Policy Conundrum - Unemployment insurance

There are two sides of unemployment, Republicans always focus on one, Democrats always focus on the other.

Republicans always see deadbeats on the dole, people who really would rather get a check from the government than go to work.  Democrats see victims of circumstance, people who, through no fault of their own are left without a means of support.

Both realities are true - sometimes.  I've known people who build unemployment into their long term employment model, fashioning a life with big breaks from work where they draw unemployment, but I have also known people who were victims of circumstances beyond their control, who work hard to find another job and it just doesn't happen for long periods of time.

Why can't unemployment policy reflect the whole reality - weed out the vacationers while protecting the victims of circumstance?  

What if all workers earn credits for unemployment as they work, so they bank a certain number of credits each month.  Once they lose a job the number of weeks of full benefits is controlled by how many credits they have up to a maximum of - say 13 weeks.  Then, if they are still unemployed they can still draw unemployment, at reduced rates, but they have to clock a certain number of hours per week volunteering for some non-profit?   The lower their lifetime quota bank, the more hours they have to clock with non-profits.  Leave them time to look for work, but get them out in the world, taking on responsibility.

Maybe entitle retiring workers to a repayment of some part of their remaining quota, to add a little extra incentive to work.