system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Adding more and more requirements for welfare recipients is a terrible idea

Please read my entire post before commenting. If you ask something that is addressed in the post, I'm just going to tell you to read it again.

I keep seeing people proposing things like drug tests, social media monitoring, and card systems that only allow welfare money to be spend on pre-approved things. These are just a few of the things people want implemented to stop welfare fraud. These are all terrible ideas, and I firmly believe that they're only even suggested in the first place to win votes from people who are too stupid to actually think of the implications and are just supportive because they're angry about the prospect of their hard earned tax dollars going to someone who doesn't deserve it.

The problem is that a) the requirements to get on welfare are already ridiculous, making it very difficult to commit welfare fraud in the first place, b) it would be very expensive to implement these additional requirements - think several million minimum - with little return on investment, and c) more requirements would only make life more difficult for people who welfare is supposed to be for.

I really want people to understand just how difficult it is to get onto welfare payments, ESPECIALLY for disability. You have to bring in a ridiculous amount of evidence, and even then, they will reject you for even the smallest thing. You're missing both legs and an arm? Well you can still type. That sort of thing. I brought in a 3cm stack of medical records for my long list of fully diagnosed permanent disabilities that impact every single aspect of my life, and was STILL rejected. I have at least 10 dislocations a day, and spend some days bed-bound and in serious pain, but that isn't even considered a real disability because people keep wanting stricter requirements. Sleep issues aren't even taken into account despite the fact that there is basically no job I could hold where I wouldn't be fired for being late.

**Why specific requirements are terrible:**

Drug tests: For one thing, forcing every single person on welfare to do drug tests would be incredibly expensive, and would only stop the stupidest addicts who don't know how to fool the test. This would also waste a ton of time that could instead be spent looking for work. Not to mention that kicking addicts off welfare will do nothing but force them to turn to crime. Poverty doesn't cure addictions, it makes them worse. If you hate addicts, then maybe consider supporting policies that will help treat their addictions. Resources for addiction are spread incredibly thin, and improvement in this area would reduce money spent on addicts both in welfare and medical expenses. Reformed addicts are also able to contribute to the economy, making it very much worth helping them.

Social media monitoring: This is expensive to implement, especially considering how damn slow the government is at programming *anything*. It's also a massive violation of privacy - seriously, do we want to be like China - and would only cause unnecessary headaches for people who absolutely need their welfare payments but need to consider whether their welfare payments would be stopped if they posted a joke about having a job or something. It would have many false positives that could cause someone to be kicked off their payments unfairly, causing unnecessary financial hardship. You also have to consider that you have to pay all the people doing the monitoring and dealing with people who have been kicked off their payments.

Welfare cards: This makes it more difficult for disabled people to manage their finances, and would almost certainly limit their choices to large businesses. This negatively impacts small businesses, since there is no list of every item sold at every store that could be used to determine what people could spend their money on. There is basically no way that could be implemented that wouldn't cause massive problems and constant complaints. And of course, dealing with all these complaints and dealing with the software side of things would be massively expensive. Even with these downsides, people could still easily get around it by getting people to give them cash in exchange for paying for their groceries on their card. Making it effectively another useless waste of money.

*Note: This post is mainly about Australia and the US, but since I'm not from the US I can't really comment on more specific aspects of their welfare programs.*

**EDIT: Since this post is getting some attention, I want to remind people to read through the comments to make sure their response hasn't been posted already. I don't really want to answer duplicates.**

**EDIT 2: I am going to bed and will continue responding tomorrow.**

**EDIT 3: Ok, staying up all night responding to this post and subsequently sleeping through Wednesday was a bad idea. Maybe I'll be back after work.**
gpt
I don’t know if anyone will be able to build consensus on this issue, or that I’ll be able to change your view. Why? Because the goal of a welfare system differs based on philosophy, not on facts. 

Either you believe in:
- A generous welfare system that supports everyone who truly needs it, but also leaves room for people to take advantage; or,
- A frugal welfare system that is very difficult to abuse, but also prevents some people who legitimately need help from reaching it. 

(You could also just believe in no welfare system at all but that’s not relevant for this argument.)

Pretty much every argument is going to come down to this difference in philosophy, whether it’s people saying “but people will learn to game the system!” Or people saying, “but you’re putting up barriers that needy people can’t cross!” 

The cost doesn’t matter, the benefit doesn’t matter - for some people, the idea of abuse of the system justifies all barriers and all extra expenses to make sure the money is used “properly.”