Who made this rule "all Americans are expected to pay for shelter and food"....where can I find the federally mandated law that stipulates this?

If there is NO law that says "all Americans are expected to pay for shelter and food"....then how different is it to say "all Americans are expected to pay for healthcare?"


Where do you get your information?

America’s Second Harvest—The Nation’s Food Bank Network (A2H), Hunger Study 2006:

-The study is based on completed in-person interviews with 52,878 clients served by the A2H National Network, as well as on completed questionnaires from 31,342 A2H agencies.

-The A2H system served an estimated 24 to 27 million unduplicated people annually, with a midpoint of 25.3 million.  This includes 22 to 25 million pantry users, 1.2 to 1.4 million kitchen users, and 0.8 million shelter users (Table 4.2.1).

-Approximately 4.5 million different people receive emergency food assistance from the A2H system in any given week (Table 4.2.1).

-36.4% of the members of households served by the A2H National Network are children under 18 years old

-8% of the members of households are children age 0 to 5 years

-10% of the members of households are elderly

-About 40% of clients are non-Hispanic white; 38% are non-Hispanic black, and the rest are from other racial groups.  17% are Hispanic

-36% of households include at least one employed adult

68% have incomes below the official federal poverty level during the previous month.

-12% are homeless

-33% of the clients are experiencing hunger

-Among households with children, 73% are food insecure and 31% are experiencing hunger

-74% of pantries, 65% of kitchens, and 43% of shelters are run by faith-based agencies affiliated with churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations

-At the agency level, 69% of agencies with pantry, kitchen, or shelter and 56% of all agencies including those with other programs are faith-based

-Private nonprofit organizations with no religious affiliation make up a large share of other types of agencies

Second harvest

Wheres the federal government?

Too busy worrying about insurance when people starve daily.

We'll deal with the myth "no one is starving" before we move on.....

Really?

-Among all client households served by emergency food programs of the A2H National Network, 70% are estimated to be food insecure, according to the U.S. government’s official food security scale.  This includes client households who are food insecure without hunger and those who are food insecure with hunger

- 33% of the clients are experiencing hunger

-Among households with children, 73% are food insecure and 31% are experiencing hunger

-42% of clients served by the A2H National Network report having to choose between paying for food and paying for utilities or heating fuel

-35% had to choose between paying for food and paying their rent or mortgage

-32% had to choose between paying for food and paying for medicine or medical care


-29% of households served by the A2H National Network report having at least one household member in poor health
(from previously cited source)

-Some 38 million people in America are considered "food insecure" -- they have trouble finding the money to keep food on the table.

Q: Why is there hunger in America?

A: A big part of food insecurity relates to the uncertainties of daily life. People go hungry because of unexpected events, such as paying for an emergency visit to the hospital, a car repair, or the loss of a job. So you can be just above the poverty line, and any one of those circumstances can push you into poverty.

When a family is living that close to the edge, the bottom line is that cuts will be made in the consumption of food. Food is purchased with cash. If you don't have a credit card, then you have to pay cash for food. The majority of people don't have a monthly charge account at the local grocery store.

Q: How common is it for families to have to make a trade off between food and expenses such as health care?

A: Families are often forced to make the tradeoff between food and other expenses. Health care is a particular problem. In poor, rural communities families often have no choice but to use the emergency room for routine health care. This is very expensive. Car repairs are another significant and unexpected expense. If the family car needs repair and it is the end of the month, when cash reserves are low, a family will have no choice but to reduce food intake to get the car back on the road in order to go to work. It's all about how close to the line you are.

Q: How successful has the food stamp program been at reducing food insecurity?

A: According to the USDA, in 2004 the average monthly food stamp benefit was about $86 per person and about $200 per household. This average of $200 is just over one-third of what the USDA recommends a family of four should expect to spend on food using its Thrifty Food Plan.

Does the program stop hunger? It reduces hunger, but it probably does not eliminate hunger if the family lives at or below the poverty line.[/b]

NPR

Economic Impact Of Hunger Affects All Americans: Cost To Nation Is $90 Billion

ScienceDaily (Jun. 7, 2007) — While thirty-five million Americans feel the physical effects of hunger each day, every household and individual in our nation feels the economic effects. So finds a new study released today by the Sodexho Foundation and researchers affiliated with Harvard University School of Public Health, Brandeis University and Loyola University.

Science Daily

I don't see how they are "taken care of" any MORE than those with substandard health insurance.....but everyone rallies around changing 16% of the US economy when approximately the same number of people are STARVING daily....and the federal government does squat...relying on the good graces of faith based charities to feed their citizens....living in OKC I have personally seen the infrastructure of "Feed the Children"....it's a shame the candidates and media are more mesmerized by the mantra started by Hillary's quest for legacy than for actually caring about something that effects so many daily......

I'm sorry.....I thought you were following along.

There are several themes portrayed in this debate:

-Healthcare is a right.....no one has demonstrated this outside of personal opinion.

-Healthcare is expensive......so is a great many other things.

-People die without adequate healthcare.....people die without other things too.....I decided to use food, water, and shelter as an example.

    At this point you flippantly pointed out "others provide those".......I pointed out NOT the Federal Government.... which is to provide this healthcare......I continued that more pressing things on a scale the SAME as those with inadequate healthcare effect people daily....like hunger....but the government does nothing about hunger......

You then said "starving people are taken care of" and I provided information that shows the contrary.

You believe the Federal government NEEDS to change the healthcare system....a FULL 16% of the US economy...and apparently hunger and starvation are hunky-dory to leave "as is"....

Don't you even WONDER why the candidates and media are more mesmerized by the mantra started by Hillary's quest for legacy than for actually caring about something that effects so many daily......like hunger and starvation?

Bottom line is there are LOTS of things that cost people money that are necessary for survival....some people have a problem meeting these needs...but for some reason healthcare is the one that is christened a "CRISIS".....all started by Hillarys' attempted coup of a large part of the US economy....

Somehow people believe the healthcare "CRISIS" is EASIER to fix than the hunger crisis (same number of people affected)......but as you can see, I used lower case letters for the crisis associated with hunger because no one believes there is one....and there is just as much a problem with hunger as there is with healthcare.

And food was just one example.......

I think we are finally getting our heads above the clouds.........


These are very good, but complicated questions where answers are equally complicated and interwoven with other things that add to difficulties in providing a simple and all inclusive answer.

Underlying themes to the answers include:

-Constitutional Rights....those rights specifically dilineated in the founding documents of American society....and what the Federal government is REQUIRED to be responsible for....should the Federal government expand it's Constitutional mandate into ALL aspects of life?....if it does, what is the "begin point" and "end point?".....is this something where the goalposts are movable?.....who decides what the goals are and where they end?

-Human Rights....officially not specifically dilineated outside the treatment of non-combatants in wartime...many "opinions" exists as to whether the Federal government should expand on this Constitutionally as hinted above.....

-Personal Responsibility....what aspects of ones existence should the individual be responsible for?....what happens if the person is irresponsible and makes poor choices?....who should pay for the consequences of bad choices?....Who decides what IS a bad choice?....How are those decisions arrived at?

-Fee-for-service....do people deserve to be paid "market value" for their services?...should they be FORCED to accept less?....What rights do people have when FORCED to accept less than "market value" for their services?

I'm sure there are others.......

Just look at some things the "government" does....these are two examples of personal experience off the top of my head.

-The current Military hospital I'm deployed to has 3000+ civilian employees for a 150 bed hospital.....a civilian hospital of the same size will run on a third the number....including those on different shifts to ensure 24/7/365 coverage.
....When the weather gets bad here..."Non-essential personnel"are allowed to leave...(being Anesthesia, I NEVER get to leave)....when all are gone...about 100-200 people are left.....the Federal government pays for ALL 3000+

-Oklahoma is a sparcely populated and poor state...we have 77 counties...the state education system mandates a superintindent for each county + staff....we all know how much superintendents make in relation to teachers....does each county NEED a superintendent? All this money paying people who DO NOT educate our children.

When the government gets it's hands on control...power brokers corrupt the system for the almighty dollar and the people serviced get fleeced and receive pennies on the dollar for their investment.....

Now we want to give government 16% of the US economy?

No corruption or fleecing potential there at all now......or is there?


Ya think?

Do you believe we have a right to life?

I'm pro-limited forms of abortion: when the mother's life is in danger, when the mother is a child herself (i.e. teen pregnancies), when rape of incest is afoot, when the child won't survive to full term or will die shortly after.

I also think it should be legal when the fetus will not suffer from the act, though I am undecided as to whether or not it is morally wrong to abort a fetus if it is just for contraceptive reasons.


With right to life there is an implicit right to healthcare  (or else the right is meaningless). That goes beyond simple life-saving treatment, but treatment to lead to a better quality of life.

Basically the question of universal health care is not one of economics, but one of civilisation.

Every economically developed society sets its priorities according to its overall values. If the United States were a society which valued social justice and compassion for the less well off more than material progress for the fortunate few, it would already have in place systems which ensured that people did not go hungry, without shelter, and without health care.

The cost of providing these things is taxation and, as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Taxes are the price we pay for civilisation."

This is not intended as a criticism of the United States as a society, but every society develops a set of public values, and those developed in the United States seem to be primarily concerned with personal independence, looking after one's immediate family, and material gain.

In addition to which, there seems to be a reflexive reluctance to part with money which may be spent on the welfare of strangers, allied to an equally reflexive distrust of government.

So I guess there has to be a shift in public perception involving movement to a 'we' society, and away from a 'me' society, before a genuine system of universal health care (and not one of just fiddling around with who pays the insurance companies) can be implemeted in the United States. 

They are essential to longevity, which should not be the preserve of the wealthy.