So far, I have put forth two primary points. 1) All your arguments so far have used a maximal amount being awarded at income level a, and no amount being awarded at income level b, even though you have provided no evidence that either of these is true. 2) These programs are carefully crafted and coordinated at the federal level (with the likely exception of Pell grants) so that at no point does the increase of a dollar in income result in the loss of more than a dollar in benefits.
You continue to ignore the numbers. I provided links to show where benefits are provided, and concrete proof that at $31k and change which benefits would not longer be available. Even taking away the Food stamps (maximum number) when you factor the losses of FICA (actual numbers), Medicaid, housing, your argument is defeated. With their income @ 7.25/hr full time, they would qualify for a max amout of food stamps $5160. I think it is safe to say they will get the middle level food stamps in any state. Let's say $2500, but I will still leave the full amount out of my calculations (as the only numbers I provided were the max--although, you deflect my entire argument by stating I used the max $ for food stamps when you did the same thing with housing (30% is the MAX an individual will pay out of pocket for housing when they qualify for section 8. I used your numbers to appease you, even though they would pay less out of pocket in Utah as I verified by phone. Again, I have no documentation, so I will use your lower numbers). If you don't like my numbers, disprove them. Either way, when you realize to get minimum care they are paying roughly $12k for full insurance when Medicaid would be free or essentially free, your argument that they would be better off is dead wrong.
OK. Lets take away anything I used Max numbers and keep the reset: $6550 housing+$12k insurance (deductible alone, not including the small monthly premium that the subsidy mostly covered), for coverage that still is not as good as Medicare)+999.44 FICA. THE NUMBERS ARE STAGGERING. These three numbers alone put them at a major loss. And this is not taking into account food stamps (they would qualify for a large amount), pell grants ($$thousands more$$) smaller tax return, etc. Again, these numbers are all documented with links in prior posts.
Again, if you want to continue to argue over numbers, prove me wrong instead of spitting out conjecture. Show me a non-subsidized (or subsidized if you want to change my hypo and take away employer coverage to the employee) insurance quote with comparable coverage to Medicaid for two mid 30s adults and a 2 year old, that, compiled with the documented housing, fica, tax losses, FICA. Otherwise, everything you are spitting out is worthless. Put up or shut up.
You could have responded to point 1 by providing evidence on the actual amount of benefits being awarded at income levels and and b. You have not done so. Instead, you keep trying to pile on more programs using this same faulty logic. Adding more garbage in does not make the output non-garbage. You won't make a convincing argument by using more of this all-or-nothing nonsense.
Yes, I have shown that. I have shown the the benefits phase out (links provided previously) for all but WIC, including pell grants. For housing, I am using the
30% of income that you provided and is the max out of pocket for the family under HUD/section 8. Accurate, and if off, the numbers are in my favor. For insurance, I used actual quotes with MAX subsidies. Again, more than accurate. FICA using actual calculators which I provided. Accurate. Same for loss of tax credit. Accurate. Food stamps were the item I used the max amount, and I removed it.
Again, prove me wrong. You can't.
Some basics: as I said, there has been a reduction in support from state governments to public colleges. Also, colleges are enrolling a larger share of the population, that means additional services are needed for the students now admitted who would not have been admitted in earlier times. Both of these contribute to the rise in tuition among state colleges (and not private colleges), yet have little to do with student loans. Despite this, public college tuition rates are increasing at a much slower rate than private college tuition rates. If student loan guarantees where the primary driver of tuition increases, then you would see the same rate of increase among state and private colleges. You don't.
Private colleges have had the largest increases. Enrolling a larger share of the population means more students=more $.
Costs per student actually go down when you have a larger student body. Again, flawed logic. Private colleges are increasing because they can (the $ is available from guaranteed loans, so why not?). They generally want to make money, when the state institutions have to get approval from the legislature for tuition increases. Completely different animals. Your flawed logic is laughable.
I am arguing that there are many different causes of the tuition increases, and that there is no evidence that the student loan industry is the primary factor. In fact, based on the differential between private and public tuition costs, the evidence is that the student loan industry is not the primary factor.
I'm not saying there are not other factors, but there is a huge amount of evidence that the government's guarantees of student loans (and higher amounts) have caused the numbers to rise.
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...oans-are-part-of-the-problem-not-the-solution
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/arti...government-is-to-blame-for-high-college-costs
https://mercatus.org/expert_comment...ve-college-tuition-student-debt-record-levels
https://www.cato.org/publications/p...e-unintended-consequences-federal-tuition-aid
It is a fact that tuition increases are nearly 5x the cpi since 1985. You honestly believe that the student loan changes were not the primary factor? All the evidence points against your statement SMH.
https://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/factchecking-health-insurance-premiums/
Check the graph in the middle of the page. Either you misinterpreted Morgan Stanley, or they flat-out lied to you. A 11-12% average rate hike is far from unprecedented.
You are looking only at the employer-based premiums. Morgan looked at the entire market. (
The individual market, which is the government subsidized market had the largest increase two years in a row
. Surprise, surprise. Prices in delaware on the ind. market have increased 100% .
I'm guessing no one but us is reading these responses at this point, but I'd be interested to see how much premiums have gone up for the members on this site. It was much higher than 12% for me. The funny thing, is when Obama pushed this, he said premiums would go down. LOL.
And they are expected to rise at 13% again. Two years in a row (at least in FL):
https://articles.orlandosentinel.co...o-rates-20140804_1_health-insurance-oir-plans
Why would you think that was something I did not understand? I spoke from my experience, regarding plans that I read about as I was hired. The difference between the wait for general coverage and the wait for preexisting conditions to be be covered was quite clear. As you pointed out in your response, I would never have encountered a 6-month wait for general health insurance.
I never took a job that had a 12-month waiting period on the employer insurance. ^ was the longest, usually it was 3.
That is not what I said. I said under the ACA there is a max 90 day wait. Prior to the ACA employers had more leeway. And I didn't say you couldn't get insurance. I'm saying if you had a pre-existing condition prior to the ACA, even if you sign up for insurance, they will exclude coverage (so you would not have insurance coverage) for that condition. If it was quite clear to you, then you would not have responded the way you did. Getting insurance to cover an existing condition is pointless if it pre-existing conditions exclusions. Prior to the ACA, insurance excluded pre-existing conditions for 12 moths.
Another option is that I read my plans carefully, that they were being offered by particular employers which identities you don't know and policies at the time of hiring you can't begin to state, and you are just spewing out ignorance and bluster in an attempt to silence me.
OK, show me the policies. Seriously, back up your responses. You are full of ****. I am speaking about facts. You are spewing inaccurate statements and I am clearing them up. Prior to the ACA, private insurance did not have pre-existing conditions waivers (except for a few things like pregnancy which the law required) If it shuts you up it is because you were dead wrong. Don't deflect to me because you are throwing out inaccurate blubber. The plan you are referring to did not not have pre-existing exclusions as you say, and you know it.
That's why the ACA has a penalty for those who do not buy insurance; to help cover for the metaphorical homeowners who do not buy home insurance until after the metaphorical fire starts.
Again, if they could have charged large penalties, this may have worked, but the Supreme Ct. nixed that. Then penalties are so small that they don't even begin to cover those who add insurance after being sick. Another ridiculous statement. So instead of paying $100/mo for homeowners, I can pay $95 a year and still get coverage if my house burns down (purchase a policy after the fact). Seriously, your logic is simply laughable.
You could also have a progressive tax code with lower rates and without deductions, the notion of "no deductions" is not wedded to the notion of "flat tax".
Yes, I was clarifying what I would prefer. No need for k plans, health, etc., to come from employers, and there would be no more pretax deductions, so no need to have health care through employer. Again, I think a single payer system would be better than what we have now in many ways. Individuals would pay a pure flat tax. No more tax credits, deductions, etc. Right now the tax system is another tool used to redistribute wealth (as I mentioned, my hypothetical family of 3 that pays $0 in taxes gets a nice refund anyway). It should not be so. It should be a true tax system. No more gaming the system, etc. It would cause the tax rates to go way down (effective rates would likely go down for the middle class), and everyone would pay a fair effective tax rate. And capital gains would all be taxed the same. A simple system, where everyone pays. And the Warren Buffets of the world would actually end up paying more in taxes. Again, as I stated, it will never happen. Too many lobbyists to fight against it. Too many jobs at risk.
I pretty much agree with all of this expect for the "wrong direction"; the ACA is worse in some ways than the previous system, but significantly better in ways that I consider more important.
The problem is, the costs just to administer all the new taxes, penalties, etc., is very prohibitive. Yes, insurance must provide coverage for a few more things, I am fine with that. It is the rest that is a cluster****. The reporting alone is costing over $100 per participants in our plans. Even more so for the self-funded employers. Not to mention the legal and compliance fees. The problem is, if we go single payer, I worry that it will be running in the red like Medicare. Our country does not have a great track record of taking over privatized functions.
A lot of medical innovation is supported by government-funded research, which a single-payer system would not alter.
That is true. We would still have innovation, just at a lower rate. Over 75% of clinical trials are privately funded according to U.C. Berkeley.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/who_pays
My statement remains the same. I also wasn't implying that the only medical innovations come from the U.S.
If his rent was under $780, he would no longer qualify. Agreed.
Again, you may want to take a reading comprehension course. If his rent is up to $700, at minimum wage he would pay 30% (max) out of pocket. So he would pay 30% (max) for a rental all the way up to $700/mo. And if he made $15/hr full time, he would pay 100% in rent. Again, your statement:
You realize that, if he pays less than 30%, than for any increase in wages, less than 30% of that increase goes to additional rent? Again, that undercuts your argument.
makes absolutely no sense. And you follow it up with another comment that makes no sense.
Under the assumptions of having a single job, full-time, at the federal minimum wage, which is a small percentage of those working at the minimum wage, and also assuming no increases in the CPI from the increased wage, with is completely unrealistic.
HAHHAHA. So now you are admitting that an increase to $15/hr would contribute to inflation. Nice.
That's called inflation, and it happens regardless of whether the minimum increases or not.
Did you read this article you posted? If anything, it gives good reasons not to raise the minimum wage.
No, I don't see it, and you have presented no reliable evidence to the contrary.
Raising the minimum wage would reduce welfare dependance, but would not alter CHIP/Medicaid enrollment after the expansions of the ACA.
Regardless, the fall-off in benefits is less than the increase in wages at any particular stage. If they lose all benefits, it's because they are more than making up for it in wages.
I clearly showed charts that Medicaid would no longer be available to someone making $15/hr full time, contrary to your statement that the raising of minimum wage would not reduce welfare "dependance" as you would say.
I also showed the number show the fall off in benefits is more than the $ cash increases. And again, these numbers were actual calculations for housing (links provided, and I even used the 30% number you provided (which is the MAX amount the family pays out of pocket--I actually called to confirm the actual #s. I guess max amounts are OK for you to provide as an example when they back up your argument, but when I did the same with food stamps you dismissed MY ENTIRE ARGUMENT. Your logic is laughable and inconsistent) loss in tax credit, Medicare, FICA. Not taking into account food stamps and potential Pell grants, which would supply thousands more, etc. The losses would be far in excess of the wage gains. Even if all 3 family members received a max insurance subsidy of $4678(no employer coverage), the plans would still cause them to pay a family deductible of $12,600 with a small premium $3.39/mo. When you look at the total costs of any plans (deducible, co-insurance, premiums), the total costs nearly cover the difference in wages by themselves. The very cheapest plan was $5360, which had a max out of pocket of $6,600 (in addition to the premiums). Or again, about $12,000. You even try to argue that the government is not the reason for tuition increases with a flawed argument that public tuition is not rising at the same rate as private (of course they are not!). I really don't get it. It is like you are arguing just to argue. Can you clearly not see how your statements were off? You say I have "presented no reliable evidence to the contrary". $6,550 housing (your 30%+utilities. max out of pocket for participant)+2999.44 (loss of tax credit and FICA--Again, clearly documented with a tax calculator listed previously)+approximately $12,000 for health care which still is not as good as Medicaid is over $21k in lost benefits compared to the $16k gain. This does not include food stamps, Pell, or other benefits that I could not give you documented numbers (other than the max, which again, I used to the detriment of the calculation by causing the family to pay more for rent then they would have to (which results in an actual larger loss in benefits due to the wage increase). So I played by your game. Used max numbers in your favor when you requested it. Removed max numbers to my detriment (food stamps completely removed). The numbers don't lie. And I don't need any calculations to show you were wrong about not losing medicare, a glaring error on your part you will not acknowledge. The chart I listed earlier obviously documented that you were wrong, so you deflected. I repeat, show me something different.
You say you admit when you are wrong, but based on this your continued incorrect statements that you do not acknowledge, you clearly are unwilling to. I show your flaws and you refer to my christian character. Again, nice deflection. I have no problems with people of any religion, including atheists. I'm guessing based on your comments you are one of those atheists who think they are better than everyone else based on your beliefs. Give me a break.
Instead of attacking my logic with conjecture, please show actual calculations, based on fair comparisons (comparable insurance, etc.), to back up your statements that the fall off in benefits will not be more than the $$$ gained. You won't, because you can't. You will continue to deflect, try to find holes in my numbers without providing your own. Generally, a great debate tactic, but I am not taking the bait. Say what you will, but if you can't provide different numbers to my hypothetical that back your claim, using all of the benefits I listed that this family will lose, any response you make is worthless.
