[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Again, I think it's important that we make the distinction between what a man or woman must do to lead a moral life and what a government must do in order to maintain a society.

Well, in my old age, I have become cynical. My "perceived reality" is our governments aren't interested in maintaining any kind of society to be inclusive of all ladders of it. It will eventually become a dichotomy: the haves and the have nots.

In no way would I ever suggest that as Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., all religions which value charity ever stop expecting a great deal from each other as individuals. From the government though? Do we really want to impose our principles on our fellow man and force him to pay into a bureaucracy which will in turn dole out his money to the lazy, the uneducated, the dirt-stupid, the criminal, etc.?

I find that poverty is starts in the mind. Most destituted people are poor in many ways that starts in the mind. Then it transcends into the body and finally in the soul. Most destituted are brokenhearted (part of body) because their minds are less adept (lack of educational opportunities and access), that causes them to despise themselves (no soul or spirit).

My response to that hypothetical line of thought is that a society such as ours, based on capitalism, is going to generate rich people, middle class people and poor people. If we provide a more comfortable existence to the poor folks, it would seem to me that we would eliminate the incentive to climb the social ladder.

I think poor folks should have it hard. The harder they have it, the greater the incentive is to take charge of their own lives. Able bodied folks should be forced to work at some point. It's as simple as that.

It has not been my experience to be so simple. Either-Or thinking never led anyone to climb social ladders. My best example is look at the "gansta rappers". They live in laps of luxury if they become famous, but they can lose their lives over stupidity, which looks like stuff that happens in poverty--that may be an underground sub-culture.

The only time able-bodied folks were forced to work in this country was during enslavement. I guess now, it is during imprisonment. But since simple jobs, i.e. making various license plates, are being outsourced for global "sweat shop" conditions, I guess the capitalistic market conditions are ripe?

When someone learns that they can get by essentially for an unlimited period of time by doing nothing, they'll do nothing. If they have to work to eat, I assume most will take charge of themselves. That's survival.

I recognize it's not so black and white, but I think I see things in at least fewer shades of grey than you might

But we already have beggars on our streets. We call them panhandlers. Right now they are adults. Are you ready to see children? And really, do you think the States are doing a bang up job with children who have to be in foster care? I have an entire case on NPR discussing what is going on with Mississippi's DSHS...

Well, said crackhead mother should have had her children placed in foster care long ago. I would hope permenantly. Also, this woman deserves to be in prison. Society owes her justice and imprisonment.

Also, I'm not sure I'd risk society's love on a person who is such a risk. Were I the one doling out the public money, she'd have to get in line behind the people who are victims of people besides themselves.

Anyhow, I get that you're offering an extreme example.. and I agree that if this woman really wanted help, I think I personally (if it were within my means) would do so. The government though? How do we know that her pleas for help are not merely a ruse to get back onto the Health and Human Services' teet?

Yes, I admit, extreme example.

Folks are all in a tizzy about the harshness of Paris Hilton's sentence and she broke a major law, but fortunately did not hurt anyone including herself.

Health care is a different issue... but just to give you the very short answer, I do not think that health care is or should be a right in this country. Emergency room visits for things like broken legs? Sure. But the latest and greatest in cancer treatments for the homeless? Unless they're part of an experiment, I don't think so.

So public health is different from healthcare. Health care is like you stated, broken bones and cancer treatments. Public health deals with populations, i.e. Giving the the standards of care entities must give when one breaks a bone or is diagnosed with cancer.

Now with poor people, the issue is their poor health started when they were infants. It is not just their parents were never informed for major vaccines to go to school, HAYLE, for some populations, they just don't send their kids to school because the children need vaccinations... if these kids fail to have their full course of vaccines, they risk the illness of infection to other people. And kids get sick all the time, the way illnesses work in them is they often mutate. So that bug cannot be treated with normal antibiotics, like tuberculosis...

And the one thing about kids is they eventually grow up... So now they are adults without appropriate vaccinations OR an education.

Moreover, this issue become more relevant with the complete absence of dental care. A child who does not have dental care with prevention, will inevitably suffer dental disease. If they don't fail to get treated, their teeth rot, if their teeth rot, they don't eat properly. Healthy foods, like apples and carrots are not consumed because it hurts to eat them. Bad foods like fast foods that are soft or better yet, substance abuse which causes appetite suppression are preferably consumed...

Now, with the combination of bad foods and substance abuse has been shown to cause congestive heart failure and cancer in long-time abusers.

Our medical establishment will not make a decision not to treat. Physicians inadvertantly make those choices, but they can risk an entire career if they lack cultural competency towards populations.

This issue is about either having people live a fairly dignfied life or dying like flies as if there was genocide. The US is ill prepared to deal with that on their own soil if it were to happen in this modern day and age. However, the Native Americans may have a different viewpoint.

Past that, to take your meds or not take your meds is a personal decision. In the case of schizophrenia, I believe you'd be able to get treatment for that via Medicaid since you'd essentially be 100% disabled. Further, if that person is unable to care for themselves and/or are a danger to others, they will be institutionalized.

For less serious conditions like depression or bipolar disorder... there are many, many folks leading highly successful lives who have contended with these sorts of demons. Nothing is impossible unless the patient is bound and determined to be the victim, they can overcome.

Yes, from outside, it is a "personal decision". But as an advocate for improved healthcare, if I haven't seen it once, I have seen it a million times, folks DO NOT take their meds properly. There are New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association articles devoted to understanding medication adherence. Even after the physician or nurse practioner tells patients and makes them recite the directives back. Patients lack full understanding of what these meds are suppose to do... Especially psychotropic drugs. And that is a fact about these disease of the mind. The drugs and treatment actually do make one feel better about oneself, but it is a puffed up feeling because this is the nature of side effects and the illness... So the person eventually stops taking the meds and the bad symptoms of his or her mental illness repeats--like a vicious cycle.

As a poor person, how are they going to understand the validity of major mental illnesses and vigilance in these medications? Complex that with a cultural taboo regarding mental illnesses generally. You should hear the crap I hear from the communities I work with...