She want to give 500 a month to those that make under hundred grand per year and 250 per month to those that make 50 grand or less.
Now my question is why didn’t they do that before Obamacare? Wouldn’t that been cheaper and allow the people to shop for the best insurance that represent them?
Seems to me when they did Obamacare they didn’t thought it out too well because their were better and cheaper ways of helping American people.
American families making less than $100,000 a year could be eligible for a monthly tax credit of up to $500, or $6,000 a year, under new legislation announced Thursday by Democratic U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California.
Individuals making less than $50,000 would be eligible for up to $250 a month, $3,000 a year.
I actually brought this up on other forum couple years ago.
They should have given low income families the money providing they have proof of health insurance, or to buy insurance with. It would have been cheaper then Obamacare and allowed the free market to exist.
Whether they put part of that money in catastrophic insurance and rest in health saving account. It would have been much better then what we have now.
I agree with the fact that the ACA tried to do way too much in a short period of time.
I would have preferred that they would have started with certain insurance reforms that would have been better supported by the insurance companies.
I hear what you are saying and agree that your idea has merritt. But it would have not helped those who were not insured.
A good Progressive would be giving $500 to those who make under $50K, and only $250 to those from $50K-100K.
Why not simply cut the lower-tier tax rates?
Damn, I wish our pols would start talking about cutting spending instead of shrinking an already-inadequate revenue stream…
But for what it’s worth, this is a rather simple and broad tax cut proposal. No special interests. No complications. No conditions (other than income levels.) Straightforward. If there has to be a tax cut, I could get behind this.