Tweet
This is not an argument for having no safety net at all. I benefit from the Disability benefits through Social Security - I'm very aware that sometimes, we have to help. But the question is, is government actually the best means of providing that help? My answer is yes and no - giving me a two prong argument.
On the yes side, where benefits have no immediately foreseeable end, government is in a better position financially to maintain those benefits. Social Security (which needs serious work, I grant), Disability and Incompetence (legal, not colloquial term) - those who have either paid in and are receiving their expected benefit or who have no realistic chance of returning to the workforce.
On the no side, temporary benefits, such as welfare. Government is still the most financially stable entity (helps if you can print money - which is bad, yes, I know) but it is not a disinterested entity. The people who benefit are also the ones voting for the people who provide the benefits. This can and does become a nasty self destructive cycle - we see generational welfare n part as a result of this cycle.
So, how do we fix it? Easy answers aren't actually easy to implement - and often aren't complete answers.
I'm no fan of the Ryan White Act - it was hastily put together and resulted in a huge waste of money and resources. I'll flat out state it - it cost lives as well. The model itself is hugely flawed - the thing should be repealed, in my opinion. Yet, there is a kernel of an idea here.
Ryan White, as the Act is called (it's named after a deceased person), takes the apportionment of resources from the health department system and places it in community network groups (CNG - if memory serves - they changed the name on me) - well, sorta. The groups write overly complex reports each year that are compiled and used to allocate resources in the area. The groups are also made up or providers, patients and Aids Service Organizations (ASO) - you can see immediately where this is going.
All of the above have an interest in the benefits - and inflating the need. And that's not merely greed - when you are dealing with something like AIDS it colors the world around you. Tiny actual numbers seem huge to those who have to actually deal with the victims. So no, it's not just rife corruption (which DOES happen) - it's also well meaning people, who lack statistical and epidemiological training, trying to provide a statistical, epidemiological report - hilarity ensues. (Literally, the groups assign weights to various factors - weighting is hard as heck for experts to do, but we let people who don't even understand what they are doing do it on reports that affect funding!
)
This model is horribly broken. But, can a workable model be made? Independent groups that have an input into how welfare is structured, administered and allotted? I don't know - but it seems better than what we are doing now. Kids shouldn't expect to build their lives around being economic failures - yet that's exactly what we see happen in the welfare state.
On the yes side, where benefits have no immediately foreseeable end, government is in a better position financially to maintain those benefits. Social Security (which needs serious work, I grant), Disability and Incompetence (legal, not colloquial term) - those who have either paid in and are receiving their expected benefit or who have no realistic chance of returning to the workforce.
On the no side, temporary benefits, such as welfare. Government is still the most financially stable entity (helps if you can print money - which is bad, yes, I know) but it is not a disinterested entity. The people who benefit are also the ones voting for the people who provide the benefits. This can and does become a nasty self destructive cycle - we see generational welfare n part as a result of this cycle.
So, how do we fix it? Easy answers aren't actually easy to implement - and often aren't complete answers.
I'm no fan of the Ryan White Act - it was hastily put together and resulted in a huge waste of money and resources. I'll flat out state it - it cost lives as well. The model itself is hugely flawed - the thing should be repealed, in my opinion. Yet, there is a kernel of an idea here.
Ryan White, as the Act is called (it's named after a deceased person), takes the apportionment of resources from the health department system and places it in community network groups (CNG - if memory serves - they changed the name on me) - well, sorta. The groups write overly complex reports each year that are compiled and used to allocate resources in the area. The groups are also made up or providers, patients and Aids Service Organizations (ASO) - you can see immediately where this is going.
All of the above have an interest in the benefits - and inflating the need. And that's not merely greed - when you are dealing with something like AIDS it colors the world around you. Tiny actual numbers seem huge to those who have to actually deal with the victims. So no, it's not just rife corruption (which DOES happen) - it's also well meaning people, who lack statistical and epidemiological training, trying to provide a statistical, epidemiological report - hilarity ensues. (Literally, the groups assign weights to various factors - weighting is hard as heck for experts to do, but we let people who don't even understand what they are doing do it on reports that affect funding!
)This model is horribly broken. But, can a workable model be made? Independent groups that have an input into how welfare is structured, administered and allotted? I don't know - but it seems better than what we are doing now. Kids shouldn't expect to build their lives around being economic failures - yet that's exactly what we see happen in the welfare state.
Comment