Meh, if I have to pick between 5% fraud rate while the other 95% get the help they need without hassle, or a 0% fraud rate and a system that's highly exclusiona

Meh, if I have to pick between 5% fraud rate while the other 95% get the help they need without hassle, or a 0% fraud rate and a system that's highly exclusionary and invasive, you're damn right I'm picking the former. Will there be some free riders? Sure. But in any system where support is available, accessible, and sufficient, that will always be the case. I'm not falling for the nirvana fallacy and you shouldn't either. Edit: as an aside, consider that these discussions always center around the fraud rate--that is the number of people receiving benefits who shouldn't--and not the unintended exclusion rate--that is the number of people who genuinely needed help but couldn't get it. That skewed framing is all about undermining the value of the welfare state over promoting it's health for the good of the citizenry.