if healthcare is a human right then why is food not?

Page 2 of 3 [ 38 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

23 Feb 2014, 10:51 pm

In regards to food-

Ok, perhaps then the problem is under-diversification as much as under investment.

Maybe whichever department is responsible ought to be looking into expanding healthy options like fruit and vegetables as much as corn, maizes and cereals.

_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

23 Feb 2014, 10:53 pm

sliqua-jcooter wrote:

thomas81 wrote:

o me, the issue is not so much whether the healthcare is free, moreover it is available at the point of demand irrespective of your circumstances or ability to pay.

You missed my point entirely - the point wasn't that healthcare comes with some sort of cost (regardless of the fact that the individual doesn't pay that cost). It's certainly true, but also irrelevant - just as you've said.

The point was that no society will pay for absolutely any desired healthcare, but rather they pay for healthcare for the populace to sustain a standard of living, and that care beyond that standard is the responsibility of the individual. I used the example of purely cosmetic surgery as an example.

to be honest, if i had my way, and was leader of my country, even things like cosmetic surgery would be available on a subsidised basis.

We pay for all sorts of junk we don't need, like nuclear missiles, monarchs, Olympic games and bankers payoffs.

If the people are being taxed, they may as well get their money's worth. Wouldnt you agree?

Better to be peaceful and look sexy than be armed to the teeth and living like paupers.

_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile

sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

23 Feb 2014, 11:03 pm

thomas81 wrote:

Maybe whichever department is responsible ought to be looking into expanding healthy options like fruit and vegetables as much as corn, maizes and cereals.

It's a nice sentiment, but ultimately I think the answer is to apply food policy to the point of consumption rather than the point of production. Incentivizing farmers to any particular crop over another unavoidably leads to situations where farmers are planting crops based on artificial demands and ignoring the large-scale agricultural consequences.

As an example, one of the reasons grains are incentivized higher than vegetables or fruits is that grains can be stored for long periods without consequence - whereas vegetables and fruits must be eaten within a relatively short period of time. A hypothetical food policy that artificially creates demand for vegetables will lead to a surplus that cannot be consumed. It also very likely created situations where farmers will plant crops on land ill-suited to sustain the crop - ultimately damaging the soil. Potato famine anyone?

Rather, the focus should be on providing financial incentives for consumers to be able to afford healthier choices for food.

_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.

Last edited by sliqua-jcooter on 23 Feb 2014, 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

23 Feb 2014, 11:06 pm

thomas81 wrote:

to be honest, if i had my way, and was leader of my country, even things like cosmetic surgery would be available on a subsidised basis.

That's fine - but you're not changing the dynamic of the mechanism, you're just re-adjusting the definition of the minimum standard of living.

_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

23 Feb 2014, 11:10 pm

We are in a perverse situation where 'overproduction' is cited as a problem rather than a goal. What it boils down to at the end is its all indicitive of the faulty economic paradigm on which we base industry.

We need to look into replacing the price system rather than trying to obfuscate the realisation of ending world hunger.

_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

23 Feb 2014, 11:11 pm

sliqua-jcooter wrote:

thomas81 wrote:

to be honest, if i had my way, and was leader of my country, even things like cosmetic surgery would be available on a subsidised basis.

That's fine - but you're not changing the dynamic of the mechanism, you're just re-adjusting the definition of the minimum standard of living.

again its a misnomer, because i have no faith in the economic paradigm.

I'm not referring to capitalism, I'm referring to the price system. Marx, Keynes, Smith, Ford, Taylor, all of these economists have failed to produce the sort of alternative i refer to.

However, Howard Scott was onto something:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Scott

_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

23 Feb 2014, 11:17 pm

sliqua-jcooter wrote:

thomas81 wrote:

to be honest, if i had my way, and was leader of my country, even things like cosmetic surgery would be available on a subsidised basis.

That's fine - but you're not changing the dynamic of the mechanism, you're just re-adjusting the definition of the minimum standard of living.

i dont necessarilly believe that there should be a minimum standard. I believe that the bar shouldnt be stagnant, and there must be a conscientious effort to continually raise it, constantly.

Otherwise what are our efforts in aid of as human beings?

_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile

sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

23 Feb 2014, 11:19 pm

thomas81 wrote:

With most products, overproduction is absolutely the goal, as that enables greater access to new products and technology to a wider group of people in new markets.

That model falls flat on it's face, however, when the goods in question are of a perishable nature, and must be consumed quickly (in the case of produce, within a couple weeks of harvesting). Overproduction in those instances leads to waste. The goal in these instances is to produce exactly the right amount to satisfy demand, have no waste, and to minimize the time between production and consumption.

Besides food, other models that fall under this category include electricity and water.

_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.

sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

23 Feb 2014, 11:25 pm

thomas81 wrote:

Quote:

That's fine - but you're not changing the dynamic of the mechanism, you're just re-adjusting the definition of the minimum standard of living.

again its a misnomer, because i have no faith in the economic paradigm.

Standard of living isn't a strictly economic concept - it's a societal one.

Quote:

Defining a minimum standard of living doesn't make it static. It's self-evident that the goal of any society is to increase their standard of living. However, different societies place different values on different aspects of a standard of living, and thus by that action implicitly define what that standard of living is.

Just because something is defined doesn't mean it is stagnant.

_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.

RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

24 Feb 2014, 12:26 am

I have no problem with food (and pretty much everything else) becoming free (in reasonable quantity). Free food would allow individuals to do many things they wouldn't have otherwise been able to do.

I understand most people forced to sell to survive in a market system. If other people gave stuff for free, you would no longer have to participate or face abject poverty.

Less control to the market. More freedom for the individual.

Schneekugel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,612

27 Feb 2014, 5:08 am

chris5000 wrote:

why is food not free in country's with free healthcare? im pretty sure you need food to live more than healthcare so why is all food not free?

It is in my country. If you are on social care, the amount of social care is measured upon the average "grocery demand" a person has.

GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

01 Mar 2014, 11:38 am

sliqua-jcooter wrote:

thomas81 wrote:

Maybe whichever department is responsible ought to be looking into expanding healthy options like fruit and vegetables as much as corn, maizes and cereals.

It's a nice sentiment, but ultimately I think the answer is to apply food policy to the point of consumption rather than the point of production. Incentivizing farmers to any particular crop over another unavoidably leads to situations where farmers are planting crops based on artificial demands and ignoring the large-scale agricultural consequences.

As an example, one of the reasons grains are incentivized higher than vegetables or fruits is that grains can be stored for long periods without consequence - whereas vegetables and fruits must be eaten within a relatively short period of time. A hypothetical food policy that artificially creates demand for vegetables will lead to a surplus that cannot be consumed. It also very likely created situations where farmers will plant crops on land ill-suited to sustain the crop - ultimately damaging the soil. Potato famine anyone?

Rather, the focus should be on providing financial incentives for consumers to be able to afford healthier choices for food.

This is the right way to go... Locally, our farmer's markets all take SNAP and WIC as payments and even give discounts. Also, we are developing community gardens and orchards in poor neighborhoods so that people have better access to good food.

Around here about 30% of children have been food insecure in the last twelve months... This is completely unacceptable in an area with just about the lowest unemployment in the country and with some of the richest people in the world.

But this is what modern capitalism gets you--HUNGRY WORKERS.

_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus

BetwixtBetween
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,543
Location: Mostly in my head

01 Mar 2014, 11:45 am

I used to volunteer at a food bank. We gave food away.

I have no experience with food stamps, but it is my understanding that people who use them are essentially getting their food for free.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

01 Mar 2014, 2:42 pm

thomas81 wrote:

If the people are being taxed, they may as well get their money's worth. Wouldnt you agree?

Better to be peaceful and look sexy than be armed to the teeth and living like paupers.

To me, a strong national defense is getting my money's worth. In order to have peace you have to always be prepared for war. History is full of this lesson.

RushKing wrote:

I have no problem with food (and pretty much everything else) becoming free (in reasonable quantity). Free food would allow individuals to do many things they wouldn't have otherwise been able to do.

Who's gonna pay for all this?
Aint nothin' free.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

01 Mar 2014, 3:04 pm

Raptor wrote:

thomas81 wrote:

If the people are being taxed, they may as well get their money's worth. Wouldnt you agree?

Better to be peaceful and look sexy than be armed to the teeth and living like paupers.

To me, a strong national defense is getting my money's worth. In order to have peace you have to always be prepared for war. History is full of this lesson.

.

If you had a non-interventionalist foreign policy, you could get away with having a small military because your defence budget would be that much less.

Meanwhile, ordinary people are being turned out of hospitals and even their own homes in droves out of want and not being able to pay their bills.

You American conservatives really love to cut your nose to spite your face don't you?

_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

01 Mar 2014, 3:06 pm

Raptor wrote:

thomas81 wrote:

If the people are being taxed, they may as well get their money's worth. Wouldnt you agree?

Better to be peaceful and look sexy than be armed to the teeth and living like paupers.

To me, a strong national defense is getting my money's worth. In order to have peace you have to always be prepared for war. History is full of this lesson.

.

If you had a non-interventionalist foreign policy, you could get away with having a small military because your defence budget would be that much less. Many people in Europe live dignified, secure lives, in peace and their governments dont spend the bottomless pit of treasure on their military that the American government spends on theirs. The USA is involved in far more wars because it pro-actively searches for enemies rather than friends. Sure there was the world wars but we have it set up so that is far less likely now.

Meanwhile in the USA, ordinary people are being turned out of hospitals and even their own homes in droves out of want and not being able to pay their bills.

You American conservatives really love to cut your nose to spite your face don't you?

_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile

Last edited by thomas81 on 01 Mar 2014, 3:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Page 2 of 3 [ 38 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

if healthcare is a human right then why is food not? Post Reply New Topic

if healthcare is a human right then why is food not?