3 ms·
Proved my point. If it costs 100$ to not be desperately poor, and you make 100$ and the Gov takes 60% of your 100$ you still only have 40$. Doesn't matter if th
by defnotashton2 7y ago
Proved my point. If it costs 100$ to not be desperately poor, and you make 100$ and the Gov takes 60% of your 100$ you still only have 40$. Doesn't matter if the tax is a flat % or not you still don't have the money to not be poor. All so that you could visit the doctor 1 every 5 years for a flue without having to pay..
Alternatively If you lived freely, you could make 100$, decide you pay 60$for insurance if you want to feel safer and get the benefits from that service orrrr you could say "man I don't need that service right now in my life, so I'm going to invest that money instead while I'm young" and then not be poor..
Yea 50 years ago when nobody had health insurance the bodies piling up were a burden on society because everyone was dying because nobody could afford medical treatment..
- pas 7y agoI seem to have missed your excellent syllogism, but how have you reached the conclusion that it costs a 100 bucks to be not poor? Plus I already live quite freely, thanks. I have no problem with having an option for people that would need to pay only when the need arises. (And they would pay full price, go into debt, or they would be euthanized if they haven't paid at least X years of HC insurance plus they have no money, nor any reasonable chance of making some after recovery.) That would be a nice natural experiment.