to liberals and democrats.... if healthcare is a basic human right, what about eating food, should gov.....?

Question

buy everyone food or have universal food plans where everyone can eat? no because we're supposed to be responsible enough to take care of ourselves.

of course i'm talking about adults, but if parents can't take care of kids they maybe they don't need to have kids.

what about a car, isn't a way to get to work, a basic human right?.. what about a yearly vacation, shouldn't that be a basic human right too? what about a job that pays 15.00/hour? why can't flipping burgers be worth 15 dollars an hour?? it must be really weird living in a dream world of the liberals.

i live right at the poverty level myself, i'm not rich. but i don't think government getting involved is going to help anything, it'll just make things worse. i also believe in responsibility. and don't lump support of nation-building into all conservatives, i don't believe in nation-building whether its under bill clinton, george bush 1or 2, or the next president.

hey nicki, i'm sitting here at my computer looking out at my backyard with the garden right now, although everything has died because of the drought.

i agree completely with CB, but i'm talking about able bodied adults that can work and pay for things and be responsible.

Answer 1

Umm...I hate to break it to you...but food stamps are the easiest social program to qualify for. We 'give' food to over 17 million people every day through this program, and it's just one of many. Single mothers qualify for additional assistance.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/faqs.htm#24



The reason that we do this...America is based on Christian values. If you've known someone truly poor, you would understand. If you haven't...well, if you've never hung out with a poor person, then you don't really know your country very well. It's easy to get distracted by all the materialism. But...try taking a drive through a bad part of town and handing a homeless person a hot meal. You will see true gratitude.

Answer 2

Although the majority of Americans are responsible enough to take care of themselves, that situation can turn around in a day. You can lose everything you have even though you were on top of the world a month ago.

People who are so against giving a helping hand seem to think that these people are on social programs their whole lives when in reality, though the statistics stay about the same, they are not the same people year after year who are receiving help. I guess that is difficult for some to understand until the need arises to get help for their children or elderly parents. Then it becomes clear what its all about.

I am not particularly excited about universal health care and hope that other measures are taken to straighten out our health care system. Even the republicans admit something needs to be done about it.

Answer 3

We should definitely allow 40 million people die of hunger or health problems because they were not lucky enough to be born rich. I just will like to suggest that if you think they enjoy a great life by living for "free" you should join them. This great life you say they enjoy from the taxes of others should be experienced at first hand to be able to understand why they continue "choosing" that life style. Try it.

I guess after all isn't a conservative value to see people die.


Nobody says National Health Care is perfect because is not , is better. The US spends more than any country in the world right now in our health system and we area ranked 37 in the WHO world's best.The top in the list are France which is National Health Care and Italy which is also National Health Care. Canada, UK, Australia and others also above the US.
They most be doing something right and better than what we are doing.
Canada still spends less than what we spend per capita for health care. They spend $2,669 and the US spends $5,711 and we have 40 million with no coverage. What we have right now is obviously not free either, everything is publicly funded and what we have now you do not call it socialist system.
By the way those who say the private sector would do better should check the stats of privately owned business who go bankrupt a year but if they run health care like they ran Enron then we know how good they are.

Answer 4

I'm a Dem and I'll weigh in. I absolutely feel it is necessary for us to have a plan that enables everyone to eat. We are a country that gives away unmeasurable tons of food to other countries so their starving can eat... should we not give enough food to our own needy that they can survive? We give billions upon billions of dollars and equipment and supplies to other countries so they have the basics of healthcare. Jesus said (as well as other religious teacher... even Mohamed if you can believe it) that it is necessary to 'feed the poor' to 'take care of the widows and the fatherless boys'. This means when someone is unable to provide for themselves, it is our moral spiritual duty to help them. Especially since we sit in a land of plenty. Now if a person just wants to sit around and do nothing, when they are mentally and physically sound, that is another matter. I totally believe that if a person is capable, in order to get public assistance, they must either be attending school or doing some kind of work in return. But the mentally and physically handicapped, the kids and the oldsters? Absolutely they must be cared for. Jesus said so.

Answer 5

Former President Jimmy Carter, as soon as US Naval Officer, now grew to become huge time Socialist, did an interview with huge time Commie Amy Goodman. Carter mentioned that Shelter used to be a *Human* Right, whilst additionally pointing out that the liberty of faith used to be a *political* correct. To me, that is weird, and towards the very foundation of our executive expressed in our Constitution. Freedom of faith is a elementary Human Right. Shelter is a Human want, which the federal government, as a way to advertise the ordinary welfare, (and obtain votes for Dems) has incorrectly categorized a Human Right. Good to look you again, Thor Girl.

Answer 6

Liberals would believe that a food plan would be a good idea. In fact they do have these plans already. Ever hear of no cost or low cost school lunch programs? I suppose it would be better if we just let kids starve because of political views...Nice, real nice.

OK, then let's talk about food stamp programs for adults...these programs are supported by democrats and republicans. This is because those in government understand that people get laid off and go through hard times. Just because someone is down on their luck does not mean they are lazy or irresponsible. And it certainly does not mean they should starve to death! Even if a few people take advantage of the system and are able to get free food when they should not, it's better than letting responsible people who are truly in need starve.

You really need to sit back and think about this more carefully.

Answer 7

I think everyone should be able to obtain food by doing some kind of compensatory work to get it. The govt. could have them clean up or send out mail or something to pay for it.Unfortunately,programs like food stamps are abused.I see people at the market that are much better off than I am and they have food stamps.They should be willing to do something for the food if they REALLY need it.
Many people who claim to need food are obese. Look around you.

Answer 8

We can grow our food but we can't grow new bodies and illness it just strikes by itself. I know growing gardens is below your standard, that's why all of you walk around looking so gaunt and old and shriveled up, just a mass of wrinkles. You know Barbara Bush is a good example all that money and all those wrinkles come from poor eating habits, Cheeseburgers,Hot Dogs,and Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches.We Democrats like Vegetables keeps you looking good and healthy

Answer 9

If the cost of a loaf of bread were $10.00 you would be one of the first people complaining about it. The government very much involves itself in the food industry to ensure that the costs do not exceed the means of most Americans, but they do not involved themselves in the healthcare industry in the same way.

The cost of an appendectomy in 1935 was about $12.00; the cost is now upward of $3000.00 but the procedure remains basically the same. No basic need of the American people has risen so sharply in price as healthcare, not housing, not food, not clothing, not gasoline, not heating oil, thanks to government involvement. If the government would involve themselves in healthcare the same way they do in everything else there would be no need for a universal health plan.

Answer 10

Such is the compassion of the right to life hypocrites! They would force people to be born into a world in which they would starve those people if they do not conform to their way of living.