Reply #16: I was making the same point to the marine, really,

[hfojvt]

when my internet explorer crashed. Still, depending on the medical costs. If they were, say, $40,000, why couldn't that family get a home equity loan or refinance with cash-out and pay their medical bills that way? Shouldn't a family with $400,000 in assets do that before they rely on public assistance? Assistance which many people, such as say, myself, do not get in spite of having much less in assets.

As far as California goes. According to my 2001 SAUS, the poverty rate in California was 13.8%, compared to 11.8% nationally. And the Federal poverty level does not make allowances for California's higher costs and higher incomes. So I am guessing that California also has many people below 200% of the federal poverty level. Even in California, that familiy's income and assets do not qualify for "very low" or "extremely moderate".

It's not about me and them, but I make that a Kantian absolute that people making $3X should not get public subsidies that people making $X do not get.

I argued the same thing with the Bush tax cuts. Bill Gates should not get a $20,000,000 tax cut because a) he doesn't need it, and b) other, needier, people are not getting diddley-squat.