args

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

Wow, you really may be retarded... just kidding! Maybe... "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." I said it raises taxes beyond the necessary limit. Read my post next time, don't skim it. As I said, just paying for 10% of the population causes much less of an increase in taxes, so we should do that instead. "You said AND, not AN, so I assumed you meant other restrictions. Genius." Typo, smart one... "'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." Because Johnny can get the health care plan he wants rather than the one the government wants. That's why I emphasized monetarily. I was showing that Johnny doesn't need or want universal health care for himself. "'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." Okay, so the government should also choose what we wear so we don't have to decide that either. Also, it should choose what we eat, drink, buy, do et cetera. I definitely want the government making all my decisions for me. My point is is that Johnny can get the plan that fits his needs, or even get a free plan from his job, rather than paying high taxes to get government health care. "'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?" Since you can't comprehend the English language, we may have a problem. I meant they don't need the government to give them health care. Jack and Johnny both don't need government health care, Bobby does, give it to Bobby, and let Jack and Johnny pay lower taxes and get free health care from their jobs, or get health care that pays for spa treatments. My plan has more pros than yours. "I'm not anti-welfare, I just said that welfare isn't a substitute for health care." You were saying that it isn't fair to give Bobby free health care and make Johnny pay. That's the classic anti-welfare argument. "'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." It's pretty simple, I am not giving more welfare to people, I am simply paying for their health costs if they can't afford it. "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." Okay, first, just because it isn't in the Constitution does not mean it isn't a right. Second, you need a stable economy in order to allow people to effectively use their rights. Without a stable economy we fall into a state of nature like situation, and people aren't happy. "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.")." That's not what I said. I said that Johnny, if his job does not provide him with free health care, pays the same whether he has universal health care, or whether he is buying health care for himself under my plan. What happens is that people like Jack end up paying the same in a universal system as they did when they bought their own health insurance, but they are getting much less. What's the point of that? "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." Jack would rather buy his friggin' sweet health care plan than pay obscene taxes so that he gets free health care that isn't anywhere nearly as sweet. "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." So that also means that we must have equal houses, but rich people have to pay more for them? Sounds real fair to me. Why you vote CON: 1. PRO has not shown why universal health care is any better than my plan that only pays for those who cannot afford health care. 2. People end up paying more and getting less under a universal health plan. 3. Universal health care is much less efficient and cost-effective as my plan is.