>The state has a different role to play. I don't want it intruding on my personal life
>
>Too late! Great Britain's nanny state has been intruding into your personal life for quite a while now.
>
>but it does have right to ask me for a contribution to running costs.
>
>I do not have a problem paying my fair share for police and fire protectoin, street lights, road maintenance, and even paying the salaries (although I think they are way too high) of the government bureaucrats required to run things (and I think that the bureaucracy has gotten way out of hand and needs to be streamlined).
>
>What I object to is the redistribution of wealth. If an individual has fallen upon hard times and needs some temporary help, he or she should have to do something constructive in return for the handout that they are receiving. Believe it or not, I do understand why someone with small children on the dole would stay on the dole - if they take a low paying job with no health insurance, they lose their Medicaid benefits. But this is where the law needs to be changed - to encourage these people to find work and allow them to keep their Medicaid - it would be a lot cheaper for the tax payers. I object to people who make being on the dole a way of life. You make it sound as if this is just peachy keen with you...

Exactly. There are situations where people are caught between a rock and a hard place. Those who can get a better paying job but can't risk losing medicaid fall into that category. It costs the taxpayers too much to keep them in that pidgeonhole. It would make more sense to allow them to keep medicaid as long as they are productive workers (hence paying more into the general tax fund themselves and contributing). The cap on medicaid is far, far too low. Some folks stay below the poverty line or right at it because there is a point just above it where they risk everything and they are not earning enough yet to afford medical insurance.