If the holes of a safety net are large enough for a person to fall through, than it's not a safety net at all is it? If a tightrope walker is learning the skill

If the holes of a safety net are large enough for a person to fall through, than it's not a safety net at all is it? If a tightrope walker is learning the skill, you want a safety-net that will catch them 100% of the time, until they don't need it anymore. A social safety net should be the same - relentlessly available. Personally, I'd be fine with overlooking what I would assume to be the small number of people who would shamelessly exploit it, because I'd like to think that basic dignity and self-respect would prevent that number from ever being very large. In other words, the system would need some functional slack and it should be funded adequately so that it's not considered a "scarce resource" and the slack can be generous. Myself, I'm ok if a system like this existed so that if I did have a problem family member, it wouldn't be assumed to be my responsibility to take care of them, and further, I don't like the idea of charities because it presumes benign wealthy people are available to fund them. It seems better, with social programs, to socialize the cost so that I can pay into a general fund so that it can be another-person (aka a professional)'s problem. "Someone being too expensive to help" ... that makes no real sense today given how much money is swirling around. It's just a matter of what you prioritize.