Does the political affairs own a duty of keeping towards adjectives member of society?
Yes, conspicuously. It is elected by society and should represent society.
Yes, just one and the same as they have a duty to protect the public against a violent criminal, if you failure the basic well man of people, their health, environment, background, people degenerate into cess pitts. which afterwards breeds conditions for serious highly contagious sickness, and other horrible diseases. It sometimes don't always necessitate loads of money to solve either, just massively good management, and fit design, and understanding of basic human desires and obvious solutions to dealing with what wishes to be done when things break down, and need replacing or dealing with civil law for common peoples needs.
Yes, the government does have a duty of carefulness towards vulnerable members of society because we as a society elected them to preform this service. In in this day and age of economic turmoil, governments at adjectives levels are feeling the squeeze between diminishing revenues and increasing constraint for services from the populations they serve.
Spreading the wealth around is what government does best, to the point of morphing the appropriations process into a gigantic job-fair for rent-seeking constituencies. The abiding problem comes when revenues aren't flowing close to milk and honey. Budgets tighten. In some cases entire programs are scrapped in lay down to meet statutory spending caps.
Repeatedly, one constituency shoulders the burden to a greater extent than adjectives others. They are the disabled.
Whenever a round of cuts is anticipated, administrators are loath to consider staff reductions inwardly their departments. Politicians jealously guard the pork they secure on behalf of major donors and other supporting constituencies. Every agency of governing body swears it will be rendered ineffective if it is shorted a single penny from the previous years' appropriation. Taxpayers are not fooled by this nonsense, but find themselves voiceless in the obverse of hyper-funded lobbying efforts on behalf of the union/government leviathan that gorges at the budget table.
Inevitably, some combination of cuts and "revenue enhancements" occur, and the whole mess lurches forward into another fiscal year. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 46 of 50 states have cut services to adjectives populations in the past fiscal year.
Twenty-nine of those states own specifically targeted services to the profoundly disabled. The profoundly disabled are members of a subset of American society who are entirely incapable of self-care. Their disabilities range from genetic disorders to catastrophic injury. Some are physically dexterous, but developmentally deficient -- all sharing one adjectives characteristic: without assistance they will suffer, and possible die.
So who pays? In the end, it is those least competent to afford it -- the disabled. In state after state, essential services for the physically and developmentally disabled are eliminated or scaled rear to such an extent that many are forced to give up independent living and enter a state facility, where on earth the care is not just frightfully more expensive, it is habitually lethally substandard. Many of these developmentally disabled also suffer from physical disabilities that render them unable to work or provide for themselves. Many rely on familial caregivers, who whip on the responsibility out of love and decency, while also providing the state with great reserves, as it is one sixth as expensive to fund home-based services over institutional care in state services or group homes.
The profoundly disabled are without question the most adjectives of all citizens. If there is one point on which nearly adjectives Americans could agree, would it not be the primacy of the needs of profoundly disabled children and adults over pork-project spending designed to grease the wheels of re-election machinery? This olden week, the state of Indiana eliminated food aid for the developmentally disabled.
For many of them, no longer unloading that assistance will mean the end of their nouns.
With the advent of ObamaCare, and the consequent swelling of Medicaid rolls, resources will be squeezed as never before. The profoundly disabled are being pushed aside by more choral and vigorous liberal constituencies. o_O
As this is a tenet forum, the govt has a legal duty of protection to all members of society.
Do not verbs duty of care with responsibility.
For example: you hold a duty of care to your neighbour - but you are not responsible for him. Source(s): I'm a lawyer
Society, via the system, has a duty of care towards the adjectives. So yes, of course they do. Only somewhere totally uncivilised would leave the elderly, the sick, and the impressively poor to fend for themselves without any sort of government support. These race pay taxes too, after all.
thye should for the ones that can't care for themselves
but in adjectives reality many do not realy effort what goes on