they're paying sales tax out of the money that taxpayers are giving them. That said, I don't argue that the uber-rich couldn't afford to pay more. But remember - Trump did not break the law. he used it to his advantage. If you don't like it, you have to change the law. But that doesn't mean that the poor should not have some minor, token "shared responsibility" by paying $10 to see the doctor. (They are already getting free insurance that the middle class is going bankrupt under.) When they pay nothing, it furthers this entitlement attitude and puts added stress on an already stressed medical system. ESPECIALLY when dealing with the ER. No more running to the ER for minor issues when urgent care would do at a fraction of the cost. So maybe $10 for using the ER, and free for UG. That would be a start. If it's really an emergency, they'll have to bite the bullet and pay the $10 - even if it means they have to make a sacrifice elsewhere. It's the same decision process that self-supporting middle class people make. I had to go to the ER for an emergency in July, and it set me back $1600. If you think I didn't have to cut back on my spending for the next month, think again. So....shared responsibility, as was the original post. The middle are already paying via escalated insursnce premiums. So let's raise the taxes some on the rich, and require the poor to pay $10 to see a doctor. |
Anonymous
Medicare for all? Part A-no premium charged if contributed is financed primarily by payroll taxes and income from the taxation of social security benefits. Married with 250K pay .9% more as do single over 200k. Parts B and D are NOT funded by FICA. Funding 2015: So 37.58% came from payroll taxes and that is only applied to Part A which charges a measly $411 /month for those who did not contribute via payroll taxes. A whopping 42.25% is from general revenue [income tax] and goes to Parts B/D. You can get B for as low as 121/month and anybody with maghi over 85k pays double that in premium. How much do retired cops and teachers get in retirement? In higher cola areas they are also getting whacked on Part B. Many items in the tax codes were generated via legislation and there is no logical match-up. The whole thing needs a sync. Casualty losses etc. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
Birth control actually fails pretty rarely. - especially the pill. I'd say if you can't afford a child and don't want to risk it, double up with something else. I myself have done that when I absolutely was not in a position to get pregnant. And of course you are free to have children you can't afford (although that it highly irresponsible). No limits like China. But that also doesn't mean that taxpayer have to pay ad infinitum while a single woman pushes out five, six, seven children. There should be a disminishing "return" - full amount of welfare for the first four, then lesser amounts. She still can have as many as she wants. But there was a woman in the news some years ago who had TEN children! and was provided a virtual mansion to house them all. Enough is enough. Also, as far as defunding PP....that's because they are also providing abortion, and there are laws against federal funds for that. By providing funds for their "non-abortion" services, money is being freed uo for abortions. We are indirectly funding abortions. That's the problem. PLUS, even if PP were defunded, it's not like women can't get their free non-abortion needs from any doctor. That's what Obamacare is funding. |
Anonymous
Well, on second thought, I WAS in a position to get pregnant, LOL! That's why I doubled up on the protection! (Sorry, couldn't resist....) |
Anonymous
|
I'd be fine with requiring the poor to pay $10 if we raised the minimum wage to the point where they could actually afford $10. Right now, people who work full time at walmart need food stamps. What is the point of giving them money with the right hand while taking it away with the left?
Also, frankly, I think you probably don't know many poor people A fair fraction have very poor impulse control. You can sermonize all you want, but that won't change their poor genetics. If we don't want to see them dying in the streets, we need to paternalistically take care of them. I do think we should require something in return, but something they can actually give, given their genetics. |