The poor health of our welfare system.

This is regarding welfare abuse and how to reduce the occurrences of abuse to a more acceptable level. This post is on a subject suggested by Denea. Keep the ideas coming.

Some say drug testing should be mandatory for welfare recipients. Haven’t met a person who disagrees yet, but I’m sure they’re out there. This subjects speaks to a larger issue, which is welfare abuse. My take is that welfare is a broken system and the people who shoulder the burden are looking for ways to reduce the burden on the general public, which is understandable and reasonable. The solution is grey and diverse as you have different reasons for going on welfare. I think a resolute pass/fail qualification system could be disastrous in terms of spikes in crime rates by those who are disqualified. There are many reasons to do such testing, however one must be careful that the “solution” does not create additional problems, or at least problems that outweigh the benefits.

Having been on both sides of the fence, I know a thing or two about the system, at least in AZ, but I did grow up in CA. For those who don’t know, I have been disabled for 5 years. During the first 6 months to a year, or more if social security denies you, you are “on your own” both financially and medically. Had it not been for public assistance, I’d have lost my house and perhaps even worse without medical care. Though some may argue this point, I’m one of the reasons welfare is good, to help those who truly need it, when they need it. I needed it for about 7 months, then Social Security took over. So it serves a good purpose. Had I been subjected to a piss test I’d have passed, with the understanding that the drugs in my system were prescribed.

It’s those who abuse the system that piss the rest of us off. The guy buying groceries with food stamps with more gold on than Run DMC. The woman reproducing in order to receive more benefits. Those who choose to trade their assistance for weed, meth, or otherwise. Those who just don’t want to work even though they are perfectly able. This is costing us millions, but we’d rather have it there in case we need it for some reason. And what do we do about those abusing the system? Enforcement is good, though the cost of it is another one of those trade off’s that I discussed earlier.

We live in a hybrid society, a fact not often acknowledged. We gave the communists crap, yet we are both Capitalist and Socialist, a fact some are afraid to admit. (Public school is a socialist based system) Quite frankly that is the only way it can work. We’ve seen Communism fail, mainly because of the extreme nature. There has to be a balance. A reason to strive, not just exist. So where is the balance? We are getting close to it, and it will ebb and flow with each administration, but the true balance will be struck when assistance does not mean poverty, nor will it be something people rely on for long periods of time. When it is solely for transition, we will have our balance.

And that leaves us where? With dealing with the current issue of abuse of the system. I think making a piss test a regular thing for all is an expensive idea regardless of how much money it could save, primarily due to the backlash. Had we dumped our current tax law on the US citizens of 1890 (we had no substantial taxes then), there would have been a revolt! However, a more reasonable system which strongly discourages abuse could work very well. Randomized drug testing would reduce the cost of such a system, and weed out enough people to scare the rest straight, like the hangings in the old west did. Highly publicized revocation of benefits could have a strong positive impact. And if one fails a random test, they can dispute it. They have to pay for another test in 3 weeks, and if they pass then they will have to pay for and pass tests every three weeks for 4 months and then every 3 months after that in order to keep their benefits. This is for those who do get scared straight after a minor indiscretion.

A tip line (with reward) for abuse could be employed to expose the more obvious abuses. If you’re going to abuse the system, best not flaunt it or someone will report you. They would then collect a reward (say $200) for exposing welfare fraud. This could create a cottage industry for those willing to do the research and expose abuses. This would also create a way to clean up crack houses and meth labs, if the suspects are on welfare. It puts “some” enforcement in the hands of the public, allowing those who care about the community to play a part in cleaning it up. A positive report of welfare fraud, drug abuse, or illegal activity while on welfare could save the state tens of thousands a year in welfare, making a $200 reward reasonable. Allowing the tipster to remain anonymous is an important part of the equation.

I also think there should be a monetary discouragement for those who choose to reproduce while on welfare. As it is, “welfare mommies” are encouraged to reproduce since they get more assistance. While true it doesn’t pan out for them as well as they initially calculated, it still costs more money all together. A system that freezes benefit eligibility would be ideal, so long as birth control is made available. For example if you had 2 kids and were 3 months pregnant, your eligibility would be frozen at 3 kids. If you decide to have a fourth, the burden is on you, not the state. If you go off of welfare for a period of 2 years or more, and then need it again then eligibility is reassessed. If you go off for only 6 months and come back pregnant, your benefit would still be frozen, as it was poor planning to get pregnant so soon after going off of welfare.

A repayment penalty for all benefits paid would also discourage abuse. If you are found guilty of welfare fraud, repayment should be mandatory. Being in the system as someone who defrauds the system would make you ineligible for public assistance anywhere in the country unless full restitution had been made. Fingerprinting should also be mandatory to receive benefits in order to verify identity, if it isn‘t already.

Promoting both smart family planning and wise fiscal planning is the goal. Think about the kids. Think about the future. More kids will not make things better. Drugs will not help you cope. Abusing the system will cause you to lose your benefits and have to repay the state for all of the benefits paid. My neighbors will report me if I make them think I’m screwing the system that they pay for. If these things run through your mind, you are less likely to abuse the system.
Providing education to gain better employment is another benefit with 2 advantages. One, getting off welfare sooner by way of encouragement and method for better earning potential away from the system. Two, further encouraging those who receive benefits not to abuse them since they would also lose any education benefits that may potentially change their lives.

The key to all of this is that those who really need it will play by the rules and the rest will be weeded out in one way or the other. Additionally, you have to educate people off of welfare. Educate them to give them more earning power, and also educate them out of obesity. Nutrition is another flaw in the system, not just welfare but nationally. Those who are obese aren’t necessarily eating junk food as normally defined, but junk food that is quietly detrimental and causing more hunger.

Eating Jiff instead of natural “stir and refrigerate” peanut butter sends cholesterol out of control, causes cancer, heart disease, and contributes to obesity. The same holds true if you eat margarine instead of real butter. Anything with high fructose corn syrup will cause a myriad of issues, most notably diabetes and increased hunger. If more people were aware of these things, knew about the alternatives, and had more reasons to care, corrections could be made improving health and the ability for self sustainability.

Some sort of extra benefit to lose weight would also be useful. Every pound you lose would add 5 dollars to your benefit for that month or something like that, with the catch that if you gain it back, you pay it back. This would be a volunteer plan. Sounds expensive, but the healthcare costs would decrease do to co-morbidities resolving themselves and needing less treatment and medicine. Things like cholesterol, blood pressure, heart disease, and general health tend to improve with weight loss. It might cost $1000 dollars if someone loses 200 pounds, but they are more employable and as a result less prone to need ongoing assistance. Providing and promoting gastric bypass/ Laparoscopic gastric banding would also pay off in the end, particularly Lap-Band since it’s the most economically viable and healthiest option, with the benefit of reversibility in the event of intolerance. Giving people a really good reason to get in better shape, aside from the incredibly obvious reasons, would further improve chances for self sustainability, which is the name of the game.

That’s my short answer anyway. If you’ve gotten this far, I can say with fair certainty that you do not have ADD. I welcome comments and questions, as this is an imperfect plan with room for improvement and expansion, however I feel it has potential. Who knows, maybe it might just turn into something positive and functional. Whole solutions are important, rarely does one mechanism fix the whole machine.