SENATE BILL: Glasses are Good to See Act (Passed)

[tmthforu94]

Would the sponsor be opposed to means testing? I doubt Bill Gates needs a $100 handout for new glasses.

Adding three additional thoughts I have on this:
1. As a taxpayer with decent vision (knocks on wood, says a prayer), I'm not too keen on getting more taxes thrown on me for something I don't have a need for. GM estimates should confirm this, but my suspicion is that these taxes will draw in a lot more revenue than what this program will cost, especially if we downsize the pool of eligibility.
2. The effects this will have on vision insurance, something many who require glasses have.
3. I would consider revising the amount subsidized back to a smaller number (maybe won't fully cover the cost) and to never exceed the cost of the glasses. My family gets glasses from Zenni (and similar competitors) all the time and it almost never costs more than $50 per pair.

[tmthforu94]

Again, I would encourage an amendment stipulating that the maximum subsidy cannot be greater than the cost of glasses. You can easily get glasses out there for much cheaper than $75. 

[tmthforu94]

Quoting proposal for reference.

I am hereby proposing the following redraft of the "Glasses are Good to See Act" to make the bill more practical. In Section III, I don't think it should be a blanket $75 subsidy since you can easily get a pair of glasses for under that amount - people shouldn't be able to profit from this. I also propose adding that this isn't eligible for people who have vision insurance as that will typically subsidize the cost of vision insurance and people should go through their insurance if they have that. This should also bring down the overall costs of the program and concentrate it more on the people who need it.

I'm still not convinced on the impact this bill will have on the vision insurance industry - that concern was never addressed. This leads to Section V, where I propose this program only going for one year to determine it's effectiveness, subject to renewal. I'm generally not a fan of increasing taxes but could see the benefit here, so I'd like there to be a full cost analysis next year to determine if this program is viable long term and whether the cons of higher taxes/effects on insurance industry outweigh the benefits of this bill.

ACT OF CONGRESS

to help people with sight problems get their much needed visual aids

Be it enacted by both houses of Congress assembled:

SECTION I: NAME.
1. This Act may be cited as the Glasses are Good to See Act.

SECTION II: BENEFICIARIES
1. All Atlasian citizens or permanent residents shall be elegible eligible for this bill as long as they have one or more of the following visual problems:
a) Myopia lower than -0.5 dioptres
b) Hypermetropia higher than +0.5 dioptres
c) Astigmatism
d) Any other kind of visual problem where the most adequate solution is the use of glasses or contact lenses, as prescribed by an ophthalmologist

SECTION III: IMPLEMENTATION.
1. All beneficiaries described in Section II shall be given up to a $75 subsidy after they buy a new pair of glasses, but no more than the total cost of the glasses
2. No single beneificiary beneficiary shall receive this subsidy more than once every 24 months.
3. This subsidy shall only be given to individuals living in households with annual earnings lower than $39200$ a year who do not have vision insurance.

SECTION IV: COST
1. This bill shall be funded through the following new taxes:
a) A 5% tax on video game sales
b) A 5% tax on movie ticket sales
c) A 5% tax on TV sales
d) A 5% tax on the sale of PC desktops and laptops

SECTION V: TIMING
1. This Act shall take effect October 1st, 2019 and run through October 1st, 2020, at which point it will be subject to renewal by Congress.
2. By October 2021, the Game Moderation team shall be tasked with completing an audit of the program's cost and revenue.