why do people expect the government to provide for them, from health insurance, food stamps, housing to etc.?

Question

thats not there job a government is ment to do what a person or state can not complete by thereself

providing for a person is not there job, if it was there job you would see almost every country doing so and that doesnt happen.

like pregnant woman that get on wic , medicare, etc when a child is born, they knew they were pregnant so they should have planned period, they need to take care the needs of there children thereselves and not depend on the government, what would they have done if they were born before these programs existed. they got thereselves pregnant why should the government pay out because of that.

i think no one but disabled people should have the government provide for them with everybody else there is always an excuse, you can' afford something, lazy, etc. get your butt up and get a job or get a better one its not the government job you messed up your life and they therefor should not take the burrden

Also before anyone say anything about other countries that have government health care do you know that they tax the crap out of you for it so anyone that thinks the government should provide for would you accept them taking
10-20% more in taxes yes or no

Im studying government and take several government classes and that provide for things such as health, housing and stuff like food stamps and wic is not part of what a government is supposed to do.

A government is supposed to do what one person can not do on there on and thats it

also providing crap for citizens only came about in the 20th century what happen before than nothing so why is it expected now

Im talking about people who are not classified as disabled, mental ill, or anything in that such manner. im talking about people who are fully capable or working

i know someone who said there were getting stuff from the government from the time the child was born to the time the child turned 18 and other people get pregnant again and again, and also teen pregnancies that should be there damn parents problem not the government

for people talking about retiring and then getting government assistants, in some countries people dont retire they countinue with work just not as much as they use to

should or shouldnt people be responsible for their own welfare yes or no

also governments that do provide these services dont have as many people as the us does the us is the third largest country by population do you see india or china doing anything like that no because it would cost to much give every the same thing.

and that is also something that is done in communist countries everybody getting the same thing

Answer 1

Personally, I am sick of the government rewarding people's bad decisions and irresponsibilty with my hard-earned tax dollars. Welfare should be eliminated entirely, with the exception of veterans and people who are born with disabilities (Down's syndrome, etc) There are jobs all over the place. Pick-up any newspaper. There are pages and pages of them. And, you've got dopes like Arnold Schwarzenegger who want to give free health care to people who aren't even American citizens. We need to kick his socialist butt out of office ASAP. Also, FYI---the income tax rate for the average worker in Canda is about 55%. I'd rather decide how I spend my money than have the government decide for me.

Answer 2

Let's get one thing clear. Americans pay too much for health care and most of it is no better than what you get in other industrialized countries.

I have lived in both the UK and the USA. I have used healthcare services all my life. In the UK, services are just as good as the USA. It's just that treatment is based on need, not on how good your insurance plan is.

Now consider cost. The British worker on average wages pays one third less in taxes for healthcare than the average American worker pays in taxes and insurance premiums. No scholarly study has even attempted to quantify the effects of co-pays and co-insurance. In the UK the only healthcare costs incurred at point of use are prescription charges that four-fifths of people getting prescriptions don't even pay. You see, in the UK everyone over 60 gets free medication at point of use. Free. For nothing. At no cost. Gratis. There is no need to choose between paying the gas bill (in the hope that having heat will stop you from getting sick) and buying medicine (which you need even more because you couldn't afford the gas bill).

Meanwhile, in the USA, people retire then start paying big bucks out of a fixed income for healthcare or accept second-rate treatment through Medicare. I can never retire in the USA. I will always need a job that gives health benefits, just so that I can afford the medicine that will keep me alive.

The USA is in a great position. The world has had state-controlled healthcare for almost sixty years. We can devise a plan that takes the best bits and leaves out the worst bits. Lets take the initiative now to reduce costs and build a healthcare system that will be the envy of the world.

Answer 3

I supose if you accept capitalism as the way to exploit the resources (land, mineral wealth, labor) of our nation because it is most efficient in producing the "goodies of society", then you need politics to determine how to distribute these goodies.

Left to themselves, capitalists will exploit people and other natural resources to extinction and pass the "goodies" to the few on top.

If not for the labor unions, there would be 72 hr work weeks with no overtime, no retirement, no insurance. Once they kill the labor unions, the USA will revert back to these "good old days" because the capitalists will not fear its employees turning to the unions.

If management, say, values Volvo at $1 billion, then turns around and pays $4 billion for it, why is it that the laborers who actually build the cars get laid off when the company loses money and has to tighten its belt?

Who provides for these powerless people when they do the best job they can, play by the rules and end up out of work because of the decision of some 20 million dollar a year CEO?

And who is seeking to end the right of women to end an unwanted or unafordable pregnancy?

What does society owe to the members of society. Sure there are those who take advantage of the paltry handouts we offer. But there still remains the few vultures who manipulate the government so they can suck hundreds of millions annually from the government.

Focus on the rich and powerful who cause the misery and not on the weak and powerless who merely suffer so the elite can maintain their own positions above the rest of society.

Answer 4

I don't agree with Obama's terminology. I do agree with (some) o fhis health care plan since we do need reform and it's certainly better than the GOP plan to simply force Americans to buy health insurance (whic h jsut boils down to another giveaway to their business buddies.) But here's a reality check: Our--or any --nation MUST provide nearly universal access to basic necessities (food, shelter, health care). It doesn't have to be a "nanny state"--we have virtually universal access to food, and it's almost entirely (95% or more) in the private sector. But if a nation does not have institutions that make those basic necessities available what you get is simple: sooner or late r the people will throw out those in power and put in someone who WILL make those things available. Look at your history. That's how it works. It has nothing to do with ideology. If a nation effectivelys provides those things privately, fine (and much better, in my opinion). IF it doesn't i then the system will be changed so it does. To put it in "micro terms:" wen a child is sick--the parents DO NOT CARE who or how medical care is provided. Only that it is. Either the system makes that happen, one way or another--or those parents, and millions more like tem, will see to it that the system is changed until it DOES provide that care. Ideology won't change tat. Rhetoric won't change that. Smart remarks about "nanny states" won't change that. Only results. It does no matter if health care is a "right" Either provide it or make it accessible. Or take the consequences.

Answer 5

Did you know that in countries like Canada and the UK, with higher taxes and universal health care, people have longer average life expectancies?

I guess where you grew up the government also didn't provide decent schooling. If they had, you might know how to use capital letters, how to spell, and you might also be able to compose a sentence.

You might also have learned that the government is actually every one of us, every citizen, so when the government provides a service, it is us providing it, and when the government doesn't provide a service, it is us not providing it.

It is fact that the US spends more per capita on health care than Canada or the UK, and still leaves 40 million Americans not covered by any plan. It is true that it is personal choice in some cases, but families that have had a serious illness end up being uninsurable at any affordable cost.

Answer 6

You answered your own question:

"thats not there job a government is ment to do what a person or state can not complete by thereself"

The vast majority of people who benefit from those programs are disabled or have other issues which prevent them from getting what they need themselves.

In addition, you are promoting only ONE of MANY views of what governemnt is supposed to do.

Maybe if people asked for more from their government, people like you would learn how to spell in school....

Very few who are able to work are part of these programs. That is a gross exageration perpetuated by the ignorant.

Answer 7

Anyone can apply for wic; rich or poor! The responsiblity of the government is to make sure we do not fall in a mode of poverty. However that's not working! But the government has to make sure we stay healthy and to provide certain means to do that. If a person is sick and can spread the sickness to others would it be right for the government to turn their back or try to make something work to help control of unwanted sickness?

Answer 8

It's not the Democrats OR the Republicans. Government assistance is supposed to be TEMPORARY,NOT multi-generational. Housing,food stamps, WIC(Women,Infants,and Children) Child Day Care should be limited between six to twelve months. NO MORE! If you haven't got your cr@p together by then,then out you go into the street.

Answer 9

I hope you never have a hard time..sounds as if you never did.
When people are down on there luck. It should be the GOV, responsiblity to help. That person is a contributing factor, to America. What did he pay his taxes for.
I do understand your point, of preparing yourself, by making sure you have wha you need to take care of your child, if you plan on having one. That shouldn't be the GOV responsibility.
But people fall on hard times. Helping someone out with food ,housing,funds.Help keep the crime down just a bit. Think of all the poor people that would be robbing and stealing...just to eat. There is a reason for the help.

Answer 10

Congratulations! You think in a mature, responsible manner. I really don't know the answer because I don't believe that way. I suppose people THINK that it's easier to let the government take care of you from cradle to grave. What they don't understand is that if they do that, they have no real freedom. They are totally dependent on them for everything. Of course the left LOVES this, if people are dependent on the hand outs, more votes for them.