5 ms·

The problem with means-testing benefits is that it often will cost more to means-test than to just accept nonzero fraud rates past a very minimal point, and the

The problem with means-testing benefits is that it often will cost more to means-test than to just accept nonzero fraud rates past a very minimal point, and there is a significant amount of friction introduced when you add more friction to people who do not have time or energy to spare. e.g. if I ask you to submit receipts for literally everything that you bought in the last week, in order to give you a $20 stipend weekly, you will probably not bother, even if you could use the $20, and it will probably cost more than $20 to pay me for the time processing that. I'm not saying there's no waste, but I am saying that the optimal amount of waste to reward is nonzero.

hn_acc1 1y ago
They do say that the US is a country where people will happily spend $10 to ensure no one gets $1 they weren't entitled to..
- snowwrestler 1y ago
  Right, which is why broadly-available old-age insurance programs like Medicare and Social Security work. Everyone pays in their own money, to which they are entitled. So there’s not really any reason to spend that extra $10. It’s also why “Medicare For All” runs into opposition. It’s hard to make the case that a healthy 22-year-old is entitled to a lifetime of free health care before paying a dime into the system.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    That's just status quo bias. Countries with fully socialized healthcare systems make the same "everyone pays taxes and then everyone gets it" argument for including the healthy 22-year-olds and you can make the same "this person doesn't deserve public money" argument for not providing government benefits to people who have their own wealth. Moreover, it doesn't have anything to do with whether you could modify those programs to cost less money if your primary goal was to lower spending.
    - snowwrestler 1y ago
      I am describing factors that have produced the status quo in the U.S., not arguing that the American status quo is correct.
  - jakelazaroff 1y ago
    It's very easy to make that case: healthcare should be a human right, and our society should provide it to every person to the extent that it can. We can just decide to make things public services. No one ever says "wait a minute, kids shouldn't be get to use roads for free before paying a dime into the system." It sounds ridiculous! But for some reason, people buy that logic when it comes to healthcare and college.
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      > healthcare should be a human right If you are by yourself, who is obligated to fulfill that right?
      - nenenejej 1y ago
        We are not by ourselves though. Sure compared to 1000AD we might be being a little... precious. But hopefully we can enjoy the fact we invented all this technology to make our lives better and dream for bigger rights than is possible in a dog eat dog barbaric world.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        WalterBright 1y ago
        Note that the Bill of Rights does not enumerate any rights that anyone else is obliged to provide. (Neither does the Declaration of Independence.)
      - jakelazaroff 1y ago
        I don't understand this response. A "right" by definition is about your interactions with other people.
        WalterBright 1y ago
        By definition? I don't agree. Rights are a part of human nature, endowed by the Creator (or Evolution if you prefer). For example, since slavery was legal before the Civil War, does that mean the slaves had no right to be free?
  - shadowgovt 1y ago
    > It’s hard to make the case that a healthy 22-year-old is entitled to a lifetime of free health The economic future potential of a healthy 22-year-old is way higher than an aged 68-year-old. I don't think it's very hard at all to make the case we should be spending money on keeping the 22-year-old healthy, in fact I think it's very easy to tilt so far into claiming it's so that you'd be justifiably accused of cruelty ("what if everyone over 70 were tossed into the Soylent Green vats," etc.)
  - tverbeure 1y ago
    > It’s hard to make the case that a healthy 22-year-old is entitled to a lifetime of free health care before paying a dime into the system. What is so hard about it?
    - snowwrestler 1y ago
      It’s objectively hard, as demonstrated by the fact that Medicare For All is not the law. I’m describing why it has not been enacted in America, not making an argument about how I think things should be.
      - shadowgovt 1y ago
        I think you've identified the symptom but misidentified the cause. The majority in the US (as of 2022, according to Gallup) believe healthcare should be universally provided. The majority also believe it should not be a government responsibility. Broadly speaking, the US position is "Our current system sucks and we should be providing people healthcare detached from presence or absence of individual insurance... But also the government cannot be trusted to successfully execute on complex national projects."
  - izzylan 1y ago
    So then lets say a healthy 22-year-old graduates from college at the top of their class. Life's looking up for them. They've already got a job lined up that starts in two weeks and they're excited and energetic about entering the workforce and living on their own as adult. Then suddenly, some random guy in a mustang doing 150 in a 30 jumps the curb and runs over our optimistic 22-year-old, and continues speeding into the distance. A random onlooker witnesses the event and calls an ambulance, who rushes them to the hospital. Thanks to the hard work ICU doctors and surgeons spanning days, our 22-year-old miraculously lives, but is in bad shape. They're never gonna walk again, and they're gonna need weeks of physical therapy just to retrain the fine motor skills required to write and type. All of this, for a variety of factors is gonna cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. On top of the massive hospital bill they're about to be saddled with. I take it that our now not-so-healthy 22-year-old should just go fuck themselves then? They've never paid a dime into the system so why should they be entitled to health care?
    - mothballed 1y ago
      >I take it that our now not-so-healthy 22-year-old should just go fuck themselves then? They've never paid a dime into the system so why should they be entitled to health care? No, no one is entitled to the labor of others, not in this scenario where they are 3rd party to the damages. That doesn't even remotely make sense no matter how bad of a sob story you attach to it.
      - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
        >No, no one is entitled to the labor of others, not in this scenario where they are 3rd party to the damages. That doesn't even remotely make sense no matter how bad of a sob story you attach to it. Absolutely! We should just Brian Kilmeade[0] those folks too, since they're just a burden on society, right? [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/09/17/fox-news-brian-kilmeade-homeless-comment/86181269007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/09/17/...
        mothballed 1y ago
  - vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
    “ hard to make the case that a healthy 22-year-old is entitled to a lifetime of free health care before paying a dime into the system.” Is it also hard to make the case for them to have police protection or being allowed to use a public park before paying a dime into the system?
- ryandrake 1y ago
  Half the country is willing to get punched in the face as long as they know their opponents are getting kicked in the nuts. It’s all about hurting the other team more.
  - FireBeyond 1y ago
    "A Republican will happily eat dogshit if he thinks a Democrat will have to smell his breath."
AnthonyMouse 1y ago
It's quite true that means testing has an efficiency cost. One of the best ways to improve the efficiency of social security would be to convert it into a UBI. But that's a very different question than whether it would lower the budget, and we're talking about programs that are paying out a lot more than $20. If doing means testing means you can stop paying $1000+/month to someone who is already a millionaire, that's still a savings even if it adds $20 in overhead. Meanwhile we're already paying the cost of doing the means testing, because we do it in reverse, and removing that would increase efficiency and lower spending. Moreover, other taxes require keeping track of that stuff regardless. You already have to track the value of your assets for the purposes of capital gains tax and property tax. Doing that calculation to begin with isn't free, but the incremental cost of copying that line from the other tax forms onto the Medicare form would cost far less than it does to pay benefits to people who don't need the money. And it also has an efficiency benefit whenever it isn't a cash payment, since insurance is a moral hazard -- if the government is paying for something then you take it even if you value it at a third of what it costs, whereas if you're paying your own money you don't buy things that cost more than they're worth, so having less insurance coverage for people who could afford to pay out of pocket increases efficiency.
- saynay 1y ago
  > means you can stop paying $1000+/month to someone who is already a millionaire, that's still a savings even if it adds $20 in overhead. Only if these hypothetical millionaires you are stopping make up more than 1/50 of the people you are means-testing. You are not only paying for those who fail the means-test, but for all those who are passing it.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    > Only if these hypothetical millionaires you are stopping make up more than 1/50 of the people you are means-testing. Then why don't we use the non-hypothetical numbers? More than 10% of retirees are millionaires and the $1000+ in payments is actually $2000+ on average and even more for the people who made enough money to be millionaires.

hn_acc1 1y ago

They do say that the US is a country where people will happily spend $10 to ensure no one gets $1 they weren't entitled to..

snowwrestler 1y ago
Right, which is why broadly-available old-age insurance programs like Medicare and Social Security work. Everyone pays in their own money, to which they are entitled. So there’s not really any reason to spend that extra $10. It’s also why “Medicare For All” runs into opposition. It’s hard to make the case that a healthy 22-year-old is entitled to a lifetime of free health care before paying a dime into the system.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  That's just status quo bias. Countries with fully socialized healthcare systems make the same "everyone pays taxes and then everyone gets it" argument for including the healthy 22-year-olds and you can make the same "this person doesn't deserve public money" argument for not providing government benefits to people who have their own wealth. Moreover, it doesn't have anything to do with whether you could modify those programs to cost less money if your primary goal was to lower spending.
  - snowwrestler 1y ago
    I am describing factors that have produced the status quo in the U.S., not arguing that the American status quo is correct.
- jakelazaroff 1y ago
  It's very easy to make that case: healthcare should be a human right, and our society should provide it to every person to the extent that it can. We can just decide to make things public services. No one ever says "wait a minute, kids shouldn't be get to use roads for free before paying a dime into the system." It sounds ridiculous! But for some reason, people buy that logic when it comes to healthcare and college.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    > healthcare should be a human right If you are by yourself, who is obligated to fulfill that right?
    - nenenejej 1y ago
      We are not by ourselves though. Sure compared to 1000AD we might be being a little... precious. But hopefully we can enjoy the fact we invented all this technology to make our lives better and dream for bigger rights than is possible in a dog eat dog barbaric world.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        Note that the Bill of Rights does not enumerate any rights that anyone else is obliged to provide. (Neither does the Declaration of Independence.)
    - jakelazaroff 1y ago
      I don't understand this response. A "right" by definition is about your interactions with other people.
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        By definition? I don't agree. Rights are a part of human nature, endowed by the Creator (or Evolution if you prefer). For example, since slavery was legal before the Civil War, does that mean the slaves had no right to be free?
- shadowgovt 1y ago
  > It’s hard to make the case that a healthy 22-year-old is entitled to a lifetime of free health The economic future potential of a healthy 22-year-old is way higher than an aged 68-year-old. I don't think it's very hard at all to make the case we should be spending money on keeping the 22-year-old healthy, in fact I think it's very easy to tilt so far into claiming it's so that you'd be justifiably accused of cruelty ("what if everyone over 70 were tossed into the Soylent Green vats," etc.)
- tverbeure 1y ago
  > It’s hard to make the case that a healthy 22-year-old is entitled to a lifetime of free health care before paying a dime into the system. What is so hard about it?
  - snowwrestler 1y ago
    It’s objectively hard, as demonstrated by the fact that Medicare For All is not the law. I’m describing why it has not been enacted in America, not making an argument about how I think things should be.
    - shadowgovt 1y ago
      I think you've identified the symptom but misidentified the cause. The majority in the US (as of 2022, according to Gallup) believe healthcare should be universally provided. The majority also believe it should not be a government responsibility. Broadly speaking, the US position is "Our current system sucks and we should be providing people healthcare detached from presence or absence of individual insurance... But also the government cannot be trusted to successfully execute on complex national projects."
- izzylan 1y ago
  So then lets say a healthy 22-year-old graduates from college at the top of their class. Life's looking up for them. They've already got a job lined up that starts in two weeks and they're excited and energetic about entering the workforce and living on their own as adult. Then suddenly, some random guy in a mustang doing 150 in a 30 jumps the curb and runs over our optimistic 22-year-old, and continues speeding into the distance. A random onlooker witnesses the event and calls an ambulance, who rushes them to the hospital. Thanks to the hard work ICU doctors and surgeons spanning days, our 22-year-old miraculously lives, but is in bad shape. They're never gonna walk again, and they're gonna need weeks of physical therapy just to retrain the fine motor skills required to write and type. All of this, for a variety of factors is gonna cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. On top of the massive hospital bill they're about to be saddled with. I take it that our now not-so-healthy 22-year-old should just go fuck themselves then? They've never paid a dime into the system so why should they be entitled to health care?
  - mothballed 1y ago
    >I take it that our now not-so-healthy 22-year-old should just go fuck themselves then? They've never paid a dime into the system so why should they be entitled to health care? No, no one is entitled to the labor of others, not in this scenario where they are 3rd party to the damages. That doesn't even remotely make sense no matter how bad of a sob story you attach to it.
    - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
      >No, no one is entitled to the labor of others, not in this scenario where they are 3rd party to the damages. That doesn't even remotely make sense no matter how bad of a sob story you attach to it. Absolutely! We should just Brian Kilmeade[0] those folks too, since they're just a burden on society, right? [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/09/17/fox-news-brian-kilmeade-homeless-comment/86181269007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/09/17/...
      - mothballed 1y ago
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
  “ hard to make the case that a healthy 22-year-old is entitled to a lifetime of free health care before paying a dime into the system.” Is it also hard to make the case for them to have police protection or being allowed to use a public park before paying a dime into the system?
ryandrake 1y ago
Half the country is willing to get punched in the face as long as they know their opponents are getting kicked in the nuts. It’s all about hurting the other team more.
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  "A Republican will happily eat dogshit if he thinks a Democrat will have to smell his breath."

AnthonyMouse 1y ago

It's quite true that means testing has an efficiency cost. One of the best ways to improve the efficiency of social security would be to convert it into a UBI. But that's a very different question than whether it would lower the budget, and we're talking about programs that are paying out a lot more than $20. If doing means testing means you can stop paying $1000+/month to someone who is already a millionaire, that's still a savings even if it adds $20 in overhead. Meanwhile we're already paying the cost of doing the means testing, because we do it in reverse, and removing that would increase efficiency and lower spending. Moreover, other taxes require keeping track of that stuff regardless. You already have to track the value of your assets for the purposes of capital gains tax and property tax. Doing that calculation to begin with isn't free, but the incremental cost of copying that line from the other tax forms onto the Medicare form would cost far less than it does to pay benefits to people who don't need the money. And it also has an efficiency benefit whenever it isn't a cash payment, since insurance is a moral hazard -- if the government is paying for something then you take it even if you value it at a third of what it costs, whereas if you're paying your own money you don't buy things that cost more than they're worth, so having less insurance coverage for people who could afford to pay out of pocket increases efficiency.

saynay 1y ago
> means you can stop paying $1000+/month to someone who is already a millionaire, that's still a savings even if it adds $20 in overhead. Only if these hypothetical millionaires you are stopping make up more than 1/50 of the people you are means-testing. You are not only paying for those who fail the means-test, but for all those who are passing it.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  > Only if these hypothetical millionaires you are stopping make up more than 1/50 of the people you are means-testing. Then why don't we use the non-hypothetical numbers? More than 10% of retirees are millionaires and the $1000+ in payments is actually $2000+ on average and even more for the people who made enough money to be millionaires.