I don't understand why low to middle income earners are having issues with this system, they won't be paying the same as those that are paid more. All the rich people don't care because they can still afford private health insurance as it is a requisite now and an easy tax right off if you actually get a good public health care system up and going.
*Cough Cough* UPS, FEDEX and the US Mail service.. *cough*
*Cough* because Private schools never made a bit of money *cough*
Okay, so let's look at those examples.
I'll certainly give you UPS and FEDEX, but looking at why they've been able to compete doesn't really sound a ringing endorsement for a government run plan. So we're expecting the public option to be so poorly run that it encourages private innovation? (I realize that you probably didn't intend the comparison to stretch that far, but we're dealing with the government here.) From a cost perspective, however, the comparison doesn't get very far. Purely private insurance is still prohibitively expensive for most people, not because of a lack of private businesses, but because of distortions in the market caused by employer-subsidized insurance. On my salary, I couldn't afford a private policy, but I have no role in choosing a company with my employer plan because the companies deal with my employer, not me directly. This also serves to hide the real cost of insurance from people, and a lack of information provides further distortions in the market. The companies only have to compete for a relatively small number of employers rather than every single individual person.
Private schools are a mixed bag. A lot of it depends on where you are. While I'm sure some private schools are rolling in money, the majority are run pretty tight financially; many are unable to provide salaries that compete with public schools. For example, here in Lubbock the average salary for a teacher with my experience (7 years) is around $34,000. In a private school, it's about $20,000. I seriously considered private schools when I was looking for a job up here, but with my wife in grad school I couldn't afford a $14,000 reduction in salary. If we apply the private-public model of education to insurance, then, we're looking at the vast majority of people in the public arena with niche groups in the private market (e.g. the rich, the religious) without some form of additional government subsidy (e.g. vouchers).
So you have 6,000 dollars left over after these most basic things. That may sound like a lot, but what about car payments and gas? What if you get sick and need to go to the hospital? Pets? Student Loans? You'd need to take another job just to cover things.
I don't understand why low to middle income earners are having issues with this system, they won't be paying the same as those that are paid more. All the rich people don't care because they can still afford private health insurance as it is a requisite now and an easy tax right off if you actually get a good public health care system up and going.
As one of those low-to-middle income earners, my biggest problem is seriously one of privacy and freedom. I know that there is a need out there for quality health care for those who cannot afford it, and I am all for a system that helps with that problem. Perhaps a better place to start would be with the Medicare/Medicaid program; clean it up, get it working efficiently, and I might have less of a problem with an expanded public option.
In the end, however, we're still talking about the government getting into people's lives in a way that for many it hasn't been. I find it interesting that Roe v. Wade was supposed to be all about getting people out of a woman's body (figuratively speaking, although there's an interesting literal interpretation there), and yet here we are talking about getting the government all up in us (again, figuratively speaking). I find the lack of consistency on both sides very interesting.
Not for me. Of course, it's technically "part-time work" because of the school year, so that's something to consider. Also, a lot of small private schools like to hire couples, which would double to household income and many waive tuition for kids, so it's a good choice if you have kids and want them to go to private school; we have four cats, so that wasn't an incentive for us.
Actually, no. Particulalry if you have kids, have property taxes, have to maintain a home, have student loans, own a car, etc.
If you're only making that kind of money, you shouldn't be having kids. 20k isn't great, but it's definitely a living wage if you are in an area with a low cost of living. It's possible to live beyond your means no matter how much you make. If you drive a used car, go to state school, and live in the boonies, and don't have kids, 20k is pretty great.
This is the cost of raising a child to age 18. If you don't have that amount of money to spare, you have no business making or adopting children, which you can not afford to take care of. Keep in mind these numbers are low because they do not include the cost of college, and they do not include any costs of taking care of your child beyond the age of 18.
I don't understand why low to middle income earners are having issues with this system, they won't be paying the same as those that are paid more. All the rich people don't care because they can still afford private health insurance as it is a requisite now and an easy tax right off if you actually get a good public health care system up and going.
I don't post often, and I really have no interest in politics or political discussion, but this is something that really sticks in my craw:
There are certain groups of people who profess to be all, y'know, "Republican" and "don't you dare progressive tax us!" and "don't you dare take MAH MONEY away to give them poor people health cares!" when really they're make very middling wages and only espouse those beliefs because they've had the wool pulled over their eyes by this bullshit American Dream concept of "One day I'll be rich too!" that dickhole politicians and broadcasters have been hyping up since the dawn of time. This seed that gets planted in people who earn a modest living that "Well, some day *I* might make 300k a year, and I sure as shit don't want a progressive tax THEN!" meanwhile they're making 30k and consistently voting AGAINST their best interest because, I don't know, they're retarded or Republicans are assholes or whatever and the end result is that ONE DAY they might be rich enough to actually take advantage of the policies that only benefit less than 1% of the population. Meanwhile they're ass-reaming themselves out of benefits. GG, politics.
even without kids and living in the boonies, 20K is by no means "great".
By the standards of the majority of people living in the world today, it's more than great. ^_~
Bull and shit. What standards are you talking about? Saving for retirement, traveling, purchasing a home, purchasing and maintaining even a used car (particularly when you have to drive far further to get to work or go shopping because you live in the boonies), going out (ever), renting a decent place, going to college, having any hobbies or interests that require any monetary investment, starting a family (if you so chose), handling medical needs, owning a pet, etc. All of those standards are barely attainable if not downright unattainable at 20k even in the "boonies".
Bull and shit. What standards are you talking about?...All of those standards are barely attainable if not downright unattainable at 20k even in the "boonies".
Bull and shit. What standards are you talking about?...All of those standards are barely attainable if not downright unattainable at 20k even in the "boonies".
Even in Sub-Saharan Africa, Cuba, Haiti, etc...?
That is a completely different economic scale. It was my impression we were discussing the U.S.
See, 20,000 US dollars in one of those places is good. However, in third world countries, apartments don't cost an arm and a leg, and fruit and other food costs a lot less than they do in NYC. It's like comparing the US cost of living in Oklahoma versus in NYC, only much crazier. People get paid more in NYC, but goods and shelter also cost more.
Bull and shit. What standards are you talking about? Saving for retirement, traveling, purchasing a home, purchasing and maintaining even a used car (particularly when you have to drive far further to get to work or go shopping because you live in the boonies), going out (ever), renting a decent place, going to college, having any hobbies or interests that require any monetary investment, starting a family (if you so chose), handling medical needs, owning a pet, etc. All of those standards are barely attainable if not downright unattainable at 20k even in the "boonies".
The kinds of things you are talking about here are insane luxuries. Retiring is an insane luxury. Traveling is an insane luxury. Purchasing a home is an insane luxury. College is an insane luxury. Owning a pet is an insane luxury. Having children is an insane luxury. Owning a used car is not much money, and it's presumed that if you live in the boonies, you work and shop in the boonies, and don't have a commute. Commutes only really exist in suburbs.
What you are considering standard includes all sorts of absolutely ludicrously luxurious things. Throw those out the door and 20k is just fine.
While those do not fall under basic survival needs, I would hardly call them "insane luxuries" particularly for the standard of living in modern nations. If you are comparing the poor in the U.S. to the poor in underdeveloped nations, then of course many of those are "insane luxuries". It depends on context and perspective. Within the majority of the U.S., 20k would qualify a person as impoverished and eligible for living assistance. Your view is over simplified and addresses a scope that is beyond the relevancy of my comment. As for working at a shop in the boonies, having lived in the boonies, people still commute for more than an hour one way into the suburb or city for jobs because there are limited "shops" or business in general in the boonies to provide for even their meager populations.
As for working at a shop in the boonies, having lived in the boonies, people still commute for more than an hour one way into the suburb or city for jobs because there are limited "shops" or business in general in the boonies to provide for even their meager populations.
That's true. Often, the "boonies" people have substantial commutes because their home is in the wilderness and their job is in the nearest town. Also, since there are rarely public transportation options available, people have to drive. Driving means maintaining a car, keeping the car gassed and oiled, and insuring the car. This costs money. It's not an "insane luxury".
Scott, how much do you think is left of 20K after taxes? How much do you think rent is "in the boonies"? How much is the weekly grocery bill "in the boonies"? How much is cable "in the boonies" (or is cable an "insane luxury")? Do you think people "in the boonies" need electricity? How about water? How about garbage pickup? Do people "in the boonies" have to pay state and local tax? How about property tax? Do people "in the boonies" need clothing or do they walk around naked? What if that person making 20K has any sort of student loan? If you'll remember, the 20K figure came from someone talking about a teacher's salary. You don't normally get to be a teacher without acquiring at least a few student loans. Do these people "in the boonies" need furniture or is that an "insane luxury" as well? Do people "in the boonies" get any form of entertainment at all, or is any form of entertainment an "insane luxury"?
What if one of these boonie people had a credit card? What if one of them, God forbid, actually did have a family, even though, by the Rules of Scott, they apparently don't deserve one? What if one of these boonie people decided that they might want to start playing games or reading comics? Would that be allowed?
Listen, take federal, state, and local taxes away from 20K. Then take away a reasonable amount for monthly rent, food, electricity, water, upkeep of a vehicle, and clothing. You'll need some entertainment expense as well. Basic entertainment is not an insane luxury. Do that and show me how much you're left with each month.
In a world where "computer literacy is as necessary as literacy" is owning a computer and being able to afford an Internet connection an "insane luxury"?
In a world where "computer literacy is as necessary as literacy" is owning a computer and being able to afford an Internet connection an "insane luxury"?
In the world at large, it probably still is an insane luxury compared to the general technology and poverty level of much of the world's population. There is an increasing divide between the industrialized, technological elite, and the rest of the world.
In a world where "computer literacy is as necessary as literacy" is owning a computer and being able to afford an Internet connection an "insane luxury"?
In the world at large, it probably still is an insane luxury compared to the general technology and poverty level of much of the world's population. There is an increasing divide between the industrialized, technological elite, and the rest of the world.
Again, as I made clear, my comments were within the context of the U.S.
I was listening to No Agenda the other day, which in case you didn't know is a podcast done by tech commentator John Dvorak and crazy moon-landing-was-fake guy Adam Curry, and they brought up an idea that I don't think is true personally, but seems like it could be an interesting discussion point.
<AdamCurry>Do you think it's possible that these people are Democrat plants? That the democrats are hiring people to make the republicans look bad?
That's a silly idea. No true Scotsman would sabotage their own party's agenda and create a huge animosity between the American people and their president simply to make the other party look bad. Oh, wait.
Honestly, I think it could go either way. Sure, I'd like to make my party feel better by saying all (or some) of the idiots are planted. But, I have to admit that it's far fetched, and that there are just stupid people in the Republican party.
Comments
*Cough* because Private schools never made a bit of money *cough*
All the rich people don't care because they can still afford private health insurance as it is a requisite now and an easy tax right off if you actually get a good public health care system up and going.
I'll certainly give you UPS and FEDEX, but looking at why they've been able to compete doesn't really sound a ringing endorsement for a government run plan. So we're expecting the public option to be so poorly run that it encourages private innovation? (I realize that you probably didn't intend the comparison to stretch that far, but we're dealing with the government here.) From a cost perspective, however, the comparison doesn't get very far. Purely private insurance is still prohibitively expensive for most people, not because of a lack of private businesses, but because of distortions in the market caused by employer-subsidized insurance. On my salary, I couldn't afford a private policy, but I have no role in choosing a company with my employer plan because the companies deal with my employer, not me directly. This also serves to hide the real cost of insurance from people, and a lack of information provides further distortions in the market. The companies only have to compete for a relatively small number of employers rather than every single individual person.
Private schools are a mixed bag. A lot of it depends on where you are. While I'm sure some private schools are rolling in money, the majority are run pretty tight financially; many are unable to provide salaries that compete with public schools. For example, here in Lubbock the average salary for a teacher with my experience (7 years) is around $34,000. In a private school, it's about $20,000. I seriously considered private schools when I was looking for a job up here, but with my wife in grad school I couldn't afford a $14,000 reduction in salary. If we apply the private-public model of education to insurance, then, we're looking at the vast majority of people in the public arena with niche groups in the private market (e.g. the rich, the religious) without some form of additional government subsidy (e.g. vouchers).
Rent = 10,000
Grocery/Food = 2,500 +
Utilities = 1,000 +
So you have 6,000 dollars left over after these most basic things.
That may sound like a lot, but what about car payments and gas? What if you get sick and need to go to the hospital? Pets? Student Loans?
You'd need to take another job just to cover things.
In the end, however, we're still talking about the government getting into people's lives in a way that for many it hasn't been. I find it interesting that Roe v. Wade was supposed to be all about getting people out of a woman's body (figuratively speaking, although there's an interesting literal interpretation there), and yet here we are talking about getting the government all up in us (again, figuratively speaking). I find the lack of consistency on both sides very interesting.
This is the cost of raising a child to age 18. If you don't have that amount of money to spare, you have no business making or adopting children, which you can not afford to take care of. Keep in mind these numbers are low because they do not include the cost of college, and they do not include any costs of taking care of your child beyond the age of 18.
There are certain groups of people who profess to be all, y'know, "Republican" and "don't you dare progressive tax us!" and "don't you dare take MAH MONEY away to give them poor people health cares!" when really they're make very middling wages and only espouse those beliefs because they've had the wool pulled over their eyes by this bullshit American Dream concept of "One day I'll be rich too!" that dickhole politicians and broadcasters have been hyping up since the dawn of time. This seed that gets planted in people who earn a modest living that "Well, some day *I* might make 300k a year, and I sure as shit don't want a progressive tax THEN!" meanwhile they're making 30k and consistently voting AGAINST their best interest because, I don't know, they're retarded or Republicans are assholes or whatever and the end result is that ONE DAY they might be rich enough to actually take advantage of the policies that only benefit less than 1% of the population. Meanwhile they're ass-reaming themselves out of benefits. GG, politics.
I'll go back to lurking.
It's like comparing the US cost of living in Oklahoma versus in NYC, only much crazier. People get paid more in NYC, but goods and shelter also cost more.
What you are considering standard includes all sorts of absolutely ludicrously luxurious things. Throw those out the door and 20k is just fine.
Within the majority of the U.S., 20k would qualify a person as impoverished and eligible for living assistance. Your view is over simplified and addresses a scope that is beyond the relevancy of my comment.
As for working at a shop in the boonies, having lived in the boonies, people still commute for more than an hour one way into the suburb or city for jobs because there are limited "shops" or business in general in the boonies to provide for even their meager populations.
Scott, how much do you think is left of 20K after taxes? How much do you think rent is "in the boonies"? How much is the weekly grocery bill "in the boonies"? How much is cable "in the boonies" (or is cable an "insane luxury")? Do you think people "in the boonies" need electricity? How about water? How about garbage pickup? Do people "in the boonies" have to pay state and local tax? How about property tax? Do people "in the boonies" need clothing or do they walk around naked? What if that person making 20K has any sort of student loan? If you'll remember, the 20K figure came from someone talking about a teacher's salary. You don't normally get to be a teacher without acquiring at least a few student loans. Do these people "in the boonies" need furniture or is that an "insane luxury" as well? Do people "in the boonies" get any form of entertainment at all, or is any form of entertainment an "insane luxury"?
What if one of these boonie people had a credit card? What if one of them, God forbid, actually did have a family, even though, by the Rules of Scott, they apparently don't deserve one? What if one of these boonie people decided that they might want to start playing games or reading comics? Would that be allowed?
Listen, take federal, state, and local taxes away from 20K. Then take away a reasonable amount for monthly rent, food, electricity, water, upkeep of a vehicle, and clothing. You'll need some entertainment expense as well. Basic entertainment is not an insane luxury. Do that and show me how much you're left with each month.
<AdamCurry>Do you think it's possible that these people are Democrat plants? That the democrats are hiring people to make the republicans look bad?