Obama Health care plan.

[mrstickball]

Lord Flashheart said:

TheRealMafoo said:

Kasz216 said:

That and healthcare is mostly reactive and not preventative in most cases.

While stuff like culture, stress and how you take care of your body are preventitive measures.

I know we'll disagree here... but I do think that the government should find a way to provide food for any citizen who wants very basic government food.  Provide actually food mind you, not things like foodstamps... because of the lessons food banks tell us.

If we replaced national foodstamps with a national foodbanks system where you send food we could probably serve 4-5 times as many people for the same amount of money.

That and it's much harder to abuse.  You can't really sell the government food that anybody could get for free if they wanted.

If government didn't provide any food to people (with food, or food stamps), people in this country would not starve to death.

For a few reasons. One, is if you try, you can feed yourself for almost nothing. And two, charity would make sure no one in this country would starve.

So you are replacing the government looking after you with a charity.

Yes. Whats so wrong with that? In America, our charities are fantastic things. When many disasters strike, where your government (and mines too) cannot react, charities are there quicker and better. For exmaple, in the US, when we had hurricane Katrina, my church organization had feet on the ground working with local cities on reconstruction efforts before they even mobilized the National Guard.

Why are you willing to have one hold your hand but not another? Your government could be far more effective than a charity. It has more resources. By your thinking charity is simply another tax.

Wrong. Wrong. And Wrong. Have you ever worked with a charity? Charities are far more efficent than governments. Governments must pay workers to provide government 'charitable' services. All services, products, and benefits are paid for by the government - which can be very expensive. With charities, material and human capital are donated much of the time, which allows for far more resources to be provided for the same amount of monies. Do you even understand what a tax is?!? A tax is mandatory. Charity is voluntary. They could not be any different.

Your government doesn't provide homes to those on low income, single parents, abuse victims? Here we have the housing association to help people. Does you gevernment actually do anything to help its people because it's sounding to me like it doesn't. It also sounds like you don't want them to.

Yes, the government has some housing. But your suggesting that all healthcare (or a vast majority) is controlled and distributed by the government. Why not do the same thing with housing? With food? I mean, if we're supposed to assume the government needs to control 80% of healthcare to ensure its 'good' and 'given as a right to everyone', then why can't the same be said for housing, food, and employment? 

I hope you never get made redundant, lose your money in a recession, get cancer, have your home repossessed and live on the street.

Ah, see, here is the thing:

I've lived in poverty. My family has been in poverty, or below poverty status ever since I was born. I've never had health care, never used welfare, never had any government assistance. Just because I haven't had those services doesn't mean that you can't make do. In my case, I own two homes - an apartment complex and a house. Both generate enough money to ensure that I could not be repossessed on. I know what poverty does, so I've made an attempt to ensure that I have work. Your under the faulty assumption that when something bad happens, that you are forced to suckle at the government teat. That is never the case. By the way, how old are you? How much can you save a month for an emergency fund? What kind of skills are you learning to ensure that your labor will always be in demand? Those are things that are far more critical in the fight against poverty and living in the gutter, than government support. In the US, our poverty rate hasn't changed since we institued welfare...That makes me wonder how viable it has been in eradicating what it set out to do.

You will have zero to very little help unless there is a charity to look after you which you wouldn't accept anyway.

Given that I've worked for charities for the past decade, I would say that I know where I could turn to. Furthermore, your assuming that I don't have family or friends that wouldn't be willing to help. I myself gave out $10,000 to needy people last year that were either family or friends. I had a friend that had an apartment fire and was homeless due to it. Within 1 day, he had shelter, food, clothing, bedding, and everything provided to ensure he could live a stable life for himself and his young daughter. 0% was government assistance. The rest was either charity, or church family. So there are things out there that can help. America is a bit different than the UK - our actual people give a rats behind about the poor, and are willing to help. The US spends 3 times as much on charity as you do in the UK, which is absolutely pitiful. Maybe that is why you don't understand what charity is - you don't have it in your country, as your government took it over.

I also hope you give to as many charities as possible. One day you might need them.

Yes, I give a decent amount of my income to charities. Since I've experienced the power of charities - working for a food bank that spent just $500 to equal the government's distribution center which spent $100,000's for the same quality and types of food, I know that giving to charities - both materially and physically - is a fantastic thing. In fact tonight, I am helping out at a church that has a clothing center and homeless shelter. I'll remember to give them extra money tonight because of this conversation