A new poll finds most U.S. adults think personal choices are a major driver of poverty and homelessness, while fewer blame a lack of government support.
The government actually does spend a lot on assistance for the poor relative to other countries but I believe it is not done so efficiently to lift people out of poverty
I mean, we’ll spend $200k employing a handful of life coaches to tell poor people they just need to work harder and submit to any abuses bosses want to inflict on them instead of giving poor people $200 to pay their bills, but I wouldn’t even call that “assistance for the poor,” it’s just subsidized hassling. When it comes to actual tangible assistance for poor people (e.g. nutrition healthcare housing etc.) I think we’re actually very skimpy.
I haven’t heard of hiring life coaches for poor people but I agree that would be an example of inefficient spending. I meant things like healthcare. The US spends more on healthcare than any other country, and so when a government program like Medicare or Medicaid covers a bill that means a very large subsidy. College is likewise exceptionally expensive, so need-based scholarships become a big expense.
If there was more of a focus on making these affordable in the first place, the cost for each covered individual would go down for taxpayers. This would free up the budget to expand coverage and offer more quality assistance in other places. Instead, it’s just a reactive policy of paying whatever the bill is when someone does qualify. This creates pressure to restrict who qualifies and what’s covered to keep prices down, while hospitals and colleges get away with charging absurd amounts since the beneficiary doesn’t feel the cost individually.
I mean, we’ll spend $200k employing a handful of life coaches to tell poor people they just need to work harder and submit to any abuses bosses want to inflict on them instead of giving poor people $200 to pay their bills, but I wouldn’t even call that “assistance for the poor,” it’s just subsidized hassling. When it comes to actual tangible assistance for poor people (e.g. nutrition healthcare housing etc.) I think we’re actually very skimpy.
I haven’t heard of hiring life coaches for poor people but I agree that would be an example of inefficient spending. I meant things like healthcare. The US spends more on healthcare than any other country, and so when a government program like Medicare or Medicaid covers a bill that means a very large subsidy. College is likewise exceptionally expensive, so need-based scholarships become a big expense.
If there was more of a focus on making these affordable in the first place, the cost for each covered individual would go down for taxpayers. This would free up the budget to expand coverage and offer more quality assistance in other places. Instead, it’s just a reactive policy of paying whatever the bill is when someone does qualify. This creates pressure to restrict who qualifies and what’s covered to keep prices down, while hospitals and colleges get away with charging absurd amounts since the beneficiary doesn’t feel the cost individually.