One thing I've never quite gotten about the U.S. is that policymakers and lots of ordinary folk don't consider it a moral responsibility of government to guarantee the basic necessities of life: food, clothing, shelter, and yes, medical care to everyone.  It's stunning to me.  I totally get, and to a large extent, share the desire not to support freeloaders.  If I have to work to have a decent life, so should you.  That's why I'm only talking about necessities.  But for everyone, even able-bodied, childless adults.

I personally have no problem with a guaranteed national income set at the subsistence level, plus free health care, no strings attached.  But I understand people who would insist on looking for work, education or training, "workfare", or the like as a condition for cash aid (essentially what I believe the UK and Canada do).  Public shelters/soup kitchens would be made available for people who don't meet the conditions.  The basic payment would be gradually phased out for those who work, providing both work incentives and income support for the working poor.  The parameters would be set so that anyone who works full-time at the minimum wage would be out of poverty.

This is a wealthy country -- we could easily afford such a guarantee.  While we all are substantially responsible for our fate, with enough bad luck anyone who isn't independently wealthy could end up on the street.  Most who do are no lazier than the average person, bigger "screwups" maybe.  But even if they are, laziness should not be punished with death.  I think a lot of thinking on this subject hearkens back to an earlier time when there was less to go around, possibly not enough for everyone.  Perhaps this is still the case in some Third World countries today, I don't know enough to say, though I suspect at least the richer ones could also afford such a guarantee, given the cost of necessities is cheaper in poorer countries.  (Helping the Third World poor is another important moral imperative, but deserves another post.)