New Template for Public Aid

[stebo0728]

So....strange as it may sound, I do my best thinking when I'm mowing my lawn. And today, I think I came up with something. A new recipe for public aid, across the board. I think the best, most sustainable way to have a safety net in place, is to have a cooperation between both the public sector, and the private sector. The role of the public sector is quite simple, funding and oversight. This type of system is already working wonders for State sponsored health care systems. Here in Georgia, we have Peachcare, which is funded largely by lottery proceeds, but is also buffered a bit by state funds. The way this system works, both for Peachcare, and Medicaid, is that a private insurance agency contracts with the state to provide the services, and is funded by the government. There is also some oversight to be sure abuses aren't rampant. Actually, there are three seperate insurance agencies contracted, and the receiver has the chose of who to use, with a yearly opportunity to switch if unsatisfied. Coverages vary, and some doctors only take certain ones.

So, how does this system get applied to other public services? Lets take welfare, which I am including unemployment, SNAP (foodstamps), TANF, and Section 8, but others may apply also here. So, the state governments should each, at their own choosing, bid out and contract with, lets say, 3 temp agencies. Here is the breakdown of the system I imagine:

1. Person in need of these services signs up with one of the contracted temp agencies, and completes eligibility screening.
2. They either qualify, or dont, either way they can avail themselves of the temp agencies services.
3. If they qualify, payment is administered by the temp agency to the person. They basically get paid as if they have a job, with the wage being whatever the welfare system sets in place, and based on what enumeration of services they qualify for.
4. They then proceed to be a client of this temp agency, and seek employment. Either any employment they can find, or better employment if they are otherwise already employed.
5. If they get a hit on a job, they begin to be paid by the client company, and the temp agency reports employment change, and public funding either stops, or is reduced based on new employment qualifications.
6. If they refuse a job placement, well 2, we'll give them one discretionary refusal in case of whatever, but on the second refusal, they would go into a 1 year lockout period on public funding. They could still retain job seeking status with the agency if they like, but no aid for a year (time period debate-able).
7. If they are legitimately terminated from any 2 jobs in a given period, say a 3 month period, but debate-able, then again they enter the 1 year lockout. If they were wrongfully, or otherwise fired for no reason, or laid off due to downsizing, that won't count as a strike.

I believe this sort of cooperation between public/private sector is the best way to go for best results. So.....thoughts?

[themadscientist]

It sounds reasonable. As long as there was protection from employers holding the person's status over them to treat them unfairly without fear of complaint from the worker, I would like that plan. It provides immediate assistance, helps them to improve their situation without penalizing them for doing "too good" and provides a mechanism to separate them out of the program when they are back on their feet.

[stebo0728]

Fair point. I think the goal of improvement would be a shared one between both the temp agency and the individual. The acquisition of a position that would pay more would mean a larger cut from the employer than what they get from the government, therefore incentivizing them to NOT treat the individual unfairly. I suppose though, that could also be taken in reverse. The agency may want to try to keep them in the system, rather then get them into a job that will hire them on full time, thus removing them from the agency's employ, and ending any cut at all. So steps would have to be taken to be sure these agencies don't target these individuals toward purposely bad gigs, in an effort to retain them.

[AZhitman]

I've always been an advocate of assigning a case manager to ANYONE receiving public assistance. There's nothing that will motivate someone to get off the dole like being held accountable (and the constant reminder that they're spending someone else's money).

Besides, it'd create jobs.

[IBCoupe]

Similar to Greg, I've always thought it absolutely stupid that we don't link unemployment benefits to some kind of job program, either state-run or through a public-private partnership. I believe that most people getting public benefits are behaving responsibly, but even if they all are, the opportunity costs of standing in line for your benefits (whatever they may be) are something that needs to be accounted for.

[stebo0728]

Well, Greg, the only place we differ I think is that I want the job placement to be private sector, and I think temp agencies fit this bill perfectly, as long as we make sure to diffuse any incentive they might have to keep the person on the public dime.

Just assume, as you say, that everyone is following the rules. People are not required to take a job thats a certain amount lower than their previous pay rate, and are allowed to remain on unemployment until better comes along. They are following the rules, but are none the less bogging down the system. Couple this with industries that are begging for workers in these lower paying areas, and unemployment is lower than it should rationally be. What if instead this temp agency could place a person into a lower position, report the change in income, and unemployment could continue to pay some form of adjusted benefit. It would save the public sector money by not having an "all or nothing" policy, and the person would remain actively employed, thus making them more appealing in future interviews.

[AZhitman]

Well, Greg, the only place we differ I think is that I want the job placement to be private sector

Nope. I don't disagree. I sure as hell don't want some dimwit government employee handling it - We've seen how inept they are with the unemployment, food stamps, disability, and other "entitlement" programs.

[AZhitman]

I believe that most people getting public benefits are behaving responsibly

You're way more optimistic than me, brother.

I've gone through my criticisms before: No requirement to accept ANYTHING less than your prior wage (lame), no requirement to actively look for work (lame), and no deadline for expiration of benefits (lame).

We're simply trading a check for votes for the left (in a sector that, sadly, historically leaned right)... building an army of dependent, lazy, "what's in it for me" cable TV addicts.