susanasj

yes this this a good point, and also a useful chart for contexualizing this move.

yes definitely agree.

yes I don't think it's the case that inflation doesn't hurt the lower half of earners at all, but this entire post is filled with people assuming that inflation hurts poor people the most. I don't know where that assumption comes from but it doesn't make sense to me.

remarkable how many people in this thread are assuming the bottom of the income distribution is hurt the most by inflation. Think about who has debt (mortgage, student, medical expenses, car payments) and who that debt is owed to (banks, corporations) and what happens to that debt in real dollars when inflation is happening. The debt becomes less meaningful. Wages rise (they have in fact been rising), and the payments are less of a burden, while the people that are owed money get less value from the payments.

I don't see why people think inflation hits the bottom of the wealth distribution the most. If you own your home but make the minimum payments, inflation is good. Your payments stay the same but the dollars are worth less, and hopefully your wages go up (as many people's have been). If you owe student debt, healthcare debt, same thing. Almost every lower middle class person has one of these kinds of debt. Inflation hurts the people that are owed money (banks, corporations, etc).

I don't think it's that simple. Lower middle class and poor people have debt, and inflation is good for making debt less valuable in real dollars. Pensioners, maybe, but social security is indexed to inflation if I'm not mistaken? I wouldn't be surprised if many public and private pensions are as well.

This is much more a move in favor of the rich that are owed money by the poor imo.

same. almost complete lack of thunderstorms on the west coast kinda bummed me out when I lived there. spring/summer storms in the south rock

understandable, I didn't realize it had this many cosponsors and I live in NY.

it appears that this bill does not actually deal with the funding mechanisms for single payer, which will undoubtedly be contentious. From the Campaign for New York Health:

> this legislation can be passed outside of the budget as a standalone bill - the #NYHealthAct is intentionally written to first pass on human rights principles - that care should be equitable and available to all. Then we pass the funding mechanisms in the following session - that is when NYHA becomes part of the budget battle) - begins implementation of systemic long-term change to guarantee universal, comprehensive, single-payer healthcare to everyone who lives or works in New York

from: https://www.nyhcampaign.org/

maybe I'm misunderstanding but I see at least 4-5 cosponsors that are members of the health committee?

not saying I think this will come to pass necessarily but there's like 30 cosponsors listed and the NY State Senate is 63 members.