I often wonder to what extent we would be better off just sending people cash. There is alot of money spent on administering various programs and they may not always perfectly fit. What if you just divided up all the money based on expected fraction of program expenditure on their situation?
I'm sure it would be imperfect. Some people would find the money wasn't enough to get the services they'd gotten before. But, as you point out, that's true now because people can't work through the system so it's not obvious it wouldn't be net better.
I'd have a lot more confidence that Musk and his effort will hold disabled people (and their families) harmless if he didn't traffic in eugenics. But, I'm glad you are willing to give him, and it, a try. I'd rather be wrong about where this is all going.
What exactly do you mean by that? It's a word that gets thrown around alot and applied even to people who just want to make sure IVF babies are less vulnerable to various diseases.
Yes, there is waste and inefficiency. But for the most part, I'm afraid, when people say they want to "streamline" government services, they just mean they want to eliminate said services altogether.
I wouldn't count on the streamliners to do anything positive. Their mission is to search and destroy, to subtract, to eliminate, to privatize the commons, to delegitimize the very notion of shared responsibility altogether
I often wonder to what extent we would be better off just sending people cash. There is alot of money spent on administering various programs and they may not always perfectly fit. What if you just divided up all the money based on expected fraction of program expenditure on their situation?
I'm sure it would be imperfect. Some people would find the money wasn't enough to get the services they'd gotten before. But, as you point out, that's true now because people can't work through the system so it's not obvious it wouldn't be net better.
I'd have a lot more confidence that Musk and his effort will hold disabled people (and their families) harmless if he didn't traffic in eugenics. But, I'm glad you are willing to give him, and it, a try. I'd rather be wrong about where this is all going.
I was in a generous mood when I wrote this.
What exactly do you mean by that? It's a word that gets thrown around alot and applied even to people who just want to make sure IVF babies are less vulnerable to various diseases.
Yes, there is waste and inefficiency. But for the most part, I'm afraid, when people say they want to "streamline" government services, they just mean they want to eliminate said services altogether.
I wouldn't count on the streamliners to do anything positive. Their mission is to search and destroy, to subtract, to eliminate, to privatize the commons, to delegitimize the very notion of shared responsibility altogether
Yes, you’re probably right. I just wish there was truly a way of increasing efficiency while improving output for the consumer.