Social Services (Socialized Monetary Institutions)

Published by Essene in the blog Essene's blog. Views: 29

When taken to overtly inflated heights (numbers wise)- socialized healthcare, housing, and monetary aid is moronic.

It would be the same if privatized healthcare was the only available option. But with private healthcare it's difficult to say there's too much as it's private. When an institution is public and is grossly funded with monies other than donations or those granted by the government for the proliferation of progress (especially if progress isn't identified), it's immoral.


I am largely against a multitude of socialized institutions, healthcare being one of them; but I am not in favor of their complete annihilation. Unfortunately there will always be people who, for whatever reason, are unable to monetarily pacify healthcare costs. Our government, in those cases, should step in; but I detest how people become FAR too accustomed to government aid.


I assume very few people dispute the use of all public systems. Public schools, roads, etc are good. What isn't good is when things are taken advantage of. Specifically public housing and money. So that no words are mixed, and no fallacious assumptions are made- I'm not talking about those who use any method of aid for the betterment of themselves or those who physically can not take care of themselves. My distaste is solely for those who flagrantly use the aid either without having aspirations of not having to use the aid any longer or those with no/little care of ever being able to sustain themselves. These people are burdens and are utter wastes of any coddling. Thus, stricter parameters and more safe guards should be employed to both make sure the people who are receiving aid for the right reasons continue to receive aid and to light a fire under the asses of those who should not be receiving aid. I have a friend who lives in a publicly provided house. She has two kids (the only reason why I'd give a fuck if she had a house to live in or not). She doesn't have a job- and she isn't looking for a job. Yet she uses a government home, and government-allotted money to, yes, take care of her kids, but also to buy alcohol and weed and have a house to use those substances. She could be going to school or working instead of lying on her back in her furnished house and getting fucked after she tokes a spliff and downs a shot. Not one part of her life is admirable besides her signing papers to take care of her children. I'm surprised she even did that. We need to have these sort of situations policed.


Fiscal responsibility is a politically correct way to say "handle your shit or we'll handle it for you." Providing people a crutch when they're merely faking being injured is a noble response. It's also a stupid one. If the government were a gentleman and this era of irresponsibility were the 1700's, I'd say that holding the door open for a lady should only be done if she actually needs the door held open for her. That sense of need can be actual frailty or because she deserves respect. But it's not the 1700's and the afore mentioned "lady" is really an unkempt whore who is always followed by a pungent odor.


America needs to slim down and tighten the fucking belt. It's too fat and the extra weight is really unappealing. When it slims down- maybe it'll be date-worthy. Until then- the USA, in the regards of socialized institutions, is a scrub.
  • Slipikins
  • Essene
  • Essene
You need to be logged in to comment