Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 36

Thread: Number of households that cannot afford $400 emergency expense drops to 40%

  1. #1

    Exclamation Number of households that cannot afford $400 emergency expense drops to 40%

    Still pretty stunning, but that's down from just over 50% in 2013


    Four in 10 can’t cover an emergency expense of $400, Fed survey finds

    Published: May 22, 2018 12:36 p.m. ET

    Small emergency expenses still challenge many Americans after nearly a decade of economic recovery, a new survey released by the Federal Reserve on Tuesday found.

    The Fed’s new survey of household economics and decision-making found 41% could not cover a $400 emergency expense using cash in 2017. That’s actually a slight improvement, since 44% could not in 2016, 46% could not in 2015 and only 50% could in 2013.

    Those that couldn’t afford the expense turn to credit cards or borrowing from family or friends, while only 5% would turn to a payday loan or similar product.

    The inability to pay a bill also highlights the vulnerability of many Americans — 22% say they expect to forgo payments on some of their bills. Nearly half of those who skip bills let their credit cards go unpaid, racking up huge interest rate charges in the process.

    One-third of those who can’t pay all their bills say their rent, mortgage or utility bills will be left unpaid.
    “Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.” - Arnold Toynbee



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Those that couldn’t afford the expense turn to credit cards or borrowing from family or friends
    Isn't that what friends are for, to loan you money?
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  4. #3
    Mainline some Dave Ramsey, problem solved.

    Caveat emptor, of course. Not all advice is created equal.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Kilrain View Post
    Mainline some Dave Ramsey, problem solved.

    Caveat emptor, of course. Not all advice is created equal.
    I used to think that too, but after husband had stroke, i learned you cannot save money when you don't have any money.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    I used to think that too, but after husband had stroke, i learned you cannot save money when you don't have any money.
    I sympathize with your predicament, but the broader point is to save money before you have something like a stroke. I have a similar story to tell, but since the wife and I started saving from day 1, we already had a healthy cushion to land on when we got the news.

    Bottom line, save for a rainy day. Because it's going to rain, be it a sudden event like a stroke or a gradual event like ours.

    Of course, once tragedy strikes, it's too late to prepare. Again, you have my sympathy, but maybe we can get others to prepare before it's too late.

  7. #6
    We are very low income compared to our peers. We both work. We can afford a $400 emergency if it happens once in a while. We could not afford it if it happens once a week and we could not afford a long illness with hospital bills.

    What I have learned is that sometimes living small and taking care of what we have avoids a lot of emergencies. I take my aging car to a good mechanic and have it looked over once a year, including the spare tire. I might have a road emergency, but it's not as likely when I troubleshoot, and I'm covered for roadside emergency if I have one.

    I know I will probably need a new battery this year. I have money saved.

    The same thing goes for home repairs. Catch them when they are small and they are less expensive to fix.
    Last edited by euphemia; 05-23-2018 at 11:49 AM.
    #NashvilleStrong

    “I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Kilrain View Post
    I sympathize with your predicament, but the broader point is to save money before you have something like a stroke. I have a similar story to tell, but since the wife and I started saving from day 1, we already had a healthy cushion to land on when we got the news.
    <rolls eyes> We had over $100,000 at our disposal. But when it was gone, it was gone. And apparently it isn't coming back.

  9. #8
    The Fed’s new survey of household economics and decision-making found 41% could not cover a $400 emergency expense using cash in 2017. That’s actually a slight improvement, since 44% could not in 2016, 46% could not in 2015 and only 50% could in 2013.
    I could easily cover a $400 expense but don't usually have $400 in cash around my house so I would fit the "not enough cash" category.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-24-2018 at 03:54 PM.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    I could easily cover a $400 expense

    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    <rolls eyes> We had over $100,000 at our disposal. But when it was gone, it was gone. And apparently it isn't coming back.
    I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and I can't do anything to fix your problems. But we can try to prevent others from ending up in the same predicament. Which is why it's a good idea to "mainline some Dave Ramsey", as I suggested, to find out more about how people end up in sticky financial situations and how they can avoid making the same mistakes. For example, your situation highlights why things like life insurance and/or disability insurance can be a good idea.

    Speaking for the wife and I, we've tried to plan for when the good times will end. Is it foolproof? Of course not, but I'm fairly confident that we (or rather she) will have enough when the time comes.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Kilrain View Post
    I sympathize with your predicament, but the broader point is to save money before you have something like a stroke. I have a similar story to tell, but since the wife and I started saving from day 1, we already had a healthy cushion to land on when we got the news.

    Bottom line, save for a rainy day. Because it's going to rain, be it a sudden event like a stroke or a gradual event like ours.

    Of course, once tragedy strikes, it's too late to prepare. Again, you have my sympathy, but maybe we can get others to prepare before it's too late.
    The whole point of the article is to say that "saving money is hard".

    For 40% of Americans, saving money is impossible because the cost of everything continues to go up and low wages do not. Next, look at where the blame is pointed. A lot of people will blame people like Angela for not saving "enough" and try to say she is fully responsible for her own predicament. Not you or me, but there are a LOT of people out there who will blame victims of circumstance. Angela's predicament, even if she did save, is caused by drug companies charging $40,000 for a single drug, which that same drug in Canada costs $40 bucks and NONE of that money went to research. Link to that article here.

    We should prepare as best as we can, but there are limits to how much we can prepare. Insurance is supposed to help for situations like this, but look at the cost of both insurance and health care. You pay insurance but insurance has a bad habit of trying to not pay ANY bills at all. For Angela's situation, how much ability would her husband have to try to fight insurance companies in court after a stroke? The way insurance companies operate is predatory on those who are not able to defend themselves. If Angela's husband had not been married to Angela, he would be up $#@! creek without a paddle. Medical Care costs are also thru the roof. The cost of education is through the roof. The cost of living in general is through the roof.

    Really what is happening is not that the costs are rising, but the value of money is decreasing. The costs increasing are symptomatic of the value of the dollar, and represents exactly why Fiat Currency is a clear and present danger to society. The way that many companies handle the situations is to twist problems to blame victims and get victims to blame themselves in a way that benefits the companies, not individuals. For Angela's situation, again, she would be shown to the world as being responsible for her own problems because "she didn't buy enough insurance", when really its the insurance companies and the cost of health care that profit from Angela's situation. They put her in Checkmate, and no matter what she did or does, her situation falters through no fault of her own. I have a few disagreements with Angela, but overall, I understand that her situation is terrible through no fault of her own. I know for a fact she is the type of person to prepare for herself as best as she can and to the absolute best of her ability. Strokes happen. Her situation should be limited to coping with the situation only from a medical care perspective, but is exacerbated by the financial, time, and stress costs of that medical care to the point where surviving medically could ruin her financially, which leads us right back to square one, the title of this thread.

    So lets be clear here. Prepare. How does one "prepare"? Do they spend ALL their money on Health Insurance? Maybe the average person is blamed for "living beyond their means" when a single bedroom apartment now costs (here) $1500 a month and the average pay is $10 an hour? Lets blame the victim again for "not getting an education", an education that costs $50,000 and makes $30,000 a year. Can you say Teacher? I knew you could. Can you say that situation is quite normal? To be expected to be in financial dire straights and crushed by overwhelming debt to afford that education that qualifies a person only for low paying jobs? This is a new class of poverty known as "The Educated Poor". Now, take that average person who is $50,000 in debt, earning $30,000 a year, and trying to pay $1500 for a one bedroom apartment? 30k a year only provides 2500 a month BEFORE taxes, and if rent is $1500, that is well above the recommended 25% of income should be spent on housing. Now lets add in the rest of the bills. $1000 a month for health insurance. That number is also pretty average when insurance is not offered by employers. Ooops, that person is flat broke and can no longer afford to eat. Okay, go without health insurance. Oh damn, penalizes with a $695 penalty at the end of the tax year for being a "criminal" for "refusing to buy health insurance". Either way, that person is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

    So, again, how do we prepare? And yes, a Teacher will probably be able to afford insurance to some degree, but what about a person trying desperately to start their own business? They cant get insurance from their employer because they ARE their own employer. If that person gets hurt, and dont have insurance, they are screwed. If its a long term illness or injury, they no longer have an income because they arent working. Hence the need for insurance. Insurance also does not always mean Corporate Insurance either, as you said, "saving", and saving is a form of Self Insurance. How is an average person supposed to SAVE when they are required by law to pay for Corporate Insurance, pay rent, pay for their education, pay for food, electricity, water, garbage, internet, cell phone, car, car insurance, car repairs, fuel, clothing, and the plethora of everyday things that everyone needs? These things that an average person has are not exactly a choice in being able to live. And all these costs are cumulative. When the costs of average things go up, now people cant afford to save a dime. In fact, far too many people are buying necessities with credit. So now the average person can throw a Credit Card / Loan that they can not pay off on top of their normal monthly bills, and even LESS money is available to save. To add insult to injury, this Educated Poor person is now paying MORE due to the interest on the loans for everyday living expenses than a person who pays cash.

    So, how does one prepare? If we listen to the profiteers of education, they will tell you its responsible out irresponsible levels of debt to get a higher education in valuable trades such as underwater basket weaving. If you listen to an investor, they will tell you to buy a house as it counts as "real property" despite being dead smack in the middle of another housing bubble. They make money when they buy low and sell high, and want you to sell low and buy high. So of course they have an incentive to tell you to buy hoses when prices are at their worst, and getting worse. Listen to an insurance company and they would have you spend more on insurance per month than your entire income. And insurance is NOT an investment. Putting money into insurance is as much of a gamble as it is a gamble to not have insurance. Only difference is if you have insurance and a Seven, they will pay (minus your deductible and under your cap), but if you dont have insurance and roll an Eleven, then and only then can you afford to pay that bill yourself.

    How does one prepare? Save? If so, how? Buy insurance? Buy an education that doesnt pay for itself? Rent instead of buy? Already above income level for 40% of people who can't save. Buy instead of rent? Thats smart during a housing bubble. Dont buy something you cant afford. Typically wise, but without a car, how do you get back and forth to work for people that dont have access to public transportation? To far too many, the only responsible course of action is to live in their parents basement and say $#@! the future and just give up. They understand that they have been financially checkmated and dont even try any more. Welcome to the world of the Educated Poor. *sarcasm* If only we had Socialism, where everyone can live beyond their means at the expense of everyone else, until it starts looking like Detroit, Michigan. The ONLY solution to the problems I have stated is to get Govt out of EVERYTHING and try like hell to make the Free Market properly correct the financial imbalances that are killing 40% of people who cant afford a $400 emergency expense.

    I really hope you have a positive reply.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    The whole point of the article is to say that "saving money is hard".

    So lets be clear here. Prepare. How does one "prepare"?

    I really hope you have a positive reply.
    How does one prepare? By acquiring as much information as possible and making the best decision they can. Now what does that mean? Different things for different people, but some principles are pretty universal. You have to live on less than you make, you have to put money aside for the rainy days ahead. Life can be difficult and some people are truly victim of circumstance, but overall, I violently disagree with the premise that “saving money is hard”. Actually, saving money is really easy, it’s getting started that’s hard. When you make next to nothing, it’s easy to just throw up your hands and say “screw it”.

    I actually know what it’s like to be among the “educated poor”. When the wife and I got started, we were both just out of college (she had several degrees, I never even finished mine). We were both earning about 4 dollars an hour and had roughly 75,000 dollars in student loans. So what did we do? We started saving every little bit we could. It took maybe six months to get 1,000 dollars together, and I remember being really proud when we got there. These days, a month when we only save 1,000 dollars is a bad month. And it’s not like we make all that much money, I make about an average salary and she makes maybe two-thirds of an average salary. Most of that is because of behavior. For example, we could go out and buy a brand-new car tomorrow, but we choose to drive a 1992 Methmobile because it's dirt cheap.

    One thing that I also have a problem with is the “rent is too high” argument you often hear. Not the argument in and of itself, rents often are too high, but people often complain about not being able to afford X rent when they make Y money as an individual. In my world, you’re not supposed to be able to afford your own home - rent or buy - on a single low income. Having your “own home” is for when you move in with your spouse, or start making really good money. Until that point, you live at home or shack up with roommates. And if you find yourself in a really high-cost area with a low income, you’re looking at options including getting your income up, combining your income with other people, or moving.

    I hope this reply was positive enough.
    Last edited by Kilrain; 05-24-2018 at 05:07 PM.

  15. #13
    Well, its either pay 1500 for rent, not eat, or live on the streets.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Well, its either pay 1500 for rent, not eat, or live on the streets.
    Or sharing the rent. I think rent was about 400 dollars in the first place I lived after moving out from my parents' place. Pretty steep when making 4 dollars an hour. But since there were two of us making 4 dollars an hour, it was quite manageable. Not in the long run, and it was a tad small - maybe 200 square feet - but it worked until we could get our incomes up.

  17. #15
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fo...nds-2018-05-22

    Overall, 74% of adults say they were doing OK or living comfortable, which has steadily improved over the years and is up over 10 percentage points from 2013.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    I could easily cover a $400 expense but don't usually have $400 in cash around my house so I would fit the "not enough cash" category.
    I think it was cash vs. credit.

    A lot of people who can't pay for a $400 emergency expense using cash may be able to put it on credit.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    But...but...the new iPhone was on sale.

  21. #18
    Before my son’s accident I was okay..amazing how quickly that can turn to crap no matter how well you think you’re prepared. That being said, I have paid down 75% of the massive debt that got heaped upon me between medical and legal expenses.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlybee View Post
    massive debt that got heaped upon me between medical and kegal expenses.
    Hahahahahha...I know you edited your post but that was pretty funny.. sorry about your medical and legal expenses tho
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Hahahahahha...I know you edited your post but that was pretty funny.. sorry about your medical and legal expenses tho

    Yeah, Freudian slip?

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    I could easily cover a $400 expense but don't usually have $400 in cash around my house so I would fit the "not enough cash" category.
    I probably have two to four times that in rolls of nickels and quarters somewhere and pre 1982 copper cents, but , yeah I do not keep any real amount of paper money around usually . No real need . If you need paper you can get it at the bank if you have deposits . If times got very bad very quickly I would not be leaving the property anyway and doubtful anyone would want to part with anything of real value then for paper anyway . When things went to hell in the Balkans currency was silver German Five Mark pc.'s and gasoline . Where I live you could probably add Liquor and shotgun shells to that list . I am not going to run out of ammo .
    Last edited by oyarde; 05-25-2018 at 11:19 PM.
    Do something Danke

  25. #22
    40 percent ? My guess is thats about as low as that will get considering only 60 percent of the country works . So this is the pinnacle of economic activity . Enjoy the Boom .
    Last edited by oyarde; 05-26-2018 at 07:15 PM.
    Do something Danke

  26. #23
    We have it BUT I know we're only one tragedy from starting over.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    We have it BUT I know we're only one tragedy from starting over.
    That is about right .
    Do something Danke



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlybee View Post
    Before my son’s accident I was okay..amazing how quickly that can turn to crap no matter how well you think you’re prepared. That being said, I have paid down 75% of the massive debt that got heaped upon me between medical and legal expenses.
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    <rolls eyes> We had over $100,000 at our disposal. But when it was gone, it was gone. And apparently it isn't coming back.
    I am in favor of Singapore style health care. I don't see it as a huge infringement on liberty. It would be cheaper and you wouldn't be bankrupting people.

    It is a universally unpopular view among libertarians (because it isn't libertarian) but it would yield a better societal outcome. I wish Hayek would be the dominant thinker and not Rothbard among liberty people.

    “Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong… Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken,”

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I am in favor of Singapore style health care. I don't see it as a huge infringement on liberty. It would be cheaper and you wouldn't be bankrupting people.

    It is a universally unpopular view among libertarians (because it isn't libertarian) but it would yield a better societal outcome. I wish Hayek would be the dominant thinker and not Rothbard among liberty people.

    “Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong… Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken,”
    Nope. It is never better for society to make other people pay for services they aren't receiving. Centrally planned wealth redistribution is the problem, not the solution.

    Nice to see another post advocating for state funded communism though. Those never get old.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I am in favor of Singapore style health care. I don't see it as a huge infringement on liberty. It would be cheaper and you wouldn't be bankrupting people.

    It is a universally unpopular view among libertarians (because it isn't libertarian) but it would yield a better societal outcome. I wish Hayek would be the dominant thinker and not Rothbard among liberty people.

    “Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong… Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken,”
    Not familiar with their system so I looked it up (Obamacare is basically NixonCare). https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...stem-explained

    Is Singapore’s “miracle” health care system the answer for America?


    When liberals talk about their health care utopia, they have scores of examples to choose from. Some name France’s high-performing multi-payer system (No. 1 on the World Health Organization’s rankings, in case you haven’t heard). Others point to Canada’s single-payer simplicity. The Scandinavian countries all do health care well, and there’s much to recommend Germany’s hybrid approach.

    Conservatives really only have one example of a free market health care paradise to point to: Singapore. But oh, what an example it is! In a New York Times column called “Make America Singapore,” Ross Douthat called it “the marvel of the wealthy world.” After the election, Fox News published an op-ed headlined, "Want to ditch ObamaCare? Let's copy Singapore's health care miracle.”

    Why are conservatives so taken with Singapore? The American Enterprise Institute’s glowing write-up explains it well:

    What’s the reason for Singapore’s success? It’s not government spending. The state, using taxes, funds only about one-fourth of Singapore’s total health costs. Individuals and their employers pay for the rest. In fact, the latest figures show that Singapore’s government spends only $381 (all dollars in this article are U.S.) per capita on health—or one-seventh what the U.S. government spends.

    Singapore’s system requires individuals to take responsibility for their own health, and for much of their own spending on medical care.
    Here’s what Singapore’s conservative admirers get right: Singapore really is the only truly universal health insurance system in the world based on the idea that patients, not insurers, should bear the costs of routine care.

    But Singapore isn’t a free market utopia. Quite the opposite, really. It’s a largely state-run health care system where the government designed the insurance products with a healthy appreciation for free market principles — the kind of policy Milton Friedman might have crafted if he’d been a socialist.

    Unlike in America, where the government’s main role is in managing insurance programs, Singapore’s government controls and pays for much of the medical system itself — hospitals are overwhelmingly public, a large portion of doctors work directly for the state, patients can only use their Medisave accounts to purchase preapproved drugs, and the government subsidizes many medical bills directly.

    What Singapore shows is that unusual fusions of conservative and liberal ideas in health care really are possible. Singapore is a place where the government acts to keep costs low and then uses those low costs to make a market-driven insurance system possible. One thing you quickly realize when studying their system is it would be a disaster if you tried to impose it in a country with America’s out-of-control medical prices.

    That speaks to the more depressing lesson of Singapore. As soon as you begin seriously comparing where they are, and how their system works, to where the US is, and how our system works, it becomes painfully clear how far America is from having the institutions or preconditions for truly radical health care reform.

    How Singapore’s health insurance system works
    Books could be written on the structure of Singapore’s health care system, and indeed, they have been. Jeremy Lim’s Myth or Magic: The Singapore Healthcare System is particularly excellent, though William Haseltine’s Affordable Excellence: The Singapore Healthcare Story has the advantage of being free. A deep dive here is rewarding, and my summary will necessarily oversimplify.

    But the basic structure of Singapore’s insurance system is built around the “three M’s”: Medisave, Medishield, and Medifund. Let’s take them in turn.

    Medisave: When conservatives praise Singapore’s health system, they are typically praising the Medisave system. Medisave is a forced savings plan that consumes between 7 and 9.5 percent of a working Singaporean’s wages — think of it like the Social Security payroll tax, if said tax funded a health savings account. Singaporeans then pay for some routine care out of their Medisave accounts.

    Conservatives like Medisave because it is built on a deep appreciation for the idea that routine medical care can be treated like any other good, and patients can be pushed to act like consumers when buying it. Which is all true. Medisave distinguishes Singapore’s system from that of the US or Western Europe, where insurers typically cover most of the cost of routine care.

    But again, the way Medisave actually works is the government forces you to divert 7 to 9.5 percent of your wages into this account, and then it decides what you can do with those savings — one way Singapore keeps drug prices low, for instance, is it only allows Medisave funds to be used for drugs that the government judges cost-effective (more on this later).

    So while Medisave may look like a health savings account, it’s a mandatory health savings account funded by a payroll tax and only usable in certain conditions.

    Medishield: Not all medical care is routine care. For the big expenses, Singapore runs Medishield, a nationwide catastrophic insurance program. The premiums are set by your age, and the deductibles are reasonably high — roughly $1,400 in US dollars. Enrollment is automatic, though you can opt out if you choose.

    Together, Medishield and Medisave form the core of Singapore’s more market-oriented health insurance system — the idea is you pay routine expenses out of your Medisave account, and if things get bad enough that you hit your deductible, you begin using your Medishield account. This accords with the broader conservative view on health care: Insurance should cover unexpected costs, and for everything else, people should shop around as they do for most other products, and unleash the powers of the market.

    But to make that structure work, Singapore relies on a massive amount of government coercion across the entire system. Fully funding your Medisave account is compulsory, not optional. You’re automatically enrolled in Medishield. The government limits the services both programs can purchase and, as we’ll see, often produces or reprices the services both programs purchase.

    Medifund: Some Singaporeans fall through the cracks of Medisave and Medishield. For them, there’s Medifund — Singapore’s payer-of-last-resort.

    Medifund’s structure is unusual in two ways. First, it’s based on a $3 billion endowment, with the government only able to spend the previous year’s investment income to pay for the needy’s medical bills; dipping into the endowment itself is forbidden. Second, it’s administered with a lot of discretion at the hospital level — so rather than qualifying for Medifund based on income, the way Americans do for Medicaid, hospital boards administer Medifund to the patients they judge needy enough to qualify. This is less restrictive than it might sound — the government says that more than 99 percent of applications are approved.

    The big vulnerability of Medifund is that a bad investment year could wipe out the government’s ability to pay — and do so at the moment it was most needed. It’s a testament to Singapore’s economy, and to the government’s fiscal skill, that they’ve not faced this problem yet.
    More at link.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Well, its either pay 1500 for rent, not eat, or live on the streets.
    Or move.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Nope. It is never better for society to make other people pay for services they aren't receiving. Centrally planned wealth redistribution is the problem, not the solution.

    Nice to see another post advocating for state funded communism though. Those never get old.
    This isn't wealth distribution. It is risk management. My view changed on this because Hayek made a good case that freedom isn't destroyed by helping people manage catastrophic risk. We have Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, the tax break for employers, and the VA System as the current American market. Why would you be against something that cuts the government role of health care in half?

    I am for things that work in practice. Singapore works.

    "It spends less of its economy on health care than any country that was included in our recent tournament on best health systems in the world."

    "Americans tend to think that they have a highly privatized health system, but Singapore is arguably much more so. There, about two-thirds of health care spending is private, and about one-third is public. It’s just about the opposite in the United States."

    "
    Life expectancy at birth is two to three years longer than in Britain or the United States. Its infant mortality rate is among the lowest in the world, about half that of the United States, and just over half that of Britain, Australia, Canada and France. General mortality rates are impressive compared with pretty much all other countries as well."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/upshot/what-makes-singapores-health-care-so-cheap.html
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 05-28-2018 at 02:58 PM.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    This isn't wealth distribution. It is risk management. My view changed on this because Hayek made a good case that freedom isn't destroyed by helping people manage catastrophic risk. We have Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, the tax break for employers, and the VA System as the current American market. Why would you be against something that cuts the government role of health care in half?

    I am for things that work in practice. Singapore works.

    "It spends less of its economy on health care than any country that was included in our recent tournament on best health systems in the world."

    "Americans tend to think that they have a highly privatized health system, but Singapore is arguably much more so. There, about two-thirds of health care spending is private, and about one-third is public. It’s just about the opposite in the United States."

    "
    Life expectancy at birth is two to three years longer than in Britain or the United States. Its infant mortality rate is among the lowest in the world, about half that of the United States, and just over half that of Britain, Australia, Canada and France. General mortality rates are impressive compared with pretty much all other countries as well."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/upshot/what-makes-singapores-health-care-so-cheap.html
    Noting that the "private contributions" are mandatory contributions to health savings accounts of seven to 9.5% of your income and the government says what you can and cannot spend it on.

    Singapore heavily regulates both the pricing and provision of medical care to keep costs low (as do all other developed countries) and then, working off that baseline of low costs, has Singaporeans pay out of pocket in order to keep them mindful of how much they’re spending.
    The Singaporean system is unusually good at applying market forces to routine health expenses. But that happens within a context where the government is aggressively managing the supply of health services, the price of treatments, and the broader behavioral environment in which the system operates. Singapore’s health care system relies much more on the government, and much less on the market, than America’s does.
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...stem-explained

    Life expectancy is also helped by the government.

    Despite the country’s wealth, only 15 percent of Singaporeans have cars, because the government makes car ownership prohibitively expensive. There’s virtually no illegal drugs or gun crime in Singapore, in part because drug dealers are executed and guns are outlawed. Cigarette and alcohol taxes are enormous by American standards. As Matt Yglesias said in our episode of The Weeds discussing Singapore, “If you imagine America with no guns, less booze, much less drugs, and radically less driving, our public health outcomes would soar.”
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-28-2018 at 03:10 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 108
    Last Post: 08-26-2017, 07:57 PM
  2. Number Of Refugees Admitted To U.S. Drops By Almost Half 13,000/25,000
    By goldenequity in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-24-2017, 11:34 PM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-30-2013, 08:43 PM
  4. Record Number of Households on Food Stamps-- 1 out of Every 5
    By Origanalist in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 04-30-2013, 10:12 PM
  5. Do all libertarians come from statist households?
    By RCA in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 05-12-2010, 08:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •