by Professor » Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:31 pm
OK, didn't read all the posts, but enough to see that we'd rather be snarky than helpful.
This is a real problem. On one hand, we could just "stop helping". The libertarian side of my brain likes that. But, he's going to get sick and need food. When he does that, he will utilize a public ER and other public companies, costing you and me even more money than if we'd helped in the first place. My brain doesn't like that.
On the other hand, you could try to help him initially so that it never gets that bad. The socialist side of my brain likes this. But, if you help too much, you disincentivize him from going and getting a job and helping himself. You also encourage others around him who work for what he's getting for free.
What's the answer? A little of both. We need to proactively provide healthcare and basic needs for people who can't/don't get them on their own. But, just those things needed to survive. Can only buy 1 type of cheese, 1 type of bread, a few fruits and veggies, the cheaper types of meats, etc. No elective medical procedures, and you have to accept proactive ones (if you are on Medicaid and refuse treatments, you risk some type of punative actions).