Any source
Pro vs. con view
3026 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

CON

  • CON

    I always accuse liberals of being like the protective...

    Universal healthcare

    "I will try and isolate here what we still do disagree on." HERE IS WHERE I THINK EACH OF US STANDS: 1. You think people are entitled to free health care as one of their natural rights-- if not a natural right, a right that we should secure after the fact, similar to public education. My view: I do not think free health care is a natural right, but that affordable health care is a need likely to be met by unfettered private enterprise. I believe it is the responsibility of the individual to realize the importance of such a need and budget for health insurance appropriately, just as he does for food, clothing and rent. I feel the same about education. 2. You think, because health care is a natural right (or close to one), we should find a way to guaranty it to all. Although you might agree that government would not be the most cost-effective way of providing it, it must because private industry may allow some people to fall through the cracks. So efficiency sacrificed in exchange for certainty is worth the cost (in taxes). My view: Since I never agreed with the presumption that health care is a right, I don't think we morally have a say in how it should be provided, at what cost, to what extent, nor by whom. I believe it should be left to the free market to provide very affordable services (hence very affordable insurance) of acceptable quality wherever there is a need. If health care is still not financially feasible for some, then family, friends or charitable organization may or may not step in. But without insurance there is no guaranty. THAT'S MY VIEW ON OUR DIFFERENCES. HERE IS MY ROUND 4 ARGUMENT: "So you are saying that Laisezz-fare will take care of our sick, to be blunt. They have a need, and where there is a need and a dollar, capitalism will find a way to address the need. But what about where there isn't a dollar?" If government got out of the way, entrepreneurs could provide extremely affordable medical services, and that in turn would result in extremely affordable private health insurance. I realize some would still fall through the cracks, but that is where family, friends and charity may or may not step in. There are no guaranties. However, I have no problem with city or state governments deciding to provide additional safety nets beyond this point. At least citizens can decide whether they want to live there and pay the taxes required to support such programs. But, given that costs would me much less due to our hypothetical deregulation, it may not be that costly. "You say that all these things - "roof over their heads, food, clothing, electricity, running water, gas, cell phone, microwave oven, transportation" - are taken care of anyway. There are many that only have a place to stay due to socialized housing. We could just let these people sleep on the street." I am not for government providing housing to anyone. No one has a natural right to housing. The government is here to protect our natural rights. Anything beyond that is the job of private charity-- another industry that government intervention has crippled by forcing prospective voluntary donors to give involuntarily by way of taxation. Can you imagine how much more charities could do if taxes were lowered so individuals had more to give? A SIDE NOTE ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES VERSUS PRIVATE CHARITY: With government taking over half one's income it's amazing any private charities survive at all. Government is in the business of taking money from would-be donors and inefficiently spreading it about, all while robbing donors of any good feeling in exchange for their forced generosity. I read somewhere we are luck to see one of every four dollars spent on welfare programs reach the recipient in some form. That means government needs to confiscate more than four times the amount required to solve the problem. If citizens were allowed to keep the tax revenue currently spent on welfare programs they could pocket half, donate half to charity and nearly double the current dollar value of services provided to recipients. A similar analogy could be drawn from the money spent on unnecessary wars. Imagine how low are taxes would be and how well charities would do. "our nature... not our obligation". An interesting idea, but I think the policy will have to reflect our nature." I always accuse liberals of being like the protective parents who feel (because it is in their nature) they must create a safety net for their child to save him from the real-life consequences of his behavior or lack of. Case in point would be the 35-year-old unemployed slacker still living at home. His well-meaning, good-NATURED parents have effectively robbed him of the benefits of life's harsh lessons, which would have been helpful to him in developing his own self-reliance. Which brings me to my opinion on your personal credit situation. If feel you are one of the most fair-minded debaters on this site, and have enjoyed our acquaintance. But allow be to be blunt for a moment. By having your credit ruined, life has handed you a consequence in response to your behavior-- that of not securing private medical insurance. This action (or lack of) essentially led to your involvement in what is tantamount to grand theft of medical services. You should feel fortunate that you are being harassed by creditors and not by law enforcement. I don't see pilfering $5,000 worth of medical services from a doctor as any different from stealing a $5,000 motorcycle out of his driveway. I think you simply felt insurance was not a priority. I'm willing to bet you have a cell phone you pay for each month, rent, food, nights on the town, etc. You may even have a car payment. If so, you are like so many others who go on and on about how important universal health care is, yet they choose to spend their money on everything but health insurance. Your friend is a perfect example. He's bummed that his credit it trashed because he couldn't afford health insurance, yet he's out car shopping and obviously believes he can afford a monthly car payment. I'd ride a bike, use pay phones and eat Top Raman before I stopped making my health insurance payments. My values (how I spend my money) demonstrate how important I believe health care is. But again, it is not my right. "people should not have to trade physical health for financial health." No, just as I should not trade the condition of my house for financial health. That is why I bought a homeowners insurance policy. Private companies have devised a way to make it relatively affordable to avoid a major financial crisis in case my house burns down (similar to assurances provided by government in exchange for tax dollars, but much more affordable). In fact they are able to insure a home worth more than $500K for a measly $600 per year. But then again, the government has not gotten involved in the contracting industry and made the cost of rebuilding a burnt house astronomically high. "You say you wouldn't let someone die in the street, but your paragraph is a little contradictory, I hope you will admit. You say you wouldn't let someone die in the street, personally, but that society should have the choice to(I gather?). Then you go on to describe a gamble of choosing to buy health insurance vs. not buy it." I searched for a contradiction here and could not find one. I will come back to it if you are able clarify it to me in the comments section. If so I will correct my position. I see no contradiction when I say that people are likely to (but not obligated to) help others, and that as a result of this fact it would be wise to get insurance. I hope I've clarified my position and helped you hone your's. We agree on what an ideal outcome would be: adequate and affordable healthcare for ALL. We disagree on how to get there and on whether people have an absolute right to said outcome. Thanks for your time and thoughts on this.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-healthcare/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 15.83
      universal: 13.57
      conclusion: 11.16 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 1.53 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.89 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.87)
      should: 1.82
      premises: 1.73 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.36)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.97)
  • CON

    Attack: looking over my opponent's case, all she talks...

    Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income.

    NC: https://docs.google.com... Attack: looking over my opponent's case, all she talks about is minimum wage, this is non-topical because UBI has nothing to do with minimum wage. A topical aff would be plan providing aid. Theory Shell on Topicality A: MY opponent must be topical B: Violation C: Standards 1. Ground: In order for my to be able to argue the resolution, My opponent must be topical so that the debate is fair. 2: Predictability: I cannot run DAs or CPs if I do not know Aff's ground. This makes it unfair D: voters Vote off of fairness because Aff makes it impossible for me to win because I do not have any ground. Thus, I negate

  • CON

    u know the rules. ... AC, NR, AR,2NR, 2Ar.

    Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income.

    u know the rules. AC, NR, AR,2NR, 2Ar. no new args in 2ar

  • CON

    Unsatisfactory resolution of moral conflict produces...

    There is no universal moral standard.

    Let's use Pro's line of argumentation to attempt to prove that how tall a person is is not genetically predisposed. P: "People vary considerably in height. If there was a genetic predisposition, then they would all be the same height, and that's not the case. We know that factors like nutrition affect height. If there is any doubt that there is no genetic commonality, observe that some adults are three feet tall and others are seven feet tall. That proves there is no genetic commonality." C: "You are looking at it far too finely. Bees are typically a quarter inch tall, mice an inch tall, giraffes seventeen feet tall. Humans are around five and a half feet tall. Even though there is variation, the genetic commonality is clear." P: "You cannot use other species in an attempt to prove a point about humans. I repeat that the fact that some humans are three feet and others seven feet proves there is no genetic predisposition." With respect to our present debate, the reference to other species is to illustrate how genetic characteristics determine relevant moral standards. We can imagine humans having genetic characteristics being more akin to praying mantis or bears or caribou, while remaining intelligent and contemplative. It's clear that the "nature of the beast" determines the rules related to social interaction. In intelligent beings, that is the basis of moral behavior. 2. I pointed out the error in Pro's definition of "murder" and Pro did not respond. Pro falsely equates "murder" with any killing for any reason, then claims there is no commonality in the moral rules that are applied by different societies. If the definitions are properly sorted out, there is great deal of commonality. Is there any large society that does not believe that killing to defend one's family is not morally justified? The morality is very nearly universal. Is there any society that does not find killing for personal gain morally reprehensible? Again, the morality is very nearly universal. How about a tribe killing to defend itself against annihilation by another tribe? One can go down the list and find great commonality. The commonality derives from the nature of man to protect his kin and his tribe. 3. I pointed out that there are instincts to be loyal to one's family and to be loyal to one's tribe (society) and that usually instincts do not produce a conflict, but sometimes they do. Unsatisfactory resolution of moral conflict produces errant moral behavior. I argued that evolved instincts do not have to provide perfect problem resolution, but rather only a net positive survival rate. Con ignored the argument in favor of restating the belief that moral inconsistency proves that there are no moral instincts. 4. In the case of perpetually warring tribes, I argued that in those circumstances the strong bonding to the tribe that results may provide a positive survival benefit that outweighs the loses due to warring. If the warring has been going on for generations, then obviously neither tribe has perished due to the practice. This is not a claim that there is no better way to live; it is aberrant. Nonetheless, the explanation based upon conflicting moral instincts is a much better one than Pro's notion that it is a random artifact of society. 5. Pro claims, "We do have a genetic subconscious that encourages species survival. That is a scientifically sound argument. However, as we have found empirically, the more advanced human societies become, the more the "universality" of morality slips away." Pro's claim is false, and clearly so. Track the progress of human rights over time as societies have advanced. For example, consider the acceptance of slavery as being morally justified. The moral justification was widespread 400 years ago and has all but disappeared today. The same trends can be observed for equal rights, freedom of expression, the divine right of kings (and allied concepts), the unacceptability of genocide, and so forth. What is the driving force behind this commonality? It is that what is better is accepted in favor of what is worse, and what is better is determined by what is most consistent with the nature of mankind. Freedom is preferred because mankind inherently wants to be free, and that's what makes it a human right. This is not to argue that civilization has achieved perfection. There is a continual tension between what is best for society, generally a moral good, and what is best for the individual, generally another moral good. Moreover, circumstances that affect the tradeoffs change. If a primitive society not having prisons has to deal with a psychotic serial killer, they have fewer options to debate than a more advanced society. Nonetheless, the net advance is unquestionable. 6. Pro argues with respect to free speech, "Then, you take countries like China, which restrict it even further. We as citizens of the US call it a human rights violation, but how can we be sure? Is it only US law that determines what universal rights should be?" We know it because we observe that people inherently want to be free. This is the way the Founders knew it. There is no shortage of Chinese who want it; they are repressed by their government who denies the right. The limits of free speech can be argued in terms of conflicting rights, but there are always moral conflicts and difficult issues of resolving them. That does not deny the inherent fundamental right. 7. Pro asks, "Canadians don't feel oppressed because they have no access to fire power. However, a significant sect of the US population objects strenuously... How do you account for this difference?" There is an innate desire for personal security. That leads to a human right to defend oneself, either personally or through society. What the two approaches have in common is a recognition to a right to have security. No one argues, "If some people like to kill other people for their personal satisfaction, they have as much right to do that as the people who want to be free from assault." 8. Pro argues, "The things you describe are a natural want of any animal, but the application of those instincts is vastly different, and THAT is morality. It isn't a moral standard to be secure. It is a moral standard to dictate what secure means." Here is the semantic argument that I earlier pointed out as a potential problem. I claim that the fundamental human right is to seek security, and that to deny a person from seeking security by any means is immoral. Pro argues that a "moral code" is not about what is moral or immoral, but about the detailed mechanism by which the underlying morality is believed to be achieved. No, the implementation is subordinate to the morality. 9. I argued, that when Pro asserts that a universal code may be worse than no code, she is admitting that there is a biological basis that defines human rights. That is the only way she could know what is worse. Pro did not respond. 10. I claimed that if one believes that there is no inherent basis for morality in the nature of man, then one must, to be consistent, be fundamentally indifferent about what rules of moral conduct are accepted. Pro argues that one can simply vote on morality and that determines it. But if you believe that all moral decision have no basis in human absolutes, there is no basis to passionately support one side or the other. How would one vote on the morality of genocide, for example, without supposing that it was contrary to human nature? Would one make some sort of economic argument that the country would be more or less prosperous without the group proposed to be purged? It makes no sense without a moral framework derived from the nature of mankind.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-no-universal-moral-standard./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 15.77
      universal: 14.84
      conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 4.07 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.98)
      sourceText: 0.98 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.06)
      should: 0.53
      premises: 0.47 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.06 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.37)
  • CON

    I definitely want the government making all my decisions...

    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.

  • CON

    A Trotskyist society is one which is based on political...

    Trotskyism is inferior to Third universal Theory

    A Trotskyist society is one which is based on political agreement and equality. A society based on equality would show to be a more productive system because everyone is contributing to society as much as the next person. Everyone has some form of a skill, so if there is a job that requires that skill, that person should pursue that career and contribute to society. A Trotskyist society also is a form of government that is supposed to be used in a recovering state of a proletariat revolution. A major trait of Trotskyism is introducing socialist rules to a society with ease. And I have only a few questions regarding your finishing paragraph on gender equality. "Women should money to support them in motherhood and no other should care for the child but their natural mother and father" By stating this are you saying that Same sex couples should not be able to raise children? Also the "Women should money to support them" statement doesn't really make any sense. "Making a mother work is unnatural as their role is motherhood and new expletive system should subject them to do so." So even if the mother has raised her children she should not be allowed to pursue a career to contribute to society? Now I will proceed to explain why I think a Trotskyist Society would prove to be an equal or better form of government. "Fearing domestic protest, the Libyan government implemented preventative measures, reducing food prices, purging the army leadership of potential defectors and releasing a number of Islamist prisoners. They proved ineffective, and on 17 February 2011, major political protests began in Libya against Gaddafi's government. Many of the reasons for the uprising differed from those of Tunisia and Egypt; unlike those nations, Libya did not have a large Islamist support base or civic movement and was largely religiously homogeneous; however, there was much dissatisfaction with the corruption and entrenched systems of patronage that were associated with Gaddafi's regime, and unemployment had reached around 30%" I feel as if this subject of the Libyan Civil War needs to be addressed. The measures that Qaddafi and the Libyan government took to stop this revolution is quite revolting. "The International Coalition Against War Criminals gave an estimate that 519 people had died, 3,980 were wounded and over 1,500 were missing" And that is just the deaths caused by Government Forces. Also, keep in mind "Proclaiming that the rebels would be "hunted down street by street, house by house and wardrobe by wardrobe", the armed forces opened fire on protests in Benghazi, killing hundreds." After that incident several senior politicians defected or resigned being shocked by such an out of control response to the Protests. I will now give turn it over to pro to discuss why he thinks that Third Universal Theory is superior to Trotskyism.

  • CON

    For example a strong man in a society where he can use...

    Universal benefits of human rights

    The recognition and enforcement of fundamental human rights would and does not benefit everyone equally. For example a strong man in a society where he can use the threat of his strength to cause others to serve him against their will stands to lose his comfortable life, in which he is happier, if the weaker men's right to security of person is guaranteed. This loss is a far greater harm to him than the small potential that he might be replaced by an even stronger man who appears. Therefore not everyone benefits from the recognition of fundamental human rights, and so they cannot be termed either fundamental or universal, as they advance the interests of some at the expense of others. Similarly the international examples show how those in famine-prone areas benefit at the expense of those in more prosperous areas. Moreover, the excuse of 'protecting human rights' can be used as easily to advance neo-colonial or imperial ambitions on the part of one nation against another as it can be used to justify intervening in famines, so the net gain  is far from clear-cut.[1] [1] Bosco, David “Is human rights just the latest utopia?” Foreign Policy Magazine. Tuesday, July 5, 2011.

  • CON

    An expert on the issue from the Brigham and Women’s...

    Universal healthcare stifles innovation

    Profits do drive innovation. But there is nothing out there that would make us believes that the profits stemming from the health care industry are going to taper off or even decrease in a universal coverage system. In short in a single-payer system, it’s just the government that’ll be picking up the tab and not the private companies. But the money will still be there. An expert on the issue from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital opined that this lack of innovation crops up every time there is talk of a health care reform, usually from the pharmaceutical industry, and usually for reasons completely unrelated to the policy proposed.[1] Whereas the opposition fears new research into efficiency of medical practice and procedures, we, on the other hand, feel that’s exactly what the doctor ordered – and doctors do too.[2] [1] Klein, E., Will Health-Care Reform Save Medical Innovation?, published 8/3/2009, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/will_health-care_reform_save_m.html, accessed 9/18/2011 [2] Brown, D., ‘Comparative effectiveness research’ tackles medicine’s unanswered questions, published 8/15/2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/comparative-effectiveness-research-tackles-medicines-unanswered-questions/2011/08/01/gIQA7RJSHJ_story.html, accessed 9/18/2011

  • CON

    Why is life (especially human) on this planet a morally...

    There are universal, objective moral values

    "Thou shall not kill each other within a group, otherwise, there is no group. " This not universal or objective. It's only valuable to one group (if even that) and is constantly changing. To end these circles we are going in, I will forfeit my final argument and leave you with a question that has been dodged for the past 4 rounds. Perhaps my next debate will focus more solely on this. Why is life (especially human) on this planet a morally good thing? Why would it be morally bad for life to end, or better yet, to not ever have begun? Please, leave out our obvious bias towards wanting to live. I understand that we have an instinct to survive and that we all enjoy doing it. But I'm hoping you will check that at the door, and try to think honestly about this from outside a biased viewpoint. I have provided plenty of evidence that it is likely even bad for everything as a whole. One more interesting article I saw on face book that clearly demonstrates a huge example of my point. http://www.iflscience.com...

  • CON

    The reason why I mentioned this is because you could...

    We need a universal health care system. Here's one idea.

    The first arguement that id like to take up on this point is that yes medicare does help alot of people, lower income etc this just further fuels my point on point 4 so thank you. The second part is that while yes it does work it is not a universal program it only focuses on a section of the people not everyone. Also as a side note one person cant keep an entire system working and by saying you have a good president still wont solve the problem of having a working program, its just to big of a job. 2. The first point on this flow id like to say feeling good because its one less thing to worry about wont protect the people from the absurd taxing like you proposed in the plan. Also they wont be paying less because as it is now the companies help pay and fund the different insurances. In all a unviersal health care would completely collapse our already fraying economy. 3. So this whole argument contradicts the point of a universal health care, to keep hospitals and doctors still private would not reach the perspective of a universal health care since not everyone is entitled to the same thing. Bringing us back to the heart of capitalism, competition which will be lacking if the plan is implemented. 4. Your still missing the point there are systems like Medicare like you mention that cover people who are in need of it. The reason why I mentioned this is because you could argue that if people wouldn't get attention which i was proving incorrect but since you agree theres no need to argue this any more. 5. Really the points you make here are just not true, when funded by the government like every other program ran by the government the doctors will be told what to do and how to do it. I mentioned India because they have a universal health care system and it is one of the poorest in the world this being the leading reason, doctors don't care as much anymore. 6. No it wouldn't lower because in this new system everyone basically pays the same amount, for people like me I go in once a year for a physical other than that I'm relatively healthy so why should i pay that much more, when other people who choose a unhealthy lifestyle and cost more a year eventually raising prices for me to help take care of the unhealthy person thats why a universal health care system would be bad. 7. While that may be true eventually its the transition that will kill the economy before the cavalry comes. Also look to point 8 on the flow and this ties in with this point in the fact that less doctors would want to do the job so they wouldn't be in such large demand. 8. Again look to point 3 and how this contradicts the point of a universal health care if everything is still privatized. To deny the fact that doctors become doctors because of the fame and status is just ignorant, sure some may not fit the type but the vast majority do. 9. So basically your conceding to the fact that since our health coverage is working why change it so thank you. As another side note any country with a universal health coverage none of them have a good system, just a bare system. Also its not a right its a privilege that you should work hard for not be given to you on a silver spoon. 10. The point to this argument here is that health care in other nations like India, see point 5, because they are so poor and ours is so great changing that would hurt everything in our medical infrastructure and see my other points as to how universal cant be socialized or privatized. It may not be everyone which yeah i suppose i can attest to that but in the status quo nothing is broken when you compare us to every other country, just try and name one with a better health system.