thegreekdog wrote:We're going to have to agree to disagree on the relative state of affairs of the American poor. I've had this argument with Player before and while you're much more articulate, the determination of what constitutes a basic need continues to change over time and is apparently dependent upon the country in which the poor lives.
The only thing to "agree to disagree" on would be on what constitutes a basic need. Once we agree on a definition, then it's just a matter of collecting the relevant facts about the poorest Americans. So, for example, if you don't think that someone who is homeless is not having their basic needs being met, then yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.
As a side note, while we have a lot of government intervention and assistance for the poor and have had since at least the 1960s, most remain poor (the homeless are a prime example - no one has to be homeless in the United States). I would argue that necessitates a basic change in our culture's thinking about how to care for the poor (or, in my opinion, who actually constitutes the poor), but that's for another thread I think.
That's literally the same tautological point that BBS made. You can't "end poverty." You can only raise the absolute level of poverty to a higher standard. So the relevant question is, has the
real wealth of the poor increased since the 1960s? (I think it has, if for no other reason than the increasing real wealth of the entire country during that time period.)
Now, when it comes to something like homelessness, we similarly should be asking, has the percentage of the population that is homeless decreased since LBJ was in office? I don't have good data to answer that question. The fact that "there are still homeless people" is not inherently a condemnation of government assistance for the poor.
On the other hand, there are surely many more effective methods of helping the homeless than we do now. Like, say,
giving them homes.
Unless I'm mistaken, the poor received healthcare from government intervention in the form of Medicare/Medicaid as well as emergency rooms being required to treat patients.
See above for response on emergency rooms. And in terms of Medicaid, I don't know much about it, but what I have read suggests that it is successful and that a better implementation than the ACA would have just been to extend Medicaid universally.
Additionally, at least in my region, charitable hospitals treat everyone, regardless of ability to pay and there are many charitable hospitals. That being said, there is no doubt that access to healthcare for the poor has been provided by the government in some material way.
A good fraction of charitable healthcare is really just funded by the government.
Which begs the question, again, why the ACA (if it's not going to reduce the overall cost of healthcare)?
http://begthequestion.infoI do not believe anyone is under any moral obligation to share the wealth as a general proposition. In fact, I find it repugnant to even think I have a moral obligation to share my wealth with anyone. I should be able to choose who I get to share my wealth with and how it is shared. I should not be morally obligated to provide monetary dispensation to a poor person who has access to food, clothing, shelter, etc. I could do that out of kindness/charity, but I feel no moral obligation to do so.
Even if you don't agree with the utilitarian argument, there are plenty of practical reasons to justify this. For example, "your wealth" wasn't created by you uniquely. You have only achieved that absolute level of wealth because of the framework society provided for you to do so, so sharing some of it back to society is only fair.