Do you believe that the smallest denominator for a minority is the individual?

Interesting question. I've been thinking recently that making the individual the smallest common denominator in terms of social units might be a mistake. I came to this question while considering how to improve the health care system. It occurred to me that at least the immediate family ought to be held accountable before requiring taxpayers who are strangers to step in with their funds to pay for someone's health care needs.

I came to this thought because the way the present system of welfare, public funds for healthcare, etc., works, even a person with very rich close relatives, such as fathers, mothers, children, grandparents, etc., may qualify for free publicly funded welfare and health care benefits. That seems wrong to me.

If the entire collection of close family members were considered the smallest social unit, then nobody who had rich close relatives could qualify for public assistance for any need until their own family had exhausted its ability to help them. This would make every individual responsible first to himself, then to his family, and only lastly to the society at large. Consequently, not only would the public have fewer persons on the welfare roles, but the families themselves would always be putting pressure on one another to grow up responsibly and to become successful individuals.

What do you think?

Yes. BTW That question is what defines the difference between the two parties. Republicans think an individual can better manage his life. The Democrats think government can better manage it. It has always been that way.. Jefferson and Hamilton fought the very same fight when founding this country.

The only minority that actually exists is the individual.

I am not good at math, especially fractions, so let me use percentages. I am very good at that. I think 5 out of 3 times this is correct.

eehh?