Let Lower Income "Pay Their Fair Share"!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how iberals bend over backwards to ensure that the poor don't have to contribute a cent to their care while not giving a flying F about the middle class struggling to make ends meet. For example....

When Obamacare was being rammed down Americans' throats, I told my neighbor I was against it. She called me "heartless," and then proceeded to tell me about a poor friend of hers, earning $20 an hour, who couldn't afford health insurance. She told me that if this friend has a medical situation, she MIGHT HAVE TO SELL HER HOUSE. (She bought the house years ago, when she had a good job.) When I asked if she was looking for a better job, I was met with complete disdain and told how she couldn't find a better job.

Flash forward. Her friend now has free insurance and medical care, and is still in her house. I, on the othe hand, am crashing under an overpriced insurance plan (they've got to charge middle class more to make up for the total coverage they're providing the low esrners), plus thousands of dollars of medical bills the insurance doesn't cover. It's adding up to nearly 30% of my moderate tske-hime pay, and I can't continue indefinitely. Probably within a year or so, I'll need to sell my house. When I told that same neighbor that my medical costs were so high I might have to sell - she said, with a hint of contempt...."well, instead of complaining, just get a higher-paying job."

All the defense for the lower class and to Hell with the middle class. We will see more of it under Hillary, as she shifts even more money from the middle to the lower.

Again: you are attacking the wrong people. Why try to get $10 out of a homeless person seeking medical care when you could have the wealthy pay more? Redirect your anger towards the wealthy.

That's the typical liberal response - tax the wealthy. There aren't enough wealthy people to solve this. It falls to the middle class.

[Anonymous]

https://www.marylandhealthconnection.gov/medicaid-basics-benefits/

You have to be low-income to qualify for assistance. Even so, it typically isn't free.

But go ahead and keep spewing misinformation. Keep pontificating on things about which you know nothing. And keep misdirecting your anger and frustration at low-income people rather than the uber wealthy who aren't paying their fair share...makes a lot of sense (insert eye roll emoji).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how iberals bend over backwards to ensure that the poor don't have to contribute a cent to their care while not giving a flying F about the middle class struggling to make ends meet. For example....

When Obamacare was being rammed down Americans' throats, I told my neighbor I was against it. She called me "heartless," and then proceeded to tell me about a poor friend of hers, earning $20 an hour, who couldn't afford health insurance. She told me that if this friend has a medical situation, she MIGHT HAVE TO SELL HER HOUSE. (She bought the house years ago, when she had a good job.) When I asked if she was looking for a better job, I was met with complete disdain and told how she couldn't find a better job.

Flash forward. Her friend now has free insurance and medical care, and is still in her house. I, on the othe hand, am crashing under an overpriced insurance plan (they've got to charge middle class more to make up for the total coverage they're providing the low esrners), plus thousands of dollars of medical bills the insurance doesn't cover. It's adding up to nearly 30% of my moderate tske-hime pay, and I can't continue indefinitely. Probably within a year or so, I'll need to sell my house. When I told that same neighbor that my medical costs were so high I might have to sell - she said, with a hint of contempt...."well, instead of complaining, just get a higher-paying job."

All the defense for the lower class and to Hell with the middle class. We will see more of it under Hillary, as she shifts even more money from the middle to the lower.

Again: you are attacking the wrong people. Why try to get $10 out of a homeless person seeking medical care when you could have the wealthy pay more? Redirect your anger towards the wealthy.

That's the typical liberal response - tax the wealthy. There aren't enough wealthy people to solve this. It falls to the middle class.

Donald Trump hasn't paid taxes in decades. I'm sure he's not the only one. Liberal billionaires and celebrities have remarked that they don't pay their fair share...because they aren't asked to.

Why are you against increasing the tax burden on the wealthy? Befuddling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, you still haven't answered the question of how making the poor pay an extra $8-40+ per month for income tax/insurance/doctor appointments is going to improve YOUR life.

No platitudes about everyone have skin in the game. I want to know how your own financial situation will improve by making a struggling single mother choose between paying rent and paying the electricity bill.

Specifics, please. Thanks for answering.

OP. A few things:

1) It's just common sense. We have an exchange system where 85% of people are getting subsidized! and a large portion of them are subsidized entirely through the Medicaid expansion. (In fact, Medicsid expansion was the largest driver behind the Obamacare enrollments.) So now you have a system where 15% of the people are paying full freight! and a huge segment paying nothing. it's just math that if you get the large group paying nothing to kick in a little something, the minority - often with incomes of only $50k or $60k - who are shouldering the entire burden will pay less.

2) But that's not the most important factor. It's ACCESS. While you've dismissed the idea that lower-income should pay $10 to see a doctor, others have pointed out that when people are invested in their own care, they make responsible decisions. When I'm not well, I go through all sorts of mental contortions trying to decide whether to go to the doctor, because the hundreds it will cost (on top of the premiums) means I need to sacrifice elsewhere.

But those for whom it's entirely free to have to go through that decision process, and thus they show up - and take limited slots from people who really do need care - for every minor thing. In the meantime, the middle class person who really needs to see the doctor and therefore has decided to make the financial sacrifice can't get in. This recently happened to me. I needed to see a doctor, and the soonest I could get in was more than a month later. (And I called around....some were two months.) When my time finally arrived, I walk into a room full of lower-income, non-Engkish speaking people. It's fair to assume some of them (I'd guess most) were on Medicaid. IF they had to pay $10, it's a sure bet that some of them were there for minor issues that they would have waited. The end result is because the "free system" encourages an overuse of doctor's visits, people like me - who pay a fortune - can't see a doctor in time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how iberals bend over backwards to ensure that the poor don't have to contribute a cent to their care while not giving a flying F about the middle class struggling to make ends meet. For example....

When Obamacare was being rammed down Americans' throats, I told my neighbor I was against it. She called me "heartless," and then proceeded to tell me about a poor friend of hers, earning $20 an hour, who couldn't afford health insurance. She told me that if this friend has a medical situation, she MIGHT HAVE TO SELL HER HOUSE. (She bought the house years ago, when she had a good job.) When I asked if she was looking for a better job, I was met with complete disdain and told how she couldn't find a better job.

Flash forward. Her friend now has free insurance and medical care, and is still in her house. I, on the othe hand, am crashing under an overpriced insurance plan (they've got to charge middle class more to make up for the total coverage they're providing the low esrners), plus thousands of dollars of medical bills the insurance doesn't cover. It's adding up to nearly 30% of my moderate tske-hime pay, and I can't continue indefinitely. Probably within a year or so, I'll need to sell my house. When I told that same neighbor that my medical costs were so high I might have to sell - she said, with a hint of contempt...."well, instead of complaining, just get a higher-paying job."

All the defense for the lower class and to Hell with the middle class. We will see more of it under Hillary, as she shifts even more money from the middle to the lower.

Again: you are attacking the wrong people. Why try to get $10 out of a homeless person seeking medical care when you could have the wealthy pay more? Redirect your anger towards the wealthy.

That's the typical liberal response - tax the wealthy. There aren't enough wealthy people to solve this. It falls to the middle class.

Donald Trump hasn't paid taxes in decades. I'm sure he's not the only one. Liberal billionaires and celebrities have remarked that they don't pay their fair share...because they aren't asked to.

Why are you against increasing the tax burden on the wealthy? Befuddling.

+1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

One has to conclude that people like the PP don't truly understand how much wealth the truly wealthy have amassed, and when they're allowed not to have any skin in the game - and they arguably have less than anyone with their ability to exist above and apart from the rest of us - we all suffer.

But let's take $10 from poor people because you believe some internet story about someone who says the government pays for everything.

[Anonymous]

I think a big part of the problem is the inequity of the whole thing. Liberals have the whole "inequality thing" as one if their mantras, but now we have an upside-down equity. The poor and lower-class get free care for even the most expensive treatments when they need it, and the middle class have to scrimp and save and often go without the treatments they need. So the poor are now given better medical care than the middle class can afford to pay for. Why aren't the liberals screaming about that inequity, rather than racing to its defense?

[Anonymous]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/20/federal-health-care-law-what-came-true-and-what-di/

From politifact. Debunks some myths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a big part of the problem is the inequity of the whole thing. Liberals have the whole "inequality thing" as one if their mantras, but now we have an upside-down equity. The poor and lower-class get free care for even the most expensive treatments when they need it, and the middle class have to scrimp and save and often go without the treatments they need. So the poor are now given better medical care than the middle class can afford to pay for. Why aren't the liberals screaming about that inequity, rather than racing to its defense?

But they really aren't getting free care. They get subsidized care. And most have disabilities or are medically vulnerable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how iberals bend over backwards to ensure that the poor don't have to contribute a cent to their care while not giving a flying F about the middle class struggling to make ends meet. For example....

When Obamacare was being rammed down Americans' throats, I told my neighbor I was against it. She called me "heartless," and then proceeded to tell me about a poor friend of hers, earning $20 an hour, who couldn't afford health insurance. She told me that if this friend has a medical situation, she MIGHT HAVE TO SELL HER HOUSE. (She bought the house years ago, when she had a good job.) When I asked if she was looking for a better job, I was met with complete disdain and told how she couldn't find a better job.

Flash forward. Her friend now has free insurance and medical care, and is still in her house. I, on the othe hand, am crashing under an overpriced insurance plan (they've got to charge middle class more to make up for the total coverage they're providing the low esrners), plus thousands of dollars of medical bills the insurance doesn't cover. It's adding up to nearly 30% of my moderate tske-hime pay, and I can't continue indefinitely. Probably within a year or so, I'll need to sell my house. When I told that same neighbor that my medical costs were so high I might have to sell - she said, with a hint of contempt...."well, instead of complaining, just get a higher-paying job."

All the defense for the lower class and to Hell with the middle class. We will see more of it under Hillary, as she shifts even more money from the middle to the lower.

Again: you are attacking the wrong people. Why try to get $10 out of a homeless person seeking medical care when you could have the wealthy pay more? Redirect your anger towards the wealthy.

That's the typical liberal response - tax the wealthy. There aren't enough wealthy people to solve this. It falls to the middle class.

Donald Trump hasn't paid taxes in decades. I'm sure he's not the only one. Liberal billionaires and celebrities have remarked that they don't pay their fair share...because they aren't asked to.

Why are you against increasing the tax burden on the wealthy? Befuddling.

+1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

One has to conclude that people like the PP don't truly understand how much wealth the truly wealthy have amassed, and when they're allowed not to have any skin in the game - and they arguably have less than anyone with their ability to exist above and apart from the rest of us - we all suffer.

But let's take $10 from poor people because you believe some internet story about someone who says the government pays for everything.

First, why is it so wrong to want poor people to kick in $10, but there's no problem requiring someone earning $50k to pay $15,000 a year for medical? Again, all the liberal defense that poor people should get a completely free ride even if it means bankrupting people in the middle class.

And second, the idea that increasing taxes on the wealthy is how to solve it is the old liberal belief that simply isn't true. There just aren't enough wealthy people to cover the entitlement expansions. We would have to drop pretty for down into the middle class to raise the tax revenues needed.

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-raising-taxes-1-will-not-lead-surprising-amounts-revenue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/20/federal-health-care-law-what-came-true-and-what-di/

From politifact. Debunks some myths.

Politifsct leans liberal. They're not the be all and end all.

[Anonymous]

You really don't understand poverty. You clearly don't understand that homeless people aren't walking around with pocket money. You don't realize that it's cheaper for taxpayers to invest in preventive medical care for homeless and extremely low income people rather than have them rely on emergency rooms for care. You don't understand why investing in healthcare for pregnant women and children is wise.

And you don't seem to want to accept the fact that most low-income people are paying into the system. Their care is typically subsidized, not free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how iberals bend over backwards to ensure that the poor don't have to contribute a cent to their care while not giving a flying F about the middle class struggling to make ends meet. For example....

When Obamacare was being rammed down Americans' throats, I told my neighbor I was against it. She called me "heartless," and then proceeded to tell me about a poor friend of hers, earning $20 an hour, who couldn't afford health insurance. She told me that if this friend has a medical situation, she MIGHT HAVE TO SELL HER HOUSE. (She bought the house years ago, when she had a good job.) When I asked if she was looking for a better job, I was met with complete disdain and told how she couldn't find a better job.

Flash forward. Her friend now has free insurance and medical care, and is still in her house. I, on the othe hand, am crashing under an overpriced insurance plan (they've got to charge middle class more to make up for the total coverage they're providing the low esrners), plus thousands of dollars of medical bills the insurance doesn't cover. It's adding up to nearly 30% of my moderate tske-hime pay, and I can't continue indefinitely. Probably within a year or so, I'll need to sell my house. When I told that same neighbor that my medical costs were so high I might have to sell - she said, with a hint of contempt...."well, instead of complaining, just get a higher-paying job."

All the defense for the lower class and to Hell with the middle class. We will see more of it under Hillary, as she shifts even more money from the middle to the lower.

Again: you are attacking the wrong people. Why try to get $10 out of a homeless person seeking medical care when you could have the wealthy pay more? Redirect your anger towards the wealthy.

That's the typical liberal response - tax the wealthy. There aren't enough wealthy people to solve this. It falls to the middle class.

Donald Trump hasn't paid taxes in decades. I'm sure he's not the only one. Liberal billionaires and celebrities have remarked that they don't pay their fair share...because they aren't asked to.

Why are you against increasing the tax burden on the wealthy? Befuddling.

+1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

One has to conclude that people like the PP don't truly understand how much wealth the truly wealthy have amassed, and when they're allowed not to have any skin in the game - and they arguably have less than anyone with their ability to exist above and apart from the rest of us - we all suffer.

But let's take $10 from poor people because you believe some internet story about someone who says the government pays for everything.

First, why is it so wrong to want poor people to kick in $10, but there's no problem requiring someone earning $50k to pay $15,000 a year for medical? Again, all the liberal defense that poor people should get a completely free ride even if it means bankrupting people in the middle class.

And second, the idea that increasing taxes on the wealthy is how to solve it is the old liberal belief that simply isn't true. There just aren't enough wealthy people to cover the entitlement expansions. We would have to drop pretty for down into the middle class to raise the tax revenues needed.

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/no-raising-taxes-1-will-not-lead-surprising-amounts-revenue

I think a sliding scale is fine, but for the truly poor, paying $10 for medical service could mean one less meal to eat during the week. Many senior citizens already have to choose between eating and paying for rx. Why are people trying to make it worse for them?

There are enough wealthy people, income over $1mil where if they are assessed a flat 25% tax rate, it would help. How can it not help? Why do you think the IRS provides those amnesty programs for people who have hidden money overseas to bring them back in? Why do you think gov'ts are trying to get corporations to bring back income from overseas? Because all of that helps.

-not a liberal, but someone whose actual federal tax rate is 28%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/20/federal-health-care-law-what-came-true-and-what-di/

From politifact. Debunks some myths.

Politifsct leans liberal. They're not the be all and end all.

Wrong.

Did you miss the Cato quotes? Do you not know what Cato is? Hint: it's not liberal.

Nice reminder of how clueless conservatives are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a big part of the problem is the inequity of the whole thing. Liberals have the whole "inequality thing" as one if their mantras, but now we have an upside-down equity. The poor and lower-class get free care for even the most expensive treatments when they need it, and the middle class have to scrimp and save and often go without the treatments they need. So the poor are now given better medical care than the middle class can afford to pay for. Why aren't the liberals screaming about that inequity, rather than racing to its defense?

But they really aren't getting free care. They get subsidized care. And most have disabilities or are medically vulnerable.

Most don't have disabilities. They just earn less than $47k. Besides that, a LOT are oaying nothing. Most of the new enrollees on Obamacare were because of the Medicaid expansion, and their care is completely free. There's a lot of abuse in the system because of that, with the "free" patients showing up at doctors offices with every little sniffle and cold. A modest fee would make them think twice before taking uo valuable doctor time, just like the middle class has to do when deciding whether to go out-of-pocket by $200 or more for a doctor's visit.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/10/2014-health-insurance-enrollment-increase-due-almost-entirely-to-medicaid-expansion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/20/federal-health-care-law-what-came-true-and-what-di/

From politifact. Debunks some myths.

Politifsct leans liberal. They're not the be all and end all.

Wrong.

Did you miss the Cato quotes? Do you not know what Cato is? Hint: it's not liberal.

Nice reminder of how clueless conservatives are.

And the "smart" liberals are the ones that passed Obamacare.