I'm not sure I buy all of this because I think the insurance #s are being calculated based on mistaken premises, but the article and comments are worth reviewing (if a little inflamed):
Disposable income of workers vs non-workers(9 posts)
The thread title is a little unfair. Minimum wage workers are by definition not non-workers. Otherwise, the article was a bit too slanted and partisan for me to take seriously. I also agree on the medicaid/insurance numbers appearing inflated to skew the data to the message.
The 16.5k medical benefits are what do it.
Exactly, but what do those numbers represent? Medicaid doesn't just give out $16,500. If it's supposed to be the imputed income of not having to carry health insurance, 1) it's an apples to oranges comparison, because doctors and treatments under Medicaid are NOT the same doctors and treatments you will get on a regular health insurance plan; trust me, nobody wants to be getting care under Medicaid. And 2) I don't know anyone who pays $1375/mo out of pocket for health insurance or medical needs.
It seems like yellow journalism to me.
That's right, it's all the poor people who are making it so hard for people with more. So hard it might even take you 6 years instead of 5 to save for retirement. RIOT!
Something to offset the unreliable figures in this post: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?_r=1&hp
Yeah, this was a pretty bad article.
Some problems, or things they failed to mention (and I only looked at food stamps and medicaid):
1. Food stamps benefits is a maximum benefit, so it should not be the same for both eligible incomes
2. The food stamp amount may be incorrect (I could only find the amount for a family of 3 in MS but it is lower):
3. MS has an asset test of 2000 for food stamps (see link above).
4. MS has an asset limit of 3000 for Medicaid. The people not on foodstamps and medicaid have the ability to save money, the people on foodstamps and medicaid don't.
5. I think in MS you have to be a child, elderly, pregnant or disabled to qualify for health benefits, meaning one or both parents might not qualify in this person's scenario. I am not 100% sure of this, but if true it makes the numbers even more deceptive
6. It's generally not easy to take advantage of all benefits you may qualify for under law. Judging by the amount of research that went into the other numbers (/s), I would also expect a typical family does not qualify for some of the other benefits listed if we read the fine print.
Something interesting - As mentioned by posters above, Medicaid is the large benefit and has kind of all or nothing switch right now. In the future, (2014) under the Affordable Care Act, that will not be the case anymore. The annual premium for a family of for in a low cost area will be about $950 when they just fall off Medicaid (though with potential max out of pocket of 4000), which will make the benefit transition when changing incomes much smoother.
That article is hysterically bad. It would actually take me a long time to fully explore how ridiculous it is. Not really worth the time since everyone can see it.
One could also point out things like the fact that the $60k worker ends up with $34k in cash per year, whereas the minimum wage worker ends up with what, $8k in cash, plus the value of certain benefits?
Glaringly, the benefits of retirement savings options ($60k worker could contribute to a Roth and 401k), and the value of social security benefits are left out.
I'm sure many people who have read this article have had the same experience as me-- I've lived on around $14k per year, and I've lived on around $60k per year. I don't need some sort of amateur style propaganda piece to tell me which is better.
The article seems skewed to me in attempt to show the propensity of "workers of the system" to launch all they can get.
(Which in many cases is true).
Let's say you qualified for a rental assistance apartment. In many scenarios, the tenant will pay 30% of their adjusted monthly gross income, or 10% of the gross income whichever is larger. In almost every case, we charge 30% of AGMI. Now that means Uncle Sugar is paying the other 70%, plus the following utility allowances: $65.00 per month on a 2BR, and $46.00 a month on a 1BR. How would you like someone to pay 70% of your housing cost and a large enough chunk of your electric bill, even enough that the monthly bill comes out as nearly a wash? Nice benefit if you can get it--right?
Taking that in your pocket, now go and get all your groceries paid for in food stamps. Get the SNAP card or whatever they call it where you live. If you are income qual--get the Medicaid and get yourself and all your kids paid for at the doctor's office, nonetheless of what you need it's on Uncle and the State. Not bad? Ok get laid off your job at McDonald's job or Butterball Turkey clean up, and simply walk in to the on site apartment manager and request a recalculation and recertification on your rent amount as you now have lost your job. No money now? No problem as your going to the state unemployment office and sign up for a check. Now you got money and everything else is free except the cable TV you have. No getting up to go to work, free rent, utilities, food, and health care.
Yeah the article is skewed, but you can find some truth if you look. Like people living in $500.00 a month apartments and paying a tenant contribution of $25.
You must log in to post.