-->
@bmdrocks21
it would be based on income, some states have housing like that, you pay a % of the rent based on your income. It's a calculation based on the poverty rate etc. The idea is to NOT punish the people who work or want to work. If you work and make over x amount you lose all benefits, which makes no sense. It's easier to control poor people and the "have nots" so I get it but I think a prorate/subsidized system is a huge good first step.
Years ago there was this guy in his 20's. He was on hemodialysis because his kidneys didn't work. Back then it cost about $40k a year for a person to be on hemodialysis. Well he gets a kidney transplant but has to take anti rejection drugs which are about 2k a month. Now that he has a kidney the state no longer considered him "disabled" and he no longer qualified for medicare/medicaid. So he gets a couple of part time jobs but still can't afford the 2k a month, ends up losing the kidney and has to go back on dialysis. this is a true storey I have first hand knowledge of.
Back then people on dialysis died much sooner than those with transplants so it made sense to get him back on dialysis. The sooner he dies the less they have to pay. This is what rationing care will be like too, people don't understand that or don't want to accept that but that will be the reality. It's like that in Canada in some ways, has been.
we are just numbers in an accounting ledger.