4 ms·

How do you feel about things like Social Security Disability benefits? By most accounts there is some very real abuse of that social welfare program that could

by pmorici 13y ago

How do you feel about things like Social Security Disability benefits? By most accounts there is some very real abuse of that social welfare program that could cause it to not be there for people who legitimately need it. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50156574n http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50156574n

lawnchair_larry 13y ago
The cost of the abuse does not exceed the cost of losing the program entirely and leaving the non-abusers high and dry. It's not an ideal situation, but we are worse off if we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  No one suggests losing the program in its entirety, responses of like yours are straight up hyperbole. It is not a valid rebuttal to those looking to make corrective changes. Far too many abuses are allowed to go on simply because of such arguments thereby reducing the aid we could give to truly needed people. I am all for helping those in need, nearly 2% of my gross salary goes to CHOA each year, but damn if I am going to believe that there are people on one if not more of the hundred of government programs who don't deserve to be there. The best way to help people is to get more diligent about policing those we do help. Are they getting the right help is the question that we must answer.
  - mfringel 13y ago
    If your win condition is "eliminate all cheaters", you've already gone to "ditching the program in its entirety". Human systems have defectors, otherwise game theory wouldn't exist. If your win condition is "eliminate most of the cheaters", I'd like some proof that we're not already at the Nash Equilibrium for that with the current system.
  - rsynnott 13y ago
    > The best way to help people is to get more diligent about policing those we do help Would the cost of doing that exceed the savings? If so (and that seems rather likely; the vast majority of social welfare recipients do _not_ cheat), it seems rather impractical. In practice, people cheat in all systems, and a certain amount of cheating is built into the assumptions for any well-designed system. For instance, tax authorities do not audit everybody, because it would be impractical; in not doing so they accept a certain amount of tax fraud. Shops don't watch everyone who comes in the door all the time, because it would be impractical; in not doing so they accept a certain amount of theft (most of what accountants call 'shrinkage' is employee and customer theft).
- pmorici 13y ago
  The point is we are close to loosing the system because of the abuses though. The SSDI fund is predicted to be the first to run out of money which is projected to be only a few years away at the current rate.

by pmorici 13y ago

lawnchair_larry 13y ago

The cost of the abuse does not exceed the cost of losing the program entirely and leaving the non-abusers high and dry. It's not an ideal situation, but we are worse off if we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Shivetya 13y ago
No one suggests losing the program in its entirety, responses of like yours are straight up hyperbole. It is not a valid rebuttal to those looking to make corrective changes. Far too many abuses are allowed to go on simply because of such arguments thereby reducing the aid we could give to truly needed people. I am all for helping those in need, nearly 2% of my gross salary goes to CHOA each year, but damn if I am going to believe that there are people on one if not more of the hundred of government programs who don't deserve to be there. The best way to help people is to get more diligent about policing those we do help. Are they getting the right help is the question that we must answer.
- mfringel 13y ago
  If your win condition is "eliminate all cheaters", you've already gone to "ditching the program in its entirety". Human systems have defectors, otherwise game theory wouldn't exist. If your win condition is "eliminate most of the cheaters", I'd like some proof that we're not already at the Nash Equilibrium for that with the current system.
- rsynnott 13y ago
  > The best way to help people is to get more diligent about policing those we do help Would the cost of doing that exceed the savings? If so (and that seems rather likely; the vast majority of social welfare recipients do _not_ cheat), it seems rather impractical. In practice, people cheat in all systems, and a certain amount of cheating is built into the assumptions for any well-designed system. For instance, tax authorities do not audit everybody, because it would be impractical; in not doing so they accept a certain amount of tax fraud. Shops don't watch everyone who comes in the door all the time, because it would be impractical; in not doing so they accept a certain amount of theft (most of what accountants call 'shrinkage' is employee and customer theft).
pmorici 13y ago
The point is we are close to loosing the system because of the abuses though. The SSDI fund is predicted to be the first to run out of money which is projected to be only a few years away at the current rate.