Anything that smacks of equality gets rejected. Moreover, we don't have a commitment to human rights. If we did, food, shelter and health care would not be conditioned on the recipient deserving them. Indeed, if we had a true commitment to human rights, there would be no need to bofuscate with "entitlements." The latter are rights, but because they are not honored, they are called something else and made conditional.
"No free lunch" is not consistent with a commitment to human rights.
As long as any program promotes a separate group, it has more chance of support. Segregation for ever!
Medicare, for example, is a segregated program. The segregation by age has no practical relationship to injury and disease. Therefor, the separate program exists as a nod to the segregationist impulse. Ditto for housing for the elderly.
The integration of disabled persons into the community is contrary to the segregationist impulse. It is an impulse that survives regardless of which population is targeted for "special" treatment. Nor does the size of the group matter. The one percent are quite content with their special status and have no objection to self-segregation in gated communities.
Why do people feel the need to segregate themselves? Because they are insecure.
{{We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse. by hannah on Thu Dec 06, 2012 Daily Kos Blog }}
Thank you for bringing the 'segregationist strain' that's alive and doing well here in the USA to the forefront. Forever with us (witnessed in my lifetime anyway) I have always believed that its because humans desire a One-upmanship lead over one another. It appears that if the members of our species do not have someone who appears less than we, it diminishes our being somehow; whether it be economically or physically, theres an intrinsic need to segregate those with less (or those with more from those with less) therefore marginalizing groups of people based on some sort of caste system (http://www.dummies.com/...). Sadly this will probably be a part of human existence for a long, long time but there are places on this Earth where governments and the people who live under these governments have somewhat risen above this inborn bondage of thought. thinkingblue.
From this site: http://shine.yahoo.com/...
Best Places to Be Born in 2013
Though America may be the "land of opportunity," Switzerland will be the best place to be born in 2013 according to a quality-of-life index from the Economist Intelligence Unit.
The EIU, a sister company to The Economist magazine, determines quality of life based on surveys of the population covering 11 factors including wealth, crime, family life, trust in government and the stability of the economy.
Income estimates for babies born in 2013 are based on projections for the year 2030, when those children will come of age.
The top ten best places to be born in 2013:
1. Switzerland
2. Australia
3. Norway
4. Sweden
5. Denmark
6. Singapore
7. New Zealand
8. Netherlands
9. Canada
10. Hong Kong
With its small but very stable economy, Switzerland comes in first, wealthy, healthy and trusting of its PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS. The United States, "where babies will inherit the large debts of the boomer generation, languishes back in 16th place," the EIU explains. Feeling the effects of the European monetary crisis, "the largest European economies, France (26), Germany (tied with the U.S. for 16) and Britain (27), don't do particularly well."---
A perfect
example of the human need to marginalize groups for an advantage
is the Taliban, captured in this political image:
I hope that
someday we can all just get along and care about one another's
well-being
But I won't hold my breath. thinkingblue