Unfortunately the welfare state is failing too. In my town people live in doorways and tents on the street. They beg politely. Crime is still not up horribly.

The problem with the welfare state is that the money doled out is clearly not enough to pay for food and rent, and absolutely not for clothing and entertainment. If they raised the welfare amounts to livable levels, there would be a revolt, because minimum wage jobs full time (40 hours a week) still don't pay for food, rent and clothing for an individual. — god must be atheist

Actually there ought to be a genuine debate (even here) about US "welfare state". Just like with the US health care system, I have really troubles of understanding for example just how California can spend so much on welfare and still have people living in tents. It all seems to have totally illogical and counterproductive objectives. It seems just like the health care system: hideously expensive, but fails on the overall population level. Some stories seem to point that it's basically some kind of racket. (But then there is a huge opposition towards welfare in the US)

I was just wondering about the same thing earlier today. How much does welfare cost to Canadians? What is the portion of the GNP that goes on welfare, (not healthcare) and how much of the tax revenue for the same purpose. Tax revenue is a bit tougher to calculate: employment insurance and workmen's compensation (people who get injured on the job) is federal, disability is provincial, and welfare is municipal responsibility. They pay the bills. Feds and the provinces collect income tax, provinces, sales tax, and the municipalities, property tax, mainly. There are other revenues, such as licenses, penalties, gifts, inheritance taxes, etc.

The racket seems to be that each worker responsible for their clients makes in salary many multiples of what the clients get. Each social worker is responsible for 40 clients (give or take).

Then again, the same type of government employee is responsible for the delivery of teacher's wages (who each make about the same as the employee) and the same type of empoyee again is responsible for the delivery of medical wages (mostly several times more than the workers' wages).

By "Same type of employee" I meant that they make about the same amount of money per period, no matter what level of government.

Apathy is the product of alienation rather than the product of financial security. — sime

In existentialist literature, yes. But in the real world it's giving up trying.

Apathy is the product of alienation rather than the product of financial security. — sime

And what it creates is apathy. — ssu

@Sime, you and ssu are in agreement.

The problem with the welfare state is that the money doled out is clearly not enough to pay for food and rent — god must be atheist

Absolutely. I am no longer up-to-date on Minnesota benefits, but 'welfare' for single adults with no children is less than $300 a month. Being on welfare entitles one to Medicaid, which is worth quite a lot--IF one is sick or injured, which is not a good thing. A single disabled adult with a poor work history (or young) is entitled to around $700 a month, plus Medicaid. IF one is well organized, and one applied for public housing years in advance, one has a good chance of getting into public housing. They charge 33% of whatever income one has.

If you are not well organized and at least somewhat confused, you are screwed, unless you happen to fall into some category for which there is a program with an opening. Even if you are program-qualified, there might not be an opening and you are still screwed.

If you are organized, not too confused, and lucky, you are not home free. All programs have hurdles and loopholes that must be observed. Every 6 months, Welfare requires that you confirm your employment status and other information. If you forget to send the form in, you are dropped and must reapply. Hassles. If you are mentally unstable and violate some rule (like not ranting and raving or acting out in your housing) you might be expelled. If you lash out at the wrong person, (and various other scenarios) you are out and screwed again.

Periodicaly, Disability reviews its clients. If you are unfortunate, not well organized, confused, etc. you can be disqualified. Screwed.

Unemployment Insurance is no help for the long-term unemployed. Why does one see individuals begging in public, in all kinds of weather - heat and cold both? My guess is that they are emotionally/mentally unable to work in a 'normal, social' setting. Begging involves little interaction; no supervision; no rules and regulations; no co-workers. It isn't an easy way to earn money. I've had some crappy jobs that paid poorly, and they were still better than standing outside all day asking for handouts.

I've had some crappy jobs that paid poorly, and they were still better than standing outside all day asking for handouts. — Bitter Crank

I remember the story of a German guy who made a decent amount of money by begging. But how he did it was different: he was well dressed, drove his BMW to a parking lot and simply politely asked people for coins to pay the parking. Assuming he had no coins, suddenly many Germans gave him Deutshce Marks as the situation was easily relatable for them.

So... which is it, Book273? An unscrupulous doctor, NP or CP, or else a layman who has an opinion without much substance? — god must be atheist

Yep. one of those. However, I cannot tell you which as I have provided enough information about myself, anymore would allow someone to locate me and report my less-than-company-supporting attitude to my employer. This would result in job loss, and currently, I still need the money, so that will not do. Ethically I must support my family; which means that remaining employed remains a requirement. I am unclear as to the value of determining the specific title under which I practice. Either you work in the field, in which case you know, but may not agree with, what I am saying. Or you do not work in the field, in which case your opinion is entirely yours and based upon whatever bias you have brought with you, which does not make it invalid, although perhaps less well informed, then again, perhaps not, I do not know your background. Interesting that you label me as unscrupulous, I have done nothing to earn such a label. I have, accurately, pointed out that many of my patients have no apparent interest in bettering themselves, providing for themselves, or doing anything other than continue feeling entitled to state sponsored funding. None of which is inaccurate, regardless about one's feelings on the subject. I have also stated, accurately, that I am not responsible for admitting these people; therefore the validity of their admission is not on me in anyway. I am required to treat those that allow it and need it, but not required to treat anyone against their will, unless directed to do so by a review panel that is unaffiliated with me, and am also not required to treat anyone that does not need treatment. Again, not sure what someone would object to with these statements.

I am certain that healthcare costs could be reduced by enforcing valid admission requirements, however, as physicians are paid by patient, not annual salary, there will always be those that need an extra boat payment, ergo, in appropriate admissions. I did not design the system, I just play in it.

I have, accurately, pointed out that many of my patients have no apparent interest in bettering themselves, providing for themselves, or doing anything other than continue feeling entitled to sate sponsored funding. — Book273

Yep. I can tell you that such is an inevitability of stealing money to give to others on an institutionalized basis. If you feel as thought it is your authority, your right to the labor of another, and such is guaranteed by force, well then that is precisely how you will comport yourself. No need for me to do what daddy is making the neighbors do at gun point. Couple generations and mass ethical degeneration.