feuervogel | Young people don't need health insurance!

Insurance company: You can get a temporary policy, but if you want to continue it, you have to reapply. And if you use the temporary insurance, you've got a pre-existing condition, for which we'll deny you. That sounds fair. Sure.

The coverage my friends were able to purchase for their daughter was a 180 day policy. The terms of the policy required that, if they wanted to "renew" it, in effect, they had to reapply for it all over again. At which time, the insurance company was free to take into account any "pre-existing conditions" as a cause for denying coverage. "Pre-existing conditions", in this case, included any conditions for which the policy holder sought treatment for during the 180 days of coverage for which they had paid for.

Read also this post, about one of the victims of the health club shooting: a recent college grad without health insurance who can't afford the bill for the surgery (necessitated by some sick fuck who wanted to take revenge on all women for merely existing and not fucking him, apparently) so her friends & neighbors held a CAR WASH. A fucking car wash.

These are two examples of why this country needs universal coverage, like every other civilized nation on the planet.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I get the general point they're making in the second post about the car wash. But I could have lived without calling people who don't want to pay higher taxes racist, or assuming that everyone who donates in a can but doesn't want to pay taxes is largely doing it to "stick it to the man".

My primary concern is that higher taxes could potentially effect my ability to pay my bills at home etc, it's a legitimate concern. As much as I want to make sure everyone is taken care of, let's face it, I want to take care of myself first.

Why I put change in jars, click the "Donate $5" button at the pet store, etc has nothing to do with sticking it to the man. It's because at that point and time, I can AFFORD to. Tax increases make me nervous because I've had moments in my life where I've played the "Okay we're not paying electricity this month so we're not homeless" game. I don't KNOW that the higher taxes won't be a burden and cost em my lively hood at some point.

Of course, the usual idea of *progressive* taxation is that if you're at the point where you can barely pay for your own survival, you ought to not be paying a lot of taxes. Hasn't the current administration repeatedly stated plans *not* to raise taxes on earnings below amount $X, where $X is pretty darn generous? (Leaving out specific numbers since I'm too busy/lazy to make sure I have them correct just now.)

I mean, you can argue trickle-down economic pain from taxing high earners if you want (I don't tend to believe it much, but it's at least a not completely impossible theory), but I'm constantly surprised by how many people loudly object to taxes when they personally have extremely little chance of their taxes rising under any plan currently being discussed.

Or you could put it concisely while I blather on for 5 paragraphs...

Where did you get sticking it to the man out of the article?

Re your last paragraph: if taxes are raised, they're raised on higher incomes, because they can afford it better. If health cover is taken from tax revenue, and everyone pays it, the premium will vanish. It's also likely that the amount of tax money taken to pay for health cover will be *less than* the current premium. (Also? Remove the cap on FICA-eligible income.)

Ben hasn't had a single raise in his job, which he's had for 9 years now. Know why? All the money that could be going to an increase in take-home pay is going to BCBS. Insurance premiums have increased 98% -- almost doubled! -- in the last 10 years, while wages have increased 20%.

Take the money from premiums and give it to the employees. It'll be taxed, and possibly at a higher rate, but I'd wager that for the average worker, the new tax would be less than the premium. When you get down to the workers who don't currently have coverage because they can't afford it and the employer doesn't provide it, you'll likely see an increase in taxes, but I can envision a tax structure that doesn't unduly increase the burden on the poor (or at all.) I believe in taxing the rich, which is unpopular among people of a certain viewpoint and a certain income level. (Approximately mine, actually, if I worked full time. I'd clear over 100K.)

"You are participating in the mythology of 'we all take care of ourselves and we don't depend on gov'mint handouts'."

That's the part I interpreted as "sticking it to the man". And I suppose its not just a burden on the "poor" we're classified as middle class between myself and Xander's income we make decent money.

But your tax bracket isn't determined by the ratio of what we pay in bills, housing and etc compared to what we bring home. I'm not saying I'm completely against taxes or anything, but I do worry that we'll be affected by them as there's not a lot of play in our budget.

I guess my over all point is, money's tight and the tax has to be exactly right for me to feel I can really support it.

But that's not what sticking it to the man means. It's someone who says "haha, govmint! You ain't getting my money 'cause I'm off the grid!"

It's true, tax brackets don't take regional costs of living into account. But I'd still bet any increase in taxes would be less than a monthly premium (which can be $500 for a single person, and goes up from there, with the average cost for a family of 4 being $13,000/yr. I can think of a lot of things a family of 4 could do with 13 grand a year, even if they paid 15% of it in taxes.)

Young people don't need health insurance!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject