It is not a right, and if you really think we ought to go back into the PLeistoce where tooth and claw were the only measure of human ability, be my guest.

The question is not if it is a right or not, but can and should we build a society that provides a basic minimum safety net?

I think there are arguments on both sides. Reactionary neocons -- almost always those who have gotten theirs one way or another -- believe that anyone without healthcare is at fault for not having done well enough. This confuses responsibility (which each human must take on their own) with blame.

It is obvious that some people are deadbeats, a condition which comes about through excessive coddling OR through overwhelming duress, OR through physical disability or biochemical imbalances OR through substance abuse OR through gene defects.

It is obvious also that some people are a lot easier to help than others, some people turn their lives around and head north more readily than others, and some people are hard to help.

The question which remains is, how helpful should a society be? How much help CAN we afford, and how much SHOULD we afford.

Your mindless carping about "liberals", which is being used much int he way "Commies" used to be during the pinko-panics of the Fifties, does nothing to inform or advance that dialogue, SH. Why do you keep slinging out heat instead of light?

Or, do you think that all help is folly or betrayal, and those who believe in offering one kind of help or another are just deluded softies?

A