# If you like your health insurance, you can keep it **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 11, 2015, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356 "2015-02-11T01:40:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/161 "2015-02-12T20:30:56Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Nobody seems to, other than the rise in the percentage of people on welfare here in CA. I have tried to find any sort of study on this and apparently nobody is interested in looking at the root of the problem rather than the symptoms. Lots of people are interested in casting aspersions on anyone who takes benefits, it seems. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/162 "2015-02-12T20:46:05Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Nobody seems to, other than the rise in the percentage of people on welfare here in CA. I have tried to find any sort of study on this and apparently nobody is interested in looking at the root of the problem rather than the symptoms. That’s the free market for ya; if private industry isn’t interested, then it is not important. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/163 "2015-02-12T20:50:53Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > What difference does it make (to quote the former Secretary of State), if the number is 8 million or 10 million? > > Why should we, as a nation, waste all of this time, money, Congressional hearings, Supreme Court arguments, IRS rulings, unconstitutional Executive actions, etc. to benefit some 3% of the population? Not to mention the people who can’t keep their plan or their doctor, those that face higher premiums, and those who will have a surprise come April when their refund is reduced, or find out that they owe taxes, because the subsidies were too high under the law? > > Why did we do any of this? First of all, it’s not 3% of the population, it’s more like [15%](http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/data/incpovhlth/2012/highlights.html), or 40 million souls. That qualifies as an issue of public concern in my book. But that aside, you are losing sight of the big picture. 1. Every human being who’s not a multi-millionaire faces a non-negligible possibility–_no matter how careful they are with their health and personal finances_–of some day developing a treatable medical issue that they 1) cannot afford to treat and which 2) if untreated, will subject them to suffering and/or premature death. 2. In order to avoid having to choose between 1) defaulting on medical debts or 2) submitting to unnecessary suffering/premature death, responsible, upstanding people will seek to purchase… health insurance! Problem solved, right? 3. Unfortunately, not everyone is responsible enough to buy health insurance before they actually need it, and that ends up having serious negative external consequences for people who _are_ responsible and trying to buy it long before they actually need it. The problem is, left to their own druthers, a great many people would only buy health insurance when they really need it. When health carriers catch on, they realize they have to raise premiums. But this reduces demand among everyone _except those who need the coverage most_, leading to further adverse selection. This “death spiral” ends up creating a market where, whoop-dee-doo, health insurance is unaffordable because it’s pricing in terrible adverse selection. Irresponsible people create a dynamic that makes it impossible for responsible people to buy themselves good health insurance. 1. In that state of affairs, the only _affordable_ policies available are either 1) policies that don’t offer comprehensive benefits of the sort a responsible person prepared for all contingencies would want to own, or 2) policies being sold to young people with verifiably flawless health records. In other words, you have a market where _responsible, self-sufficient individuals cannot afford to buy health insurance because an affordable product isn’t available on the market_. And there is absolutely nothing the free market will do to correct that situation, because health carriers can’t force people to buy their product. The work-around is that _employers_ force you to buy health insurance, which eliminates from the carrier perspective the risk of adverse selection from people at your particular company. That’s the problem that the ACA seeks to address. It does so by saying, “You know what? The only way the health insurance market will work is if you eliminate adverse selection, which you do by making sure everyone buys it.” You may not agree that the lack of a functioning individual health insurance market is a big deal. Or you may not agree that the government should be the one to fix it. But that’s “why we did any of this.” ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/164 "2015-02-12T20:52:03Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Lots of people are interested in casting aspersions on anyone who takes benefits, it seems. Bleeding hearts don’t like it when they are told the people they are helping are irresponsible layabouts. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > That’s the free market for ya; if private industry isn’t interested, then it is not important. What does private industry have to do with it? ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/165 "2015-02-12T21:06:03Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Nobody seems to, other than the rise in the percentage of people on welfare here in CA. I have tried to find any sort of study on this and apparently nobody is interested in looking at the root of the problem rather than the symptoms. Thank you for your candid answer. So, you don’t know what percentage of people receiving welfare benefits are just blithering through life expecting a handout and a free ride, and how many are people who could legitimately be described as deserving of some kind of charity and societal support. I don’t know either. But considering the relatively small amounts of money involved in the scheme of the budget, I’m willing to extend them the benefit of the doubt in the absence of better information. I would rather let a guilty person go free than wrongly condemn an innocent one, in other words. [Cite](http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3677): > [@](#): > > Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percent of the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households. **People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.** Since entitlements are about half the federal budget, that equates to about 5% of the federal budget being spent on the non-working poor. You’re welcome to take a stab at how many non-working poor also should qualify as non-_deserving_, and how you propose to separate those people from the rest without creating a massive new intrusive bureaucracy. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/166 "2015-02-12T21:06:52Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > What does private industry have to do with it? If they don’t fund surveys, then it is not important. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/167 "2015-02-12T21:24:44Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Bleeding hearts don’t like it when they are told the people they are helping are irresponsible layabouts. Bleeding hearts can read statistics and are smart enough to remain unmoved by anecdotal stories because we know that the plural of anecdote is not data. We’re smart enough to be able to look up welfare statistics show that welfare fraud is rare and when committed usually mistakes made by businesses or the agencies providing the assistance (we realize that the “Welfare Queen” is a myth). For an overwhelming number of recipients, it is temporary (and it has to be since there are time limits on everything but lifetime disability claims and in most states you have to actually do a lot of work to show you are looking for work or taking classes to get into a better job or field in order to simply receive benefits) and that even the maximum benefits are a pittance. Also, we’re compassionate enough to decide that we’d rather a few people job the system than kids go to bed hungry. Whereas conservatives would rather destroy the system and to hell with the people who need it than have anyone get something they don’t feel that they “deserve.” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/168 "2015-02-12T22:07:08Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Bleeding hearts don’t like it when they are told the people they are helping are irresponsible layabouts. You’ve admitted that you don’t know how many are “irresponsible layouts”, and yet you are content to cast aspersions on them just the same. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/169 "2015-02-12T22:45:56Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > What about the Gulf of Tonkin? Which Gulf of Tonkin incident are you referring to? Ok, I’ll bite. Are you trolling again, or just genuinely ignorant? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/170 "2015-02-12T22:53:45Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Or - here’s the big one - people who work and pay those taxes have earned the right to have that fire department. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > In that case, I deserve my Obamacare subsidy, because I pay taxes! > [@curlcoat](#): > > Maybe. Depends on why you needed it. So you are entitled to fire protection by virtue of your paying taxes, but paying taxes doesn’t entitle me to my subsidy without jumping through more of your hoops? > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > What are the approved reasons? > [@curlcoat](#): > > You don’t understand the concept of personal responsibility? > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Indulge me. Under what circumstances would you admit that a tax payer deserves an Obamacare subsidy? > [@curlcoat](#): > > Someone who actually planned for the future and did everything they could to ensure they could pay their own bills. Perhaps we should apply that same standard to leaches like you who didn’t plan ahead for your own disability support. You just keep moving the goalposts to your own advantage, and to spite those you don’t approve of. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/171 "2015-02-12T23:37:46Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > Thank you for your candid answer. So, you don’t know what percentage of people receiving welfare benefits are just blithering through life expecting a handout and a free ride, and how many are people who could legitimately be described as deserving of some kind of charity and societal support. I don’t know either. But considering the relatively small amounts of money involved in the scheme of the budget, I’m willing to extend them the benefit of the doubt in the absence of better information. I would rather let a guilty person go free than wrongly condemn an innocent one, in other words. Which will always happen no matter how things are set up. What I am addressing is the prevailing belief that _everyone_ (or close to it) who gets public assistance only needs a hand up, and is in need thru no fault of their own. This makes it easy to game the system and be irresponsible. I note in your site that the definition of working household appears to be one person working at least 1000 hrs a year, which works out to just under 20 hrs a week. If you are talking about a single person living on that, maybe they legitimately would need help, but since the word “household” was used I’d say it’s safe to assume we are talking more than one person. If there are other adults, why aren’t they working? If there are kids, why did they have them when working so few hours? Just because someone in a household is working doesn’t mean they aren’t just blithering thru life looking for someone else to take care of them. They don’t even need to be what most folks consider poor - there are people living across the street from me in a $400,000 house whose kids were getting free lunches at school, and three of the five adults living there have jobs, apparently full time ones judging by how long they are away from home each day. > [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Bleeding hearts can read statistics and are smart enough to remain unmoved by anecdotal stories because we know that the plural of anecdote is not data. Statistics are worthless unless you know the exact criteria that was used to gather them. See above re: “working households”. > [@](#): > > We’re smart enough to be able to look up welfare statistics show that welfare fraud is rare and when committed usually mistakes made by businesses or the agencies providing the assistance (we realize that the “Welfare Queen” is a myth). And yet, it’s even been cited here that what the stats say is that it is rare _to find and/or prove_ welfare fraud. Which of course is a big difference. Not that I’ve said anything about fraud. > [@](#): > > Also, we’re compassionate enough to decide that we’d rather a few people job the system than kids go to bed hungry. And there is your problem right there - won’t someone think of the children. Sob sob. You would rather feel good about yourself because you gave so a kid could grow up in poverty than address the underlying problems. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You’ve admitted that you don’t know how many are “irresponsible layouts”, and yet you are content to cast aspersions on them just the same. I don’t have to know how many are irresponsible to cast aspersions on the ones that I that I do know are. Anecdotes may not be data, but when I personally know scores of people who have made irresponsible choices and expected help when it came back to bite them, it creates suspicion towards all. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/172 "2015-02-12T23:45:59Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > So you are entitled to fire protection by virtue of your paying taxes, but paying taxes doesn’t entitle me to my subsidy without jumping through more of your hoops? Snort. As I said waaay back there, the fire dept and Obamacare are nothing the same. We have fire, police, etc for the community good. We have Obamacare because people couldn’t be arsed to buy health insurance. > [@](#): > > Perhaps we should apply that same standard to leaches like you who didn’t plan ahead for your own disability support. What makes you think I didn’t? I’ve been “officially” disabled for over 20 years, and aware it was a probability far longer than that. Are you saying I don’t have a right to take the pension funds the government made me invest? Social Security is not public assistance, no matter what you want to believe. And lord knows, I am not living on my SSDI. > [@](#): > > You just keep moving the goalposts to your own advantage, and to spite those you don’t approve of. No, you are just making asinine assumptions that don’t hold up to the light of day. Like equating the fire department and public assistance, or assuming I’m what? living on SSDI? Didn’t plan ahead for when I wouldn’t be able to work? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2015, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/173 "2015-02-12T23:50:37Z")
Why couldn’t people be arsed to buy fire insurance? They should pull themselves up by their burning bootstraps! ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/174 "2015-02-13T00:01:25Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Why couldn’t people be arsed to buy fire insurance? They should pull themselves up by their burning bootstraps! Are you really that dumb? The fire department is not there to make sure you don’t lose anything in a fire, they are there to try to save your house and to see that the fire doesn’t spread. They aren’t there for individual structures, there are there to stop fires. And, responsible people do have fire insurance. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/175 "2015-02-13T00:05:45Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > For one thing, pretending Chris Christie was innocent of all wrongdoing in Bridgegate. 😉 Which federal or state investigation has found Chris Christie responsible for Bridgegate? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/176 "2015-02-13T00:08:06Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Ok, I’ll bite. Are you trolling again, or just genuinely ignorant? I asked **mhendo** for a clarification. Maybe you should consider biting him? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/177 "2015-02-13T00:31:30Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > What makes you think I didn’t? I’ve been “officially” disabled for over 20 years, and aware it was a probability far longer than that. Are you saying I don’t have a right to take the pension funds the government made me invest? Social Security is not public assistance, no matter what you want to believe. And lord knows, I am not living on my SSDI. That is news to the ones that managed SS in the USA. [http://www.ssa.gov/history/aja964.html](http://www.ssa.gov/history/aja964.html) > [@](#): > > THE SOCIAL WELFARE CONCEPT > > It is difficult to fix limits to a discussion of social welfare in the United States. This is primarily because social welfare is such an all-embracing concept. It is also because the application of this concept in a pluralistic society and a Federal-State system of government, such as we have in the United States, is so varied and complex. > > Many people speak of social welfare as meaning the good life for all members of society. This, of course, has been a dream of religious leaders, philosophers, and statesmen since the dawn of civilization. However, as Arnold Toynbee has said the twentieth century may well be remembered not as the bloodiest century in history, but as the first century in which people dared to thirds it practicable to make the benefits of civilization available for the whole human race. > > At the other extreme, in the United States at least, the man on the street may use the expression in a very narrow sense when he speaks of “being on welfare.” He, of course, is thinking only of the receipt of public aid by indigent persons. > > In this discussion, we shall not attempt to cover all programs that may indirectly contribute to social welfare, but only those programs which are directly concerned with the economic and social well-being of individuals and families. In doing’ so, we shall discuss both governmental and non-governmental programs, but concentrate largely on the governmental programs. > > Social Security as Social Welfare > > In the United States, the term “social security” is used to cover a large portion of the field of social welfare. This term first came into general use in the United States in 1935, during the Great Depression, when the Social Security Act was passed. It quickly achieved world-wide usage. It was included in the Atlantic Charter, signed by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain on August 14, 1941, and later adhered to in the Declaration of Philadelphia by twenty-six Allied governments at the International Labor Conference in 1944. It has been included in the constitution of many of the new nations which cane into existence after World War II as a major responsibility and objective. > > The term “social security” has sometimes been used synonymously with “social welfare” in its widest sense. It is also used in a more restricted sense to mean a government program designed to prevent destitution by providing protection against major personal economic hazards such as unemployment, sickness, invalidity, old age, and the death of the breadwinner. In this sense, social security is primarily an income maintenance program which, in addition to providing cash benefits, may be accompanied by constructive social services to prevent or mitigate the effect of these hazards. > > It is in this more restricted sense that the term “social security” is properly used in the United States. Most workers here use it to mean the program of Federal Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) which covers more than 9 out of every 10 workers and their families and is administered nation-wide by the U.S. Social Security Administration. “Social security” and OASDI have become synonymous because, for one thing, the U.S. worker contributes directly from his regular earnings to pay for his protection under this program, and, for another, its history of nearly a quarter of century uninterrupted benefit payments and regular improvements to meet changing needs for protection have brought him to depend on the program as the basic protection for himself and his family in the event of lost income because of retirement, death, or invalidity. > > \*\*“Social security,” as used with reference to the Social Security Act in the United States also encompasses some of what we call “welfare” or “needs” or “assistance” programs. These are programs of grants to States for aid and services to needy families with children, maternal and child welfare, aid to the blind, aid to the permanently and totally disabled, and medical assistance to the aged. The term also encompasses programs of unemployment benefits to be administered by the States, and unemployment benefits for Federal employees and ex-servicemen. In addition, the term is frequently used in referring to programs not encompassed by the Social Security Act such as Workmen’s Compensation (Employment Accident Insurance) administered by every State and at the Federal level for Federal employees, maritime workers and workers in interstate commerce, as well as programs of temporary cash sickness benefits in four States. > \*\* > Now over 100 countries have put into effect programs they call social security which provide protection against one or more of the hazards just mentioned. Many of these progress have been in existence far longer than the one in the United States. > > Other Government Programs as Social Welfare > > **Besides the government programs contained in the Social Security Act itself and the other Federal and State government programs in the United States which are properly classified as social security programs, there are many other government programs in the United States that fall within the broader field of social welfare. Certainly veterans’ benefits, public health and medical programs, child welfare services, school lunches, food stamps, surplus food distribution, slum clearance and public housing should be included.** ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/178 "2015-02-13T00:55:08Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I asked **mhendo** for a clarification. Maybe you should consider biting him? Ah. So both trolling _and_ ignorant. Bravo. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/179 "2015-02-13T01:53:05Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Statistics are worthless unless you know the exact criteria that was used to gather them. So you’re saying you dismiss statistics when they do not comport with your predetermined outcome? Because you really need to show some reason why the methodology for determining welfare fraud is erroneous. Why just last month, the [USDA updated a report](http://www.fns.usda.gov/pressrelease/2013/fns-001213) that pointed out where fraud and abuse was happening and the steps they were taking to prevent it. Kindly tell me what is wrong with this report. > [@](#): > > And yet, it’s even been cited here that what the stats say is that it is rare _to find and/or prove_ welfare fraud. If that’s what you think has been said, you’re wrong. If that’s what was said, whoever said it is wrong. Fraud and abuse is detectable and correctable. You can even anonymously report welfare fraud through the internet if you find it. > [@](#): > > Not that I’ve said anything about fraud. If someone is getting something they don’t deserve, it would be fraudulent, wouldn’t it? Words have meanings you know. Either someone deserves their benefits or they are recieving them fraudulently. > [@](#): > > And there is your problem right there - won’t someone think of the children. Sob sob. You would rather feel good about yourself because you gave so a kid could grow up in poverty than address the underlying problems. How do kids grow up if they are unable to eat? How does not having kids eat address the underlying problem? What should the government do about the underlying problem? Isn’t it possible to do something about the underlying problem while feeding the kids who are hungry now? > [@](#): > > I don’t have to know how many are irresponsible to cast aspersions on the ones that I that I do know are. Your anecdotes are irrelevant. > [@](#): > > Anecdotes may not be data, but when I personally know scores of people who have made irresponsible choices and expected help when it came back to bite them, it creates suspicion towards all. Your anecdotes are still irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2015, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356/180 "2015-02-13T02:47:44Z")
And what’s all that about “addressing the underlying problem”? The “solutions” I’ve seen from the right side of the aisle have tended to boil down to either “cut taxes on the rich, and the poor will get some eventually” (or “because freedom is more important than saving the lives of a bunch of poor people”) or “not my problem.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-you-like-your-health-insurance-you-can-keep-it/712356.md?page=10)