6 ms·

Yet another handful of anecdotes about a need-based social welfare program. If you're desperate enough, sabotaging yourself to qualify for a need-based social

by nhashem 13y ago

Yet another handful of anecdotes about a need-based social welfare program. If you're desperate enough, sabotaging yourself to qualify for a need-based social program eventually becomes the objectively optimal thing to do. This is the first I've heard of that sabotage extended all the way to intentionally getting AIDS and intentionally not seeking treatment, though. Typically these stories can be dismissed for the anecdotes they are. I have a handful of right-winger friends who love sending me some article from the Wichita Star or something where some woman got promoted at her job, lost her Medicaid benefits, so she quit her job, and now gets even more benefits, or something, and RAAAR $16 TRILLION IN DEBT WE'RE ON THE ROAD TO GREECE MAKERS TAKERS SMALL BUSINESS THIS COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL. No, this country has decided it's beyond the state's responsibility to provide food, shelter, and medicine to everyone. Instead, various state and local programs only provide it those things to a fraction of the people who need it, usually based on some seemingly well-intentioned criteria. And then some people have the kind of lives where being a homeless prostitute without AIDS is worse than having a roof and having AIDS, so they decide to do that. You can accept that any program like this will induce morally hazardous behavior in some people, and look for objective information vs. sensationalized anecdotes to see if that program needs reform. You can also realize any need-based program will almost always introduce said morally hazardous behavior, and the problem is that we underfund these programs so that they need this need-based criteria to begin with. Or you can push to eliminate all these programs because you think they turn everyone into lazy welfare AIDS-seeking moochers, and the good news for you is there's already a political party in the US that pretty much supports all that.

maratd 13y ago
> Or you can push to eliminate all these programs because you think they turn everyone into lazy welfare AIDS-seeking moochers So let me get this straight ... for thousands of years, support for the needy was provided by local religious institutions and local efforts. People gave alms, etc to their local church and then the church rendered assistance. Essentially, the community helping itself. Neighbors helping neighbors, albeit indirectly to preserve dignity. Here come the neo-liberals. Anything even remotely related to religion needs to be eradicated, so we can't keep doing things the way we used to. Now we tax the shit out of anything that moves and dispense assistance on a federal level, from Washington DC, thousands of miles away, by some faceless bureaucrats. How deranged do you have to be to think that's an improvement? Guess what? The poor and needy were provided assistance long before the welfare programs came to the fore in the 20s and 30s. They were provided assistance through private channels, through their community. Unfortunately, due to taxation to provide for similar programs on a federal level, quite a few of those channels have dried up. Unfortunate indeed.
- npsimons 13y ago
  There's a name for when the churches ran the world: it's called the dark ages for a reason. I'd rather not have to rely on someone's (supposed) piety on top of the questionable scruples of the church to render assistance. What happens if you're an outspoken critic of the church or (heaven forfend) a "sinner" homosexual? At least when the Tea Party criticizes the government, the government doesn't pull the welfare checks of its members.
  - maratd 13y ago
    > At least when the Tea Party criticizes the government, the government doesn't pull the welfare checks of its members. Nope, they just nail them with a tax audit. Power corrupts regardless of who wields it. Also, I wasn't proposing theocracy. Read what I wrote again. You weren't paying attention.
    - Vivtek 13y ago
      They nail them with a tax audit when there's reason to believe they're cheating on their non-profit status. And if they have nothing to hide and their accounting is honest, then an audit shouldn't be a problem. Right?
      - maratd 13y ago
        > And if they have nothing to hide and their accounting is honest, then an audit shouldn't be a problem. Are you one of those people who support the NSA? I really didn't think I'd meet one on HN.
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
- mikeash 13y ago
  You're right, the poor and needy were so much better off before government welfare programs. Ha ha ha ha ha.
j2d3 13y ago
This is interesting, I didn't view this article the same way. "No, this country has decided it's beyond the state's responsibility to provide food, shelter, and medicine to everyone." - this does seem to be true, and I view this article as a criticism of this decision, not as a criticism of the programs these people are seeking to get benefits from. I think this story highlights the absurdity of not having unqualified assistance for housing, food, and healthcare. If people take this as a reason to eliminate these programs, well... I'm sure people will view it that way - well, I don't know what to say about it. I mean, I can at least agree with this: "THIS COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL."
nickff 13y ago
Some see the main problem here as being moral hazard, which causes social welfare programs to become very expensive, with most of the resources going to people who have been lured in by the promise of 'money for nothing'. This is a normative argument which is what I think you are critiquing here. I would put forward another criticism of need based programs which is positive, and has recently been made with increasing frequency. This argument is that the nature of many programs induces dependence among the recipients; the principal example of this being US federal disability benefits. These benefits can be permanently forfeited if the recipient earns more than a given amount over a certain time frame, which forces the recipient to consider trading in a long term cash flow (disability benefits) for greater income with uncertain future prospects (a job). The result is that many people with difficulty working, who could do some limited work are disincentivized from ever taking a job; this is especially apparent during recessions. [ http://economics.mit.edu/files/7388 http://economics.mit.edu/files/7388 ] The other problems you can have when you begin to hand out government aid are moral ones, which you may agree with. Those who are lazy and collect benefits get to take from those who work hard; even more troubling is that the workers have no way to force the slackers to do anything, while the slackers can use regulation and taxation to manipulate the workers. This argument does not address people who are unable to support themselves.
- SapphireSun 13y ago
  The real problem with these programs is that they are designed with a hard cut-off point rather than reducing the compensation at a slightly slower speed than private employment ramps up. For instance our tax system works in a rational fashion: you pay say 0% on the first 8k, 10% on the next several thousand and so on. In this manner, you are never disincentivised from trying to get more money because it's always positive (though more inefficient money accumulation wise). What I don't understand is why we don't have programs (say unemployment benefits) where when you finally get work, the money you earn above the cut off replaces need based compensation dollar for dollar until you're free of the system. It makes no sense to cut people off the soon as they get a job when the job pays less than the program.
  - nickff 13y ago
ignostic 13y ago
I find it interesting that you dismiss the evidence as anecdotal, then proceed to come to conclusions about society based on said evidence.

by nhashem 13y ago

maratd 13y ago

> Or you can push to eliminate all these programs because you think they turn everyone into lazy welfare AIDS-seeking moochers So let me get this straight ... for thousands of years, support for the needy was provided by local religious institutions and local efforts. People gave alms, etc to their local church and then the church rendered assistance. Essentially, the community helping itself. Neighbors helping neighbors, albeit indirectly to preserve dignity. Here come the neo-liberals. Anything even remotely related to religion needs to be eradicated, so we can't keep doing things the way we used to. Now we tax the shit out of anything that moves and dispense assistance on a federal level, from Washington DC, thousands of miles away, by some faceless bureaucrats. How deranged do you have to be to think that's an improvement? Guess what? The poor and needy were provided assistance long before the welfare programs came to the fore in the 20s and 30s. They were provided assistance through private channels, through their community. Unfortunately, due to taxation to provide for similar programs on a federal level, quite a few of those channels have dried up. Unfortunate indeed.

npsimons 13y ago
There's a name for when the churches ran the world: it's called the dark ages for a reason. I'd rather not have to rely on someone's (supposed) piety on top of the questionable scruples of the church to render assistance. What happens if you're an outspoken critic of the church or (heaven forfend) a "sinner" homosexual? At least when the Tea Party criticizes the government, the government doesn't pull the welfare checks of its members.
- maratd 13y ago
  > At least when the Tea Party criticizes the government, the government doesn't pull the welfare checks of its members. Nope, they just nail them with a tax audit. Power corrupts regardless of who wields it. Also, I wasn't proposing theocracy. Read what I wrote again. You weren't paying attention.
  - Vivtek 13y ago
    They nail them with a tax audit when there's reason to believe they're cheating on their non-profit status. And if they have nothing to hide and their accounting is honest, then an audit shouldn't be a problem. Right?
    - maratd 13y ago
      > And if they have nothing to hide and their accounting is honest, then an audit shouldn't be a problem. Are you one of those people who support the NSA? I really didn't think I'd meet one on HN.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
mikeash 13y ago
You're right, the poor and needy were so much better off before government welfare programs. Ha ha ha ha ha.

j2d3 13y ago

This is interesting, I didn't view this article the same way. "No, this country has decided it's beyond the state's responsibility to provide food, shelter, and medicine to everyone." - this does seem to be true, and I view this article as a criticism of this decision, not as a criticism of the programs these people are seeking to get benefits from. I think this story highlights the absurdity of not having unqualified assistance for housing, food, and healthcare. If people take this as a reason to eliminate these programs, well... I'm sure people will view it that way - well, I don't know what to say about it. I mean, I can at least agree with this: "THIS COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL."

nickff 13y ago

Some see the main problem here as being moral hazard, which causes social welfare programs to become very expensive, with most of the resources going to people who have been lured in by the promise of 'money for nothing'. This is a normative argument which is what I think you are critiquing here. I would put forward another criticism of need based programs which is positive, and has recently been made with increasing frequency. This argument is that the nature of many programs induces dependence among the recipients; the principal example of this being US federal disability benefits. These benefits can be permanently forfeited if the recipient earns more than a given amount over a certain time frame, which forces the recipient to consider trading in a long term cash flow (disability benefits) for greater income with uncertain future prospects (a job). The result is that many people with difficulty working, who could do some limited work are disincentivized from ever taking a job; this is especially apparent during recessions. [ http://economics.mit.edu/files/7388 http://economics.mit.edu/files/7388 ] The other problems you can have when you begin to hand out government aid are moral ones, which you may agree with. Those who are lazy and collect benefits get to take from those who work hard; even more troubling is that the workers have no way to force the slackers to do anything, while the slackers can use regulation and taxation to manipulate the workers. This argument does not address people who are unable to support themselves.

SapphireSun 13y ago
The real problem with these programs is that they are designed with a hard cut-off point rather than reducing the compensation at a slightly slower speed than private employment ramps up. For instance our tax system works in a rational fashion: you pay say 0% on the first 8k, 10% on the next several thousand and so on. In this manner, you are never disincentivised from trying to get more money because it's always positive (though more inefficient money accumulation wise). What I don't understand is why we don't have programs (say unemployment benefits) where when you finally get work, the money you earn above the cut off replaces need based compensation dollar for dollar until you're free of the system. It makes no sense to cut people off the soon as they get a job when the job pays less than the program.
- nickff 13y ago

ignostic 13y ago

I find it interesting that you dismiss the evidence as anecdotal, then proceed to come to conclusions about society based on said evidence.