Amazon.com Widgets

Should we spend resources trying to prevent species from becoming extinct if the money came from the health care budget?

  • Why we should...

    Some medicines are made from plants. If those plants become extinct, how can we take good care of our health without using chemicals that can destroy our body if used too much? Animals and plants are part of a giant food chain. If one is gone, there can be too much of one species or too little because they don't have enough to eat. For example: some bats eats mosquito, if they extincts there will be a lot of sick people due to diseases they carries. Animals that eats bats like hawks and owls will have less food. Less owls and hawks would lead to less food for eagles and so on.

  • I do not think we should take money from the health care budget to prevent species from becoming extinct. Our own citizens need to be more of a priority than animals.

    I do not think it would be wise to take money from the health care budget to save animals from becoming extinct. Our country has a huge problem with health care, and we need to make sure those that need health care will have access to it. The health of the people of our country should be a priority over the extinction of animals.

    Posted by: P4vIIss
  • Some of the species that we save could have important medical benefits to mankind, so it is definitely worth spending the money.

    Even if we find nothing at all that could benefit mankind at this time, we don't know that there won't be future benefits to man by saving species from going extinct. Scientists are just beginning to find out how many wonderful uses there are for natural substances found in plants and animals. If we allow species to go extinct, we will only be hurting ourselves. Using health care money makes sense since it will benefit not only the species threatened with extinction but possibly human health also.

    Posted by: 54IInferno
  • I would spare no cost to prevent the extinction of certain plants and animals.

    Mammals, birds, sharks, and various large plants should be protected at any cost. Small bugs, weeds, and fungi... not so much. If the World would not miss it either would we. Not just because it is pretty or rare. If something plays a vital role in a ecosystem, then it should also be saved. The World without a poisonous vine we can live with, but I can not imagine a world without Elephants.

    Posted by: 5h035Bow
  • Humans are a species also.

    Humans are an invasive species. Unlike other animals on the planet who adapt to their environments, we adapt the environment to us! In the process we pollute food supplies, the air and water for our comfort and convenience. What are yeah going to eat to survive when everything is killed off? It is arrogant to believe we are so important that we trump all other life. We are a blip of a species on the earths timeline. The people who vote "no" Are a reason why we need a plague of some-sorts to humble us. For once.

  • We should spend resources trying to prevent species from becoming extinct if the money came from the health care budget.

    Killing off these creatures IS simply isn't right. So very many are dying and losing their habitats. These poor creatures do not deserve the treatment that they are receiving, they are alive, like us! What have they done to us apart from play their part in their eco-systemso we decide to destroy them. But imagine if a country like the US could throw their weight behind a charity like WWF then imagine the work they could achieve. They could help sort out the Farmers who destroy habitats to grow crops etc and give them a better life as well. Something like this has to happen, or we ain't gonna have no more animals!

  • We should spend more resources to keep these beautiful creatures Alive.

    We are killing off these creatures and it simply isn't right. So very many are dying and losing their habitats. Imagine if some alien race came and destroyed New York or London and then they keep coming back and just removing chunk after chunk of our homes until there's no where left to go. This is what is happening to these poor creatures they don't deserve any of it. What have they done to us apart from play their part in their eco-system (which we are also destroying), so we decide to destroy them. I think that yes, some of the health care budget, and I'm not saying it has to be a lot, should go to saving habitats. But imagine if a country like the UK or US could throw their weight behind a charity like WWF then imagine the work they could achieve. They could help sort out the Farmers who destroy habitats to grow crops etc and give them a better life as well. Something like this has to happen, or we ain't gonna have no more animals!

  • Long term thinking.

    Our health as a whole would be far better if we invested more in understanding and protecting the natural world. We are part of the natural world. It's where we came from.

    It is wildly arrogant to dismiss our effect on other species in favour of short term self preservation which only serves to worsen the problem of poor health in the long term.

    Good food, clean air and water, exercise, community engagement, less stress and a sense of self worth.. These are the roots of good health and they are all vastly improved by us taking exceptional care of the environment AS A WHOLE.

    Awareness and opinion of our place within the eco system at large varies wildly.
    I can only speak for myself here but as far as I can see we are ultimately an infinitesimal part if something beyond our current understanding with a (tragically ironic) astronomical impact upon that which we do not yet understand.
    Taking care of the planet is the best investment we can make in our health and our future as a species.

  • wildlife is beatiful

    why wouldnt you want to protect the wildlife and preserve its beauty????

  • Prevention of species extinction has to be a priority, no matter where the funding comes from.

    I don't know why the health care budget would be targeted to fund prevention of species extinction, but this has to be a priority - regardless of where the funding comes from. Nature is a source of all kinds of medicinal cures, so the destruction of species intrinsically inhibits medical advances; I guess that's the connection.

    Posted by: Th4Fire
  • No, Humans Come First

    We need to sort out our priorities. Protecting human beings means more than protecting wildlife. No other species is going to put other species first. Why should we? This is not even a matter of intelligence or any kind of superiority. It is natural and normal for a species to favor its own.

  • We must preserve our own species before we protect another. That is why I support funding health care over wildlife preservation.

    If you can not protect mankind, then what is the purpose of protecting the animals? We must look out for humans before we try to preserve animals because most humans rely on animals as a food source and to survive we must use every available resource to our advantage. While preserving animals is important, it should not have priority over health care because funding health care not only helps our generation, but generations ongoing.

    Posted by: R3ubHockey
  • No, since we have other burning issues like global warming to be taken care of.

    We have other burning issues like poverty, malnutrition, health care, and global warming to be taken care of. A penny saved is a penny earned. We could use these funds for advancement of science and technology instead.

    Posted by: WittyRud
  • It doesn't make sense to use the health care budget to prevent species from becoming extinct.

    Environmentalism is important, and the government should play a role in making sure species don't become extinct. But the funds should come from an area that's actually related to environmentalism, like the Environmental Protection Agency or or Department of Natural Resources. The health care budget is only for things related to medical care.

    Posted by: N Schroeder 60
  • I don't think money to save endangered species should come from health care budget.

    Endangered species and health care are two vastly different topics that are very mutually exclusive. Yes, there might be a medicine that can come from a plant or animal, but that research should be funded from another source, not from health care itself. People need real care now and it shouldn't be compromised by not having enough money because it's being spent on non-necessities.

    Posted by: H0bi3Invader
  • Although we need to protect endangered species, the money for this should be found from anther source than the health care budget.

    With all of the problems the United States is experiencing with health care and its costs, money should not be taken from health care to save endangered species. Saving at least some of our endangered species is important, but the money for this needs to come from somewhere else. Human beings are suffering from lack of adequate medical care, and this should come first!

    Posted by: R0d0Ferdy
  • Money needs to go into healthcare, not come out.

    And, really one thing doesn't have a whole lot to do with another. It may sound cruel, but before we go saving the animal population, we need to save the human population. Or, we will become extinct. There has to be a way to do both, but NO money should be taken from health care ... not while there are people walking around with no health insurance or access to meaningful healthcare.

    Posted by: MohaI0v35
  • Why would that money come from the health care budget?

    First of all, it looks like the health care bill is going down in flames. Just like it ought to. The bill will break America in half. Secondly, only in today's America would we think it okay to re allocate monies for something like this. What does animal extinction have to do with human health care? I say it has nothing to do with it, and the monies should stay put.

    Posted by: BriaBlacken
  • While I support wildlife preservation, I don't believe it's right for the funding to come from health care resources, because protecting another species from extinction is not a human health care issue.

    Protecting another species from extinction is not a human health care issue. It may impact the lives of human beings, however, so the money should come from somewhere. But, it should not be drained from an already overtaxed resource, especially when one issue has little to do with the other. These are two separate issues and they should not share funding, in my opinion.

    Posted by: CoolElwood65
  • There are plenty of funds already available and being donated regularly towards the task of preventing extinction.

    Health, in itself, is a major issue around the world. America is one of the few places that produces food that is unfit to eat, because it causes so many health issues. We are targeted, scrutinized, manipulated, and practically brainwashed by hundreds of advertisements a day to get us to eat junk. Then, when we do, we get sick. After we are sick, the pharmaceutical industry happily gives us pills to ease the suffering. If we are going to justify treating our population this way, then we need proper health care to medicate us back to health. Otherwise, fix the food. Perhaps, if more people were being fed proper nutrition, we would be able to think of more efficient and less costly ways to save endangered life.

    Posted by: BentClaude41

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.