> For example, self-inflicted disability (morbid obesity for example) should be subject to a different test of means than birth defects.
I don't really agree with this.
First, I don't see "abuse" of the system being a major problem that needs to be defended against. If someone wants to destroy their future health by Homering, let 'em. They aren't extending their life by eating themselves to death.
But even if that's the concern, I'm pretty sure we could circumvent a lot of those issues simply by subsidizing disability causing conditions (such as building/maintaining public gyms). We can prevent people from getting there in the first place which would greatly reduce the problem of "abuse".
Strong means tests are expensive to run and ultimately will filter out people that actually need assistance. If we are going to apply a social filter, I'd rather side with letting those that don't deserve it in than keeping those that deserve it out.
This is born out with homelessness studies. Applying sobriety or religious tests before sheltering the homeless ultimately keeps people homeless. Housing first, on the other hand, has a tendency to make people sober.
The dreaded “welfare queen” trope has cost so many lives, so much misery. We’d rather countless needy people suffer than dare give someone else more than he/she is due.
Yup. I support expensive social programs with minimal means testing. I'd rather give every kid a school lunch on my tax dime than have kids go hungry because their parents weren't poor enough to get a free meal. The wealthy kids parents are already subsidizing meals so why not let them have a free meal as well?
It's silly to bill people twice for the same product to make sure the underserved aren't accidently helped.
> First, I don't see "abuse" of the system being a major problem that needs to be defended against. If someone wants to destroy their future health by Homering, let 'em. They aren't extending their life by eating themselves to death.
Absolutely. No one should have to pay for it, though.
I don't really agree with this.
First, I don't see "abuse" of the system being a major problem that needs to be defended against. If someone wants to destroy their future health by Homering, let 'em. They aren't extending their life by eating themselves to death.
But even if that's the concern, I'm pretty sure we could circumvent a lot of those issues simply by subsidizing disability causing conditions (such as building/maintaining public gyms). We can prevent people from getting there in the first place which would greatly reduce the problem of "abuse".
Strong means tests are expensive to run and ultimately will filter out people that actually need assistance. If we are going to apply a social filter, I'd rather side with letting those that don't deserve it in than keeping those that deserve it out.
This is born out with homelessness studies. Applying sobriety or religious tests before sheltering the homeless ultimately keeps people homeless. Housing first, on the other hand, has a tendency to make people sober.