empireofreason
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2011
- Messages
- 117
- Reaction score
- 38
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Governments shouldn't have to bridge the cap, everyone should. Sadly, the evil maximum has taken root in nearly everyone.
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.In addition to all the government programs that already exist, there's tons of private charities.
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 would support making people work for their check.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Welfare should be done based on faults of nature, not faults of willpower.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?