Government entitlements

Here's something I never really thought of before. People are entitled to health care coverage, right? It's morally wrong to let people suffer and die without it, right? Well, if they're entitled to that then they're certainly entitled to food and shelter. It's pretty morally repugnant to let the bums live on the streets and starve while we throw away leftover portions from our own meals. So basically...shouldn't the government be providing all of our needs? Yet, if it does, wouldn't the economy basically collapse?

If the government provides everything you need, you don't really need to work. Then who generates the revenue to allow the government to take their money through taxes? Or could the free riders still be able to live off those who would work under this system because they're fools or because they aren't shut ins like the average /b/tard?

However, at some point, what people are entitled to supercedes their class and thus its almost like everyone is 'entitled' to be at least lower middle class. We know this isn't so, though, because it isn't possible. In order for there to be rich, there must be poor to balance out the distribution of wealth.

>>1
If there has to be be poor people as you say, then if we assume that the government tries to be fair and just, should not poverty be randomized? I mean, if someone is poor just because of societal destiny then that person is not responsible for being poor and therefore should the government trie to alliviate that persons situation. Its similar to be born blind or any other disability. Poverty today is as much inherited as anything else, one simple reform could be to take the inheritence from the inheritor of a whealthy estate (liek Paris Hilton) and divide it among a group of poor people and by so doing propel them to the upper class while propelling miss Hilton to the depths below. It may be unfair to miss Hilton, but as you said, some people needs to be poor and now its your fucking turn.