4 ms·

This illustrates how cruel "means-tested" benefits can be. Sadly, they're more popular with voters than universal benefits.

gruez 5y ago
This has less to do with how cruel means-tested benefits are, and more to do with how nearly everyone can get wiped out by $2.5M hospital bill.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  This situation doesn't seem cruel to you?
  - gruez 5y ago
    It's cruel because nearly everyone can be hit with a $2.5M expense, not because it's means tested. It's the fact that it's random and impossible to prepare for that makes it cruel. I don't have any issues with means-testing insurance subsides, food stamps, or rent vouchers, because those are payments that are predicable and won't wipe people out.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      OK, you'd like to consider means testing separately from the situation described in TFA, which makes rhetorical sense because apparently the family's income disqualified them from assistance with ruinous medical costs. Clearly this is not an example of how great means testing is. To speak more generally about means testing, you seem to think that reasonable people oppose means testing because it affects the well-to-do. That isn't the case. The well-to-do have little problem filling out forms or hiring experts in form-filling. Reasonable people oppose means testing because those who can't complete the various clerical tasks entailed are precisely those who need the benefits. And of course the administration of means testing is complicated enough that its costs usually rival those of the benefit programs themselves. To give an example, some years ago my father helped my grandmother apply to EEOICP, because my grandfather had died with cancer and he had been involved with unsafe incidents while in the employ of the Atomic Energy Commission. We would have been challenged to do it ourselves, but my father located an agent who specialized in such applications. Previously my grandmother didn't know that the program existed, and certainly didn't know the first thing about applying to it. That means that many other AEC widows, who didn't have people around who could help, did not receive the benefits supposedly designated for them. USA has lots of means-tested benefits that serve small fractions of the populations they are marketed to serve. This is by design. The concept of means testing is a story told to make benefit programs less effective.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  I think this story and it’s horror masks the banal evil of these systems. Medicaid enrollment and other benefits are demeaning and cruel processes. Even for a healthy child, you need to go through the humiliating experience of weighing your child at a social services office to prove that you are feeding it, for example. Failure to appear can impact your benefits.
  - kingsloi 5y ago
    Even with a sick child, being believed is a huge undertaking https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/story/2021-04-04/lawsuit-accuses-san-diego-county-officials-of-spying-on-hospitalized-teen-in-botched-abuse-investigation https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/story/202... I was glad I had paperwork that outlined my daughter's diagnosis, but it didn't matter. During the Medicaid application, it asked for a signature to collect medical records on my behalf from the hospital. I signed both, and returned them in our application. Of four, one of the reasons we were denied Medicaid is because they claim I never signed the paper (or returned, I forget), which was incorrect (I have proof), so they weren't able to collect Medical records. During my hearing, the State weren't able to provide any proof that I didn't sign/return, so it was unfounded, but it didn't change anything, nor did I get an apology.
markvdb 5y ago
They're not when it comes to health care. There is a clear majority in favour of universal health care benefits in the electorate on either side of the political duopoly. Most representatives are just not listening to their constituents.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  Not at the federal level. Because the federal system has a strong bias towards states as opposed to people, you need to change the minds of people in the resource extraction states.
- gruez 5y ago
  >There is a clear majority in favour of universal health care benefits in the electorate on either side of the political duopoly. Most representatives are just not listening to their constituents. Is there? One obvious question would be how such polls are worded. I'm sure you can get 60% of americans to agree on "universal healthcare", but only 25% agree with universal healthcare proposal A, and 35% agree with universal healthcare proposal B. In the end there isn't enough support for a specific proposal, because it means different things to different people. We saw that with brexit, where the majority voted "leave", but they all had different ideas of what "leave" meant, and none of the concrete proposals had anywhere near 50% approval rating.
  - cogman10 5y ago
    We saw this in the 2020 democrat presidential primary. The KEY issue was M4A or not. Ultimately, the more progressive plans (Sanders and Warren) lost out to the more conservative approach of a single payer option. IDK why this happened, though. WTF "loves" their insurance provider? Why Biden got the nod is somewhat beyond me. My best guess is that most of the democrats in the primaries figured he was less scary than a socialist for middle of the road voters.
    - kelnos 5y ago
      > WTF "loves" their insurance provider? I think this boils down to propaganda. Americans have been taught that the "competitive" private insurance system gives them "choice", even though in reality they have maybe one or three plans from their employer that they can choose from, assuming they are working for an employer that gives them health benefits. The ACA marketplace does seem to give people choice, though decent, low-deductible plans are pretty expensive and are likely out of reach for most people who get their insurance that way. The other rationalization -- which I am somewhat sympathetic toward -- is that people don't trust the government to do a good job providing health coverage. They believe it will be riddled with red tape and inefficiencies and bureaucracy, and will cost much more than the private insurance system. And that's even before we get to the "death panels" FUD and other invented nonsense.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nineplay 5y ago
I can't speak for Indiana, in my circumstances it wasn't that the benefits were 'means-tested' but more that they had a single application for any number of qualifiers. There were multiple ways to qualify for Medicaid and some of them are purely based on poverty with no disability or medical issues. Those cases needed the carefully documented income, bank accounts, retirement funds, etc. It's a bad system in many ways in and of itself, but at a high level they do need some way to confirm that Elon Musk isn't applying for Medicaid just for shits and giggles. The other qualifiers for Medicaid are medical issues that are detached from income. The frustration of it all is that there is a single form and while you'd hope there'd be a 'skip this section if you do not qualify based on income' there isn't, and you can end up trying to pull together every financial document you have. ( It can be worth a try to attach a W-2 so they have something and stopping there. They can contact you if they need more )
- nicoburns 5y ago
  > It's a bad system in many ways in and of itself, but at a high level they do need some way to confirm that Elon Musk isn't applying for Medicaid just for shits and giggles. A better system would provide healthcare to everyone and just tax Musk more to pay for it.
- fuzzer37 5y ago
  > Elon Musk isn't applying for Medicaid just for shits and giggles I mean, who cares if he is if it means people like this are able to get the care that they need? That would be such a small drop in the bucket compared to all the people who genuinely have been screwed by the system.
- spamizbad 5y ago
  The thing is: Who cares if Elon Musk, Bill Gates, or whoever get Medicaid or any government benefit if you tax them accordingly? We certainly had no problem giving Elon Musk government money indirectly in the form of various subsidies. If Elon Musk uses $2.5 million in healthcare but pays 200x or more than that in taxes I don't see that as a problem.

gruez 5y ago

This has less to do with how cruel means-tested benefits are, and more to do with how nearly everyone can get wiped out by $2.5M hospital bill.

jessaustin 5y ago
This situation doesn't seem cruel to you?
- gruez 5y ago
  It's cruel because nearly everyone can be hit with a $2.5M expense, not because it's means tested. It's the fact that it's random and impossible to prepare for that makes it cruel. I don't have any issues with means-testing insurance subsides, food stamps, or rent vouchers, because those are payments that are predicable and won't wipe people out.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    OK, you'd like to consider means testing separately from the situation described in TFA, which makes rhetorical sense because apparently the family's income disqualified them from assistance with ruinous medical costs. Clearly this is not an example of how great means testing is. To speak more generally about means testing, you seem to think that reasonable people oppose means testing because it affects the well-to-do. That isn't the case. The well-to-do have little problem filling out forms or hiring experts in form-filling. Reasonable people oppose means testing because those who can't complete the various clerical tasks entailed are precisely those who need the benefits. And of course the administration of means testing is complicated enough that its costs usually rival those of the benefit programs themselves. To give an example, some years ago my father helped my grandmother apply to EEOICP, because my grandfather had died with cancer and he had been involved with unsafe incidents while in the employ of the Atomic Energy Commission. We would have been challenged to do it ourselves, but my father located an agent who specialized in such applications. Previously my grandmother didn't know that the program existed, and certainly didn't know the first thing about applying to it. That means that many other AEC widows, who didn't have people around who could help, did not receive the benefits supposedly designated for them. USA has lots of means-tested benefits that serve small fractions of the populations they are marketed to serve. This is by design. The concept of means testing is a story told to make benefit programs less effective.
Spooky23 5y ago
I think this story and it’s horror masks the banal evil of these systems. Medicaid enrollment and other benefits are demeaning and cruel processes. Even for a healthy child, you need to go through the humiliating experience of weighing your child at a social services office to prove that you are feeding it, for example. Failure to appear can impact your benefits.
- kingsloi 5y ago
  Even with a sick child, being believed is a huge undertaking https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/story/2021-04-04/lawsuit-accuses-san-diego-county-officials-of-spying-on-hospitalized-teen-in-botched-abuse-investigation https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/story/202... I was glad I had paperwork that outlined my daughter's diagnosis, but it didn't matter. During the Medicaid application, it asked for a signature to collect medical records on my behalf from the hospital. I signed both, and returned them in our application. Of four, one of the reasons we were denied Medicaid is because they claim I never signed the paper (or returned, I forget), which was incorrect (I have proof), so they weren't able to collect Medical records. During my hearing, the State weren't able to provide any proof that I didn't sign/return, so it was unfounded, but it didn't change anything, nor did I get an apology.

markvdb 5y ago

They're not when it comes to health care. There is a clear majority in favour of universal health care benefits in the electorate on either side of the political duopoly. Most representatives are just not listening to their constituents.

Spooky23 5y ago
Not at the federal level. Because the federal system has a strong bias towards states as opposed to people, you need to change the minds of people in the resource extraction states.
gruez 5y ago
>There is a clear majority in favour of universal health care benefits in the electorate on either side of the political duopoly. Most representatives are just not listening to their constituents. Is there? One obvious question would be how such polls are worded. I'm sure you can get 60% of americans to agree on "universal healthcare", but only 25% agree with universal healthcare proposal A, and 35% agree with universal healthcare proposal B. In the end there isn't enough support for a specific proposal, because it means different things to different people. We saw that with brexit, where the majority voted "leave", but they all had different ideas of what "leave" meant, and none of the concrete proposals had anywhere near 50% approval rating.
- cogman10 5y ago
  We saw this in the 2020 democrat presidential primary. The KEY issue was M4A or not. Ultimately, the more progressive plans (Sanders and Warren) lost out to the more conservative approach of a single payer option. IDK why this happened, though. WTF "loves" their insurance provider? Why Biden got the nod is somewhat beyond me. My best guess is that most of the democrats in the primaries figured he was less scary than a socialist for middle of the road voters.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    > WTF "loves" their insurance provider? I think this boils down to propaganda. Americans have been taught that the "competitive" private insurance system gives them "choice", even though in reality they have maybe one or three plans from their employer that they can choose from, assuming they are working for an employer that gives them health benefits. The ACA marketplace does seem to give people choice, though decent, low-deductible plans are pretty expensive and are likely out of reach for most people who get their insurance that way. The other rationalization -- which I am somewhat sympathetic toward -- is that people don't trust the government to do a good job providing health coverage. They believe it will be riddled with red tape and inefficiencies and bureaucracy, and will cost much more than the private insurance system. And that's even before we get to the "death panels" FUD and other invented nonsense.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nineplay 5y ago

I can't speak for Indiana, in my circumstances it wasn't that the benefits were 'means-tested' but more that they had a single application for any number of qualifiers. There were multiple ways to qualify for Medicaid and some of them are purely based on poverty with no disability or medical issues. Those cases needed the carefully documented income, bank accounts, retirement funds, etc. It's a bad system in many ways in and of itself, but at a high level they do need some way to confirm that Elon Musk isn't applying for Medicaid just for shits and giggles. The other qualifiers for Medicaid are medical issues that are detached from income. The frustration of it all is that there is a single form and while you'd hope there'd be a 'skip this section if you do not qualify based on income' there isn't, and you can end up trying to pull together every financial document you have. ( It can be worth a try to attach a W-2 so they have something and stopping there. They can contact you if they need more )

nicoburns 5y ago
> It's a bad system in many ways in and of itself, but at a high level they do need some way to confirm that Elon Musk isn't applying for Medicaid just for shits and giggles. A better system would provide healthcare to everyone and just tax Musk more to pay for it.
fuzzer37 5y ago
> Elon Musk isn't applying for Medicaid just for shits and giggles I mean, who cares if he is if it means people like this are able to get the care that they need? That would be such a small drop in the bucket compared to all the people who genuinely have been screwed by the system.
spamizbad 5y ago
The thing is: Who cares if Elon Musk, Bill Gates, or whoever get Medicaid or any government benefit if you tax them accordingly? We certainly had no problem giving Elon Musk government money indirectly in the form of various subsidies. If Elon Musk uses $2.5 million in healthcare but pays 200x or more than that in taxes I don't see that as a problem.