Here is an interesting trend, though the causal relationship is unclear. ST Charity Care Costs Drop Sean passed the link along during this exchange. (see the link for more discussion)
And are we collecting and redistributing Billions to save Millions of dollars?
Are these reductions in bankruptcies and uncollectibles good or bad news overall? And are they actually tied to the boom economy more so than ACA?
"Actually, the ACA has significantly reduced the amount of free-riding in the health care system. Nationwide, the amount of charity and uncompensated care has plunged by up to 30%, depending on the state (Minnesota is at 17%)." SeanSo I understand that many more people are getting free and reduced cost service, and that this is being paid for by the added ACA taxes on the wealthy, business and other citizens. Therefore that healthcare systems, banks, credit card companies, etc are incurring fewer losses and likely more profitable. Or is there some belief that these folks are reducing their fees to share their new found wealth with all of us customers?
"I do not disagree that there were benefits / savings to society by making the "successful" people pay the medical bills of the poor. This does not change the point that we are taking from Peter to pay for Paul's issues.
Do you have a source for the things you stated above? I am curious how many dollars per year you are talking about?
If we are saving $10 and paying out $100... It may be a poor trade off. Though I am sure the hospitals, credit card companies, charities, patient, government, etc appreciate the windfall. Maybe they will send all the successful people a big thank you card!!!
Probably not... They will likely just keep saying that they are not paying their fair share... " G2A
And are we collecting and redistributing Billions to save Millions of dollars?
Are these reductions in bankruptcies and uncollectibles good or bad news overall? And are they actually tied to the boom economy more so than ACA?
39 comments:
Look at the history:
AHA: Uncompensated Care Fact Sheet
If you've got a better explanation, go for it.
And are we collecting and redistributing Billions to save Millions of dollars?
Yes. That's kind of the point.
--Hiram
Then why not just keep spending the distributed millions?
It would be much less expensive.
From Sean's source: Uncompensated care was
5.7% in 2006 when the economy was booming
4.2% in 2015 when the economy is booming
Now who is getting 1.5% windfall I wonder?
And what is it costing us tax payers to save that 1.5%?
In dollars it looks like:
2006: $31.2 Billion
2015: $35.7 Billion
Savings to someone $4.5 Billion/yr
Cost to tax payers $42.6 Billion/yr in in subsidies alone? Not sure if this includes the cost of the medicare expansion and exchange management...
More Data
Isn't the point of health insurance to access more healthcare for better health / quality of life. I think those billions spent on Obama care improved life / health for millions of people. I think you are focused on the wrong thing.
Laurie,
I understand that you would like people to have a universal income and free healthcare.
That seems to be the Liberal dream. Everyone in America gets to live a modest healthy life whether they work hard and make good choices, or they squander their free education and choose to do activities that add little value to our country.
The challenge is that someone has to pay for all of that "free healthcare and money"...
I realize that you want to focus only on the "free healthcare and money", and ignore the fact that neither is truly free. It has to be taken from other citizens who worked, saved, invested, made good choices, etc.
As I replied to Sean on the other post...
Sean,
I am perfectly okay with the idea that these topics are incredibly complicated and that it is unlikely that there is a great answer that is good for everyone... This is all about trade offs.
I am happy to flip/flop positions and look at topics from different perspectives. The only thing that I am pretty rigid on is my belief that America wins when it's citizens are educated, responsible, hard working and self reliant.
And that policies that arbitrarily transfer negative consequences from uneducated, irresponsible, non-motivated and/or dependent healthy citizens to others encourage the wrong behaviors.
Just a reminder.
How much of our country's GDP do you want the government controlling rather directly?
Laurie,
Let's assume we adopt the Liberal dream...
"everyone in America gets to live a modest healthy life"
How do you envision this working?
Do you see everyone being self motivated to learn, work, make healthy choices and help our country succeed?
What do you envision doing if say ~5% of the citizens are happy sitting around and living that modest healthy life and not contributing?
Or worse yet making really bad choices that increase society's costs?
I often wonder what how my students experience the world- like to have their brain for a little while. Today I am wondering where John gets his warped view of reality where he is surrounded by stupid lazy slackers taking advantage of his generosity as a tax payer. I am trying to think of one stupid lazy slacker and am coming up with nothing- friends, family , neighbors coworkers - not even one stupid lazy slacker living on the dole do I have in my acquaintance.
Also, the projections into my views are way off base. I am not striving for drastic changes to create some socialist utopia. I think it is working pretty well the way things are right now. I might tax and spend a little bit more, but mostly status quo suits me fine.
I did see you mentioned the possibility that maybe 5% of people are lazy. If that is the case that does not really concern me a great deal- though I as I said I have yet to meet one of these people. I get more offended by the billionaires and their greed
and the others that make up the .1% and above
That is amazing that you see almost 100% of US citizens as "self motivated to learn, work, make healthy choices and help our country succeed".
Please note all the people who:
- fail to succeed in getting a HS degree / GED.
- commit crimes and go to jail.
- commit crimes and get away with it.
- are addicted to alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc
- have children they can not afford to raise
- etc
Really? Do you think these folks don't exist?
Sorry if I misrepresented your position, but this seems pretty much like a "Liberal Utopia" comment...
"Isn't the point of health insurance to access more healthcare for better health / quality of life. I think those billions spent on Obama care improved life / health for millions of people. I think you are focused on the wrong thing."
And do you deny that you are interested in possibly implementing a universal wage as the "robots take over"?
Here is some interesting data.
"Importance
Higher levels of parent educational attainment are strongly associated with positive outcomes for children in many areas, including school readiness, educational achievement, incidence of low birth weight, health related behaviors including smoking and binge drinking, and pro-social activities such as volunteering. Children of more educated parents are also likely to have access to greater material, human, and social resources.
Trends
Since 1974, the percentage of children, ages 6-18, whose parents have less than a high school diploma or equivalent has declined substantially, while the percentage with a bachelor’s degree or higher has increased. For example, in 1974, 58 percent of black children had a mother who lacked a high school degree; by 2014, this number had decreased to 9 percent. (Figure 1) During the same period, the proportion of black children whose mothers attained at least a bachelor’s degree increased from 4 to 25 percent.
However, in 2015, the proportion decreased to 22 percent. (Figure 2) Similarly, the percentage of black children living with a father who has less than a high school diploma or equivalent declined from 61 to 9 percent, and the percentage living with a father who has a bachelor’s degree or higher increased from four to 31 percent. Similar trends are seen for mothers and fathers of white and Hispanic children (Appendix 1), and for younger children (Appendix 2).
In 2015, 13 percent of school-age children lived with a mother without a high school diploma, 24 percent with a mother who had a diploma and no further schooling, 30 percent with a mother who had some college education, and 33 percent with a mother who had at least a bachelor’s degree. For residential fathers, the corresponding percentages were 13, 26, 24, and 37 percent, respectively. (Appendix 1)"
Things are getting better, but 5+%, 9% & 30% without a High school diploma or GED...
It is going to hard to "Make America Great Again" when that many people are challenged to attain even that minimal civic responsibility.
The tax payers invest a lot of money into that free education...
you actually made some good points in those last few comments. count me as a little bit persuaded by your viewpoint.
I actually do know a high school drop out, a young man from my neighborhood who is now 24. I just never think about that when I happen to see him. He just seems like anyone else to me - going to work 40 hours a week and paying his way for a life he can afford - which is living in a trailer.
I also work in a school with 200 children on a path of low achievement and spend over 50 hours a week trying to counteract that for a few students - without much success. Succeeding in school is very difficult for many children.
So, John made an unsubstantiated assertion, couldn't prove it and now has turned this thread into every other thread on this board. What's the point?
I know I have asked a lot of questions here and stated some views, however what assertion have I made that you are noting?
"Stating some views" = making an assertion.
And instead of examining the actual topic *you* raised in the initial post, you turned this thread back into John Appelen's 2,390,747th treatise on lazy poor people with brown skin.
Laurie,
I also have friends and family who are not happy with their income, quality of life, etc. And many of them do work hard at "chopping wood".
Unfortunately most of them have little interest in "sharpening their saw", making significant personal changes and/or taking on more responsibility.
They think people should just pay them more for doing the same thing in the same way year after year.
Sean,
Actually Laurie brought it back to the "value of handouts"...
"Isn't the point of health insurance to access more healthcare for better health / quality of life. I think those billions spent on Obama care improved life / health for millions of people. I think you are focused on the wrong thing."
Which of course raises my concern that freebies lead to terrible consequences.
As for skin color, most of the severe under achievers I know personally have white skin, so I think skin color has nothing to do with the fact that some humans are highly motivated to improve, succeed and contribute to our society in a positive way... And some are happy to stagnate and go through the motions day after day complaining that some one should pay or give them more...
Do you really disagree with this?
"Do you really disagree with this?"
We've had this same discussion on literally dozens of occasions. I don't need to rehash it again. Why do you?
Because the Liberal view point never seems to change.
As Laurie noted above... She believes that it is a good thing to take Hundreds of Billions from one group of citizens to improve the life / health of others.
And on the surface this makes sense, one groups has money and another group needs money/services, SO LET's JUST ARBITRARILY TAKE / GIVE SOME AMOUNT...
Of course huge moves like this have consequences and I think it is right to keep discussing them. While other prefer to ignore them.
Remember my simplistic example. What happens if every 6 months I reshuffle money between my Daughters?
Take some from the worker / saver to prop up my more laid back spender?
How do you think each will respond knowing that this will be happening?
"Because the Liberal view point never seems to change."
That's because it is the correct (i.e. fair, just, moral) view point.
Moose
"Remember my simplistic example"
That's not how the system actually works. I don't care.
If you want to discuss this issue, why don't we talk -- in detail -- about how the actual system works and how we can make it better. Of course, when we've gone down the road of talking in such detail, your answer becomes "I don't know that much about it."
Which is why you always devolve back to your made-up nonsense examples, your tired YouTube videos, and your editorial cartoons.
Moose,
I am not sure robbing Peter to pay Paul is necessarily always fair, just or moral.
Especially if it encourages Paul to make poor choices that end up with him even more dependent and hopeless than he was initially. I personally can think of nothing more cruel than turning independent hopeful individuals into needy dependent people.
Sean,
People with low motivation who are happy to work less and take more have been part of the human race forever. Your denial of their existence does not make them disappear.
And of course it works that way, with those type of people. They have little in the way of personal drive / self discipline and if someone is going to give them money and services for doing little or nothing. They will happily take it and go back to playing video games. :-)
I'll try to get back on this ACA Charity Cost / Benefit topic when I have time.
I leave for Chennai India in a few hours...
"People with low motivation who are happy to work less and take more have been part of the human race forever. Your denial of their existence does not make them disappear."
Once again, you fall back upon your sad, tired trope of putting words in my mouth.
Let me know when you're ready to have an honest discussion.
"I am not sure robbing Peter to pay Paul is necessarily always fair, just or moral."
I don't accept your characterization. It's the Pauls who are the foundation of this country, and it is being stolen from them by the Peters.
Moose
Sean,
Then what did you mean by this?
"Remember my simplistic example" G2A
"That's not how the system actually works. I don't care." Sean
Are you saying that ACA and Welfare in general do not give money / services to people who have little, by taking from people who have learned, worked, saved and invested?
That is exactly what my simple example would do...
Moose
Sorry, but the Peter's include everyone who has continuously learned, worked, saved, invested and made good personal choices? And after generations of them following this simple recipe they have become relatively wealthy and helped to build the wonderful America we live in today.
I am not sure what the value add to our country has been of people who don't strive to learn, work only as needed, do not save or invest and/or make poor personal choices... But I am assuming they have been a drag on America's success. (ie costs of crime, welfare costs, prison costs, not performing at their potential, raising their children with a questionable role model and limiting beliefs, etc)
And please remember that most Peter's have never robbed from anyone.
They simply offer knowledge, products, services, opportunities, etc that others are happy to pay for because they have determined that the transaction will be of more value to them than the cost incurred by them. (ie capitalism)
And yes there are criminals in all wealth level groups. But thankfully they are in the minority of all of those groups, and we try to hold them accountable when they break the law.
Your simplistic example doesn't take into account all of the eligibility criteria, work requirements, time limits, etc. inherent in today's welfare system.
You continue to promote the false trope that many people on welfare are just sitting in the hammock doing nothing when time after time after time after time after time you've been presented with data that shows that:
* the vast majority of welfare recipients are either: children, elderly, disabled, or employed
* for the vast majority of those that aren't in the above categories, they tend to churn through quickly, not remaining in permanent dependence
You want to honestly talk about making the system better? Great! I'd love to have that conversation. But it has to start from a place of facts, not from your simplistic-example-that-bears-no-relation-to-reality nonsense and not from right-wing talking point fantasy land.
Food for thought...
What are the Medicaid work requirements?
What are work requirements for ACA subsidies?
What are the work requirements for TANF? And an interesting note.
"One study noted earlier suggests that states adopted some creative post-DRA approaches that included unsubsidized and subsidized job opportunities, moving some families into programs outside of TANF, and adopting ways to keep more families with earnings in the caseload"
What money is available for Single Moms?
"In 2016, federal government spent over $732 billion on 13 of the largest welfare grants that provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and targeted social services to poor and lower income Americans.
Roughly half of this welfare assistance goes to families with children, most of which are headed by single parents. Some 28% of spending goes to disabled persons. Another 14% goes to elderly persons.2
Though it isn’t a guaranteed entitlement, they are freely awarded on the basis of economic hardship — meaning priority is given to those with “the absolute highest levels of need”.
Whether you’re a single mother “going back to school” or need help paying for bills, listed below are some, if not all, “social safety net” programs that are made available to help you survive single motherhood — most of which are administered at the state level."
Please note that $732 Billion is only the Federal tax receipts that go to the unsuccessful healthy working age families.
NR Why Work Reqts should Increased
NR WR Link Try 2
OK. Now what?
And you do realize that this:
"One study noted earlier suggests that states adopted some creative post-DRA approaches that included unsubsidized and subsidized job opportunities, moving some families into programs outside of TANF, and adopting ways to keep more families with earnings in the caseload"
is incompatible with the no state waiver-approach advocated by Tom Price in your last link, right?
Nothing... I am getting on a plane to Chennai India soon.
The links just clarify how many 100s of Billions of dollars we give to healthy capable adults each year who could be more self sufficient if they tried harder to improve themselves. And stopped having babies they can not care for themselves.
The links just clarify how many 100s of Billions of dollars we give to healthy capable adults each year who could be more self sufficient if they tried harder to improve themselves
It's the deal we made. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Money isn't being created it's being redistributed. That's how insurance works.
--Hiram
Looks like it's time for another "Everything's fine" update:
Per ABC News: Michael Flynn promised "full cooperation to the Mueller team" and is prepared to testify that as a candidate, Donald Trump "directed him to make contact with the Russians."
Post a Comment