What if we gave everyone room, board and free medical care? A new deal 2018 !
« prev   housing   next »

2
5

What if we gave everyone room, board and free medical care? A new deal 2018 !

By PeopleUnited following x   2013 Oct 27, 5:45am 9,794 views   36 comments   watch   quote     share  


Suppose congress, or even just one of the fifty states, decides that effective June 1, 2018 it will provide three meals a day at government cafeterias (these could be set up in or near most workplaces or could offer to go boxes for those who need them) a place for everyone to sleep with clean water for drinking and bathing (some places may be dormitory style), clothing if needed (think blue jumpsuits), and medical care at government owned and operated facilities.

Everything else would remain as it is today. If you don't like your government rations of food, you can use the free market. If you don't like the government provided blue jumpsuits you can buy your own clothes. If you don't want to live in the dorms you can find your own place to live. If you don't like the nurse practitioner at the government medical clinic you can pay for a visit to a privately owned medical provider and/or continue to use your employers health insurance plan.

The point is that we need to give people a true choice between using the nanny state or being independent. Now some people might opt to live rent free in government housing but continue to use their own medical plan, or buy their own apartment but take part in the food rations Uncle Sam provides. But at least everyone would have a choice and no one would even have to work in order to obtain their basic necessities.

Naturally it would be easier for the US congress to do this because they could run deficit spending indefinitely (according to current thought and practice) to fund the cost of housing, food and sheltering every man, woman and child in the country.

And certainly there would still be a huge incentive for people to work and earn a living to buy things like cell phones, cars, opera and football tickets, baby strollers and mountain bikes. And the well to do would still work to maintain their lifestyle while the less affluent would have a motivation to shed the blue jumpsuit and make their own way in the world. And yet some would be content to just live in the dorms, wear the blue jumpsuits and eat their government rations. But at least everyone would have a choice and all would have their basic needs met yet no one would get a free cell phone.

I call this the 21st century new deal. It's time has come. Lets do this America!

#housing

1 Bose   ignore (0)   2013 Oct 27, 6:08am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Who will clean the dorms, cook food and wash the jumpsuits? Nobody will. The truth is some one has work to put food on table and before long the food will stop coming. At that point money printing doesn't matter. Welcome to Zimbabwe :)

2 New Renter   ignore (11)   2013 Oct 27, 6:22am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Bose says

Who will clean the dorms, cook food and wash the jumpsuits? Nobody will.

Robots will!

The truth is some one has work to put food on table and before long the food will stop coming.

Robots!

At that point money printing doesn't matter. Welcome to Zimbabwe :)

Now with Robots!

3 PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2013 Oct 27, 6:33am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (4)     quote        

Well in my chicken in every pot scenario you would be responsible for washing your own clothes, but federal funds would pay for the workers who prepare the meals. there would be janitors for the common areas but people would have to clean their own rooms. consequences for not keeping room clean would be relocation to a room with another freeloader who refused to keep their space clean. Homeless alcoholics would get no booze or booze money unless they a) work for it or b) idiots give it to them (but since everyone has their needs met beggars have no justification for begging.

4 PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2013 Oct 27, 6:33am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (4)     quote        

On second thought. Yes, ROBOTS!

5 Moderate Infidel   ignore (0)   2013 Oct 27, 6:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Can we put all the dorms in Texas?

6 Quigley   ignore (0)   2013 Oct 27, 7:49am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Then we would be like china and our citizens would be able to work for $1.75/hour because all living expenses are already paid (for up to one child). Then jobs can return to the States and life will be wonderful! Hurrah!

7 mmmarvel   ignore (0)   2013 Oct 27, 8:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Moderate Infidel says

Can we put all the dorms in Texas?

No, we don't cotten to freeloaders or the feds down here, I nominate Vermont, just cause.

8 Rin   ignore (5)   2013 Oct 27, 9:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Robot nation is coming ...

http://www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm

Before it take holds, we need to put every man, woman, and child on welfare, before society collapses.

9 PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2013 Oct 27, 9:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

Quigley says

Then we would be like china and our citizens would be able to work for $1.75/hour because all living expenses are already paid (for up to one child). Then jobs can return to the States and life will be wonderful! Hurrah!

Wait, china is giving away room and board and blue jumpsuits to freeloaders?

As to your 1.75/hr you make a good point (not that we need to lower minimum wage necessarily) under this scenario no one can say they don't make a livable wage. You don't even need to earn wages to get your needs met. Also your statement illustrates another point. It is not the quantity of $ you have, it is what you need and what the $ will buy that matters. $15 dollars an hour ain't so great when your rent is 1500 a month, and you gotta buy healthcare for another 150 a month plus copays and deductibles. But 7 dollars an hour is pretty decent for a high school dropout or new immigrant to earn when you can use it all for wants instead of needs.

10 PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2013 Oct 27, 9:30am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

The Professor says

Vaticanus says

will provide three meals a day at government cafeterias (these could be set up in or near most workplaces or could offer to go boxes for those who need them) a place for everyone to sleep with clean water for drinking and bathing (some places may be dormitory style), clothing if needed (think blue jumpsuits), and medical care at government owned and operated facilities.

Isn't it called penitentiary?

But seriously, I think all cash or cash equivalent payments should stop in favor of free clinics, cafeterias, and dormitories. If a person can't mange to feed, clean, and house themselves giving them money cannot be a very efficient use of resources.

No you are free to leave when you want. And yes, all cash and cash equivalent payments need to stop immediately in favor of welfare programs that are available to everyone at any given moment without any red tape paperwork, should the need arise and are more efficient than prepaid gift cards and rent subsidies. This way everyone is equally provided for regardless of race, age or income/assets. It's welfare for all who want it, not just for those who game the system.

11 PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2013 Oct 27, 9:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

Rin says

Robot nation is coming ...

http://www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm

Before it take holds, we need to put every man, woman, and child on welfare, before society collapses.

You may be right, terminator 2 got it half right, but it isn't sky net that will bring the robot Apocolypsefuck it is the one percent turning their terminators loose on the soon to be worthless consumers/eaters.

12 BlueSardine   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 27, 11:23am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

This would mean the end of the two party system as democrats would have nothing to bribe the downtrodden with to win elections.

13 John Bailo   ignore (2)   2013 Oct 27, 11:40am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Stop having babies and we probably can.

14 EInvestor   ignore (0)   2013 Oct 27, 11:44am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

We are ! Section 8, food stamps, free Healthcare ! Who pays for it ? Tax payers !

15 PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2013 Oct 27, 1:15pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

EInvestor says

We are ! Section 8, food stamps, free Healthcare ! Who pays for it ? Tax payers !

The point is that old system is not reaching everyone who wants/needs it. This new system would provide the basic needs for everyone regardless of age, ethnicity, sex or income/assets.

16 PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2013 Oct 27, 9:48pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

John Bailo says

Stop having babies and we probably can.

?

17 zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 28, 12:56am   ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Obligatory:

18 zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 28, 12:57am   ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Vaticanus says

Suppose congress, or even just one of the fifty states, decides that effective June 1, 2014 it will provide three meals a day at government cafeterias (these could be set up in or near most workplaces or could offer to go boxes for those who need them) a place for everyone to sleep with clean water for drinking and bathing (some places may be dormitory style), clothing if needed (think blue jumpsuits), and medical care at government owned and operated facilities.

I like the idea of having "welfare camps" instead of handing out free money.

19 PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2013 Oct 28, 1:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

The Professor says

Vaticanus says

The point is that old system is not reaching everyone who wants/needs it. This new system would provide the basic needs for everyone regardless of age, ethnicity, sex or income/assets.

In addition it would lower administrative overhead. Have you ever been in a welfare office? I had as a kid and it is a bureaucratic nightmare. It will also force all the aid collectors into the open where they can be seen.

The system as it is, is broken and needs to be overhauled.

Yes, the funny thing is people are refusing to acknowledge the problem or consider reasonable solutions.

20 Reality   ignore (5)   2013 Oct 28, 1:56pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Unless the population in the camps are sterilized, would not such camps create multi-generational refugee problem, like in Palestine? People not having to work to put food on the table and roof over the head would have tons of time making babies! The kids growing up in such camps would have no concept what work is . . . and therefore would have no opportunity besides receiving predetermined hand-outs . . . social promotion would be looks, muscles and perhaps mischief (i.e. stealing whatever is unavailable from outside the camp to bring it inside to impress the girls). How long will it be before high walls around the facilities become necessary? and home-made rockets to be lobbed over the walls?

21 BlueSardine   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 28, 1:57pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

This little billboard kinda hits home for you, hehhehheh
egads101 says

zzyzzx says

Obligatory:

that isn't what liberals believe or support. That is what ASSHOLES try to pretend liberals are like.

22 Rin   ignore (5)   2013 Oct 28, 3:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Reality says

Unless the population in the camps are sterilized, would not such camps create multi-generational refugee problem, like in Palestine? People not having to work to put food on the table and roof over the head would have tons of time making babies! The kids growing up in such camps would have no concept what work is

The difference is that we're talking about a society where ppl will be into virtual reality and gaming scenarios. In effect, there will be no 'real world' for those in the camps. They'll be hooked into computers and devices, living in a separated reality.

The situation with Palestine is based upon a type of ethnic Apartheid system whereas in this case, it'll be all Americans, who're not independently wealthy and able to buy themselves into a better lifestyle.

23 Reality   ignore (5)   2013 Oct 28, 3:14pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Rin says

The difference is that we're talking about a society where ppl will be into virtual reality and gaming scenarios. In effect, there will be no 'real world' for those in the camps. They'll be hooked into computers and devices, living in a separated reality.

Are you suggesting solitary confinement with virtual interaction only? i.e. no possibility of reproducing? The real issue I raised was what to do with the next generation born into such an environment.

The situation with Palestine is based upon a type of ethnic Apartheid system whereas in this case, it'll be all Americans, who're not independently wealthy and able to buy themselves into a better lifestyle.

Such a system would rapidly become apartheid and ghetto. Didn't the US and UK experiment with high rise public housing back in the 70's? and failed miserably?

24 justme   ignore (0)   2013 Oct 28, 3:50pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Vaticanus,

Yawn. What a big fat stupid strawman argument you created with this post.

I guess if your opponents' (Obama's) real life policy agenda is quite popular, I suppose you can try to create some crazy scenario and be against that instead. But is anyone but the usual wingnuts going to get excited about your strawman and fall all over themselves trying to knock it down?

Maybe not.

25 Vicente   ignore (0)   2013 Oct 28, 4:23pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

The usual way these questions are translated into a reader's mind leads down three paths:

1) Descent into hell or some facsimile thereof
2) Utopia!
3) Things muddle along, different but not better or worse.

The typical libertopian reactionary, like say Softshell, goes down path 1. This sort would tell you Denmark is an impossibility because if you have widely available social services they will be abused and that society will collapse utterly.

The classic communist goes down path 2 and never looks back. They would never admit that you need some safeguards to avoid becoming Cuba.

Most of the rest realize that generally societies muddle along somehow and decline to comment much on the question, considering it beneath worrying about.

26 PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2013 Oct 28, 5:06pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

I'm not a communist. Nor do I think this idea would represent utopia. But I do think it is a better welfare program than the current broken system which is growing in cost and increasingly failing to achieve the desired outcomes. That is why this topic was brought before the good people of Patnet (and the rest of you too.)

27 PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2013 Oct 30, 12:32am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

Vicente says

The usual way these questions are translated into a reader's mind leads down three paths:

1) Descent into hell or some facsimile thereof

2) Utopia!

3) Things muddle along, different but not better or worse.

Most of the rest realize that generally societies muddle along somehow and decline to comment much on the question, considering it beneath worrying about.

Based on: evidence of ever increasing wealth disparity and the ever decreasing need for American labor due to automation and outsourcing; and the growing population, muddling along is not an option. Even Iwog's latest chart on labor hours vs productivity is evidence of that.

28 humanity   ignore (0)   2013 Oct 30, 12:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Vaticanus says

That is why this topic was brought before the good people of Patnet (and the rest of you too.)

Its actually an interesting idea. Maybe we could lower the prison population a little (not that it's that much different). What would be the incentive be to avoid prison ? MAybe they make you work in prison ?

The problem is that it is just another subsidy to the corporate world. Then they could truly compete with global wages, but it would soon be impossible for workers save enough to buy their own home and live independently.

You might be on to something, but it would surely be the end of upward mobility and put an ever greater spread between the haves and the have nots.

29 edvard2   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 30, 1:07am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Ok... well let's play Devil's strawman for a second. So let's imagine that the "fantasy world" described by the OP- a vision that I am assuming is meant to detail what it would be like under a supposed democrat's extreme vision of all-out social programs doesn't work out and instead we get the total opposite GOP's extreme, which would be a country without any government at all.

So imagine if you will that there are no laws that would juristic who owns land... because since there is no government, there are now laws. As stated repeatedly by the right, we MUST shrink the size of government- always, and if that means always, then that means eventually there would be no government period. So everyone would have to fend for themselves. There would be no military, no freeways, no sidewalks, no major cities, no fire departments, police force, no teachers, no nothin. No anything that has anything to do with any government and especially any sort of social program.

It would be absolute paradise! Absolute total, untethered, un-governed chaos.

30 TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 30, 1:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Yep, bums would have to pay the private owner of the bridge to sleep under it.

31 KimJongUn   ignore (0)   2013 Oct 30, 1:52am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

If we do that the rest of Mexico will move in within a year.

32 Automan Empire   ignore (0)   2013 Oct 30, 2:02am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Ugh, I just remembered as a teen, delivering newspapers to Soviet-like, high rise low income apartments.

Stairwells that ALWAYS smelled strongly of piss; elevators never working. Drab common areas always behind in basic maintenance. No real pretense of keeping up with the sysiphean task of picking up litter from the no-sense-of-ownership residents. Undisciplined, rag-a-muffin kids running around in packs. Customers who let their subscriptions lapse without paying out the final bill; never a tip. There were more people living, but fewer newspaper subscribers, in that large square block, than the 1/2 mile square route of otherwise single family residences.

33 P N Dr Lo R   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 30, 2:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Automan Empire says

Ugh, I just remembered as a teen, delivering newspapers to Soviet-like, high rise low income apartments.

Today you would be lucky to come out of one of those with your life and limbs!

34 humanity   ignore (0)   2013 Oct 30, 3:33am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

SoftShell says

This little billboard kinda hits home for you, hehhehheh

egads101 says

zzyzzx says

Obligatory:

that isn't what liberals believe or support. That is what ASSHOLES try to pretend liberals are like.

That's the stupidest straw man.

What the republitards deny is that most of our safety nets and entitlement programs are widely supported by nearly everyone. And if our finances had been managed just a little better in recent decades with a couple less unnecessary wars and a couple less big tax breaks for the rich, we would be in much better shape financially, and better situated to do the necessary tweaks to make these so called "entitlements" sustainable.

What does the typical republitard think is the solution to two income households that still need food stamps to to afford the most minimal lifestyle in many big cities ?

I suppose they just think those people need to pull themselves up and get better jobs (or suffer the consequences).

But then who does the work at those low paying jobs ?

"Republican logic" is an oxymoron.

35 PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2013 Nov 7, 11:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

edvard2

Follow (1)
Befriend
44 threads
2,787 comments

33 8:07am Wed 30 Oct 2013 Share Quote Permalink Like Dislike (1) Delete
Ok... well let's play Devil's strawman for a second. So let's imagine that the "fantasy world" described by the OP- a vision that I am assuming is meant to detail what it would be like under a supposed democrat's extreme vision of all-out social programs doesn't work out and instead we get the total opposite GOP's extreme, which would be a country without any government at all.

So imagine if you will that there are no laws that would juristic who owns land... because since there is no government, there are now laws. As stated repeatedly by the right, we MUST shrink the size of government- always, and if that means always, then that means eventually there would be no government period. So everyone would have to fend for themselves. There would be no military, no freeways, no sidewalks, no major cities, no fire departments, police force, no teachers, no nothin. No anything that has anything to do with any government and especially any sort of social program.

It would be absolute paradise! Absolute total, untethered, un-governed chaos.
-------------------

Edvard,

This is not meant to describe some democrat wet dream. It is meant to give us pause to think on what we are trying to accomplish and the costs and consequences of intervention on the government level.

I do not think most democrats want government housing, government clothing, government cafeterias. Many do however want government healthcare.

And most democrats probably support SNAP, housing subsidies and other forms of welfare that are not universally available to all citizens (meaning I can't go down and get a rent subsidy or EBT card for groceries just because I want one.) this would level the playing field and give all citizens equal access. Making welfare available and equal for all is the least we can do.

36 PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2017 Aug 2, 7:07pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

I still think some city or state should try this, it would be a wonderful experiment.


Comment as anon_852e9 or log in at top of page: