The poverty level for a family of 4 with two kids is 21,000. Children under 18 qualify for medicaid when the household income is 133% of the poverty level. So….. the waitress by profession is taking advantage not claiming tips so the kids can get health care… Maybe she’ll go join the other 1:100 people in jail!!! LOL!!!

“Failing to provide opportunities to those most lacking in resources is also wrong…and it often leads to a lack of education and therefore a susceptibility to participating in crimes that are driven by poverty.”

How would you know? I mean seriously. How? I mean, you obviously like to point out my lack of reading comprehension and incapable analysis of your terse diatribes of Bush’s legacy. But shit I made it and I am fucking stupid.

With all do respect to Tyson, who’s expertise in Economics far exceeds anyone… the hypothetical, $26000 family with two children argument is bullshit. The waitress would most likely be the single wage earner and the father would be incapacitated in some fashion. (more on that in a second) That is assuming the waitress is reporting all over her tips to the IRS. In that profession, it is unlikely the waitress is so she is taking advantage of the system.

And as far as taxes are concerned. This is what the biweekly pay of 26,000 annual income employee looks like with 3 dependents:

Your Pay Check Results

Bi-weekly Gross Pay
$1,000.00

Federal Withholding
$59.42

Social Security
$62.00

Medicare
$14.50

Net Pay
$864.08

Calculation Based On

Tax Year
2008

Gross Pay
$26,000.00

Pay Frequency
Bi-weekly

Federal Filing Status
Head of Household

# of Federal Exemptions
3

Additional Federal W/H
$0.00

Now… On April 15th, this wage earner files taxes and with those two kids probably gets the bulk of fed taxes she pays back. Because if the Dad isn’t working or is… some one has to be watching those kids and if not the government probably subsidizes her kid’s daycare especially if the kids need it for her to work since she makes far below the federal max income for dependent care. So yours and Ms. Tyson’s $20 savings is moot. This lady gets benefits that far and away exceed any taxpayer up the chain, which the middle class person on up to that $915,000 wage earner pay for. You and Ms Tyson are worried about a whopping $20 bucks. Big whoop! She gets a helping hand elsewhere so Alice can work. (Not to mention cash tips)

But in this hypothetical argument, where is Dad? If he is in jail then i feel sorry for the mom working so hard. But I got to say at 26K someone here is working hard and some is sitting at home playing Xbox with their thumb up there ass and doesn’t deserve a tax break. Or they have a drug problem… and who’s fault is that? The government’s?

In further research here, I found that Tyson worked for the Clinton Administration and in London which means she is already well schooled on socialism and is seeking quietly to impose that on us here.

So… my suggestion Danny is the following. Ask the next administration to stop defending the world (Europe, the Far East, Africa) from rogue nations and terrorism. Hell, pull our troops out of Europe and Korea and Japan, close the bases… bring all those boys home (to wait alongside their fellow Americans unemployment lines because all those people who work in supporting the department of defense… like those at Ford and GM would be out of work too) then raise taxes on whom ever has a job. By your thinking, you would have a glut of money to not only pay for all the unemployment our nation would have but a helluva nice health care proposal right before our nation turned to shit from our diminished power in the world and fuel that costs 8 bucks a gallon at the pump instead of 3.50.

Better yet, why don’t you ask France and Germany and Korea and Japan to pony up and pay for our health care while we continue to defend them from the evil communists?

“Spending on the state’s landmark health insurance initiative would rise by more than $400 million next year, representing one of the largest increases in the $28.2 billion state budget the governor proposed yesterday”

“But the long-term cost of the insurance initiative continues to concern pol icy makers and analysts, who are worried that it may become unaffordable.

“These increases are more than anticipated, so we absolutely have to find ways to hold down the rate of growth in future years,” said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-funded budget watchdog that has supported the initiative.

This year the state is expected to exceed the initial budget for the health insurance initiative by about $245 million, and next year’s budget would boost spending by another $400 million.”

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2008/01/24/cost_of_health_initiative_up_400m/

And from this article:

http://boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/03/subsidized_care_plans_cost_to_double/

“Subsidized care plan’s cost to double
Enrollment is outstripping state’s estimate

Globe Staff / February 3, 2008
The subsidized insurance program at the heart of the state’s healthcare initiative is expected to roughly double in size and expense over the next three years - an unexpected level of growth that could cost state taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars or force the state to scale back its ambitions.”

“Even with federal backing, the state may not be able to afford the insurance initiative as designed, because the law did not make any attempt to trim wasteful health spending, said Alan Sager, a Boston University professor who specializes in healthcare costs.”

“In a statement, however, the governor’s spokesman, Joseph Landolfi, said, “It is clear that paying for healthcare reform will pose a much greater fiscal challenge than was anticipated by the previous administration. ”

Beware of costs estimated by government, they are usually wrong to the downside.

“So in the course of 20 years, we have increased our annual corrections spending by a whopping $38 billion dollars. That is roughly three times the projected annual cost to provide universal health care…”

I looked up the amount spent on health care currently by the feds and found this:

“The total 2008 budget for federal health care, administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, would be nearly $700 billion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, an increase of more than $28 billion over 2007. Medicare makes up 55.4 percent of the HHS budget, while Medicaid accounts for 29 percent”

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2007/02/05/hscout601658.html

If we are spending 700 billion on current health care programs that cover only a relatively small portion of the population, how could 38 billion be 3 times the projected cost of providing health care to 100% of the population.

Perhaps I misunderstood your point but I am curious as to where you get projected cost of universal health care at 12 or so billion a year?