==============================================================================
WE THE PEOPLE PLATFORM — PILLAR 4: UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE ACCESS
==============================================================================

Download type:  Pillar
Group ID:       P4
Generated:      May 12, 2026
Documents:      36

DESCRIPTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All documents tagged with Pillar 4 (Universal Healthcare Access). Contains 36
documents spanning multiple folders.

DOCUMENTS INCLUDED
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1. Adjacent Pillars Under Development
     02_Vision_and_Communication/02_Adjacent_Pillars_Under_Development.docx
     Best for: Readers who want to understand the platform's full scope
     including healthcare, childcare, and mental health. The companion
     document positioning healthcare, childcare, and mental health access as
     adjacent pillars to the three primary ones. Articulates the architectural
     intent for each adjacent pillar and the analytical work that has been
     completed at the concept level. Honest about which components are at full
     development versus which remain at concept level. When to read: Read
     after the manifesto if you want to understand the platform's full scope.
     Skip if you are primarily interested in the three primary pillars.

  2. Universal Healthcare Model
     04_Mathematical_Models/04_Universal_Healthcare_Model.xlsx
     Best for: Readers wanting to verify the healthcare pillar's fiscal
     viability. Analyzes multi-payer healthcare reform on the German/Japanese
     model, with target spending of $9,500 per capita aligned with peer nation
     outcomes. Demonstrates a $2.6 trillion cumulative federal surplus by Year
     10 of implementation. The model includes the documented 4%/2% (note: the
     model spreadsheet currently uses 6%/4%; this rate-source discrepancy is
     tracked in the Open Issues Registry) payroll funding structure, the
     elimination of private health insurance premiums, the reduction of
     out-of-pocket costs, and the workforce transition implications for
     current administrative roles. When to read: Examine if you want to verify
     that universal healthcare is fiscally viable. The international
     precedents make this the most well-supported pillar empirically.

  3. Does This Raise Taxes? — An Honest Analysis
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Does_This_Raise_Taxes.docx
     Best for: Anyone asking the most important question about the platform —
     does this raise taxes? — and wanting an honest answer rather than a
     slogan. Updated in v2.11 with cross-reference to What This Means For You.
     The median household side-by-side shows $33,584 current vs $17,355
     platform, with net savings of $16,229 per year. The wage floor mechanism
     contributes $3,516 (federal income tax reduction from $5,016 to $1,500).
     Adjacent pillars (healthcare, childcare, mental health) contribute
     $11,580. Civic Infrastructure (broadband, tax prep, identity theft)
     contributes $1,133. New 'How This Example Relates to What This Means For
     You' subsection in the Methodology Note explains why this document's
     figures differ from WTM4Y's at the same income/filer combination (broader
     scope including state tax, out-of-pocket medical, and childcare costs;
     transition-state FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) treatment).
     Cumulative Lifetime Effects: nominal ($649K), inflation-adjusted nominal
     ($1,094K), and present value at 2% real discount rate ($444K). When to
     read: Read first when you want to understand what the platform actually
     means for your household budget. The document is honest about both what
     it captures and what it doesn't — the dollar comparison is one part of
     the story, supplemented by the public-infrastructure note and the
     intangibles section.

  4. An Unexpected Benefit — How the Platform Reduces Identity Theft
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Identity_Theft_Reduction.docx
     Best for: Readers concerned about identity theft, fraud, or data
     security. Anyone curious about the platform’s indirect benefits. Analyzes
     how the platform's architectural simplification reduces identity theft as
     an unexpected side effect of its other design choices. Universal
     healthcare effectively eliminates medical identity theft (~$30B
     annually). The Sovereign Education Fund eliminates student loan fraud
     (~$5B). Reduced financial desperation reduces credit fraud. Universal
     participation reduces benefits fraud. The estimated total reduction is
     $25-35 billion in annual direct fraud losses plus $25-35 billion in
     secondary costs. The document is explicit about what the platform doesn't
     address (tax refund fraud continues; new fraud surfaces emerge in the
     platform's own architecture) and includes a deeper observation about how
     good architecture produces benefits the designer didn't intend. When to
     read: Read if identity theft is a concern that affects how you evaluate
     the platform. Also valuable as evidence that the platform's architectural
     choices produce benefits across multiple unrelated domains — the kind of
     compound rightness that suggests the architecture is sound.

  5. Repairing the Past — Retroactive Debt Retirement
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Repairing_The_Past.docx
     Best for: Readers wondering whether the platform addresses harms
     accumulated under the previous system. Citizens carrying student loan
     debt or medical debt. Analyzes how the platform's surplus capacity can
     retire existing student loan and medical debt retroactively as the
     platform's pillars mature. The mathematics support retiring approximately
     $1.78 trillion in student loan debt across approximately 20 years using
     Sovereign Fund disbursement capacity, plus $220 billion in medical debt
     within 5 years using healthcare pillar surplus, all without requiring new
     contribution rates. Includes three timing scenarios for student loans
     (aggressive, moderate, conservative), three for medical debt, and a
     coordinated phasing strategy that addresses both. Honest about
     limitations: model assumptions, political windows required, operational
     capacity, equity considerations, and moral hazard concerns. When to read:
     Read if you're curious whether the platform addresses harms from the
     previous system or only prevents future ones. The answer is yes — the
     architecture has surplus capacity to repair past damage, not just to
     prevent future damage.

  6. Unlocking America's Potential — The Freedom to Become Exceptional
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Unlocking_Americas_Potential.docx
     Best for: Readers who want to understand what the platform is for at a
     level deeper than its specific policies. Audiences who care about
     American greatness, individual freedom, innovation, or historical
     continuity. The strategic framing document arguing that the platform is
     fundamentally an unleashing program rather than a redistribution program.
     Anchored in cognitive bandwidth research showing that chronic financial
     stress measurably reduces decision-making capacity (Mullainathan/Shafir
     scarcity findings, ~13 IQ point effect size), and in historical evidence
     about what Americans produced during the postwar era when their
     architecture supported rather than suppressed their capability (the GI
     Bill, the space program, the civil rights movement, computing, modern
     medicine, cultural achievements). Argues that information asymmetries in
     the current system prevent informed decision-making about education,
     healthcare, retirement, careers, and family planning, and that the
     platform's architectural transparency restores the conditions for
     informed citizenship. Makes the compound benefits pattern explicit:
     identity theft reduction, retroactive debt retirement, and cognitive
     bandwidth restoration are all benefits the platform produces that the
     original architecture didn't explicitly aim for, and the recurrence of
     this pattern is itself evidence of architectural soundness. When to read:
     Read if you want to understand what the platform is for, not just what it
     does. Especially valuable for engaging audiences the fairness framing and
     AI transition framing don't reach — conservatives, libertarians, business
     leaders, educators, and skeptics of universal programs. Addresses the
     dependency concern critics raise about universal infrastructure by
     arguing the opposite: the current architecture is what suppresses
     individual initiative.

  7. The Path to Reality — Implementation Timeline and Stakeholder Requirements
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Path_To_Reality.docx
     Best for: Readers who want to understand what implementation actually
     requires. Citizens evaluating their own potential contributions. Anyone
     moving from “does this work” to “how does this happen.” The
     implementation document describing what has to happen, when, and who has
     to do what. Organized in two parts. Part One is a phase-by-phase
     timeline: pre-enactment (Years -3 to 0, building political coalition and
     operational design), Year 1 enactment (legislative passage, Founding
     Stake collection, contribution system activation), build phase (Years
     2-5, workforce expansion and system integration), maturation phase (Years
     5-15, pillars reach full operation, compound benefits emerge, retroactive
     debt retirement begins), and steady state (Years 15+, the platform
     becomes the country's default architecture). Part Two is stakeholder
     requirements: citizens, companies, federal government, state governments,
     institutions (educational, healthcare, financial, childcare, mental
     health), civil society organizations, media, academic institutions,
     international coordination, and the political coalition. Includes
     critical dependencies, primary risks, and honest acknowledgment that the
     document is concept-level rather than operational specification. When to
     read: Read if you want to understand how the platform actually becomes
     operational reality and what your own potential contribution might be.
     Particularly valuable for citizens, organizers, and policy professionals
     thinking about implementation rather than design.

  8. What This Means For You — Side-by-Side Tax Comparisons by Filer Category
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_What_This_Means_For_You.docx
     Best for: Readers wanting the side-by-side tax comparison broken down by
     filer category (single filer, single parent, MFJ (Married Filing Jointly)
     no kids, MFJ with children, high earners) at multiple income levels.
     Updated in v2.11 with expanded Note on Scope section explaining what
     these tables include, what they exclude (state income tax, out-of-pocket
     medical, childcare costs - all excluded for variability reasons), and how
     they relate to the median household example in Does This Raise Taxes. The
     four detailed-breakdown 12-row tables and five income-scaling tables
     (covering ~70 data rows) all use consistent federal-channel scope and
     mature steady-state treatment. The savings figures here are conservative
     for households that experience savings in the excluded categories (state
     tax, OOP medical, childcare). Filer categories: Single Filer, Single
     Parent (Head of Household), MFJ no kids, MFJ with 2 kids, MFJ with 4
     kids, plus high-earner scenarios at $500K and above showing the surcharge
     architecture. When to read: Read after the Manifesto and Does This Raise
     Taxes when you want to see how the platform affects your specific filer
     category and income range. Most comprehensive of the citizen-facing
     tax-comparison documents.

  9. Healthcare Transition Detailed Plan
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Healthcare_Transition_Detailed_Plan.docx
     Best for: Readers concerned about whether the $1.7T healthcare savings
     can actually be achieved given political opposition and economic shock to
     the healthcare sector. Articulates a five-component transition plan
     addressing Gemini's review concerns about the healthcare extraction.
     Component 1: phased savings extraction over 15 years (rather than 10)
     with explicit milestones. Component 2: rural hospital protection program
     ($20-30B annually) maintaining access in low-density areas. Component 3:
     administrative worker transition support for 400-480K displaced workers
     ($40-60B annually during peak years). Component 4: specialist practice
     transition with voluntary buyouts and geographic redistribution
     incentives. Component 5: pharmaceutical innovation continuity through
     reinvestment of savings into NIH/ARPA-H grants and value-based novel
     pricing. Total transition program cost: ~5-7% of healthcare savings,
     deliberately allocated as first priority. Includes honest analysis of who
     opposes and why, what political coalition the platform needs, and what
     sustained organizing the transition requires. When to read: Read this if
     you support universal healthcare in principle but worry about the human
     and economic costs of getting there. The document articulates how the
     transition can be designed to absorb those costs honestly while still
     delivering the promised savings.

 10. Universal Mental Health Access Substantiation
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Universal_Mental_Health_Access_Substantiation.docx
     Best for: Readers asking whether the platform can actually deliver
     Universal Mental Health access given the workforce constraint,
     particularly the severe psychiatrist shortage. Substantiates the
     Universal Mental Health Access pillar with depth comparable to what
     childcare and healthcare reached in v2.0. Covers service category
     differentiation (six categories with distinct workforce profiles),
     workforce expansion mathematics (the binding psychiatrist constraint that
     takes 67+ years to close through training alone), the three workforce
     mitigations (PMHNP expansion, redistribution from non-clinical roles,
     telehealth as force multiplier), telehealth integration with 1.5-2.5x
     capacity multipliers by service type, geographic distribution analysis
     (the hardest sub-problem; closes 60-80% of access gaps but cannot
     eliminate them), parity enforcement mechanisms (why MHPAEA isn't enough),
     collaborative care integration with primary care (where 70% of mental
     health treatment actually happens), stress tests, and honest
     acknowledgments. The Universal Mental Health Model is substantially
     expanded with five new sheets and 357 formulas (up from approximately
     30). When to read: Read this if you find Universal Mental Health access
     compelling in principle but worry about whether the workforce can
     actually deliver it. The document demonstrates that operational
     feasibility comes from combining workforce expansion, telehealth,
     redistribution, and collaborative care — no single mitigation is
     sufficient, but together they make universal access reachable by Year
     8-12.

 11. Universal Broadband: Two Paths Compared
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Two_Paths_Compared.docx
     Best for: Readers asking which broadband approach the platform should
     commit to: Path A (free universal basic broadband) or Path B (universal
     access plus affordability subsidy for low-income households). Structural
     decision document comparing Path A and Path B across federal cost, total
     economic resource cost, coverage outcome, administrative complexity,
     household impact, industry effects, cross-pillar enabling, and political
     defensibility. Key findings: Path A federal cost ~$50B vs Path B ~$23B,
     but Path A total resource cost ~$71B vs Path B ~$123B (Path A is cheaper
     in total). Path A 100% coverage vs Path B effective ~88% coverage (15.6M
     household structural enrollment gap). Path A administrative complexity
     dramatically lower (no eligibility verification, no enrollment friction).
     Path A cross-pillar enabling substantially stronger (mental health
     telehealth, education online learning, Civic Technology platform,
     healthcare delivery). Document does not commit to a path; it presents
     structural analysis supporting the decision. When to read: Read this if
     you want to understand the structural choice the platform faced for
     broadband architecture. The eventual commitment to Path A (substantiated
     in the Universal Broadband Access Substantiation) was informed by this
     analysis combined with the Modernize Civic Engagement integrated
     argument.

 12. Per-Citizen Cost-Benefit Model
     04_Mathematical_Models/04_Per_Citizen_Cost_Benefit_Model.xlsx
     Best for: Analysts wanting to interact with the per-citizen analysis
     quantitatively, test sensitivity, or generate scenarios for specific
     household types. Companion mathematical model to the Per-Citizen Benefits
     and Costs document. Sheets cover README, Assumptions (population,
     household sizes, income deciles, status quo spending baselines, all
     editable), Pillar Costs by Milestone (federal program costs at each
     milestone for all platform pillars), Sovereign Fund Coverage (corpus
     accumulation and disbursement coverage trajectory), Per-Capita Federal
     Cost (taxpayer share by income decile and milestone), Citizen Benefits by
     Category (broadband, healthcare, childcare, mental health, education,
     wage floor, retirement, civic engagement), Status Quo Baseline (current
     household spending on services platform replaces), Household Type Detail
     (7 household types × 6 milestones with benefits, costs, and net), Net
     Benefit Summary (consolidated reference), Lifetime Cumulative (30-year
     cumulative net benefit by household type), Dashboard. Average household
     net benefit grows from +$1,300/yr (Year 1) to +$19,500/yr (Year 30);
     cumulative 30-year benefit for middle-income family with kids ~$580K.
     When to read: Open this to test sensitivity on assumption changes,
     explore specific household scenarios, or model alternative deployment
     timelines. The model exposes the underlying arithmetic that produces the
     per-citizen claims; advocates and skeptics alike should be able to verify
     or challenge the numbers.

 13. Gemini Review of v1.8 — External AI Review
     07_External_Reviews/07_Gemini_Review_of_v1_8.pdf
     Best for: Anyone wanting to see how the platform was evaluated by an
     external AI assistant. The first formal external review of the platform
     package, conducted by Gemini (an AI assistant developed by Google) on May
     4, 2026. Identifies four core strengths (empirical anchoring, systemic
     cross-subsidization, the unleashing narrative, transparent provenance)
     and four critical vulnerabilities (Sovereign Fund governance trap,
     healthcare industry pushback, sequence-of-returns risk during transition,
     childcare workforce capacity constraints). Preserved as the original PDF
     for archival accuracy. When to read: Read this to understand how the
     platform was evaluated by an external AI before reading the platform's
     response document.

 14. Response to Gemini Review
     07_External_Reviews/07_Response_To_Gemini_Review.docx
     Best for: Anyone wanting to see how the platform engages with substantive
     external critique. The platform's response to Gemini's review. Engages
     with each of the four identified vulnerabilities by distinguishing what's
     true, what could mitigate the vulnerability, and what remains unresolved.
     Identifies twenty specific actions the platform should take in subsequent
     versions, ranging from new analytical documents (Sovereign Fund
     Governance Design, Healthcare Transition Detailed Plan, Workforce
     Expansion Strategy) to model revisions (stress-test scenarios in Combined
     Reform Model, 18-year buildout in universal childcare Model). Also notes
     what the review didn't address (compound benefits pattern, wage floor tax
     architecture, Path to Reality implementation, personal tax comparison)
     for completeness. Establishes the response pattern that will continue for
     subsequent external reviews regardless of source. When to read: Read this
     after the Gemini review to see how the platform engages with substantive
     critique. Particularly valuable for understanding what the platform
     commits to deliver in subsequent versions in response to identified
     vulnerabilities.

 15. Federal Program Integration Plan
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Federal_Program_Integration_Plan.docx
     Best for: Readers asking how universal healthcare interacts with
     Medicare, Medicaid, ACA (Affordable Care Act) marketplaces, and the VA
     (Department of Veterans Affairs) system. Closes a critical gap identified
     in v2.10 audience verification testing. Articulates the architectural
     relationship between the platform's universal healthcare and the federal
     healthcare programs that already cover ~150 million Americans. Medicare
     continues for the 65+ population with absorption of Part B premiums and
     Hospital Insurance payroll tax. Medicaid's working-age coverage is
     replaced by universal healthcare; long-term care continues as
     restructured Medicaid. ACA marketplace subsidies are absorbed; exchanges
     continue as supplemental marketplaces. The VA system continues largely
     unchanged. Long-term care is honestly acknowledged as the largest
     remaining gap, with universal long-term care insurance positioned as a
     candidate for a future platform pillar requiring its own substantiation
     work. Net federal healthcare spending after integration: approximately
     $1.1 trillion in net new commitment, fundable through the universal
     healthcare contribution plus absorbed program funding. When to read: Read
     this immediately after the Healthcare Transition Detailed Plan. Together
     they answer the two most-asked questions about universal healthcare: how
     is the transition managed (Healthcare Transition Detailed Plan) and how
     does it interact with existing programs (this document).

 16. We The People Calculator
     06_Presentation_Materials/06_We_The_People_Calculator.html
     Best for: Any reader who wants a personalized side-by-side comparison
     matching their specific household situation. Citizens, skeptics,
     organizers explaining the platform door-to-door, policy reviewers
     checking a specific scenario, and anyone whose household differs from the
     representative scenarios in the Does This Raise Taxes and What This Means
     For You documents. Single-file HTML calculator that runs in any modern
     browser with no internet connection required after download. Takes
     thirteen inputs covering filing status, gross household income,
     dependents, occupation-based wage floor (with editable defaults for four
     occupation categories), state income tax rate, health insurance premium,
     out-of-pocket medical, childcare cost per child, broadband cost, tax
     preparation expected value, plus methodology and payroll-state toggles.
     Produces a side-by-side comparison table matching the structure of the
     existing platform tables, plus a decomposition showing exactly how much
     each pillar contributes (wage floor, healthcare, childcare, mental
     health, Civic Infrastructure). Every constant is documented in a
     collapsible 'Show all assumptions' section: federal tax brackets,
     standard deductions, Child Tax Credit, platform contribution rates,
     healthcare and childcare effects, wage floor defaults by occupation, and
     explicit acknowledgment of what the calculator does not model. Tax math
     verified against the published examples in Does This Raise Taxes and What
     This Means For You. Includes 'Match document' methodology toggle so users
     can verify the calculator against the published comparison tables. v2.27
     update: The Calculator now implements the canonical OPEN-2 high-earner
     architecture (graduated income surcharge 5/10/15% above $250K/$500K/$1M
     for singles, doubled for MFJ; small wealth surcharge 0.5% above $10M net
     worth; wealth tax 2.5% above $50M net worth) replacing the prior
     simplified 2% surcharge. v2.27 also adds a collapsible business-side
     section implementing the Federal Infrastructure Fee architecture
     (location fee, employee fee with 25-employee exemption, revenue surcharge
     above $50M, public-purpose exemptions). When to read: Use the calculator
     after reading at least one of Does This Raise Taxes or What This Means
     For You so you understand what the comparison shows. Then enter your
     actual situation and see your personalized number. The 'Show all
     assumptions' panel makes every default visible; override any default with
     better information about your specific situation. The 'Copy results to
     clipboard' button produces a text summary you can save or share.

 17. State-Level Cooperation Requirements
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_State_Level_Cooperation_Requirements.docx
     Best for: Constitutional law analysts, federalism scholars, state policy
     professionals, and anyone evaluating the platform's deliverability
     through the federal-state structure of American government. Skeptics
     asking 'how does this work if Texas refuses?' Maps the platform's
     commitments into three federal-state categories. Pure federal commitments
     (federal income tax architecture, Sovereign Fund, Founding Stake, federal
     universal healthcare contributions, Direct File) deliver to all citizens
     regardless of state position. Federal-state cooperative commitments
     (universal healthcare delivery, universal childcare, mental health, Civic
     Infrastructure) work best with state cooperation but have federal-direct
     fallback options. Federal-funded state-administered commitments
     (restructured Medicaid, childcare provider networks, mental health
     delivery infrastructure) effectively require state cooperation. Examines
     constitutional constraints (anti-commandeering doctrine, conditional
     federal spending, NFIB v. Sebelius coercion test) and uses Medicaid
     expansion as the most relevant federal-state cooperation precedent.
     Recommends federal-direct delivery designs for state non-cooperation
     cases, partial-credit refund mechanisms for residents of non-cooperating
     states, and public tracking of state cooperation status as accountability
     infrastructure. Includes explicit Open Questions section. When to read:
     Read alongside the Federal Program Integration Plan and Federal Fiscal
     Impact Analysis when you want to understand the platform's federalism
     layer. Critical reading for legal analysts evaluating constitutional
     viability and for policy reviewers in non-cooperating states evaluating
     how the platform would actually affect their state's residents.

 18. Non-Citizens And Platform Eligibility
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Non_Citizens_And_Platform_Eligibility.docx
     Best for: Policy analysts, immigration policy professionals, mixed-status
     families, and reviewers asking how the platform treats the approximately
     47 million non-citizens living in the United States. Anyone who notices
     that 'universal' has not been precisely defined for this population. Maps
     the platform's commitments against five non-citizen categories: legal
     permanent residents (12.5 million green card holders), long-term work
     visa holders (1-2 million), student visa holders, temporary protected
     status / asylum pending / refugee status (several million), and
     unauthorized immigrants (10-12 million). Works through each platform
     commitment by category, identifies the major design choices the platform
     must make, and analyzes the failure modes (pay-but-don't-receive,
     documentation friction, fear-based non-engagement under chilling-effect
     immigration rules, state-level variability). Mixed-status families are
     addressed with the principle of individual-by-individual eligibility
     rather than monolithic family treatment. Three approaches for
     unauthorized workers are outlined explicitly with their trade-offs. The
     federal income tax architecture (wage floor exemption) likely applies to
     all filers regardless of citizenship status. The Founding Stake is
     reasonably citizenship-restricted. The most consequential unresolved
     choice is healthcare access for unauthorized workers, which would
     otherwise produce ~$24 billion per year in pay-but-don't-receive
     contributions. Eight explicit Open Questions document remaining work.
     When to read: Read after the Manifesto and Federal Program Integration
     Plan when you need to understand whether the platform's universal claims
     actually apply universally. Critical reading for immigration-focused
     organizations evaluating whether to support the platform politically and
     for mixed-status families concerned about how the platform would affect
     them.

 19. Cohabiting Unmarried Couples
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Cohabiting_Unmarried_Couples.docx
     Best for: Cohabiting couples (~17 million Americans) wondering how the
     platform treats them, family-policy professionals, and reviewers who
     notice that the calculator and comparison tables only support Single,
     MFJ, and HoH categories without explicitly addressing cohabiting
     partners. Works through the platform's treatment of cohabiting unmarried
     couples across each commitment. The federal tax system already treats
     cohabiting partners as separate filers; the platform inherits this
     framework cleanly. Per-individual benefits architecture (universal
     healthcare, childcare, mental health, Founding Stake) handles cohabiting
     couples consistently with married couples. Edge cases warranting
     attention include: dependent allocation rules for couples with shared
     children, the small differential in wage floor exemption between
     cohabiting and married couples (cohabiting often slightly higher due to
     per-occupation floors), Bridge Credit evaluation for couples whose
     household economy differs from individual filer status, mid-year
     composition changes, common-law marriage states (approximately ten), and
     domestic partnership registries. Mixed-status cohabiting couples
     intersect with the Non-Citizens And Platform Eligibility document. The
     platform's design is largely consistent with current law; this document
     makes the specific choices explicit rather than leaving them implicit.
     Seven Open Questions document remaining work, including coordination of
     Direct File for cohabiting couples' tax planning. When to read: Read with
     What This Means For You when your household is a cohabiting couple
     wanting to understand which scenarios in the comparison tables most
     closely match your situation. Read with Non-Citizens And Platform
     Eligibility if your household is a mixed-status cohabiting couple.

 20. Public-Sector Worker Transitions
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Public_Sector_Worker_Transitions.docx
     Best for: Federal civilian employees, military service members and
     veterans, postal workers, state and local government employees, and the
     unions and associations that represent them. Anyone asking how the
     platform interacts with Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB),
     TRICARE, FERS (Federal Employees Retirement System), military retirement,
     or state employee benefits. Maps the platform against approximately 22
     million public-sector workers across federal civilian (2.3M with FEHB and
     FERS), military (1.3M active plus 800K reserves with TRICARE and military
     retirement), Postal Service (640K), and state and local government (19.5M
     with varied state-administered programs) categories. The recommended
     design treats existing public-sector benefits as enhanced coverage
     layered atop universal foundation: federal employees pay the universal
     healthcare contribution and receive universal coverage with FEHB as
     supplemental; the federal employer continues to fund FEHB premium
     subsidies; military members receive universal coverage plus TRICARE as
     enhanced; state employees similarly. This preserves existing benefits
     unchanged, respects vested rights doctrine for accrued pensions,
     minimizes political opposition from organized public-sector unions, and
     integrates with universal architecture. The most significant unresolved
     issue is treatment of Section 218 non-covered workers (~5 million state
     and local government employees who do not pay FICA and would be excluded
     by default from a FICA-equivalent universal healthcare contribution).
     Specific design choices about FERS / CSRS integration with the Community
     Contribution Plan, TRICARE for Life integration with universal
     healthcare, and state pension system interactions all require detailed
     actuarial analysis that this document does not provide. Nine Open
     Questions document remaining work. When to read: Read with the Federal
     Program Integration Plan and State-Level Cooperation Requirements when
     you need to understand how the platform integrates with public-sector
     employment. Critical reading for public-sector union leadership and for
     federal employees, military members, and state and local government
     workers evaluating the platform's effect on their specific benefits.

 21. Existing Pensioners and the Platform
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Existing_Pensioners.docx
     Best for: Approximately 75 million Americans receiving retirement income
     from at least one defined benefit source. AARP (American Association of
     Retired Persons) members, retired federal/state/military employees,
     Social Security recipients, and private DB plan recipients. Anyone over
     60 evaluating the platform's effect on existing retirement income. Maps
     the platform against pensioners across Social Security retirees (52M),
     state and local government pensioners (11M), federal civilian retirees
     (2.6M), military retirees (2.1M), and private DB plan recipients (10M).
     The platform's treatment is largely preservation: existing benefits
     continue unchanged as vested rights; existing healthcare (Medicare, FEHB,
     TRICARE, state retiree benefits) continues with universal healthcare
     integration; existing tax treatment continues with wage floor exemption
     available as alternative methodology. The Community Contribution Plan
     replaces FICA at a revenue-neutral rate in mature steady state, producing
     no benefit changes for existing Social Security recipients. The
     platform's most valuable specific contributions to pensioners are
     universal healthcare's coverage of the early-retiree gap (eliminating
     financial planning challenge of pre-Medicare years for
     federal/military/state early retirees, approximately 10 million people)
     and broader insulation from healthcare cost inflation that universal
     coverage provides. Younger spouses of Medicare-eligible pensioners (a
     non-Medicare-eligible spouse of a 65-year-old retiree, for example)
     receive universal healthcare automatically rather than needing to
     maintain private insurance until their own Medicare eligibility. The most
     significant unresolved issues are the long-term care gap (acknowledged
     but not solved by the platform), the Social Security taxation threshold
     question (set in 1983/1993 statute, unindexed for inflation), and the
     wage floor exemption mechanics for retirement income. Eight Open
     Questions document remaining work. When to read: Read after the Manifesto
     when you are a current pensioner or will be one within the next decade.
     Read with the Federal Program Integration Plan for the Medicare
     integration mechanics, and with the Public-Sector Worker Transitions
     document if you receive a federal civilian, military, or state pension.

 22. Section 8 Housing and Federal Housing Assistance
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Section_8_Housing_And_Federal_Housing_Assistance.docx
     Best for: Housing policy professionals, Section 8 households (~5M),
     Section 8 waitlist households (~13M), and reviewers asking how the
     platform interacts with HUD (Department of Housing and Urban
     Development)'s voucher program. Anyone noticing that the platform
     addresses healthcare, childcare, education, and infrastructure but not
     housing. Maps the platform's interaction with the federal Housing Choice
     Voucher Program. Identifies the mechanical interactions where universal
     childcare and universal healthcare reduce Section 8's deduction values,
     producing apparent rent increases that are offset by direct household
     savings on the underlying costs (a $22,000 reduction in childcare costs
     partially offset by ~$6,000 increase in Section 8 rent contribution, net
     household savings ~$16,000). Examines the waitlist problem: only ~25
     percent of eligible households actually receive vouchers. Outlines three
     approaches: Approach A leaves Section 8 unchanged (status quo); Approach
     B uses Sovereign Fund capacity to fund universal eligibility-based access
     (~$40-50 billion annual federal expenditure); Approach C restructures
     federal housing policy more fundamentally. The platform's current silence
     on housing affordability is identified as a real scope limitation that
     future versions should consider closing. Seven Open Questions document
     remaining work, including HUD regulatory adjustment, source-of-income
     discrimination preemption, and broader housing supply policy. When to
     read: Read after the Manifesto when you receive Section 8 assistance or
     are on a Section 8 waitlist. Read with State-Level Cooperation
     Requirements for the analogous PHA administrative variation issues.

 23. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Cash Assistance
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_TANF_And_Cash_Assistance.docx
     Best for: Anti-poverty policy professionals, TANF recipients and
     applicants, state TANF administrators, and reviewers asking how the
     platform interacts with cash welfare programs. Anyone evaluating whether
     the platform addresses poverty substantively or only at the margins. Maps
     the platform's interaction with the federal TANF block grant program.
     Identifies how universal childcare and universal healthcare fundamentally
     change TANF's economic logic: the work requirement structure assumed
     labor market dynamics that no longer apply when childcare is essentially
     free under the platform. The TANF block grant has been frozen at $16.5
     billion since 1996 (losing ~50 percent of real value to inflation).
     Outlines three restructuring approaches: Approach A leaves TANF
     substantially unchanged (path of least resistance, produces drift toward
     irrelevance); Approach B substantially restructures TANF as focused
     last-resort cash assistance for families whose situations require cash
     beyond what universal services and labor market provide; Approach C
     replaces TANF with a refundable family assistance credit administered
     through the federal tax system. The platform's broader anti-poverty
     architecture (wage floor exemption, Bridge Credit, Founding Stake,
     universal services) reduces a low-income family's costs by $20,000-25,000
     per year regardless of TANF choice. Seven Open Questions, including
     whether the platform should commit to ending poverty (vs reducing it) as
     an explicit goal. When to read: Read with the Refundable Transition
     Bridge Credit document and the Federal Program Integration Plan for the
     platform's broader anti-poverty architecture. Critical reading for
     anti-poverty advocacy organizations evaluating the platform.

 24. Climate Policy Beyond Grid Modernization
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Climate_Policy_Beyond_Grid_Modernization.docx
     Best for: Climate-engaged constituencies, environmental advocacy
     organizations, climate policy professionals, and reviewers asking why the
     platform addresses healthcare, childcare, education, and infrastructure
     but not comprehensive climate policy. Honest acknowledgment of the
     platform's largest scope omission. Maps what the platform addresses in
     climate policy (Energy Grid Modernization commitment, Civic
     Infrastructure with climate adaptation overlap, Sovereign Fund climate
     transition exposure considerations) versus what it omits (carbon pricing,
     fossil fuel subsidies, environmental justice, climate adaptation as
     explicit policy, agricultural emissions, building efficiency). Examines
     the platform's interaction with the existing federal climate framework:
     the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
     EPA regulatory authority, state-level climate policies. None of these are
     incompatible with the platform's existing commitments. Outlines five
     design directions for future climate integration: carbon pricing as
     Sovereign Fund revenue source (Direction A, ~$200B/year initially);
     environmental justice integration with Civic Infrastructure (Direction
     B); climate adaptation as Civic Infrastructure component (Direction C);
     building code and efficiency integration (Direction D); agricultural
     climate policy (Direction E). The platform's architecture leaves room for
     substantial climate expansion without fundamental redesign. Ten Open
     Questions document unresolved choices including Sovereign Fund investment
     policy and international climate framework interactions. When to read:
     Essential reading for climate-engaged audiences. The document is honest
     about platform scope limits and outlines specific paths future versions
     could take. Read with the Energy Grid Modernization document for the
     platform's existing climate-relevant commitments.

 25. Gender Pay Gap and Indirect Mechanisms
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Gender_Pay_Gap_And_Indirect_Mechanisms.docx
     Best for: Audiences asking how the platform's architecture affects
     earnings disparities between men and women, advocates for women's
     economic equality, and policy professionals wanting to understand the
     indirect effects of architecture choices not designed primarily for
     pay-gap reduction. Examines the platform's three indirect mechanisms that
     reduce the gender pay gap: universal childcare addressing the motherhood
     penalty (estimated 9-20% reduction of raw gap), empirical wage floors
     raising pay in female-dominated occupations (estimated 10-17% reduction),
     and universal healthcare reducing job-lock that disproportionately
     affects women (estimated 1-3% reduction). Combined estimated effect:
     30-40% reduction of the raw 16% pay gap, narrowing it to approximately
     10-11%. Honestly acknowledges what the platform does NOT do (paid family
     leave, pay transparency, salary history bans, strengthened Equal Pay Act
     enforcement, comparable-worth frameworks, anti-segregation
     interventions). Outlines five design directions for future versions:
     federal paid family leave (Direction A, ~$40-60B/year), pay transparency
     requirements (Direction B), strengthened Equal Pay Act enforcement
     (Direction C), comparable-worth wage floor adjustments (Direction D), and
     Sovereign Education Fund recruitment incentives (Direction E). Three
     failure modes documented and seven Open Questions identified. When to
     read: Essential reading for advocates of women's economic equality and
     for any reviewer asking whether the platform's architecture meaningfully
     affects gender disparities. Read with the Wage Floor Empirical Analysis
     and the Universal Childcare Model for the underlying mechanisms, and with
     the Behavioral Economics and Uptake Friction document for the
     uptake-dependence of the effect.

 26. Open Issues Registry
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Open_Issues_Registry.docx
     What it does: Consolidates everything the platform is aware of but has
     not fully resolved. Includes (a) issues mitigated in v2.24 (Manifesto
     cover tagline; healthcare per-capita timeline; TOC rate language); (b)
     open issues awaiting resolution (healthcare contribution rate has four
     different values across the package; wealth surcharge architecture has
     three versions; FFIA shows zero net new revenue from "modified income tax
     architecture"; Adjacent Pillars Under Development uses outdated framing);
     (c) topics aware of but needing more research (Federal Reserve / monetary
     policy interaction; housing market interaction; wage floor disemployment
     quantification; healthcare cost reduction decomposition; Sovereign Fund 4
     percent return scenario; intersectional pay gap analysis;
     climate-omission strategic reasoning); (d) acknowledged scope omissions
     (long-term care, hearing aids, comprehensive climate policy, housing
     supply, immigration); (e) acknowledged process limitations (lead author
     not credentialed economist; External Reviews folder contains only AI
     reviews; mathematical models not independently audited). When to read:
     Read after the Manifesto if you want to know what the platform's authors
     know about the platform's limitations. The registry is offered in the
     same spirit as the Provenance document — transparency over polish.

 27. Self-Employed and Gig Worker Implementation
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Self_Employed_and_Gig_Worker_Implementation.docx
     Best for: Self-employed workers, independent contractors, gig-economy
     workers (rideshare, food delivery, freelance), and tax preparers serving
     these segments. Addresses contribution mechanism specifics
     (FICA-convention split applied to self-employment), gig worker
     multi-employer treatment (worker-side self-administration default),
     quarterly payment integration (consolidated quarterly payments),
     healthcare for non-W-2 workers, and Sovereign Fund accumulation without
     employer structure. Includes worked examples for independent contractor
     and multi-platform gig worker. Companion to Federal Income Tax Revenue
     Modified Architecture and What This Means For You documents.

 28. Pillar Eight: Universal Paid Family Time
     02_Vision_and_Communication/02_Universal_Paid_Family_Time_Pillar.docx
     Best for: All workers; parents anticipating leave for
     childbirth/adoption; informal caregivers (spouses, adult children,
     others) supporting seriously ill family members; workers facing personal
     medical episodes; tax preparers and HR professionals operating against
     the new payroll contribution stream. Specifies Pillar Eight: federal paid
     leave for parental, caregiver, and personal medical circumstances; up to
     twelve weeks per qualifying event; sliding-scale wage replacement; funded
     through 0.4% combined payroll contribution; federal-as-floor interaction
     with existing state programs. Companion to the master We The People
     Platform document Pillar Eight section.

 29. Architectural Intent Mitigations: PERSONA-MIN-14 Through 24
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Architectural_Intent_Mitigations.docx
     Best for: Policy reviewers wanting to understand how the platform
     addresses persona-driven findings without claiming credentialed
     expertise. Mitigates eleven PERSONA-MIN items at architectural-intent
     level: healthcare operations (EHR integration, specialty referrals,
     malpractice), constitutional review (commerce clause for FIF, takings
     clause for stranded assets, federalism preemption), state-level
     implementation (state fiscal impact, state implementation timeline,
     federal-state data sharing), and Sovereign Fund investment operations
     (market impact at scale, pension fund interaction). Companion to v3.1.10
     Self-Employed and Gig Worker Implementation; together they close the
     entire twenty-seven-item PERSONA-MIN backlog.

 30. We The People Overview Slideshow — Option A (Light Update; Twelve Pillars)
     06_Presentation_Materials/06_We_The_People_Overview_OptionA_Light.pptx
     Best for: Anyone wanting the lightest of three slideshow alternatives
     produced for comparison. Option A preserves the original 16-slide deck
     structure and adds one new slide for the four pillars added in 2026
     (P9-P12). (The original sixteen-slide deck has been removed in v3.7.5;
     Option A supersedes it for the same audience.) See also Options B and C.

 31. We The People Overview Slideshow — Option A (Light Update; PDF)
     06_Presentation_Materials/06_We_The_People_Overview_OptionA_Light.pdf
     Best for: Same content as the Option A PowerPoint, in PDF format for
     distribution and viewing without PowerPoint. Auto-generated from the pptx
     file via headless soffice export.

 32. We The People Overview Slideshow — Option B (Medium Restructure; Twelve Pillars by Funding)
     06_Presentation_Materials/06_We_The_People_Overview_OptionB_Medium.pptx
     Best for: Anyone wanting an overview slideshow that organizes the
     twelve-pillar architecture by funding mechanism. Option B is the medium
     restructure of three slideshow alternatives produced for comparison;
     preserves the original three-problems-share-one-solution framing and the
     three primary pillars detail; replaces the existing slide 8 with three
     new slides showing all twelve pillars organized by funding architecture
     (twelve-pillar overview, five payroll-funded pillars with P6+P8 combined
     into one cell, four non-payroll mechanisms).

 33. We The People Overview Slideshow — Option B (Medium Restructure; PDF)
     06_Presentation_Materials/06_We_The_People_Overview_OptionB_Medium.pdf
     Best for: Same content as the Option B PowerPoint, in PDF format.
     Auto-generated from the pptx file via headless soffice export.

 34. We The People Overview Slideshow — Option C (Full Rebuild; Life-Stage Organization)
     06_Presentation_Materials/06_We_The_People_Overview_OptionC_LifeStage.pptx
     Best for: Anyone wanting an overview slideshow that organizes the
     twelve-pillar architecture by life stage. Option C is the full rebuild of
     three slideshow alternatives produced for comparison; preserves the
     original three-problems-share-one-solution framing and the three primary
     pillars detail; replaces the existing slide 8 with five new life-stage
     slides showing how all twelve pillars map to childhood, working age,
     retirement and aging, with cross-cutting infrastructure pillars on the
     overview slide and a final funding-architecture summary slide.

 35. We The People Overview Slideshow — Option C (Full Rebuild; PDF)
     06_Presentation_Materials/06_We_The_People_Overview_OptionC_LifeStage.pdf
     Best for: Same content as the Option C PowerPoint, in PDF format.
     Auto-generated from the pptx file via headless soffice export.

 36. Persona-Based Reading-Path Simulations: Pillars 2-6
     05_Analytical_Framing/05_Persona_Simulations_P2_P6.docx
     Best for: Verifying that the platform's documentation answers the
     questions a persona-typical reader would actually ask. Walks a
     representative reader persona through Pillars Two through Six (Wage
     Floors, Education Fund, Healthcare, Childcare, Mental Health) and
     documents what questions each persona asks, where the answers are, and
     whether findable from cold start.

FORMAT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each document is included in two formats:
  - .docx — original Word document (best for editing or full-fidelity reading)
  - .html — self-contained browser-viewable version (works on any device)

The .html files include the platform's flag background, formatting, and
a navigation link back to the platform index (if you have the rest of the
package). They open in any web browser by double-clicking.

ABOUT THE PLATFORM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The We The People Platform is a federal-policy reform proposal package
authored by Jason Robertson. The full platform consists of 109 documents
across 12 policy pillars. This ZIP is a curated subset.

Full platform: https://wethepeopleplatform.com
(or the platform_index.html page from the full package)

==============================================================================