Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: A lot of Americans live in housing they can't afford, according to Harvard study

  1. #41
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,841

    Default Re: A lot of Americans live in housing they can't afford, according to Harvard study

    ACA reformed the entire health insurance system, so no, it's not just about individual coverage. Nice try there, "chief".
    So is the cussing a sign of frustration and lacking arguments?

    ACA reformed healthcare in a few separate tiers. Again, using Florida as an example since that was the realm I operated in, we intended to insure folks across 4 different groups. You had the spouses and kids tied to large group insurance funds. Around 75% were self insured/ HMO'd and they were picking up spouses and kids on plans that didn't necessarily have family coverage. Or face a penalty.

    The second group were the small group policies. You are talking small to mid size businesses in this world offering or extending coverage to the rest of the employees plus family. Subsidies were allowed under this framework from the feds, but was on a sliding scale based on the number of employees. 25 or less, you didn't face a penalty if you didn't have coverage but you received a full subsidy if you offered insurance. 26 to 50 you didn't get a penalty nor a subsidy, and anything above you faced a penalty and fell into the large group.

    The next tier was individual mandate. If you were say a small business employee in the 0-50 camp and your company didn't offer insurance, you were forced to get coverage through the exchange. Vast majority of the uninsured population was in this camp, and since you didn't have small group or large group insurance, this was the typical individual market pool you fell into and the pool you faced the largest expense inflation in. In the 8% on a standard year, but some premiums in certain parts of the country were jumping 60+ % per annum.

    Last group was the medicaid variety, where coverage is "freely" provided.

    This argument makes zero sense. A large provision of the ACA is specifically to force everyone to pay into the system, reducing overall costs. This isn't about trusting an "untrustworthy population", this is about setting basic regulations for health coverage, which targets predatory schemes, and about forcing everyone to pay into the system, which lowers over all costs. It's a nice strawman you've constructed, but one that has nothing to do with the actual bill.
    Did I stutter? You seem to think that given the healthier younger profiles tended to opt out of coverage to begin with, they'd still somehow voluntarily pay for the riskier elements and price caps now forced upon them? Not following yore logic.

    What poor logistics specifically? What increase in risks? And what is the natural rate of healthcare inflation? Please do tell me, since you seem to be either strawmanning the ACA or pulling out of your ass.
    frustrated rambling this time.

    Ok, first of all, I'm not sure why you're quoting the word "attack". You're the one who brought it up first, post #36, "The feds then attacked other states over low income pool funding".

    Two, that wasn't a stick. That was an incentive to quickly adopt the expansion, which many Republican states refused to do, for whatever reason. Everyone's medicaid bill was going to be reduced to 90% anyway, regardless of when they signed up. I don't really give a about what you have a problem with, especially if your explanation is, "that's unconstitutional". If the document told you to wipe my ass, would you still do it? It's a retarded explanation that has zero value. I also have no idea why the you're whining about medicaid spending, considering that the feds give Florida a third of their state budget, which roughly corresponds to how much Florida spends on healthcare. So no, the 10% would not be a huge expense for Florida, and if they are so incompetent as to be unable to raise revenue by an additional 3-5% necessary, then perhaps they should elect a governor who's competent.
    More frustrated rambling. Weirdly this is against the constitution and foundation of the American system for some odd reason? Odd. You also don't seem to understand the mechanics of a state budget. Vast majority of funding is already called for, on an 85 billion dollar budget in the most recent fiscal year, discretionary is anywhere from 1 to 1.5 billion. Every other spending is reserved for things like education, healthcare and infrastructure funding. A lot of that is guaranteed through either previous session statute relating to trust funds or constitutional amendments and precedent. Shifting cash is difficult and why we have to be careful when writing other laws that could set up legal challenges to previously guaranteed spending. Most new spending would have to come from slack generated in the budget from revenue growth, tax increases or tax credit expiration. You can't just come up with magic to produce an extra couple billion dollars.

    I also have no idea what you mean when you say it's loosely tied to Medicaid, it's administered by the same ing department, CMS. Neither does your statement address anything about what I said. ACA designed the Medicaid expansion to replace LIP. I think it's hilarious, that you're blaming the incompetence of your government in implementing the medicaid expansion, on lack of federal hand-holding. Dozens of states managed just fine, and you could've carbon copied any other state's expansion. It's not hard. You didn't want to insure people, you wanted to keep exploiting federal money to fund private interests, which is what LIP does, instead of Medicaid expansion which makes people insured.
    Departments typically have multiple roles. They can administer multiple programs too. I'm confused what you mean by thinking medicaid spending and LIP funding aren't separate agreements simply because they were under the same dept authority. Okay? The supreme court wouldn't have differentiated if they weren't separate.

    Incompetence on the part of Florida would've suggested funds were misappropriated outside the statute and budget AND spending authority, which didn't happen. Are you trying to say Florida was incompetent because they didn't accept funding for a policy they have every right to disagree with?

    Folks like yourself wonder why the NPC meme is so utterly relevant. Your post here is an explicit example of why. You obviously get pissed, sputter and drop insults and rambling to somehow justify the "truth" in your eyes. It's like a ing religion to you people, and it's incredibly disturbing.
    Last edited by chriscase; Today at 12:21 PM. Reason: Please don’t bypass the censor.
    Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

  2. #42

    Default Re: A lot of Americans live in housing they can't afford, according to Harvard study

    Quote Originally Posted by JP226 View Post
    ACA reformed healthcare in a few separate tiers. Again, using Florida as an example since that was the realm I operated in, we intended to insure folks across 4 different groups. You had the spouses and kids tied to large group insurance funds. Around 75% were self insured/ HMO'd and they were picking up spouses and kids on plans that didn't necessarily have family coverage. Or face a penalty.

    The second group were the small group policies. You are talking small to mid size businesses in this world offering or extending coverage to the rest of the employees plus family. Subsidies were allowed under this framework from the feds, but was on a sliding scale based on the number of employees. 25 or less, you didn't face a penalty if you didn't have coverage but you received a full subsidy if you offered insurance. 26 to 50 you didn't get a penalty nor a subsidy, and anything above you faced a penalty and fell into the large group.

    The next tier was individual mandate. If you were say a small business employee in the 0-50 camp and your company didn't offer insurance, you were forced to get coverage through the exchange. Vast majority of the uninsured population was in this camp, and since you didn't have small group or large group insurance, this was the typical individual market pool you fell into and the pool you faced the largest expense inflation in. In the 8% on a standard year, but some premiums in certain parts of the country were jumping 60+ % per annum.

    Last group was the medicaid variety, where coverage is "freely" provided.
    A far cry from, "Not for the individual, which is what private insurance Obamacare is centered around there chief. Nice site errors BTW." Not that anyone can expect you to admit you were wrong. The ACA was a large overhaul that touched many different aspects of the healthcare system. Not just for individuals, but for everyone. It certainly wasn't centered around "individuals".

    Did I stutter? You seem to think that given the healthier younger profiles tended to opt out of coverage to begin with, they'd still somehow voluntarily pay for the riskier elements and price caps now forced upon them? Not following yore logic.
    I'm not sure who you're trying to impress here with your "cool guy" act. It's not my fault you can't follow simple English. First, you insulted me by calling me "untrustworthy" because I'm obviously a dirty liberal who would leave you with a dinner bill. Second, you claimed that part of the problem was the "logistics" (not even the correct term to use here) of trusting an "untrustworthy" population to foot part of the healthcare bill. This misses the fact that the individual mandate was put in place there for precisely that reason. It also misses the fact that this was always a risk even before the ACA. The way the insurance industry dealt with it was to simply find ways to identify and deny high-risk pools coverage.

    frustrated rambling this time.
    Asking you to substantiate your statements is frutrated ramblings? I'll ask you again,

    "What poor logistics specifically? What increase in risks? And what is the natural rate of healthcare inflation? Please do tell me, since you seem to be either strawmanning the ACA or pulling out of your ass. "

    Let's see if this sinks into your brain or if you'll re-categorize things that make you "google it" as "frustrated rambling". I mean you keep saying things like that, as if insinuating makes them true.

    More frustrated rambling. Weirdly this is against the constitution and foundation of the American system for some odd reason? Odd. You also don't seem to understand the mechanics of a state budget. Vast majority of funding is already called for, on an 85 billion dollar budget in the most recent fiscal year, discretionary is anywhere from 1 to 1.5 billion. Every other spending is reserved for things like education, healthcare and infrastructure funding. A lot of that is guaranteed through either previous session statute relating to trust funds or constitutional amendments and precedent. Shifting cash is difficult and why we have to be careful when writing other laws that could set up legal challenges to previously guaranteed spending. Most new spending would have to come from slack generated in the budget from revenue growth, tax increases or tax credit expiration. You can't just come up with magic to produce an extra couple billion dollars.
    It's a little ironic that you're accusing me of not understanding how state budgets work when you're making ridiculous insinuations. For example, "Vast majority of funding is already called for, on an 85 billion dollar budget in the most recent fiscal year, discretionary is anywhere from 1 to 1.5 billion." You're insinuating here that because the budget is already drawn up, Florida only has control over 1-1.5 billion dollars that's "discretionary". That oversimplification is simply not true. There are various ways in which Florida can change "mandatory" spending, including changing eligibility and transfer amounts. So no, Florida had plenty of money, and the use of their entire budget/economy, to address the medicaid expansion. Governments can change their budgets as they go, some states don't even finalize their budgets until months into the fiscal year. It's not coming up with "magic", it's called governing, and believe me, there's plenty of waste to cut everywhere to come up with a billion dollars here or there. This all misses the point that Florida chose to take the path of "coming up with a couple billion dollars". If they simply accepted the medicaid expansion they wouldn't have had to come up with new money in the first place.

    Departments typically have multiple roles. They can administer multiple programs too. I'm confused what you mean by thinking medicaid spending and LIP funding aren't separate agreements simply because they were under the same dept authority. Okay? The supreme court wouldn't have differentiated if they weren't separate.

    Incompetence on the part of Florida would've suggested funds were misappropriated outside the statute and budget AND spending authority, which didn't happen. Are you trying to say Florida was incompetent because they didn't accept funding for a policy they have every right to disagree with?
    LIP funding is tied to Medicaid and Medicare programs, as Florida's LIP funding was essentially a grant to deliver medicaid benefits in a way that Florida wanted. I never claimde they weren't separate agreements. That's you moving goalposts (again), here's what you said originally,

    "In the end the feds were rightfully struck down by the courts. LIP funding (glad you googled it BTW) was a separate piece loosely tied to medicaid. "

    Except it wasn't loosely tied. The entirety of LIP funding is contingent on the idea of delivering care to medicaid beneficiaries, and the entire waiver was rendered moot when medicaid expansion became available. It's hilarious that Florida is getting outraged because they don't get to spend money that isn't theirs in the way they want. This is like you getting mad at me because I gave you 10$ to buy food, instead of letting you buy porn. The fight over LIP funding smells blatantly of profiteering by private companies who benefit from LIP money being injected into the system.

    Folks like yourself wonder why the NPC meme is so utterly relevant. Your post here is an explicit example of why. You obviously get pissed, sputter and drop insults and rambling to somehow justify the "truth" in your eyes. It's like a ing religion to you people, and it's incredibly disturbing.
    I think you're a peach. You're a prime example of everything that's wrong with the right-wing of American politics today. Sheer incompetence? Must be the other guy's fault. Hard questions? He's just rambling. Attacking ignorance, racism, and nationalism? Bro, you're just racist against white people bro. Lol you mad?

    It's pathetic. I'll look forward to a reply that'll once again accuse me "rambling" of "getting frustrated" and of not knowing how "state budgets work". It's just sad to read such degeneracy all the time.
    Last edited by chriscase; Today at 12:23 PM. Reason: continuity

  3. #43
    Derpy Hooves's Avatar Bombs for Muffins
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    My flagship, the Litany of Truth, spreading DESPAIR across the galaxy
    Posts
    13,200

    Default Re: A lot of Americans live in housing they can't afford, according to Harvard study

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus_Iunius_Brutus_Caepio View Post
    And who supported the parties financially, which formed the governments?

    The private sector.^^.
    Who ultimately makes the laws? The government.



  4. #44
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,841

    Default Re: A lot of Americans live in housing they can't afford, according to Harvard study

    A far cry from, "Not for the individual, which is what private insurance Obamacare is centered around there chief. Nice site errors BTW." Not that anyone can expect you to admit you were wrong. The ACA was a large overhaul that touched many different aspects of the healthcare system. Not just for individuals, but for everyone. It certainly wasn't centered around "individuals".
    Lol, sorry I'm assuming you know some of the basics. It's not "individuals" it's the individual market place. It's the term used for plans that aren't associated through either medicaid/ medicare/ tricare, large group or small group. It's a catch all. And it was the predominant engine that Obamacare reformed to handle the health insurance gap. It's not "individuals." It's still folks for themselves and their families if small businesses, mostly, didn't provide health insurance.

    I'm not sure who you're trying to impress here with your "cool guy" act. It's not my fault you can't follow simple English. First, you insulted me by calling me "untrustworthy" because I'm obviously a dirty liberal who would leave you with a dinner bill. Second, you claimed that part of the problem was the "logistics" (not even the correct term to use here) of trusting an "untrustworthy" population to foot part of the healthcare bill. This misses the fact that the individual mandate was put in place there for precisely that reason. It also misses the fact that this was always a risk even before the ACA. The way the insurance industry dealt with it was to simply find ways to identify and deny high-risk pools coverage.
    Jesus dude, you want to engage in this conversation, while you have no idea of how any of this stuff works. Untrustworthy population refers to young folks paying less in tax, if any, and generally being healthier (thus not needing insurance). You have no enforcement mechanism if you don't file a tax return, and the genius at Obamacare and co thinks by placing caps and shifting cost to the healthier burdens who are not paying taxes or bothering with care, is a good way to finance the care for the older cohorts.

    Of the 30 million, most people that didn't have health insurance were kids, they were spouses of other folks hired by small businesses, or they were poor. The poor got sucked up into medicaid, the spouses got sucked up into small business insurance credits, and everyone else was left to the individual marketplace. Which were mostly kid/ young adults who are least likely to have money of these cohorts, and actually need the insurance enough to pay for it.

    Asking you to substantiate your statements is frutrated ramblings? I'll ask you again,

    "What poor logistics specifically? What increase in risks? And what is the natural rate of healthcare inflation? Please do tell me, since you seem to be either strawmanning the ACA or pulling out of your ass. "

    Let's see if this sinks into your brain or if you'll re-categorize things that make you "google it" as "frustrated rambling". I mean you keep saying things like that, as if insinuating makes them true.
    lol, this isn't your forte, give it up bud.

    It's a little ironic that you're accusing me of not understanding how state budgets work when you're making ridiculous insinuations. For example, "Vast majority of funding is already called for, on an 85 billion dollar budget in the most recent fiscal year, discretionary is anywhere from 1 to 1.5 billion." You're insinuating here that because the budget is already drawn up, Florida only has control over 1-1.5 billion dollars that's "discretionary". That oversimplification is simply not true. There are various ways in which Florida can change "mandatory" spending, including changing eligibility and transfer amounts. So no, Florida had plenty of money, and the use of their entire budget/economy, to address the medicaid expansion. Governments can change their budgets as they go, some states don't even finalize their budgets until months into the fiscal year. It's not coming up with "magic", it's called governing, and believe me, there's plenty of waste to cut everywhere to come up with a billion dollars here or there. This all misses the point that Florida chose to take the path of "coming up with a couple billion dollars". If they simply accepted the medicaid expansion they wouldn't have had to come up with new money in the first place.
    Wow! That's all there is to it? I had no idea?!?!?! Maybe at my lunch on Monday with the Senior Policy Adviser to the Florida Senate President, I can tell her what you are saying here??? Would that be okay?

    Except it wasn't loosely tied. The entirety of LIP funding is contingent on the idea of delivering care to medicaid beneficiaries, and the entire waiver was rendered moot when medicaid expansion became available. It's hilarious that Florida is getting outraged because they don't get to spend money that isn't theirs in the way they want. This is like you getting mad at me because I gave you 10$ to buy food, instead of letting you buy porn. The fight over LIP funding smells blatantly of profiteering by private companies who benefit from LIP money being injected into the system.
    My word sir. You get that LIP is a separate funding item right? It's not medicaid, it is it's own deal for uninsured folks that are outside medicaid to reimburse costs of uninsured? I googled this to see what your sources were, I hope to god you aren't using Taxwatch...

    I think you're a peach. You're a prime example of everything that's wrong with the right-wing of American politics today. Sheer incompetence? Must be the other guy's fault. Hard questions? He's just rambling. Attacking ignorance, racism, and nationalism? Bro, you're just racist against white people bro. Lol you mad?

    It's pathetic. I'll look forward to a reply that'll once again accuse me "rambling" of "getting frustrated" and of not knowing how "state budgets work". It's just sad to read such degeneracy all the time.
    lol, you are a prime example of folks that have no idea what' going on but by god need a damn opinion on the matter. Folks like yourself get in the way of people like myself actually trying to get stuff done and make this world a better run and better managed place. You are what we call a chain around our necks.
    Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

  5. #45

    Default Re: A lot of Americans live in housing they can't afford, according to Harvard study

    Quote Originally Posted by JP226 View Post
    Lol, sorry I'm assuming you know some of the basics. It's not "individuals" it's the individual market place. It's the term used for plans that aren't associated through either medicaid/ medicare/ tricare, large group or small group. It's a catch all. And it was the predominant engine that Obamacare reformed to handle the health insurance gap. It's not "individuals." It's still folks for themselves and their families if small businesses, mostly, didn't provide health insurance.
    That makes no sense because it's still not true. The ACA isn't centered around the individual (health insurance not connected to your employer) market place either. ACA had several goals.

    1) Reduce the number of uninsured
    2) Expand Medicaid
    3) Reduce healthcare inflation and predatory insurance schemes.


    Jesus dude, you want to engage in this conversation, while you have no idea of how any of this stuff works. Untrustworthy population refers to young folks paying less in tax, if any, and generally being healthier (thus not needing insurance). You have no enforcement mechanism if you don't file a tax return, and the genius at Obamacare and co thinks by placing caps and shifting cost to the healthier burdens who are not paying taxes or bothering with care, is a good way to finance the care for the older cohorts.

    Of the 30 million, most people that didn't have health insurance were kids, they were spouses of other folks hired by small businesses, or they were poor. The poor got sucked up into medicaid, the spouses got sucked up into small business insurance credits, and everyone else was left to the individual marketplace. Which were mostly kid/ young adults who are least likely to have money of these cohorts, and actually need the insurance enough to pay for it.
    Your post is retarded. "Untrustworthy" makes no sense in this context, whatsoever. Everybody knows young people pay less in tax, that's not being untrustworthy, that's having a lesser tax burden. We already went over not needing insurance, that's what the individual mandate is for, and yes, we all know how it's calculated. It's designed for wealthier taxpayers to pay more, not to mention there's a minimum. At least there was until Trump ruined everything, as usual.

    The coverage gap is only about 3 million people.. And the majority of the people who are in the "coverage gap" are in the states that refused to expand medicaid..

    Your role in the -up that's Florida and the medicaid expansion is part of the reason why kids/young adults are without insurance. You, your political position, and by your own admission, your job, is part of the problem.


    lol, this isn't your forte, give it up bud.
    JP226 thinks tariff dead-weight losses either only apply in perfectly competitive marketplaces, or don't apply in real world markets.

    To mirror what he said to me earlier. I think JP226's posts are an embarrassment to my field. But hey whatever, I'll just keep "rambling" my questions. It's obvious he can't actually come up with a legitimate criticism of the ACA. It's really not that hard.


    Wow! That's all there is to it? I had no idea?!?!?! Maybe at my lunch on Monday with the Senior Policy Adviser to the Florida Senate President, I can tell her what you are saying here??? Would that be okay?
    You should. Do your ing job, or find someone who can. Because Florida's issues with the medicaid expansion have nothing to do with money, and everything to do with politics and the -ups in your government.

    My word sir. You get that LIP is a separate funding item right? It's not medicaid, it is it's own deal for uninsured folks that are outside medicaid to reimburse costs of uninsured? I googled this to see what your sources were, I hope to god you aren't using Taxwatch...
    You realize that's related to Medicaid? Right? Or are you still claiming they are unrelated items?

    lol, you are a prime example of folks that have no idea what' going on but by god need a damn opinion on the matter. Folks like yourself get in the way of people like myself actually trying to get stuff done and make this world a better run and better managed place. You are what we call a chain around our necks.
    No, I'm a prime example of people who read, do research, and base their opinion on the information available. You, JP226, along with the disgusting collection of sycophants called he Republican Party, base your opinion on political ideology and then frantically scramble for evidence to justify it. I'm still waiting on an answer by the way,

    "What poor logistics specifically? What increase in risks? And what is the natural rate of healthcare inflation? Please do tell me, since you seem to be either strawmanning the ACA or pulling out of your ass."

    Or you can just be a good sport and admit you don't know what the you're talking about.

  6. #46
    JP226's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,841

    Default Re: A lot of Americans live in housing they can't afford, according to Harvard study

    That makes no sense because it's still not true. The ACA isn't centered around the individual (health insurance not connected to your employer) market place either. ACA had several goals.

    1) Reduce the number of uninsured
    2) Expand Medicaid
    3) Reduce healthcare inflation and predatory insurance schemes.
    I honestly can't tell if you are just ing with me? This is like me trying to explain to you that the sky is blue and you disagree because the car on the left side of the road is red.

    Your post is retarded. "Untrustworthy" makes no sense in this context, whatsoever. Everybody knows young people pay less in tax, that's not being untrustworthy, that's having a lesser tax burden. We already went over not needing insurance, that's what the individual mandate is for, and yes, we all know how it's calculated. It's designed for wealthier taxpayers to pay more, not to mention there's a minimum. At least there was until Trump ruined everything, as usual.

    The coverage gap is only about 3 million people.. And the majority of the people who are in the "coverage gap" are in the states that refused to expand medicaid..

    Your role in the -up that's Florida and the medicaid expansion is part of the reason why kids/young adults are without insurance. You, your political position, and by your own admission, your job, is part of the problem.
    This is great. You are good at latching on to any and everything you possibly can and letting the point sail largely over yore head. They are"untrustworthy" <-- and I'm now officially sticking with this word no matter what since it bother's the fvck out of you, because they can't pay and they won't pay. You can not fund a program on a revenue source that is not ideal. It's untrustworthy because theses kids can't be forced to pay with out a tax return, they would mostly rather opt out and pay a penalty if they had to, or ignore it altogether. You can't sit there and say, "hey let's take the most expensive cohort and let the kids pay for it." Why am I even bothering repeating myself at this point?

    The "coverage gap" is 20 to 30 million... kids were already covered through existing medicaid care and CHIP, plus local programs. If you were 18 or younger, pregnant at any age, on disability, and some stipulations for kids ages 19 and 20, medicaid expansion did nothing for you. Largest medicaid cohort were childless adults 21 and older. Medicaid expansion would've picked up around 850k of the 4 million uninsured in my state. Individual markets would've picked up 2 million. That left 2 million still uninsured in Florida alone.

    lol to the rest of the garbage I wasted my time reading from you... except this one...

    No, I'm a prime example of people who read, do research, and base their opinion on the information available.
    This deserves an LMFAO. Is it masochism that I really find joy in life dealing with pseudo-intellectuals like yourself?
    Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.

  7. #47
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    11,823

    Default Re: A lot of Americans live in housing they can't afford, according to Harvard study

    or they were poor. The poor got sucked up into medicaid,.
    Only If you lived in a state were somebody cared about the poor. Most red states not so much.

    Most new spending would have to come from slack generated in the budget from revenue growth, tax increases or tax credit expiration. You can't just come up with magic to produce an extra couple billion dollars.
    You save and make tax cuts your first and last word. You know around the dot compost, Michigan was doing well and had a nice lot of rainy day funds. Oh look they elected Engler who thought that was a bad ideal because you know cyclical economics are a myth... The state can't have the peoples money! Well now the Tech economy crashed and so did the inevitable Rust belt cycle down and so education, health care drinking water more or less had to be cut because all those saved dollars were gone. States could have rational budges if they stopped electing republicans.

    Individual markets would've picked up 2 million. That left 2 million still uninsured in Florida alone.
    And the alternative is? Please add one. Personally I waiting for the socialism fairy to give the US the French health care system, but I'm not expecting to find it under my pillow any day soon. The ACA was at the end of the day the closest the US could blindly meander to being a rational nation. I personally would have liked a liturgy system for our wealthy and of course military service if you want to use your wealth to dominate politics (individually or as our class of corporate persons)
    Last edited by conon394; Today at 10:15 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  8. #48
    Princess Thunderballs
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,288

    Default Re: A lot of Americans live in housing they can't afford, according to Harvard study

    Letís cool down for a bit.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •