@all who vote "No"
Who exactly is going to pay for this? $2 Billion just for the first two years...We have no way of paying for it. We're already pushing a $100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities and looking at just about $20 Trillion in debt by the end of this presidency. We can't just keep spending without a way to pay for it; just ask Greece.
I don't get why there is a poll for this sort of thing. It's not even able to have a second opinion brought up over it. Everyone who answers yes is disregarding the very definition of what a human right is and would be infringing on all other human rights in the process by making healthcare a requirement.
And thatll be their justification to raise taxes ... Instead of getting rid of it. Its the never ending progressive cycle. Don't do anything smart. Don't try to do any root cause analysis or anything ... Just keep the momentum going forward till the wheels fall off. Only about immediate reward/satisfaction.
"Medical attention is, in fact, a human right."
Humans looking out for other humans is not a human right. People have a choice to make with what they do with themselves and their time. They are not indentured to your service whenever you need help.
Doctors came up with their own medical code of ethics ... Thats their prerogative. Its not everyones responsibility to hold up to their code of ethics. If a person wants to be that type of individual, they can devote their life to that cause. The rest of us can choose to do what we want with our lives.
@Makesensepeopledont Maybe you didn't notice the 9th amendment which basically says that not all rights are listed in the constitution, and that just because it's not in the constitution, doesn't give the government the right to infringe on those rights.
"...Have a right to be given help when they are DYING! Goodbye freedom."
Yes goodbye freedom to the people who have to perform those services on you. Live and let be. If youre dying it would be nice of them to help, you could show your appreciation by paying, but its certainly not their responsibility to do so. They do it under the assumption that you will cover the bill after the fact. Medical treatments can't all be pro bono.
Also, how can medical care be a human right? Medical care is a man made thing, not natural. We have human rights as in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and whatever the heck else you can cry for without earning it.
Again, THEY CAN GO TO THE HOSPITAL FOR FREE. Even illegal immigrants, they've been doing it for decades. They come here to have babies in our hospitals and get sewn up after a fire fight with border patrol...Nobody turns them away. The doctor who does would be hit for murder.....IDIOT.
How is acknowledging healthcare as a right infringing on other's rights?
'Job' entails getting paid for your services. What youre mentioning is a requirement to perform services regardless of payment. It infringes on the doctor and also on the next customer in line that has to absorb the costs of unpaid medical bills by the people who cant afford it.
@freedombeforeequality Can you explain why universal healthcare is still a debated topic here when it worked well, pretty much everywhere else? We're the richest country in the world, we can afford universal healthcare just fine.
Its not about whether it 'works well' or not. Those places dont have the same value for freedom that we do. They value keeping people alive and paying taxes more than they do a persons right to life, liberty, or property.
You are EXACTLY the person that Democrats count on every election. The voters too lazy to do a darn second of research about anything...The voters that have NO idea what they are talking about and simply listen to their friends, co-workers, media, blogs, and everyone on the planet....And never take the time to check if it's true or not.
I wouldnt debate that ... It does work elsewhere. If thats their mindset (slaves of the state) then they have no problem paying and everything works out hunky dory. I just contend that that is not what we are about here. It's what is supposed to make us unique. I don't get why everyone wants to be like those places. I rather like the diversity of the planet the way it is.
No diversity means no shelter or group for someone to go be with when they disagree. And there is alot of disagreement in the world. Always will be. Making everything like the EU would be a disaster, no refuge for the free minds of the world.
No, let him put his knowledge where his mouth is. I put together a 30 page argumentative essay that I used as a debate paper to stump my college logic and civil liberties teachers. Shut them up pretty darn fast. So let's do it. Maybe he'll learn something for once.
I come from an economy that ranks first in economic freedoms every year, and our medical industry is nationalised. In fact, it took a while for me to make sense of the healthcare discussions on DDO because the idea of not having nationalised medical services was quite foreign to me. I say that governments definitely should provide it. We're having problems of our own here, with resources, human resources in particular, running short in our hospitals, and there's been talks of an insurance system for the relatively well-off. This is likely the direction we'll take. I think a balance of public and private medical services will be best for any society.
@freedombeforeequality @makesensepeopledont As you two are debating whether or not I will make this debate I have been doing exactly that. And I'll post the link: http://www.debate.org/debates/Is-universal-healthcare-a-right-in-the-United-States-of-America/1/
@MakesSense: Yeah, I'm sure there'll be deleterious effects if a recession occurs in the North. My point was that in a discussion about the medical system, only my economy, not my nation, is relevant...
"I come from an economy that ranks first in economic freedoms every year, and our medical industry is nationalised."
That would constitute as an oxymoron, if your country wasnt also making economic freedoms in other areas enough so to weigh out the fact that medical is nationalized. Otherwise i dont know how you could rank first by doing that to an entire market like that.
@FBE: Yep, low profits and salaries tax, no tariffs, no capital gains tax, etc. The government makes lots of money by selling land at high prices, enough to fund public medicine, housing and education and maintain fiscal surpluses every year.
So I think im mistaking your use of 'free' then. You mean it is free and independent from other nations ... But certainly not free in the sense that its people are free to spend their money as they wish. You are referring to the government as the sovereign entity and not the individuals its lording over.
@FBE: Actually, we are. http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking The US is ranked 12th, 11 places below us. I'm sure you have capital gains tax, higher income tax and far more government subsidies than us.
To answer this question, one first needs to know where we get our rights from. The answer lies in the essential purpose of government itself, which is to protect people's lives and property from being stolen, damaged, or otherwise manipulated by others. That is the basic reason why we have government and so everyone living under a government deserves to have their life and property protected. Thus, you have a *right* to your life and property. Notice that these rights are preventative, meaning that the government protects you from someone else encroaching on your life and property; however, you don't have a right to be taken care of, especially at someone else's expense. Forcing a doctor to serve you violates his right to his own services (which, of course, are his property).
I lean towards no tax, to be sure. But I only do so as an advocate for personal responsibility. If people want to come together and create pools of money to get things built, great for them. Everyone should have a choice in the matter though. It shouldnt be "pay or go to jail".
"... American public does NOT want the USA spending over half of our tax dollars on the military ..."
So what then? In lieu of pulling dollars from military funding they think creating more programs is going to help? Just pull the funding ... Simple. It doesnt need to be substituted by another program to soak up the spare funds. Give the money back to the people who paid it in. Taxes get raised for specific reasons ... When those reasons go away the money should go in turn. It shouldnt just get forgotten about and dragged along into new programs that no one wants.
We are spending #1 in the world, yet we rank last among developing countries. Our healthcare system is fragmented, expensive and useless. We can switch to single payer, cut the costs and budget and save money.
I am in the process of putting together my first arguments on a debate for this topic as can be seen here:
The cost to performance ratio is going to be one of my points so stay tuned to that debate for your explanation on that my friend.
This is one of the reasons why I gave up on my conservative beliefs and became a liberal. When I was a Baptist, we were taught that Jesus helped the poor. Nothing we are doing in this country is helping the poor, and instead it creates fear and inequality. Lets start with Single payer healthcare. Studies have already shown it would be cheaper for us in the long run, and we can definitely afford to cut the budget and still have healthcare that is much more effective than what we have now. I wouldn't mind being taxed a little bit more, so millions of children in the country will be able to receive care they need. Bernie Sanders already said he was going to do this, by heavily taxing the billionaire class.
@Stefy I want to keep the comment short so refer to post #31 here: http://www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/68248/2/ .
And honestly, I would like to hear your opinion of the essential purpose of government and how it does not coincide with my own conception of it being first and foremost about protection of life and property.
It doesnt sound like youve rid yourself of your baptist beleifs ... But the rest of us don't necessarily belive that jesus helping the poor is a reason why we should be doing it. Jesus was also interacting with the rich all the same. They just had different lessons to learn about their sin versus poor sinners. Never was he roping up the poor and telling them that it was their right to exact funds from the rich. He never tried to instill a desire in the poor to take from the rich. All of that notion is still sinful, still morally wrong. Whether you do it through democratic government or actually holding them up in an alley and robbing them ... Its all the same.