Single-Payer Groceries, Anyone?

[Danno 1,228]

Food is a "basic human right" and as such, we should consider letting the Govt control and monitor distribution and "who" is eating "what".

Can anyone say it's a huge leap?

Actually, there are social programs like Food Stamps which have been around for a long time to combat starvation among the poor. Should we abolish Food Stamps? How about WIC for mothers? Some of you are completely ignorant about how many social programs we have in this country. The, 'oh noes, the commies are taking over!' fears are about as stale as a 40 year loaf of bread.

Yes yes and yes.

I would absolutely be in favor of ending or restructuring many of these programs.

Let me tell you why.

A few weeks ago, I had someone who is on food stamps (about $200 for a single person) offer to spring for a cook-out at my house. I couldn't help but notice his preference of grocery stores happened to be the most expensive in my city (Harris-Teeter). He picked out all the name brand stuff where I .... in a perfunctory way, go for the off brands.

I know of several cases where like this guy (18 or 19) left his parents house to "live on his own". How is it possible? YOUR TAX DOLLARS.

He is in the process of working on getting approved for other programs to help him establish his "Independence" as well.

Instead of this young guy being in collage or at home, he is able to establish a lifestyle which is most likely to be destructive in the end.

Most Govt Programs help some needy but at the same time lead to the harm of family units.

What we should have is distribution points for food for qualified people This food should be basic, healthy no frills food which would be a welcome for the truly hungry and rejected by the fake-poor.

No frills halls where you get your ration of food.

Years ago I actually spent time at a Salvation Army shelter, I never once expected other to provide top-shelf food to me.

The Charity-case/ Giver relationship is a special one.

I bring aid to my neighbor and he is thankful and feels he owes me a debt (though I say don't worry about it).

When the Govt steps in this roll, there is absolutely no thankfulness and nor feelings of indebtedness(for most).

In fact most often, there is a feeling of "entitlement".

There is also way less accountability. How many of use know people in public assistance who have money for a weekly supply of pot ... I do, sorry but I am not bringing groceries to these people... UNcle Sam will.

THE SAFETY NET HAS BECOME A HAMMOCK.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Food is a "basic human right" and as such, we should consider letting the Govt control and monitor distribution and "who" is eating "what".

Can anyone say it's a huge leap?

Actually, there are social programs like Food Stamps which have been around for a long time to combat starvation among the poor. Should we abolish Food Stamps? How about WIC for mothers? Some of you are completely ignorant about how many social programs we have in this country. The, 'oh noes, the commies are taking over!' fears are about as stale as a 40 year loaf of bread.

WIC and Food Stamps are small subsidies placed on a generally free market. Most legislators have learned from Hoover and FDR's disatrous regulation on agriculture, and shy away from government control of the food supply.

These programs would appear unnecessary though since the free market would address the issue sufficiently if left alone, right?

The question is much more fundamental than that. Should we support a society that believes in charity by voluntary or by forcible means?

So the issue of poverty is one that the free market cannot tackle?

[mRx 16]

Food is a "basic human right" and as such, we should consider letting the Govt control and monitor distribution and "who" is eating "what".

Can anyone say it's a huge leap?

Actually, there are social programs like Food Stamps which have been around for a long time to combat starvation among the poor. Should we abolish Food Stamps? How about WIC for mothers? Some of you are completely ignorant about how many social programs we have in this country. The, 'oh noes, the commies are taking over!' fears are about as stale as a 40 year loaf of bread.

WIC and Food Stamps are small subsidies placed on a generally free market. Most legislators have learned from Hoover and FDR's disatrous regulation on agriculture, and shy away from government control of the food supply.

So how would the Fed acting as insurer like they do in Medicaid be any different? Does Medicaid dictate which doctor you see...any differently than private insurance companies?

But as I've stated in the post above--the "elephant in the room that was intended for Big Dog"-- there is more intervention than just a small subsidation. There are active controls that together form a complex monopolization of the healthcare industry. There is no such government monopoly in the food industry (as I've attempted to illustrate with the hypothetical FVA example). We've seen the disastrous results from such attempts in the late '20's.

I fail to see how a public insurance with a low overhead cannot compete with private insurance. But if you are thoroughly convinced that it would fail at providing quality insurance that is comparible to private, you'll have nothing to worry about because then you can say you told us so and we'll move this country back in the direction of privatization for everything.

C'mon Steven, buddy. No need to be curt.

My problem is not with what the bill supposes to do. It's the fact that it addresses none of the underlying problems. Health insurance in America is a mess, no doubt; But insurance is merely a measure of the underlying--healthcare.

Does the bill seek to move towards market-based supply control, instead of government agencies coercively monopolizing profits by restricting medical supply under the guise of citizen safety? Of course not. The lobbyists and campaign coffers wouldn't be too happy if downward pressure were applied to prices via competition, would they?

[mRx 16]

Food is a "basic human right" and as such, we should consider letting the Govt control and monitor distribution and "who" is eating "what".

Can anyone say it's a huge leap?

Actually, there are social programs like Food Stamps which have been around for a long time to combat starvation among the poor. Should we abolish Food Stamps? How about WIC for mothers? Some of you are completely ignorant about how many social programs we have in this country. The, 'oh noes, the commies are taking over!' fears are about as stale as a 40 year loaf of bread.

WIC and Food Stamps are small subsidies placed on a generally free market. Most legislators have learned from Hoover and FDR's disatrous regulation on agriculture, and shy away from government control of the food supply.

These programs would appear unnecessary though since the free market would address the issue sufficiently if left alone, right?

The question is much more fundamental than that. Should we support a society that believes in charity by voluntary or by forcible means?

So the issue of poverty is one that the free market cannot tackle?

Of course it can. But this has nothing to do with the topic.

I seemingly always get roped into defending the voluntary system of exchange from these generic attacks. Topics denouncing government cures for government problems always digress to talking about protecting the poor, drug testing in the Republic of Congo, or Walmart. Meanwhile, you keep stepping around the elephant in the room, where I think I show nicely how government is not the answer. I'll point you to it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Food is a "basic human right" and as such, we should consider letting the Govt control and monitor distribution and "who" is eating "what".

Can anyone say it's a huge leap?

Actually, there are social programs like Food Stamps which have been around for a long time to combat starvation among the poor. Should we abolish Food Stamps? How about WIC for mothers? Some of you are completely ignorant about how many social programs we have in this country. The, 'oh noes, the commies are taking over!' fears are about as stale as a 40 year loaf of bread.

WIC and Food Stamps are small subsidies placed on a generally free market. Most legislators have learned from Hoover and FDR's disatrous regulation on agriculture, and shy away from government control of the food supply.

These programs would appear unnecessary though since the free market would address the issue sufficiently if left alone, right?

The question is much more fundamental than that. Should we support a society that believes in charity by voluntary or by forcible means?

So the issue of poverty is one that the free market cannot tackle?

Of course it can.

Care to elaborate?

[mRx 16]

Food is a "basic human right" and as such, we should consider letting the Govt control and monitor distribution and "who" is eating "what".

Can anyone say it's a huge leap?

Actually, there are social programs like Food Stamps which have been around for a long time to combat starvation among the poor. Should we abolish Food Stamps? How about WIC for mothers? Some of you are completely ignorant about how many social programs we have in this country. The, 'oh noes, the commies are taking over!' fears are about as stale as a 40 year loaf of bread.

WIC and Food Stamps are small subsidies placed on a generally free market. Most legislators have learned from Hoover and FDR's disatrous regulation on agriculture, and shy away from government control of the food supply.

These programs would appear unnecessary though since the free market would address the issue sufficiently if left alone, right?

The question is much more fundamental than that. Should we support a society that believes in charity by voluntary or by forcible means?

So the issue of poverty is one that the free market cannot tackle?

Of course it can.

Care to elaborate?

Not really. Maybe if you make it worth my time by replying to the pertinent points I made previously.

The topic is healthcare. I made points about healthcare that conflict yours. Before we digress to poverty, WIC, or rubber band prices in Hong Kong, I'd appreciate a response. I think that's how a debate rolls, yeah?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Food is a "basic human right" and as such, we should consider letting the Govt control and monitor distribution and "who" is eating "what".

Can anyone say it's a huge leap?

Actually, there are social programs like Food Stamps which have been around for a long time to combat starvation among the poor. Should we abolish Food Stamps? How about WIC for mothers? Some of you are completely ignorant about how many social programs we have in this country. The, 'oh noes, the commies are taking over!' fears are about as stale as a 40 year loaf of bread.

WIC and Food Stamps are small subsidies placed on a generally free market. Most legislators have learned from Hoover and FDR's disatrous regulation on agriculture, and shy away from government control of the food supply.

These programs would appear unnecessary though since the free market would address the issue sufficiently if left alone, right?

The question is much more fundamental than that. Should we support a society that believes in charity by voluntary or by forcible means?

So the issue of poverty is one that the free market cannot tackle?

Of course it can.

Care to elaborate?

Not really. Maybe if you make it worth my time by replying to the pertinent points I made previously.

The topic is healthcare.

I thought the topic was groceries. The title suggests as much.

[mRx 16]

Food is a "basic human right" and as such, we should consider letting the Govt control and monitor distribution and "who" is eating "what".

Can anyone say it's a huge leap?

Actually, there are social programs like Food Stamps which have been around for a long time to combat starvation among the poor. Should we abolish Food Stamps? How about WIC for mothers? Some of you are completely ignorant about how many social programs we have in this country. The, 'oh noes, the commies are taking over!' fears are about as stale as a 40 year loaf of bread.

WIC and Food Stamps are small subsidies placed on a generally free market. Most legislators have learned from Hoover and FDR's disatrous regulation on agriculture, and shy away from government control of the food supply.

These programs would appear unnecessary though since the free market would address the issue sufficiently if left alone, right?

The question is much more fundamental than that. Should we support a society that believes in charity by voluntary or by forcible means?

So the issue of poverty is one that the free market cannot tackle?

Of course it can.

Care to elaborate?

Not really. Maybe if you make it worth my time by replying to the pertinent points I made previously.

The topic is healthcare.

I thought the topic was groceries. The title suggests as much.

Ah, so that's why you didn't respond. It wasn't because your thesis is built on a shaky house of cards.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ah, so that's why you didn't respond. It wasn't because your thesis is built on a shaky house of cards.

Didn't respond to what?

[mRx 16]

Ah, so that's why you didn't respond. It wasn't because your thesis is built on a shaky house of cards.

Didn't respond to what?

Ya' kidding me?

Post 34. You can track it from there.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Hmmm....I see Matt's point.

The underlying problem is not the insurance coverage, it's their eagerness to reduce coverage and raise profits. How does one prevent that?

[mRx 16]

Hmmm....I see Matt's point.

The underlying problem is not the insurance coverage, it's their eagerness to reduce coverage and raise profits. How does one prevent that?

No, the underlying problem is not the insurance (although that's a whole different problem), it's what the insurance covers--Healthcare.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Hmmm....I see Matt's point.

The underlying problem is not the insurance coverage, it's their eagerness to reduce coverage and raise profits. How does one prevent that?

No, the underlying problem is not the insurance (although that's a whole different problem), it's what the insurance covers--Healthcare.

Healthcare? In regards too what, their cost?

Why the hell is my friend, the surgeon, have problems sending her patient to another Doctor who can provide treatment for the disease?

[mRx 16]

Hmmm....I see Matt's point.

The underlying problem is not the insurance coverage, it's their eagerness to reduce coverage and raise profits. How does one prevent that?

No, the underlying problem is not the insurance (although that's a whole different problem), it's what the insurance covers--Healthcare.

Healthcare? In regards too what, their cost?

Why the hell is my friend, the surgeon, have problems sending her patient to another Doctor who can provide treatment for the disease?

Incompatible doctor/insurance scenarios are not the underlying problem.

There's no competition in healthcare. Refer to my posts here and here.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Hmmm....I see Matt's point.

The underlying problem is not the insurance coverage, it's their eagerness to reduce coverage and raise profits. How does one prevent that?

No, the underlying problem is not the insurance (although that's a whole different problem), it's what the insurance covers--Healthcare.

Healthcare? In regards too what, their cost?

Why the hell is my friend, the surgeon, have problems sending her patient to another Doctor who can provide treatment for the disease?

Incompatible doctor/insurance scenarios are not the underlying problem.

There's no competition in healthcare. Refer to my posts here and here.

Ok. No competition in healthcare? How would one create that competition? An example. That is where stuff gets convoluted is when is not at the same knowledge as the others who are more familiar. We can't assume things. That is why I'm asking if there's an explanation of how would one place the competition.