Welfare should not be long-term

Clearly my opponent is misinformed about welfare. In actuality, if someone applies for welfare, they do not automatically receive it as a temporary pick-me-up. Instead, they must go through (often rigorous) programs specified to locate problems regarding WHY this individual does not have a job, and those programs work diligently to assist that individual and get them back to work as soon as possible. While these agencies - such as FEGS or WeCARE - have noble mission statements regarding helping the individuals, the reality is that the government pays them to weed through the BS'ers and eliminate as many people from the welfare program as possible. In that case, the only people who apply for welfare and continue to receive it have cited medical reasons (including mental and personality disorders) as to why they cannot work. Once this happens, they meet with a wellness case manager to discuss their issues, and based on a comprehensive assessment, are given a customized plan that they are told will meet their needs. This translates to them having to see whatever doctors necessary (chosen by the case managers) that must validate their claims. For instance, if one claims that they cannot work because of an injury, a specific doctor must examine the individual and verify that this is in fact the case. If not, the doctor will inform the case manager, and the individual will immediately stop receiving any type of welfare payment. If a real condition is noted, the doctor will verify the patient's problem and send them back to the case manager. At this time, the manager will adjust the individual's plan to ensure that they are in fact seeking treatment for their problem. This is done under the premise that eventually the individual will get better and be able to return to work (i.e. stop receiving welfare). Additionally, if at any time the individual misses 3 of their appointments - either with any of the doctors or the case managers - they will stop receiving welfare. This is to ensure that these people are taking the condtions of their welfare seriously, and are headed on a path that will ultimately remove them from the welfare system. I happen to know (I have 2 family members in the business) that most welfare claims are legit. While there are the few bad seeds, many recipients are veterans from Iraq - who due to their service are no longer able to work for either physical or mental issues - or people who are truly ill, pregnant (to the point where they cannot work, say if their being pregnant affects their health to the point where working would harm either them or the baby), etc. In fact, using the example of pregnancy alone, that would require 9 months on welfare, whereas my opponent argues for a maximum of 6. Just to be clear, I would like to remind readers that my goal in this debate is "to make a valid and convincing argument that welfare is needed to support those who refuse to get a job, and have no intention of doing so" as specified by the Pro. My argument has been that people who receive welfare for more than 6 months do so only because they have been deemed ineligible to work by accomplished doctors in various fields (doctors who specialize in the areas of the alleged issues). Because of these problematic circumstances, many of these individuals both refuse to get a job and have no intention of doing so. Thus, I negate.