One of the difficult problems of being in the practice side of things (as opposed to the policy side) is the lack of credibility it brings to your arguments.
Why is this?
For instance, in reading Mr. Murray's fascinating proposal to just give every American $10,000.00 dollars a year in lieu of "social services", in order to address the inequities inherent in the welfare systems we have cobbled together, a person practicing in the field of pediatric special needs is wont to say: "hello! most of my kids spend that much in one month!" and go on about her business.
Of course, Mr. Murray and other policy types simply accuse practitioners like me of being beneficiaries ourselves of the welfare state, in the form of salaries and etc. So our voices (being the interested parties we are) don't count.
Well, probably because I'm a nurse and that guarantees a good amount of job security (if they close down the welfare state I'm pretty sure they'll still need nurses) I say nonsense! humbug! bah! and all sorts of other words too impolite to stoop to.
It's not the proposals to get rid of the "welfare state" per se to which I object. I also don't object to holding people responsible for what they do, nor in finding incentives to make otherwise capable people responsible for their own family's welfare.
It's the helpless, the ones who will never be able to assume that mantle, those who need our assistance to live daily lives of worth and dignity---it's those people who are disposable under any system like what Mr. Murray is being said to have proposed (I admit, I haven't read the book).
A place must be made for those who need help. A society without a way to take care of the truly needful is not my idea of utopia.
But, what do I know? I'm just a nurse employed by the welfare state.