POL2000 W11 FOLLOW UP DISC
Should the right to an education, decent housing, affordable health care, or welfare benefits be declared fundamental? Why or why not?
Post 5
No. That is definitely stating that you can choose to be lazy and have other individuals pay for your basic needs. Just as history has shown, though it sounds great, the far majority of individuals abuse these services and become co-dependent rather than just using it for help as needed.
Response to Post 5
I do not totally disagree with your opinion. You are right: some people are abusive or cheaters. They really do not need those basic services. For my part, I believe that there are people who really need help or who cannot afford to attend college, have a decent housing, afford good healthcare services, or welfare benefits. It is heartbreaking to see that these well-off members of our society live below their means. If the government does nothing about it, who else will? If our government can provide these fundamental services so that very indigent people becomes productive members later on, why not? The government should simply have to learn how to prevent abusive people from spoiling its good works.
Reference: Rao, N. (2012). American Dignity and Healthcare Reform. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy , 35 (1), 171-184.
Post 10
I feel that the right to an education, decent housing, and affordable healthcare should be declared fundamental. In order to have a successful career you have to be educated or have a degree. Decent housing should be fundamental because no one deserves to live in squalor. Affordable healthcare should also be fundamental because everyone should be able to pertain their health so they can provide for themselves and their families. Welfare benefits should be declared fundamental to those who truly need them; so many people have abused them, which ruins it for those who really need the help.
Response to Post 10
I agree with your statements, which elaborated my own post here. The least well-off members of our society should be taken care of. The government should do something to help them in their predicament. It is a humanitarian act. We have to act in unison by agreeing that some of our taxes should be given to those who need it the most. If we let them be, they learn to acquire “learned helplessness.” If our government helps them, they will later on be able to help themselves, their families, and society. Right to an education, decent housing, affordable healthcare, and welfare benefits should be declared fundamental so that we [continue to] progress as a nation.
Reference: University of Minnesota. (1999). Human Rights Resource Center. Retrieved September 8, 2013, from HRRC Home: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-1/default.htm
“Post 19 in Response to Post 18”
What about those people who are trapped in a cycle of poverty? Or those children born to parents who abused their bodies with drugs and alcohol and their defects prevent them from working toward anything? I don't disagree with you; however, there many situations where people cannot pull themselves up by their own boot straps.
Response to “Post 19 in Response to Post 18”
As much as possible, the government should offer equal life chances to all, if not many, people. The indigent ones, the poor families, juveniles who experience lots of family problems because of poverty, etc., they need government assistance. When we think of affordable healthcare, which is a very good idea. Many individuals do not want to become sick or live below their means only if they could. However, life has many unfortunate realities. Our government should do something about all, if not most, of these persistent issues. To make people productive and have a good standard of living, the government should declare these rights as fundamental. The government, including ourselves, should look for innovative, creative, revolutionary, and life changing ideas to work on. For instance, decent housing using low-cost materials will solve some of the problems of the least well-off societal members.
Reference: John Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies. (2008, June 7-11). The Welfare State Meets the Market. Retrieved September 7, 2013, from Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference International Urban Fellows Program: http://ips.jhu.edu/elements/uploads/files/2008-IUFA-Annual-Conference-Report---Copenhagen-and-Malmo.pdf
“Post 24 in Response to Post 23”
I totally disagree with your post. I think people need to take responsibility. If you want something work for it and earn it. Don't wait for a government handout.
Response to “Post 24 in Response to Post 23”
Thank you for your feedback. We are totally disagreeing with each other. I emphasized in my post that the government should declare right to education, decent housing, affordable healthcare, or welfare benefits to the ‘least well-off members’ of our society. I strongly believe there is nothing wrong with that. Moreover, when these disadvantaged groups get assistance from our government and become productive, they could possibly help in nation-building. Should we rather not care for them and let them remain in their plights, they become more of liabilities to our society later on. All that is needed is a little help from us, from our taxes. They do not have to ask for these basic services should we learn how to care for those who do not know how to take care of themselves – or even if they want to.
Reference: Wenar, L. (2012). John Rawls. (E. Zalta, Editor) Retrieved September 8, 2013, from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/rawls/
