Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Actually, with minimum wage you'll have zero insurance costs, as a consequence of not having insurance.

[Helgoland]

Hidden costs, my boy! Such as not being able to work anymore at 30 because of a minor, easily treatable infection.

[GlyphGryph]

Considering the fact that basic rent in in Seattle (judging by my recent search attempts) is 1,200 for the shittiest of places within an hour of the city. Health insurance is at least 400 a month for a healthcare plan that is basically worthless, but legally required (thanks Obamacare!)

That means you need to be making 19,200 (post-tax) to simply exist, legally, within an hour's drive of the city.

This doesn't cover utilities. It doesn't cover food. It doesn't cover transportation or other costs associated with actually having and maintaining a job.

Add food, with the extremely generous assumption that you'll only spend 150 dollars a month on it, raises that up to 21,000. Assuming you only take public transportation, that's like to be, at a bare minimum, another 1,200, so 22,000.

If you're making 27,000, that gives you $6,000, best case, for an entire years of utilities, debt payments, medical costs (remember, a cheap plan like that means you'll be paying a lot out of pocket), etc. and so on.

It is most definitely "a little", although it means you might, if you're good at financial management and lucky with opportunities, slowly manage to get ahead in life. Why, only 50 years of this and you might even be able to afford the down payment on a house!

Of course, healthcare is subsidized now, so that at least is an improvement, so you might actually be getting a bit more since the government will be picking up a chunk of the tab there paying for your nearly useless plan. I believe you still have to pay the out of pocket costs associated with it though.

You guys don't need a higher minimum wage, you guys need a welfare state.

Yes, because we should have the general population of the state be on the hook for providing grasping businesses with heavily subsidized labour, held captive by the fact that if they leave their job or try to get a better job they will be punished by the state for it (and that is how attempts to implement "welfare" programs usually go, at least on this side of the pond). That's sure to be good for someone... somehow. I guess giving more money to rich people instead of, you know, actually require them to pay for the resources they benefit from, is somehow a good idea? Why should the taxpayers be on the hook for helping rich bastards avoid paying for the resources they utilize, when we can, instead, require them to actually pay for them?

I'm certainly not opposed to a state that supports its citizens, but raising the minimum wage is one of the more practical ways to do that with the fewest negative externalities, and is also much harder to abuse by those running the system to screw the poor and benefit the rich, the way traditional welfare tends to work.

The sort of welfare that actually helps people climb out of poverty isn't even popular in actual European welfare states, so there's not much chance of it happening here.

Actually, with minimum wage you'll have zero insurance costs, as a consequence of not having insurance.

This is illegal now!

[Descan]

Or, instead of being fuck-ups with welfare and healthcare, you could try and be competent.

[GlyphGryph]

Or, instead of being fuck-ups with welfare and healthcare, you could try and be competent.

We could, but there's something to be said for systems that are inherently robust and hard to screw up, considering the realities of politics. Increasing the minimum wage is very, very robust.

It's a system with a clear benefit, that is hard to corrupt, hard to use as a tool of oppression, hard to work around, and hard to roll-back, and actually accomplishes increasing opportunities for social mobility without doing much to hide any remaining problems.

It may not be perfect, but its hard to think of it as a bad thing.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Hidden costs, my boy! Such as not being able to work anymore at 30 because of a minor, easily treatable infection.

Yeah, but hidden societal costs don't factor into personal monthly rent. And you'd be surprised what people would work through when the alternative is considered. Hell, I'm only just in college and I forced myself to class during three weeks of pneumonia and severe coughing fits. Even though I had insurance. And could have just gone to the doctor and gotten an exception. But didn't. Because I'm a stubborn bastard. My point is that the culture over here tends to not recognize "not able to work" for anything less than immediately life-threatening injuries.

Actually, with minimum wage you'll have zero insurance costs, as a consequence of not having insurance.

This is illegal now!

Actually, no, it's still legal. There's just a small fine that costs way less than insurance, and doesn't give you any insurance.

[GlyphGryph]

That means it is illegal, just like speeding.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That doesn't mean it is illegal. It means there is a tax penalty. That doesn't make something illegal, it's just a financial disincentive, and a pretty shitty one. This stupid developing semantics debate aside, the the point is that the uninsured are going to continue to be a big thing into the foreseeable future.

[Sheb]

The fine may be low, but is set to raise until 2016 to a more sizeable chunk of cash. But aren't minimum-wage people covered by medicaid anyway?

[GlyphGryph]

The fine may be low, but is set to raise until 2016 to a more sizeable chunk of cash. But aren't minimum-wage people covered by medicaid anyway?

If you're lucky! Not if you're not lucky.

[Sheb]

What do you mean?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If they all were on Medicaid, do you think this would be an issue in the first place? You can't just be poor to get Medicaid. Qualifying, and continuously qualifying, is notoriously difficult. In addition, I've heard people say fairly often that Medicaid's benefits are only marginally superior to not having coverage, though I can't verify that.

And, of course, there are few programs fiscal conservatives like to cut to ribbons more than Medicaid.

[GlyphGryph]

To give you an idea:

The federal government tried to give the states large amounts of money to expand their medicaid programs and make qualifying easier.

Several states refused this money. Not even because they cared that they'd have to chip in 10%, but because they think expanding medicaid is wrong (I won't go into why).

If you live in one of those states, well... you're not one of the lucky ones, most likely

[Frumple]

Hell, minimum wage nothing, zero income folks can fail to qualify for medicaid. It's not the easiest program to get in to, to say the least. It's pretty easy to lose access to these programs, as well. If you want to see the shitty implementation of a welfare system, come on over. We've got oodles of examples.

[SalmonGod]

My kids are on Medicaid, and we've had a few scares over the years where we thought they'd lost that coverage.  It does pay for 100% of their healthcare.  I have no idea how it covers adults.

And yeah... some people who work at the welfare office do talk down to you.  They'll ask personal questions that aren't a part of the process and try to pick apart your life.  They'll lose your paperwork and lie to you.  All that stuff.

And I live in one of those states that refused the Medicaid expansion.  In fact, and I think I posted about this further up in the thread, they went the opposite direction.  They refused the funding to expand Medicaid, and responded to the offer by reducing access to Medicaid, while opening up an alternative program that's completely worthless.