Let Lower Income "Pay Their Fair Share"!

[Anonymous]

I haven't waded through this whole thread, but is OP completely unaware of the excellent Republican idea that is the Earned Income Tax Credit, which Clinton expanded? Hugely successful Republican idea to get low income people working, and the exact opposite of what OP wants.

[Anonymous]

Not the opposite of what the OP wants - just sort of proving the point that there are so many government benefits given to the low-income that it would be a good idea for them to contribute a small token payment for medical care, especially in light of the beck-breaking burden placed on the low-middle to provide that very care. Someone else also posted how demanding and entitled the recipients of free care were and that after they were asked to pay a little something they became much more appreciative.

I would love to see an admitting nurse at the ER explain to the "free" patient that the person right before them will have to pay $2000, in addition to higher premiums as a result of giving the "free" patients all the free care they want - and ask if they would be willing to give $10 to offset their bill. Now wouldn't that be interesting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not the opposite of what the OP wants - just sort of proving the point that there are so many government benefits given to the low-income that it would be a good idea for them to contribute a small token payment for medical care, especially in light of the beck-breaking burden placed on the low-middle to provide that very care. Someone else also posted how demanding and entitled the recipients of free care were and that after they were asked to pay a little something they became much more appreciative.

I would love to see an admitting nurse at the ER explain to the "free" patient that the person right before them will have to pay $2000, in addition to higher premiums as a result of giving the "free" patients all the free care they want - and ask if they would be willing to give $10 to offset their bill. Now wouldn't that be interesting?

Why don't you just make poor people wear a tag or hat or something that identifies them as a freeloader, and make them come in through a back door, and not allow them to speak unless spoken to by a real taxpaying citizen? Since the undercurrent of this thread is that poor people should be publicly shamed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the opposite of what the OP wants - just sort of proving the point that there are so many government benefits given to the low-income that it would be a good idea for them to contribute a small token payment for medical care, especially in light of the beck-breaking burden placed on the low-middle to provide that very care. Someone else also posted how demanding and entitled the recipients of free care were and that after they were asked to pay a little something they became much more appreciative.

I would love to see an admitting nurse at the ER explain to the "free" patient that the person right before them will have to pay $2000, in addition to higher premiums as a result of giving the "free" patients all the free care they want - and ask if they would be willing to give $10 to offset their bill. Now wouldn't that be interesting?

Why don't you just make poor people wear a tag or hat or something that identifies them as a freeloader, and make them come in through a back door, and not allow them to speak unless spoken to by a real taxpaying citizen? Since the undercurrent of this thread is that poor people should be publicly shamed.

No. The thread is that low-income can kick in a modest $10 when the low-middle income is paying $15000 a year for insurance, and then another $5000 before insurance pays. But no.......we have to protect the low income from even a semblance of some sort of personal responsibility - ignoring the fact that it's done on the backs of the low-middle being driven to the poorhouse so the people earning a little less than they get everything paid for.

Nobody ever said they need to wear a tag or come in the back door. That's the ridiculous strawman argument given by liberals who get very annoyed when anyone dare suggest that people getting $30,000 or more of government benefits kick in 10 lousy bucks. NO.....free, free, free!! Add in the air of entitlement some of these people have, and they would be a lot more thankful of what they ARE getting if they had to contribute even a tiny bit.

As someone else posted, "what is obtained to cheaply is esteemed to lightly." The very fact that liberals are so appalled that a low-income person, after getting free insurance, needs contribute nothing more than $10 to see a doctor shows how very deep the sense of entitlement runs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the opposite of what the OP wants - just sort of proving the point that there are so many government benefits given to the low-income that it would be a good idea for them to contribute a small token payment for medical care, especially in light of the beck-breaking burden placed on the low-middle to provide that very care. Someone else also posted how demanding and entitled the recipients of free care were and that after they were asked to pay a little something they became much more appreciative.

I would love to see an admitting nurse at the ER explain to the "free" patient that the person right before them will have to pay $2000, in addition to higher premiums as a result of giving the "free" patients all the free care they want - and ask if they would be willing to give $10 to offset their bill. Now wouldn't that be interesting?

Why don't you just make poor people wear a tag or hat or something that identifies them as a freeloader, and make them come in through a back door, and not allow them to speak unless spoken to by a real taxpaying citizen? Since the undercurrent of this thread is that poor people should be publicly shamed.

No. The thread is that low-income can kick in a modest $10 when the low-middle income is paying $15000 a year for insurance, and then another $5000 before insurance pays. But no.......we have to protect the low income from even a semblance of some sort of personal responsibility - ignoring the fact that it's done on the backs of the low-middle being driven to the poorhouse so the people earning a little less than they get everything paid for.

Nobody ever said they need to wear a tag or come in the back door. That's the ridiculous strawman argument given by liberals who get very annoyed when anyone dare suggest that people getting $30,000 or more of government benefits kick in 10 lousy bucks. NO.....free, free, free!! Add in the air of entitlement some of these people have, and they would be a lot more thankful of what they ARE getting if they had to contribute even a tiny bit.

As someone else posted, "what is obtained to cheaply is esteemed to lightly." The very fact that liberals are so appalled that a low-income person, after getting free insurance, needs contribute nothing more than $10 to see a doctor shows how very deep the sense of entitlement runs.

No, it shows that we have the imagination and empathy to realize that for someone living penny to penny, $10 per doctor appointment can be a huge financial setback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a family of 4 has a household income of $12,000, what is the appropriate level of tax?

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

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.

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.

My god, is there no behavior you cannot excuse, PP. A chaotic life so someone is unable to use reliable birth control but have reliable sex? Yes, let's give poor women more money not to have more kids. Then what happens if their "chaotic lives" catch up with them and they have another kid or two or three?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the opposite of what the OP wants - just sort of proving the point that there are so many government benefits given to the low-income that it would be a good idea for them to contribute a small token payment for medical care, especially in light of the beck-breaking burden placed on the low-middle to provide that very care. Someone else also posted how demanding and entitled the recipients of free care were and that after they were asked to pay a little something they became much more appreciative.

I would love to see an admitting nurse at the ER explain to the "free" patient that the person right before them will have to pay $2000, in addition to higher premiums as a result of giving the "free" patients all the free care they want - and ask if they would be willing to give $10 to offset their bill. Now wouldn't that be interesting?

Why don't you just make poor people wear a tag or hat or something that identifies them as a freeloader, and make them come in through a back door, and not allow them to speak unless spoken to by a real taxpaying citizen? Since the undercurrent of this thread is that poor people should be publicly shamed.

No. The thread is that low-income can kick in a modest $10 when the low-middle income is paying $15000 a year for insurance, and then another $5000 before insurance pays. But no.......we have to protect the low income from even a semblance of some sort of personal responsibility - ignoring the fact that it's done on the backs of the low-middle being driven to the poorhouse so the people earning a little less than they get everything paid for.

Nobody ever said they need to wear a tag or come in the back door. That's the ridiculous strawman argument given by liberals who get very annoyed when anyone dare suggest that people getting $30,000 or more of government benefits kick in 10 lousy bucks. NO.....free, free, free!! Add in the air of entitlement some of these people have, and they would be a lot more thankful of what they ARE getting if they had to contribute even a tiny bit.

As someone else posted, "what is obtained to cheaply is esteemed to lightly." The very fact that liberals are so appalled that a low-income person, after getting free insurance, needs contribute nothing more than $10 to see a doctor shows how very deep the sense of entitlement runs.

No, it shows that we have the imagination and empathy to realize that for someone living penny to penny, $10 per doctor appointment can be a huge financial setback.

But I thought the liberals provided programs so that people would not have to live penny to penny (a hyperbole if ever there was one). What about those programs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the opposite of what the OP wants - just sort of proving the point that there are so many government benefits given to the low-income that it would be a good idea for them to contribute a small token payment for medical care, especially in light of the beck-breaking burden placed on the low-middle to provide that very care. Someone else also posted how demanding and entitled the recipients of free care were and that after they were asked to pay a little something they became much more appreciative.

I would love to see an admitting nurse at the ER explain to the "free" patient that the person right before them will have to pay $2000, in addition to higher premiums as a result of giving the "free" patients all the free care they want - and ask if they would be willing to give $10 to offset their bill. Now wouldn't that be interesting?

Why don't you just make poor people wear a tag or hat or something that identifies them as a freeloader, and make them come in through a back door, and not allow them to speak unless spoken to by a real taxpaying citizen? Since the undercurrent of this thread is that poor people should be publicly shamed.

No. The thread is that low-income can kick in a modest $10 when the low-middle income is paying $15000 a year for insurance, and then another $5000 before insurance pays. But no.......we have to protect the low income from even a semblance of some sort of personal responsibility - ignoring the fact that it's done on the backs of the low-middle being driven to the poorhouse so the people earning a little less than they get everything paid for.

Nobody ever said they need to wear a tag or come in the back door. That's the ridiculous strawman argument given by liberals who get very annoyed when anyone dare suggest that people getting $30,000 or more of government benefits kick in 10 lousy bucks. NO.....free, free, free!! Add in the air of entitlement some of these people have, and they would be a lot more thankful of what they ARE getting if they had to contribute even a tiny bit.

As someone else posted, "what is obtained to cheaply is esteemed to lightly." The very fact that liberals are so appalled that a low-income person, after getting free insurance, needs contribute nothing more than $10 to see a doctor shows how very deep the sense of entitlement runs.

No, it shows that we have the imagination and empathy to realize that for someone living penny to penny, $10 per doctor appointment can be a huge financial setback.

And $15,000 in premiums to someone earning $50k is a huge financial setback, too - so much so that people like that have to do without the insurance they could previously afford. No empathy for the middle class, though. I really hope poor people understand that the free care they are getting is coming at a HUGE sacrifice to the middle-class. But that's a liberal thing....as long as the poor get their free stuff, they're not all that worried about the hardships it places on the e middle class paying for it.

I wonder if the poor people now getting free care have any empathy for the middle class who can no longer afford it for themselves as a result? Or is the entitlement attitude so strong that they don't care? I really do wonder.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a family of 4 has a household income of $12,000, what is the appropriate level of tax?

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

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.

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.

My god, is there no behavior you cannot excuse, PP. A chaotic life so someone is unable to use reliable birth control but have reliable sex? Yes, let's give poor women more money not to have more kids. Then what happens if their "chaotic lives" catch up with them and they have another kid or two or three?

+ .1 That's how liberals think. Excuse after excuse - if you're poor, that is. If you're middle-class, though, they don't want to hear about any of your struggles. In fact, they'll blame you for the very same thing they defend among the poor.

[Anonymous]

After 25 years in healthcare, I can tell you the sense of entitlement of the Medicaid population is insane. They automatically assume everything is free for the asking and become indignant when asked to simply fill out the forms, provide ID and... imagine this... comply by actually taking the meds we give you for free. And, while you're at it, perhaps you could stop stuffing your fat face for 5 minutes so you can get your diabetes under control. You could also do the middle class a favor and stop smoking, because... newsflash... if you can't afford to pay for insurance or your rent, you sure can't afford cigarettes. We would also appreciate it if you would also lay off the dope and actually parent your kids so hopefully they will not continue your parasitic lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After 25 years in healthcare, I can tell you the sense of entitlement of the Medicaid population is insane. They automatically assume everything is free for the asking and become indignant when asked to simply fill out the forms, provide ID and... imagine this... comply by actually taking the meds we give you for free. And, while you're at it, perhaps you could stop stuffing your fat face for 5 minutes so you can get your diabetes under control. You could also do the middle class a favor and stop smoking, because... newsflash... if you can't afford to pay for insurance or your rent, you sure can't afford cigarettes. We would also appreciate it if you would also lay off the dope and actually parent your kids so hopefully they will not continue your parasitic lifestyle.

My FIL is in healthcare and has been saying this forever. The stories he tells make me ill. I hope you know you're about to get reamed though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After 25 years in healthcare, I can tell you the sense of entitlement of the Medicaid population is insane. They automatically assume everything is free for the asking and become indignant when asked to simply fill out the forms, provide ID and... imagine this... comply by actually taking the meds we give you for free. And, while you're at it, perhaps you could stop stuffing your fat face for 5 minutes so you can get your diabetes under control. You could also do the middle class a favor and stop smoking, because... newsflash... if you can't afford to pay for insurance or your rent, you sure can't afford cigarettes. We would also appreciate it if you would also lay off the dope and actually parent your kids so hopefully they will not continue your parasitic lifestyle.

My FIL is in healthcare and has been saying this forever. The stories he tells make me ill. I hope you know you're about to get reamed though.

Thank you! I'm one of the posters who is saying that the people on free health care need to pay $10, and I keep getting accused of not understanding that these people might have to miss a meal if they do. (I had some poor times in my 20s and had to skip a meal here and there. I lived.) What Imdidnt want to say - but you're braver - is that these people buy junk food, cigarettes, booze, whatever. So cry me a river that they might have to miss a meal. Maybe they'll have to stretch out a pack of ciggies a bit longer or pass on the bags of potsto chips.

And the demanding attitudes, OMG. I once participated in an angel tree gift program at Christmas. First, the things these people were asking for from complete strangers....unbelievable. Bikes that cost $300. IPads. Stuff like that. I bought some lesser items - still spending $100 - and the Mom and her three kids walked in, gave me a shrug as I handed them their gifts and said Merry Christmas, and left without so much as a thank you. (Now watch....the liberals will come out and start criticizing MY attitude.)

[Anonymous]

My job is helping poor people in a medical setting and what I've noticed is a majority of the people getting free and cheap medical care are elderly, or mentally or physically disabled. Many are not even literate and more are mentally ill. They truly are unable to care for themselves in many ways. They are so poor, free medical care is all they have, but they often can't even afford transportation to their appointments. There isn't a reason in the world to feel these people are getting something better or more easily than you. You cannot hold them to the same expectations you have for yourself, and it would be cruel and uncivilized to deny them basic heathcare, food and shelter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My job is helping poor people in a medical setting and what I've noticed is a majority of the people getting free and cheap medical care are elderly, or mentally or physically disabled. Many are not even literate and more are mentally ill. They truly are unable to care for themselves in many ways. They are so poor, free medical care is all they have, but they often can't even afford transportation to their appointments. There isn't a reason in the world to feel these people are getting something better or more easily than you. You cannot hold them to the same expectations you have for yourself, and it would be cruel and uncivilized to deny them basic heathcare, food and shelter.

I'm a PP and no one suggested the mentally ill not receive care. The fact you have a job is a testimony to our commitment to provide for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My job is helping poor people in a medical setting and what I've noticed is a majority of the people getting free and cheap medical care are elderly, or mentally or physically disabled. Many are not even literate and more are mentally ill. They truly are unable to care for themselves in many ways. They are so poor, free medical care is all they have, but they often can't even afford transportation to their appointments. There isn't a reason in the world to feel these people are getting something better or more easily than you. You cannot hold them to the same expectations you have for yourself, and it would be cruel and uncivilized to deny them basic heathcare, food and shelter.

So maybe we need to have parameters for the people getting free. Elderly or physically/mentally disabled, fine. Everyone else of working age and mind needs to pay $10, but will continue getting their expensive insurance fully paid. I mean, really, it's not like l'm saying they need to pay the hundreds of dollars I have to scrounge up now that Obamacare doesn't cover anything.

Plus, why do they deserve BETTER care? Are you aware that low-income continue to get annual checks-ups free of charge (because everything is free of charge) but the moderate earner now only gets a free checkup up once every two years under some exchange plans? Part of the ACA was that you got a free checkup (but of course you have to pay $15k in premiums), but Obama sneakily changed that. I found out from my doctor.

So I ask....why do low-income get an annual checkup, when they pay nothing for insurance.....and the middle-income have to wait two years, when they pay $10,000 to $15,000 a year for insurance that won't cover anything?