[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

There is a significant difference between not being able to afford healthcare (with the implication being that they cannot afford any healthcare at all) and not being able to afford a small health care premium.

Quite simply, if something is completely free to you, you likely have no concern for its costs or its use, and are completely insulated from the costs that are incurred by others to provide you with the item that you so freely use and consume---all of which leads to excess use of the item by the free user.

Much like you, as someone who has investments that are being taxed, have zero concern for people who despite working 40 hours a week are scraping by just to keep their car running or their heat on, or in a case like Flint, Mi, to afford bottled water to keep your children alive since the actual water provided (that you still have to pay for, lest you lose custody of your children) is toxic.

In this respect, I propose that everyone should be required to pay something for health insurance. Make it a sliding scale based on taxable income, with a minimum payment of $12 due from everyone, perhaps. But to expect--or better yet, demand--that primarily the "rich" should pay the health care bills of "society" is crazy.

You honestly have no grasp of what it's like to be poor, do you? Because if you're poor, even if you're getting food stamps, guess what food stamps don't pay for? Toilet paper, female sanitary items, diapers, etc. So even if you're getting a little bit of help from the government, you're still on the hook to buy many necessary items (and in many states, as a woman, you're also taxed on those sanitary items as tampons/pads and the like are often not considered "necessities" and thus tax exempt).

Being poor is incredibly expensive. If you're wealthy, you can buy a nice house that won't need repairs for years, and when it does need repairs, you can afford to pay a contractor to fix them. You can buy a new, well built car that won't need to be fixed every six months. You can buy high quality clothing that won't break down after a few wears.

For a poor person, you're always just scraping through. You get that piece of crap car that has bad brakes because how else are you getting to your $9/hour job that just barely covers your rent for the month, but you can't buy a house because you don't have any money saved for a down payment, so you have to just stick in the rent cycle. You save a little money aside and then surprise, the alternator in your crap car dies and you need to fix it--don't have a choice, because again, you have to get to your crappy job otherwise you won't be able to keep your too-expensive apartment (because there aren't options for less expensive apartments) and then you'll be homeless. If you have kids, it's a million times harder.

Forgive me if I don't feel too much sympathy for people for whom medicare taxes cut into their luxury items when we have millions of people in this country who flat out cannot afford necessities.

People have, and find, money to purchase and consume the things that they find necessary or enjoyable. If people wish to spend their scarce dollars on consumables in such a way that cause them to be unable to pay for healthcare when they need it later, well, that's on them.

Why should healthcare be available only to those who can afford it? Explain that to me without complaining about Your Tax Dollars and Your Investment Money.

Why don't poor people deserve health care?

If only there was a way people could enhance their skills to obtain a higher-paying job than the one that they currently have....

Oh, you mean going tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars into student loan debt? Only to come out of college to find that those better jobs are not available in this economy so you end up working retail or service jobs to pay off that 90 grand in debt you accrued? Which you can't ever bankrupt your way out of? Which they will go after your next of kin for even if you die?

Or, if only there was a way people could move to a place that offered public transportation, thereby negating the need to own a car and pay for all of the costs that go with one....

Cities in the US that have the best public transportation systems are also the cities in the US that have the highest rent figures, so the savings on car payments/gas/insurance would be negated at best, and likely overcome by the rent costs.

I agree that "we as a society" do pay, and should pay, for everyone in the society to obtain healthcare.

I just believe that "we" means "everyone," and not "that "rich" group of people over there..."

Have your medicare tax costs ever prevented you from paying your water bill? From paying your mortgage? From buying food for yourself or your family?

That's what happens if you equally tax poor people for medicare. You cut into the money they need for actual necessities.

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Under your definition of "poor," no.

Although I submit that your definition of "poor" would apply to no one, because if you can get into a college (and that isn't hard to do) and are "poor" (under the FAFSA metric), student loans are generously given.

Furthermore, your definition completely ignores whatever assets one may have.

What assets do you think poor people in America have?
If they own a vehicle, it's not an expensive vehicle. They might have an expensive phone--but it was likely either part of a plan from their cell phone provider or it has a lease agreement attached, and in this day and age, you need a phone, period. You cannot apply for jobs without a phone, and rarely can you apply for jobs without internet access, so that phone is a necessity as much as a luxury. Maybe they have an expensive TV--worth a few hundred dollars, perhaps? They probably rent, so that doesn't count.

So you've got a car worth probably <$5000 and a tv worth maybe $500. Oh yeah, that big old $5500 in assets, that'll get you far in life. Especially if they took your advice and went to college via student loans, at which point that <$10K in "assets" wouldn't come near the at least $30-40k in student loan debt that they now carry.

Do you complain that your tax dollars go to paying the salaries/pensions/cadillac insurance plans of your senators and representatives? If not, stop complaining about helping poor people obtain healthcare. Your senators/reps/etc can afford to pay for their own and they don't, you do. If that doesn't bother you, stop whining about poor people who depend on that assistance to survive.