LogFAQs > #881751365

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Politics Containment Topic 105: Ossoff wins Handel-y? Or Too Much to Handel?
red sox 777 06/24/17 9:14:39 PM #484:	LordoftheMorons posted... red sox 777 posted... That sounds exactly like what insurance is supposed to be. If you don't buy it, it won't pay for your healthcare later. Many people will intelligently choose to forgo insurance under those conditions, and they will be wealthier for it to the tune of 10-20%+ more income per year. And a far bigger increase to savings. If bad things happen? Get emergency care, and declare bankruptcy. The utter inability of many people in the Democratic Party to understand that loads of low income people would prefer not to buy insurance because it's too expensive, and that they don't give a fig that they are acting as free riders driving up the costs for upper middle class people, is a big reason why they lost. And this behavior screws everyone else. When an uninsured person gets all of their care through the emergency room (likely at a much higher cost than they would pay for preventative care) it's not like nobody has to pay for it. It is very much the government's role to coordinate things so everybody is paying a moderate amount relative to their means in order to prevent many from being completely destroyed financially. Then they should create a system where everyone contributes a similar percentage of their income. Preferably, with wealthier people contributing a greater percentage. Instead, we have a system where low income people have a VASTLY higher burden as a percentage of income. Why should someone earning 30k a year vote for a system where they must pay 20% of their after tax income while someone making 100k pays 8% and someone making 500k pays 2%? Well, they voted against it. As well they should. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest! <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:881751365] in Politics C... [t:75481587]...</cite> <quote><cite>LordoftheMorons posted...</cite> <quote><cite>red sox 777 posted...</cite> <quote>That sounds exactly like what insurance is supposed to be. If you don't buy it, it won't pay for your healthcare later. Many people will intelligently choose to forgo insurance under those conditions, and they will be wealthier for it to the tune of 10-20%+ more income per year. And a far bigger increase to savings. If bad things happen? Get emergency care, and declare bankruptcy. The utter inability of many people in the Democratic Party to understand that loads of low income people would prefer not to buy insurance because it's too expensive, and that they don't give a fig that they are acting as free riders driving up the costs for upper middle class people, is a big reason why they lost.</quote> And this behavior screws everyone else. When an uninsured person gets all of their care through the emergency room (likely at a much higher cost than they would pay for preventative care) it's not like nobody has to pay for it. It is very much the government's role to coordinate things so everybody is paying a moderate amount relative to their means in order to prevent many from being completely destroyed financially.</quote> Then they should create a system where everyone contributes a similar percentage of their income. Preferably, with wealthier people contributing a greater percentage. Instead, we have a system where low income people have a VASTLY higher burden as a percentage of income. Why should someone earning 30k a year vote for a system where they must pay 20% of their after tax income while someone making 100k pays 8% and someone making 500k pays 2%? Well, they voted against it. As well they should. --- September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013 Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1