Amazon.com Widgets

Should the federal government decrease medical bills?

  • Way too expensive

    "26 percent of Americans age 18-64 struggled to pay medical bills. According to the U. S. Census, That's 52 million adults. The survey found that 2 percent, Or 1 million, Said they declared bankruptcy that year. " this was a statistic from the balance. Com that proves the necessity for the federal government to decrease medical bills.

  • I hav the right to live.

    I have the right to live. That is why I should have healthcare. This is my body. I have the right to not be sick or injured. Life without quality healthcare is cruel and unusual punishment for being poor. Either people have the right to live or they do not.

  • Government intervention in healthcare caused the problem.

    When you force insurance companies to cover costs they aren't used to covering, They will raise prices and premiums to the point where the average consumer can no longer afford to pay for their services. If we allowed more competition in healthcare markets you'd see prices drop and service increase.

    Also, It's not the government's duty to tell any individual business what they must do- healthcare is not a right, It is a privilege.

  • You do not have a right to other people's work.

    Contrary to what the "Yes" column would suggest, You do not have a right to other people's labor. As was mentioned above (not about super humans), Government intervention has created a flawed health care system that we have now with skyrocketing prices. More intervention will not help this problem.

    To address the Yes column more, Simply having bills that are expensive and cause people to fail financially is NOT a proof positive argument that the government should thus take on said debt. The government is already enormously in debt. This would be a disaster.

    To address the less well-developed Yes column answer, Having a right to live does NOT translate to a right to health care. In full truth, No one has a "right to health care. " This directly translates to a right to have someone else care for you. Rights don't work that way. What about someone who has a right to their own autonomy? If you have a right to health care, You have a RIGHT to have someone else provide a service to YOU. That means, In its logical extreme as a thought experiment, If no one wanted to perform that service for you, The government would have the legal justification to FORCE them to perform that service.

    Being forced to perform a service you do not want to perform is a form of indentured servitude. We have rights AGAINST this. Thus, You don't have a right to health care.

    Emotional appeals should not constitute the basis of an argument.

    Furthermore, "I have the right to not be sick or injured? " Pardon my jargon, But lolwut? To be frank, You have the right to life through natural death unless convicted by a jury of your peers of a capital crime. If you need a surgery and you can perform it yourself on yourself (this has actually been done successfully before, Vladislav Rogozov), You are absolutely free do to so. If you need someone else's help to continue your life, Then you are often, And SHOULD be, Required to compensate them for that assistance.

  • Powerful super humans are going to help.

    We can heal people and turn them into powerful superhumans and maybe create a superhuman team that will help defend the Earth, Especially against any alien invasion that would conquer the Earth, Our super beloved home planet. Alvertis murths ga ha ha us js je je ie eieni eiebe jene jebe


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