Should ALL essential needs be provided by our government?

Question

I just answered a question that asked:

"Other than corporate greed, is there a reason we don't have universal health care coverage?"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AifFbxw8KCuWab8U2SpLDPbsy6IX?qid=20070816220429AARLZj9&show=7#profile-info-YFlGfj6daa

Basically implying that because of corporate greed, people don't have health care. So, applying this principle on a more basic level... because I understand he is just asking for what would be considered a basic need for people in this country, not big screens or anything like that... just take care of the people.... should the government force grocery stores, restaurants, clothing stores, housing developers, electric companies and heating oil companies to give their products and service to the people at no charge? I consider these to be more essential to people than health care. Gosh, all I want is the basics for all people.

avail_skills can you please point out in the US Constitution where it gaurantees a citizen clothing, food, shelter and health care. I must have missed that the last ime I read it.

I'll give you a link so you can find that for me....

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

"No one is saying that health care should be free. Just that the government should pay for it." Did I miss something about Universal Health care? Isn't the idea behind it that everyone just gets it, regardless of their station in life? Also, I wonder where the government gets its money for these programs from..... hmmm....

Answer 1

Um.....in a word.....NO
to break it down for you "Government" doesn't pay for anything, They take money from people like me to give to other people who are too sorry to do for themselves. Ask yourself this scenario!
We are walking down the street and come upon a homeless man. What action are to be taken?
1. Keep on walking, He made the decisions in his life that put him there.
2. I dip into my pocket and give him a couple of bucks, you do the same.
3. I pull a gun out of my pocket and force you to give him a couple of bucks.
4. Armed agents of the government come onto the street, forcefully take money from EVERYBODY present, and then turn it over to the man that couldn't manage his life in a profitable fashion in the first place?
Now ask yourself this.......If response 3 is a crime......why isn't response 4....isn't the same thing happening?
Everybody looks to government for answers, Nobody can seem to grasp the fact that they are the problem.

Answer 2

If the private sector could provide affordable HEALTH INSURANCE for all americans, it would have done so by now. The simple fact is...it can't, because if it did it couldn't make any money....and the point of the health insurance business isn't to provide health insurance, but rather to make a profit for its shareholders. Insurance is a service..it can't be compared to groceries or any purely physical product so the attempted comparison is bogus to start with. Even within the service sector HEALTH INSURANCE stands alone. There are several reason for this that are too complicated to list here. Corporate greed is a bit off the wall for a reason that 45 million americans are exclude from affordable HEALTH INSURANCE, but it's obvious that it isn't in the nature of the beast to provide this modern need to everyone...and since this particular service is a need and the private sector can't provide it then it is a legitimate function of government to factor the cost into the public budget. All other arguments, such as 'clothing' or 'restaurants' would have to be argued on their particular merits and I doubt if anyone could make that case for public ownership or would want to.

Answer 3

The problem is, there is simply no way we are going to pay for universal health care. Look at the mess the social security program is in. That program will drain massive fiscal resources from this country for the next 50 years. The simple fact is that there is no way that we can put the cost of universal health care in the federal budget and not break the bank. Another major consequence of universal health care is that people who are upper middle class will substitute decent health care insurance for commodity care that will be substantially worse than what they currently have. The very rich will simply fore go the benefits of the new socialist Utopia's health care program and purchase private insurance. Once again, it will be the working class that gets pissed on.

Therefore, I think that all the socialist dreamers who want this program should get it implemented with the provision that people like me who have been working all their lives can opt out of it. Let the stupid socialists who want it put in place pay for it. I'll keep my private insurance and pay the deductible out of pocket.

As an aside, I've been eligible for government provided health care since I retired from the military in 1991. I'm so enamored by it that I've never been to a military or veterans hospital since I retired, choosing to pay for my own health care insurance.

Answer 4

Why shouldn't the government provide all essential needs for AMERICANS instead of catering to ILLEGALS for a change? Don't people who have no right to be here get enough courtesy of the taxpayer? Let's see, free education, free medical care, free food stamps and when they have a child here, free WIC benefits, free section 8 housing! I am tired of our government letting in illegals and giving benefits to those that break the law to get here! The government should be giving Americans a break once in a while! The way I see it, if the government can do it for law breakers it can do it for law abiding, tax paying Americans too! There are too many Americans that have to take a back seat because these benefits are being taken by people who are not even legal!

Answer 5

AZA>If you look at what the founding fathers did, provide security and law enforcement, then you would see how silly your argument is. I dont recall them advocating free taxpayer hospitals though. Read more books about society. You CAN have a civilized society where people buy and take care of their own medical needs and in fact that is the way we live. You CANNOT however have a lawless society. They dont tend to function. Law and order is what makes everything else possible and THAT is the chief concern of govt, to enforce the law.

Answer 6

We do provide basic needs for people. But it is not in the form of forcing "grocery stores, restaurants, clothing stores, housing developers, electric companies and heating oil companies to give their products and service to the people at no charge."

We do, however, have welfare, food stamps, heating assistance plans, and housing projects. In general, most people wouldn't want to live in a society where the desperately poor are allowed to starve to death, or where the children of the homeless have to survive as street urchins.

To the best of my knowledge, no one is advocating "giving ...products and services away." They are advocating providing services on a need to have basis, as we already do with police, fire and emergency health services.

Answer 7

No. The Government should not be providing any essential needs outside of the general welfare, i.e. the safety of the people to pursue their goals in life. With Socialistic Programs comes Socialistic control over our lives. We will need permission to do more and more of the basic things we do. It is government interference which is driving up costs. It is nearly impossible for a doctor to provide healthcare cheaply because of Mal-Practice Insurance costs, regulations, etc.

Here's the main argument:
I know what is better for my life than the government.

I do not want to live in a nanny state. The Constitution was written to prevent such an occurence, but we have allowed it to happen and now have people calling for the nanny-state. People seem to want somoen else to solve their problems. They need to wake up and be responsible for themselves.

Answer 8

We don't have a centralized health care system because we are a capitalistic society, not socialist or communist. What you are implying is communism at it's source. Socialists have their benefits, but no motivation, and capitalists are freedom of business. I do believe that many corporations don't want to continually have to pay more and more for health care plans for their employees because they keep raising the prices. I believe that we do need to overhaul the system and create a semi socialist system with free market principles.

Answer 9

There's no such thing as a "free" social program. Somebody (taxes!!!) is always going to pay for it.

I might actually be in favor of more social programs were it not for the fact that the government always screws things up whenever they get involved in domestic issues.

I think instead of the government paying for everything, they need to give tax breaks and incentives to private industry for providing social support services.

Answer 10

It really depends on what you consider "essential needs".
If they are essential enough to impair a person's chance of being able to live the promise provided by the US Constitution, then yes.
If they are only essential to a comfortable life, then no.
Acces to health care is not one that is only essential to a comfortable life.

And no one is saying that it should be free, or provided by the government, just better access should be.
With the amount we pay in emergency room visits for our present screwed up health care plan for welfare recipients, we can afford to cover more people if the incentive is there for medical providers to accept the coverage as payment, and deter welfare recipients from using the emergency room for every hangnail.

If the government wasn't regulating the electric companies to provide better access to electricity for everyone, you would have to be upper-middle class to be able to afford it. We witnessed this in Illinois when the utility companies talked the government into deregulation. one month my electrcity bill jumped $30 bucks about 15% for most people, the next month it jumped another $20 about 12-15% for most people, and it was predicted by the utility companies to jump another 70% within the next 6 months. This was not because of increase in energy usage. Luckily the state government decided to drop the regulations back down on them.