This is the problem in a nutshell. You want to live in a communist society, where everyone has exactly the same wealth, and all property is divided equally, that is (according to your philosophy) the only fair way to be civilized. The problem is, human nature doesn't agree with your philosophy. If men no longer have the ability to gain more wealth or achieve greater things for themselves and their families, they become unmotivated, which results in a lack of production, which results in social decline across the board. Society ends up in despair, with a sense of hopelessness, and your civilization eventually crumbles or falls to a tyrant dictatorship.
Guess what. Wrong again.
Why do you think we have public school systems? Regardless of what one thinks of them they do teach children to read and write at a minimum level. Can you imagine a child coming from some isolated location and not knowing what a street signal light means? Or learning about other society norms?
Why do we interfere in child abuse? Why do we offer children a foster home if their parents are animals? Why do we have SS and other support for poor people? What is to stop a poor, starving person from shooting people in order to eat?
Why wouldn't a person dying due to being denied medical treatment take a chance and rob a bank? What do they have to lose?
That's why poor countries have high crime rates. People are trying to survive. It has nothing to do with being equal.
It is through the spirit of freedom and liberty, capitalism and free markets, that men prosper and the result is a rising tide lifting all boats.
That's exactly what should happen. It should life all boats except it doesn't lift the the boat in which there are people without proper food and shelter.
The health care situation in America is not as terrible as the left wants to believe, most of America is content with what we have now, and simply feel that a few changes need to be made. You, and your socialist friends, want to take this opportunity to destroy the best health care system the world has ever known, and replace it with something far inferior. By your own admissions here, people will have a lower quality of care and less available care, but you don't give a damn about that, as long as we all have the same pathetic 3rd-world socialist care!
I agree there are better ways but some people won't agree with them. When one applies for a loan it takes only a few minutes to determine if they can repay it. The same can be applied to medical care. Give the care and if it's determined one can not afford it they don't pay or they pay a portion. This isn't rocket science.
However, again, due to greed and selfishness, there are people who are adamantly opposed to such an idea. That's why everyone receives an old age pension even if they don't need it. They paid into it and they want it, whether or not they need it. Universal care addresses that. Everyone insists on having access even if they can afford a doctor a hundred times over.
As for the quality of care if you look at the cost per capita of countries with universal care you'll see they spend less than 1/2 of what the US spends. Imagine it they increased their budgets by 100%. Double the doctors. Double the hospitals. Double of everything.
The care is proportional to the money allocated to it. Simply allocate more. They can if that's what the population wants.
Perhaps a short (or not so short) story will bring greater clarity. Many years ago, when I was in my early 20s, I was collecting unemployment insurance. During one visit to the UI office I noticed the government was offering free courses for those on welfare. The courses were of short duration. Everything from typing to basic office work to introduction to mechanics to welding to carpentry, etc.
I asked my counselor if I could take a course. I forget what it was but it had to do with building maintenance as that was what I was trained in (HVAC). He said people on UI were not allowed to take courses so I asked why.
He told me people would take courses instead of looking for work. I countered that people on UI had to fill out a sheet every two weeks listing what jobs they applied for (company name and address) and get a paper stamped every time they showed up at the UI office to check the job board. It was easy to check if people were searching and if they did get a job they'd simply drop out of the course. In the meantime they would be either learning a new skill or keeping their knowledge fresh. Furthermore, it would impress prospective employers knowing the candidate had the initiative and motivation to improve themselves.
Know what he told me? He said of course it made sense for unemployed people to be learning a new skill instead of sitting at home or partying with friends and many here agree with that but the problem is employers contribute to the UI fund and they do not want to pay for someone to go to school. The employers would kick up a fuss and bitch about how their contributions were being used.
So you see how life works. It perpetuates the idea that no one is going to help anyone. Rather than being motivated for the right reasons people are motivated by selfishness and legitimate worry knowing help is never graciously offered.
The little bit asked of others does not stifle motivation. No government program is going to result in someone driving an $80,000 car or living in a million dollar home. Government aid just doesn't pay that much.
With that said what individual could possibly be jealous of someone receiving proper medical care unless they couldn't afford it themselves? Do we live in a society where an-others illness is motivation for some people? Is that the type of society we want to encourage?
Wanting access to proper medical care has nothing to do with being greedy. Wanting minimum standards of food and shelter has nothing to do with being greedy. What would cause a person to think differently?
If you can't make the connection between requiring homeless shelters and being homeless and between food closets and not having enough food to eat you need help, Dixie. 