Tornado Alley (PROG)

[SilverSurfer]

Is the government obligated to take care of its citizens?

Topic: Health Debates
22 Contributors (23 including my 2c at the end)
in this discussion.


Yes - 64% of users
===============================================================
It is humane and sane for the government to care for its citizens.

The government needs to take care of its citizens. Too often, citizens are subject to the wills and whims of their employers. There is not enough health care coverage in the United States, when we could easily be taxing the top 1% of earners and covering everybody's needs. There are people dying of poverty and malnutrition in this supposedly "first-world" country. If that isn't inhumane, I don't know what is. The government has an ethical and moral obligation to look after its citizens. It's even in the government's best interest. Keep citizens alive, and they'll continue to be able to give back to their country.

Yes ExoticCurt


is the government obliga

yes... the government should be working for the people... its people should not fear the government. we worked and pay taxes for many thing but we pay into taxes for our s.s after retirement as well as insurance for senior years those are some of the taxes that we pay. and, that is not a free hand out but what we have paid for our future.we did not ask for our government to waste that our monies we spent wrongly.our government should not exspect us to pay for their mistakes of spending either.our promise that ... those tax dollars would get a prcentage upon retirement is not a free hand out but earned by our hard works.a promise by mouth is a contract.word of mouth in trust and believing what our government promise on those tax dollars.other tax dollars other than those was the governments to waste but we should not have to work longer years to pay for the waste.alot are not healthy enough to work until 68 years or 70 years of age.but do we have a voice to say .. no we do not.but we are given more and more taxes to pay. .. and , we do it is the law. so i feel a promise made and taxes taken for that reason should be kept also.so by that the government should be obligated to do for their people.

Yes Anonymous


Yes, if a government proclaims a right to life, then they are obliged to give all citizens access to health care and benefits.

Stating that citizens have a right to life, without backing it up, is deceiving and immoral. In the U.S., people die from easily treatable diseases, because they are uninsured or under-insured. We have given insurance companies the right to decide if we can have surgery, which is an obvious barrier to our right to life. Additionally, due to societal forces beyond our control, many are thrown into the grips of poverty and should be cared for, as they are as worthy as we are.

Yes daveyxh


Yes, because the government is not an independent entity, it is in fact the citizens themselves.

Citizens have both a moral and economic responsibility to each other in a society. Individuals will pay taxes for the support of schools, highways, social security, and other social welfare programs because it directly benefits them and those around them. These actions provide a needed security if the citizens are rendered unable to meet societal expectations.

Yes CesarMatthews


Define Obligated

Apparently there isn't any legal documentation that says the government has to provide any services. I was surprised by this myself. I guess it's part of the "Social Contract". It'd be nice if I wasn't obligated to pay for these services.

Yes Anonymous


If the government taxes people for social services, it has the obligation to take care of citizens.

The purpose of government is to serve and protect the people. Nothing more, nothing less. What people give to the government should come right back to them. The government needs to be held more accountable for how it uses taxpayers money, such as the squandering of the social security fund.

Yes RayEar


The government should take care of its citizens; we pay taxes to have services available to us as citizens.

In a developed country where citizens pay taxes and vote in their leaders, the government is obliged to provide proper care and services for the citizens. Representatives are voted in by their constituents, and as such have a duty to serve the best interests of the people. Basic needs should be served, such as health care, schools, safety, and nutrition.

Yes 54bIinkDrugi


I believe it is the government's primary responsibility is to take care of the citizens of their country.

If the Government does not take care of the people, then who will? People in all categories are required to pay taxes to the Government, and they should definitely receive services from that money. Just the simple fact that Government should help people is another reason. The Government is designed not just for themselves but most importantly, for the people.

Yes taihenraion


The Point

Working together is the fundamental point of having an organized society instead of going it alone. Those who think they oppose it overlook the numerous things the government does (such as enforcing contract law, providing roads, police, etc.) that make it possible for individuals to succeed. When the government looks the other way the baser elements of human nature emerge and people take advantage of each other. Every organization looks to its head for guidance, whether it's the coach of a sports team or the government of a country, that top spot is there to provide leadership and care for its members. Otherwise, what's the point?

Yes Anonymous


The government should be obligated to take care of its citizens.

The entire point of a government is to take care of its citizens! It is there to make sure a country or region runs smoothly and that the needs of its people are met. Like the old saying goes "by the people for the people." People do not vote on a government just to have it ignore their voices and proceed with its own agenda.

Yes emililuyx2


The government must at all times, take care of its citizens and also ensure that they lead a law-abiding, peaceful and rewarding life in the country because the government is directly elected by the people of the country.

The government of any republic and democratic country is directly elected by its citizens. They are the elected representatives of the people of the country to be able to run the country in the best way possible and in the best interests of its citizens. There have been several instances in history where governments have been overthrown because they did not safeguard the citizens' interests and took advantage of their position in the country. There have also been governments which have stood for years together because their governance has been able to inspire trust amongst the residents of the country.

Yes SmarterTabby


I think the government is obligated to take care of its citizens to a certain extent, because of basic human necessities.

I believe that basic needs such as food, shelter, healthcare and education should be free or heavily subsidized by the government, and welfare programs such as those for the sick or unemployed should be improved. These things are important human necessities, which no one should be forced to go without, regardless of their circumstances. Of course, I still believe that people should work if they're able to, so that such a system wouldn't be abused by the lazy.

Yes R053Neddy


I strongly believe that our government has a duty and dedication to its citizens, depending on your definition of "take care of" because we also have a responsibility as US Citizens to provide for ourselves.

It is my firm opinion that our government's official authority is theoretically hindered by its primary goals and purpose in our nation. For example, morality comes into play in some situations, such as our justice system and enforcing the law of the United States. However, there has to be some form of limitation as well. In this respect, our type of government does NOT dictate a forced religion or means of making a living. So, I guess what I am saying is that I believe the government has a duty to protect its citizens and help keep their best interests in mind (this can mean improving health care or environmental budgets), but I don't think it is necessarily fair for the government to continue with adamant welfare programs for those who chose not to work or claim disability when they are clearly able to work.

Yes NikoICasuaI


The government is obligated to take care of its citizens, so long as they take our taxes.

Not only should the government take care of the citizen body which is bound by law to pay government regulated taxes, but it should take equal care of those citizens as it does itself. Health insurance provided to a senator or congressman should be provided to you and me as well. If my elected official gets a five thousand dollar kick back or campaign contribution, so should I. In fact the government is obligated by the Constitution to put its people first. Maybe we should be taken care of completely, and if there are not enough funds remaining, they should be the ones to go without services.

Yes MarsBIue

Voice Your Opinion


No


36% of users

The government is not obligated to take care of its citizens, as citizens have a responsibility to take care of themselves.

The government has some basic obligations to its citizens. These include protection from foreign enemies, providing justice, and maintaining certain services. It is not, however, obligated to fully take care of its citizens. Citizens are ultimately responsible for themselves. We do not live in a nanny state, and I doubt anyone would wish to do so.

No EminentBennett93


It is not the governments job to take care of its citizens, because we are all adults, and should be held accountable for our actions.

Taking care of citizens is a very broad idea, and it all depends on how you look at it. If you are talking about arranging for welfare and taking care of those who choose not to help themselves, then the government is absolutely not responsible for this. We are all adults, and should take care of ourselves. And, if we do not, we should be held accountable for it.

No eyeslikethat


Government should protect but not dictate what it labels as care.

What is being defined as "care" by this question? Does this mean government should "care" for those that refuse to work instead of those that really are in need? Does this mean that government should "care" for the right of a woman to kill her unborn child while turning the "care" away from the right to life of the unborn being destroyed? Does this mean that government should "care" about a persons right who chooses to use substances(mind altering drugs) that result in the death of a fellow man over the right of the suffering of the victim resulting from the action of the drug user? If governments position were to "care" for the above mentioned, which position of the opposite sides of the fence would it take. It cannot have both. People ... Think!

No Anonymous


No, citizens should take care of themselves

The Government does not care about you and does not have to worry there citizens. The Governmnet needs to back off people's lives. It's non of there business what we do. No one cares about everybody, It's impossible. In this world today it's all about money. If it weren't for money, there would no obligations or Laws. I don't care about everybody and Im a very good hearted person. Probably off topic, but...... I'm ventillating. It's True though.

No Anonymous


No, citizens are obligated to take care of themselves

It is not the governments job to take care of you, that is your responsibility, it is the job of the government to make sure that your rights aren't infringed upon by others or the government itself.

No Anonymous


" A government that is big enough to provide everything to the people is big enough to take away everything from the people"- Thomas Jefferson

The second the government becomes our sole provider to all our necessities, it makes us at the mercy of their decisions. They could withdraw all entitlments to the people and men and women after being so reliant on the government will have no idea how to support themselves. We should have our own independent responsibilities from the government. If the government becomes our parents then we are nothing more then a nation of children with not idea, how to take care of ourselves

No Anonymous


Extortion

Social Security is like extortion to me with a hope that if people live long enough they might get some of the money back that the government took from them. Although the Social Security Act entitles workers to receive benefits, these benefits are not guaranteed by law. The federal government does not have a legal liability to pay retirees the money they paid into the system over their working careers and Congress can change the rules regarding benefit eligibility at any time. Therefore, workers paying into the Social Security system do not have any contractual right to Social Security benefits.

No Anonymous


The government is not obligated to take care of its citizens.

I don't believe the government is obligated to take care of its citizens, especially in a Representative Democracy, because too many people will become too reliant on government. They will eventually run out of other people's money to spend, and they can't print money forever, or it will become worthless. This will also take away the incentive for people to work and take care of themselves and at some point what the Government gives can be taken away.

No MycCra2ii

Voice Your Opinion

© 2010 Juggle, LLC
All Rights Reserved
http://debates.juggle.com/is-the-government-obligated-to-take-care-of-its-citizens

Silver Surfer says - The more government takes care of it's citizens, the more it distorts the market place provokes fraud, waste, tensions and wars as unnecessary armies wallow carelessly about in distant lands and government bureaucracies grow their book, throw their weight around in endless, costly power grabs. Big government is dangerous to both foreigners and its own citizens, as this machine can operate indefinitely without any effective check as long as the Fed Money Printing for National Debt holds up.