Aaahh, go ahead. Single payer is preferable. And possible, too. (just follow Kathleen’s link).

As I said before, the benefits of my plan are not “gold plated.” The annual cost to working members paying into my plan are higher than what a young, healthy person with no dependents would pay under the typical insurance plan specifically because we are “living simply so that others may simply live”; to wit, paying more so that the less fortunate among us have health care. Period. There is no gym membership. No yoga classes. No plastic surgery. Just standard health care (along with vision and dental—and it frustrates the living shit out of me why eyes and teeth are somehow considered “extras” in the insurance biz).

And it bears repeating: the decision to fuck over organized labor, and tax the hell out of our plans, was a political strategy to try and win over Republican and Blue Dog (read: right-to-work state) votes. It was a bone to throw to conservatives.

Whether my plan falls under the “cadillac” tax or not will depend on what happens between now and 2014—what the conference committee does to try to bridge the gap between the House and Senate versions, or if there is language added later to protect non-profit, labor-created plans. Other unions will not be so lucky, as there are more retirees than working members (electricians die off earlier than factory workers). They’ll have to dump their retirees in order to remain solvent—with those retirees getting the bonus of much, much higher premiums (age penalty) on a fixed income (while not being old enough for Medicare, and not having a low-enough income for Medicaid, since most of them will be single-person households). Those retirees sure will learn an expensive lesson on “living simply, so that others may simply live.” But that’s ok. No CEOs will be harmed in the making of that film.

Now with that said, back to the real meat of the matter—wealth disparity in the United States. “There’s only one CEO of AMEX” indeed. For all the claptrap I’ve heard in my life about how the greatest amount of wealth is found in the “middle classes”, I have yet to see any evidence of that. Both wealth and income disparity have increased exponentially during the course of my life; right now, the top 10% has over 70% of the wealth (in the U.S.). Come to think of it, the top 10% (those with incomes over $104,700) earn almost half the income. (for left-wing commie pinko source, visit here.)

Now think about that. Tell me again who has all the wealth? Because no one seems to give a shit about the impact hammering the folks in the middle, to give the top a break is going to have on the economy. This economy has been literally shoveling money from the bottom to the top throughout the course of my life—and the economy has been getting worse. Repeat after me, once more with a feeling: trickle-down economics doesn’t work.

Politicalguineapig, this isn’t the “universe” being unfair. This isn’t a tornado, earthquake, virus, or other natural disaster. This is a human-created system designed to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the nonwealthy. The wealthy aren’t being required to pay proportionately in order to insure that the vulnerable amongst us are covered. They also seem to avoid the usual voluntary simplicity lectures that uppity working class people get (“what are you complaining about? You’re not homeless yet!”). Bah. The hundred-thousand La Lubus of this nation don’t have anywhere near the wealth of the relatively smaller-numbered CEO and high-octane executives.

It helps one understand how feudalism succeeded for so long: lots & lots of peasants just bought into the idea that the aristocracy was indeed better than they were and any challenge to their superiority would bring down the wrath of god.

What’s weird here, though, is that there are *perfectly visible examples* of alternative systems that work *just fine* (Canada is hardly free of successful businesses despite the dreaded health care; in fact, they survived the recent economic crisis in much more unscathed fashion than did the U.S.). But so many Americans like you are still convinced that living in an hideously brutal and unfair universe is just the way it’s gotta be. That’s equal parts strange and tragic.

It’s good politics to emphasize the high salaries and compensation of corporate executives, but it isn’t good economics, because that money just isn’t very important in the big picture.

But there is not just one CEO in the nation, and there are many other C-level executives in each corporation besides–and these people get far, far more and pay far, far more than the likes of La Lubu or your average American.

Might I also remind you that you are not the only person posting here or reading this blog who is without insurance? LaLubu herself has been without it, as she’s stated upthread. You do seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions yourself.

But I am sorry if my tone has been harsh. That was not my intent. I want to see everybody get care.

I agree that single-payer is preferable. I don’t want to put words into LaLubu’s mouth, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she concurred. The public option was the compromise in place of that, and that’s been demolished.

Yes, let’s talk about math. Premiums depend upon the company where you work, the size of the company you work for, the makeup of the employees there, the state you live in. . .a whole host of factors. Calling these plans “Cadillac plans” as if they were on par with what, say, the CEO of Amex is getting is disingenuous. You can get very average (or below average) and be paying that much in premiums (between you and your employer) per year. Quoting Ghandi and preaching simplicity* to people who are already vulnerable is ridiculous, especially if you’ve done the math, as you claim.

*As someone who practices VS, I really wish people would get off of that soapbox. So many proponents look down instead of up when they want to preach to people to give up stuff.