Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tharkun | Hacker News Reader

What happens after that?

Unemployment benefits aren't the same as welfare they're paid into by your employer so when you're laid off you can maintain some kind of salary while you find work elsewhere. There are tax based welfare systems in place in the United States that provide assistance to people in poverty but it isn't the same system as "unemployment" (as it's generally referred to here)

At least in Washington State, unemployment payout is almost immediate, within two weeks of losing your job. You can use the time before it runs out to apply for other federal or state assistance programs. These may take longer and have more complex qualifications.

> You can use the time before it runs out to apply for other federal or state assistance programs.

Which if you are a non-disabled, employable (whether or not employed) adult without dependents, in most parts of the US, are extremely limited, quantitatively and, often, temporally, as well.

Different states have different time frames and may have conditions on those.

I was laid off a while back. Because I got a severance package comparable to 1.5 months salary, I couldn't get unemployment assistance for 1.5 months plus 4 weeks - even then I had to document that I had applied to a minimum of 3 jobs a week from the day I was laid off.

My only first hand experience is with Washington. When I was furloughed in 2008 it was relatively easy and pain free to receive benefits, at least by government standards. My room mate at the time was only able to find part time work in retail at the end of unemployment and was easily able to obtain supplemental food assistance from the state. I won't argue the rules and regulations are a complex mess. For example, I would think it would be easy and in the governments best interest to try and transition people from the unemployment program into school/university programs, but that is near impossible with the way the regulations are written.

Looks like there are no more state payments and you have to depend on charities, family or friends.

Correct. Or you become destitute/homeless.

What? No. You go on welfare. And get free healthcare through Medicaid.

As much as people outside the US like to think it's some sort of heartless society, the US has a substantial safety net setup.

> You go on welfare.

If you have children, you may qualify for whatever your states implementation of Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) is -- which has a work requirement.

If not, your jurisdiction may have a "General Assistance" program, but these tend to be very small benefits, and often restricted in how long someone deemed "employable", whether or not they actually can find employment, can be on them (either in total, or within a given period; e.g., some jurisdictions have something like a 3-months in any 12-month period limit.)

> As much as people outside the US like to think it's some sort of heartless society, the US has a substantial safety net setup.

The US has an extraordinarily weak social safety net compared to most other developed countries.

What about compared to Singapore or Japan?

> What about compared to Singapore or Japan?

Not deeply familiar with either, but on review of a brief overview of the Japanese system it seems substantially more robust than the US system (though it also seems to have many similar structural difficulties.)

Allow me to quote one of our Founding Fathers

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

-- Benjamin Franklin

If you want to argue that a very weak social Assagai net is a good thing, feel free. "Ben Franklin said so based on, at best, personal anecdotes" probably isn't the most compelling argument for that position but, in any case, e point is that the US system is weak, whether that's desirable or not, contrary to the upthread suggestion that it is substantial.

I actually argue to replace all Social Safety Nets, all Universal Healthcare, every government program with UBI...

I do not believe the government should provide Food, Home, or Healthcare assistance to any. I do however believe every person should enjoy basic income level to buy those things for themselves

http://forum.somethingtoconsidermovement.com/t/geolibertaria...

Quoting an 18th century politician citing 18th century anecdotal evidence does not convince anyone who does not already occupy that viewpoint. Especially from outside of the US where the degree of unquestioning reverence, whatever their virtues, given to your founders can come across a little odd and parochial.

They were men that agreed and disagreed with each other on lots of matters, not Gods.

Getting on welfare and Medicaid is not as simple as you seem to think nor is it quick. Also if you are a male without any kids in most states you are out of luck.

In states with Medicaid expansion, men with no children do qualify for Medicaid.

> As much as people outside the US like to think it's some sort of heartless society, the US has a substantial safety net setup.

This is not true whatsoever.

Then please explain the 50% of the federal budget that goes to our social safety net. That's not substantial to you?

Medicare and Social Security, that you're only entitled to after you're above 62-67. (Depending on birth date)

Anyone not elderly is SOL.

In California, one of the most generous states with welfare, here's what it looks like for a single person with no children:

WORK REQUIREMENT Non-assistance CalFresh recipient over age 17 and under age 50 must satisfy the ABAWD work requirement as a condition of eligibility unless they meet specified exemption criteria or live in an area where the ABAWD work requirement is waived. ABAWDs cannot receive CalFresh (food stamps) for more than three months in a 36-month period unless they meet this requirement or are excused from it. The ABAWD work requirement is met by performing one of the following:

Working at least 20 hours per week in paid or volunteer employment; Participating at least 20 hours per week in an allowable work activity such as vocational training or basic education programs; or Participating in workfare (i.e., community service). The number of hours of participation in workfare is determined by dividing the CalFresh allotment by the higher of the state or federal minimum wage.

Max benefit: $174 a month(!)

Compare Germany:

If a worker is not eligible for the full unemployment benefits or after receiving the full unemployment benefit for the maximum of 12 months, he is able to apply for benefits from the so-called Arbeitslosengeld II (Hartz IV) programme, an open-ended welfare programme which, unlike the US system, ensures people do not fall into penury. A person receiving Hartz IV benefits is paid 404 EUR (2016) a month for living expenses plus the cost of adequate housing (including heating) and health care. Couples can receive benefits for each partner. Germany does not have an EBT (electronic benefits transfer) card system in place and, instead, disburses welfare in cash or via direct deposit onto the recipient's bank account.

Not only that, in Germany you have universal health care, while in California (or anywhere else in the US) you will be uninsured (you can still be treated in the ER of any hospital, but that's not going to help in preventative situations).

Uh.... no.

Read my original post. Medicaid is available to low income individuals. In fact, it was expanded (in most states) up to ~175% of the federal poverty level. You can get it even when you have a job!

Have you tried to get Medicaid in a state? Because I have for a family member (Indiana). There's a waitlist, and even on it, your monthly out of pocket costs are very high (the person in question had zero income, and was still required to cough up $400-$1000 for prescriptions and copays, with no income!).

Note that this varies from state to state considerably. So, in some states, the experience may be very different. (Especially as to the monthly out of pocket once you qualify.)

I realize that. That was my comment's point. Refurb made a broad generalization ("Medicaid is available to low income individuals.") that is factually inaccurate across most of the US states.

That's on Indiana. Coincidentally, look at the governor. It's almost like they're getting the government they deserve...

Medical works better, at least in part because Californians want it to work better.

>>Have you tried to get Medicaid in a state? Because I have for a family member (Indiana). There's a waitlist,

Wait are you not for Universal Healthcare... WTF do you think Universal Healthcare will be.... Medicaid for everyone that is what...

Hey there! Can you provide proof? Because every other first world country achieves better care at lower costs than the US with universal healthcare.

I am sure they do, I never argued that I like our Current mix of heavily government regulation, mandatory 3rd party billing, and a variety of other fucked up policies imposed by government.

It is likely that single paying would be provide lower cost then what we pay today, I think it is highly unlikely it would result in better care. For example in many places in the EU semiprivate rooms are only for those Rich people that pay for their care, the "free" sick people are put in "efficient" open-plan hospital ward with many more people

Also there would be a huge drop in medical research, in addition to government regulation driving up costs, the US Health System more or less carries the rest of the world for R&D, companies charge the US exorbitantly because in the rest of the world there are price controls, once they stop being able to exploit the US Health Consumer because we also have price controls they will simply stop or slow their R&D to safer avenues and take less risks..

There are also 1000's of other reason why a US Universal Healthcare system will be vastly different than any thing any other nation has tried.

One big one is our obesity problem, once we have Universal Healthcare, are you then going to support Universal Diets, and Universal/Mandatory Exercise??

> One big one is our obesity problem, once we have Universal Healthcare, are you then going to support Universal Diets, and Universal/Mandatory Exercise??

I would add a tax onto activities that increase healthcare costs, yes. I'm not stopping your from doing it, I'm just bringing the externality into the equation.

If you speed, we ticket you. If you speed too much, we raise the price of your insurance. And so on. This is no different. Risks have costs, and you pay for the risk you create (when a choice is provided).

Fucking authoritarians. I really do not have much else to say, I can not have a reasonable conversation with people that believe the government should control everything.. Including what the fuck I eat and tax (aka Punish me if I make the "wrong" choice by their standards

you basically want to live in a world like this

https://www.aclu.org/ordering-pizza

One man's authoritarianism is another man's efficient market.

Medicaid is managed by the states, Medicare is the Federal one. It would likely be Medicare for all.

Also while you're receiving unemployment you have to apply to two jobs every week or two weeks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com