@mekkaokereke
When school lunch programs throw out the "who deserves to get free lunches?" and just provide for every child, the entire program is cheaper due to the lack of an enforcement layer, all children get fed, and children learn more and pay attention better.

Being overly concerned that someone might get something they don't "deserve" usually ends up screwing over the ones who need help most.

We're supposed to "promote the general welfare" of the public - not gate-keep who gets help.

@raymierussell @realtegan @mekkaokereke in Scotland we used to means test prescriptions. It turned out that the money saved couldn't possibly justify the cost of administration (mainly because people on many prescriptions are highly likely to be unable to work) so they just made them free for everyone.

That's how most benefits should work. Although I do have some sympathy for the idea the UK has where everyone gets child benefit but higher rate taxpayers who get it pay more tax.

@craignicol @realtegan @mekkaokereke

Yup I have benefited from free prescriptions in Scotland.

Another side effect of free prescription is better compliance with taking medication.
When you need to fork out a tenner per item there is the temptation to not spend the money. This leads to further cost for the state down the line if people are not properly recovering from illness.

There are always unintended consequences of these things.

Free meals means better nutrition even for "rich kids".

@raymierussell @realtegan @mekkaokereke I used to work with someone who did modelling to help NHS trusts in England to save money and the biggest thing they could do (it wasn't even close) was to keep people out of A&E. If you invest in prevention, it keeps people away from the expensive choke points.

I'm sure the same is true for other benefits. Keeping families housed and fed, assisted support to enter the workplace, etc. Keeping them away from courts and mental health services.