Printable View
Because they wont rake the initiative to better themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by ewing
I'm ok with hand out while limiting time and the requirement that they show they are actually attempting to further their situation. If no eveidence is given that there are sincere efforts to gain employment, take it away.
Now I do understand there are outliers where poeple want to work but can't due to circumstances. Thats the birth model of handouts.
OK. I accept the qualification.Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyc77
Isn’t that what the Republicans and Democrats — whom you earlier dismissed — are doing already?Quote:
Originally Posted by joeyc77
And “etc.” could encompass a whole lot.
I knew someone who was fired awhile back and went on unemployment. There was a limited length of time for it and he had to show up to an office and so something to prove he was looking for a job.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Seinfeld episode on last night was about George trying to get his unemployment extended, so he dated his unemployment officer's daughter to get the extension.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeW-Star
Just an update on this: there aren't even any coal mines in Representative Andy Barr's district. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by ManRam
But she and other GND supporters should make every effort they can to get out and visit these communities. They have a message that could very well resonate to some extent, even among the entrenched Conservatives. They need help, and they're not getting it from anyone, especially not Trump. Coal is not the future, but that doesn't mean there isn't a bright future for coal miners. No one can more convincingly make that clear than these progressives.
Thank you sir. I do what I can.Quote:
Originally Posted by flips333
Withholding from pay checks are put into a government managed holding account up to some limit that can be age based or not. For now let's say it's $50k.Quote:
Originally Posted by flips333
All health care costs come from that holding account.
The government can use that money for whatever they want while they have it.
If you get to your threshold the withholding stops. If you get care the withholding starts again until you hit the threshold again.
This will encourage people to be healthier since it's really their money being spent.
This will encourage people to not get health care they don't really need.
This will require health care providers to be transparent and up front about fees because it's a consumer relationship and there is no insurance relationship to lock people in.
If your account hits 0 your health care is 100% covered by the government.
Everybody has 100% health care coverage in a system that is capitalist.
None of the UBI goes to health care because there is no withholding from the UBI.
Well... not completely capitalist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
I still don't think those numbers are going to add up.
From a health standpoint you have one huge flaw. There is no financial incentive for preventative care. Right now there is, insurance companies build that **** into the costs. Insurance companies will often charge you bupkiss for those procedures (because they save money). They front the cost to save on you later. So in the end you are going to increase costs by not preventing illness. I'm sure there could be a way to fix this somehow... but it will be complex.
There IS a financial incentive for preventative care during your working career. If you are healthy you get to keep more of your paycheck.Quote:
Originally Posted by flips333
If people are healthier from 16 to 70 to save money then we are getting to the most expensive time in health care with a better base.
But what incentive would I have thinking it's my money if I know that the moment my account runs dry the Government pays for all my healthcare costs? In what scenario does a person actually save money under this plan by being fiscally responsible?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
The incentive is to not get seen at all. So you never really know if you are in need of preventative care at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
The optimal solution is to go through routine checks for things. But when people are already so cash strapped, they just choose high deductible plans and then don’t go at all until they run into serious issues.
Even if you get a physical and they find something to check out, so many people will just opt to not do that cause then they have to pay for a specialist or possibly even worse.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because if you are employed it IS your money.Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16
As I understand it, the Government takes money out of your paycheck and puts it into an account and you pay for your healthcare up until you have no more money in your account then the Government pays for the rest. So no matter how much or how little I have in my account, I know inevitably the Government is going to pay for the remainder of my expenses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots
So what incentive do I have to not spend a ton and have the government pay for it? That it's my money? It's gone either way. It's not like I'll ever get that money back is it? It's earmarked for medical expenses.
Government takes from your paycheck to fill an account. The money sit's in the account. There is no regular payment for "insurance". If you don't go to the doctor then the money stays in the account. Once the account is full the money doesn't come out of your paycheck. So, any time you go to the doctor it's one more month of money taken from your account. So, not needing to see a doctor is like getting a raise.Quote:
Originally Posted by valade16
And no, you won't get the money back, but the vast majority of people will die with a $0 balance anyhow.
Hey I don't think it will work and I think a government run bit would be better... but I give you an A for creativity. It's an interesting idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoots