Milton Friedman thought that replacing all existing government aid with a negative income tax was the solution to dealing with the excesses of the welfare state. However, I think that falls into one of the traps of government inefficiency: The presumption that all people have equal needs- i.e. a lack of adaptability for the individual. However, I like Friedman's basic approach of one safety net to replace the tangled mess we have right now. I propose this: Scrap all current government aid programs and replace them with one agency the sole purpose of which would be to save the lives of the poor. In other words, if someone, first, is in plausible danger of dying from an injury, from an illness (acute or chronic) or from the lack of a material necessity (e.g. food), second, is unable to pay to save their own life and has no one else both willing and able to pay to save them and, third, wishes to live, this agency should guarantee them the right to survival. I know what the objections to this would be. Some believe that we are entitled to aid that goes beyond protection of life. Well, to those people, my philosophy being what it is, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The same goes for people who believe that there should be no government aid whatsoever. Then there is the objection that, in the case of medical aid, the government should encourage preventative care. Well, I thought so myself until I considered that insurance companies have every incentive to reward preventative care. Granted, this transition would have to be made carefully, but rather than simply chip away at an essentially broken system, I believe we must replace it with one intelligent, efficient safety net. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)