I'm starting to understand why the two words "means testing" are so triggering over on Reddit:
-
I'm starting to understand why the two words "means testing" are so triggering over on Reddit:
The "Means-Testing Industrial Complex": Private contractors like Deloitte and Equifax make billions running the eligibility systems for Medicaid and SNAP.
The Profit Incentive: In the business world, efficiency means "profit." For these contractors, complexity is profitable. The more complicated the eligibility rules, the more expensive the software and verification services they can sell to the state.
Well you know what? fuck Equifax and Deloitte. If you want to be pissed off, there's your actual target. Kill 'em all.
-
I'm starting to understand why the two words "means testing" are so triggering over on Reddit:
The "Means-Testing Industrial Complex": Private contractors like Deloitte and Equifax make billions running the eligibility systems for Medicaid and SNAP.
The Profit Incentive: In the business world, efficiency means "profit." For these contractors, complexity is profitable. The more complicated the eligibility rules, the more expensive the software and verification services they can sell to the state.
@codinghorror I'm by no means an expert, but have talked to a couple of them and they say this is pretty accurate: the bureaucracy costs *a lot* more than the supposed fraud it avoids. This, in a country where this is ruin by the state, and not by consulting firms.
-
Well you know what? fuck Equifax and Deloitte. If you want to be pissed off, there's your actual target. Kill 'em all.
-
Well you know what? fuck Equifax and Deloitte. If you want to be pissed off, there's your actual target. Kill 'em all.
When a worker loses their job and applies for Medicaid, SNAP, and heating assistance, the state might pay Equifax three separate times to verify that same person's income for each different department. That is "efficient" for Equifax's bottom line, but terrible for the taxpayer.
Again: target Equifax, not your fellow Americans struggling just to merely exist in this country. "means testing" is not your enemy... Equifax and Deloitte are.
-
I'm starting to understand why the two words "means testing" are so triggering over on Reddit:
The "Means-Testing Industrial Complex": Private contractors like Deloitte and Equifax make billions running the eligibility systems for Medicaid and SNAP.
The Profit Incentive: In the business world, efficiency means "profit." For these contractors, complexity is profitable. The more complicated the eligibility rules, the more expensive the software and verification services they can sell to the state.
@codinghorror Here in the UK, there are government services (not brokered through Deloitte et al) where the means-testing cost more to administer than just providing the service to anyone who asks - and a hard core of political advisors and activists who'd like to waste money on means-testing admin out of some perverse moralist principle
-
Well you know what? fuck Equifax and Deloitte. If you want to be pissed off, there's your actual target. Kill 'em all.
@codinghorror Deloitte is also just siphoning off our taxes through obscene amounts of consulting fees.
-
When a worker loses their job and applies for Medicaid, SNAP, and heating assistance, the state might pay Equifax three separate times to verify that same person's income for each different department. That is "efficient" for Equifax's bottom line, but terrible for the taxpayer.
Again: target Equifax, not your fellow Americans struggling just to merely exist in this country. "means testing" is not your enemy... Equifax and Deloitte are.
@codinghorror Maybe I’ve missed something in your rhetoric, but means testing is absolutely the enemy. It would be *cheaper* to universalize these benefits or just give them out to all comers than to continue to dissect and punish people for seeking help. The whole system is garbage, the credit scoring bastards just found a way to insert themselves as middlemen seeking additional profit and friction in a system designed to be performatively cruel & degrading.
-
@codinghorror Deloitte is also just siphoning off our taxes through obscene amounts of consulting fees.
@codinghorror Here's the chart for Canadian federal government consulting spend for FY2024.
Source (Paywalled): https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-spent-record-amount-on-outsourcing-despite-vow-to-rein-in/
Archived: https://archive.ph/dR8aN
-
@codinghorror Maybe I’ve missed something in your rhetoric, but means testing is absolutely the enemy. It would be *cheaper* to universalize these benefits or just give them out to all comers than to continue to dissect and punish people for seeking help. The whole system is garbage, the credit scoring bastards just found a way to insert themselves as middlemen seeking additional profit and friction in a system designed to be performatively cruel & degrading.
@codinghorror Having read your top profile post on favoring GMI over UBI I begin to see what you’re about but disagree unless it’s directly integrated into the tax system as a negative bottom income tax bracket, and everyone, and I mean everyone, is integrated into said tax system - which is an exceedingly hard sell - though I can see it being very useful as a transitional step toward universal income (which can be taxed right away again for those of us with more than we need.)
Meanwhile, means testing as currently executed remains punitively intrusive, expensive to administer, and typically enshrines rather than breaking down divisions between haves and have nots - just look at the intense pressure on many people experiencing disability to *divorce* simply to become eligible to access care which they aren’t considered poor enough to receive otherwise, but are still too poor to afford. The cliffs and mismatches are deliberate; politicians brag about them. It would be much simpler to run the risk of giving Jeff Bezos $15k once a year which he doesn’t need (which he’s earning every what, two seconds anyway?) and *ensure* we’ve covered every person who can’t keep the lights on or a roof overhead.
-
When a worker loses their job and applies for Medicaid, SNAP, and heating assistance, the state might pay Equifax three separate times to verify that same person's income for each different department. That is "efficient" for Equifax's bottom line, but terrible for the taxpayer.
Again: target Equifax, not your fellow Americans struggling just to merely exist in this country. "means testing" is not your enemy... Equifax and Deloitte are.
@codinghorror Means testing is by and large unnecessary if the tax system actually does its job and taxes people. I don't care if Jeff Bezos collects unemployment between gigs if the taxation system is fair because he'll pay for it anyway. But even if we don't reform taxation, is he (1) likely to ever claim it and (2) likely to make a dent in the cost of such programs?
Means testing may be extra bad in the American model, but that doesn't mean it's not at least somewhat bad in a normal model too. Having to prove you're poor is humiliating and adds extra bureaucracy at a time you're likely desperate.
(And as for your example, suppose you reformed the situation so Equifax was paid once... wouldn't they just charge 3x as much per check? Doesn't the bottom line ever enter the equation when companies are bidding for these kinds of contracts?)
-
R ActivityRelay shared this topic
