Still on COBRA huh?
No, I'm not. Why do you keep assuming to know so much about me and my family, and then casting aspersions based on your assumptions?
But if I was qualified for one, I would absolutely take it. Why wouldn't I follow the tax laws as written? Do you also only take one child tax credit if you're legally entitled to two, just because your children aren't literally starving? Do you pay more income tax than required? Do you turn down the tax exemption on your 401k because your 401k is already flush?
Those are the same old worn out arguments that were used earlier in this discussion - maybe in this very thread.
By "old and worn out" do you mean "ignored and unrefuted"?
The tax code is very clear in this case. Some people get health insurance subsidies and some people don't. Why would you try to convince someone who does get subsidies that they shouldn't accept them? Would you tell a homeless person not to apply for free housing? An unemployed person not to collect unemployment? We have these things for a reason. They are meant to help people. Why are you trying to prevent people from being helped?
Taking advantage of the handout meant for the poor by manipulating your income to appear "poor" when you are not is what is unethical. That doesn't make you poor.
I agree it doesn't make you poor as judged by my standards, but it absolutely does make you poor as judged by the tax code. Just because I
feel wealthy on minimal income doesn't mean I have to pay taxes like a wealthy person. This is a simple matter of math. We don't need to argue about how poor you feel or don't, we only need to follow with the law. I am suggesting we follow it, and you are suggesting we should not.
So, businesses take advantage of loop holes in tax laws, so it's ok for you, too, to take advantage of the law to take benefits meant for the poor?
If by "take advantage" you mean "comply with the law" then yes, I absolutely believe it is ethical for poor people to receive the benefits the law entitles them to receive. Apparently you don't, for some reason?
If you think we should lower the threshold for how poor a person should be before they receive subsidized healthcare, that's a fine argument to make. Maybe nobody who owns a home should get a subsidy? Maybe nobody who isn't disabled? Please, go try to convince congress of the changes you believe in. In the meantime, the rest of us are going to follow the laws that congress has passed.
When I worked with people with disabilities each counselor had a pot of money to spend for the year. You had to figure out how to help 100 clients. It wasn’t divided evenly as each client had different needs to get back to work. It was never enough. If you ran out of money there was no more until the new fiscal year.
Cassie, that sounds like a really shitty way to organize disability payments. Fortunately, the ACA isn't structured that way at all.