Problem:
How should I respond to my classmate: Human Beings have a legitimate interest in minimum standards of living and health as sentient beings. Depending on the society, those of ill health or poverty have restricted access to necessities to live a meaningful life. The U.S. contrasts other nations that cultivated varying methods where everyone is afforded housing and health care. In other countries, even if a non-destitute person willfully chooses to live "off the grid," they are afforded care by the community when necessary. The same cannot be said for the U.S. where you must produce health care insurance and hope that whatever doctor you are seeing accepts that brand or type of insurance. I believe our society has an obligation to enable the rights of its citizens and support them when needed, but I do not believe in lifetime Welfare. Welfare should be term limited based on the individual's needs. The missing puzzle piece is how to motivate the needy to get back on track where they can provide for themselves. If efforts are not made to not only provide housing and health care, but a means to help someone back on their feet and show them how to walk again, then the community efforts could be viewed as wasting resources that could be better expended elsewhere.