• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Are Entitlement Neccessary?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 51.5%
  • No

    Votes: 11 33.3%
  • Sometimes.

    Votes: 4 12.1%
  • Don't know.

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • Total voters
    33
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
117
Reaction score
38
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Before "the system" arrived that makes us First World, we could always chop down a few trees and make a house. We could plant some corn and potatoes and feed the chickens. Take a few things into town and trade. This easily implemented self-responsibility cannot be done today. We are at the mercy of a system and a dollar bill. If there is no job available, we cannot get this dollar bill. It's not like you can just ignore the system, go chop some trees down or start planting food again like we used to.

I say yes. Without entitlements, we are not exploiting our full potentiality as a nation.

Can we rely upon business to create all the jobs? I don't think so, because business interests are too narrow.

Is it up to the individual to create their own business? No. Nature created many more followers than leaders. Many people just weren't made to create business and need to be just brought aboard to do things.

This leaves the government with the responsibility to bridge the gap.

What if the jobs don't exist? Are the people without jobs entitled to housing, food and health care?

If you don't keep a person sheltered, fed and with basic health care, you cannot expect them to be prepared for work.

I think the government has a responsibility to shelter, feed and provide health care for it's citizens with one caveat, the person getting the entitlement except the work from the government if they do not find work on their own.

The work should not exceed the value of the entitlement relative to the market worth. If it shown the person does not cooperate (ruling out mental illness) a bit of structure that doesn't penalize the tax payer is in order: a barb wire, rubber bullet, work camp would be a short-term alternative until cooperation is met. Presently, the government does not do this, I'd like to see this done.

What do you think? Are basic entitlements necessary? if yes, what conditions would you apply to make those entitlement fair? If not, how can you justify allowing poverty and crime that will ensue?
 
I don't think in a civilized government that anyone should starve to death or die because a disease went untreated. I do think that citizens of our country are entitled to food and healthcare. It would be barbaric to deny people these things especially when we live in a prosperous country.
 
Governments shouldn't have to bridge the cap, everyone should. Sadly, the evil maximum has taken root in nearly everyone.
 
Nobody should starve or be without shelter or basic medical care as things stand right now.

In addition to all the government programs that already exist, there's tons of private charities. In my modest-sized town there are several homeless and emergency shelters and multiple soup kitches operated by local churches to serve those who fall through the cracks.


There are, however, too many people living off the government fraudulently or needlessly. I've known many of them; they claim to be disabled and aren't, claim to be unemployable because they keep getting fired for laziness. Some women who have six babies by the time they're 20, by four different men, living off the government teat, sitting on the couch smoking crack while their children run around unsupervised to raise themselves.

I would support making people work for their check. We have lots of crumbling infrastructure that we can't afford to rebuild; they could help build bridges and dams. If we got rid of illegal immigrant labor they could pick peaches and lettuce for farmers; we could bus them out to the countryside and back daily. Welfare fraud needs to be brought under control, and if you stay on welfare over 2 years then having your tubes tied after Baby #2 should be mandatory to keep recieving benefits.

Constitutionally, welfare should be the balliwick of the States, not the Fedgov.
 
Governments shouldn't have to bridge the cap, everyone should. Sadly, the evil maximum has taken root in nearly everyone.

These programs are run through taxes, yes? That's everyone.

Yes, I think people are entitled to food, medical, and shelter. I also think they're entitled to education. Without education, you can't function in our society.

And that's what this comes down to. The way our society is. We are a developed, competitive nation. In order to maintain this, we have to be interconnected, we have to be educated, and we have to be innovative.

These things are only possible if basic survival needs are taken care of.

In terms of food and shelter, I think everyone is entitled to it, but not to excess and abuse checks should be in place. Entitlements in these areas are for people who are down on their luck. People who work for a living should have a higher standard of living (one of the reasons why I think a stagnant minimum wage needs to be dealt with - surviving independently on minimum wage really isn't that feasible and more and more people are being forced into minimum wage by the economy and the rich/poor divide).

In cases of permanent disability, I think a bit more generosity is warranted. I also think a part of disability entitlement should be opportunities for "self-actualization." People feel better when they're productive and positive. Opportunities for charity, community building, interaction, etc, that are within the capability of the disabled person. This both encourages health, and makes them productive in society.

Health care is an absolute right in my eyes. Medical technology is such that expecting people to be able to afford the costs cold is unrealistic. The insurance market is such that the people who need it most can't get it. Everyone should have health care, period. It's part of your right to life. Back when we as a society weren't capable of treating most illnesses or accomodating the demand for health care, there was an excuse not to have it - society didn't have the resources. Now we do. And it is a moral obligation for that to become a right afforded to everyone.

I also think education is a right, and the idea of privatizing it that some conservatives espouse is corrosive to any developed nation. Only the well-off would go to school, and upwards trajectory becomes impossible if you have no education. The financial circumstances of ones birth are not their fault and they shouldn't be punished by enforcing basically a caste system on education - the single most important deciding factor in success.
 
Last edited:
In addition to all the government programs that already exist, there's tons of private charities.
I'd like to see the charities go away and let the government handle it. Charity is gift. And is it there because things are at the borderline of emergency, and we shouldn't let things get that far. It's shameful to see people in such a state and they feel the shame to.

I would support making people work for their check.
And, isn't this a better alternative to prosecuting them for fraud, which actually costs the tax payers more? It would catch all those getting away and get them doing something productive instead. Good for everyone. Perhaps being a hard ass isn't as good as just being smart about it.

I like your idea about farm work. Nothing like what the doctor orders for good health, exercise. Health benefits, sweat, and paying your dues. What a concept!
 
What do you think? Are basic entitlements necessary? if yes, what conditions would you apply to make those entitlement fair? If not, how can you justify allowing poverty and crime that will ensue?

Not really.
The basics are easily provided by the lions share of people, for themselves.

Housing, basic comfortable housing is affordable.
Now if you're talking about living like "the Jones", no it's not affordable.

Food, definitely affordable.
Water is the same.

There is a popular but mostly untrue myth that everyone needs comprehensive medical care, as a basic need.
That is blatantly false.
The biggest gains in medical care have come from vaccines, that have prevented the most deadly diseases.
 
Problem with making people work for their welfare check is that it would probably be called "slave labor" or some such (political nightmare, anyone?) - and we're not willing to use the other incentive, not feeding/housing/ect. people who refuse.

Our politicians are too scared of popular opinion to fix the things that are the biggest problems.

And too scared of not doing anything to do nothing.

So they throw bandages at the various wounds from a helicopter and hope one will stick....

And we elect them to do it.
 
Take a "first world" nation--take what belongs from those who have earned what they have on the basis that "everyone" has a "right" to shelter, food and medicine and PRESTO!...you will have a second world nation.
 
Take a "first world" nation--take what belongs from those who have earned what they have on the basis that "everyone" has a "right" to shelter, food and medicine and PRESTO!...you will have a second world nation.

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.
 
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.

Well it's really not far to compare those nations with us.
The U.S. is more of an aggregate of nations than a nation unto itself.
 
There is a popular but mostly untrue myth that everyone needs comprehensive medical care, as a basic need.
That is blatantly false.
The biggest gains in medical care have come from vaccines, that have prevented the most deadly diseases.

Not true. I'm 22, and my life has been saved by medical technology twice. I am not sickly - I'm a pretty healthy young person. My mother's life has been saved by medical care countless times due to her asthma. My dad is the healthiest 60-year-old I know, but even he has at least 4 or 5 cases where medical technology saved his life.

You are aware that a simple UTI left untreated is deadly, right? Did you know that over 80% of women get a UTI at some point in their lives?

A doctor's visit and urine analysis is required to get a UTI treated. Plenty of people can't afford that without insurance, especially not right now, and a UTI can spread and become life-threatening within a week.

The fact that most people, probably including you, have access to medical care has blinded them to the reality that without it, making it to 50 is pretty rare. Hell, making it out of childhood is pretty rare.
 
Last edited:
Well it's really not far to compare those nations with us.
The U.S. is more of an aggregate of nations than a nation unto itself.

Yup. And notice how the states with the fewest entitlement resources have the worst economies and the highest crime. I pay more federal tax dollars than I get back, because those taxes are going south of the Mason-Dixon to hold up the struggling states. This is true of pretty much all blue states, which tend to have more entitlements.

Happy to do it, though. Maybe they'll figure it out eventually if we hold them up long enough.
 
Housing, basic comfortable housing is affordable...Food, definitely affordable...
There is a popular but mostly untrue myth that everyone needs comprehensive medical care, as a basic need.

I would agree that things are affordable. But, what do with the lazy or fraudulent from taking advantage? Prevent or deter? Encourage work or threaten with prison? Or do nothing?
 
Not true. I'm 22, and my life has been saved by medical technology twice. I am not sickly - I'm a pretty healthy young person. My mother's life has been saved by medical care countless times due to her asthma. My dad is the healthiest 60-year-old I know, but even he has at least 4 or 5 cases where medical technology saved his life.

You are aware that a simple UTI left untreated is deadly, right? Did you know that over 80% of women get a UTI at some point in their lives?

A doctor's visit and urine analysis is required to get a UTI treated. Plenty of people can't afford that without insurance, especially not right now, and a UTI can spread and become life-threatening within a week.

The fact that most people, probably including you, have access to medical care has blinded them to the reality that without it, making it to 50 is pretty rare. Hell, making it out of childhood is pretty rare.

I forgot to include antibiotics. :doh

But largely the majority of low life expectancy, before our time resulted from childhood death from, malnutrition, dirty water and exposure to what is now vaccine cure based diseases.
 
Yup. And notice how the states with the fewest entitlement resources have the worst economies and the highest crime. I pay more federal tax dollars than I get back, because those taxes are going south of the Mason-Dixon to hold up the struggling states. This is true of pretty much all blue states, which tend to have more entitlements.

Happy to do it, though. Maybe they'll figure it out eventually if we hold them up long enough.

Again though, breaking down state by state can be fallacious.
If you go even further, and do by county, you may find that places with higher population density tend to be the biggest areas of welfare use.

Someone posted this a long while back, if I remember correctly.
 
I would agree that things are affordable. But, what do with the lazy or fraudulent from taking advantage? Prevent or deter? Encourage work or threaten with prison? Or do nothing?

If someone has no reasonable excuse to prevent them from securing those things for themselves (aka, disability, birth defect or something similar) deny them outright.

Welfare should be done based on faults of nature, not faults of willpower.
 
Take a "first world" nation--take what belongs from those who have earned what they have on the basis that "everyone" has a "right" to shelter, food and medicine and PRESTO!...you will have a second world nation.

But my premise is not to take. It to offer a trade with fellow citizens, not some stranger across the planet. Work in exchange.

There is an alternative to an exchange, one we are already doing: Giving it or not giving it: which has two results, Democrat handing it over to the needy (Relatively peaceful, except for the rich who feels it unfair), or a criminal knocking you brains out at the bank machine to get it, then paying for a prison sentence.
 
I forgot to include antibiotics. :doh

But largely the majority of low life expectancy, before our time resulted from childhood death from, malnutrition, dirty water and exposure to what is now vaccine cure based diseases.

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.
 
Again though, breaking down state by state can be fallacious.
If you go even further, and do by county, you may find that places with higher population density tend to be the biggest areas of welfare use.

Someone posted this a long while back, if I remember correctly.

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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Back
Top Bottom