• 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
TurtleDude said:
we need to keep at least one nation somewhat free of euro socialist idiocy
Click to expand...

If not, some other country will have to replace us as dead last, in the industrialized world, in terms of healthcare, literacy, poverty, etc. The horror.
 
I'd like to point out that these types of programs are ONLY POSSIBLE in industrialized nations.
 
NGNM85 said:
If not, some other country will have to replace us as dead last, in the industrialized world, in terms of healthcare, literacy, poverty, etc. The horror.
Click to expand...

When the standard is euro socialist stupidity, it's a good thing to be last.
 
Cephus said:
When the standard is euro socialist stupidity, it's a good thing to be last.
Click to expand...

First of all, being that I am a Socialist, the very word 'Socialism' isn't like a psychological panic button, or a red flag that sends me into paroxysms of irrational rage and terror, as it does in some people. Second, none of the European countries, at present, can honestly be described as 'Socialist.' Third, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going to take the radical stance and say I'm actually in favor of lowering illiteracy, poverty, making healthcare more accessible, etc.
 
NGNM85 said:
First of all, being that I am a Socialist, the very word 'Socialism' isn't like a psychological panic button, or a red flag that sends me into paroxysms of irrational rage and terror, as it does in some people. Second, none of the European countries, at present, can honestly be described as 'Socialist.' Third, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going to take the radical stance and say I'm actually in favor of lowering illiteracy, poverty, making healthcare more accessible, etc.
Click to expand...

If you lower literacy any more how are the people going to know where the doctors are?

How do you lower poverty?
 
Why would anybody vote that entitlements are always neccessary?

Sometimes they are and sometimes people can fend for themselves.
 
Mason66 said:
If you lower literacy any more how are the people going to know where the doctors are?
Click to expand...

ILLiteracy.

Mason66 said:
How do you lower poverty?
Click to expand...

There are a number of ways we could do that. Ultimately, I think the means of production should be publicly owned, etc., however, even very small, basic changes could make an enormous difference. You can also tackle two birds with one stone. One very simple, modest initiative would be to adopt single-payer healthcare, and let the government negotiate on drug prices, like they do in many other countries. This would make medical care substantially more accessible, more efficient, and lower costs, allowing more Americans to get the treatment they need. It also happens to be what the majority of Americans have wanted, for many years, or, as John Kerry put it; 'Not politically possible.', which is a testament to the state of democracy in this country. This would have a substantial effect on the economy, as the high costs of medical care is one of the leading causes of debt and bankruptcy. It would also probably improve productivity as Americans would get the treatment they need, and get it sooner, so they can get back to work.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that it's really cool getting money from the Govt. It really is. But it's not the Govt's job to provide health care. It's easy to side with those who want to provide these things because it looks like you're a caring person, and us republicans like bad people.

But there are those with bad intentions. They want to lull us into a false sense of security. To grow the Govt. To have the power over our lives.

The best thing for us is to have smaller Govt. I don't want go live under a repressive regime.
 
Mason66 said:
Why would anybody vote that entitlements are always neccessary?

Sometimes they are and sometimes people can fend for themselves.
Click to expand...

I think the question was whether they are necessary to have available in a first-world society. Not that every individual needs some sort of entitlement.
 
I do feel that entitlements are necessary and think that that the only poor folks in this country should be those that wish to be homeless and there are some out here that due to their mental health are very happy living up in the streets.

There is no damn good reason to where ANYBODY living in the U.S.A. legally should have to suffer without food, shelter and a J-O-B. And how the hell can we expect folks to find jobs when they sending em all away? Do not blame the victims. Blame the Powers That Be that are holding folks down all the while making mad money per year.

lf we/U.S.A can send money to all these countries to help their peeps? Why can't we do it here at home. We could feed, clothe and assure a job for all people if we would just get our stuff straight:(
 
RamFel said:
I think that it's really cool getting money from the Govt. It really is. But it's not the Govt's job to provide health care. It's easy to side with those who want to provide these things because it looks like you're a caring person, and us republicans like bad people.

But there are those with bad intentions. They want to lull us into a false sense of security. To grow the Govt. To have the power over our lives.

The best thing for us is to have smaller Govt. I don't want go live under a repressive regime.
Click to expand...

The problem is that 16% of America is uninsured. Not all of them qualify for something like MediCaid. And some of them aren't lucky enough to live in places where other resources are available.

I am. In Minneapolis, we have independent programs that provide free health options. It's good to know I can go to the clinic for free if I really need to, since I am having a lapse in insurance for the next couple months.

But Minnesota has a pretty decent economy, compared to a lot of places in the US right now. Not everywhere does. Not everywhere can afford it.

I'm not more deserving of health care than someone living somewhere less well-off. I'm just lucky.

You seem to be under the false impression that in order to have public health, we would need to get rid of private. Most countries with public health care still have private insurance. And here's what's cool.

The reality of having to compete with public health care drives the prices of private health care down to a fraction of the cost, and with all the same benefits and more. It also means private insurance companies break coverage down into more customizable chunks, so you don't have to buy anything other than what you need.

Let's say you buy insurance for a particular kind of specialist coverage, because you have a disease requiring specialist attention. It may expidite the referral process, allow you more doctors to choose from, and possibly reduce wait times (though wait times are often exaggerated by those against public health care). And the rest of your health coverage needs can be covered by the public sector, since you don't require specialist attention.

Even if you opt to go entirely private, the cost would be much less than what you pay now. Even if you include the taxes you pay for the public system.

This is the sort of flexibility and cost effectiveness I've seen in Europe and New Zealand, which I spent a combined 3.5 years living in.

I had to go to an English A&E once (like our ER). This was in London, which is obviously a huge city. Going to the ER in any huge American city means waiting for 4-6 hours and even if you have insurance, paying a co-pay. If you don't, you're looking at a bare minimum of $350, going all the way to tens of thousands of dollars.

I was in-and-out in under an hour. And I didn't pay a dime. And still the UK pays proportionally way less for their healthcare than we do for ours.

Having a public option doesn't take away your options. It actually increases them, but introducing heavy competition. Nothing is more competitive than "free." And it is possible to run public health efficiently and cost-effectively.
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
I think the question was whether they are necessary to have available in a first-world society. Not that every individual needs some sort of entitlement.
Click to expand...

I saw first hand day in and day out that assistance is necessary. The word entitlement sounds dirty and its use of late is meant to sound that way. I saw people up front and personal that needed our assistance and could not survive without it.
Theres alot of americans as intelligent and educated as they are have a level of naivette about what life really is way below them.
In their defense, its something you have to see with your own eyes, you cant read about it or have someone explain it to you to realize, that public assistance is necessary for some people.
Having said that, I believe theres too many grubbers and phonies suckin on the govts teat that not only dont deserve it but dont need it.
The teaparty and the far right and the young callous rich kids need to come to the realization that there are millions of americans that really really CANNOT afford to buy the basics and pay for thier own healthcare and save for retirement, because its not going to change and one way or the other they will pay for it.
 
The Baron said:
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.
Click to expand...

We are the U.S.A and can do these things to where we do not have to take anything from anyone. The first step would to be create a law to where any and all food establishments (and places that serve any kind of food be it canned, boxed, fresh, etc) have a right to feed the hungry due to the waste they have to toss out cannot be sued by the people they are helping. Set up check places where any and all food are free for the taking as long as you sign off on a waver that says you are taking this food to eat and blah, blah, blah (legal jargon) and this would also create jobs for these places as they would have to set up and hire people to hand out this food, make people sign off, etc. The same thing could be done in reguards to clothing and other goods that get tossed. We waste so much of this stuff when it could be going for the better good of/for the people.

BTW, I do mean stuff that is NOT expired, fresh and just has to be tossed cause they are ending a day. I am not saying to feed anybody the crap. I am talking about perfectly good food, clothing, etc, that gets tossed due to having to be tossed over BS sue saftey rules.
 
Last edited:
NGNM85 said:
ILL
One very simple, modest initiative would be to adopt single-payer healthcare, and let the government negotiate on drug prices, like they do in many other countries. This would make medical care substantially more accessible, more efficient, and lower costs, allowing more Americans to get the treatment they need. It also happens to be what the majority of Americans have wanted, for many years, or, as John Kerry put it; 'Not politically possible.', which is a testament to the state of democracy in this country. This would have a substantial effect on the economy, as the high costs of medical care is one of the leading causes of debt and bankruptcy. It would also probably improve productivity as Americans would get the treatment they need, and get it sooner, so they can get back to work.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see a full public audit, from top to bottom of pharmaceutical companies. How much money is spent on research, how much profit they make, advertisements, what kinds of research they are doing, the entire money flow process. The justification is for reasons like you mentioned. But I would like to also include that fake research has been published to encourage the buying of pharmaceuticals and most importantly, many of our lives are in their hands. It's not just another company, it's a life or death issue for some and I think they should not have the same privacy protections as other capitalistic enterprises due the power over peoples lives they have. If the profits cannot be justified based upon what is discovered in a public audit, we should put a ceiling on their profits, even confiscate patents where profit abuse occurs, effectively making the price of medicine more affordable.
 
Entitlement handouts are -always- optional.
They are a luxury that some will argue can be afforded by wealthy societies, and are mandated by certain moral values.
"Necessary"? No.
 
This is an interesting thread.

I have a friend who is a slaveowner. He is a nice enough guy but he says he just cannot live without his slaves. He needs their labor to make his life bearable. I know this because I am one of his slaves. I work two days most weeks for his benefit. Some weeks I have to work three days for his benefit. He tells me I should be very happy that I am allowed to keep any of the wealth I create.

His needs are unlimited. He needs food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and education. He does not need a job. That is what I am for. I work. He benefits. To his credit he truthfully tells me that anyone can become a slaveholder like him and lead a life with plenty of time to get very, very good at World of Warcraft. While I am working as his slave, he plays. Fortunately he seldom gloats about it. He tells me all that I need to do is stop working. There are still plenty of slaves out there so anyone who wants to can live a life of leisure.

I noted that the very idea that businesses create jobs was lightly dismissed in the first few posts. This is the crux of our problems. Many of you are Marxists, socialists, or some other "ist". More and more I realize that the labels don't work. Ronald Reagan used the term "statist." I am beginning to like the term statist. I will explain statism in some later post.

Here are some things I believe:

o Nations do not become great nor prosperous due to government spending
o The federal government is spending nearly twice as much as it takes from taxpayers
o About one-half of the people in the US do not pay federal income taxes
o Governments do not create wealth. Government consume wealth
o Government jobs do not create wealth. Government jobs consume wealth
o The United States Constitution is not a Marxist document
- There are no provisions to take wealth from one individual to give it to another
- "From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs", is not found in the US Constitution.

No one is entitled to any good or service. Ever. To believe so has always led to tyranny.

My daughter has a socialist friend. She believes I should pay for her education because she wants one and I am "rich". "From each according to his abilities..." And she wants an education. "To each according to his needs."

Many of you believe I should pay for your health care. It is nonsense. You do not have the right to make me your slave, even if you really, really want something.

One of you said that some European nations have no debt. This is false. The very best case is Luxembourg which has a debt to GDP ratio of about 18%. Most are so bad they describe it as a debt crisis.

That is enough for now. Thanks for reading.
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
No one is entitled to any good or service. Ever. To believe so has always led to tyranny.
Click to expand...

So people should just be left to die if no one is willing to pick up the tab if said person cannot afford whatever it is?

Collectively, the united states has the money to provide basic life goods to everyone willing to work. Collectively, the united states has the money to ensure everyone is employed. The only reason we don't have full employment of everyone who wants to work is mainly due to greed.
 
Last edited:
xpiher said:
So people should just be left to die if no one is willing to pick up the tab if said person cannot afford whatever it is?
Click to expand...
Is that what you believe will happen if the government does not take from me to give to you? Is it far more likely that the enormous numbers of charities would help out?

xpiher said:
Collectively, the united states has the money to provide basic life goods to everyone willing to work.
Click to expand...
Where, in your opinion, does the two trillion dollars come from? And why do you, and the Congress believe it is okay to spend nearly an additional dollar for every dollar it takes from the productive part of society? Earlier today I listened to a brief audio clip from some Obama supporters. They were elated that Obama was going to give them stuff. They had no idea where the money comes from. Nor did they care to know.

Do you believe individuals have any responsibility to care for themselves? Or are you much like my friend, a slave owner?

xpiher said:
Collectively, the united states has the money to ensure everyone is employed.
Click to expand...
Aha. So in addition to everything else being handed to you a government job is also an entitlement? Are you familiar with businesses? Do you know how they are created? Are you aware of why they exist?

xpiher said:
The only reason we don't have full employment of everyone who wants to work is mainly due to greed.
Click to expand...
This is something we can agree upon. Government greed, the desire to control everything, to regulate the very life out of our economy is the primary reason why we don't have full employment. A few, very simple measures would greatly increase job availability. Cut all tax rates in half. Make sure everyone pays them. Eliminate nearly all of the federal departments (education, EPA for example) and their stultifying regulations. Then get out of the way.
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
Is that what you believe will happen if the government does not take from me to give to you? Is it far more likely that the enormous numbers of charities would help out?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think charities will spring up to take the place of government because many charities are struggling even with government assistance. I do not believe that humans are inherently altruistic, I believe humans are inherently selfish.

Where, in your opinion, does the two trillion dollars come from? And why do you, and the Congress believe it is okay to spend nearly an additional dollar for every dollar it takes from the productive part of society? Earlier today I listened to a brief audio clip from some Obama supporters. They were elated that Obama was going to give them stuff. They had no idea where the money comes from. Nor did they care to know.
Click to expand...

You seemed to misunderstand the point I was making. Collectively, meaning the entire amount of money that exist in the united states, could pay for everyone to work and live decently. The reason that doesn't happen is largely due to income gap. The government's involvement or lack there of is not the driving factor.

Do you believe individuals have any responsibility to care for themselves?
Click to expand...

Completely misunderstood the point.

Aha. So in addition to everything else being handed to you a government job is also an entitlement? Are you familiar with businesses? Do you know how they are created? Are you aware of why they exist?
Click to expand...

Completely misunderstood the point


This is something we can agree upon. Government greed, the desire to control everything, to regulate the very life out of our economy is the primary reason why we don't have full employment. A few, very simple measures would greatly increase job availability. Cut all tax rates in half. Make sure everyone pays them. Eliminate nearly all of the federal departments (education, EPA for example) and their stultifying regulations. Then get out of the way.
Click to expand...

Completely misunderstood the point. You also don't know what you are talking about. Very few regulations actually contribute to "job loss". Furthermore, the EPA is necessary because environmental damage just doesn't affect two consenting parties, it affects everyone. Cutting taxes will not spur job growth either, 20 years of tax cuts did nothing to the job market.

Job are created by supply and demand. Demand is affected by the income gap.
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
I think the question was whether they are necessary to have available in a first-world society. Not that every individual needs some sort of entitlement.
Click to expand...

So n that case yes and sometimes are really the same answer.
 
xpiher said:
So people should just be left to die if no one is willing to pick up the tab if said person cannot afford whatever it is?
Click to expand...
Your right to life does not give you legtimate claim to the fruit of my labor.
 
“We are the U.S.A and can do these things to where we do not have to take anything from anyone.” - Kali

Which explains why we’ve borrowed so much from China.

“The first step would to be create a law to where any and all food establishments (and places that serve any kind of food be it canned, boxed, fresh, etc) have a right to feed the hungry due to the waste they have to toss out cannot be sued by the people they are helping.” - Kali

So you want to dictate that McDonalds, Kroger, etc. must feed the hungry?

“Set up check places where any and all food are free for the taking as long as you sign off on a waver that says you are taking this food to eat and blah, blah, blah (legal jargon) and this would also create jobs for these places as they would have to set up and hire people to hand out this food, make people sign off, etc. The same thing could be done in reguards to clothing and other goods that get tossed. We waste so much of this stuff when it could be going for the better good of/for the people.” - Kali

So who is going to pay for the food, clothing and “other goods”? Who is going to pay the salary of all the people it is going to take to perform these tasks? Even if you are just talking about “waste” there is still an expense associated with providing these goods to the people who need them.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Your right to life does not give you legtimate claim to the fruit of my labor.
Click to expand...

So you are an objectivist? I think people should be more charitable, I don't think they should be forced to be charitable, but I don't think leaving someone to die because people are selfish is right either
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom