args

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

"they are not "nuts" but rather concerned (and sometimes desperate) Americans who are enforcing their constitutional right to call for change." But you could say the same of those who would call for universal food, clothing and shelter-- the likes of whom me and most of America would consider a little "nuts." So I see (and many others) the UHC crowd as no different. They don't deserve preferencial treatment. "But none of these programs provide these core necessities to everyone universally." You reply: "This is true....because there is not enough funding in the tax budget to distribute to everyone." So you think we should implement universal health care simply because we can afford to. I gather you would also be in favor of universal food and shelter if we could afford to do that too. The truth is we can. We can afford to do it all. We can actually afford (if we pooled all our resources) to create an entire country full of dependents and provide their every need. And again, that is called communism. Just because we(or the unfortunate minority you will have paying for this)can afford something is not cause enough to implement it. "Americans don't want to raise taxes for universal food, shelter and clothing, because that would essentially turn us into a communist nation." Why not? If their in favor of doing it for health care, then why not for the more important needs in life? You still fail to address this inconsistency. "Specifically making health care universal would NOT turn us into a communist nation, as is demonstrated by other countries who implement universal health care and are not communist (i.e. Canada, Britain and France)." But it we know they are capable of it, and it could be easily argued they they should go all the way. After all it doesn't make any logical sense to offer one of life's needs over those that are more important. They, like UHC proponents in our country are simply inconsistent. And, as I have said, if they were consistent, they would be communists. "One could buy food to live with just a few dollars a day; however, some medical care and costs can be thousands upon thousands of dollars." When is the last time you saw the price of house? Clothing, rent and rood are by far more costly than private health insurance currently available. Policies for young people are particularly affordable (from as little as $80-$150 per month depending on coverage). Most of the 18-to-25-year-old whiners who are pushing for Obama and his assortment of freebies are simply blowing off getting health insurance and opting for car payments and cell phone bills instead. You for instance-- I'll bet you had no health insurance at the time of your accident but were able to use your Samsung text your friends and family to let them know you were okay. "The middle class often cannot afford health insurance while they CAN afford food, shelter and clothing." Yet I don't know many middle class without nicer cars than they really need, cell phones for most every family member and DSL service for their multitude of home computers. Let's not forget video game equipment and flat-screen TVs. The people in this country who TRULY cannot afford health insurance are a very small minority of those who do not have it. And these people (just as those with no food, shelter, and clothing) should have some TEMPORARY relief available if their situation truly warrants it. There will always be poor people (by choice or circumstance), but that is no excuse for socialism. "my opponent has tried to conclude that it is not logical for one to support universal health care and not support universal food; however, he is trying to draw a link where there is none." I thought you would need to get creative to reconcile the inconsistency we have been discussing up to this point, but denying the inconsistency exists at all is a bit of a stretch. After rounds of discussing the inconsistency we have both already acknowledged, you are now claiming there is no inconsistency whatsoever because "no link can be drawn" between one human need and another. I'm going to give you a hall pass on this one and move on with our debate. "While I do deem food a greater necessity than health care in general (in terms of life or death), that does not mean that we - as a nation - need universal food more than we need universal health care." There's that inconsistency again. But again, no real defense for it has been put forth. But at least you're acknowledging we still have a debate topic at all.