Support NeoGAF

[fester]

I pay $60 a month on health care. That doesn't add up to $5,000.

You don't seem to understand how the current system works. Your company is paying a huge portion of your bill right now. Sign up for COBRA sometime after switching jobs and you'll see the real cost of that plan.

 

[noshten]

I love the rich people in this thread with thousands of dollars laying around going "Sounds good to me" and then talking about the selfishness of others.

How about the people who can't afford health care,the homeless, the unemployable, the people working and still being underinsured to whom every vistit to the doctor leads to risk of not being able to pay all your bills - while we are on the topic of those who can't even get a good insurance because they are illegal or ex-cons:



Study: Obamacare Hasn't Solved Health Care Disparities

President Barack Obama's health care law made historic headway in boosting health insurance coverage, but a new report finds that families still face racial and socioeconomic disparities – even if they are insured.

The report, released by the Alliance for a Just Society, is the result of a yearlong study that included a survey of 1,200 low-income people in 10 states and was conducted in Spanish, Cantonese and English. It found that people of color, families in rural communities and those with language and cultural barriers still struggle to get health care and pay for it.

The Affordable Care Act increased insurance availability for the poor by expanding Medicaid eligibility to more people based on their income level. The law originally intended for all states to expand Medicaid, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that states could choose not to do so. Twenty-two states currently have not expanded the program.

[MORE: Is Obamacare Behind Health Improvements, Job Growth?]

The lack of Medicaid expansion in some states has contributed to costs being a barrier to insurance coverage for some, Gary Delgado, author of the report and a visiting scholar at the University of California-Berkeley's Institute for the Study of Social Change, said in a call with reporters Thursday.

He noted, however, that cost was a struggle even in states that expanded Medicaid, where insurance premiums paid by people every month can be high.

"While the racial barriers are significant, the biggest barrier for enrollment for people of color was premium cost," he said.

Language and Immigration Barriers

Latinos have the highest rate of uninsurance of all ethnic groups in the U.S., and government health care agencies have poured resources into efforts encouraging them to enroll in tax-subsidized coverage through the health care law. But a report released in late March showed that despite this aggressive outreach, 1 in 4 Latinos hadn't heard of Obamacare's health care exchanges.
Respondents in the study also reported that they were unable to enroll in their own language. The survey found 13.3 percent of Latino respondents and 22.2 percent of Native Hawaiian or Asian-Pacific Islanders who did not speak English at home were unable to do so.

Even among those who did sign up for health insurance, many did not understand what services were included in their plan and did not know about what financial support was available.

http://www.usnews.com/cmsmedia/d2/2...23ee8ed28/150409-financialsupport-graphic.JPG
Survey participants responded to whether they were informed that financial support was available for low-income people.

Many Latino participants also expressed a reluctance to enroll in coverage for fear of endangering the status of family members who may be in the country without legal documentation. The health care law does not allow people who are in the country illegally to enroll in coverage through the marketplaces.

Health Disparities

The health care law aims not only to expand insurance coverage, but to improve the quality of care people receive. Survey results showed numerous differences in the types of care people turn to among different racial groups. For example, many still use their local emergency department for care and do not have a personal doctor.

The survey also found that 25.2 percent of Latinos haven't seen a doctor in a year, compared with 17.9 percent of whites.

Survey respondents who reported having a personal doctor, by race:

“We’re still not serving people of color," Delgado said. "We need to build a more inclusive health care system.”

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/da...bamacare-hasnt-solved-health-care-disparities

 

[ugaboga232]

I don't get your analogy, but I'd imagine the very large majority of people (men especially), do not go to the doctor at all or have any health care costs in most years. Certainly nothing approaching that cost. I've been to the doctor twice in the last 5 years and it was just for a check up and to get a consult on a wrist injury that I later had an x-ray on. Most families without children probably have very little to no healthcare costs during most years.

Even at my old job where I paid a lot more than my employer provided health care, I was spending something like $150 a month on my health insurance which would be $1,800. There are very few scenarios where a healthy person could approach anything resembling a benefit from this. It's a hard sell even for Democrats.

This is how universal healthcare works, you spread the risk around. A lot of people are lucky and don't have any problems that require healthcare spending. This costs us a ton in the long run as small chronic problems end up costing us a ton more. Just because people are underinsured now and may have to pay more doesn't mean its a good thing to be underinsured.

 

[Euphoria14]

Even if that was true, do you really think most people who make 34k to 64k can afford a additional $5,000 bill? (If I'm reading that chart correctly) That seems like a selfishly crazy idea to believe.

Never did I think I would be at the at the point where people thought I made too much and should share it with everyone else.

Even though I donate and help charitable causes all the time if I can.

I was there once.

 

[boiled goose]

For those making 100k plus. Remember the median income is like 30k. Income inequality has devastated this country.

But yeah... keep complaining about having to see homeless people in SF.

This is progressive. Dont like it? Well, this is why rich people are generally conservative.
Now you know why people say Bernie is progressive when Hillary isn't.

If you make 100k a year by Many metrics you are rich.

 

[Lothar]

Rich people willing to pay more so that their fellow Americans can have a better shot at healthcare and education? You'd have to contort reality in a ridiculous way to reach your conclusion.

And yeah, you can lump me in with those "rich bastards" who say they'd be willing to pay more taxes to ensure their kids don't have to worry about corporate-sponsored healthcare anymore.

Rich people who think that because they can afford to pay, anybody can afford to pay. Someone who makes 40k should pay an additional 5k in taxes, no problem at all. If it is a problem, they'll just have to accept the burn. That's extremely selfish thinking.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

Hillary ain't gettin shit done with those hikes

Agreed. Bernie hikes seem too much. And Hilary's are pathetic. Need a better middle ground.

 

[boiled goose]

Rich people who think that because they can afford to pay, anybody can afford to pay. Someone who makes 40k should pay an additional 5k in taxes, no problem at all. If it is a problem, they'll just have to accept the burn. That's extremely selfish thinking.

4k is probably what you pay for health insurance anyway.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Video about wealth inequality in america: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Its going to fall apart eventually.

 

[ugaboga232]

Rich people who think that because they can afford to pay, anybody can afford to pay. Someone who makes 40k should pay an additional 5k in taxes, no problem at all. If it is a problem, they'll just have to accept the burn. That's extremely selfish thinking.

There is no way someone making 40k will get 5k in taxes with sanders's plan (2.2% income tax and 6.5% payroll does not make ~13% in tax) and for the average family at 40k they will save money on healthcare.

 

[besada]

For those making 100k plus. Remember the median income is like 30k. Income inequality has devastated this country.

Median household income is about $52K.

 

[boiled goose]

Rich people who think that because they can afford to pay, anybody can afford to pay. Someone who makes 40k should pay an additional 5k in taxes, no problem at all. If it is a problem, they'll just have to accept the burn. That's extremely selfish thinking.

4k is probably what you pay for health insurance anyway.

Agreed. Bernie hikes seem too much. And Hilary's are pathetic. Need a better middle ground.

Guess what happens in negotiations. Middle ground. Starting from Hillary's you will get less than the initial offer.

Those increases for the 1 percent are pathetic.

Median household income is about $52K.

Household. Thanks for clarification tho. Was picking a generous guestimate for individuals

 

[Euphoria14]

Beautiful.

I wonder where he gets his $90,000 figure from. Local college doesn't cost $90,000 for a 4 year degree on just tuition costs. Everyone conveniently forgets tuition cost is only a part of college costs.

I love on Long Island and Stony Brook wouldn't even cost me half of that. I believe it would be around $7,000/year.

These free tuitions with Bernie don't cover the extra costs either. I think for Stony Brook it would be around $2,500/year you would still be on the hook for, so no, the math doesn't add up for me no matter how much he thinks it does.

 

[God Dayumm]

Agreed. Bernie hikes seem too much. And Hilary's are pathetic. Need a better middle ground.

Or maybe she has devised a better strategy at managing a government and a budget

 

[Meier]

This is how universal healthcare works, you spread the risk around. A lot of people are lucky and don't have any problems that require healthcare spending. This costs us a ton in the long run as small chronic problems end up costing us a ton more. Just because people are underinsured now and may have to pay more doesn't mean its a good thing to be underinsured.

The concept is wonderful but you're going to find that the vast majority will see little to no benefit at all but then be out a significant amount of money. With a significant portion of the country already opposed to anything resembling universal healthcare, how will you expect to sell them on huge increases in their tax burden let alone your own supporters? It's far too drastic and not a feasible scenario.

 

[Striek]

Judging by the reactions ITT Americans poor and middle class deserve what they've gotten over the past few decades. Damn. People arguing against their own self-interests, doesn't gaf like to argue thats a white-trash republican move?

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I would be alright with this, but apparently it's not the time for things that should be a right, but soon maybe? Please?

 

[ugaboga232]

The concept is wonderful but you're going to find that the vast majority will see little to no benefit at all but then be out a significant amount of money. With a significant portion of the country already opposed to anything resembling universal healthcare, how will you expect to sell them on huge increases in their tax burden let alone your own supporters? It's far too drastic and not a feasible scenario.

Most people would save a lot of money but yea its politically unfeasible for other reasons.

 

[silvermember]

Well yea hes not even gonna get the nomination and the political atmosphere is a whole other ball game which i 100% agree with you.

What you said might be true, the problem is that a lot of progressives tend to ignore the general election aspect of the nomination. You want someone who can win, you don't want someone whose plan requires far too much explanation to a country full of dumb people and political instability.

You don't seem to understand how the current system works. Your company is paying a huge portion of your bill right now. Sign up for COBRA sometime after switching jobs and you'll see the real cost of that plan.

What you say is true, IF companies used the savings to increase each employee's salary. In the real world, we know that will NEVER EVER happen.

The point being his concern is valid.

 

[besada]

I wonder where he gets his $90,000 figure from.

You could ask. It's an average involving local, out of state, and private universities.

The average for public, in-state universities is a little over $9K a year. So you'd be looking at something closer to $36K a year, if your kids only go to a local state school. I didn't want to presume on your children's future abilities, so I picked an average of the three.

 

[superdeluxe]

If you have a family you are paying around that much in healthcare already...

Not if you have a good insurance plan. Not everyone has insurance plans that costs 10k a year.

 

[ugaboga232]

What you said might be true, the problem is that a lot of progressives tend to ignore the general election aspect of the nomination. You want someone who can win, you don't want someone whose plan requires far too much explanation to a country full of dumb people and political instability.



What you say is true, IF companies used the savings to increase each employee's salary. In the real world, we know that will NEVER EVER happen.

The point being his concern is valid.

To be fair sanders would probably beat trump in a general but thats a pipe dream. As for passing on savings, you should probably cite a paper if you say its never ever going to happen.

Not if you have a good insurance plan. Not everyone has insurance plans that costs 10k a year.

Not everyone has a good plan and good plans come out of your salary so you are paying for it anyway.

 

[Real Hero]

I would be alright with this, but apparently it's not the time for things that should be a right, but soon maybe? Please?

Now or never

 

[A Penguin]

For those making 100k plus. Remember the median income is like 30k. Income inequality has devastated this country.

But yeah... keep complaining about having to see homeless people in SF.

This is progressive. Dont like it? Well, this is why rich people are generally conservative.
Now you know why people say Bernie is progressive when Hillary isn't.

If you make 100k a year by Many metrics you are rich.

It's all relative. 100k in NYC or SF isn't rich at all.

 

[Timeaisis]

$9 grand a year extra for $100K households. Holy hell. $100K isn't huge for a family living in a metropolitan area. This would really lower their standard of living quite a bit.

 

[James93]

Those hikes are crazy. Another 5k on a person making 60,000 a year and 9k on 100k. Thats just insane to be thinking of. I can only speak for my self but i would half to reduce my living conditions if my taxes went up another 200 dollars a month. I highly doubt my employer is going to write me a check for 10k because they aren't spending that on my healthcare anymore.

 

[JesseEwiak]

It's all relative. 100k in NYC or SF isn't rich at all.

Yes, it still is. Average median household income in 63k in NYC & SF. That means nearly half the households lives off less than 1/2 of 100k.

 

[JohnsonUT]

I wonder where he gets his $90,000 figure from. Local college doesn't cost $90,000 for a 4 year degree on just tuition costs. Everyone conveniently forgets tuition cost is only a part of college costs.

I love on Long Island and Stony Brook wouldn't even cost me half of that. I believe it would be around $7,000/year.

These free tuitions with Bernie don't cover the extra costs either. I think for Stony Brook it would be around $2,500/year you would still be on the hook for, so no, the math doesn't add up for me no matter how much he thinks it does.

Change the 90k figure to 10k in his post and it is still beautiful. You are focused on the tuition, but the health care is a much, much bigger deal.

 

[Timeaisis]

Yes, it still is. Average median household income in 63k in NYC & SF. That means nearly half the households lives off less than 1/2 of 100k.

And in this scenario those people would be out $4 grand more a year. Any way you slice it is bad. Lower middle gets screwed, upper middle gets screwed, etc. etc.

 

[ugaboga232]

And in this scenario those people would be out $4 grand more a year. Any way you slice it is bad. Lower middle gets screwed, upper middle gets screwed, etc. etc.

And you get a ton of benefits which make it probably a wash for some and a net benefit for others.

 

[A Penguin]

Yes, it still is. Average median household income in 63k in NYC & SF. That means nearly half the households lives off less than 1/2 of 100k.

And therin lies the problem with somewhere like SF. Median incomes there don't necessarily mean a median quality of life relative to the rest of the nation.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

i mean it would suck for me.

Being out of college with my loans already paid off and im pretty healthy and dont need to go to the doctor as much. I already 1196/yr in Insurance a year through my work and they wont pass on the savings of not having to provide HC if we get it through the state.

I would just be paying more for everyone else to reap :/

im only 29.

You do realize you wouldn't be paying for insurance and neither would your employer, as it would be government provided, right? There would be no 1196/yr charge

 

[JesseEwiak]

And in this scenario those people would be out $4 grand more a year. Any way you slice it is bad. Lower middle gets screwed, upper middle gets screwed, etc. etc.

I don't disagree with that, but I am tired of this bullshit argument that 100k for a household doesn't put you in the top 20-30% of the population even in the most expensive cities. You're not poor or even middle class if your household income is 100k - your upper middle class at worst.

 

[damisa]

As for passing on savings, you should probably cite a paper if you say its never ever going to happen.

Republicans have cut taxes for years for corporations and none of that money found it's way to their employees, the companies health care savings won't either

Hoping for companies to pay more to attract employees is basically the same as believing in "trickle down economics"

Basically every middle class person with employer based health care will be screwed

 

[Azzanadra]

This is the right thing to do, I support it. Bernie is enlightening the backwards America with socialism, and it shall be glorious. I know GAF hates income equality (as observed by the support of Clinton, another establishment puppet who gives a fig for the poor/middle class) but trust me when I say that this can only be a good thing. Look at the best countries in the world, they aren't greed-driven capitalistic societies where abuse of the lower classes is acceptable, its countries like Canada and the Nordic countries that have such tax policies.

America needs to change, Bernie is going to drag it kick and screaming to modern civilization. The transition will not be without pain, but its the ultimate good before America collapses in on itself.

 

[ugaboga232]

Republicans have cut taxes for years for corporations and none of that money found it's way to their employees, the companies health care savings won't either

Hoping for companies to pay more to attract employees is basically the same as believing in "trickle down economics"

Basically every middle class person with employer based health care will be screwed

Very different, that doesn't change the marginal tax on labor. That is easy to show with basic econ equations. Reducing healthcare spending per employee is different than income or corporate tax rate changes.

 

[Meier]

Most people would save a lot of money but yea its politically unfeasible for other reasons.

That seems really difficult for me to believe. Look at this stat from 2013:

Since 1970, the portion of U.S. households that include families with two married parents and children fell by half, from 40 percent to 20 percent last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

"That's at a historic low," Jonathan Vespa, one of the report's co-authors and a researcher in the Census Bureau's Fertility and Family Statistics Branch, told Reuters on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, the number of single-person households grew from 17 percent in 1970 to nearly 28 percent in 2012, according to the Census' report.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-families-idUSBRE97Q0TJ20130827

If you don't have children, your health costs (out of pocket and whatever you see out of your pay check) are almost always going to be very low because frankly you just don't go to the doctor much. With only 20% of households having two parents and at least one child, I can't really envision that most people would save a lot of money.That doesn't seem feasible from really any perspective. Some people might, but most would be hit and they'd be hit hard.

 

[J-Rod]

I pay 40 bucks a month for healthcare with a $500 deductible. No way in the world would I ever vote for a 5k tax hike in exchange as a low-middle/middle-middle class household. Who knows if my employer would really make it up with a higher salary, but more concerning than that is whether my healthcare and options for it would be near the same quality as it is now.

 

[TwoDurans]

It's all relative. 100k in NYC or SF isn't rich at all.

Or LA where I live. I know a lot of people who makes six figures and can't afford a house and are paying insane monthly rent.

 

[ugaboga232]

That seems really difficult for me to believe. Look at this stat from 2013:


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-families-idUSBRE97Q0TJ20130827

If you don't have children, your health costs (out of pocket and whatever you see out of your pay check) are almost always going to be very low because frankly you just don't go to the doctor much. With only 20% of households having two parents and at least one child, I can't really envision that most people would save a lot of money.That doesn't seem feasible from really any perspective. Some people might, but most would be hit and they'd be hit hard.

Ok so you are gonna argue conjecture when I can just point to the fact that healthcare spending is way higher here than countries with universal healthcare.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

How about the people who can't afford health care,the homeless, the unemployable, the people working and still being underinsured to whom every vistit to the doctor leads to risk of not being able to pay all your bills - while we are on the topic of those who can't even get a good insurance because they are illegal or ex-cons:


Study: Obamacare Hasn't Solved Health Care Disparities


http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/da...bamacare-hasnt-solved-health-care-disparities

Those issues seem tangential and by that I mean the ones you specifically quoted (aside by the cost still being too prohibitive for some people) wouldn't necessarily be solved by universal health care.

Yes, it still is. Average median household income in 63k in NYC & SF. That means nearly half the households lives off less than 1/2 of 100k.

I don't disagree with that, but I am tired of this bullshit argument that 100k for a household doesn't put you in the top 20-30% of the population even in the most expensive cities. You're not poor or even middle class if your household income is 100k - your upper middle class at worst.

You seem to be seeing the number and ignoring everything else people are saying, not to mention completely disregarding the concept of "standard of living".

 

[Mael]

I'm not advocating for an insane raise to the minimum wage. I'm saying that a rise to the minimum, plus the fact that employers are no longer paying for your healthcare as part of your compensation, should provide enough bargaining power to justify a decent increase in wages for people in the middle class.

I understand your point plainly, I was commenting on the fact that there is a limiting factor to increasing the wages that needs to be taken into account.
Employees don't have leverage so I fail to see how they would get their raises that way.

People keep scoffing at the idea of employers passing a portion of the health insurance savings they'll realize onto their employees. Employers who want to stay competitive are going to sweeten the deal by making up for the dip in benefits with some other type of compensation. Employers who don't will struggle to compete for quality employees.

Or the employers could collude and distort the "free market" like it happened already.
Don't trust employers to not pocket the increased margin they would get.
In France we decreased the VAT for restaurant on the tacit condition that they would hire more people, lower their prices or raise their employees.
The vast majority increased their margins and the effect was pretty much null.
If there's a loophole they'll use it, they're only humans.

 

[SeanR1221]

Showed this to a few of my Bernie supporting friends and they were quick to point out its not true and those making below 250k a year won't see a difference

 

[AlphaDump]

For those making 100k plus. Remember the median income is like 30k. Income inequality has devastated this country.

But yeah... keep complaining about having to see homeless people in SF.

This is progressive. Dont like it? Well, this is why rich people are generally conservative.
Now you know why people say Bernie is progressive when Hillary isn't.

If you make 100k a year by Many metrics you are rich.

so are you spitting totally inaccurate information, which is almost double the amount you stated, and then telling everyone how entitled they are to not pay for it. Got it.


Also, not really directed at anyone, but comparing Europe and the USA is like apples and oranges. I get my social responsibility to invest back into society, but I'm all for a phased approach that reforms costs along the way. Dealing in absolutes with such bloated promises is dangerous for so many reasons.

 

[Euphoria14]

If all your kids are going to in-state public schools, it's probably not a benefit to you, assuming you overlook the rest of the posts content.

And again, for people like you, who make twice the median household income, it's more of a trade-off than a benefit. It's a huge benefit to the half of the country that isn't as well off.

I know it probably makes me sound like a dick, but I am not willing to give up what I worked so hard for the last 10 years to just give it away.

I am only "well off" because we worked incredibly hard to get there.

A $5,000 increase will cripple us, especially since half our income is untaxed anyways since she gets paid through Medicaid (she is a self employed in home nurse). We end up owning like $4,000/year for taxes come tax time, which is part of why I need my $5,00-$6,000/year saving ability.

Bernie makes me have to lose some of what I have. If Bernie's plan was a thing 3 years ago, I wouldn't own a home today.

 

[Euphoria14]

Change the 90k figure to 10k in his post and it is still beautiful. You are focused on the tuition, but the health care is a much, much bigger deal.

I shouldn't have to give up what I worked so hard for all while paying more for healthcare than I do now.

This whole plan is lose/lose for me and my family. So no, it's not beautiful.

 

[RedSparc]

I pay $60 a month on health care. That doesn't add up to $5,000.

And you likely have a huge deductible to boot. If you need to utilize your insurance copays, how much out of pocket do you need to pay? 2k, 3k, 5k?

Most people making 30-60k have really shitty insurance plans that only cover catastrophic injuries by setting huge deductibles to lower monthly premiums.

A bronze plan from the ACA cost 130/mo with a 4k-6k deductible. So you pay 1.6k a year just for the right to pay only 6k a year if you get fucked up for life.

I had my appendix removed the 1st week of January 2015, the bill was 19k, I still had to pay 4k out of pocket. I damaged my ACL in February 2014. Owed 4.5k out of pocket for that. If my appendix had been removed a week earlier I would have saved 4k.

All in all I payed between premiums and deductibles, 12.7k in 2 years. Tax me plxplxplx!!!

When, not if, your employer no longer wants to deal with your insurance and dumps you onto the ACA, you are either going to be paying 700 month for a diamond plan with no deductibles or some function less with a deductible. Either way, healthcare is expensive so the sooner you wake up to that realization the less shocked you will be when the bill comes, and it comes for everyone.

Death, Taxes & Medical Bills - The only 3 certainties in life.

 

[Azzanadra]

I know it probably makes me sound like a dick, but I am not willing to give up what I worked so hard for the last 10 years to just give it away.

I am only "well off" because we worked incredibly hard to get there.

A $5,000 increase will cripple us, especially since half our income is untaxed anyways since she gets paid through Medicaid (she is a self employed in home nurse). We end up owning like $4,000/year for taxes come tax time, which is part of why I need my $5,00-$6,000/year saving ability.

Bernie makes me have to lose some of what I have. If Bernie's plan was a thing 3 years ago, I wouldn't own a home today.

Everyone works hard, man. I come from a lower-middle class family, but my parents (and myself when I came of age) put plenty of hours and work to maintain our lifestyle. I remember my dad used to work like 80 hours a week when I was in high school as a welder. Just because his job is not as glamorous as another, does that make his work less valid then yours?

I really hate this rhetoric that somehow the lower classes are lazy and don't work or something.

 

[Meier]

Ok so you are gonna argue conjecture when I can just point to the fact that healthcare spending is way higher here than countries with universal healthcare.

I'm the one who is pointing at facts. I think you could only use the word conjecture when referencing that most people would save a lot of money under this proposed scenario.

In that same study, it pointed out the average household had 2.6 people in it. So on average, it's hard to imagine most families would see ANY savings, let alone a lot of money by this change in the healthcare system. If 28% of people have no dependents at all, their healthcare bills are simply not going to be very high on average. It's not really something that is open for debate. Most people just don't need to or don't opt to see a doctor very often. It's the fact that the ones who do get hit with bills that would be $50-100k or something ridiculous that causes the averages to go completely out of wack. In other countries, these bills are notably lower and that certainly plays a big role.

 

[Tarkus]

I know it probably makes me sound like a dick, but I am not willing to give up what I worked so hard for the last 10 years to just give it away.

I am only "well off" because we worked incredibly hard to get there.

A $5,000 increase will cripple us, especially since half our income is untaxed anyways since she gets paid through Medicaid (she is a self employed in home nurse). We end up owning like $4,000/year for taxes come tax time, which is part of why I need my $5,00-$6,000/year saving ability.

Bernie makes me have to lose some of what I have. If Bernie's plan was a thing 3 years ago, I wouldn't own a home today.

Don't worry, you're not alone. Most of us who worked so fucking hard and long to make six figures aren't willing to either.