View Poll Results: Are Entitlement Neccessary?

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    20 50.00%
  • No

    14 35.00%
  • Sometimes.

    5 12.50%
  • Don't know.

    1 2.50%
Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 146

Thread: Basic Shelter/Food/Medical Entitlements Neccessary in First World Governments?

  1. #21
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Basic Shelter/Food/Medical Entitlements Neccessary in First World Governments?

    Quote Originally Posted by MistressNomad View Post
    It's not that simple. What I would have died from was a large cyst that required surgery. Pretty minor surgery, and actually not a big deal... if you have medical care. If I didn't, I would have been dead in a month.

    In other words, I never would have made it to adulthood without comprehensive medical care. And I'm a healthy person.

    The same is true of anyone who's ever have appendicitis, asthma, severe allergies, or even a cavity. All of these are common, and can result in death if left untreated.
    They could but I guarantee, that if you removed all but the basics of medical care.
    The life expectancy chart would move but a blip.

    The absolute vast majority of gains in life expectancy have come from adequate food, clean water, basic hygiene and basic medical care (vaccines, antibiotics, those things).
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  2. #22
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Basic Shelter/Food/Medical Entitlements Neccessary in First World Governments?

    Quote Originally Posted by MistressNomad View Post
    True. There's a connection between having to live close to others, and understanding that you need others. I suspect this is why rural areas are conservative.
    I think things are oversimplified.

    Most areas are conservative in name, but they're largely Dixiecrat in practice, sans much of the old school racism.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  3. #23
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,174

    Re: Basic Shelter/Food/Medical Entitlements Neccessary in First World Governments?

    None of the things I listed are helped by hygiene, quality food, quality water, vaccines, or antibiotics (with the possible exception of the cavity problem, but it's only a short-term solution). Anyone who gets any of those things will still die anyway under your proposed plan. They are very common. We'd be back to many people never making it out of childhood, and very few ever making it to middle age.

  4. #24
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: Basic Shelter/Food/Medical Entitlements Neccessary in First World Governments?

    I don't think it's necessarily true to say that blue states carry red states. If you look at recent economic growth the red states have largely dominated. Many of the blue states are under a terrible financial crisis and are wanting the federal government to bail them out (California). True, income is usually lower on average in red states, but taxes and the cost of living are usually lower too.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    06-05-11 @ 05:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    117

    Re: Basic Shelter/Food/Medical Entitlements Neccessary in First World Governments?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Welfare should be done based on faults of nature, not faults of willpower.
    So if perfectly mentally and physically healthy person has the willpower to work, but the energy resources have been hoarded a greedily manner, is this too a fault of nature?

  6. #26
    Dungeon Master
    anti socialist

    X Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Texas Proud
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    44,727

    Re: Basic Shelter/Food/Medical Entitlements Neccessary in First World Governments?

    Quote Originally Posted by MistressNomad View Post
    That's odd. Seems like every country on earth with a higher standard of living, lower crime, better education, and more competitive society than ours disagrees with you.
    Those countries sound like a better place for progressives than the mean, nasty, capitalist US, wouldn't you agree?
    The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
    Mahatma Gandhi


  7. #27
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,174

    Re: Basic Shelter/Food/Medical Entitlements Neccessary in First World Governments?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I don't think it's necessarily true to say that blue states carry red states. If you look at recent economic growth the red states have largely dominated. Many of the blue states are under a terrible financial crisis and are wanting the federal government to bail them out (California). True, income is usually lower on average in red states, but taxes and the cost of living are usually lower too.
    California is a uniquely mis-managed state. I think everyone agrees on that. But here's a question: would you rather live in Arizona or Minnesota? Having just moved from Arizona to Minnesota, I can tell you there are a few things I notice immediately, back on the job hunt and having a lapse in insurance.

    1. The economy here is way better. While it may be true that living is cheaper in AZ, it's only by a bit, and there are no jobs, and the ones there are pay less money, and the cost of living is not significantly cheaper to bridge the gap. Minnesota has more jobs, that pay better, sufficiently to bridge the gap in higher cost of living which really isn't that much higher. In fact, I can get a studio in Minneapolis for less than I was paying in AZ.

    2. There are fewer resources in AZ. ACCESS (a low-income health option) is basically inaccessible unless you work for min wage part-time (if you're unemployed you don't qualify, and if you make $1300-ish a year you don't qualify), which you can't live on anyway. And ACCESS has recently been cut for single adults, which I am. Even if you qualify, it's about 16 years of paperwork and wait time. I just went to the clinic for free today in Minneapolis. Took me 5 minutes to register.

    3. Who has lower crime? That's really all I need to say.

    4. Who has a better education system? Again, no more is needed.

    5. ...But related to education, I can go to the community college in Minneapolis for free, and I can't in AZ. Even if I was a resident.


    All of these things would be true when comparing almost any red and blue state. There are acceptions. But generally, if you live in a blue state you're better off.
    Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 05-28-11 at 08:42 PM.

  8. #28
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,174

    Re: Basic Shelter/Food/Medical Entitlements Neccessary in First World Governments?

    Quote Originally Posted by X Factor View Post
    Those countries sound like a better place for progressives than the mean, nasty, capitalist US, wouldn't you agree?
    Yup. I lived in a couple of them. And they still have a capitalistic economy. It's just that their people aren't ok with seeing others suffer if they don't need to.

    Call me crazy, but I want that sort of quality of life for the citizens of my own country, too.

  9. #29
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: Basic Shelter/Food/Medical Entitlements Neccessary in First World Governments?

    Quote Originally Posted by MistressNomad View Post
    California is a uniquely mis-managed state. I think everyone agrees on that. But here's a question: would you rather live in Arizona or Minnesota? Having just moved from Arizona to Minnesota, I can tell you there are a few things I notice immediately, back on the job hunt and having a lapse in insurance.

    1. The economy here is way better. While it may be true that living is cheaper in AZ, it's only by a bit, and there are no jobs, and the ones there are pay less money, and the cost of living is not significantly cheaper to bridge the gap. Minnesota has more jobs, that pay better, sufficiently to bridge the gap in higher cost of living which really isn't that much higher. In fact, I can get a studio in Minneapolis for less than I was paying in AZ.

    2. There are fewer resources in AZ. ACCESS (a low-income health option) is basically inaccessible unless you work for min wage part-time (if you're unemployed you don't qualify, and if you make $1300-ish a year you don't qualify), which you can't live on anyway. And ACCESS has recently been cut for single adults, which I am. Even if you qualify, it's about 16 years of paperwork and wait time. I just went to the clinic for free today in Minneapolis. Took me 5 minutes to register.

    3. Who has lower crime? That's really all I need to say.

    4. Who has a better education system? Again, no more is needed.

    5. ...But related to education, I can go to the community college in Minneapolis for free, and I can't in AZ. Even if I was a resident.


    All of these things would be true when comparing almost any red and blue state. There are acceptions. But generally, if you live in a blue state you're better off.
    I do see a correlation. I have a similar story only opposite. I was born in the blue state of Maryland and moved to Tennessee. In Maryland the average household income was higher, but so were the taxes. The cost of living and real estate in Maryland was very expensive. The middle class tended to live in smaller homes (usually townhouses).

    In Tennessee people tend to make less money. However, taxes are lower and housing is more affordable. The middle class tend to live in larger houses than in Maryland and the cost of living is cheaper.

    I think that there are benefits to both red and blue states, but I don't necessarily think that blue states carry the red states.

    One thing I loved about Maryland and most blue states is the public transportation and the education. Maryland has an excellent public transit system and I really miss having one here in Nashville. It was also easier to go to college in Maryland and the government provided more support for post-high school education.

    Some benefits of red states (Tennessee) is that there are lower taxes. We have no income tax in my state (to compensate though we do have one of the highest sales tax rates in the country). Housing is more affordable. However, education is lacking and the state doesn't do much to help post-high school students. It wasn't until very recently that they provided some help to college students that was funded by a newly created state lottery.

    I think each state with their political affiliations has their benefits and negatives. But I don't think that one side carries the other. Personally though, I would prefer to live in a blue(ish) state.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  10. #30
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,189

    Re: Basic Shelter/Food/Medical Entitlements Neccessary in First World Governments?

    Quote Originally Posted by MistressNomad View Post
    It's not that simple. What I would have died from was a large cyst that required surgery. Pretty minor surgery, and actually not a big deal... if you have medical care. If I didn't, I would have been dead in a month.

    In other words, I never would have made it to adulthood without comprehensive medical care. And I'm a healthy person.

    The same is true of anyone who's ever have appendicitis, asthma, severe allergies, or even a cavity. All of these are common, and can result in death if left untreated.
    And if you go to the ER with one of these ailments, they will treat you and save your life whether you have insurance or not.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •