When did we EVER step in because poor people needed food?
If you think that there was the slightest hint of humanitarianism in the unilateral military actions of the US or UK in the past 50 years, you're very much mistaken.
Peter [link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal] [link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes! [link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator] [image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
Perhaps because we only spend money in cases of emergency. That is why we have emergency money and emergency supplies and food.
Health care, yes treat the trauma, because it does not make sense to treat a healthy person for an illness they don't have. Yet I agree we should spend money to prevent the illness in the first place, and that would save money from having to treat it for a lifetime which would cost more.
I suppose it is like putting out a fire, it costs a lot of money to put out a big fire, but the amount of money you spend to try and prevent it would be a lot less than it takes to put it out.
"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese." Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)
[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].