Everyone has to eat. While we are socializing healthcare, lets socialize food care too!

A person shouldn't have to pay for a basic necessity like eating should they? Just imagine, every American being able to go to a grocery store or a restaurant, order food, and the government picks up the tab!

What kinds of problems do you see with a system like this one? What are your arguments against it?

socialise everything and get rid of money completely, then we can talk.

No, time to discuss your capitalistic nonsense. money here, money there.

It strikes me that neoconservatives like Eric want to bundle a system of eugenics into the economic system. Feeding everyone would eliminate the method of culling the herd, so to speak, eliminating the undesirables in the eyes of the self-proclaimed elite.

But why not separate the two systems cleanly? Make sure everyone has their basic food needs met, then adopt a second system that systematically kills people we deem stupid or lazy ... human parasites. If we are going to crush some people under our foot, we shouldn't be cowardly about it and hide behind spreadsheets.

Define neoconservative and tell me how the term applies to me. I suspect you may not know what it even means.

Anyway, what the hell are you talking about? Must you try to derail another thread by bringing up eugenics?

Our medical system already meets basic needs. There is a law that anyone who shows up at an ER will be treated. No one is left to die. But you want to completely socialize everything. Why not do the same thing with food.

If you think it would work, tell me how.

If you don't think it would work, explain your arguments against it.

Start another thread on eugenics and I'll be there.

(a) Worshipers in the cult of Reagan. (b) People who regurgitate Rush Limbaugh's talking points non-stop.

Basic food and medical services should be available to everyone. If you deny these two things, you end up killing people, essentially targeting certain demographics: disabled people, poor people, etc. That's eugenics, whether you like the term or not.

True, we already have some of these things implemented, in a half-broken sort of way.

I figured as much.

It sounds more like Darwinism to me.

Why are you calling for just basic food services? Why not have the government control every aspect of providing the people food?

BTW, under today's free market food system, what percentage of Americans die of starvation? How many die each day of hunger alone?

Me too

It's social darwinism. Which is a misguided policy, and if anything, creates more social problems. Humans don't roll over and die without a fight.

Why should it? Even in a socialized system, there's no reason to exclude private companies. If you want, the private and government aspects can be seen as competitors.

There are a lot of social programs too, like WIC, food debit cards, social security, disability, etc. What would be the result if these were all eliminated?

Why is Canada's health care system completely socialized? There, you have to leave the country if you want health care that isn't paid for by the government. There must be a reason.

If it were partly socialized, wouldn't that leave the poor having to get by on the crap the government gave them while the rich get to eat good stuff? Some people would have it better than others. All the good food would be produced for and bought up by the private sector. Is that fair?

Keep the thread on topic please. If you ask that question in a new thread I'll answer it.

Here in Australia we do have a welfare system which in a way provides socialized food, as well as socialized everything else. If you have no ability to provide your own food, the Government will give you a small income so that you can do so (they will also ask questions why you don't have any income and provide assistance with you finding employment etc).

This is not an insurance scheme in the style of American Unemployment Insurance, where your period of entitlement depends - as I understand it - on the amount of money you have contributed to the scheme). It is a source of income that citizens can turn to when they need it. To my knowledge there is no American equivalent.

You guys keep dodging the question. I'm talking about the whole enchilada, not just another welfare plan. The same thing they've done to medical up in Canada, I'm talking about doing to food here. A single payer system.

Because its a pointless hypothetical perhaps? If you think it's a realistic concept, why don't you provide your reasoning for (or against) it?

Why is it pointless? What is your argument against it? Why is it so unrealistic?

My position is the same as my position on healthcare. You know my arguments against that.

Except technically not. We have one of the worst health care systems in the world. Sure they'll treat you but it'll cost you, and you're held responsible. For this reason many people avoid seeking medical treatment (even those who already have insurance). We have the highest infant mortality rate and preventable death rate (per population) than any other postindustrialized nation on the planet if that tells you anything.


edit -- Also food and health care aren't really comparable. You're trying to play with words by saying they're both necessary for life, which is true, but food is more comparable to clothing than it is to health care. There are different kinds of food, food that is meant to taste good not necessarily to provide people with nurishment. People don't eat to live. If we did we wouldn't have McDonalds all over the place. Nor would we have obesity problems. People would just eat their basic caloric / nutricianal needs and skip out on all the sweets and other food commodities. It's kind of like clothing; everyone needs clothing but there are different types. People have different tastes and needs. If not we'd all be wearing bluejeans and white teashirts.

Well, while the government is making sure everyone has the kind of medical care it wants everyone to have (rather than leaving them to their own devices) it can make sure everyone only eats healthy food. Gotta love that right? You almost have me talked into this now. The government forces everyone to eat healthy by not allowing anyone to eat unhealthy food, then they save money on keeping them alive. What's wrong with that?

Lol straw man but I see what you're saying. I was never arguing that we should socialize food, if that incentive were ever proposed I'd be against it.

How is that a strawman? Do you know what a strawman argument is?

Anyway, thanks for being the first in the thread to take a position on the topic. You'd be against socializing food. Why?

Lol Rasczak you're so argumentive. It's a straw man because I was never advocating socializing food. I was just pointing out how food and medical care are not similar.

In your version of socialized food I'd say I'd be against it because the government feeds me and everyone else exactly enough for them to eat. You don't get to choose what you eat. Socializing food I'm sure wouldn't have the same effect that you're portraing it as (in a socialized country you'd still get to eat what you wanted to eat; all it means is that the means of production are owned publically, not privately, but I'd still probably be against it in today's climate). But yes in your version I'd definitely be opposed for pretty much the same reasons you pointed out [sarcastically, I assume] in your post.

Just to make sure I am not accused of another strawman, your main objection against doing to food what Canada has done to health care, is that it would restrict choices over what you get to eat? Is that a good summary of what you said?

I think it's rediculous in today's world that we would have socialize food. This is not in any way related to health care. There is no direct market in health care; most people usually only have one hospital within 30 minutes of them and in socialized healthcare you are not restricted as to who you can see as your primary doctor. This is in contrast to most health inssurance which does prevent you from being able to chose who you see and what kind of treatment you can get.

It was a yes or no question. You dodged it. Scroll up and try again.