alex3619
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,810
- Location
- Logan, Queensland, Australia
That's like saying it's cheaper to put a plastic tarp over one's roof after hail damage instead of re-roofing the house.
Thats a fantastic idea for the company supplying the tarps, or the people who watch over the cost of replacing roofs. Any time they can pass responsibility to a different department its not their problem, and on their books they make a saving. The total cost to the community, to society, to the person, is not their responsibility.
Partitioned accounting in government can lead to overall severe failure or increased cost, but look good department by department. Somewhere, sometime however, the costs mount up for someone. Look at the current push by ATOS and the UK government to cut disability support. Many will become homeless. Many will commit suicide (hey, thats a saving right there, much cheaper to bury someone than keep them alive). Many will require much more expensive medical care, pushing hospital budgets to breaking. Many will wind up in court (more money) then prison (even more money). The cost of appeals is mounting, and over half win their appeals. Yet the government can say they are saving money, so its a great idea. As long as it looks like they are saving money, the real cost is irrelevant - thats irrational, but thats politics.
In Australia we recently had a study looking at treating homeless males, it was on the news though I do not know the details. They threw money at getting these men private treatment, fixing their issues, and so on. The outcome? A saving of more than $3000 per person, with an end result of housing for most, and work for many. This despite private medical care at full cost. Its a win-win, but it was achieved by rational targeting of increased funding to solve the problem. Slashing budgets without reason can increase costs if the problem doesn't go away.
Bye, Alex