q1w2e3 saidOK, unless we all move to rural Nebraska, Wyoming or North Dakota, you want most working families to forgo health insurance. Because as it is right now,
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp165/# The range of basic family budgets for a two-parent, two-child family is $31,080 (rural Nebraska) to $64,656 (Boston, Massachusetts). The median family budget of $39,984 is well above the $19,157 poverty threshold for this size family.
# Over three times more working families fall below the basic family budget levels as fall below the official poverty line.
# Of the six family types examined, over 14 million people (28%) live in families with incomes below the basic family budget thresholds.
Fully one third of the population cannot meet basic family budgets with their income:
See, Q, despite the constant chirping that we progressives are crazed ideologues, you can see right here how quite the opposite is true. The sad part, is that though we can see past our ideologies to the realpolitik
of a solution that may not be ideal but helps a good portion of the public, my experience of SB and most of the other "right-wingers" here (and I would except Mock from this) is that their "ideology" is really just an excuse for the craven greed.
You see this constantly as they flip from one position to another without realizing the stunning hypocrisy and intellectual dissonance of their "arguments" (a single man making $200k isn't "wealthy" and shouldn't be taxed as such, but a family of four should shell out $15k on healthcare or forgo it),
If all families of four are paying 15% of their budget on healthcare every year, they certainly won't be taking a plane any time soon and there goes all SB's customers and, eventually, his job. (Well, we can hope.)