From a cost basis from where it has been tried, you can make the argument that it costs more than it saves (Florida) - although critics will usually point out that some people who knew they would test positive did not bother to apply and thus brought numbers down, which seems possible in Florida since after their program was implemented applications fell slightly. Critics of those critics will say those falling numbers were due to discouraged people who geniunely needed the program but were priced out of the system. Personally, I would rather pay more as a taxpayer for welfare if I knew it was going into better hands. I rarely break from cost versus benefit analysis, but this is one where at least my own personal feelings make me want to ignore that.