Universal vs. means-tested

Post Reply New Topic

In last night's Democratic debate, Bernie said something interesting about the types of programs Buttigieg and Biden were proposing: "People are sick and tired of filling out forms!"

https://newrepublic.com/article/156078/ ... as-primary

In America, compared to other developed countries, we seem to have a strong emphasis on means-tested programs, where the programs are narrowly tailored in terms of who can use them. While that may seem like a fine idea on paper, just give the dollars to those who need them, it also runs into a lot of problems. For one, filling out forms. You have to have a bureaucratic system for monitoring eligibility for these programs, and you will generally need people to periodically prove their eligibility for things like Medicaid. This creates a lot of burden for the people in need of these programs, and creates a lot of stress that if their income goes up, they're worried they're no longer eligible and now must go to some completely different source for health care coverage and deal with all the changes and new demands that entails. In addition, a lot of people don't know they're eligible or don't think they're eligible (or are simply unaware of the plan), and they simply fall through the cracks. Finally, such means-tested programs, since only a few actually benefit from them, are easy for politicians to cut, because you won't have very many people protesting the cost to their livelihood for cutting it. This is why cutting Social Security has long been the third rail of politics (at most, politicians will talk about doing it), but it's easy to impose new requirements on food stamps.

In the rest of the developed world, it seems countries mostly rely on universal programs, where everybody is in and everybody benefits, regardless of their income or any of that--at most, they would simply pay more in taxes. Simply for being a legal resident of the country, you get your benefit card and use it. You don't have to worry about eligibility, you don't have to worry about filling out paperwork, you don't need to go far to learn about it since everybody gets the benefit anyway, if politicians try to cut it out of existence the middle class will also be there protesting, and you won't have to worry about all the complications and changes resulting from losing eligibility.

To be fair, the United States has some universal programs, like firefighting, public libraries, and public schools (though funding for the last one is uneven, because it's based mainly on local property taxes.) But these programs have been universal for, I think, a century or more, and there haven't really been any new ones since. If you notice something, universal programs tend to be enduring fixtures of our everyday lives.

I think this love for means-tested vs. universal programs is the biggest thing dividing establishment Democrats from progressives. They think it's better to just go around putting a bandaid on everything, which is really what means-tested programs are, but they fail to realize that these bandaids are pretty leaky and miss a lot of people, and are very easy for Republicans to come in later and strip of their funding or to add new eligibility requirements. Progressives want to solve these problems on a systemic level, and bring everyone into the pool, so to speak (not a pun, actually). But of course, since a lot of very rich donors are happy with the current system and don't want to see it radically changed, they will donate lots of money to establishment politicians, and lots of politicians will take these bribes--I mean, donations--no matter how many ordinary people get hurt.

I don’t think dogma is helpful here.

As you point out, there are advantages and disadvantages to both systems. What needs to be done is weigh up whether the costs of providing rich people with free things is worth the benefit of reducing the administrative burden, particularly on poor service users. Sometimes it will be, sometimes it won’t be.

Take degree education. People who go to university are likely to come from the middle class, and even more likely to end up in the middle class. While the American system is poorly designed, just making the whole thing free would mean pouring a load of money into middle class pockets. Alternatively that extra money could go to working class schools to help close the attainment gap, and to scholarships for working class students.

On the other hand, if something is relatively cheap then complex rules of eligibility are pointless. My local (publicly owned) bus company went from demanding 14 year olds produce ID that showed they live locally to get child prices, to just trusting anyone who said they were under 21. They probably had more fraud, but they saved themselves the cost of producing and administering the special IDs and they generated goodwill and made it easier to use the buses.

What I’m saying, badly, is that it isn’t black and white. There are definite advantages to universal benefits and that’s why I support UBI. But some very expensive things that we can’t afford to make universal are nonetheless important things for everyone to have access to. Means testing has drawbacks but is sometimes necessary.

Connecticut just moved to make community colleges "free" to anyone who graduates from a CT high school.

If money is abundant, then universal is good.

If not, then means-tested is good.

Most Democrats appear to want means-tested services.

Elizabeth Warren has proposed means-tested "free" college.

Elizabeth Warren has proposed means-tested "Medicare for all".

Medicare For All is universal, not means-tested.

That’s a good start but doesn’t capture everything.

What if universal benefits are cheaper, or more beneficial, than means tested benefits? Sounds far-fetched, but not only do you have extra admin costs associated with means testing, but welfare traps, fear of being accused of fraud, shame associated with using the service or benefit, and fewer people become invested in it.

When I was in school, I was eligible for means tested free lunch. My parents didn’t sign me up for it because we didn’t need it and they didn’t want people to know they were struggling. I never went hungry but we made other sacrifices, and lots of families weren’t as lucky as mine. Now, every kid gets free food, so there’s no stigma associated with it, every kid gets a healthy cooked meal once a day, and concentration levels are much higher in schools.

There is a lot of waste in means-tested programs. The ones I am familiar with are SSI, food stamps and Medicaid and Medicaid Waiver. The amount of time and computer work, staffing and documents required for these means-testing are exorbitant. The difficulty in complying with the regulations for these programs boggle the mind. The frequency of the justification is ludicrous.

Warren's "Medicare for all" proposal is that people below an income threshold (200% FPL federal poverty line) won't have to pay Medicare premiums or cost sharing, those above will.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... lic-option

It's definitely hard to account for so many factors.