vyshka
5188
Possibly a response to folks saying the GOP was to the left of the Dems since Romney suggested $1k.
ShivaX
5189
I’m sure there are enough people like this that even a vaccine wont save us.
Nesrie
5192
I’ll do better tomorrow!
Why would someone require auths to leave a hospital? It’s not a prison. You can leave against medical advice, and that’s not about insurance. Providers discharge…you don’t really call insurance companies and ask them if it’s okay if their patient goes home now.
Maybe this is about in home care or something…
ShivaX
5193
No idea. Some of the responses seem to indicate it’s fairly common.
I assume it’s one of those things where you can just leave, but then the insurance pulls some bullshit and says they’re not paying for anything?
Edit: Actually re-reading it and some of the replies, I think it’s this:
These are patients who need care, but they’re waiting on insurance companies to give prior authorization for said care. So… they’re just sitting there in rooms. Waiting for insurance to approve the procedures they need. They need said procedures so they can’t just “go home” or whatever.
Which is 100% in line with how insurance companies do shit. They need to approve everything that happens or they wont pay for it. Hell, they’ll change their mind after the fact and try to not pay for it. They did that after my step-father died. They went back in time and un-approved shit they approved. My mother worked in a hospital and in private practice for decades and was almost overwhelmed by it (she spent about 4+ hours a day for most of a week on the phone trying to fix this particular incident), she couldn’t even fathom how people who didn’t have her expertise dealt with it. She didn’t like my answer of “they don’t, they’re fucked”. Because socialism or whatever.
Nesrie
5194
Okay that does make more sense, but that is one of the oddest ways of stating someone is waiting for an auth to get a procedure done… which is still a little odd because you often get auths before someone is admitted not after. Maybe they came thru the ED or ran into something unexpected whIle doing something else…who knows but ah yeah shouldn’t ever need an auth to just get up and leave.
If this was more than just empty words (like in the case with the “sub” he built for the boys), he would already have converted or be in the process of converting some production to ventilators.
Just a cynical attempt to get some PR. Again.
ShivaX
5196
I agree.
But it’s also Elon Musk, so it’s entirely possible he didn’t know on top of it. Because Elon Musk.
Seems to me the simplest solution would be to give it to all people who earn under a certain figure, e.g. $50k.
If the renter doesn’t pay, who pays the landlord’s bills?
I know most/many/at least some rental agreements have the tenant pay the council tax, and bills, but some don’t…
Actually, I am happy Elon doesn’t read newspapers.
Most news media is not worth it’s name, overblown sensationalism.
However, if you have him offering his factory capacity like this, that seems to me, n the face of it, a really awesome thing.
edit: Yeah I’d forgotten about the sub!
KevinC
5200
It isn’t. What if that person making $50k loses their job next month or the month after? Why does someone making $49k while living at home with their parents in Wyoming need it while the person making $52k that is taking care of a disabled child in NYC does not, especially when their child can no longer get care and they will need to cut hours in the coming month? Okay, so lets do a formula for cost of living. And let’s add some rules about being able to get these checks if your hours get cut or you lose your job in the next couple months. Also, we need a credit for dependents and medical needs. Now we have to argue about all these things, haggle over the details, institute s bureaucracy to oversee it and prevent fraudulent claims which also delays things, requires people file paperwork and wait for processing, etc.
Just send the damn check before we have people starving for a month. Even if someone gets a check that doesn’t “need” it, our entire economy is built around consumer spending. If they don’t need it and feel like they have high job security it will be spent which goes right back into the economy and to the government via tax receipts.
That sounds reasonable…until you have to design an incredibly precise law that defines exactly what “earn” means, and from what time period. Then you have to hire staff to determine who gets a check based on the law, and then set up an appeals process for all the people who are borderline, and enforcement staff to claw back refunds from people who are improperly paid, and is it really fair that the guy who inherited a bunch of money from his rich uncle and so has $0 in income and sits around smoking weed all day gets a check, but the guy with two kids who works hard for $53k a year doesn’t get one, and on and on…
Nah. Just pay everyone, and take it off next year’s refund.
I’d like to argue this with you, but your reasoning seems pretty solid to me.
details matter, massively, and defining stuff is…challenging.
My main concern is that giving this to everyone means those who have, get more, which is hardly needed.
But I don’t currently see any other way to give it out.
All very very good points.
I would ask then, what would the criteria be for rolling out UBI, assuming no pressure unlike now?
One proposal I have seen, for the UK, was to roll together the existing welfare budget, take out the disability and carer sections (ring fence them) and then redistribute that to everyone, except those who are already higher rate tax payers.
So the criteria is how mnuch tax you pay.
IN the UK, above £40,000 means you pay 40%
Upto £12500 you pay 0% tax (but pay national insurance contributions) then upto £20,000 (?) you pay 10%.
So the basic idea was to pay evryone, say £400 a month, but reduce this depending on tax bracket.
So if you are in tax bracket 0, you get £400. If you are in tax bracket 1, you get £300, Paying 20% tax, then you get to £200, etc etc.
The idea being that the pay upgrade you get when you move up a tax bracket more than offsets the loss of UBI, so you are incentivised to work/earn more.
Is that feasible in the USA, at the best of times. Is it feasible now?
I think in the US the UBI proposals are for zero means testing, with those in higher incomes also getting it. Who cares, they will pay the taxes elsewhere - it has to be funded by higher income, property and estate taxes.
Isn’t it simpler just to add UBI to income to calculate tax?
If you make under 12k you get all of it, if you make over 40k you get 60% of it…
Maybe it is.
Could work.
I don’t know. I honestly don’t.
Like all good sounding ideas, the devil is in the detail.
I’m likely to be in the same boat. It’s hat time of year and I am starting to feel it.
