args

Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc.

Those were very nice arguments in favor of universal health care. But my point was that the same (and even stronger) argument could be made for universal food, shelter, water, transportation and clothing. Additionally, who deserves to live without the ability to communicate? So I guess a universal cell phones could also be well argued. But that's beside the point. Most of your argument had nothing to do with reconciling the inconsistency I cited. Health care falls below other human needs in degree of necessity, yet health care is the only need being called for by the left to be provided UNIVERSALLY by the government. In your defense you did not dodge the inconstancy completely. You did mention that some government programs provide food, shelter and clothing to the poor. But none of these programs provide these core necessities to everyone universally. So your examples still do not explain away the inconsistency in singling out health care as the one and only private service that should be socialized. A government that provided all of lives top necessities universally to its citizens would closely resemble a large commune-- therefore my reference to communism. In summary, you have not successfully argued against my point that if the univeral health care supporters were consistent they would support government providing all other basic human needs which are equally as or more important. You said yourself you don't even consider health care a necessity. So which is it? Are universal health care proponents blatantly inconsistent, or are they just trying to scoop up the freebie currently offered while they wait for universal food, shelter and clothing to hit the ballot?