• JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Half of the system exists to prevent people from exploiting the system. Most likely at a net loss. As in, it costs more to prevent people from exploiting the system, than would be lost by people exploiting the system.

      • lugal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        You shouldn’t think of it that way. It’s not about saving money, it’s about punishing, dehumanizing and marginalizing people in need and sadly, in the eyes of some people it’s worth it

        • antidote101@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          It would preferably be about targetting the most egregious cases of fraud, as they’re the most risky for both parties (the government, and the majority of recipients). Those extreme cases are the ones most likely to endanger such programs.

          …i guess I’m not completely against all oversight. Even though “not doing extreme acts of fraud” is a pretty loose condition (which probably applies across the majority of society anyways, wish it applied to the ruling classes and elites a bit more though).

      • Clent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        Definitely at a net loss. It always costs more to police the system than is ever recovered or saved. The benefits given to any single person are insignificant to a government budget.

        The fraud occurs on the service provider side. Medicare/Medicaid providers are a big one but anyone that collects the dispersement of these services since those create literal billionaires and aka support the exploiter class.