The Liberal Perspective on Universal Housing and Healthcare

Would liberals support universal housing if the government can solve our healthcare needs? This question brings to light an important discussion about the social obligations and ethical considerations within a society. We believe in the provision of essential human needs, and yet, there is a perceived paradox in addressing them.

Practicing What You Preach

The idea that liberals should support universal housing if healthcare is covered by the government is a valid one. If we champion the value of universal healthcare in a "practicing Christian nation," it is hypocritical to deny housing to those in need. This contradiction is stark and highlights the need for a cohesive and integrated approach to social welfare.

Universal Housing Proposals

Shared proposals for universal housing, such as confiscating unoccupied houses and turning them over to the homeless, have already been proposed in California. While the initial plan did not proceed, the mere consideration of such measures is a chilling indication of the growing need for analysis and support of such programs.

Many people might argue that liberals should only provide assistance to poor families instead of universal housing. However, this argument overlooks the interconnectedness of different social issues. Low minimum wages contribute to poverty, and providing assistance to poor families should indeed be part of a broader strategy to address housing needs.

Social Welfare and Basic Needs

The notion of providing everyone with their basic human needs is not a new idea. For many, universal housing is just as critical as universal healthcare. It is paradoxical to believe that everyone deserves their basic needs but only a portion of those needs should be met. Karl Marx's view aligns with this perspective, suggesting that collective action is necessary to ensure the fulfillment of everyone's needs.

Failed Paradigms and the Importance of Media

Historically, attempts to fulfill everyone's needs have often met with failure. The Soviet Union serves as a prime example, where the attempts to provide for everyone eventually led to the failure of the system. This underscores the complexity of addressing social welfare on a universal scale.

It is crucial to understand that the issue is not the provision of any care but rather the affordability of healthcare insurance. Universal healthcare means that no one can lose their coverage due to job loss or relocation. Only a form of Medicare for All can achieve this level of universal coverage.

The Economics of Universal Housing

There is substantial evidence to support the argument that it is cheaper to house the homeless than to allow them to live on the streets. In numerous studies, it has been demonstrated that we can save tens of thousands of dollars every year for each household with reduced homelessness and better health outcomes. This not only improves the quality of life for individuals but also contributes to a more stable and efficient society.

Conclusion

The support for universal housing and healthcare among liberals is not a simple issue but rather a complex one that requires nuanced understanding and comprehensive policy solutions. By ensuring affordable and universal healthcare and housing, we move closer to providing the essential basic needs that everyone deserves.

This article aims to address the question of whether universal housing should be supported alongside universal healthcare and highlights the importance of integrated social welfare policy. By understanding both the ethical and practical implications, we can work towards a more just and compassionate society.