3 ms·
Agree—it’s perfectly reasonable for them to do this, and likely the only way the system could function at good cost and without abuse. However, the problem in
by maehwasu 7y ago
Agree—it’s perfectly reasonable for them to do this, and likely the only way the system could function at good cost and without abuse.
However, the problem in an American context is that people would likely see this as invasive. They’d demand the free treatment without the privacy invasions needed to make it work.
To be clear, I think the tradeoff is absolutely worth it, but America’s track record in making reasonable tradeoffs is awful.
- pvaldes 7y ago> the problem in an American context is that people would likely see this as invasive Stop miseducating them. People has been educated to accept their TV spying and registering their home conversations all day as the new normal, but 'this' is too invasive?.
- maehwasu 7y agoshrug People freak out about national id numbers, even though SSNs are already that. I don’t know why Americans react worse to certain things, but they clearly do, even in the face of lots of education.
- vidarh 7y agoThis used to be a problem in Norway too. People going without services they were entitled to because it was seen as humiliating to ask was a real thing. The only way of getting rid of that is to actually offer the services and point out that it is a choice: You don't have to go through it, but then you don't get the money. I generally think that a lot of the more invasive checks are not justified, but if the price to pay to get agreement for more expansive welfare services is an invasive means testing process, then it's certainly better than not having the services.