In this section, I opted to choose three benefits/services in the U. S. social welfare system that would be beneficial to many people it includes cash, expert services and government guarantees. Millions of people among them are U. S. citizens are experiencing extreme poverty and inadequacy of social services. There was a downturn in economic stability thus making people sink to degradation in all aspect.
However, a lot of measures have been planned by the government and other non-government agencies such as charities, medical missions, non- monetary or financial subsidies, services rendered by private doctors and professionals, loans, and other assurance. The other benefits that is also helpful are cash, expert services and government guarantees which has in someway has positive and negative effects. Cash can purchase anything an individual needs, like for example medicines that are valuable to a patient whose relatives can but directly at any pharmacy and immediately be in used by the patient.
The importance of cash nowadays is a life survival and it can create many possibilities but once it is free the needs are converted to fancy wants. Expert service is also useful for the citizens where doctors and professionals can help the needy in terms of medical advice and treatment. This can be done through community medicine where doctors can go directly to the remote community to render free services. Expert services do not offer any negative impact to the people. On the other hand, government guarantee can also be a useful way to battle against poverty and inequality.
Example of this is a cooperative wherein any individual can borrow any kind such as goods, commodities and even money. Cooperatives are form of economic enterprise that are helpful to the people in working together and combines wealth and resources to control them in an integrated way. Consumer sovereignty is a good way of helping people but it post certain disadvantages because some will mistreat the service by the beneficiaries especially if the agent will give monetary service.
Like for example a family received a specified amount of cash for purposes of food consumption but the problem of the agency who gave the money is that they did not report on the allocated money if it’s being used accordingly. The ineffectiveness of the service will rise here because it can be used for other things which can be beneficial or not depending on the family who will spend it. Misused or mishandling of money on the part of the family is the possible result of the service while the objective of the agency will be forfeited and sacrificed.
Consumer sovereignty is indeed not coercive and intrusive but it sometimes create doubt and distrust towards the beneficiary, the positive way to confront the misuse of this type is to develop schemes in preventing negative effect like food stamps and tickets to ensure that the money will be spent correctly. The type of services and benefits discussed previously are useful tools in times of crisis and can accommodate the usual problems of a family or a community.
The benefits and services includes cash, expert services, positive discrimination, credits/vouchers, subsidies, government guarantees, protective regulation, power over decisions, material goods/commodities and tangible benefits such as food, shelter and clothing. Based on the criteria for evaluating the merit of benefit and services, very effective in terms of cost, target efficiency, trade-offs, consumer sovereignty, adequacy, equity and efficiency. But the best thing to consider is to check the social problem so as to analyze the type of benefits and services that would fit in and should be compatible with the definition of the problem.
Identifying the problem is a good step in formulating the answer, this can be done in asking the needs of the people and inquire from them whether the services and benefits are significant to them. Coercion and intrusiveness is good tool in assessing benefit type and service types. That’s why food stamps and tickets are used in order to prevent abuse especially those who are beneficiaries and dependent on public benefits. Reference Chambers, D. E. , & R. Wedel, K. (2005). Social Policy and Social Programs: A Method for the Practical Public Policy Analyst.