Healthcare

            The reason why the elderly are taken care of regardless of income by the federal government and not children and adults I think comes from three assumptions.
First, if your a child it is assumed that you are being taken care of by your parents or an adult guardian. The unfortunate reality is that 10.7% children do not receive any healthcare.
Second, the reason why adults are not offered healthcare regardless of income or meeting a certain criteria I think is because it is expected in this culture that an able-bodied adult works and provides for themselves. Our society is built upon individualistic standards and expectations; every citizen is expected to earn a living and climb the ladder of success.
Third, I think this may be the most negative assumption made by our culture and government is that no one cares enough to take care of our nation’s elderly; therefore, it is the government’s responsibility to take care of them. This is extremely unfortunate because the influence of the elderly can be incredibly enriching for a person, community and country.

            These assumptions reflect one of our culture’s primary values, individualism. If you can work then you work, if you cannot work then you should be of no burden to an able-bodied person and therefore the government’s responsibility. I am not devaluing the value of work; I think it’s a valuable element in the human experience and necessary for a society to function. However, this value should not be over-emphasized to the point that it alienates certain populations in our society for the sole reason that they cannot work.

Should There Be a Time Limit on Federally Funded Housing?

            This issue feels almost strange to address since traditionally the focus has always been on the struggle impoverished people have in just getting into section 8 housing. For those who do not know, "The Housing Choice Vouchers Program (often referred to as “Section 8”) is the federal government’s primary program to provide housing for Americans who are living in poverty, as well as the elderly and disabled. It provides qualifying families with assistance in paying the monthly rental fee for homes and apartments that are located anywhere, not just in subsidized housing projects. In every major market in the country it is administered locally by municipal public housing agencies, which certify the tenants and residences for participation in the program" (http://www.gosection8.com/what-is-section8.aspx).  The statistics are not very comforting; there is a 3-5 year wait to get into section 8 housing. Obviously there is a great need for the housing and an incredibly high demand, but what is the policy for when poor people do get the housing they need? In order to discuss these pressing questions I think it’s important to address some antecedent concerns such as: what is the primary purpose of section 8 housing? Based off those purposes for section 8 housing does there need to be accountability of the occupants?

            Focusing on the antecedent concerns of federally funded housing we must initially examine the purpose of offering the housing to the poor (this may sound like a cold question, but I think it’s a necessary one when considering what is the best and most effective use of resources). Is the purpose mainly to provide impoverished people with a permanent and secure form of shelter or a temporary residence in the hopes of putting them back on their feet? If the purpose is providing a semi-permanent form of shelter then I think there should be a time limit, the reasons why I think this way are: others also have a great need for the housing, it only makes sense to create a rotation cycle in order to share the resources so that all can at least have that shelter for some time.
           Furthermore, if the selection process is not based on providing a resource for those most likely to pull themselves out of their situation, then it logically must mean that the selection is more focused on giving the worst off the resource. Therefore the selection is based on a “first come, first serve” process because many meet the “worst off” criteria, which some may argue is a mere application of a band-aid on a much bigger crises. The alternative use for federally funded housing would be for the purpose of those with the desire and best possible chance for pulling themselves out of their situations. If this were the case then there would be no need for a time limit, the emphasis should then be on accountability with goals for employment, bolstering of savings account or the paying off of certain outstanding bills and so on.