args

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

Okay, this should be easy... just kidding... maybe...anyhow: "' . . . funding it requires raising taxes . . . ' Boo freakin' hoo. I guess we can't do that, can we? =P" 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. "' . . . and unnecessary restriction on our freedoms . . . ' What unnecessary restrictions?" Taxes, read above, genius... "Is it fair to give those who need health care the free benefits, and make those who can afford it pay for it? Observe example 1. Bobby lives just below the poverty level, by himself, in an apartment. He works two jobs at separate fast-food chains to sustain his living conditions. Because he cannot afford it, the government provides him free health care. Now we go to Johnny. Johnny is a middle class newlywed who lives in a townhouse. He works hard, full-time, to build a sufficient fund for his expected child. He has to pay for his health care, because he can afford it and the other necessities to live. Sounds fair, right? WRONG! Why should Johnny, working hard to start a family, have to give up a large portion of his salary to his health insurance company, while lonely Bobby gets it for free?" Because Johnny's health insurance is probably provided for free by his business. Even if it's not, he can afford to choose his health insurance. Since Bobby works at fast food restaurants, he is kinda lacking health care, which is necessary to have if one wants to live and practice one's rights (that's why any health care should be provided). Anyways, Johnny pays the same difference if he gets universal health care, as the extra taxes he pays go to giving Bobby 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. My plan gives Johnny the ability to buy whatever health insurance he can afford, that is, the one that best suits his needs. Bobby, who can't afford any health insurance gets to buy basic health insurance. 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. 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. "Welfare is not a sufficient substitute for health care because they don't perform the same function. Welfare helps you to be financially stable, while health care helps you to be...well...healthily stable." I meant giving people earmarked funds to pay for health costs that they cannot afford, not traditional AFDC or TANF stuff. "Now for my contention. Ladies and gentlemen, my opponents states that the only purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people. However, to my knowledge (from my class on U.S. government), the four main purposes of government are to: 1) Protect citizen rights 2) Maintain order and safety 3) Maintain economic stability 4) Provide necessary public services" 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. "With this in mind, the government needs universal health care to fulfill its roles of maintaining safety, providing public services and as my opponent stated, protecting citizen rights. Take my above example. Who is going to pay for Bobby's surgery when he gets run over by a car and stabbed multiple times? Not me, that's who. You won't either. You'll be laughing at him while he lies face down in the street, and while he's on the hospital bed. But you won't pay for his surgery, because it'll be too expensive. You might even have trouble paying for your own surgery when YOU get run over by a car and stabbed multiple times. So the government is just going to let Bobby die? I don't think so. A government needs to maintain the safety of Bobby, and protect his right to life. So they need to give him health care. Of course, you may ask, "What about Jack, the shrewd, multimillionaire entrepreneur who also got run over by a car and stabbed multiple times? Does he get free health care as well?" The answer is yes, he does. The government has as much of an obligation to protect Jack's safety and rights as they do Bobby's. Besides, maybe the surgery cost is so great that Jack will be living in poverty once he finishes paying his bills. You can't have that, can you? Otherwise he'd leech off YOUR governmentz for welfare money, and get rich off it because he is shrewd. But I digress. I stand by this: Universal health care is necessary to protect the safety and rights of all citizens. Furthermore, it would be unfair and detrimental to provide free health care to certain people instead of all people." 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. Also, the example of Jack is important. 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. Instituting universal health care, and he pays the same, but gets the government plan, and poof, bye-bye free spa treatments! While this may not seem like a huge deal, the point is, you lose stuff with universal health care that you don't if you simply pay for what people need.