> I think we are defining social insurance differently. (i think, but who
> knows.....) My definition of social insurance is the social
> safety net which keeps people from falling through the cracks below some
minimum subsistance standard of living. I THINK you are defining social
insurance in the contributory sense, in that social security has always been
contributed to by the worker. other than this, I am not sure that we
disagree all that much.>
Right. There are no explicit contributions from individuals for public assistance, so I do not classify it as social insurance. The other side of contributions is means- testing. For public assistance and certain other programs, benefits depend on a means test. For programs based at least in part on contributions, a means test makes less sense, although a redistributive intent could still be embedded in the design of a program.
As you and others have said, the distinctive nature of means-tested benefits dovetails with the marginalization of beneficiaries, which is shot through with class, race, and gender bias.
Doesn't it make more sense, therefore, to maintain a distinctive definition for social insurance programs and try to include the excluded within their orbit?
By contrast, some other folks here would like to latch onto the sort of unvarnished redistribution with the least political success -- welfare -- and drag everybody else into it.
Max