I've been thinking about this thread since last night. I think I'm ready to comment on it.
First, I have to get past the idea of one example, using one guy. The issue isn't one guy. I think we can all agree that our social services (local, state, federal, and private funds) do not pay this kind of money per person. So he is an extreme 'outlier' on the curve of money spent on similar services. To take this one case as exemplary of what's right or what's wrong with our social services model would be like taking the case of a person needing an organ transplant as typical of the costs of health care for insurance purposes. We don't all get organ transplants, obviously.
Given that, the question then is not really how much we as a society spent on this guy, but how much we spend on average; and how much we can afford to spend, and how much we want to spend. And there are so many factors in that, I'm not sure we can even have the discussion in a forum like this.
For example:
Should we help people at all? Some see it as a moral obligation on society. Some see it as a cost-benefit analysis (does it cost society more to help or not to help?).
If we help, is there a limit to the conditions we assist with?
Is there a dollar limit on how much we'll spend to help one person?
If we refuse to give assistance to someone who then harms others, is there any responsibility there for society beyond that of the individual his or herself?
I don't think there are easy black-and-white answers to these questions. There was a time when I would have said that a person should stand on their own two feet, and if they could not, too bad for them. But this is not Sparta, first, and second, I've begun to see the cost to society of NOT helping; now I think a balanced approach is more reasonable from a moral as well as a financial (taxpayer impact) point of view. I also find it galling when people appear not to want to recover, get better, join society as productive members, and demand services which they feel they have coming. I resent it; I know a lot of people resent it. I also think there is a tendency for us to have mercy for those who have suffered physical injuries which they did not bring upon themselves, and to have much less sympathy for those who appear to use to have 'done it to themselves' through drink, drugs, and emotional or mental problems which we do not see an obvious cause for. In other words, we seem more willing to extend services to a person born with a physical deformity than to a person who is sunk deep into the booze bottle.
In answer to the issue, I guess I have to say this...
I would rather people like this not cost us so much. However, given that we spend the money on social services at all, I don't resent his use of that kind of money. He is, if nothing else, an example and hopefully a lesson in how we are failing to deliver services that change lives so that we don't have to keep spending the same money over and over again. And I would frankly rather the money be spent on him than on waste and fraud. Even though is is clear that much of the money spent on him did not immediately 'take', it was also not going into his pocket while he lived a life of relative luxury. We are losing billions of dollars to social services fraud, by doctors, insurance companies, and recipients who make fraudulent claims, fake injuries, and otherwise game the system. That money is wasted; that money goes for nothing. And that's something I'd sooner see addressed than the money we spent on this fellow.
And some of the fraud we're experiencing isn't the kind you would expect. Some of it is very casual fraud committed by people whom you would normally consider decent people if not outright heroes. Not many know that very many police and firefighters these days retire on disability pensions, rather than taking a 'normal' retirement. It's not at all uncommon. The same is true of union workers, and postal workers. And even our military; we have young and relatively able-bodied men and women coming out of the service, having served in Iraq or Afghanistan in a war zone, claiming disability and getting it for PTSD and similar ailments. And I'm not claiming PTSD doesn't exist or isn't disabling; but I feel strongly that it is being severely abused in the name of thanking our veterans (and as you know, I *do* thank our veterans) and correcting past problems when we refused to accept that veterans were mentally and emotionally injured by their wartime experiences. After Vietnam, if you weren't missing a limb, you could not get disability. Now, if you come home and have bad dreams, you may be able to get a partial pension for life. This is going to cost us HUGE amounts of money over time; the bill hasn't even started coming due yet.
So there you go. I don't like the idea of spending millions of taxpayer dollars to dry out a wino. But given the alternatives, and the fact that this guy is atypical, I think I'm not as bothered by it as I am by the fraud and waste going on in our social services and entitlements systems currently. I'd rather see us concentrate on those problems, and God bless and keep Cecil Leading Horse well and on the path to recovery.
