Two words: Health care. The folks arguing this in Congress seem never to have faced the practical issues that come with loss of employment. Plus, I'll gander

Two words: Health care. The folks arguing this in Congress seem never to have faced the practical issues that come with loss of employment. Plus, I'll gander that among the 32% who qualified for the benefits noted, but whose income was still not replaced during the relevant time period-- the shortfall probably was 50% on average or more. So we cut that benefit because many low-wage-earners are receiving too much? Really? Sometimes it's hard to believe political discussion in the U.S. has devolved to this.