4 ms·

I would worry about replacing many of those child-focused programs with something cash-based. You want to do everything possible to ensure children are getting

I would worry about replacing many of those child-focused programs with something cash-based. You want to do everything possible to ensure children are getting a basic level of care, and unfortunately if you give parents the choice between paying for a child's vision exams and keeping some extra cash, more than none will choose the cash.

nickff 11y ago
>"if you give parents the choice between paying for a child's vision exams and keeping some extra cash, more than none will choose the cash." The question we should ask is whether children would be better off, not how much would be spent on them. It may be that money allocated more efficiently by caring parents would be more beneficial than the neglect which may occur.
- mc32 11y ago
  Alternatively, the questions is, should we have a minimum floor ensuring all children have basic access to care, or are we more interested in maximizing the average [and admitting this could result in some children being neglected medical care].
  - nickff 11y ago
    I disagree with the premise of your statement that there can be an absolute floor, as government is fairly good at distributing money, but bad at providing outcomes; but agree that there should be some discussion of the classic mean vs median vs 5th (or other) percentile outcome prioritization trade-off.
- prostoalex 11y ago
  I think as a society we went through that discussion when those programs were introduced and were made not cash-based. 99% of the recipients will probably do what's best for their kids, but due to the remaining 1% (who might struggle with drug addiction, alcohol addiction, abusive relationship where cash might be taken away, etc.) the programs are not cash-based. With that said, a bunch of countries with demographic problems have instituted cash-based payments for children (Russia and Ukraine come to mind) with reasonable success and limited stories of abuse.

nickff 11y ago

>"if you give parents the choice between paying for a child's vision exams and keeping some extra cash, more than none will choose the cash." The question we should ask is whether children would be better off, not how much would be spent on them. It may be that money allocated more efficiently by caring parents would be more beneficial than the neglect which may occur.

mc32 11y ago
Alternatively, the questions is, should we have a minimum floor ensuring all children have basic access to care, or are we more interested in maximizing the average [and admitting this could result in some children being neglected medical care].
- nickff 11y ago
  I disagree with the premise of your statement that there can be an absolute floor, as government is fairly good at distributing money, but bad at providing outcomes; but agree that there should be some discussion of the classic mean vs median vs 5th (or other) percentile outcome prioritization trade-off.
prostoalex 11y ago
I think as a society we went through that discussion when those programs were introduced and were made not cash-based. 99% of the recipients will probably do what's best for their kids, but due to the remaining 1% (who might struggle with drug addiction, alcohol addiction, abusive relationship where cash might be taken away, etc.) the programs are not cash-based. With that said, a bunch of countries with demographic problems have instituted cash-based payments for children (Russia and Ukraine come to mind) with reasonable success and limited stories of abuse.