3 ms·
> On the other hand, the people who pay may be legitimately resentful when their money is going to strangers who don't in fact need it. I understand that this
by notamy 4y ago
> On the other hand, the people who pay may be legitimately resentful when their money is going to strangers who don't in fact need it.
I understand that this is probably a stupid question, but I'm coming from a place of ignorance: Do people who dislike/resent this not also get upset that ex. their insurance pays for things people don't "need"? Or would the kind of person who makes this complaint also not be likely to have insurance?
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoInsurance in the US is often private. Private insurance companies push pretty hard to not pay for things that people don't need (to the point of sometimes not paying for things that people do need, but that's a different topic). But to me, the emotions don't match the financials. There's always a trade-off between false positives and false negatives; the more you prevent people cheating the system, the more you deny benefits to people who need them, and vice versa. And enforcement has its own cost. But nobody feels bad about paying for too much enforcement.
- chii 4y agoI'd use the same idea in the justice system, where the presumption of innocence is paramount, and apply it here. It's better to let 9 criminals go free, than to jail 1 innocent person by accident, and it is better to assist 9 extra people in need, than to let one person in need to not get it due to the rules. Somebody needing assistance is presumed to need it, until proof is found that they are cheating the system. This will let some people use the system fraudulently, but it ensures that it catches the vulnerable that truly need it.