Welcome to Thunderdome

The U.S. spends trillions every year on a social safety net for people in all steps of life, from childhood to retirement.

A new study from two Harvard University economists, Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser, examines 133 U.S. policy changes over the past half-century, including the creation of Medicare, Medicaid expansions, the introduction of food stamps, as well as dozens of state and local programs.

Their paper, released Monday, identifies which policies ultimately made the government money, generally in the form of beneficiaries who needed less assistance over time or who became more productive and paid more taxes.

Say you have $1 to give to a social policy. You could strengthen the safety net for adults—say, boosting health insurance, unemployment benefits and disability insurance. Or you could give it to programs for low-income children.

Adults use benefits that end up costing additional money—an extra 60 cents or so on top of the $1 you spent. But health care and education for kids often reduces dependence on aid and lifts earnings. Over time, you get back your $1—plus about 47 cents.

This return on investment is, of course, just one measure of effectiveness. But as a purely fiscal matter, the two scholars found programs geared toward bettering the lives of adults rarely paid for themselves. They ultimately reduced a person’s earnings, or caused them to use more government-funded services. But investing in low-income children often lifted their earnings over time and decreased their dependence on public aid.

“The results show there’s a potential to get really high returns when you’re focusing on kids,” said Mr. Hendren, a Harvard economics professor. The research is part of Opportunity Insights, a nonpartisan project that he and economists Raj Chetty and John Friedman launched last year to improve economic mobility.

These conclusions, coming as the nation gears up for the 2020 presidential campaign, could help determine which policies gain traction. Democrats have backed expanding Medicare to all Americans, making college tuition-free and subsidizing child care. President Trump has revived calls to repeal the Obama health law that expanded Medicaid.

TheCatt wrote: I like this study because it reinforces what I believe Give kids a strong start: education, healthcare, etc.

GORDON wrote: And trim the dead branches, stop supporting them, before they topple the entire tree.

GORDON wrote: Case by case basis. Let's look at all their life decisions that led up to their not having insurance, when they incurred big medical bills.

TheCatt wrote: Should people be able to lose everything they own because they get cancer or other diseases?

Vince wrote: The wife is now working in admissions and does precertifications on insurance for procedures. People will have procedures scheduled and she'll call them to tell them what their out-of-pocket will be. Often she's confronted with "I can't pay that much." And the answer is always, "if you can pay something on it when you come, we can work with you."

Vince wrote: How many people actually lose everything getting treatment?

Even outside of bankruptcy, about 56 million adults—more than 20 percent of the population between the ages of 19 and 64—will still struggle with health-care-related bills this year, according to NerdWallet Health.

"With an average American family bringing home $50,000 in income, a high medical bill and a high-deductible insurance plan can quickly become something they are unable to pay," LaMontagne said. "If you have an out-of-pocket maximum of $5,000 or $10,000, that's really tough," he said.

GORDON wrote: As soon as universal health care is a thing we can start denying people for their habits, like vaping and smoking and dangerous hobbies like scuba diving. And deciding to have expensive elective childbirth.

TheCatt wrote:

Vince wrote: The wife is now working in admissions and does precertifications on insurance for procedures. People will have procedures scheduled and she'll call them to tell them what their out-of-pocket will be. Often she's confronted with "I can't pay that much." And the answer is always, "if you can pay something on it when you come, we can work with you."

So... they take everything they can from the person?

GORDON wrote: As soon as universal health care is a thing we can start denying people for their habits, like vaping and smoking and dangerous hobbies like scuba diving. And deciding to have expensive elective childbirth.

Vince wrote: See, this is why no one trusts progressives. Somehow "pay something" became "sell everything and pay us all of it".

TheCatt wrote:

Vince wrote: See, this is why no one trusts progressives. Somehow "pay something" became "sell everything and pay us all of it".

I see it every single day. Meanwhile, hospitals squeeze all the blood they can from those stones.