args

The United States federal government should provide universal health care to its citizens.

"Taxes are infringing on an individual's right to make money, so, although they are necessary, universal health care causes us to raise them above that level." OK, I can make the same argument about anything. The government needs funding for a war - they'll raise taxes. The government needs more money for their budget - they raise taxes. The government needs funding for a project - they raise taxes. You can't say that something is bad because it raises taxes. This argument should be null because you could say the same about anything the government needs to do for money. "Taxes, read above, genius..." This is what you said: "...and unnecessary restriction on our freedoms..." You said AND, not AN, so I assumed you meant other restrictions. Genius. "Monetarily, it doesn't matter to Johnny whether he gets universal health care or if his taxes pay for Bobby's health care." Exactly, so why not provide universal health care? This way, EVERYONE can practice their rights, and they wouldn't have to deal with insurance problems. "My plan gives Johnny the ability to buy whatever health insurance he can afford, that is, the one that best suits his needs." There's another problem - why should he have to choose between health insurance systems? He has as much of a right as anyone to be protected from ALL health disasters. "In the universal plan, everyone gets a centralized plan that is "one size fits all" and it is given to people who don't need it." According to you, everyone has a right to health insurance/life. Who wouldn't need health insurance? "Finally, an anti-welfare argument only hurts you, because as I said, Johnny pays the same both ways, but potentially gets less with the universal plan." I'm not anti-welfare, I just said that welfare isn't a substitute for health care. "I meant giving people earmarked funds to pay for health costs that they cannot afford, not traditional AFDC or TANF stuff." Wait, so you're just restating your opinion then? I'm confused. "You know, those purposes of government were made up by some Social Studies Department of Baltimore County Public Schools employee, not by God. Appeals to the authority of BCPS don't really mean anything. Also, 2-4 fit under citizen rights. You need order, safety, economic stability and some public services to maintain citizen rights." It doesn't matter who made them, you can plainly see that any democratic government fulfills these roles for its country. Do you see any successful country maintaining its own order, safety and economic stability without a government? And they don't fit under rights. You treat the word "right" as if a right describes anything you can have. You don't necessarily have to "right" to be economically stable; otherwise it would be in the Constitution and many people would be suing over it. "As I said, universal health care is not necessary as 90% of Americans have health insurance. We need stuff for that last 10%, not everyone, which is phenomenally expensive." Well if it's only 10%, it can't be THAT expensive, can it? You even said yourself that the cost of universal health care makes no financial difference from individual health care ("Monetarily, it doesn't matter to Johnny whether he gets universal health care or if his taxes pay for Bobby's health care."). "Since jack is rich, he can afford a great health plan, better than what the government could give him, much better. It probably includes free spa treatments and other nice stuff." So? What allows the government to say, "We'll give health care to Bobby because he can't afford it, but we won't give any to Jack because he's freakin' rich"? Don't you think Jack and Bobby have equal rights? If everyone has the "right to life" as you claim, then either give them both free health care, or make them both pay for it. "Instituting universal health care, and he pays the same, but gets the government plan, and poof, bye-bye free spa treatments!" Well, if everyone has an equal right to life, then they should have equal health care. You yourself equate health care to life, claiming that the "right to life" would be their choice of health care.