Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!robinson From: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Universal social programs Message-ID: <907@ubc-cs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 21-Dec-84 17:30:42 EST Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.907 Posted: Fri Dec 21 17:30:42 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 21-Dec-84 20:45:14 EST References:<1299@dciem.UUCP> Reply-To: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 27 Summary: * I was under the impression that one of the main arguments for universality was that it did not necessitate the use of means tests which critics believe to be cruel and demeaning. The other main argument is that doing away with universality would be a first step to gutting those programs and perhaps even scrapping them altogether. The way the opposition parties are talking one would tend to think that all social programs are universal. However, this is hardly the case. The Guaranteed Income Supplement and Federal student loans are but two non-universal programs. This leads me to wonder if perhaps the main question should be why should program X be universal rather than why shouldn't it be; i.e. are there overwhelming reasons for retaining the status quo. The best reason I've heard so far for keeping universality is that reiterated by Martin Taylor: if it's going to cost the same amount or more to administer a non-universal program then it makes sense to leave things as they are. I, for one, tend to think that if this is indeed true it could very well be a reflection on the inefficiencies of the civil service and perhaps a little more digging is in order to determine why it would cost so much to screen applicants. Considering that one fifth of the civil servants are overpaid as it is I don't think that I'm asking too much. J.B. Robinson