Medicaid

[All4MyDaughter]

Page 9!

Geek!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SHC1984]

It's enough to buy that 100K car and a bag of cocaine every week. You can devote all your salary to the car/drugs because of the Medicaid Free Food Benefit program.

I would like to know what she thinks the "average medicaid recipient's salary" is. She probably thinks it's about 50K because to her, that's gotta be poverty level.

In all seriousness, it's just her making stuff up again. That's why I didn't comment on it. She's already been caught making stuff up/lying/exaggerating so many times in this thread and she just happily goes on doing the same despite people calling her on it repeatedly. I just don't understand how someone can be OK with being so ignorant about the world around them.

I haven't lied about anything in this thread. Sure, I guess their BMWs, Corvettes, Land Rovers, etc. might cost less than 100K, but they are still abusing medcaid. Average BMW cost what? 40K to 70K at least...how could they afford that?

I might not know all the "correct" names for the many government programs out there, but you mention there was one (TANF?) that offer a source of income (free money) for those that need it, but that is "suppose" to be their primary income to pay for rent, uilities, etc. Well there you go, that's $$$ the government is giving out to these people that most likely could live without it if they budgeted their income better.

SHC, I will bite. What is the typical medicaid's family salary? How much is "way more" than 25k?

The average family income varies by cities, so I can't say exactly what the average is since it varies so much by cities. The city I live in now has an average household income of 68K a year (I looked it up on wiki). The city beside where I live Alpharetta, GA has a average household income of over 100K a year. That is the AVERAGE household salary. 25K is way below that so I would consider it low...I am sure there are medicaid families recieving aid with incomes above 25K a year. I wouldn't be surprise if there are people out there with incomes of 30K or 40K a year, but still file for medicaid and under report their salary. My whole point is it is POSSIBLE to live with very little money and NOT need the government, if you know how to budget you do not need the government to survive.

 

[SHC1984]

AFDC/TANF is what people traditionally considered "welfare checks." These programs, along with Social Security Disability, SSI, Unemployment and Social Security provide monthly "checks" or electronic transfers of funds that are intended to be a person's primary income or a supplement. No program hands out CASH but some do provide money that people can spend as they choose. That's how people generally pay rent, utilities, put gas in their cars, etc.

Here is the post, so the government does provide money for these people to spend as they choose on whatever they want. I'll call it "welfare checks" and not medicaid next time...that was my mistake.

 

[xiphoid2010]

I've detailed this in other threads but I've attended two different pharmacy schools and neither allowed COA that was that generous. At my first school, I was able to obtain about $10,000 over tuition in federal loans (and I had an extra line item in my budget for child care) and it's about the same at my current school (although I don't borrow for expenses anymore).

The only way I could imagine needing $35,000 per year for living expenses was if the school was in a high cost metropolitan area. Even then, it seems high to me. I doubt that allowing living expenses that are almost 3X the amount of tuition is the norm. It's not in this area of the country, anyway.

Yeah, it probably depends on the school. Mine was in a sizable metropolitan area, but it's still in the midwest and we didn't need THAT kind of money. I think it boils down to how the school calc their COA. Tuition was $13K, but then there the mandatory student insurance and fees. Then god knows how much money they allowed for books and supplies or transportation living off campus, or what they think the rent is around town and what they consider is reasonable level of living a student should have.

The schools play their math and I bet some school over estimate while other underestimate COA. I know mine ended up offering the full stafford, unsubsidized stafford, and then grad-plus loans, and still had something like healt-professional loans waiting on the side. I wondered who's nuts enough to take out all those loans.

 

[CynicalIntern]

I haven't lied about anything in this thread. Sure, I guess their BMWs, Corvettes, Land Rovers, etc. might cost less than 100K, but they are still abusing medcaid. Average BMW cost what? 40K to 70K at least...how could they afford that?

I might not know all the "correct" names for the many government programs out there, but you mention there was one (TANF?) that offer a source of income (free money) for those that need it, but that is "suppose" to be their primary income to pay for rent, uilities, etc. Well there you go, that's $$$ the government is giving out to these people that most likely could live without it if they budgeted their income better.



The average family income varies by cities, so I can't say exactly what the average is since it varies so much by cities. The city I live in now has an average household income of 68K a year (I looked it up on wiki). The city beside where I live Alpharetta, GA has a average household income of over 100K a year. That is the AVERAGE household salary. 25K is way below that so I would consider it low...I am sure there are medicaid families recieving aid with incomes above 25K a year. I wouldn't be surprise if there are people out there with incomes of 30K or 40K a year, but still file for medicaid and under report their salary. My whole point is it is POSSIBLE to live with very little money and NOT need the government, if you know how to budget you do not need the government to survive.

We had a test on this last year. You took this test. This was a question on the test. The answer was like 13,600 being the threshold for eligibility. That's half the number you quoted. 7200 for an individual with an additional 4000 for every dependent living in house. I'm sure those numbers have changed a little bit in the past year, but it didn't double.

 

[cycloketocaine]

We had a test on this last year. You took this test. This was a question on the test. The answer was like 13,600 being the threshold for eligibility. That's half the number you quoted. 7200 for an individual with an additional 4000 for every dependent living in house. I'm sure those numbers have changed a little bit in the past year, but it didn't double.

ZOMG!! SHC got something wrong? Surely it's you..you must be wrong.

 

[FarscapeGirl]

We had a test on this last year. You took this test. This was a question on the test. The answer was like 13,600 being the threshold for eligibility. That's half the number you quoted. 7200 for an individual with an additional 4000 for every dependent living in house. I'm sure those numbers have changed a little bit in the past year, but it didn't double.

Like I said, she's being willfully ignorant. And showing how spoiled/clueless she is. $25K, even today, is not the lowest of the low; it's not even minimum wage. You could probably support your family, albeit with not much more than what you'd absolutely need. And twenty years ago, you'd be even better off. It does depend where in the country you are. I could do much better in SC than I could in Seattle on that income.

And quoting the average income for one of the highest-paid counties does not make that anywhere near the average for the country.

We really shouldn't egg her on, but then we wouldn't be on page 9 of this discussion. And I'd have to be doing something productive, like laundry or studying for my PK test on Wednesday...

 

[CynicalIntern]

ZOMG!! SHC got something wrong? Surely it's you..you must be wrong.

I have no doubt in my mind that she got it right on the test, but just promptly knowledge-dumped it post test as something that's not important, and is yet still proclaiming her ideas as fact, when they're totally wrong.

Also humorous is the fact that her city is in the middle of outright suburbia, and Alpharetta is even higher class that her city. Of course those cities are going to have high averages, hardly anyone there qualifies for medicaid. Whereas, you can take a city like Athens, the average household income is $28,118, or Bainbridge, GA $24,869. So try working at about the 30th percentile from there to find out what the threshold is.

 

[owlegrad]

Like I said, she's being willfully ignorant. And showing how spoiled/clueless she is. $25K, even today, is not the lowest of the low; it's not even minimum wage. You could probably support your family, albeit with not much more than what you'd absolutely need. And twenty years ago, you'd be even better off. It does depend where in the country you are. I could do much better in SC than I could in Seattle on that income.

And quoting the average income for one of the highest-paid counties does not make that anywhere near the average for the country.

We really shouldn't egg her on, but then we wouldn't be on page 9 of this discussion. And I'd have to be doing something productive, like laundry or studying for my PK test on Wednesday...

Drat, I always forget to take it out of the dryer! Thanks for reminding me. (100% serious - I need to go fold laundry.)

 

[FarscapeGirl]

Drat, I always forget to take it out of the dryer! Thanks for reminding me. (100% serious - I need to go fold laundry.)

Glad I could be of service!

 

[All4MyDaughter]

I am doing laundry right now and working on a presentation for Journal Club. This thread is MUCH more entertaining, especially now that CynicalIntern has joined us.

 

[CynicalIntern]

I am doing laundry right now and working on a presentation for Journal Club. This thread is MUCH more entertaining, especially now that CynicalIntern has joined us.

Glad to be of service. I normally just roll my eyes and grab some popcorn every time a thread like this pops up, but once she started posting things that were egregiously statistically wrong as opposed to her normal abhorrent morally wrong viewpoints, I had to join in, because I'm sure nobody else here will be able to call her out on Georgia statistics or what Mercer's curriculum entails.

But now that I've joined in, I want to comment on something 5 pages back where she's saying empathy doesn't really matter, because she'd rather have the pharmacist who doesn't make any mistakes but doesn't give a damn about the patient versus the one who's super nice but makes a ton of mistakes all the time. That's the equivalent of saying I'd rather have a unicorn that a pixie that circles around my head - neither of the cases really exists. The former is a statistical impossibility, the latter would have been fired a long time ago if their error rate was as bad as this theoretical strawman. I would imagine that the range of errors between CVS's best pharmacist and their worst pharmacist in terms of errors is probably somewhere between 0.5 and 2 % error rates, and that's probably an extreme statistical outlier - And quite frankly, if you were to tell me (and most likely anyone who cared about their healthcare) that for every 50 prescriptions they got, 1 might be screwed up, but their pharmacist would care about them and work their ass off to try to help them...They'd keep going back to that pharmacist, versus the 1 in 100 pharmacist who pissed them off the first time they tried to fill a script and the pharmacist looked down their nose at them.

 

[owlegrad]

Glad I could be of service!

Done and done.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

But now that I've joined in, I want to comment on something 5 pages back where she's saying empathy doesn't really matter, because she'd rather have the pharmacist who doesn't make any mistakes but doesn't give a damn about the patient versus the one who's super nice but makes a ton of mistakes all the time. That's the equivalent of saying I'd rather have a unicorn that a pixie that circles around my head - neither of the cases really exists. The former is a statistical impossibility, the latter would have been fired a long time ago if their error rate was as bad as this theoretical strawman. I would imagine that the range of errors between CVS's best pharmacist and their worst pharmacist in terms of errors is probably somewhere between 0.5 and 2 % error rates, and that's probably an extreme statistical outlier - And quite frankly, if you were to tell me (and most likely anyone who cared about their healthcare) that for every 50 prescriptions they got, 1 might be screwed up, but their pharmacist would care about them and work their ass off to try to help them...They'd keep going back to that pharmacist, versus the 1 in 100 pharmacist who pissed them off the first time they tried to fill a script and the pharmacist looked down their nose at them.

I agree. I have found in my several years of experience that pharmacists who CARE tend to make fewer mistakes than those who don't give a damn and are just focused on production. That's not a scientific observation though, just something I've experienced. Maybe it's because pharmacists with empathy tend to actually see their patients as people and really pay attention to what is going on with the patient? I don't know.

 

[SHC1984]

We had a test on this last year. You took this test. This was a question on the test. The answer was like 13,600 being the threshold for eligibility. That's half the number you quoted. 7200 for an individual with an additional 4000 for every dependent living in house. I'm sure those numbers have changed a little bit in the past year, but it didn't double.

7200+4000+4000+4000=19,600 for a family of one parent and three children. 25K is close enough. I can't remember anything from that class b/c I hardly studied at all for it.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

7200+4000+4000+4000=19,600 for a family of one parent and three children. 25K is close enough. I can't remember anything from that class b/c I hardly studied at all for it.

This doesn't do much to support your claim that 25K is much LOWER than the average Medicaid recipient's salary. It would seem that 25K is higher.

 

[Smiles425]

7200+4000+4000+4000=19,600 for a family of one parent and three children. 25K is close enough. I can't remember anything from that class b/c I hardly studied at all for it.

Actually over 5,000 in income is a big difference when you are making such a small amount. We aren't talking 105,000 vs 100,000. So no, it's not "close enough."

 

[Filler]

Actually over 5,000 in income is a big difference when you are making such a small amount. We aren't talking 105,000 vs 100,000. So no, it's not "close enough."

LOL, add that to the list, couple of posts before it was about people with medicaid driving in $100,000 Mercedes and Land Rovers .

Couple weeks ago it was about NYC garbage men making 90K a year, when in reality they could max out at 60K...

 

[Jabberwocky12]

Actually over 5,000 in income is a big difference when you are making such a small amount. We aren't talking 105,000 vs 100,000. So no, it's not "close enough."

Fact.

For someone working a fulltime job at 10/hour, that extra 5k a year is an additional week's pay and more. That would make a huge different for a lot of people. I had to support a family of 3 on those wages at 10/hr for a while and I would have loved the extra 5k a year. That's more than the food budget for the month, or all my utilities and over half the food budget.

25k puts you in the lower tier of income, I will agree. But the bottom of the bottom isn't correct. You could maintain a life on 25k with one job; some people have to work 2+ jobs to get 25k a year.That is literally the amount of 2 full-time jobs at minimum wage (isn't it like 7.55/hr now?) so 25k is the equivalent of 80 hr work weeks for people at lower rates.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

LOL, add that to the list, couple of posts before it was about people with medicaid driving in $100,000 Mercedes and Land Rovers .

Couple weeks ago it was about NYC garbage men making 90K a year, when in reality they could max out at 60K...

Clearly there is a credibility problem that is apparent to everyone but the person making these outlandish claims...

 

[pharm B]

7200+4000+4000+4000=19,600 for a family of one parent and three children. 25K is close enough. I can't remember anything from that class b/c I hardly studied at all for it.

It's a shame when a student knows more about next year's fashion line than they do about the programs they'll be participating in as healthcare practitioners.

But hey, we can't be held accountable for it, right? I mean, we hardly studied for it. As long as the poor people don't stink up the place.

 

[Farmercyst]

I've detailed this in other threads but I've attended two different pharmacy schools and neither allowed COA that was that generous. At my first school, I was able to obtain about $10,000 over tuition in federal loans (and I had an extra line item in my budget for child care) and it's about the same at my current school (although I don't borrow for expenses anymore).

The only way I could imagine needing $35,000 per year for living expenses was if the school was in a high cost metropolitan area. Even then, it seems high to me. I doubt that allowing living expenses that are almost 3X the amount of tuition is the norm. It's not in this area of the country, anyway.

Our COA is around 56K/yr, so I've been taking ~24K the last couple. But that's with $1550/mo in rent plus (now) $530/mo in health insurance for the wife and 3 kids. I'll be graduating with $216K in debt. And that's after starting with $60K in the bank from the sale of our condo. The good part is that we've been living relatively well in SoCal on $36K/yr (including my intern pay), so that by the time I'm out of residency we should be able to pay loans down fairly quickly.

 

[FarscapeGirl]

Our COA is around 56K/yr, so I've been taking ~24K the last couple. But that's with $1550/mo in rent plus (now) $530/mo in health insurance for the wife and 3 kids. I'll be graduating with $216K in debt. And that's after starting with $60K in the bank from the sale of our condo. The good part is that we've been living relatively well in SoCal on $36K/yr (including my intern pay), so that by the time I'm out of residency we should be able to pay loans down fairly quickly.

Yeah, the student loans I'm seeing adding up are starting to scare me. I just try to keep in mind that I will have a job where I'll be able to pay them off, and if my husband and I continue to live more like we do now (i.e. as a student and an academic post-doc), we'll pay them off even faster.

 

[xiphoid2010]

While everybody is preaching the virtue of being kind to the poor, nobody seems to be willing to address the the nation's tough budget crisis. This country is broke, we are borrowing 43% of the budget and spending it on the welfare programs.

We can increase the taxes of the well off some more, it isn't going to make up for the enormous gap. The welfare programs have to take a cut too. All the talks of empathy isn't going to make the numbers add up at the end of the day, but I foresee it's going to be all talking and do nothing until national bankruptcy hit us like a ton of bricks.

This is why I say this country has grown soft. Whether it's politicians, health care providers, or the poor, nobody is willing to be do what it takes any more.

 

[spacecowgirl]

This country is broke, we are borrowing 43% of the budget and spending it on the welfare programs.

C'mon now Stop with inflammatory, FALSE statements.


I will say that 42% of federal income tax is spent on the military. Much more than on "welfare".

 

[pharm B]

While everybody is preaching the virtue of being kind to the poor, nobody seems to be willing to address the the nation's tough budget crisis. This country is broke, we are borrowing 43% of the budget and spending it on the welfare programs.

As a student who works, I've had taxes taken out of my check every year, and then every year, I got pretty much a complete refund. Everyone jokes that their tax refund is like a fun bonus.

Rather than discuss cutting benefits to many people who genuinely need them, why not stop refunding tax funds to people who don't really need them? Honestly, how many of us have used that refund to buy frivolous crap? $1,000 per person (getting a complete refund) going back into the pot might make a big difference, and it's money you already consider "lost" to taxes during the year anyway.

 

[spacecowgirl]

As a student who works, I've had taxes taken out of my check every year, and then every year, I got pretty much a complete refund. Everyone jokes that their tax refund is like a fun bonus.

Rather than discuss cutting benefits to many people who genuinely need them, why not stop refunding tax funds to people who don't really need them? Honestly, how many of us have used that refund to buy frivolous crap? $1,000 per person (getting a complete refund) going back into the pot might make a big difference, and it's money you already consider "lost" to taxes during the year anyway.

But if people are spending (vs saving) that helps the economy, right? Not saying people should spend vs save, but I keep hearing about stimulating the economy and needing consumers to spend more to do that.

 

[xiphoid2010]

C'mon now Stop with inflammatory, FALSE statements.


42% of federal income tax is spent on the military.

You need to look things up. Here are the 2010 number:

medicare/medicaid: 23%
Social security: 20%
Military: 20%

So even if you cut the military to $0, the budget will still be $1 trillion in the hole.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

While everybody is preaching the virtue of being kind to the poor, nobody seems to be willing to address the the nation's tough budget crisis. This country is broke, we are borrowing 43% of the budget and spending it on the welfare programs.

We can increase the taxes of the well off some more, it isn't going to make up for the enormous gap. The welfare programs have to take a cut too. All the talks of empathy isn't going to make the numbers add up at the end of the day, but I foresee it's going to be all talking and do nothing until national bankruptcy hit us like a ton of bricks.

This is why I say this country has grown soft. Whether it's politicians, health care providers, or the poor, nobody is willing to be do what it takes any more.

Well, the problem is that its just a drop in the bucket. You CAN'T cut medicare, disability coverage, SS, or coverage for children. It's just flat out wrong on so many levels.

You can't stop paying interest on debt unless you want our credit rating to die.

The military can be cut a ton.

Other than that, the government operates a pretty low budget. Those are the big three. Two can't realistically be cut and one has a big time military-industrial complex to contend with. So good luck with that.

The problem is more with taxes than spending. We pay too little - especially major corporations.

 

[xiphoid2010]

As a student who works, I've had taxes taken out of my check every year, and then every year, I got pretty much a complete refund. Everyone jokes that their tax refund is like a fun bonus.

That just means you were over withholding on your taxes. The more financially savvy folks have $0 refund at tax time.

 

[pharm B]

The military can be cut a ton.

This is true. I never saw more government waste than when I served in the Navy. When your budget is based on a "use it or lose it" principle, then divisions feel required to spend all their money, regardless of whether they need to or not. October 1st was the start of the new fiscal year for us, and right around the end of September, you'd see all kinds of new furniture, televisions, etc, rolling in. Gotta make sure that money gets spent, or they won't give you as much in the coming year.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Well, the problem is that its just a drop in the bucket. You CAN'T cut medicare, disability coverage, SS, or coverage for children. It's just flat out wrong on so many levels.

No, we don't cut it all out. But as you and I pointed out earlier, people CAN live on less than what is currently allowed. I am not proposing denying everyone, but the eligibility requirements needs to be tougher.

You can't stop paying interest on debt unless you want our credit rating to die.

Agreed

The military can be cut a ton.

Agreed also, but as I pointed out. Even if military was cut to nothing, we will still be very far off.

The problem is more with taxes than spending. We pay too little - especially major corporations.

Taxes needs to be raise. But higher taxes will result in increased off-shoring. I support we resort to a sales/value added tax system with a income based credit. This will capture those who don't currently pay taxes (the illegals and criminals).

 

[pharm B]

That just means you were over withholding on your taxes. The more financially savvy folks have $0 refund at tax time.

My checks were pretty thin. Assuming I paid about 1200/yr in taxes, that's $100/mo I could otherwise invest. Any recommendations on what I could invest that in?

 

[spacecowgirl]

You need to look things up. Here are the 2010 number:

medicare/medicaid: 23%
Social security: 20%
Military: 20%

So even if you cut the military to $0, the budget will still be $1 trillion in the hole.

Source?

Mandatory spending makes up about two-thirds of the total federal budget. By far the largest mandatory program is Social Security which makes up one-third of mandatory spending and continues to grow as the age demographic of the country shifts towards an older population. The chart below shows the breakdown of different types of mandatory spending in fiscal year 2011.Source


About one-third of that spending, $1.2 tillion in FY2011, is devoted to Social Security and Medicare - programs aimed at senior citizens, the disabled and children and spouses of deceased workers (see chart below).

Spending on 'national defense' (a government definition) amounts to 20% of total federal spending. This does not include, however, foreign military financing grants, other military assistance, or other military-related expenditures.

Can't find a breakdown about what part of health spending is Medicaid vs Medicare. I'm sure someone can investigoogle that. What I think you probably can't find is a breakdown of how many people are "deserving" of Medicaid vs those who are not.

I gotta get back to work, but my point is Xiphoid that you said we borrow X% (which I'm not debating) but then you say it's spent on welfare. You don't clarify how much, but you imply that it's a majority of the budget. Again, not sure of the figures of who is deserving of Medicaid (disabled children? vets? don't know).

Out.

 

[xiphoid2010]

My checks were pretty thin. Assuming I paid about 1200/yr in taxes, that's $100/mo I could otherwise invest. Any recommendations on what I could invest that in?

You have many options. I say you should take advantage of your currently low tax bracket and the power of compounding. You also need to plan your eventual retirement fund with the a good possibility that social security will be bankrupt by then.

I personally socked my money into Roth IRA. The tax rate working as an intern during school is extremely low, but won't be after graduation. So putting $ in now is getting a huge bargain. The other option would be to use that to decrease the amount of un-subsidized student loans. At 6.8-8.5% it's hardly a bargain.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Spacecowgirl: wikipedia has the breakdown of th 2010 federal budget.

Here's a simplified chart:

As you can see, welfare (social security, medicare, medicaid) is the biggest chunk of the budget. The military is the next biggest. They all contributing to the $1.6 trillion borrowing, but welfare is the biggest portion.

You raised a good question of who's the most deserving, I'm sure everyone will argue endlessly, even though the need for cuts at the end is clear. Again, I say the logic would dictate those who are currently contributing into and will be contributing into the system should given priority, and those who are most probably a net drain to the end is lower priority. But that's just logic, which everyone will disagree with. <sigh>

 

[WVUPharm2007]

No, we don't cut it all out. But as you and I pointed out earlier, people CAN live on less than what is currently allowed. I am not proposing denying everyone, but the eligibility requirements needs to be tougher.



Agreed



Agreed also, but as I pointed out. Even if military was cut to nothing, we will still be very far off.



Taxes needs to be raise. But higher taxes will result in increased off-shoring. I support we resort to a sales/value added tax system with a income based credit. This will capture those who don't currently pay taxes (the illegals and criminals).

If you are going to do a VAT, hell just use it to base a healthcare system off of.

You could have a single-payer system that everyone has access to, then charge healthcare consumption fees on high calorie foods, alcohol, dangerous behavior (smoking, white water rafting, drinking, being obese).

Then we'd have an actual market-driven healthcare system that shifts the cost of healthcare onto those that are putting themselves at the most risk to consume the most of it.

...I think I'm the only people that has thought of this, though.

...

And, really, I don't think cutting this hypothetical "fat" from medicaid is that viable. All children should have medical coverage. It's not their fault whose vagina they came out of. I would join the riots in the streets if they tried to take medicaid coverage from children in any way, shape, or form. Disability...that's a tough cookie. It obviously needs some good auditing on some people, but to those legitimately disabled...we can't just let them rot. And the elderly...can't pick on them, either. Too old to fend for themselves. And those groups consume the most healthcare dollars, by far. Everyone else...like I said...drop in the bucket...

 

[xiphoid2010]

You could have a single-payer system that everyone has access to, then charge healthcare consumption fees on high calorie foods, alcohol, dangerous behavior (smoking, white water rafting, drinking, being obese).

Not an unreasonable idea, but logistically impractical. How are you going to to keep track how much smoking, white water raft, drinking a person has done? By self report? Although the obesity part should be quite possible.

And, really, I don't think cutting this hypothetical "fat" from medicaid is that viable. All children should have medical coverage. It's not their fault whose vagina they came out of. I would join the riots in the streets if they tried to take medicaid coverage from children in any way, shape, or form. Disability...that's a tough cookie. It obviously needs some good auditing on some people, but to those legitimately disabled...we can't just let them rot. And the elderly...can't pick on them, either. Too old to fend for themselves. And those groups consume the most healthcare dollars, by far. Everyone else...like I said...drop in the bucket...

Logic would agree with you that those who are paying into the system and the future payers (hard working poor and children) should have priority. The difference between logic and emotional values is on the disability and elderly. Again, I think a decrease the level of benefit and increase the qualification requirement is needed. To close the deficit, things are going to get tougher for everyone, they are no exception.

But I agree, we need more info on just how exactly the welfare pay outs breakdown currently.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Not an unreasonable idea, but logistically impractical. How are you going to to keep track how much smoking, white water raft, drinking a person has done? By self report? Although the obesity part should be quite possible.

Same way they tax them now. At the point of sale. Cigarettes would be like $10 a pack...but, really, that's probably about how much they cost the system. A Snickers bar would be $3. Factor in a lifetime of metformin and test strips...hell, that might be letting them off easy.

Imagine if people could actually visualize how much money it costs to be obese or smoke.

Only rich people will be fat again. It would be amazing.

 

[SHC1984]

LOL, add that to the list, couple of posts before it was about people with medicaid driving in $100,000 Mercedes and Land Rovers .

Couple weeks ago it was about NYC garbage men making 90K a year, when in reality they could max out at 60K...

If you work at a pharmacy you would see plenty of medicaid patients driving very nice cars. Just ask anyone that works at a pharmacy.

That example was used by my women's studies teacher to argue how underpaid teachers are. It wasn't something I said myself.

 

[SHC1984]

It's a shame when a student knows more about next year's fashion line than they do about the programs they'll be participating in as healthcare practitioners.

But hey, we can't be held accountable for it, right? I mean, we hardly studied for it. As long as the poor people don't stink up the place.

Well...fashion is a lot more interesting than medicaid and I only retain information that is of interest to me. Ask me anything on biochemistry or immunology and I will most likely still remember it too.

This doesn't do much to support your claim that 25K is much LOWER than the average Medicaid recipient's salary. It would seem that 25K is higher.

It sure felt like I was living under that salary though. I guess you would have to experience it to know it. It's not something that can be explained. I am just glad those years are long over.

 

[Jabberwocky12]

Not an unreasonable idea, but logistically impractical. How are you going to to keep track how much smoking, white water raft, drinking a person has done? By self report? Although the obesity part should be quite possible.

There would be more taxes on activities like white water rafting, bungie jumping, etc. that many people do. Let's be honest, the people who do this are typically people with a little more money to spend/budgeting money better for vacation. A raise in the prices isn't going to affect the normal people.

Smoking, increase taxes. I would say raise the price so the government dissuades smoking even more (social demand is less than market demand, causing a drop in purchasing cigarettes.) One could argue to charge more for smoking-related medical services but then second-hand smoking at home, workplace (bars) and etc. would contribute making certain factors harder to account for. As for drinking...liver toxicity, higher fines for drinking in public, etc.

Obesity, charge as the trend increases and lower as the trend decreases.

 

[meister]

I'll be graduating with $216K in debt.

I'm gonna eclipse the $300k mark, gonna feel pretty good.

While everybody is preaching the virtue of being kind to the poor, nobody seems to be willing to address the the nation's tough budget crisis.

Sure, I'll acknowledge it. The solution is the cut the military in half and tax the **** out of the rich. Income above $1 million taxed at 60% and a 2% tax per year on all bank accounts with more than $100k in assets. Oh and also capital gains at 50% after the first few thousand in income. The rich have reaped all the benefits of the last 30 years of neoliberal Reaganism, it's time they paid for it.

 

[spacecowgirl]

As you can see, welfare (social security, medicare, medicaid) is the biggest chunk of the budget.

Apparently we're operating under different definitions of "welfare". I would not lump SS into the category of "welfare" as the word is commonly used. While SSDI is probably included in that figure, I would think post-retirement SS is also included. I'm hesitant to consider drawing off of a fund you have contributed to your entire working life (well, since 1937) as "welfare". That is for another discussion.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

If you work at a pharmacy you would see plenty of medicaid patients driving very nice cars. Just ask anyone that works at a pharmacy.

That example was used by my women's studies teacher to argue how underpaid teachers are. It wasn't something I said myself.

I've never seen a medicaid patient driving a car worth more than maybe $15k, at most. Just because its a BMW or Mercedes doesn't mean its worth a ton of money. You can get a nice looking early 2000s BMW for well under $10k. If you aren't a car person, you would probably think its an expensive car when it isn't really.

 

[Jabberwocky12]

I've never seen a medicaid patient driving a car worth more than maybe $15k, at most. Just because its a BMW or Mercedes doesn't mean its worth a ton of money. You can get a nice looking early 2000s BMW for well under $10k. If you aren't a car person, you would probably think its an expensive car when it isn't really.

Not to mention you could be picking up the meds for another person. Or driving a rental car paid by insurance if you got into a car accident (happens a lot more than you think.) Or you had the car and recently lost your job and no longer have the money you once had (very common as well.) Or a variety of other reasons...

 

[xiphoid2010]

Same way they tax them now. At the point of sale.

There would be more taxes on activities like white water rafting, bungie jumping, etc. that many people do.

That would already be covered under my original VAT plan. VAT isn't a flat tax on all products. Luxury items and items of vice will obviously be had higher VAT at each stage of production. So a pack of smoke will end up costing $10.

The problem with charging only at point of sale is that it misses too many. e.g If I own or borrow a raft, I would have avoided that tax. If I brew my own beer, I would have avoided the alchohol tax. But if we add a % of VAT to the production of yeast, hops, material needed for a raft, then all of that would be captured.

Although I wouldn't lump snicker bar into that category. It is widely used for college students and young workaholics as food of last resort.

 

[ttopping]

If you work at a pharmacy you would see plenty of medicaid patients driving very nice cars. Just ask anyone that works at a pharmacy.

I was in North Carolina in the Fall for a rotation at Rite Aid. I would have to say 98% of the patients that came through the store were Medicaid. A vast majority didn't have any transportation other than buses and other forms of public trans. I'm sure there was the occasional person driving a "nice car" but as WVU said, just because it looks nice doesn't mean it was worth that much money.

 

[xiphoid2010]

I'm gonna eclipse the $300k mark, gonna feel pretty good.

Sure, I'll acknowledge it. The solution is the cut the military in half and tax the **** out of the rich. Income above $1 million taxed at 60% and a 2% tax per year on all bank accounts with more than $100k in assets. Oh and also capital gains at 50% after the first few thousand in income. The rich have reaped all the benefits of the last 30 years of neoliberal Reaganism, it's time they paid for it.

And have you thought of the consequences of that? You think the rich isn't smart enough to move even more business off shore into countries like China where government is pro-business? Now you got even more people out of a job to feed, and we'll be borrowing even more money from the chinese.

The rich needs to be taxed, but only to the point that maximizes benefit of the economy. There I agree that we need to repeal some of the tax cuts, but higher taxes and benefit cuts must go hand in hand. We are all in this crisis together, and nobody is going to come out without growing some balls and taking a hit.

 

[npage148]

SHC keeps harping about the medicaid people being able to afford nice cars in reality they probably just stole them and haven't been caught yet. Because these are the types of people that sell drugs and jack cars