|
Vox, again, with a solid piece on UHC. Guestcolumnist'd by Ron Pollack. I'm not fully on board with it (VT conversation would have been better served with more details and nuance, benefits of SP are insufficiently explored), but the intro hits my personal hobbyhorses quite well: quote:The overriding goal among progressives is to ensure that health care becomes a basic human right — truly and affordably available for all, irrespective of income, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, and geography. e: wonkdog tax 
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/desiderioDC/status/907348519589236739 because https://twitter.com/PeterSullivan4/status/907350325530636293 (paul/collins/murkowski means it's dead)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
The sad part is that Randroid Paul only opposes it because it doesn't utterly repeal any and all government intervention in health care, including the ACA, Medicare and Medicaid. He would like to have a few dozen very ill people form a queue outside of his office so that he can kick them to the ground and then scream at them to bootstrap themselves vertical again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:The sad part is that Randroid Paul only opposes it because it doesn't utterly repeal any and all government intervention in health care, including the ACA, Medicare and Medicaid. He would like to have a few dozen very ill people form a queue outside of his office so that he can kick them to the ground and then scream at them to bootstrap themselves vertical again. Actually it's strongly suspected that Paul opposes it because he doesn't want obamacare repealed because it works very well in Kentucky and repeal would be a political disaster for him, but he absolutely can't admit it. No matter what the proposal is Paul has found a way to oppose it unless it's clear it can't pass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Actually it's strongly suspected that Paul opposes it because he doesn't want obamacare repealed because it works very well in Kentucky and repeal would be a political disaster for him, but he absolutely can't admit it. No matter what the proposal is Paul has found a way to oppose it unless it's clear it can't pass. This is probably true, and it's very annoying that this works so very very well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is probably true, and it's very annoying that this works so very very well. It's a simultaneously heart-warming and spine-chilling example of unquenchable thirst for power blunting pure evil.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:It's a simultaneously heart-warming and spine-chilling example of unquenchable thirst for power blunting pure evil. He has learned remarkably well from his father (who never voted for pork, but inserted it into every must-pass bill he could). There's also a solid chance that his bullshit helped delay this process enough to kill Repeal & Replace and protect his constituents.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Of course, decades of cynical liars like the Pauls peddling bullshit to rubes in order to get elected, then counting on more serious Republicans to save them from the consequences of their ideas becoming law, all the while trashing them as traitorous liberal RINOs every time they fall on their swords saving the country and the Pauls from their own campaign rhetoric, then doubling down on their promises of how great it would be if only we could get rid of the RINOs and pass all their cockamamie lolbertarian schemes...has resulted in enough true believers getting elected that they came one vote short of destroying the individual health insurance market for literally no reason with no benefit to anyone, and there's a constant threat that the US will just default on its bonds and destroy the world economy again for no reason.
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Sep 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:The evil house in CA killed the senate UHC bill*. Bastards. The Democrats have a supermajority in Califoria, a state that has the sixth largest economy in the world. Given these conditions, why have they not been able to table and pass a better bill?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
tekz posted:The Democrats have a supermajority in Califoria, a state that has the sixth largest economy in the world. Given these conditions, why have they not been able to table and pass a better bill? Single-Payer at the state-level in California requires a constitutional amendment because of Article 9. Half of all raised taxes for the general fund have to go to education, so any single-payer proposal has to either come after a constitutional amendment or has to raise taxes roughly 2x higher than needed to comply with Article 9.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
tekz posted:The Democrats have a supermajority in Califoria, a state that has the sixth largest economy in the world. Given these conditions, why have they not been able to table and pass a better bill? It's always disingenuous when people talk about California being the 6th largest economy in the world. Yes that's technically true but it's not like it's all theirs to keep and spend.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:It's always disingenuous when people talk about California being the 6th largest economy in the world. Yes that's technically true but it's not like it's all theirs to keep and spend. drat welfare queen red states.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 20:49
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
tekz posted:The Democrats have a supermajority in Califoria, a state that has the sixth largest economy in the world. Given these conditions, why have they not been able to table and pass a better bill? What the house tabled (before evidently changing its mind) was essentially a napkin with "single payer now" scrawled on it that passed the senate with a simple majority. The bill was able to pass the senate in this manner because it didn't technically do... anything. Lara and Atkins claimed victory in passing their "bill" and then laid blame on Rendon for stalling it in the house. My objection, as it has been the whole time, is that progressive angst is misplaced. That CA Dems have been avoiding a push for the SP they ran on providing is shameful. You could blame Rendon, who accurately assessed that Lara and Atkins sought to force all risk, effort, and blame onto his caucus by passing an empty and nonbinding bill that passed under lighter standards than the final bill will require, needing only a simple majority on account of, again, not loving doing anything . Or, you could blame Atkins and Lara who sought to harness the momentum of grassroots progressives and unions in order to raise their profiles and insulate themselves from risk while providing zero actual value. CA Dems need to push forward on UHC and make an honest effort at Single Payer. That Rendon, rather than Atkins and Lara, is facing recall threats is a troubling sign for the movement going forward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
remember a few pages back, when UHC was something the democratic party was nobly willing to make happen, regardless of the political cost they would pay for doing so good times
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:remember a few pages back, when UHC was something the democratic party was nobly willing to make happen, regardless of the political cost they would pay for doing so Would you care to clarify what you're referring to? I mean, this looks like a threadshitting nonsequitur in one of the few decent D&D/AmPol threads...but surely it must be something else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Would you care to clarify what you're referring to? I mean, this looks like a threadshitting nonsequitur in one of the few decent D&D/AmPol threads...but surely it must be something else. evilweasel posted:the democrats passed obamacare knowing it was going to cost them elections (though it cost them a lot more than they expected) once upon a time, when it was convenient for some people to claim to believe it, Democrats were noble crusaders for UHC, willing to pay whatever political price was necessary to make it happen now, confronted with an opportunity to make it happen, these same noble democrats are whining about how dare someone else not do more of the work for them to make this thing they Definitely Believe In come to pass, and their supporters are whining how terrible a sign it is that the person who said "gently caress off with this single payer bullshit" has made people angry by doing so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
ze pollack's posting makes a lot more sense now that i realize he doesn't even realize obamacare exists
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:CA Dems need to push forward on UHC and make an honest effort at Single Payer. That Rendon, rather than Atkins and Lara, is facing recall threats is a troubling sign for the movement going forward. But the recall threat worked, Rendon reversed himself and announced a select committee to hold hearings on healthcare, rather than killing it with a "gee someone else should legislate on health care not us the legislature, maybe next year *wink*"
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Also "the bill sucks so we can't fix healthcare sorry" is a horseshit excuse coming from the legislature whose job it is to write bills that don't suck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Simple question: If Rendon marshaled his caucus to pass the Senate's bill word for word, would California be any closer to Single Payer legislation?VitalSigns posted:Also "the bill sucks so we can't fix healthcare sorry" is a horseshit excuse coming from the legislature whose job it is to write bills that don't suck.  it's also the Senate's job to write bills that don't suck, and actually do thingsShame on the SEIU, for not understanding how legislation works! Laphonza Butler, president of the statewide council of the Service Employees International Union posted:“We expected the Senate would take amendments, have thoughts about the financing and the structure,” said Butler, who released a statement Friday afternoon backing Rendon’s decision to hold the bill. UFCW posted:SB 562 failed not because of Speaker Rendon, but because the proponents tried to exploit a Trump narrative and make threats to pass an incomplete policy without doing the tough work to build a truly broad-based progressive coalition. [...] The only way this is going to happen without falling into the factionalism that has destroyed the rest of the country’s politics is to build the biggest and strongest coalition to drive a comprehensive agenda and make sound policy arguments for the issues we are pushing. The campaign for SB 562 lacked most of this and that is the true reason why it failed I'm thrilled (as I've said upthread! In posts you've quoted!) that California is getting to work on UHC in whatever form it may take. There are state-specific hurdles that make a plan like SB 562 markedly more complicated in California than elsewhere, which is why I'm also glad that he's essentially starting from scratch and exploring a variety of methods that may be more likely to succeed (and wouldn't necessitate block granting). The research, hearings, and eventual legislation will be a helpful resource for other states and for the federal government. VitalSigns posted:But the recall threat worked, Rendon reversed himself and announced a select committee to hold hearings on healthcare, rather than killing it with a "gee someone else should legislate on health care not us the legislature, maybe next year *wink*" Atkins and Lara also decided that "someone else should legislate on health care not us the legislature", and yet have emerged unscathed. Rendon accurately described the unprecedented vacuousness of SB 562 (which, again, was literally only able to pass by not being a real bill), and received immense backlash. Atkins and Lara (who has received more $$ from health/pharma companies than Rendon) are using the episode to boost their profiles as they seek higher office. SB 562 as passed by the Senate literally could never become law, yet work by the Senate stopped immediately. As such, Atkins, Lara, and Rendon all deserve scorn for wasting the first 6(8) months of the session and yet for some reason, the former are being fêted by the movement while the later has become a target of national scorn. That's got distressing implications for UHC moving forward, especially given what we've witnessed from Congress on healthcare this year. A mission statement is not a bill. Grandstanding is neither leadership nor bravery. Passing the buck is not progress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Bernie's new bill doesn't include long-term care coverage like his campaign plan did Is that the only difference?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:
Lmao the activists that you spent two months shaming and deriding managed to get health care reform resurrected and into committee and now you're crying about it because they didn't listen to you and spend the time complacently bitching online about the ungrateful voters who expect legislators to do the job they were elected to do. It would behoove you to learn something from this about strategy but you won't. Paracaidas posted:Atkins and Lara also decided that "someone else should legislate on health care not us the legislature", and yet have emerged unscathed. Rendon accurately described the unprecedented vacuousness of SB 562 (which, again, was literally only able to pass by not being a real bill), and received immense backlash. Who gives a poo poo. No one cares that Rendon is right that incomplete bills suck. His job is to write bills, not sit and complain that the bill fairy didn't drop one in his lap. Yeah the Senate should have written a complete bill, but the Assembly should too. People like you were content to sit back and let a few Dems in the Senate go Lieberman on the thing and use their ability to block the supermajority from passing a supermajority-required funding mechanism while the Assembly says "oh well no one wrote a bill ohhhh well." Well voters won't stand for that poo poo nor should they. If the Senate couldn't get a workable bill done then it's the Assembly's job to make a good faith effort to enact the will of the voters by holding hearings and writing legislation themselves, not sabotage democracy by refusing to hold any hearings and go "well golly gosh gee somehow nothing got done I guess it's impossible!" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Bernie's new bill doesn't include long-term care coverage like his campaign plan did Thus far I'm not seeing anything more than his interview with Weigel, which is obviously light on specifics. I believe the text drops tomorrow, so most analysis will start showing up end of the week/start of next week. Based on the WaPo story, my quick thoughts: That he's got economists looking into it is encouraging (though I hope he stays far away from Amherst given how that went during the campaign), especially given "The size of the tax increase, he said, would be determined in a separate bill." Tactically, it makes sense to avoid tying an explicit tax increase to a stillborn bill but the Repeal & Replace saga shows that advocates have 40 months to determine and settle on the actual specifics. Activists and donors will both push in their own ways during that time period, and it'll be fascinating to see the shape of the debate come 2021. The makeup of the GOP will play an interesting role as well. If it's strongly Establishment, it's plausible that the medicaid expansion and even the public option would be the mainstream conservative position as donors try to peel off enough Dems for a bipartisan solution that mostly maintains the status quo. They've memoryholed deeper held beliefs and (assuming Dems control both chambers and the white house) will have just suffered consecutive wave defeats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
tl;dr: Single Payer, Legislative Process, and Advocacy in California. #CorrectTheRecord while desperately hoping we can drown this out CAchat with the thread's typical intelligent reaction to and decent sources about Bernie's bill. Perhaps you'd like me more if I were on your ignore list?VitalSigns posted:People like you were content to sit back and let a few Dems in the Senate go Lieberman on the thing and use their ability to block the supermajority from passing a supermajority-required funding mechanism while the Assembly says "oh well no one wrote a bill ohhhh well." Well voters won't stand for that poo poo nor should they. If the Senate couldn't get a workable bill done then it's the Assembly's job to make a good faith effort to enact the will of the voters by holding hearings and writing legislation themselves, not sabotage democracy by refusing to hold any hearings and go "well golly gosh gee somehow nothing got done I guess it's impossible!" Background: Dems hold 27 seats of the Senate's 40. Dems hold 54 seats of the Assembly's 80 Prop 26 requires a 2/3 majority (27 or 53 votes) for essentially anything revenue related Proposition 98 mandates ~40-50% of spending be on education. The last day a bill can be introduced is 2/17/2017 The last day a bill can pass its originating house is 6/2/2017 Ballot Initiatives are on the November ballot in General Election (even) years Now there are some gory details: Prop 98 can be suspended for a year with a 2/3 supermajority, but the state is responsible for paying back the difference resulting from the suspension over 5 years. As a result, there's no practical way of achieving Single Payer in California without repealing or otherwise amending Prop 98. Despite the NNU's fervent insistence otherwise, Lara&Atkins recognize this. Lara&Atkins introduce the bill on 2/17/2017, and it is sparse. Surely some of us have turned in similar rough drafts on the due dates. The final version is introduced on 5/26/2017 before being voted on the following Friday. This bill, which was passed to the Assembly on 6/2/2017, did not contain a funding mechanism. Or many details about how to implement the broader reforms it calls for. Far from being Liebermanesque cowardice by centrist Senate Dems, reports from the time indicate that it took substantial pressure to scrape the 23 votes with which the bill passed: The LA Times posted:Just hours before the Senate approved the bill in early June, it was unclear whether the measure would come up for a vote at all. Several Senate Democrats, who asked to remain anonymous to speak about internal caucus discussions with The Times, said legislators balked at being asked to take up a bill with uncertain financing. After passing an unfinanced bill to the Assembly, the sponsors went silent before turning their focus on Rendon as he shelved the bill. Sponsors claim that they intended to finish the legislative process in the Assembly with amendments. 3+ months later, I'm not aware of any text surfacing (Rendon cannot control the public release or discussion of amendments). Just under a month after receiving the bill, Rendon newsdumped late on a Friday afternoon that he was pocketing SB 562 and that no action would be taken on it by the Assembly for the remainder of the year. It is now more than 4 months past the deadline for Assembly to introduce its own bill rather than modify SB 562. At this stage, Rendon has stalled the Senate's bill and ruined the efforts of the Senate to pass a bill that can be implemented in 2017. That is why they rushed an unfinished and unfinanced bill through the Senate at the deadline, right? WRONG. Linked above is the rule that Ballot Initatives can only occur in even years (2018), which is necessary to generate the spending authority for the bill. The bill contains text nullifying itself it funding/spending authority isn't available. Lara, Atkins, and the NNU pushed through an empty bill that, even if made entirely function by the Assembly, could not be implemented in any way for 18 months. Onto my interpretation: Why do this? Given the 18 month gap, there's no reason the bill had to pass out of the Senate and into the Assembly. Lara & Atkins literally gave up on legislating. My most charitable explanation is that the sponsors wanted to flex their muscles by proving they could pass something through the Senate (hoping nobody looked too closely) and force the Assembly to take a stand early to ease negotiations next September. If true, this makes the NNU's rhetoric even more remarkably disingenuous. Callifornia Nurse's Association Deborah Burger posted:“The people of California are counting on the Legislature to protect them now, not sometime next year, and as polls have shown Californians support this proposal by a wide majority. A solution to this healthcare emergency could be at hand; Speaker Rendon is standing in opposition.” The less charitable version is that Atkins and Lara have broader political ambitions and wanted credit and glory for passing Single Payer, counting on Rendon to either don the black hat and protect his caucus or for the Assembly to have to do the actual work of legislating. If you actually read my (admittedly tedious) posts, you'll note that I've never mocked, shamed, or derided the activists. Forcing the hand of the Speaker (even halfway) and providing enough pressure that a bill tripling the state budget is a remarkable feat, and it shows the sort of work that will be necessary to overcome the corporate bombardment we'll see if Prop 98 turns into a proxy referendum on Single Payer. Atkins, Lara, and the NNU, by contrast, are truly loathsome pieces of poo poo for lying to the movement they're leading and benefiting themselves off of it. Compared to that, Rendon (and Planned Parenthood, the SEIU, and the other unions I listed upthread) seems pretty benign.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns isn't going to read that, he will just call you a centrist and move on. Great post though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
I like how having to do work to write bills is apparently some kind of evil trick being pulled on the Assembly. We were just supposed to sit back and collect corporate donations and say "oh gosh who has the time" whenever anyone asked what we were doing about healthcare, working wasn't part of the deal! E: Here's the thing: I don't care whether 562's sponsors are the evil mustache-twisting villains passing Single Payer to smear Rendon's good name that you think they are. It doesn't loving matter because writing legislation in the public's interest is the job of the Assembly, "oh we're waiting for the Senate to do something" is no excuse for sitting on their hands, and the Assembly should have been holding these hearings of its own accord anyway without being backed into a corner by some big PR stunt. The Senate should also write good bills and not pass poo poo, but if they don't that's no excuse for the Assembly to do nothing. No one gives a poo poo that a dirty trick forced the Assembly to do its job because they should have been doing their job in the first place. The fact that you're angrier that the Assembly's stonewalling was defeated by a breach of  decorum than you are about the stonewalling itself (which imo is a bigger breach of decorum because it's a subversion of our entire representative democracy) is quite frankly baffling.
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:14 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
I know all about Prop 98's asinine funding requirements. So here's a question for you: given that ballot initiatives can only be scheduled in even years, and that the last day to introduce a bill is in February-something of that year, what do you think the odds are that the Assembly would have a bill ready to be introduced by February 2018 if they didn't start working on it now and instead waited until "sometime next year" to begin? Pretty much zero, right? And if it's not ready by then, then the window for scheduling a ballot initiative would be closed until 2020, right? So the recall threat that finally got the Speaker to appoint a committee was essential to being able to craft a bill with any hope of taking effect in 2019, right? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 08:54
|
|
|
The Contents Of The New Medicare-For-All Billquote:Senator Sanders released his updated Medicare-for-all bill yesterday. Below is a simple summary of the general contents of the proposal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
It's glorious and would probably work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
It is beautiful and I want to believe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Please work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
tax-wise all of this looks good (4 is very good) but the devil is in the details for 7 and 9, and 11 seems dumb I think mandating FIFO accounting instead of LIFO is probably a dumb idea and probably a wash tax-wise (one is good in rising price markets, one is good in falling price markets, but overall i think it just shifts it around instead of really reducing costs), but there might be a specific tax scam im not aware of LIFO accounting models cash flow much better in industries with highly variable input costs and gives you much more sensible financials i think it's dumb to mandate medicare for all instead of make it a (much better) option that just drives all the others out, if someone really wants to keep their insurance that they pay for out of pocket i don't see the harm and it makes it much more politically palatable evilweasel fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Unfortunately it won't happen. The Dems have no backbone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
I'm not going to lie. I immediately thought "is this going to save me any money?" and pulled up some paperwork to do the math. I'm a single male <30 making $95k/yr. My plan through work costs me $2,730 / year. If I assume I'm taking the standard deduction (I'm not, I itemize) and ignoring stuff like 401k and other deductions, that leaves me with $84,650 taxable income. So 4% of that is $3,386. I'm not going to sit here and itemize my deductions, but I think I would probably break even after all is said and done. Edit - I ended up doing it anyways. With itemization, it's around 74k taxable so my Berniecare cost would be <$3k. If even I can break even on this AND end up with way better health care, people that aren't legitimately rich don't have a leg to stand on when they argue "But my taxes!"  I want to point out something, though - the article lumps everything together when it really consists of three different "options," they're not a single bill. https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all?inline=file KillHour fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I'm not going to lie. I immediately thought "is this going to save me any money?" and pulled up some paperwork to do the math. I'm a single male <30 making $95k/yr. My plan through work costs me $2,730 / year. If I assume I'm taking the standard deduction (I'm not, I itemize) and ignoring stuff like 401k and other deductions, that leaves me with $84,650 taxable income. So 4% of that is $3,386. I'm not going to sit here and itemize my deductions, but I think I would probably break even after all is said and done. Those are three categories of options (based, basically, on who's getting their taxes raised: the rich, wall street, or corporations), not three different options. He's saying they should consider all of those then pick the correct ones overall, not pick one group.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
An annual wealth tax of 1% on the wealthy is not going to be popular, and there are other ways to raise money that are more popular. The wealth tax on financial institutions of hundredths of a percent being one that would have more support as those companies exist to make money. They could also close offshore loopholes for companies for all that cash that gets bottled up offshore. Edit: Also, the Democrats should simultaneously be pushing a "Medicare or Medicaid buy in" plan instead of calling it the "government option". Insurance companies attacks on Medicare for All can be easily twisted into support for a Medicare Buy In option and vice versa. No competition -> Offer a government option for insurance -> government competition is unfair and too cheap -> Save money overall with Medicare for all Lote fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Those are three categories of options (based, basically, on who's getting their taxes raised: the rich, wall street, or corporations), not three different options. He's saying they should consider all of those then pick the correct ones overall, not pick one group. Ah, that makes sense. I kind of think a flat 4% surcharge is oddly regressive though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I'm not going to lie. I immediately thought "is this going to save me any money?" and pulled up some paperwork to do the math. I'm a single male <30 making $95k/yr. My plan through work costs me $2,730 / year. If I assume I'm taking the standard deduction (I'm not, I itemize) and ignoring stuff like 401k and other deductions, that leaves me with $84,650 taxable income. So 4% of that is $3,386. I'm not going to sit here and itemize my deductions, but I think I would probably break even after all is said and done. The best part is that the costs go heavily in your favor as soon as you actually use your coverage, assuming your work plan budget isn't including your deductible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Blorange posted:The best part is that the costs go heavily in your favor as soon as you actually use your coverage, assuming your work plan budget isn't including your deductible. Yeah, my plan is terrible. I haven't been to the doctor or the optometrist at all because of a $1k deductible and lovely copays. I also have a bunch of cavities that need filling but stuff like paying off debt and house repairs come first. I literally only keep it so I don't have to pay the ACA penalties and in case I get hit by a bus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
Lote posted:An annual wealth tax of 1% on the wealthy is not going to be popular disagree unless you mean "because it's too low" quote:
I suspect that's stage 2 of the overton window shifting plan here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 18:50
|
|
