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