5 ms·

I hear more and more that disadvantaged people want access to markets instead of having stuff procured for them, with medicine as one possible exception. If yo

I hear more and more that disadvantaged people want access to markets instead of having stuff procured for them, with medicine as one possible exception. If you get a Section 8 Voucher but the amount is too cheap, that isn't access to the market. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-fond-du-lac-apartment-mystery/id1614253637?i=1000630418950 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-fond-du-lac-apartm... I think maybe this would be better solved by improving the financial situations of people with permanent disabilities, because then they might be able to afford a ride to the national park and not just entrance. One possible unintended side effect is reducing services given to visitors of national parks. Edit: actually single payer seems to work in some places as a means to get access to the market for health care providers, rather than access to a Health Insurance Marketplace®.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago
I completely agree we should increase incomes for people with disability. The thing is, free national park access is something that can be decided within one organization with few side effects. Improving incomes for people with disability is a much bigger challenge.
armchairhacker 3y ago
AFAIK in the US disability is $1,200/month, which is absolutely not enough considering rent <$500/month is rare even in rural areas. And you can’t work on disability or you lose the $1200/month. Yes, disability is intended to provide income for those who can’t work, but why can’t it be a sliding scale, where more disabled (definitely can’t work) = more income? Work isn’t just for income, and the government should be encouraging people to work wherever they can even if it’s part-time. EDIT: Forgot to mention, most disabled people probably have a lot of medical bills too, which is ironic because inability to pay can make it hard to get routine care. The saving grace is that the debtors can't extract any money from those who are only relying on the $1200/month.
- kevingadd 3y ago
  You're also prohibited from having much in the way of savings for emergencies, which is especially cruel. It means you are intentionally put in a precarious situation forever.
  - cogman10 3y ago
    Exactly. The means testing around disabilities is insanity. Because your bank account went past $2000 you no longer need healthcare? Fun that a well meaning grandparent or cousin can kill their loved one with kindness simply by pushing them over an arbitrary limit with a present.
  - hollerith 3y ago
    That is only for the SSI program. Most Americans who cannot work for medical reasons qualify for the SSDI program, which has no limit on assets. Also, the SSDI payment is not always $1,200 per month. It can go as high as about $2,000. It can also be a lot lower than $1,200 per month, including $0 (for those that have never worked). But if it is lower than $894 per month, then the SSI program kicks in and makes your total income from both programs $914 per month unless your SSDI payment is $0 because you've never worked, in which case your monthly income is $894 per month. The $894 figure is the lowest one would get. Some states decide to increase it, so actually a California resident would get at least 1114.21 -- plus food stamps adds about $100 per month. (Social Security ignores income from food stamps when deciding how much to pay you.) Also, roughly half of recipients also get subsidized housing, where they pay only 30% of their income (minus medical expense) for rent even if they live in an expensive area like SF or NYC. Someone on a different branch of this comment tree, i.e., a "cousin" of this comment, implies that as soon as Social Security decides you are no longer disabled, you lose the health insurance aspect of Social Security, but that is not true: you continue to receive Medicare for another 3 years or so. If you want to know the exact length, query a search engine for "grace period". (But if you've never worked at all, you don't get Medicare, so you have to rely on Medicaid, which might not continue for 3 years after you are determined to be able to work.)
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- benatkin 3y ago
  That is way too low. However, money isn't the only way to have access to markets, though it's perhaps the only thing that gives full access. I think EBT/food stamps and Section 8 help a lot with having people get their basic needs met and not spending it on other stuff*. If they have a sufficient monetary amount, they give people a lot of choices of whom to buy from. * There is a problem of people selling their food stamp benefits for cash https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fraud https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fraud
cogman10 3y ago
American charity is setup to punish anyone that needs it. The issue isn't one of market, it's one of choice and availability. Whenever you need to rely on an institution operated by or on behalf of the government you are often dealing with something that has gone through 1000 rounds of reaganomics to trim it to the bone and then some. A prime example of this is what happened to our mental health institutions. We used to have flawed, but fairly robust institutions to take care of individuals with extreme disabilities. Under reagan that all got yoinked away and people with severe disabilities were left with just about nothing. But it doesn't end there, we do provide SSI and Medicare for people with extreme disabilities, but it's setup in the most draconian way imaginable. I have a child with severe autism, in order to not have them lose out of medicare I've had to get a law firm involved to setup a trust to ensure that my child never sees a dime of inheritance. My child can never own their own home, that'll kick them off of medicare. They can't own their own things, that will also eject them. It was an open question at one point if you could use trust money just to eat a restaurant (you can now, but this is certainly something that can be reversed as it was an IRS decision, not a law). This is all because if I want to give my child the best life possible after I'm gone, I have to make sure they have health coverage, and I simply can't save enough money to ensure that happens. This isn't a question of what markets are available, but rather what quality of life should someone be entitled to? Should we all be entitled to have our needs met such as health, housing, clothing, and food? The current answer is no. I disagree. A good government is one that protects the most vulnerable.
- maxerickson 3y ago
  Deinstitutionalization is a lot more involved than Reaganomics. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/deinstitutionalization-people-mental-illness-causes-and-consequences/2013-10 https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/deinstitutional... The overall situation where we, as a society with the most abundant resources in all of history make living a decent life a puzzle for people facing difficulties, is quite the indictment.
- giantg2 3y ago
  Is that Medicare, or Medicaid? My understanding is the home is excluded for medicaid. I thought Medicare was determined by the SSDI that wasn't concerned with income/assets except for fees (covered by medicaid potentially). I don't think Regan was the one to close all the mental health hospitals. I believe that started closing in droves in the 60s-70s.
p3rls 3y ago
A family friend of mine -- a crackhead felon (theft) just got a beautiful 1-bedroom section 8 apartment in Weehawken, NJ with a gorgeous view overlooking Manhattan for only $268 a month. She got her disability for depression and anxiety and she sells some pills she gets on the side for extra cash. She got the apartment quick too, only waited a few months after getting out of the county jail -- one of the perks of her family knowing the mayor in that town, I suppose. She sits around all day playing games and facebooking (on her free government tablet) No wonder disability rates are skyrocketing.
- autoexec 3y ago
  This "friend" of yours isn't remotely representative of most people on disability. Being well connected with wealthy powerful people tends to give you all kinds of advantages other people don't get.
  - p3rls 3y ago
    The only special treatment she got was being bumped to the front of the list for her section 8 housing because of her impending "homelessness" was faked for the mayor. Very typical stuff though. I work in lot of lower income (NYCHA) buildings in NYC and see this sorta stuff all the time.
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      Felons usually can't get section 8 housing though? Or they have to wait 5 years or something? So how did she do that? Also, getting disability for depression is extremely difficult. Like to the extent that people who genuinely suffer can't actually get it. So this story sounds like something extremely rare/lucky, or else she had special treatment all over the place. (And being bumped to the front of the section 8 list is huge, since that wait can be many years long. That's not a minor thing.)
- KleinDisk 3y ago
  that lacks generalizability when we pivot to public policy implementation. Your use case lacks external validity.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago

I completely agree we should increase incomes for people with disability. The thing is, free national park access is something that can be decided within one organization with few side effects. Improving incomes for people with disability is a much bigger challenge.

armchairhacker 3y ago

AFAIK in the US disability is $1,200/month, which is absolutely not enough considering rent <$500/month is rare even in rural areas. And you can’t work on disability or you lose the $1200/month. Yes, disability is intended to provide income for those who can’t work, but why can’t it be a sliding scale, where more disabled (definitely can’t work) = more income? Work isn’t just for income, and the government should be encouraging people to work wherever they can even if it’s part-time. EDIT: Forgot to mention, most disabled people probably have a lot of medical bills too, which is ironic because inability to pay can make it hard to get routine care. The saving grace is that the debtors can't extract any money from those who are only relying on the $1200/month.

kevingadd 3y ago
You're also prohibited from having much in the way of savings for emergencies, which is especially cruel. It means you are intentionally put in a precarious situation forever.
- cogman10 3y ago
  Exactly. The means testing around disabilities is insanity. Because your bank account went past $2000 you no longer need healthcare? Fun that a well meaning grandparent or cousin can kill their loved one with kindness simply by pushing them over an arbitrary limit with a present.
- hollerith 3y ago
  That is only for the SSI program. Most Americans who cannot work for medical reasons qualify for the SSDI program, which has no limit on assets. Also, the SSDI payment is not always $1,200 per month. It can go as high as about $2,000. It can also be a lot lower than $1,200 per month, including $0 (for those that have never worked). But if it is lower than $894 per month, then the SSI program kicks in and makes your total income from both programs $914 per month unless your SSDI payment is $0 because you've never worked, in which case your monthly income is $894 per month. The $894 figure is the lowest one would get. Some states decide to increase it, so actually a California resident would get at least 1114.21 -- plus food stamps adds about $100 per month. (Social Security ignores income from food stamps when deciding how much to pay you.) Also, roughly half of recipients also get subsidized housing, where they pay only 30% of their income (minus medical expense) for rent even if they live in an expensive area like SF or NYC. Someone on a different branch of this comment tree, i.e., a "cousin" of this comment, implies that as soon as Social Security decides you are no longer disabled, you lose the health insurance aspect of Social Security, but that is not true: you continue to receive Medicare for another 3 years or so. If you want to know the exact length, query a search engine for "grace period". (But if you've never worked at all, you don't get Medicare, so you have to rely on Medicaid, which might not continue for 3 years after you are determined to be able to work.)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
benatkin 3y ago
That is way too low. However, money isn't the only way to have access to markets, though it's perhaps the only thing that gives full access. I think EBT/food stamps and Section 8 help a lot with having people get their basic needs met and not spending it on other stuff*. If they have a sufficient monetary amount, they give people a lot of choices of whom to buy from. * There is a problem of people selling their food stamp benefits for cash https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fraud https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fraud

cogman10 3y ago

American charity is setup to punish anyone that needs it. The issue isn't one of market, it's one of choice and availability. Whenever you need to rely on an institution operated by or on behalf of the government you are often dealing with something that has gone through 1000 rounds of reaganomics to trim it to the bone and then some. A prime example of this is what happened to our mental health institutions. We used to have flawed, but fairly robust institutions to take care of individuals with extreme disabilities. Under reagan that all got yoinked away and people with severe disabilities were left with just about nothing. But it doesn't end there, we do provide SSI and Medicare for people with extreme disabilities, but it's setup in the most draconian way imaginable. I have a child with severe autism, in order to not have them lose out of medicare I've had to get a law firm involved to setup a trust to ensure that my child never sees a dime of inheritance. My child can never own their own home, that'll kick them off of medicare. They can't own their own things, that will also eject them. It was an open question at one point if you could use trust money just to eat a restaurant (you can now, but this is certainly something that can be reversed as it was an IRS decision, not a law). This is all because if I want to give my child the best life possible after I'm gone, I have to make sure they have health coverage, and I simply can't save enough money to ensure that happens. This isn't a question of what markets are available, but rather what quality of life should someone be entitled to? Should we all be entitled to have our needs met such as health, housing, clothing, and food? The current answer is no. I disagree. A good government is one that protects the most vulnerable.

maxerickson 3y ago
Deinstitutionalization is a lot more involved than Reaganomics. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/deinstitutionalization-people-mental-illness-causes-and-consequences/2013-10 https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/deinstitutional... The overall situation where we, as a society with the most abundant resources in all of history make living a decent life a puzzle for people facing difficulties, is quite the indictment.
giantg2 3y ago
Is that Medicare, or Medicaid? My understanding is the home is excluded for medicaid. I thought Medicare was determined by the SSDI that wasn't concerned with income/assets except for fees (covered by medicaid potentially). I don't think Regan was the one to close all the mental health hospitals. I believe that started closing in droves in the 60s-70s.

p3rls 3y ago

A family friend of mine -- a crackhead felon (theft) just got a beautiful 1-bedroom section 8 apartment in Weehawken, NJ with a gorgeous view overlooking Manhattan for only $268 a month. She got her disability for depression and anxiety and she sells some pills she gets on the side for extra cash. She got the apartment quick too, only waited a few months after getting out of the county jail -- one of the perks of her family knowing the mayor in that town, I suppose. She sits around all day playing games and facebooking (on her free government tablet) No wonder disability rates are skyrocketing.

autoexec 3y ago
This "friend" of yours isn't remotely representative of most people on disability. Being well connected with wealthy powerful people tends to give you all kinds of advantages other people don't get.
- p3rls 3y ago
  The only special treatment she got was being bumped to the front of the list for her section 8 housing because of her impending "homelessness" was faked for the mayor. Very typical stuff though. I work in lot of lower income (NYCHA) buildings in NYC and see this sorta stuff all the time.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    Felons usually can't get section 8 housing though? Or they have to wait 5 years or something? So how did she do that? Also, getting disability for depression is extremely difficult. Like to the extent that people who genuinely suffer can't actually get it. So this story sounds like something extremely rare/lucky, or else she had special treatment all over the place. (And being bumped to the front of the section 8 list is huge, since that wait can be many years long. That's not a minor thing.)
KleinDisk 3y ago
that lacks generalizability when we pivot to public policy implementation. Your use case lacks external validity.