I believe (from reading this article) that the people in it would not have been helped by having a 6 month or one year, or more of saving, because without the p

I believe (from reading this article) that the people in it would not have been helped by having a 6 month or one year, or more of saving, because without the provision of sick leave they would have lost their health insurance and with it the ability to pay for the care of their baby. So the state would cast them into destitution and kill their baby. Also, imagine a situation where you suffer a misfortune and lose your nest egg. Perhaps an official, relative or adviser steals it from you, they are prosecuted and condemned but have spent the money on drugs - it's gone. Then you suffer another misfortune - you lose your job, or you suffer a non life threatening injury that prevents you from working. Now you are screwed. This clearly isn't your fault. You saved, you worked, you are a victim. Now you are on the street. Is this right?