Actually, in the saner world, companies don't have to worry about health insurance because it's provided by the government.
Should the government also be providing even more necessary items like food, housing, and transportation?
Should the government also be providing even more necessary items like food, housing, and transportation?
I guess you've never heard of farm subsidies. Our food prices are almost completely controlled by the government, which is precisely why it is so cheap. No one goes hungry in America, because famine costs about 2 dollars a person at the corner store or McDonald's to completely eliminate. And, for those that can't afford that, we have WIC and food banks/pantries or church-run soup kitchens (also indirectly subsidized due to non-profit or church tax status).
You'd basically have to try really hard to starve in this country.
I have, and we should get rid of them. But they're not actually that large in relative terms: $20 billion/year per Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_Sta...). That comes out to around $60/year per American, and even if it goes entirely to lowered food prices (no), that's a small fraction of what we spend.
Furthermore, even if you were right and there was massive subsidization of food prices by the government, how much you pay is still directly proportional to how much you consume, so there's still some pricing signals in the market. Those signals are almost entirely absent in our "free market" (not) health care system: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/doctors-are-governm...
And, for those that can't afford that, we have WIC and food banks/pantries or church-run soup kitchens (also indirectly subsidized due to non-profit or church tax status).
Sure, and welfare for those who need it is a good thing.
Dole money, food vouchers, council houses, roads and subsidized public transport. They pretty much already do and I have no problem with my taxes paying for that.
Think of it from an entrepreneur's perspective. The bigger the safety net the higher you can jump.
And yet, the UK is hardly known as a startup greenhouse. In fact quite the opposite. Now why do you think that is?
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_Joanne...
But yeah, it should provide food and housing for those people who can not get either as it does in Britain and I am sure there too to some extent?
Agreed. That's very different from paying the large majority of everyone's food and housing costs, which is what the left wants to do with health care.
No matter how many times you yell "socialism", that will still be true. The only question is how much money we waste before we finally switch over.
So food is not a problem. Nor is housing or transport. The latter are very different from health. You can afford very much not to travel. Walk instead. So too you can afford to not have your own house for a month but live at a friends house. Besides, the vast majority would not want to be provided a free house if they can afford it finely.
But with health there is a matter of principle also. The same principle that each life is precious applies to it. A person should not be free to die because of money in such a rich and prosperous country. Also, there should not be a two tire system whereby the rich can afford first class health care and the poor just enough to get on with plenty of annoyances or worse die.