First off, I’m not sure that Maryland’s program is typical; are you suggesting that it is? It looks more generous to me than the standards offered on the linked page. Second, when you’re supporting a family of four on $35,000 annually, 1.8% of your budget can look a heckuva lot bigger than 6% of your budget if your budget is much larger.
Daniel
The proposal was, “Take the big money out of politics by pushing for clean elections legislation.” I would infer that means real campaign-finance reform, and it’s about frackin’ time.
Is “real campaign-finance reform” any less vague than what he said? I’m in favor of CFR, but I acknowledge that it’s very difficult to devise proposals that don’t open up more loopholes. Without a specific proposal, I think this item is worthless.
Daniel
I don’t know how typical Maryland is, so I used the scientific method of asking 5 people at the grocery store to “name a state” in order to get a random selection to check. Discounting the two people who said “Chicago” (really), I wound up with California, Iowa, North Carolina, Florida and Illinois. I followed the links to the state web pages from the link that you supplied, and it appears that Io, NC,Fl and Il all have a tiered system, although the specifics differ from state to state. (Some states require co pays for services from those in the higher part of the qualifying bracket with no co pays for those in the lower part, other do like Maryland and simply charge a monthly fee to the higher end of the bracket while offering free coverage for those in the lower). California’s web page is a dreadful mess, I couldn’t figure out weather they did or didn’t offer tiered coverage so I’ll have to count them as a “no” for the moment. Including Maryland in the sample size, we have 5 out of 6 states that do offer tiered coverage, so I’ll have to say that “yes”, Maryland is typical. Every other state is linked from your page, if you want a more exhaustive analysis the tools are in your hands to undertake one.
Dude, get real. We’re talking $500 per year for families making $40K. What’s more important than the health of your children? What should have a higher priority than that? Food, shelter and clothing is all I can come up with off the top of my head, although I will allow transportation as an item of equal importance because it may be necessary for employment.
I agree that health is going to be fifth in priority behind the things you mentioned; how easy do you think it is to provide these five things for a family of four on an income of $35K? (and I’m a little confused by the income-creep: didn’t we start at 34K and keep moving up?)
Daniel
Oh, and to keep the figures straight, 1.8% of 40,000 is $720, not $500. It seems to me that a family living off 40K a year doesn’t have much in the way of discretionary spending–but then, I’m not supporting a family of 4 off this so I’m not sure.
(I don’t consider this a hijack; indeed, such bread-and-butter issues are, I think, Democratic strengths).
Daniel
With all respect, that might be because you haven’t thought it through. There are some things that are neccesary for the community but aren’t affordable on an individual level, as well as other programs that are more effective to pay for on a group level rather than individually.
In other words, we need an army, we need public roads, we need cops, firemen, it’s handy to have things like a public library, the National Weather Service, the CDC, the FCC, etc.
Of course, all of these things probably could be privatized, but I can’t think that’s a good idea. I could go into why I don’t think so, if you want. So, now, assuming you have a government that provides those services, it then has to fund them, which means some kind of taxation is neccesary. And in effect, taxation is the government deciding it has the right to decide how to spend some of your money…more right than you do, because if you don’t pay, they’re going to take it anyway and throw you to jail. And considering we need to have a government, one that is “determined by regular elections in a representative democracy, limited by a constitution that protects the rights of the minority” has worked pretty well for us so far, and, in my opinion, at least, is better than the other kinds of government that have been tried.
The fault is mine. I understand math, and I can do math, but it takes a little bit of effort, it’s not a natural thing with me like it is with someone like RTFirefly, and thus I don’t like math. This means I have a tendency to let the numbers get fuzzy. The original 1.3% came from figuring the cost per year to insure their children ($492) for a family of four making just one dollar over the minimum required to qualify for free health insurance for their children under the MCHIP($37,701). 1.3% is actually $490.11, close that’s enough, dontcha think? I meant to say “making almost $40K” in my last post, but I left out the “almost”. Apologies.
I was gonna say aw contrare, but I can’t spell it. 
Actually I have thought it through, and I’m not sure you have. I fully accept that there are services of the type that you mentioned that individuals can’t pay for on their own, and thus taxes are a necessary evil (that sound you hear is my inner libertarian screaming in pain). What I don’t accept is that the government knows better than me how to spend my money. I pay my taxes(do I have a choice?), and as long as that money goes for police, fire, the army, etc…, I’m ok with that. I’m getting something from the exchange, and so is everyone(key word-EVERYONE) else.
BUT
Baltimore City just awarded a contract to build public housing, and one of the requirements placed upon the contractor was that the entire thing be outfitted for Wi-Fi internet access. WTF? This is housing provided for the poor ( a component of the social safety net, one of those necessary programs that my taxes pay for). Let me be clear here. This is housing provided on my dime for people who can’t or won’t pay for their own housing, and these people are being given, free of charge, a service that I would have to spend $60/month( the current Verizon rate for Wi-Fi ) for if I wanted it. And I’m paying for it. Why? All because some government bureaucrat decided that s/he could spend my money better than I could, and the thing they chose to spend it on is a non essential thing that I would have to pay for myself if I wanted to have it. The list goes on. The war on drugs is billions of dollars flushed down a useless rat hole each year. So are social security payments to wealthy retirees. Some of you would put the cost of the Iraq war in that category. The entire omnibus farm bill each year should be hanged by the neck until dead, then it should be burned, it’s ashes buried, and salt sewn on the earth so that nothing ever grows there again. As I said, the list goes on. And all of it stems from the idea that the government knows better than the individual how to spend his or her money. I say no, no, a thousand times no! All of us pay for vital basic public services? (things that benefit the public as a whole) Fine. I like that. I can support that. Redistributing my money to people who don’t have enough of their own for luxury items simply because they can? That will NEVER be an acceptable philosophy to me.
Quick question, which I’m not sure of the answer. Where do you suppose the government spends more of your hard earned money, programs helping the poor or government waste and corporate welfare?
I’m not sure, but I don’t like either(I’m pro business, but businesses should compete just like everyone else). Let me amend that. I don’t mind programs that help the truly needy. What I object to is programs that say “we’re going to give the needy the same standard of living that the working enjoy, and the working are going to pay for it”. Fuck. That.