patrick.net

CL says

How did they work exactly? Who paid for the "winners", and what happened to the losers? Were the people selected at random?

We've had at least one thread on Oregon's lottery.

"with no discernible improvement in [purported beneficiaries'] health."

"Researchers found no measurable health benefits in the Medicaid group for several chronic conditions, including hypertension, high cholesterol and diabetes."

All taxpayers paid, a few "winners" were selected at random, though they were "winning" like Charlie Sheen, i.e. the purported beneficiaries did not benefit. But, spending (including emergency hospitalizations) increased, which is to say the lobbyists' revenues increased, so from their POV it was a huge success.

Sounds like the Hunger Games

Dan8267 says

Sounds like the Hunger Games

In SF, we have housing lotteries also. At least in those, a few lucky winners get a roof over their heads at a reasonable cost. It doesn't excuse the policies that make housing unaffordable for almost everyone else, but the formula is very similar: artificially raise prices beyond the point of pain, then give a break to a few lucky winners. The difference is, lottery housing tends to be structurally sound; to make it more like the OP question, you'd need leaky roofs and toxic mold and rotten stairs that people can fall through, and of course the retail prices would need to be much higher.