What do you think are the minimal entitlements Americans should receive?

[Infohawk]

The inspiration for this thread is a thread in which certain posters suggest that air conditioning is a basic entitlement. I am sure there are conservative posters who think people not be entitled to anything.

Assuming no catastrophies or severe economic upheavals, I think people should get:
* access to potable unheated water
* 1800-2200 calories worth of food a day
* shelter (think cabins or fancy tents, not real houses or apartments) (no air conditioning!)
* education (reading, writing, math, government but not sports or computers in the classroom or college)
* free criminal defense legal representation
* vaccinations, antibiotics, surgery for broken bones, psychiatric medicine (no transplants, no chronic-illness medicine, no diabetes treatment)
* birth control
And most important of all
* adequate police protection so that you don't have to worry about other poor people attacking you

What about you? Unlimited health care? Free family counseling? How far do you take it?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
The inspiration for this thread is a thread in which certain posters suggest that air conditioning is a basic entitlement. I am sure there are conservative posters who think people not be entitled to anything.

Assuming no catastrophies or severe economic upheavals, I think people should get:
* access to potable unheated water
* 1800-2200 calories worth of food a day
* shelter (think cabins or fancy tents, not real houses or apartments) (no air conditioning!)
* education (reading, writing, math, government but not sports or computers in the classroom or college)
* free criminal defense legal representation
* vaccinations, antibiotics, surgery for broken bones, psychiatric medicine (no transplants, no chronic-illness medicine, no diabetes treatment)
* birth control
And most important of all
* adequate police protection so that you don't have to worry about other poor people attacking you

What about you? Unlimited health care? Free family counseling? How far do you take it?

Incorrect.

 

[xj0hnx]

People should have acces to whatever they work for. Since when is something being nescessary to live make it something that the government should just give you? IMO the governments role shouldn't be to provide, but to make sure that other people that do provide can, that way I can get a job, and work, and be able to get the things I need to survive by producing something that other people need/want to survive.

 

[sandorski]

Whatever can be provided to Society as a whole that dramatically improves Efficiency, should be considered Infrastructure. Or as you incorrectly title it, "Entitlement". Includes HealthCare, will eventually include ChildCare, and all sorts of other such things we can't even conceive of at this time. It is inevitable and Society and the Economy will benefit every time they achieve that status.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Infohawk

What about you? Unlimited health care? Free family counseling? How far do you take it?

Incorrect.

Your credibility suffers when you answer a question with "incorrect."

Whatever can be provided to Society as a whole that dramatically improves Efficiency, should be considered Infrastructure

And who decides what is dramatically efficient? And how?

 

[theeedude]

You still whining that farm workers have AC when they come home?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Infohawk

What about you? Unlimited health care? Free family counseling? How far do you take it?

Incorrect.

Your credibility suffers when you answer a question with "incorrect."

Whatever can be provided to Society as a whole that dramatically improves Efficiency, should be considered Infrastructure

And who decides what is dramatically efficient? And how?

"incorrect" was the correct response. You misrepresented the position taken in the other Thread. Thus undermining your own credibility.

Who decides? Time mostly, but also Demand, simple Logic, and Cost/Benefit comparisons. If something Proves to offer Society a great Benefit and that Benefit isn't being fully realized, then that thing may very well become Infrastructure. It will also be determined based on what Competitors are doing. If they make something Infrastructure and it gives them a Competitive Advantage, it is only a matter of time before Others also must follow that lead. That's the situation the US finds itself with right now regarding HealthCare. It simply can not continue to have an ever increasingly inefficient thing eating away at its' efficiency from the inside.

 

[Kadarin]

If you are not a taxpayer or someone who is claimed as a dependent of a legitimate taxpayer, and you make enough income to qualify for the minimum tax level, then why do you think you deserve entitlements from the US government? If you are in the country illegally, why do you think you deserve entitlements?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I hate that word...

Americans are entitled to nothing except the freedom to pursue success without government oppression so long as that success conforms to the rules of society. (You're not allowed to be a successful murderer/drug dealer/rapist)

That said, it is not in our collective best interest to just let people fail completely. It does not serve our best interest to just step over the bodies of those who have (insert phrase here: fallen on hard times... had a bad run of luck... had shit happen to them... whatever) and let them wallow in the gutters.

So the real question is, where do you draw the line when it comes to helping people out? My dad left my mom after 10 years of marriage. She was a house-wife. She was got married at 18 so when he left she had no real work experience. She got dumped with two kids, a mortgage, no job and, at best, sporatic child support. What good would it have done to have her and her kids wind up homeless? She got support... food stamps... housing assistance... free lunches for us at school...

But she also worked her ass off to get off the snide. Two years later she was supporting two kids and paying a mortgage. She was off welfare. A little bit of support from the government... and over the years, the taxes she paid more than paid back whatever she took out. Ideally, my mom is the epitomy of how this system should work.

But I want to make it clear... she wasn't entitled to any of that. It was handed to her. Nobody owed her any of it. And it's nice that the help was there and as a 37 year old man who has always taken care of himself with no help from the government, I can say that I'm grateful the help was there for her/us when it was needed. But to say that she was entitled to any of it is bullshit.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I hate that word...

Americans are entitled to nothing except the freedom to pursue success without government oppression so long as that success conforms to the rules of society. (You're not allowed to be a successful murderer/drug dealer/rapist)

That said, it is not in our collective best interest to just let people fail completely. It does not serve our best interest to just step over the bodies of those who have (insert phrase here: fallen on hard times... had a bad run of luck... had shit happen to them... whatever) and let them wallow in the gutters.

So the real question is, where do you draw the line when it comes to helping people out? My dad left my mom after 10 years of marriage. She was a house-wife. She was got married at 18 so when he left she had no real work experience. She got dumped with two kids, a mortgage, no job and, at best, sporatic child support. What good would it have done to have her and her kids wind up homeless? She got support... food stamps... housing assistance... free lunches for us at school...

But she also worked her ass off to get off the snide. Two years later she was supporting two kids and paying a mortgage. She was off welfare. A little bit of support from the government... and over the years, the taxes she paid more than paid back whatever she took out. Ideally, my mom is the epitomy of how this system should work.

But I want to make it clear... she wasn't entitled to any of that. It was handed to her. Nobody owed her any of it. And it's nice that the help was there and as a 37 year old man who has always taken care of himself with no help from the government, I can say that I'm grateful the help was there for her/us when it was needed. But to say that she was entitled to any of it is bullshit.

I agree in large part. I believe that it's society's job to make sure that everyone is at least cared for. Let's be honest, the government has no business being in the business of insurance, just like it doesn't have any business providing people with retirement checks. The government's business is to govern and regulate, not provide everyone with a minimal standard of living.

While I do believe that, I also feel bad for situations like the quoted above, when someone really is doing all they can do, but finds herself in a situation where she needs help. I think that at that point, society needs to step in, and someone needs to ensure that she and her kids are cared for. Unfortunately, that's a little naive to think that will always happen, so there does need to be some sort of middle ground.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Enough to survive, not enough to thrive without bettering yourself. As I am a bit heartless I would make it part of welfare that if you have an additional child then you are immediately negligent and all children are taken from you.

 

[PokerGuy]

In my mind there's a clear distinction you have to make between people who are either temporarily or permanently unable to fend for themselves and those who choose not to. Everyone in the first category should be entitled to all the basics: food, shelter, safety, legal representation, education etc etc.

People in the second category are "entitled" to nothing and should get nothing.

themusgrat' is a good example of someone in the first category, someone who is temporarily unable to provide, but then works to get out of the situation. I think children are also always in the first category since they can't really provide for themselves yet.

 

[brandonb]

I believe people should be entitled to nothing, at first. If they provide nothing to society, they get nothing from society.

I believe entitlements should be rewarded for time served.

For example:

If you work for 5 years out of your life, you (in gaming term) "unlock" the ability to receieve unemployment.

If you work for 10 years out of your life, you "unlock" medical assistance (partial coverage to medical care/dental care)

If you work for 15 years, you "unlock" social security. (For when you retire you get some assistance)

If you work for 20 years, you "unlock" health care. (Full coverage)

Maybe if you are in the military, you unlock things at a quicker rate.

A sliding scale based on what people have put into the system. None of this you get it all for nothing crap we do here in the USA.

*Exceptions* would be for people who are disabled etc. I believe charity should help there and if examined by a doctor, they can get government assistance. But there has to be physical evidence, none of this "I get social security disability assistance because my back hurts" crap with no proof or evidence.

 

[jpeyton]

Who would've guessed Infohawk is a welfare queen.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: brandonb
I believe people should be entitled to nothing, at first. If they provide nothing to society, they get nothing from society.

I believe entitlements should be rewarded for time served.

For example:

If you work for 5 years out of your life, you (in gaming term) "unlock" the ability to receieve unemployment.

If you work for 10 years out of your life, you "unlock" medical assistance (partial coverage to medical care/dental care)

If you work for 15 years, you "unlock" social security. (For when you retire you get some assistance)

If you work for 20 years, you "unlock" health care. (Full coverage)

Maybe if you are in the military, you unlock things at a quicker rate.

A sliding scale based on what people have put into the system. None of this you get it all for nothing crap we do here in the USA.

*Exceptions* would be for people who are disabled etc. I believe charity should help there and if examined by a doctor, they can get government assistance. But there has to be physical evidence, none of this "I get social security disability assistance because my back hurts" crap with no proof or evidence.

Very interesting concept. Is there anyone currently using or advocating this type of system?

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: brandonb
I believe people should be entitled to nothing, at first. If they provide nothing to society, they get nothing from society.

I believe entitlements should be rewarded for time served.

For example:

If you work for 5 years out of your life, you (in gaming term) "unlock" the ability to receieve unemployment.

If you work for 10 years out of your life, you "unlock" medical assistance (partial coverage to medical care/dental care)

If you work for 15 years, you "unlock" social security. (For when you retire you get some assistance)

If you work for 20 years, you "unlock" health care. (Full coverage)

Maybe if you are in the military, you unlock things at a quicker rate.

A sliding scale based on what people have put into the system. None of this you get it all for nothing crap we do here in the USA.

*Exceptions* would be for people who are disabled etc. I believe charity should help there and if examined by a doctor, they can get government assistance. But there has to be physical evidence, none of this "I get social security disability assistance because my back hurts" crap with no proof or evidence.

Very interesting concept. Is there anyone currently using or advocating this type of system?

Uhh... so if you're a stay-at-home mom, is that considered "work"? I think it's harder work than most jobs I've ever had, but it's not technically "paid employment".

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Who would've guessed Infohawk is a welfare queen.

Infohawk really seems to have changed. I remember him/her being much more liberal, but it's still early, so most of my memories are fuzzy!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: brandonb
I believe people should be entitled to nothing, at first. If they provide nothing to society, they get nothing from society.

I believe entitlements should be rewarded for time served.

For example:

If you work for 5 years out of your life, you (in gaming term) "unlock" the ability to receieve unemployment.

If you work for 10 years out of your life, you "unlock" medical assistance (partial coverage to medical care/dental care)

If you work for 15 years, you "unlock" social security. (For when you retire you get some assistance)

If you work for 20 years, you "unlock" health care. (Full coverage)

Maybe if you are in the military, you unlock things at a quicker rate.

A sliding scale based on what people have put into the system. None of this you get it all for nothing crap we do here in the USA.

*Exceptions* would be for people who are disabled etc. I believe charity should help there and if examined by a doctor, they can get government assistance. But there has to be physical evidence, none of this "I get social security disability assistance because my back hurts" crap with no proof or evidence.

Very interesting concept. Is there anyone currently using or advocating this type of system?

Uhh... so if you're a stay-at-home mom, is that considered "work"? I think it's harder work than most jobs I've ever had, but it's not technically "paid employment".

I don't necessarily agree with details of his example (as I would like to see 'basic' coverage given to all human beings from cradle to grave). However, I do like the idea that individuals contributions to society are rewarded over time. The concept is interesting.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I hate that word...

Americans are entitled to nothing except the freedom to pursue success without government oppression so long as that success conforms to the rules of society. (You're not allowed to be a successful murderer/drug dealer/rapist)

That said, it is not in our collective best interest to just let people fail completely. It does not serve our best interest to just step over the bodies of those who have (insert phrase here: fallen on hard times... had a bad run of luck... had shit happen to them... whatever) and let them wallow in the gutters.

So the real question is, where do you draw the line when it comes to helping people out? My dad left my mom after 10 years of marriage. She was a house-wife. She was got married at 18 so when he left she had no real work experience. She got dumped with two kids, a mortgage, no job and, at best, sporatic child support. What good would it have done to have her and her kids wind up homeless? She got support... food stamps... housing assistance... free lunches for us at school...

But she also worked her ass off to get off the snide. Two years later she was supporting two kids and paying a mortgage. She was off welfare. A little bit of support from the government... and over the years, the taxes she paid more than paid back whatever she took out. Ideally, my mom is the epitomy of how this system should work.

But I want to make it clear... she wasn't entitled to any of that. It was handed to her. Nobody owed her any of it. And it's nice that the help was there and as a 37 year old man who has always taken care of himself with no help from the government, I can say that I'm grateful the help was there for her/us when it was needed. But to say that she was entitled to any of it is bullshit.

I agree. And this is a fine example of why we need to be much harsher on deadbeat parents. A recurrent failure to pay child support should be a criminal offense.

 

[SP33Demon]

I think our elderly should be entitled to good care, everyone gets old.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

*Protection from Global Labor Arbitrage and Population Explosion.

That's the one "entitlement" that Americans really need. If the government would just offer that then it would be easier for Americans to support and to take care of themselves and we wouldn't need so much government welfare and the government would have more revenue with which to provide other services and less of a demand (from illegals) for those services (health care, education, etc.).

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
(no chronic-illness medicine, no diabetes treatment)

So in your world how does one survive and function to treat their chronic illness?

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I hate that word...

Americans are entitled to nothing except the freedom to pursue success without government oppression so long as that success conforms to the rules of society. (You're not allowed to be a successful murderer/drug dealer/rapist)

That said, it is not in our collective best interest to just let people fail completely. It does not serve our best interest to just step over the bodies of those who have (insert phrase here: fallen on hard times... had a bad run of luck... had shit happen to them... whatever) and let them wallow in the gutters.

So the real question is, where do you draw the line when it comes to helping people out? My dad left my mom after 10 years of marriage. She was a house-wife. She was got married at 18 so when he left she had no real work experience. She got dumped with two kids, a mortgage, no job and, at best, sporatic child support. What good would it have done to have her and her kids wind up homeless? She got support... food stamps... housing assistance... free lunches for us at school...

But she also worked her ass off to get off the snide. Two years later she was supporting two kids and paying a mortgage. She was off welfare. A little bit of support from the government... and over the years, the taxes she paid more than paid back whatever she took out. Ideally, my mom is the epitomy of how this system should work.

But I want to make it clear... she wasn't entitled to any of that. It was handed to her. Nobody owed her any of it. And it's nice that the help was there and as a 37 year old man who has always taken care of himself with no help from the government, I can say that I'm grateful the help was there for her/us when it was needed. But to say that she was entitled to any of it is bullshit.

I agree in large part. I believe that it's society's job to make sure that everyone is at least cared for. Let's be honest, the government has no business being in the business of insurance, just like it doesn't have any business providing people with retirement checks. The government's business is to govern and regulate, not provide everyone with a minimal standard of living.

While I do believe that, I also feel bad for situations like the quoted above, when someone really is doing all they can do, but finds herself in a situation where she needs help. I think that at that point, society needs to step in, and someone needs to ensure that she and her kids are cared for. Unfortunately, that's a little naive to think that will always happen, so there does need to be some sort of middle ground.

According to the constitution:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

How one reads the phrase 'promote the general welfare' is a matter of interpretation not fact. Or even a matter of one's personal outlook and political beliefs. There are those who feel that an improvement in the lives of the population helps society and the country. Providing basic coverage, the ability to eat and access to basic health care, for example, for all is one way to promote general welfare. The Govt can be in the business of providing retirement and health care benefits.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: senseamp
You still whining that farm workers have AC when they come home?

:thumbsup::laugh:

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
The inspiration for this thread is a thread in which certain posters suggest that air conditioning is a basic entitlement. I am sure there are conservative posters who think people not be entitled to anything.

Assuming no catastrophies or severe economic upheavals, I think people should get:
* access to potable unheated water
* 1800-2200 calories worth of food a day
* shelter (think cabins or fancy tents, not real houses or apartments) (no air conditioning!)
* education (reading, writing, math, government but not sports or computers in the classroom or college)
* free criminal defense legal representation
* vaccinations, antibiotics, surgery for broken bones, psychiatric medicine (no transplants, no chronic-illness medicine, no diabetes treatment)
* birth control
And most important of all
* adequate police protection so that you don't have to worry about other poor people attacking you

What about you? Unlimited health care? Free family counseling? How far do you take it?

How about we lock you in a car on a hot day to see if your attitude changes? You sound like a boob who has never done without and does not know the hardship it entailes.

edit;"no diabetes treatment" you gonna let hemophiliacs bleed to death too?? Boob!