Cite all of these claims.

About you being an old who doesn't understand the importance of smartphones. You confirmed in your response that you mostly just like the camera (lol) and that you're older than the current generation; both of my claims were right.

But poor people do buy $700 Iphones because it only cost them 25 bucks a month. Add this to the Starbucks coffee and other frivolous purchases they make and it adds up.

You can read it on any msm site.

People have been abusing entitlements for a long time.

How old do you think I am?

You don't get stronger by having challenges taken away from you. You get stronger by learning to take on the challenge. Do you see how the politically correct culture is actually making us weaker?

It's "site" and if it's so commonplace you should be able to back up your claims easily.

Right. For many people, a cell phone isn't an entertainment device. It's an essential part of getting and keeping a job, among other things.

We are talking about Iphones not basic cell phones.

In any event, the average cost for health care for a person in the United States is $10,000.
An iPhone costs around $700.

So selling your iPhone (or not buying one in the first place) isn't gonna help. Might as well keep it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...nder-bill.html

And that is the same thought process poor people use in their decision making.

This is why they stay poor.

Before the ACA my brother and his wife who run a company together were able to buy corporate insurance. Obama made it to were you had to have 3 people to share in this insurance.

Why would you want you make it more difficult for small business?

No, it's exactly the same kind of systemic cost that keeps poor people poor. Poor people pay more for everything. They don't get to take advantage of the tax credits and voucher programs that are part of the new Trump social safety net. When you're poor you have to take the best of a bunch of bad options. You would be surprised that poor people are often very rational and very calculating in their decision making. They have to be.

None of the claims you made are supported in this article. It does claim taxpayers will save money but YOUR claim was that costs will go down for everyone; premiums go up under this plan, because tax credits will be less than ACA subsidies!!

You are really, really bad at this.

Poor people pay higher cigs prices than your normal puffers.

.

Read the whole article.

I'm really good at poker btw.

Premiums projected to go up 15-20% in the first year alone. Who cares what's projected after ten years, a million things could happen between now and then. Right now it pulls insurance out from under the working poor, putting a massive burden on everyone else. How is this responsible in any way shape or form?

I get what you're saying about the higher cost of things for poor people. Things get even tougher if they get a DUI, and all the monthly costs that come with it. Or if they get their power shut off and now have to pay a fee to get it turned back on. One thing after another. It's like drowning in quicksand.

I've have people that work for me make bad decisions all the time that contribute to their lack of money. I've mentioned my ex. I believe non poor people make consistently better decisions than poor people. I'm aware that most poor people start off at a disadvantage.

No. None of the poor people I know have iPhones (that I know of) and a lot of the people I know are poor.

What are you basing that on? Obviously some poor people are doing this, but the original article you quoted specifically used an example of someone using a samsung with a cracked screen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/u...-chaffetz.html

Even if someone insisted on the apple brand they could get a used iphone 5 for about $200, which is a pittance compared to the recurring phone bills.

You could also argue that having a data plan is excessive but what purpose does it serve to criticize their spending habits? You're not teaching people to make better decisions by letting them be uninsured, you're just setting them up for a potential tragedy.

I would guess that pretty close to 100% of entrepreneurs who've had issues with employee retention have given this consideration. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to jobs where the cost of training and acquiring new employees is next to nothing.

A negative income tax / income subsidy doesn't work because it opens up a lot of really obvious ways to game the system.

They are. But high potential to payday lenders and lottery tickets. Rich people aren't engaging in these activities.

I think what they overlook is most of these smartphone owning poor people don't have a laptop or home computer or landline. The smartphone is serving all their computing and telephonic needs.

So, monistat's a boss, huh?