To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
Are you opposed to some amount of wealth transfer: Yay or Nay?
There are some schools of thought that a basic universal income in lieu of all the other myriad of transfer payments would have better overall outcomes. I’ve been back and forth on the idea depending on my level of alcohol consumption at any given point in time.
I am very intrigued by UBI and believe it may become necessary because of the robot menace. The guvmint is good at writing checks but a terrible buying agent as @UW_Doog_Bot states. It's be a lot more efficient to just give people the money and let the free market work from there.
I’m not sure Universal income is a good thing. As the ones that are working the menial job now would just say fuck it and not work anymore.
Who wants to guess who will take over those jobs?
It works in other countries that have always known some sort of socialist economy and/or authoritarian regime. But here it would create many unintended consequences imo.
As far as Healthcare... For the life of Me, I don’t understand why it didn’t start out as public providence. The Government handles schools, Public Safety and basic infrastructure such as Roads and Bridges and what not. For me, Healthcare is just as important as any of those things. But with the unholy trinity of insurance, pharma, and the general poor health of Americans, I don’t see public healthcare ever being an option here either. Now.
Problem with the current welfare state is that creates disincentive to work- e.g., lose your disability pay if you go get a jerb. Most UBI proponents toss out a number of around $1,000.00 cash payment per month. Sure some will try to be bums and subsist just on that alone, but most would want more out of life and want to go earn extra income. Again, we're just dealing in hypotheticals here, so don't twist.
UBI is so fucking cheap in comparison to the welfare state you can make it pretty damn near universal with a tapered "cut off" being so high very few people would give a shit.
Say what you want about welfare being inefficient or what not. But not everyone qualifies for it. And most welfare payments are less than a 1000 per month. And then we’re still paying for healthcare and a portion of housing as well.
UBI gives welfare benefits to anyone who wants them. Just how is this gonna be less expensive than what we have now?
To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
Are you opposed to some amount of wealth transfer: Yay or Nay?
There are some schools of thought that a basic universal income in lieu of all the other myriad of transfer payments would have better overall outcomes. I’ve been back and forth on the idea depending on my level of alcohol consumption at any given point in time.
I am very intrigued by UBI and believe it may become necessary because of the robot menace. The guvmint is good at writing checks but a terrible buying agent as @UW_Doog_Bot states. It's be a lot more efficient to just give people the money and let the free market work from there.
I’m not sure Universal income is a good thing. As the ones that are working the menial job now would just say fuck it and not work anymore.
Who wants to guess who will take over those jobs?
It works in other countries that have always known some sort of socialist economy and/or authoritarian regime. But here it would create many unintended consequences imo.
As far as Healthcare... For the life of Me, I don’t understand why it didn’t start out as public providence. The Government handles schools, Public Safety and basic infrastructure such as Roads and Bridges and what not. For me, Healthcare is just as important as any of those things. But with the unholy trinity of insurance, pharma, and the general poor health of Americans, I don’t see public healthcare ever being an option here either. Now.
Problem with the current welfare state is that creates disincentive to work- e.g., lose your disability pay if you go get a jerb. Most UBI proponents toss out a number of around $1,000.00 cash payment per month. Sure some will try to be bums and subsist just on that alone, but most would want more out of life and want to go earn extra income. Again, we're just dealing in hypotheticals here, so don't twist.
So somehow. Some way, the people on welfare now, that aren’t motivated to work . Will be magically motivated to work if you just call it something else. Say like UBI.
AND.... If you open this up to folks working part time taking home less than 1000 per month in a shitty job, they will still get out of bed every morning and continue to work for less money than they would by sitting on their ass???
Nope.
You really have some misconceptions about what UBI is and isn't.
UBI doesn't just replace "welfare". It replaces ALL government subsidy programs. That would include the standard tax deduction which people already basically get as an "once per year" form of payment.
People wouldn't get healthcare, housing, food stamps, AND UBI. You give them a UBI check and they purchase those things in a free market without government subsidy at their own discretion.
There might be many people not motivated to work however how is that any different to our current system of giving people all this other shit for free? I'm not opposed to eliminating almost all government transfer payments entirely. About the only thing I really value is a school voucher payment as I do think you need to make sure every child gets a shot at a decent education. Will this result in market distortions and in some ways worse outcomes? Yes, but I think the trade off is worth it.
Ok. So we are abolishing Medicaid and laying those costs onto the provider... again??? Are we doing the same thing with CHIP?
Still too many pipers not getting paid.
My solution is much better. It puts more money in people’s pocket that truly need it and expands the economy. All the while keeping motivation to work and making us less reliant on undocs to do the menial jobs.
Your solution has no cost containment or even a known budget mechanism in place and is ripe for rampant fraud with all of the fake Social security numbers already out there.
To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
Are you opposed to some amount of wealth transfer: Yay or Nay?
There are some schools of thought that a basic universal income in lieu of all the other myriad of transfer payments would have better overall outcomes. I’ve been back and forth on the idea depending on my level of alcohol consumption at any given point in time.
I am very intrigued by UBI and believe it may become necessary because of the robot menace. The guvmint is good at writing checks but a terrible buying agent as @UW_Doog_Bot states. It's be a lot more efficient to just give people the money and let the free market work from there.
I’m not sure Universal income is a good thing. As the ones that are working the menial job now would just say fuck it and not work anymore.
Who wants to guess who will take over those jobs?
It works in other countries that have always known some sort of socialist economy and/or authoritarian regime. But here it would create many unintended consequences imo.
As far as Healthcare... For the life of Me, I don’t understand why it didn’t start out as public providence. The Government handles schools, Public Safety and basic infrastructure such as Roads and Bridges and what not. For me, Healthcare is just as important as any of those things. But with the unholy trinity of insurance, pharma, and the general poor health of Americans, I don’t see public healthcare ever being an option here either. Now.
Problem with the current welfare state is that creates disincentive to work- e.g., lose your disability pay if you go get a jerb. Most UBI proponents toss out a number of around $1,000.00 cash payment per month. Sure some will try to be bums and subsist just on that alone, but most would want more out of life and want to go earn extra income. Again, we're just dealing in hypotheticals here, so don't twist.
UBI is so fucking cheap in comparison to the welfare state you can make it pretty damn near universal with a tapered "cut off" being so high very few people would give a shit.
Say what you want about welfare being inefficient or what not. But not everyone qualifies for it. And most welfare payments are less than a 1000 per month. And then we’re still paying for healthcare and a portion of housing as well.
UBI gives welfare benefits to anyone who wants them. Just how is this gonna be less expensive than what we have now?
To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
Are you opposed to some amount of wealth transfer: Yay or Nay?
There are some schools of thought that a basic universal income in lieu of all the other myriad of transfer payments would have better overall outcomes. I’ve been back and forth on the idea depending on my level of alcohol consumption at any given point in time.
I am very intrigued by UBI and believe it may become necessary because of the robot menace. The guvmint is good at writing checks but a terrible buying agent as @UW_Doog_Bot states. It's be a lot more efficient to just give people the money and let the free market work from there.
I’m not sure Universal income is a good thing. As the ones that are working the menial job now would just say fuck it and not work anymore.
Who wants to guess who will take over those jobs?
It works in other countries that have always known some sort of socialist economy and/or authoritarian regime. But here it would create many unintended consequences imo.
As far as Healthcare... For the life of Me, I don’t understand why it didn’t start out as public providence. The Government handles schools, Public Safety and basic infrastructure such as Roads and Bridges and what not. For me, Healthcare is just as important as any of those things. But with the unholy trinity of insurance, pharma, and the general poor health of Americans, I don’t see public healthcare ever being an option here either. Now.
Problem with the current welfare state is that creates disincentive to work- e.g., lose your disability pay if you go get a jerb. Most UBI proponents toss out a number of around $1,000.00 cash payment per month. Sure some will try to be bums and subsist just on that alone, but most would want more out of life and want to go earn extra income. Again, we're just dealing in hypotheticals here, so don't twist.
So somehow. Some way, the people on welfare now, that aren’t motivated to work . Will be magically motivated to work if you just call it something else. Say like UBI.
AND.... If you open this up to folks working part time taking home less than 1000 per month in a shitty job, they will still get out of bed every morning and continue to work for less money than they would by sitting on their ass???
Nope.
You really have some misconceptions about what UBI is and isn't.
UBI doesn't just replace "welfare". It replaces ALL government subsidy programs. That would include the standard tax deduction which people already basically get as an "once per year" form of payment.
People wouldn't get healthcare, housing, food stamps, AND UBI. You give them a UBI check and they purchase those things in a free market without government subsidy at their own discretion.
There might be many people not motivated to work however how is that any different to our current system of giving people all this other shit for free? I'm not opposed to eliminating almost all government transfer payments entirely. About the only thing I really value is a school voucher payment as I do think you need to make sure every child gets a shot at a decent education. Will this result in market distortions and in some ways worse outcomes? Yes, but I think the trade off is worth it.
Ok. So we are abolishing Medicaid and laying those costs onto the provider... again??? Are we doing the same thing with CHIP?
Nope, if you get rid of Medicaid you also get rid of the mandate for care. I could be on board with Yellow's suggestion for "emergency disaster" care funds of some type but part of the point is that a free market would drive the cost of healthcare back down so much that it would make it affordable again.
CHIP I could be convinced to keep in some form similar to school vouchers. Here's your coupon, buy whatever insurance you want for your kid on the open market with it and we will pick up the bill.
To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
Are you opposed to some amount of wealth transfer: Yay or Nay?
There are some schools of thought that a basic universal income in lieu of all the other myriad of transfer payments would have better overall outcomes. I’ve been back and forth on the idea depending on my level of alcohol consumption at any given point in time.
I am very intrigued by UBI and believe it may become necessary because of the robot menace. The guvmint is good at writing checks but a terrible buying agent as @UW_Doog_Bot states. It's be a lot more efficient to just give people the money and let the free market work from there.
I’m not sure Universal income is a good thing. As the ones that are working the menial job now would just say fuck it and not work anymore.
Who wants to guess who will take over those jobs?
It works in other countries that have always known some sort of socialist economy and/or authoritarian regime. But here it would create many unintended consequences imo.
As far as Healthcare... For the life of Me, I don’t understand why it didn’t start out as public providence. The Government handles schools, Public Safety and basic infrastructure such as Roads and Bridges and what not. For me, Healthcare is just as important as any of those things. But with the unholy trinity of insurance, pharma, and the general poor health of Americans, I don’t see public healthcare ever being an option here either. Now.
Problem with the current welfare state is that creates disincentive to work- e.g., lose your disability pay if you go get a jerb. Most UBI proponents toss out a number of around $1,000.00 cash payment per month. Sure some will try to be bums and subsist just on that alone, but most would want more out of life and want to go earn extra income. Again, we're just dealing in hypotheticals here, so don't twist.
UBI is so fucking cheap in comparison to the welfare state you can make it pretty damn near universal with a tapered "cut off" being so high very few people would give a shit.
Say what you want about welfare being inefficient or what not. But not everyone qualifies for it. And most welfare payments are less than a 1000 per month. And then we’re still paying for healthcare and a portion of housing as well.
UBI gives welfare benefits to anyone who wants them. Just how is this gonna be less expensive than what we have now?
To Doogbot's article's point, only real fucktards want means of production to be run by the state. APAG already summed this up in another thread, but a mix of capitalist and welfare elements are probably the ideal. Venezuela bullshit is a Hondo play by the conservative crowd.
The "Scandinavian" model is a Hondo take by the progressive crowd. It's a 10,000 ft view of a mixed economy that is rich from selling a resource to the rest of the world that progressives try to point to as "successful democratic socialism" even though it's no such thing.
I don't agree that a mix of capitalism and (state run) welfare are the ideal. I think the government is inherently a terrible buying agent and is nothing but super inefficient at such projects. It also restricts the freedoms of those it purports to help while distorting the market and crowding out private competition for the rest of us.
The only times I see the government as being "the least bad option" are when you have significant negative externalities in a free market such as the military or the environment.
Are you opposed to some amount of wealth transfer: Yay or Nay?
There are some schools of thought that a basic universal income in lieu of all the other myriad of transfer payments would have better overall outcomes. I’ve been back and forth on the idea depending on my level of alcohol consumption at any given point in time.
I am very intrigued by UBI and believe it may become necessary because of the robot menace. The guvmint is good at writing checks but a terrible buying agent as @UW_Doog_Bot states. It's be a lot more efficient to just give people the money and let the free market work from there.
I’m not sure Universal income is a good thing. As the ones that are working the menial job now would just say fuck it and not work anymore.
Who wants to guess who will take over those jobs?
It works in other countries that have always known some sort of socialist economy and/or authoritarian regime. But here it would create many unintended consequences imo.
As far as Healthcare... For the life of Me, I don’t understand why it didn’t start out as public providence. The Government handles schools, Public Safety and basic infrastructure such as Roads and Bridges and what not. For me, Healthcare is just as important as any of those things. But with the unholy trinity of insurance, pharma, and the general poor health of Americans, I don’t see public healthcare ever being an option here either. Now.
Problem with the current welfare state is that creates disincentive to work- e.g., lose your disability pay if you go get a jerb. Most UBI proponents toss out a number of around $1,000.00 cash payment per month. Sure some will try to be bums and subsist just on that alone, but most would want more out of life and want to go earn extra income. Again, we're just dealing in hypotheticals here, so don't twist.
So somehow. Some way, the people on welfare now, that aren’t motivated to work . Will be magically motivated to work if you just call it something else. Say like UBI.
AND.... If you open this up to folks working part time taking home less than 1000 per month in a shitty job, they will still get out of bed every morning and continue to work for less money than they would by sitting on their ass???
Nope.
You really have some misconceptions about what UBI is and isn't.
UBI doesn't just replace "welfare". It replaces ALL government subsidy programs. That would include the standard tax deduction which people already basically get as an "once per year" form of payment.
People wouldn't get healthcare, housing, food stamps, AND UBI. You give them a UBI check and they purchase those things in a free market without government subsidy at their own discretion.
There might be many people not motivated to work however how is that any different to our current system of giving people all this other shit for free? I'm not opposed to eliminating almost all government transfer payments entirely. About the only thing I really value is a school voucher payment as I do think you need to make sure every child gets a shot at a decent education. Will this result in market distortions and in some ways worse outcomes? Yes, but I think the trade off is worth it.
Ok. So we are abolishing Medicaid and laying those costs onto the provider... again??? Are we doing the same thing with CHIP?
Nope, if you get rid of Medicaid you also get rid of the mandate for care. I could be on board with Yellow's suggestion for "emergency disaster" care funds of some type but part of the point is that a free market would drive the cost of healthcare back down so much that it would make it affordable again.
CHIP I could be convinced to keep in some form similar to school vouchers. Here's your coupon, buy whatever insurance you want for your kid on the open market with it and we will pick up the bill.
So letting welfare recipients spend their GI issued bucks on tattoos, smokes, booze, weed and hard drugs as they dream of, is gonna help this country out? And if they’ve already spent all their money on those things, housing, food, utilities, car insurance and cell phone,they’re gonna pay for their emergency healthcare when it’s needed? Because of course they’ve been setting aside those funds, right?
You definitely much more faith in the ones amongst us on the Dole than I do.
Reality is. I bought it in 06 with 2 other people. One of them is a Fox news dicksucker and he was freaked out when minimum wage went up from 5.15 to 7.25 or whatever. Cause Fox news told him to be. Until the year after minimum wage went up, we made more money and kept making more money.
Turns out, our core customer base got a raise. So.... shocking, they could afford more fast food. He agrees with me on that but he's still a Trump dicksucker.
Reality is. I bought it in 06 with 2 other people. One of them is a Fox news dicksucker and he was freaked out when minimum wage went up from 5.15 to 7.25 or whatever. Cause Fox news told him to be. Until the year after minimum wage went up, we made more money and kept making more money.
Turns out, our core customer base got a raise. So.... shocking, they could afford more fast food. He agrees with me on that but he's still a Trump dicksucker.
Reality is. I bought it in 06 with 2 other people. One of them is a Fox news dicksucker and he was freaked out when minimum wage went up from 5.15 to 7.25 or whatever. Cause Fox news told him to be. Until the year after minimum wage went up, we made more money and kept making more money.
Turns out, our core customer base got a raise. So.... shocking, they could afford more fast food. He agrees with me on that but he's still a Trump dicksucker.
There goes income equality.
Curious as to when I've ever said we need income equality.
Reality is. I bought it in 06 with 2 other people. One of them is a Fox news dicksucker and he was freaked out when minimum wage went up from 5.15 to 7.25 or whatever. Cause Fox news told him to be. Until the year after minimum wage went up, we made more money and kept making more money.
Turns out, our core customer base got a raise. So.... shocking, they could afford more fast food. He agrees with me on that but he's still a Trump dicksucker.
There goes income equality.
Curious as to when I've ever said we need income equality.
Losers who run burger joints !== winners who profit off of the tech industry...
I don't run a burger joint. That's an investment. And a tax write off. I've actually only taken about $3,000 out of it plus they pay my cell phone bill. But I get a loss in my tax return that saves me a couple thousand every year. Basically the two people who run it pull salary so it cash flows zero, I get a loss because of depreciation and write off of unreimbursed partnership expenses.
They being said, my day job is working with @Swaye people.
Losers who run burger joints !== winners who profit off of the tech industry...
I don't run a burger joint. That's an investment. And a tax write off. I've actually only taken about $3,000 out of it plus they pay my cell phone bill. But I get a loss in my tax return that saves me a couple thousand every year. Basically the two people who run it pull salary so it cash flows zero, I get a loss because of depreciation and write off of unreimbursed partnership expenses.
They being said, my day job is working with @Swaye people.
Losers who run burger joints !== winners who profit off of the tech industry...
I don't run a burger joint. That's an investment. And a tax write off. I've actually only taken about $3,000 out of it plus they pay my cell phone bill. But I get a loss in my tax return that saves me a couple thousand every year. Basically the two people who run it pull salary so it cash flows zero, I get a loss because of depreciation and write off of unreimbursed partnership expenses.
They being said, my day job is working with @Swaye people.
Comments
Still too many pipers not getting paid.
My solution is much better. It puts more money in people’s pocket that truly need it and expands the economy. All the while keeping motivation to work and making us less reliant on undocs to do the menial jobs.
Your solution has no cost containment or even a known budget mechanism in place and is ripe for rampant fraud with all of the fake Social security numbers already out there.
CHIP I could be convinced to keep in some form similar to school vouchers. Here's your coupon, buy whatever insurance you want for your kid on the open market with it and we will pick up the bill.
There are some schools of thought that a basic universal income in lieu of all the other myriad of transfer payments would have better overall outcomes. I’ve been back and forth on the idea depending on my level of alcohol consumption at any given point in time.
I am very intrigued by UBI and believe it may become necessary because of the robot menace. The guvmint is good at writing checks but a terrible buying agent as @UW_Doog_Bot states. It's be a lot more efficient to just give people the money and let the free market work from there.
I’m not sure Universal income is a good thing. As the ones that are working the menial job now would just say fuck it and not work anymore.
Who wants to guess who will take over those jobs?
It works in other countries that have always known some sort of socialist economy and/or authoritarian regime. But here it would create many unintended consequences imo.
As far as Healthcare... For the life of Me, I don’t understand why it didn’t start out as public providence. The Government handles schools, Public Safety and basic infrastructure such as Roads and Bridges and what not. For me, Healthcare is just as important as any of those things. But with the unholy trinity of insurance, pharma, and the general poor health of Americans, I don’t see public healthcare ever being an option here either. Now.
Problem with the current welfare state is that creates disincentive to work- e.g., lose your disability pay if you go get a jerb. Most UBI proponents toss out a number of around $1,000.00 cash payment per month. Sure some will try to be bums and subsist just on that alone, but most would want more out of life and want to go earn extra income. Again, we're just dealing in hypotheticals here, so don't twist.
UBI is so fucking cheap in comparison to the welfare state you can make it pretty damn near universal with a tapered "cut off" being so high very few people would give a shit.
Say what you want about welfare being inefficient or what not. But not everyone qualifies for it. And most welfare payments are less than a 1000 per month. And then we’re still paying for healthcare and a portion of housing as well.
UBI gives welfare benefits to anyone who wants them. Just how is this gonna be less expensive than what we have now?
Spoiler alert. It won’t be. You really have some misconceptions about what UBI is and isn't.
UBI doesn't just replace "welfare". It replaces ALL government subsidy programs. That would include the standard tax deduction which people already basically get as an "once per year" form of payment.
People wouldn't get healthcare, housing, food stamps, AND UBI. You give them a UBI check and they purchase those things in a free market without government subsidy at their own discretion.
There might be many people not motivated to work however how is that any different to our current system of giving people all this other shit for free? I'm not opposed to eliminating almost all government transfer payments entirely. About the only thing I really value is a school voucher payment as I do think you need to make sure every child gets a shot at a decent education. Will this result in market distortions and in some ways worse outcomes? Yes, but I think the trade off is worth it.
Ok. So we are abolishing Medicaid and laying those costs onto the provider... again??? Are we doing the same thing with CHIP?
Nope, if you get rid of Medicaid you also get rid of the mandate for care. I could be on board with Yellow's suggestion for "emergency disaster" care funds of some type but part of the point is that a free market would drive the cost of healthcare back down so much that it would make it affordable again.
CHIP I could be convinced to keep in some form similar to school vouchers. Here's your coupon, buy whatever insurance you want for your kid on the open market with it and we will pick up the bill.
So letting welfare recipients spend their GI issued bucks on tattoos, smokes, booze, weed and hard drugs as they dream of, is gonna help this country out? And if they’ve already spent all their money on those things, housing, food, utilities, car insurance and cell phone,they’re gonna pay for their emergency healthcare when it’s needed? Because of course they’ve been setting aside those funds, right?
You definitely much more faith in the ones amongst us on the Dole than I do.
HTH
Turns out, our core customer base got a raise. So.... shocking, they could afford more fast food. He agrees with me on that but he's still a Trump dicksucker.
They being said, my day job is working with @Swaye people.