>>>Not exactly a simple question to answer - but the short answer is congress and the health insurance industry.
>
>So government and the primary beneficiary of the stus quo, are responsible?

Try reading the articles that I linked (which I see you carefully omitted here)

>What's your solution, then?
>
>(Hint- don't hope to blame Trump after 9 months while giving his predecessor a pass after 9 years.)

Read up on Bernie Sanders ideas. There is not a 'quick' solution to this problem - and seeing how it makes up 1/6 of our economy it's not exactly and easy thing to fix either. We will never get to a point where we provide medical for everyone like the rest of the developed world because there are too many people making too much money off it -- HOWEVER we CAN move that direction and over time have improvements....sadly the GOP wants to move the wrong direction, and not all dems are innocent here either.

>>>This is America, not Ireland. We have tried to trickle-down plan for 40 years, it has failed for 40 years.
>
>"America is not Ireland" is a trite sound bite avoiding analysis. Why did it work in Ireland but according to you could never work in the US? Do you think Ireland doesn't have a 1%? Why didn't they get to scoop it all? Aren't you even curious past "Americais is not Ireland?"

Here is the analysis: Trickle down economics does not work in the USA - that is proven. I'm confused as to what part of that you have a problem with. Are you disputing that or something?

>>>In states where that has stopped to some degree (such as California) you see fantastic results. What is insane is not following what works and continuing with what is proven NOT to work.
>
>California's fantastic results now include the highest rate of poverty in the US according to the most recent 2015 census with poverty at 20.6% compared to a national average of 15.1%. Never mind, if they have no bread they can eat cake, can't they.

California has the nation’s highest poverty rate, when factoring in cost-of-living - that is true. but this is really driven by the housing costs. We have the same problem here in Hawaii. If you look at the official poverty measure in California, it's about average with the rest of the country, if you use the supplemental poverty measure then they're the worst (and this is going to be more accurate of course)

And lets keep something else in mind here too --- (this info is from PPIC -- Public Policy Institute of California - so nonpartisan research)
Without social safety net programs, more Californians would live in poverty.
The largest social safety net and low-income tax programs kept an estimated 8.2% of Californians out of poverty in 2015. These programs include CalFresh (California’s food stamp program), CalWORKs (cash assistance for families with children), the Earned Income Tax Credit (both the federal EITC and, as of 2015, the new CalEITC), the Child Tax Credit (CTC), Supplemental Security Income (SSI/SSP), General Assistance (GA), federal housing subsidies, the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and free or low-cost school meals. CalFresh and the combined EITCs lowered the poverty rate most, by 2.1 percentage points each. CalWORKs lowered the rate by 1.1 points. These differing effects reflect program scale and scope, as well as participation rates among eligible families.

..and what does Trump and the GOP want to do? They want to wipe out social programs. One example is the Trump administration wants eliminate funding for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, not to mention the nearly 18% cut to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) they proposed.

Oh and while you're at it - might as well cut after-school programs for 1.6 million mostly poor kids too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/trump-budget-casualty-afterschool-programs-for-16-million-kids-most-are-poor/2017/03/16/78802430-0a6f-11e7-b77c-0047d15a24e0_story.html

You can learn some good info about California's economy here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California

..also keep in mind that in a couple of months, marijuana is going to be legal in California - expect a large influx of money and tax revenue from that. They supply 80% of the weed in the USA. Of course the grass sold in states that don't allow it will be missing out - as will California because it will remain a black-market item if sold in those states - but all the grass sold in CA -- well that will be some serious $.

This article is pretty good explaining California's poverty level.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2016/09/28/why-does-california-have-the-nations-highest-poverty-rate/#617a2c1112d9


> >>I'd say it's safe to say you do know know anything about the state incentives in this country or how it works. I could gladly share a video with you about it -- let me know if you'd be willing to watch it and I will - otherwise I won't waste our time with it.
>
>I'd say it'a safe to say that you berate others without knowing anything about their knowledge or capabilities- apparently because you know it all. In my case, the more I know, the more I realize I don't know. Which is why I don't close you down by telling you exactly how I earn a crust. There's no monopoly on truth, so I prefer to listen.

Then explain what you know about sate incentives in the USA and what the problems are please.

>>>The theory that if you give the rich a tax break that this will somehow benefit the poor has been proven NOT to work.
>
>Yes, but that's another of your straw men. Think back to when Bush's tax cuts were due to expire and Obama proposed an extension for those earning under $250K. That's an example of targeting: I'm saying that it ought to be possible to target the perverse incentives caused by high taxes without handing more to the 1%. It's not a simple "either or" binary and if neither works, you need to think outside ther box.

You are wrong - as history has proven you wrong (at least here in the USA).

>>> If you increase the taxes on the poor and take away their healthcare...
>
>Whoa there- we're talking about corporate taxes and you paste in a sermon on a different topic. Talk about straw men.

No it is not -...now it IS the same topic (sadly) - because that is part of the GOP tax plan. Needless to say it should not be and is insane - but it's in there. Part of the new tax plan includes taking away the mandate of ObamaCare (which is of course the glue that holds it all together) - thus resulting in the millions of people loosing coverage, and rates for everyone else to go up. This is in the new CBO report.

>>>not only are you doing something that is proven not to work, but you are also an a__hole.
>
>I won't do you the discourtesy of pointing that back at you, but unless it's possible to have an adult conversation about corporate tax rates (maybe even engaging with my NZ example to explain why it magically works in NZ) then I'm bored and I'll leave you to it.

Companies pay income tax at 28% on profits in New Zealand. Companies in the USA can make billions and though various laws and loopholes such they don't pay a dime. I would be fine if it was possible for the NZ approach to work here - but those in power won't let that happen. To me the real solution is to simply close the loopholes - but of course Trump and the GOP will not do this as it benefits them to have such loopholes.

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-offshore-corporate-tax-loopholes/

You again cut out the key part of my statement and took it out of context. What I said was
if you increase taxes on the poor and take healthcare away from the poor to give the rich tax-breaks, not only are you doing something that is proven not to work, but you are also an a__hole. That is surely something most human beings with any morals at all would tend to agree with.