I concede that the US’s current simultaneous objectives of providing a social safety net and slashing tax rates for the wealthy are not compatible.
First off, they are not conjecture–these things will happen, to real people, if the safety net is yanked from under them. Why you would object to recognizing and contemplating the sequelae of the proposed policies is beyond me.
And second, I defy you to come up with a counter-argument that is not, in its way, an ‘appeal to emotion.’
It’s important to recognize that this is a declaration of faith, not a statement of fact.
They already are happening to real people. Forgive me if I misinterpret your original intent, however, what I was replying to, it seemed to me, was it will inevitably happen to all people in these programs if repealed. That’s patently false and illogical. As if any program of this magnitude would be repealed overnight? I disagree with that basic premise if that is the premise you present. That’s just not how legislation works, nor would they happen in a bubble. If done with any kind of empathy, there’d be incentive for other organizations outside of government, for profit or not, to fill the void.
Why would ask that question when you already have the answer? Hint: “Based on my experience.” You are also using the word assumption incorrectly. I voiced an opinion backed up by evidence not without evidence. And I admitted it was an opinion, limited to my experience. With that said, what BG posted, without giving any reasons for why he believed it, is actually closer to the realm of assumption.
Yes, and I did mention that as well when I wrote, “some of the people…”
Or they had no choice. This gets back to the creation of the inner cities and how the government played a part in creating a culture of dependence. What came first? Welfare or poverty? The idea that welfare created what we see now makes little sense. Then you have poor rural areas which have been kept deliberately poor, by a lack of education, by politicians who exploit their ignorance. Religion also plays a role in all of this but that is another discussion.
The problem is that governments, local, state and fed, created the circumstances. It also stands in the way of fixing things. I’ll give an example: some children have serious mental disabilities. It’s not their fault and we should all be sympathetic but, some schools (I can’t speak for all schools) have no choice but to allow these children into the mainstream classrooms where some end up being disruptive and negatively affecting other kids’ ability to learn. This is an issue that affects poorer areas more than more affluent areas as it is already difficult to teach kids there. The number of kids in inner cities labelled special ed. is incredibly high and it gives them certain “advantages” and “privileges” at the expense of the kids who are not “special.” And no one in the schools can say anything about it because it might as well be illegal to voice an opinion that runs contrary to what the state dictates.
100% agree - as a bit of nuance - I have a good friend who is a history teacher at a high school in a lower middle class/middle class residential town - i.e by no means can be considered poor, but not what one would call affluent - there’s a bit of both but most kids come from families that fall in the middle somewhere. There’s a good proportion of kids in that school who have special learning programs to where they have certain “privileges” as you alluded to. It not just a problem in poor schools - it seems to be an issue in middle class schools too.
Here’s the numbers regarding Medicaid for NH coverage and dialysis:
“A combination of longer life spans and spiraling health care costs has left an estimated 64 percent of the Americans in nursing homes dependent on Medicaid. In Alaska, Mississippi and West Virginia [my comment: ironically, all heavily red, pro tax-cut/small govt, ‘don’t tread on me’ states], Medicaid was the primary payer for three-quarters or more of nursing home residents in 2015” [emphasis mine]
“Nearly half of all end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients rely on Medicaid coverage.” [emphasis mine, again]
So no, disaster will not befall “all” people. But 2/3+ and 50% are high enough, don’t you think?
I’ll let the irony-laden notion that a GOP establishment hellbent on dismantling the social safety-net system would do so ‘with empathy’ pass without further comment.
As for the private sector stepping in to ‘fill the void’: Is there a potential profit to be had by providing highly expensive healthcare to very poor people? If there is, please expand on it, because I am of too limited an imagination to envision it.
Or are you assuming a vast network of charities will spring up to pay for these needed services? If so, that’s puzzling–why didn’t these charities appear previously, thereby obviating the need for Medicaid in the first place?
Once again, this notion that the market will step in and ‘fill the void’ is a declaration of faith, not a statement of fact.
And the fact that it ends up being detrimental to the “normal” kids is not a consideration. This is the state basically mandating holding an entire group of people down.
You severely underestimate good people. The poor, the sick and the elderly were being taken care of long before the state decided to take it over and they will be taken care of after the state is unable to.
People used to take care of their sick and elderly family members instead of putting them away so they don’t have to be “burdened” and watch them get old and die.
Hell, after my brother broke his neck I became his caretaker (at 15 yrs. old) at home. Otherwise it would have been off to the VA long term care facility with him.
And you severely underestimate how much modern healthcare costs. Yes, back in the day when the treatment for a heart attack was literally aspirin and a warm bed, “good people” could absorb the cost. But an ICU bed costs ~$4000/day now. Dialysis costs ~$500/day–and must be performed 3 days/week, 52 weeks/year. Depending on the circumstances, the total cost of running an operating room ranges from ~50 to 180 dollars a minute.
Absent state intervention, poor people will go back to doing what they did before–dying before their time (or at least before the time of their wealthy cohorts).
I really get irritated by “The good old’ days” arguments…on just about any topic…
But Medicine especially…
Unlike the vast majority of people in this World…those in the West/Developed Countries…especially in the U.S…no longer accept Death as being a part of Life. This is made even worse in the United States by the fact that if someone does die…it has to be somebodies else’s fault. So sue.
Also; I’ve had this discussion with a few people…(some on this site)…
Let’s leave out “end-of-Life” care for a moment. We have some of the best…(if not THE best)…Trauma care in the World…(and the most expensive)…and we also spend billions in the care of premature infants that would die if born in other countries.
How many who support the “good-old-days” arguments would be willing to just call some family or church members when their young, previously healthy teen, is barely hanging on to Life, lying trapped in a multi-vehicle accident?..or are prepared to just call their next-door neighbor when their infant is born not breathing?
And before anyone argues that I am using “rare” arguments? Nope. These are common occurrences that occur in the U.S. each and every day…and represent care that is financially out of reach of the majority of Americans.
Yet you can rest assured that the majority of Americans expect it.
This is key. I have no doubts as to the compassion of families, friends, and other private actors in stepping up to care for people. But unless they are independently wealthy, paying for care in the modern age is a non-starter.
Yeah. Bad Idea, taking care of the elderly at home. Best get them out of the house so that they can be productive contributors to the geriatric care sector.
Aside from the exceptionally wealthy that can afford to pay out of pocket for private elderly care, its going to be at home or in a convalescent care facility. The latter has and is going to continue to cost a lot of public dollars.
We’ve all come back to reducto ad absurdum once again. About 10% of Medicare/Medicaid spending is fraud and waste (per the government agency that runs it). Let’s say the government puts some work in and eliminates 5% of that. If you did that across the entire government we’d have a balanced budget without killing any dialysis patients.
On the revenue side as well there are a myriad of laws that go unenforced. I’m not aware of any business that’s been fined in federal court for hiring illegals, even though those laws exist (one example).
If we do a better job and enforce the laws we already have (to stop fraudsters, tax cheats, petty criminals). We could balance the budget easily.
I’d even propose that we give all petty non violent offenders in federal prison the opportunity to work their way out of prison and pay fines to shorten their sentences and expunge their records. Stop putting low level lowlifes on three hots and a cot at taxpayer expense. Teach them how to work instead and let them actually PAY their debt to society.
But I digress. Balancing the budget can easily happen without cutting benefits to anyone. But that would require politicians interested in governing. So, it won’t happen.
Maybe I’m missing the point but how many people can afford to take care of an elderly sick person at home even? We fucking live forever now (not saying it’s a bad thing). Obviously it is doable depending on the situation, but having to quit your job so you can take care of Grandma for 20 years seems like it would be setting up in many cases another scenario that will require lots of public dollars.
***Everyone dies at 70 look at all the money we save and now t-nation poster says I’m not being “raped” on my taxes anymore. Not serious of course on the dead at 70 part. My Dad is 68!
Tax cheats (or those that avoid them) could probably get a lot of money back. Sadly the people who do that the most and with the greatest amounts are exactly the people who get the most out of this tax cut. So we cut taxes on the people who are the absolute best at gaming the system. But surely these guys won’t cheat taxes and do something like buy a pet tiger with the cash!
Oh yeah and we elected someone who does enough shady things with his taxes that he won’t even release his returns like every other President before him. Don’t tell me you voted for him if tax cheats and fraudsters really bother you.
No one would argue against eliminating “fraud and waste.” And I can assure you, the govt aggressively pursues Medicare fraud. Medicare pays private contractors who do nothing all day but pour over Medicare bills, looking for discrepancies/errors. As they are paid on an ‘eat what you kill’ basis, these contractors are highly motivated to find such discrepancies, no matter how trivial and/or innocent. Doctors live in perpetual fear of innocently miscoding something on a Medicare bill, because if found, Medicare auditors will be on you like white on rice. You’ll end up having a significant amount of your historical Medicare payments clawed back (which can bankrupt a practice), and you may well go to jail.
Personally, if there’s any doubt re the appropriateness of a Medicare bill, I simply ‘no charge’ it. Just not worth the risk.
I don’t know what this has to do with HC costs. I’m also not at all sure that eliminating the participation of undocumented individuals in the economy would result in a net financial gain, if that’s what you’re implying.
Again, HC?
Bingo. The tremendous advances in medical technology over the past 40 years have been an existential blessing, but a financial curse.
This is a tax cuts thread. You diverted into healthcare talking about dialysis patients dying due to lack of funding or programs being cut. I was merely pointing out that the amount of waste in Medicare/Medicaid is huge. Every part of the government wastes a minimum of 5% I’d wager. Since funding is fungible saving anywhere helps everywhere else.
I’m sorry complying with billing is tough and scary, but it isn’t tough enough if 10% of spending is fraudulent and mistakes.