Should Your Government Take Care of You, Or Allow You To Take Care of Yourself?

United States
September 5, 2008 1:33pm CST
I think that this is the way to speak in sweeping terms of the differences between the democrats and the republicans in American politics. The focus of the democratic party is largely that the government has a responsibility to take care of its citizens - by providing all sorts of social programs, especially for the poor and needy, and trying to provide these programs at the expense of the "super wealthy". The republicans, on the other hand, believe that the government has a responsibility to take care of its citizens - by providing citizens the opportunity to take care of themselves - by giving tax breaks to employers (and the super wealthy) who provide jobs and services to other people. Maybe I am incorrect in my understanding, (and I welcome correction), but which ideal do you think is more important - a government that takes care of you, or a government that provides you the opportunities to take care of yourself?
1 person likes this
3 responses
@Qaeyious (2357)
• United States
15 Sep 08
It would be nice if we can take care of ourselves, but unless you have a lot of money you cannot do it in the United States of America. The aged, poor, and/or underemployed may have Medicare or its equivalent in which case the government pays for at least a portion of your needs. If you are fortunate to be employed by a company that offers health insurance, you have more of a choice, but if the insurance company turns you down because it is not profitable for them, you are out of luck. My mother had a stroke early last month - she is employed by the school district as a school bus driver, and paid each month for health insurance, so it was taken care of. However, two other events happened: She developed a bladder infection and was prescribed medicine that caused another trip to the emergency room - it was suggested that she take another medication instead because of the side effects, but because of miscommunication between the ER and the doctor, no one would give her the necessary medicine without another trip to the ER and sitting for more hours (anyone who visited an ER will know what I'm talking about). It took a nurse from a group that goes to patients' homes for therapy to get the ball rolling, one week after the incident. And I can assure everyone one, bladder infections are not at all pleasant. Secondly, she had always complained about shoulder pain, and though she was gaining use of her left arm at a remarkable rate, - it was totally paralyzed right after the stroke - there was always pain there once she was starting to be able to move it - she was told it is normal for stroke victims. Saturday she had surgery. Her insurance would not cover it, so my sister took her to another hospital. It turns out she had a heart condition as well, and the insurance, that she was paying for, would not cover that as well as the stroke. She is doing very well now, thank you - though a few of us who can are going to have to pay a few thousand dollars ... So for my answer - if we are down on our luck, I hope the government would do something to save our lives (and not like they did to Terry Schiavo) ... But if we are paying for insurance, it is doctors, not the insurance company and their profit margins, who should determine the treatment necessary.
1 person likes this
@Qaeyious (2357)
• United States
18 Sep 08
She is, thank you, very much so. And now I am wondering something similar -- What do you think of the AIG bailout, and farm, oil, and other subsidies? Are they not basically the same thing?
1 person likes this
• United States
30 Sep 08
It's all a really interesting question, and seeing these huge companies failing adds an interesting dynamic. Because when the government comes in to "help" these companies out - it's not just one person or a community that you're talking about - these companies and the failure of these companies will have a far-reaching consequence. The issue has been taken and multiplied exponentially - which makes it a more interesting and higher stakes question. So as to that question of whether these companies should be bailed out or not - because bailing them out is a matter of more than just helping out the companies and their immediate employees - I honestly don't know. The chips are going to fall, and imo, the bailout seems to simply be a matter of postponing the inevitable. I believe that a fall is definitely coming. It's not so much a matter of "fixing" the problem as it is a matter of postponing the consequences and the logical conclusions. Will a government bailout help in the short run? Maybe. Should the government do it? I don't know. I think that we're facing a hard fall - whether that comes now or whether it is postponed to sometime in the future. Those who are prepared for that fall... well, they are not going to hurt or are not going to hurt as badly as those who are unprepared and unable to take care of themselves. All of which makes for a tragic situation.
• United States
15 Sep 08
It certainly would be nice if we could take care of ourselves, as your mother's situation certainly offers a "case in point". How quickly could she have gotten the care that she needed if she had simply been able to "write the check" herself - rather than depend on all of the run-around with the insurnace companies to get things taken care of... The reality, of course, is that a school bus driver does not have anywhere near the means necessary to cover all of the expenses of everything that was discovered in the course of what happened with your mother. The problem, though, is that "the government" is not some benevolent relative "out there" - you are the government. So is your mother and the rest of us tax payers. What the government picks up in expenses, it ultimately hands back to the tax payers and says: Pay up! And even if you are not in a bracket that receives high taxes... those groups that are highly taxed are the groups that pay your salary, or sell you cars and gasoline and groceries... which means that they pass along their expenses to you. I agree and think that it is important for a government to step in for a disaster situation... although, with the amount of red tape that a government has to wade through, it might be better to have private disaster response groups that find ways to earn their living through disaster responses... rather than depend on the government. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! (And I hope your mother is doing better!)
1 person likes this
@monaliu (344)
6 Sep 08
In China, almost time government allow ourself to take care of ourself.But they will take care ours when we meet big problem. Tell you the truth, we can't speak ill of goverment in China. We can only say something 300years ago.Beacuse they are all not here,we are safe.
1 person likes this
• United States
15 Sep 08
Each government is different. Each person tries to do their best under the government system where they live. Our government is similar. When big problems come, then the government steps in to help. It is not always the most efficient way to do things. It is not always the least expensive way to do things. But, that is how things are. I am always full of such happy, cheery thoughts! Cheers to you!
@bbsr13 (4196)
• India
5 Sep 08
Hello! In India the government of India and the state governments spends Crores of rupees for the health care of its citizens.They have established thousands of hospitals all over the country to provide medical facilities.It is the responsibility of the government to maintain good health of the population for accelerated growth in the economy.thanx.
• United States
5 Sep 08
Hello bbsr13, and thank you for your comments! One of the most hotly debated topics here in the States covers that issue of government sponsored health care and the question of whether the government should provide health care for all of its citizens. To our north, I know that Canada has such a program, although I was not aware of the program in India. How would you rate this program in your government? Do you find that it offers you a high quality of services? Does it give incentives to doctors and physicians in their practices? And is there equal care across the board for the young and the elderly alike - or are certain groups given preferential treatment? (Please do not read anything critical into these questions. I am simply reflecting some of the concerns that I have heard with regard to government sponsored health care programs.) I suppose - to answer my own question - some health care is better than no health care at all. And governments do have responsibilities - so that your response raises the valid question: What is the responsibility (even the ultimate responsibility) of a government? Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!