From: stephen@sprunk.org
On 27-Apr-15 11:27, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 25-Apr-15 21:27, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> You may have noticed that Medicare isn't means tested, so that's
>>> simply not true.
>>
>> And why do we have Medicare in the first place? Private insurance
>> for seniors was so expensive (if available at all) that virtually
>> none of them could afford it.
>
> You can't support that statement.
Good grief, Adam; that was an established fact ~50 years ago when
Congress enacted Medicare in the first place. Since then, seniors'
income has gone up at less than the rate of general inflation, while
medical costs have gone up at twice the rate of general inflation, so
there is no question they couldn't afford it now.
>> The cost of means testing would be higher than the savings from
>> denying coverage, just as we've seen recently in states requiring
>> drug testing for welfare benefits, so it is a net savings to just
>> offer it to everyone.
>
> You can't support that statement either.
The "means testing" overhead in welfare is an _enormous_ expense, and
people slip through the cracks anyways due to undocumented income.
For the drug testing point, Florida discovered that testing welfare
recipients cost _over ten times_ what was saved by denying benefits to
those who tested positive. Similar results have been seen in every
other state that has tried it since--even those limiting testing to
cases where there is a "reasonable suspicion" of drug use. And some
states require providing "treatment" to those who do test positive,
which costs a lot more money than just providing them the benefits--and
is completely ineffective at addressing the stated goal, since drug use
is at most a result of poverty, not a cause.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
