Thats how it was in Russia before it became the Russian Federation...Everyone was equal, everyone had a job, everyone looked out for each other, the prices for food, clothing,land ect. were affordable to buy, medical care was free. Those were the days!

Not particularly. Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong proponent of charities, but I don't think society should be obligated to the parental state for those who won't make the decisions necessary to care for their own basic rights.

1. You owe nothing to anyone. 2. But it is only by pure luck that you are not the beggar. 3. Selfless reason to have mercy on the poor and the weak: Love thy neighbour. 4. Selfish reasons to look after the poor and the weak: 4a. Who knows what tomorrow holds? You may be next - no matter how rich, powerful, tough and motivated you think you are. Plenty in the past have had to eat their words and you are no different from them. 4b. The less hungry and miserable they are, the less motivation they have to mug / steal / kill / kidnap you. If someone has a full belly, you have much greater justification to slam them in jail when they play up. Regarding medical care, yes it should be "free" if possible. The only problem is that : 1. The cheaper it is, the more hypochondriacs we have (so shouldn't we try and find a 'cure' for hypochondria?) 2. You can always save one more life by building a hideously expensive life-support machine for someone with some weirdo disease that needs a hideously expensive life-support machine. "What price a human life?", I hear you ask. Well, how about another human life? If it costs one human life to save another human life, shouldn't we just let the sick one die? (esp. if their survival means that they pass on their sickness genes to their offspring...) Remember that all money is paid for by human labour. You earn ten bucks an hour, you pay ten bucks in tax, that is one hour of your life gone with nothing in return. You may have well as died one hour early. (Then it would be one of those 'useless' hours when you're old and weak, not one of your 'fun' hours of your youth!) Keep thinking along those lines and you'll understand the dilemma that all governments have to consider when it comes to delivering health care. In short, yes I believe in delivering as much cheap or free medical care "as we can afford". But how much we can afford will Always be a hotly debated topic.

I do thinkk mankind should forget "borders and take care of all people with basic, food clothing, shelter. I also think that, in speaking about where I live, Things could be much better than they are in other places throught the world. Medical care should be available for everyone. They sould not be dictated by any HMO. You can have this treatment, you can't have that one. You must go where we tell you to go. That said, Thre should be equal univeral health care for everyone in the US, then we can go on and take care mankind in general. If a desaster strikes in an another country, no matter where, the world,"world" should pitch in, not just the USA.

Nothing is a "right" that someone else has to provide for you. That is, you have a "right to eat" because you can eat for yourself, but you don't have a "right" to have food provided to you. Is that clear? You have "a right to live in your own home", but there is no "right" to property -- you can either afford to buy or rent it, or you can't, and have to hope that 'someone else' will provide for you. Medical care is the same way. We could say that you have a right to choose the medical care that you want -- which you pay for. We seem to treat primary and secondary education as a right in the US, and look at how well that has turned out. If we handle "rights" to food and medical care in the same way, then I think we'll have a lot of very hungry and sick people on our hands. And more and more every day. Maybe you think things are bad now, but they can be a lot worse. Now, I suppose we could say -- and I guess we do say -- that we have "rights" to clean air and water, for example, but those are more of a societal demand that those who would foul the air and water have a responsibility to clean them, which is not quite the same thing as us having rights to those things.

We are dependent on others for care: when we are children (at least for the first ten years two if not more people cared for you and helped you bathe, eat, drink and pardon my french wiped your behind thousands of times) sick or old. We are dependant on each other, on our family, community or society (Bill Gates would not be a billionaire had he been born in Ethiopia, with the exact same abilities) We should ensure basic rights through charities, NGO's, community and even the government. BUT I disagree with the idea the government should run the show. I live in a country where it does run the show and many people die because of bad healthcare, corrupt doctors, they die and are infected in hospitals, because an ordinary’s citizen power over the medical budget and how it’s spent is ZERO and accountability is ZERO(bureaucracy anyone?). Oh, it’s great we have universal health care.We should always discuss efficiency.Efficiency in healthcare is not “cold-hearted” discourse, it saves lives.

The haves should always help the havenots. We have suffered here due to floods and other such situations and always helped the victims with aid. You can only understand the needs if you don't have it.(how acute the needs are!)

Definitely yes!!! also including health care, protection from harm....I think it is called Liberal....

I think that all free individuals have rights and responsibilities. part of those responsibilies are to look after their fellow man. they also have the right to not. Charity is something that people should do, in fact, want to do. I don't think that the government should choose what "charity" my money goes to, I would rather make that decesion myself, and I have helped people who I feel deserve my help with all the things you mentioned (food, clothing, shelter, and medical care) and if the government didn't take so much of my money, I would be able to help more people, and do a better job of it than the government. so if your question is trying to lead up to "should the government offer medical care" then my answer is a resounding NO.

I said charities, not church. Aren't there any atheist charities? Don't they do good works? Why do atheists insist that only the religious do charitable works and then fault them for it? I just don't get the mindset. There are many, many charities out there. Many are religious. Many aren't. ALL those who volunteer their time, efforts, talents and money to help others should be commended.

COMMUNIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only reason mankind tolerates government at all is for protection. One item that we in America don't seem to mind having our tax money spent on is defense. But why doesn't each neighboor handle this problem? Afterall, we are allowed to own guns under the second amendment for just that purpose. This responsibility isn't within the purview of the general citizenry because it would be impractical. It is obvious that education and Healthcare fall into the same category and are also best served by the common weal. Education and Healthcare are necessary pro-active protections. These, along with defense, should be the top priorities of a government that purports to represent the people's interest as it is in all other first-world countries. The United States is the only first-world country that does not provide universal healthcare for it's citizens. A government serves the people best by protecting the country's future by ensuring that each generation grows up to be healthy and educated and in a safe environment to do so. There are many competitive free-market democracies that do this effectively today and it behooves us to look at these models. We now are limping along with an educational system that is in shambles and a healthcare system that is non-existent for one-third of the population and increasingly prohibitive for the middle third. Privatization, having corporate interests as middlemen in healthcare delivery, does not work. It's bullshit and there isn't a person in the US within the lower 70 percentile that is not at risk of losing all of their accumulated wealth due to catastrophic disease. Anybody who believes otherwise is fooling themselves. We need to be looking abroad for better solutions instead of trying to re-invent the wheel. The person who asked this question is an American living in Belgium. I would like for you to tell us your views, as objectively as possible, of the healthcare and costs where you are, mistje. And what is your opinion of the education of the population in general? The kids? I would really like you to share this.

YES isn't that what we all want? Who wouldn't want a world where we all are looked after with food, shelter, clothing, health care, property, etc. No poverty, no world hunger, no one living on the streets.. of course i want world peace, if someone doesn't..then i'm scared...

I tend to agree with R. Buckminster Fuller that there are enough available potential energy sources to supply all of humanity with its needs, if only they were organized into a shared power network. And yes, he believed that this potential economic comfort could even support social programs like medical care and education.

YES! i believe in compassion wholeheartedly. it is the noblest trait of man. we all depend on each other on earth for our survival. we serve one another. if you ignore and fail to help your brother, you are spitting on the gifts that the universe has blessed you with. at bare minimum, everyone should be guaranteed the basic rights of food, clothing, and shelter. free healthcare should be granted as well. why it cant work in the us like it does in europe and many other countries is beyond me.

That is what Democrats believe. Republicans, on the other, believe in self-reliance, pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps, helping big business rather than their fellow man, cutting taxes (also, thereby, cutting social programs), doing the minimum necessary/legal to achieve a better bottom line! :) You pays your money, you knows your choice. It's up to you..I know some hardworking people who are Republicans and I just don't get it..their best interests are ill-served, yet they are adamant about the righteousness of their position. I just don't get it! :)

Yes, I live in France, and such a system is in place. if you are more than 25 or if you are a parent you can have some help to survive, free health care... Unfortunately some doctors prefer not to receive the persons who benefit from this system. There also are lots of organizations who ask people to donate: La croix rouge, Les restos du Coeur.... The electricity can be free in winter for the persons in need. We have big taxes yes, but we know they are, among others, for people in need support. It may sound crazy but I was quite proud when I began to pay those taxes :-) This system is not perfect (still too many poor people here), but it has the merit of helping a lot of people.

Thank you, Mistje, I am so glad that we are friends. Here's something for you: