Should the Government Bring You High-Speed Internet?

[jamespowers]

If you want to die "comfortably" (whatever that means) you might have to pay a hospice or for in home health care.

AND that really costs money. Been there done that as well. In home care insurance is fairly reasonable if you enroll before 50 though. [huh]

Regards,

J

 

[Lincsong]

Social welfare as I see it should be reserved for the aged, very young and infirmed. Otherwise there is no excuse for the able-bodied not being self sufficient. The problem with many societies is they are more interested in pushing Stalin than Alger. Finanacial management courses should be mandatory throughout high school. You get the education and what you do with it is your perogative but there are consequences to our choices and they should not be shirked off on someone else who does not know you and is forced to comply at the barrel of a gun. In that case just call it what it is legalized robbery. [huh] :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

Social Welfare should only be for those who have exhausted all means of financial support at their disposal, and are totally unable to support themselves. Cable television, internet access, telephone service are non-essentional servicces. Telephone service is fairly inexpensive, it's the taxes that increase it. Eliminate the taxes and at $12 a month it is well within reach. "social bankruptcy"? --:eusa_booh

 

[Paisley]

This is what retirement plans are for. It doesn't take any great genius to put a portion of your income into a no-loan index mutual fund through a 401(k) or IRA. That's where some of my own money goes instead of high-speed internet service for myself.

If someone believes the elderly should have free high-speed internet service, he can create a 501(c)(3) organization (a nonprofit) and persuade people to make tax-deductible contributions.

 

[Roger]

I agree with those who do not believe the government should provide this for free. Except death nothing is free. I also agree that social welfare programs should only be for those who have exhausted all financial means at their disposal. It should be for the needy to help out temporarily, not the greedy.

For instance, my good for nothing brother in law's father lives on Long Island, NY. His $18,000 house could sell for $500,000. But the greedy old man put his kids name on the house so he could go on Medicaid and claim he's broke. I say sell the house and pay for your own care.