Everyone Should have a Frazmus - It's a Moral Obligation

Imagine this scenario. Everyone needs a frazmus, but some people either can't afford one or won't spend their money to get one. Each person understands the importance of a frazmus. Families provide a frazmus for their young children, usually ensuring that frazmus opportunities are arranged before each child is born.

Frazmus manufacturers and providers have become a huge part of the economy. Frazmus companies provide jobs to thousands of people. Jobs range from professional occupations requiring years of advanced education to entry-level positions that support the working poor and give them a 'foot in the door' to begin a career.

Many citizens of the world consider frazmus availability a moral obligation. A primary framework of their moral philosophy dictates that everyone, regardless of social status or financial wherewithal, should have access to a high quality frazmus provider. A segment of the population understands the moral problems and social issues that arise when people slip through the cracks of the social safety net. In their opinion,  universal frazmus provider overseen by the government represents a categorical imperative.

Frazmus technology has advanced tremendously as mankind moved from agrarian societies to industrial to service-oriented civilizations. Employers sometimes offer frazmus benefits to their employees. Some employers subsidize a fraction of the frazmus cost while others pay virtually the entire cost.

In some countries the government has stepped in and become involved in making frazmus options available to citizens. Not every citizen feels that they need a frazmus but they like knowing that the government is paying for one in case they suddenly feel the need to get one. These socialized frazmus programs are sometimes criticized for difficult decisions that must be made when not enough frazmus supplies exist to satisfy the needs of all the citizens. In some unfortunate cases the government finds itself delaying frazmus deliveries or even limiting the distribution of individual frazmus opportunities based on the needs of specific citizens.

In other countries, governments are considering taking over the private frazmus industries. Some citizens are enraged, some are encouraged. Unhappy citizens insist that the government cannot deliver a frazmus as efficiently as the private sector. Employees of the frazmus companies worry about losing their jobs when the government takes over and imposes union representation on the corporate structure.

Frazmus manufacturers worry about their ability to compete with a government that is producing the same product. They understand that a government organization is not obligated to make a profit or even keep costs down. Frazmus costs will no longer be market-driven. The availability and quality of frazmus goods and services will decline significantly since government bureaucrats are not frazmus experts and are not motivated to serve the frazmus customers, rather they are generally concerned about preserving their own jobs. Frazmus manufacturers realize that ,surprisingly enough, government employees will probably not be required to obtain their frazmus from the public system. Employees working in the public sector will have a large array of frazmus options from which to choose.

Both sides of the socialized frazmus debate have valid points to make. Hopefully all voices will be heard and useful frazmus reform can be enacted without tossing out the frazmus with the bathwater.