4 ms·

I've always wondered, why do people use this argument for medical care, but not food? Both are necessary to carry on living, and both are provided by people who

I've always wondered, why do people use this argument for medical care, but not food? Both are necessary to carry on living, and both are provided by people who themselves work full-time and need to keep the lights on somehow.

tlrobinson 13y ago
Exactly. Your country has just chosen to draw the line at a slightly different point.
ollysb 13y ago
While there may be much debate regarding who should receive them I don't think anyone in the UK is arguing that we should get rid of social benefits.
jackowayed 13y ago
The cost of food is very predictable and pretty flexible. Anyone who needs to can eat well on <$100/week as long as they have access to a reasonably-priced grocery store and facilities to cook and store food. (Also, note that even our barebones welfare state includes foodstamps.) On the other hand, medical costs can vary wildly and randomly. A perfectly healthy person who's been following health best practices might suddenly develop a serious condition that is treatable, but only with five to six figures of treatment.
- kefka 13y ago
  Foodstamps, for a single white male, is $207 a month in Indiana. And 3 months ago, I was cut. Paperwork's "lost in the system". No job. No unemployment. Living on the scraps of money I had in goods that I sold.
munimkazia 13y ago
I am just guessing here.. but it is much harder to manage because it would be a nightmare to distribute food for every single meal, every single day to all those who need it. Medical care is different. Most people don't have to walk into a hospital three times a day to get their daily care (hopefully)
vidarh 13y ago
Are people not using this argument for food? Almost every developed country have substantial social welfare programs to ensure that everyone can get access to food and housing.
laumars 13y ago
There are allowances for food. That's what government schemes like income support is for. That's what state pensions are for. They're there to cover the bare essentials (food, water, heating and -to a lesser degree- rent). The problem is such schemes are abused by many individuals where parents refuse to work because they'd "earn" more money from income support and such like. Those that know how to work the system to afford luxuries instead of the money going to towards the essentials to survive. But that's a whole other topic.

tlrobinson 13y ago

Exactly. Your country has just chosen to draw the line at a slightly different point.

ollysb 13y ago

While there may be much debate regarding who should receive them I don't think anyone in the UK is arguing that we should get rid of social benefits.

jackowayed 13y ago

The cost of food is very predictable and pretty flexible. Anyone who needs to can eat well on <$100/week as long as they have access to a reasonably-priced grocery store and facilities to cook and store food. (Also, note that even our barebones welfare state includes foodstamps.) On the other hand, medical costs can vary wildly and randomly. A perfectly healthy person who's been following health best practices might suddenly develop a serious condition that is treatable, but only with five to six figures of treatment.

kefka 13y ago
Foodstamps, for a single white male, is $207 a month in Indiana. And 3 months ago, I was cut. Paperwork's "lost in the system". No job. No unemployment. Living on the scraps of money I had in goods that I sold.

munimkazia 13y ago

I am just guessing here.. but it is much harder to manage because it would be a nightmare to distribute food for every single meal, every single day to all those who need it. Medical care is different. Most people don't have to walk into a hospital three times a day to get their daily care (hopefully)

vidarh 13y ago

Are people not using this argument for food? Almost every developed country have substantial social welfare programs to ensure that everyone can get access to food and housing.

laumars 13y ago

There are allowances for food. That's what government schemes like income support is for. That's what state pensions are for. They're there to cover the bare essentials (food, water, heating and -to a lesser degree- rent). The problem is such schemes are abused by many individuals where parents refuse to work because they'd "earn" more money from income support and such like. Those that know how to work the system to afford luxuries instead of the money going to towards the essentials to survive. But that's a whole other topic.