Right to Food?

[Accountable]

I don't know why this never occurred to me before.

We've all seen the commercials in the US. The poor woman having to choose between food for her kids or paying the bills. The old people forced to choose between life-saving medication or the next meal. The conclusion is always the same: we need universal healthcare. People have a right to be healthy.

Isn't food more basic than healthcare? Shouldn't the conclusion be that people have a right to food?

Do you believe humans should have a right to free food, or at least government-provided food? Shouldn't we be able to demand nutrition as a right even more basic than healthcare? Each of us has a right to walk into any emergency room and demand basic medical service without paying. Shouldn't we have a similar right to walk into any restaurant or grocery store and demand free food?

 

[Springsteen]

Well, if we walked into a restaurant and got free food, i mean we as in everyone,. then the owner would never make any money. Consequently he/she would have no money to feed their family. Plus the restaurant would have to close down for lack of business. It's a vicious circle really.

If you want free food, go to a homeless shelter.

 

[Peter Parka]

Everyone is entitled to food, that's what the money you get in benifits if you're unemployed is for. And having a national health system isn't free, you still pay for it with your taxes.

 

[AUDRAA]

Isnt free food what food stamps are? we have a welfare system in place and there are also food pantries for people that dont qualify for them, Id say that pretty much covers it wouldnt you?

 

[Accountable]

But you have to prove you qualify BEFORE you get the food, don't you? Not so with medical care. The emergency room has to see you first, at least for an initial assessment, before you pay a dime - or even have to prove you have a dime.

As for the restauranteur going out of business, that doesn't seem to concern people much when it comes to the expenses hospitals are saddled with from indigents and illegal aliens.

 

[Dana]

I don't know why this never occurred to me before.

We've all seen the commercials in the US. The poor woman having to choose between food for her kids or paying the bills. The old people forced to choose between life-saving medication or the next meal. The conclusion is always the same: we need universal healthcare. People have a right to be healthy.

Isn't food more basic than healthcare? Shouldn't the conclusion be that people have a right to food?

Do you believe humans should have a right to free food, or at least government-provided food? Shouldn't we be able to demand nutrition as a right even more basic than healthcare? Each of us has a right to walk into any emergency room and demand basic medical service without paying. Shouldn't we have a similar right to walk into any restaurant or grocery store and demand free food?

I guess it's called a Soup Kitchen.

 

[Tim]

We also have free access to police protection, fire protection and free access to public roads... so? Are those rights as well?

And if you cannot provide food for yourself or your family, there are sources you can tap into that are already in place. WIC - Women infant & children, soup kitchens, your local church, neighbors, food stamps, etc. But food is VERY different from health care. You can go to your neighbor or local church for a meal, but I doubt they have an MRI and the capability to diagnose cancer. :dunno And you can feed MANY families for the $1,000 plus a month that health care costs.

So are you suggesting that basic health care is not a right in this country? If you are poor or old, too bad?

 

[Dana]

We also have free access to police protection, fire protection and free access to public roads... so? Are those rights as well?

And if you cannot provide food for yourself or your family, there are sources you can tap into that are already in place. WIC - Women infant & children, soup kitchens, your local church, neighbors, food stamps, etc. But food is VERY different from health care. You can go to your neighbor or local church for a meal, but I doubt they have an MRI and the capability to diagnose cancer. :dunno And you can feed MANY families for the $1,000 plus a month that health care costs.

So are you suggesting that basic health care is not a right in this country? If you are poor or old, too bad?

exactly.

 

[Alien Allen]

I must have missed it in the Constitution where health care was considered on of those inalienable rights?

Tim why is food any less important. Without food you do not have to worry about health care

 

[Accountable]

I guess it's called a Soup Kitchen.

Soup ktchens are run by charities, right? So the receiver is recieving a gift from someone privileged who is willing to give a little extra. We don't have a right to charity.

We also have free access to police protection, fire protection and free access to public roads... so? Are those rights as well?

And if you cannot provide food for yourself or your family, there are sources you can tap into that are already in place. WIC - Women infant & children, soup kitchens, your local church, neighbors, food stamps, etc. But food is VERY different from health care. You can go to your neighbor or local church for a meal, but I doubt they have an MRI and the capability to diagnose cancer. :dunno And you can feed MANY families for the $1,000 plus a month that health care costs.

So are you suggesting that basic health care is not a right in this country? If you are poor or old, too bad?

That's my point. Nobody says you can have healthcare if you cannot provide it for yourself. Why is food different?

I must have missed it in the Constitution where health care was considered on of those inalienable rights?

Tim why is food any less important. Without food you do not have to worry about health care

bingo to both points.

 

[Tim]

I must have missed it in the Constitution where health care was considered on of those inalienable rights?

Tim why is food any less important. Without food you do not have to worry about health care

First and foremost, your rights are not laid out in the constitution, they are in the Declaration of Independence.

Second,
The constitution does not provide for police or fireman, yet we have them, every one of us have that protection.
The argument that if it's not in the constitution then it isn't a right is an inaccurate one. You know damn well that the constitution is nothing more than a framework for which our society is built.
Maybe you can read the preamble for a clue

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.

So what exactly does it mean to promote the general welfare?

Now back to the Declaration of Independence... What's the very first right given? Life.
So if you go to the hospital needing emergency care will they turn you away? Of course not... which leads me to my next point.

It's people like you and the conservative right that really confuse the hell out of me. You are so against giving any sort of national health care on the principle that you don't want to pay for someone else. Yet you do pay for them everyday. In fact you pay for the health care for these people VERY inefficiently. Effectively paying a much higher price for your own coverage. If any of you had any business sense at all, you would see that enormous amounts of money could be saved by directly taking care of people who do not have health insurance instead of paying their way after the fact. Even the AMA is a strong proponent of this approach. Yet you are willing to pay huge amounts of money to cover those without insurance inefficiently because you cling to a false ideology that makes no sense.

I just don't get it....

 

[syzygy011]

Isn't food more basic than healthcare? Shouldn't the conclusion be that people have a right to food?

Isn't that called food stamps?

Err, anyway, I do agree with you, although I don't agree that the government should buy food for the people, mainly because the way they're spending now, it's most likely be fillet mignon versus something simple like bread and cheese. (Grilled cheese FTW.)

I digress; I do agree we should have some sort of program to give food to those in need, although I don't think it should be given for free, for example, making the jobless do an hour of work or so then be given a meal... or something. You understand what I'm saying anyway, right?

 

[Accountable]

First and foremost, your rights are not laid out in the constitution, they are in the Declaration of Independence.

Second,
The constitution does not provide for police or fireman, yet we have them, every one of us have that protection.
The argument that if it's not in the constitution then it isn't a right is an inaccurate one. You know damn well that the constitution is nothing more than a framework for which our society is built.
Maybe you can read the preamble for a clue

So what exactly does it mean to promote the general welfare?

Now back to the Declaration of Independence... What's the very first right given? Life.
So if you go to the hospital needing emergency care will they turn you away? Of course not... which leads me to my next point.

It's people like you and the conservative right that really confuse the hell out of me. You are so against giving any sort of national health care on the principle that you don't want to pay for someone else. Yet you do pay for them everyday. In fact you pay for the health care for these people VERY inefficiently. Effectively paying a much higher price for your own coverage. If any of you had any business sense at all, you would see that enormous amounts of money could be saved by directly taking care of people who do not have health insurance instead of paying their way after the fact. Even the AMA is a strong proponent of this approach. Yet you are willing to pay huge amounts of money to cover those without insurance inefficiently because you cling to a false ideology that makes no sense.

I just don't get it....

Don't get off point; we're talking about food here, notrelatively frivolous stuff.

 

[Accountable]

Isn't that called food stamps?

Err, anyway, I do agree with you, although I don't agree that the government should buy food for the people, mainly because the way they're spending now, it's most likely be fillet mignon versus something simple like bread and cheese. (Grilled cheese FTW.)

I digress; I do agree we should have some sort of program to give food to those in need, although I don't think it should be given for free, for example, making the jobless do an hour of work or so then be given a meal... or something. You understand what I'm saying anyway, right?

Why to only those in need?? We want to have universal healthcare - healthcare for all who want it. No pre-care work requirement; no qualification like food stamps.Why the double-standard?

 

[Peter Parka]

That's my point. Nobody says you can have healthcare if you cannot provide it for yourself. Why is food different?

:wtf:So if someone has cancer and cannot provide for treatment for it, what? They should just be left to die in agony? Yeah, I think plenty of people would disagree with that!

 

[Tim]

You are trying to compare apples to oranges here. Health care and food are not in the same category.
You MUST have food everyday to survive, you do not need health care to survive. Food is an everyday necessity where health care isn't.

The way I see it, food is extremely easy to obtain in this country and by everyone. It is VERY cheap (when dealing with the necessities) and for those who are in hardship, food IS provided for them (especially the women and children). Sure, you will find people in this country who go to sleep at night hungry, actually too many IMO. But you will be hard pressed to find anyone who has died from hunger. So why would the government supply food to every citizen? The vast majority of us would not accept it anyway.

The governments role is not to supply us with every need and want, we are not living in a communist country.

Now lets turn this thing around. Let's imagine for a second that like hospitals, restaurants were NOT allowed to turn anyone away. If you are hungry and don't have any money, you can choose any restaurant you want, go in and eat your fill. Then at the end of the meal you get a bill that you are unable to pay for.
So at this point, would you as a paying customer be happy paying the much higher cost to eat out or would you want the government to take care of these people with cheaper food? Wouldn't you rather only pay for your food when you go out?


Just remember, health care will never be denied in this country. One way or another you will pay for it.

 

[Accountable]

:wtf:So if someone has cancer and cannot provide for treatment for it, what? They should just be left to die in agony? Yeah, I think plenty of people would disagree with that!

I made no judgment whatsoever about healthcare. This is about food.

 

[Alien Allen]

First and foremost, your rights are not laid out in the constitution, they are in the Declaration of Independence.

Second,
The constitution does not provide for police or fireman, yet we have them, every one of us have that protection.
The argument that if it's not in the constitution then it isn't a right is an inaccurate one. You know damn well that the constitution is nothing more than a framework for which our society is built.
Maybe you can read the preamble for a clue

So what exactly does it mean to promote the general welfare?

Now back to the Declaration of Independence... What's the very first right given? Life.
So if you go to the hospital needing emergency care will they turn you away? Of course not... which leads me to my next point.

It's people like you and the conservative right that really confuse the hell out of me. You are so against giving any sort of national health care on the principle that you don't want to pay for someone else. Yet you do pay for them everyday. In fact you pay for the health care for these people VERY inefficiently. Effectively paying a much higher price for your own coverage. If any of you had any business sense at all, you would see that enormous amounts of money could be saved by directly taking care of people who do not have health insurance instead of paying their way after the fact. Even the AMA is a strong proponent of this approach. Yet you are willing to pay huge amounts of money to cover those without insurance inefficiently because you cling to a false ideology that makes no sense.

I just don't get it....

I am tired due to being out of town all day and having to get up early to boot. So I don't have a lot to respond.

But I would disagree that Constitution is mum on rights. My point was that like with a lot of other things the feds have expanded their responsibilities and this is just another one. I suspect we may well get the national health care you crave for. I also expect it to be a totally fucked up mess.

 

[Accountable]

You are trying to compare apples to oranges here. Health care and food are not in the same category.
You MUST have food everyday to survive, you do not need health care to survive. Food is an everyday necessity where health care isn't.

And yet we can demand healthcare for nothing, but not food. :crazy: :humm:

The governments role is not to supply us with every need and want, we are not living in a communist country.

And yet we are apparently going to do just that with universal healthcare. I'm just asking why start in the middle? Why not start with the most basic necessity for life: sustenance?

Now lets turn this thing around. Let's imagine for a second that like hospitals, restaurants were NOT allowed to turn anyone away. If you are hungry and don't have any money, you can choose any restaurant you want, go in and eat your fill. Then at the end of the meal you get a bill that you are unable to pay for.
So at this point, would you as a paying customer be happy paying the much higher cost to eat out or would you want the government to take care of these people with cheaper food? Wouldn't you rather only pay for your food when you go out?

exactly the question that everyone should ask themselves. :clap Except that you'd have to limit the food to a certain calorie intake or something. We don't provide, say, plastic surgery; only essential life-saving medical care.

Just remember, health care will never be denied in this country. One way or another you will pay for it.

I'm not speaking against healthcare, only asking in support of food.

 

[Peter Parka]

So do YOU think people, whoever they are are entitled to food then? Heck, even death row prisoners get a last meal!