Equation of the day

That is a problem when government interference in the "I am my brother's keeper" ethic crowds out the human charitable impulse. When someone is paying 50% of their income to the taxman (fed/state/local) and passes a begging homeless person, one tends to think "I already gave at the office when they deducted it from my paycheck."

There are many places where you can look up a charity organization's rating vis a vis how much of their income actually gets to the person they are assisting. Curiously, no such figures are published for the federal welfare system, and I have not looked for any such info at the state level. I do vaguely remember something published by Cato many years ago that had the federal wefare system at well below 50% (35% is the number I think I remember), but have not made any sort of effort to look for current numbers.
 
Well, current admin costs..

for Social Security run at 2.25% for the disability portion and less than 1% for the main program. That seems pretty good for the grandest social program of all. I don't think it does any good to paint these issues with too broad a brush.
 
The feds pouring money into the top of a medical block grant system will do nothing to solve any problems. Like any price support system, it will just make the product being price-supported more expensive for the rest of us.

Medical care consumers have to have maximum skin in the game before any of this is going to get fixed. When someone else is paying, there is no incentive to make the hard choice, whether it's do I pay for an MRI for this headache or does our family pay for extraordinary care for 93 year old Grandma even though it's her time to go.
 
Although SS has a welfare component, it is not a welfare program, it's more of an "investment for retirement" program.

So now that we're comparing it apples to apples, those SS cost figures are positively scandalous when compared to investment industry low cost leaders like Vanguard, where most of the funds have a 0.2-0.3% expense ratio.
 
Well, you are not comparing....

apples-to-apples. SS is a defined benefit backed by the taxing power of Congress. It is not an investment of any sort at all , and is certainly not comparable to a low load mutual fund whose payout is utterly dependent on the market. The comparison is just not legitimate. Vanguard simply will not give you a guarantee that that age 65 you will be paid a monthly stipend of x dollars for the rest of your life. An annuity might do that but it's a cash up front proposition and in today's ROI environment a million buck annuity might fetch you a $3000/mo, maybe-if you were lucky enough to amass a million bucks by now. And the admin costs on those far exceeds SS.
 
I actually agree....

that the more skin in the game the better. It would, in my little utopia, give people good cause to pursue health and reduce demand in the market-no argument. And if starting from a blank sheet of paper with an all new America such a system could maybe work. But we can't do that. There is already a large aging and increasingly unhealthy population out there. I have no problem blaming most of the ill heallth and overconsumption of care on the individual and their lifestyle choices and there is ample statistical evidence to justify that blame. But what is to be done under the current situation.
My wife and I have decided not buy health insurance and we just pay for the few doctor and dentist bills directly. We are betting on a lifetime of good habits to keep us from falling ill from the big chronic conditions and just butching out the possibility of something out of the blue nailing us. But it is a gamble-I can't get around that and I also know that we have some resources that most people don't have in case we don't win that gamble. But that is not applicable to everyone:sigh:
 
Ask 100 Americans what SS is, 99 will say "retirement fund.":)

Anyway the original argument is not over what SS is, or what pays out better, or what's guaranteed or not, it is about the overhead of government welfare programs as compared to private charity. You went off the track first by jumping from private charity vs public welfare overhead to SS cost ratios:dead:

Getting back to the cost ratio of private charity vs govt welfare, know of any studies or reports that put a cost ratio number on govt welfare? Federal, state or local?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure how.....

SS doesn't fit into this discussion. If by welfare you are talking about, you know, 'Welfare', then it hardly matters considering that 'Welfare' is pretty small potatoes as against SS. I'm not pointing this out to be argumentative, it's just that froma longer historical perspective SS is the big welfare program in America. Prior to its introduction poverty was vastly skewed towards the elderly and the alleviation of that over the past 75 years is just too dominating to leave out of the total welfare issue.
But as to your basic question here is something I found in my junk file.

A June 30 GAO study reported total federal and state expenditures as well as federal and state administrative costs for several means-tested government programs for FY 2004. Dividing "administrative expenditures" by "total expenditures," administrative costs for Medicaid -- by far the country's largest means-tested welfare program -- were 4.9 percent of total costs. For the food stamp program, administrative costs were higher: 17.1 percent. Administrative costs were 4.5 percent for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and 2.1 percent for the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). The report notes that "[t]he specific types of expenditures that are considered administrative differ considerably across the programs."

I have no idea what the current situation is but I don't think the admiin cost are very volatile. Also it's hard to talk about 'welfare' as a lump because there are so many different programs. The above is just sort of indicative of that and the spread of costs.

Here is a chart that outlines some of the magnitudes

blog_spending_nonworking_poor.jpg
 
Ha, Ha!

:lol:

It's crossed our minds, Dan!

Actually, we are not there yet (2014) but in the end it will just be one more number in the calculation. It's typical of the mess that is the PPACA that while it establishes these penalties (that John Roberts alchemized into taxes) it establishes no specific penalty for not paying paying them. I might just scofflaw it at that point and not pay up. It could be that they intend to make it part of your tax due and if you don't pay get you for tax evasion but I haven't looked into it. If things go badly I will get my email at Sing Sing to you-always fun talking to you.:)
 
if your calling at a tax. make it a tax and

1. No eexemptions from paying. Period. I don't care if u worship the great pumpkin pay into the system u will need someday

That is my biggest beaf

Next beaf, as my director of case mgmt. Spouse refered to them as. rich middle aged bastards who's assets are all tied up in their private corp or trust who have a heartattack rack up million dollar bills and the hospital cant collect. see my biggest beaf for resolution. Corps are people now a days part of that tax increase should be there.

If you aren't here on a legal visa.... We will save your life but deport u as soon as your stable. it will cost in the beginning but was u prove your serious the crap will stop. I have many friends whos families who became citizens the legal way and have no sympathy or patients for those that thumb their nose at the system the worked hard through. or want to be in America but not be an American. they don't wish to become a component of the melting pot and feel entitled for everyone else to bend to them.

No responses about native Americans. Yeah they got the shaft. same for the slaves. That was then....

Another thing if your going to force prices down and quality there of the needs to be public national db on Dr and facility metrics. not just ones that are subject to joint commission or take gov money. Allllll heath care providers and systems. then get rid of frivolous lawsuits cause you will have the metrics to say it was god thing or the surgeon/facility sticks and should go.

And another thing.....can we learn to fricken die with grace? How much of total health care costs are extreme measures? I don't want to here about the outlier football player. He is an outlier. when my time comes i want grace and dignity not diapers and a feed tube

Disclaimer my daughter has preexidt conditions that after she is 26 she would be un insurable and my wife is a medical mess. and family history says a will stroke out any day now. i still believe what i say here.

Posted from my &!&-&'5%#*%%! auto complete 4g lte smart needle in my arm.
 
How much of total health care costs are extreme measures?

I've read numbers as high as 25%:eek:mg: But who knows for sure-it would depend on the definition of 'extreme measures' I suppose. In any case I'm with you on that point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top