CreateDebate


Debate Info

331
230
Yes No
Debate Score:561
Arguments:131
Total Votes:674
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (69)
 
 No (43)

Debate Creator

Ashour(147) pic



Health Care Should Be Free ?

Yes

Side Score: 331
VS.

No

Side Score: 230
12 points

The reason why health care should be free is because people wouldn't hesitate going to the hospital. By heistating, you might double your hospital bill, which is very unfortunate, but it can also be dangerous.

Free health care is cheaper for everyone. Here in Denmark I don't have to worry about my daugther possibly getting braces, because if it turns out she needs them, she'll get them free.

There are a lot of advantages with having free health care, but there are also some disadvanteges. For example - when the hospital are free, there is no compitition between the hospitals, because every hospital, and ever doctor is being paid the same amount of money, whether they are successful in their business or not. The lack of compitition can often lead low quality .. in this case, doctors. The hospitals might not hire ''the best'' doctors, because why should they? They might as well hire average doctors, since the best don't make their income higher or lower.

I think health care should definitely be free, but I think we should have some private hospitals .. just as an option for those who can afford it.

Side: Yes
11 points

You got on my case for advocating affordable contraception and now you advocate free healthcare? Scratches head.

Side: No
12 points

Yes.

I don't think contraception has anything to do with neither medicine nor medical care.

Side: Yes
11 points

Hmm... your arguments with Thousandin1 have convinced me that free health care is needed in countries.

Side: Yes
11 points

Why? The went off on a crazy tangent about education. They abandoned the healthcare stuff.

Side: No
shoutoutloud(4303) Clarified
10 points

Are you being sarcastic or something ?

Side: Yes
randomMAN(22) Disputed
10 points

but how doctor will get their salary if health care are free !!!

Side: No
9 points

Of course !! and how can people live with out it !!! .

Side: Yes
Jace(5222) Clarified
11 points

Are your hospitals given a blank sum operating budget, or are they paid per case handled according to the nature of the case? If the former, I wonder why. If the latter, it seems that people may still have some capacity to influence care by choosing which hospitals they go to. Am I missing something?

I think it is dangerous to permit sub-standard public health facilities to co-exist with state of the art private facilities. It creates a situation in where quality healthcare is accessible only to those with money. I know that some level of care is better than no level, but it seems to me that forcing the wealthy (or at least most of them) to remain in the public system as well would ensure that lobbying funds and political influence is more heavily concentrated upon improving the public health system rather than circumventing it.

Side: Yes
shoutoutloud(4303) Clarified
8 points

it seems that people may still have some capacity to influence care by choosing which hospitals they go to.

You can choose which hospital you go to, but the hospitals you don't choose will not be affected on any financial level.

It creates a situation in where quality healthcare is accessible only to those with money.

You get free quality health care - but the nonfree health care turns out to be better than the free one, but just because one is better than the other, doesn't mean any of them are bad or lack quality.

Side: Yes
9 points

Yes ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, you are just think like Me !!!! :)

Side: Yes
randomMAN(22) Disputed
9 points

Allowing health care coverage to be driven by the free market without government intervention increases competition and the incentive for providing higher quality medical technology and service.

Providing health care to everyone is a huge expense and may result in tax increases thereby futher harming the economy and individual pocketbooks.

Guaranteeing health care for all Americans will lead to a problem known as "moral hazard," meaning that people will take riskier actions because they know that if they get hurt, they are guaranteed health care coverage.

Side: No
10 points

Providing health care to everyone is a huge expense and may result in tax increases thereby futher harming the economy and individual pocketbooks.

You should look at norway and Denmark. Norway has the richest citizens on earth, and they have huge taxes and free healthcare, education and so on. Norway is also the country where poeple live the longest - Denmark is nr. 5 on that list, I think.

Side: Yes
Ashour(147) Disputed
2 points

Yup ,, but it is still important to be a right !! .

Side: Yes
4 points

yes .

Side: Yes
10 points

In America we lack reason, healthcare should be free it should be part of being a US citizen paid for by our own taxes, American people seem to forget that all the money America has is because of its citizens, just like our military is covered to help protect us from dangers our healthcare should be to protect us from illness which is a real danger.

The problem is America got hijacked by corporations with short turn goals of greed and fight tooth and nail to privatize healthcare like its some sort of product or business venture, our health is not a product nor is our safty.

Americans shouldnt even have something called health insurance it should just be healthcare, what sick fuck would okay making a profit off an illness, Only in America were God is money and money is life.

Side: Yes
1 point

Yup .

Side: Yes
10 points

No one should be denied the right to live a healthy life. People often fight for individual rights and the ability to live a healthy life should be one of those rights. When insurance companies, drug companies and major stock holders are in charge, what chance is there in getting health care you can afford when it is strictly a numbers game?

Side: Yes
7 points

The healthcare system could be improved in America, but we shouldn't measure it by the amount of money spent. Americans pay less for healthcare than Europeans. America is so much bigger than any European country with universal healthcare that it is hard to say that that system would work in America. America could implement a system where you were forced to go to the doctor every year for prevention, but the European model would not work right now.

Side: Yes
7 points

Paid-for healthcare will increase the number of 'quack-doctor's, as poor people who cannot afford decent healthcare will look for a cheaper, less safe or credible option.

Treatment for contagious illnesses will not be readily available, resulting in spread of disease.

The poor will be less able to work and therefore less able to raise their standard of living, creating a larger gap between the rich and the poor.

More than that, I don't think people's lives should be valued so little by their governments such that being ill is a crime.

Side: Yes
7 points

Everyone has the right to health care! Many people go without health care because they simply cannot afford the high premiums associated with insurance. Instead, they utilize the emergency room when desperately ill, costing the tax payers more money on the treatment end rather than the prevention end. I firmly believe that if a free health care system were implemented, we would be a healthier and happier nation.

Side: Yes
7 points

Health is a right, not paying taxes isn't Healthcare is one of a special category of things which everyone is entitled to regardless of ability to pay and which must be distributed based on need not ability to pay.

There are many horrific conditions which are easy to treat.

It is a basic human right that a person does not have to suffer from a condition which can be treated, not paying taxes however is not a right.

To allow someone to suffer the consequences of medical conditions just because other people are too selfish to contribute toward a healthcare system via their taxes is unthinkable.

Side: Yes
randomMAN(22) Disputed
6 points

Guaranteeing everyone health care will lead to longer wait-times for patients to receive diagnoses and treatment of illnesses, as is the case in Canada and the UK, potentially denying patients with chronic diseases timely medical care. [5]

Providing a right to health care is socialism and is bad for economic productivity. Socialized medicine is comparable to food stamps, housing subsidies, and welfare--all of which is charity. Distributing charity to society makes people lazy, decreases the incentive for people to strive for excellence, and inhibits productivity.

A right to health care is nonadministrative because it is too ambiguous what kind of treatment and services should be guaranteed.

Side: No
Ashour(147) Clarified
5 points

Yes they should have free health care. How would you feel if you had a curable disease but didn't have the money to pay for it? And if they didn't cure it then you would die. So you had to get a loan you couldn't pay off and in the end go into very bad debt. Unfortunately that is what is happening to many people. And the way to fix that is free health care! The problem is the selfish, evil, rich people (not all rich people) don't want to pay higher taxes. So how about they stop being so selfish and start thinking about other people!

Side: Yes
5 points

Yes, healthcare should be free. Health care is a basic human right, and should therefore be free to all citizens. No one should have to chose between food and their medication, or heat and going to the doctor. In addition, no one should face bankruptcy because of an illness or accident. Everyone should have access to healthcare.

Side: Yes
Ashour(147) Clarified
5 points

Health care is a right. Health care is not a privilege that only certain people should be entitled to. Treatment for disease and illness and a chance at good health is something that every person should have access to without having to struggle to afford it and end up struggling even more just because something unfortunate happened and they needed expensive treatment. Health care should be free because the right to health should be something easily available to everyone.

Side: Yes
4 points

Even those with health insurance have problems. First of all, the list of things that can make you ineligible for the coverage is extremely long. You can end up being denied for omitting the smallest thing in health records. One woman got denied because of a yeast infection. There was also one man who got denied free health care for cancer, because the treatment was "experimental." He ended up dying. A similar thing happened to an 18-month old with a high fever. She also died. There were also some "happy" costumers who said how glad they were about the health care. One of them was denied coverage for her "non-life threatening" tumor, and ended up dying from it. Another was denied for cancer, and it spread.

Side: Yes
4 points

123456789hjbgytrbyuh87gvvbyu njbty bgyu gh ..

Side: Yes
1 point

You can vote if you want !! But don't make the debate like this !! ^,^

Side: Yes
4 points

Health care can not be a right !! It is something you can have like cars !! everyone have a right to bay a car but it do not that the government should give you a car !!

Side: Yes
3 points

@,@'' you are in the wrong side !! .

Side: Yes
7amra(7) Disputed
3 points

But you can be right in your point of view .

Side: No
Ashour(147) Disputed
2 points

why you are change you views quickly!!! but that make you a good debater ^,^'

Side: Yes
2 points

yes you are right ... but if you poor, instead of cars you can take bus , bike or you can walk but in the our issue if you are poor and sick you don't have another choose !!

Side: Yes
3 points

the needs of society

Health have already become society needs. The increasing of medicine price have make a lot of people really worried. In this case we're not just talking about people that have enough money that can provide their needs, the main problem right now is the poor people . Poverty and healthy standard are two important thing that effect a country, to change the status of a country from least development to development and to developing country. So in this case we can see that poverty and healthy have a very big role in a country. If this poor people can't provide their needs because the price of the health care it self, we can make sure that country will have a low standard of healthy because that country can't guaranteed the needs of the people, and if this poor people can't get free health care which is mean they can't recover from the disease, and imagine if it happens in least developing country that have 75% of poor people.

Side: Yes
4 points

Health care is a basic human right. Health care is a basic human right, and should therefore be free to all citizens. No one should have to chose between food and their medication, or heat and going to the doctor. In addition, no one should face bankruptcy because of an illness or accident. Everyone should have access to healthcare.

Side: Yes
3 points

When world leaders meet to discuss extending free healthcare for poor countries at the UN General Assembly this week, I will be following their progress closely. My mother, like so many other people in sub-Saharan Africa, died because she wasn't able to provide the cash for the medical treatment that she desperately needed. Where I grew up in Ghana, the health services operated on a "cash and carry" basis. You got what you wanted if you could pay for it.

Side: Yes
randomMAN(22) Disputed
3 points

I see you really want and believe with this !!! .

Side: No
7amra(7) Disputed
5 points

I think that too because we should have this right in our community !!!

Side: Yes
3 points

First off it is unconstitutional in what congress is doing in trying to force this health care bill on the people of this country.

Next it will not be free because there are provisions in the bills that says if you do not sign up for health care then the IRS will tax you 750 per person.

Then the next thing is that if you have a good health care plan with in 5 years you will be forced to join up with the one that the government has.

Then the doctors who are doing the work would be forced to be paid less and that is not a good thing seeing as they spent so much in college and they have bills to pay off from this.

Lastly those who have not worked or have done nothing to help them self would once again demand something else that the government should give them for nothing.

This bill is not about free health care but more governmental take over of another area of our life.

Side: Yes
5 points

Yup ,, that is right ... .

Side: Yes
Ashour(147) Clarified
4 points

of course ,, that is what i think to .

Side: Yes
12 points

Health care can't be free.

Medical training, medical equipment, and medicines themselves are not free. The power, supplies, and other logistical support required to practice medicine are not free.

Whenever there is an expenditure of resource or effort, there is an associated cost, it's just a question of where it comes from. 'Free' healthcare in fact means that the government is footing the bill. The government footing the bill in fact means that the taxpayers are footing the bill.

When individuals ask for free healthcare, they need to be aware that what they're asking for is not actually free healthcare, but rather they are asking the rest of the country to pay their medical bills for them, albeit indirectly.

We would be better served, in my opinion, by expanding our infrastructure and subsidizing higher education- this would allow those who can't afford health care with more job and education opportunities to change that. Offering free health care (among other things) to the impoverished may help them in the short term when they are ill, but it hurts them in the long run by keeping them down- it does this both by removing an important motivator for success, as well as by siphoning off resources that could be used to create more career opportunities, mass transit infrastructure, and educational subsidies- all of which stand to greatly improve the employability and social mobility of those in poverty. And don't forget- when we keep a group of impoverished individuals down, even under the guise of helping them, the harm isn't limited to them- this demographic breeds at a higher rate than the middle or upper classes, so the results of this affect subsequent generations as well.

Side: No
Atrag(5666) Disputed
14 points

I have to start by saying I'm slightly biased. In Europe we all enjoy a universal right of access to health care.

Offering free health care (among other things) to the impoverished may help them in the short term when they are ill, but it hurts them in the long run by keeping them down- it does this both by removing an important motivator for success

I don't see not providing health care as significant motivator. I presume you recognise it is not significant in itself either when you added 'among other things'.

I find it extremely hard to imagine that someone would be more likely to choose not to work in a society that offers free health care than those that do not. "Oh I should really get a job to in case I get cancer this year - nah fuck it its alright I'll just rely on the public health system". Then again I tend to believe than when people don't work it isn't entirely down to their choice either. Very few people are truly happy not working.

siphoning off resources that could be used to create more career opportunities, mass transit infrastructure, and educational subsidie

The USA (its citizens) spends far more on health care per year than any other country. (University is also extremely expensive compared to anywhere else).There is no reason to suggest the country would be worse off as a whole if there was public health cover. If you set the prices that hospitals could charge for treatments based on its costs, cut out insurance companies, there would be a lot less money drained from the pockets of the citizens either through tax or through their own spending.

Side: Yes
12 points

I have to start by saying I'm slightly biased. In Europe we all enjoy a universal right of access to health care.

I agree that healthcare should be equally accessible to all, i just don't believe it should be free to anyone.

I don't see not providing health care as significant motivator. I presume you recognise it is not significant in itself either when you added 'among other things'.

I find it extremely hard to imagine that someone would be more likely to choose not to work in a society that offers free health care than those that do not. "Oh I should really get a job to in case I get cancer this year - nah fuck it its alright I'll just rely on the public health system". Then again I tend to believe than when people don't work it isn't entirely down to their choice either. Very few people are truly happy not working.

We aren't talking about a majority. We aren't even talking about a majority of a minority. I don't mean to conflate the issue- it's a minority of a minority that does this. The idea is to reinvest the saved money into infrastructure and educational subsidies, allowing those with a work ethic to better their positions- at the expense of the lazy ones.

US Welfare (by which I mean all financial assistance, including medical) breaks down to something in the neighborhood of 20% being on the program for less than 6 months, 80% being on the program for less than 5 years, and ~15% being on the program permanently. Of those on the program pemanently, ~50% have medical reasons preventing them from working. The remainder are a mix of those who are limited by education, those who are limited by mobility (some overlap), and a small minority that are simply lazy. I agree with you that few of these are simply not working because they don't have to; this plan benefits them by improving their education and mobility, at the expense of those who are simply being lazy. In a nation with a population in the hundreds of millions or more, a minority of a minority still represents a lot of people and a lot of money; its estimated that there are a couple hundred thousand people and families skating by that could otherwise make it on their own. Obviously, consideration should be made to those who are kept from the workforce due to disability, but they should be a separate category anyway in my estimation.

This is more or less predicated on agreeing with you that few people are truly happy not working- if I disagreed with you on that, this plan would be punishing far more people and benefiting far fewer.

The USA (its citizens) spends far more on health care per year than any other country. (University is also extremely expensive compared to anywhere else).There is no reason to suggest the country would be worse off as a whole if there was public health cover. If you set the prices that hospitals could charge for treatments based on its costs, cut out insurance companies, there would be a lot less money drained from the pockets of the citizens either through tax or through their own spending.

There are nearly half a million people working for health insurance companies in the US; removing health insurance from the equation puts a lot of people out of work- thats not something that can be done lightly, I dont believe. It's not a bad take on it, but I think with the current climate it's better for everyone if we make education accessible to all, and bring our mass transit up to snuff.

Side: No
Cartman(18192) Disputed
11 points

The USA (its citizens) spends far more on health care per year than any other country. (University is also extremely expensive compared to anywhere else).

This is false. You guys pay through taxes, but don't count it toward your overall bill.

There is no reason to suggest the country would be worse off as a whole if there was public health cover

This is coming from the guy who says that everything America does is fucked. You think healthcare will magically be done right if done the way you suggest?

Side: No
kimje049(18) Disputed
11 points

I have to start by saying I'm slightly biased. In Europe we all enjoy a universal right of access to health care.

Health care is not free even in a country with access to free health care. By allocating a percentage of the tax into providing a health care, they are losing funding on another area. There is always an opportunity lost to any decision.

Side: No

Well said. I agree, Dr. Atrag. .

Side: Yes
GCSB(83) Disputed
11 points

May not be the best but I can assure you the NHS ent doing to bad hunny.

However it does depend on what this person means, does he mean that the whole lot should be free or the medication/surgery/services should be offered for free.

In England (my apologies if your from England you probably already know this) we pay our NI which covers the basics of health care for the British public. We don't need to pay every time that we are taking somewhere in an ambulance and a basic surgery doesn't cost a fortune.

They still need to do some work on getting more funds to the NHS but it does work!

Side: Yes
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
9 points

I'm from the US, though I enjoyed my visit to the UK a few years back thoroughly.

It's a working model, though a brief bit of research does seem to indicate that the program is a net loss at least on some years. (I know, wikipedia- I'll try to read up more on your system when I have a chance, I'm not as well versed on it as I should be.)

The problem with implementing a similar system in the US is scaling it up to cover our entire population across our entire nation. If all else were equal, the logistical costs in the US would still exceed those in Britain by a generous margin. All else is not equal, however- and its our own fault. The cost of health care has been cranked up to ridiculous levels due to our choice to make it a part of the 'free market' (to an extent at least). As such, the government covering the entirety of the cost via subsidies would represent a massive burden on our government compared to that of the UK. Compared to that ~£90 billion (around ~$110 billion at the then exchange rate) that the UK spent on 2012, the US spent ~$2.7 trillion. If you compare our GDP from 2012, We have Britain at roughly $2.4 trillion, and the US at roughly $15.7 trillion. If you work that out to percentages, in 2012 Britain spent just under 5% of their GDP on medicine, whereas the US spent just over 17% of our GDP in the same year. That is a HUGE amount to subsidize, and simply not practical without massive regulation of pricing within the health industry before any kind of national health care could be implemented. And herein lies the problem; Pharmaceuticals, Insurance, Hospitals, etc represent large lobbies within our political system that would more or less preclude our ability to enforce such regulations.

At least in 2012, the income the UK received from NI still wasn't quite enough to cover your actual health spending- I don't have data on other years at this time unfortunately- and the US would need to charge more than triple the percentage of our GDP- this is compounded further by our current and standing unemployment rate, as well as all of the legal loopholes exploited by the affluent to avoid paying their share.

The mess is entirely our fault, and is such that a simple solution to this is all but impossible at this stage.

Side: Yes
7 points

Yes , of course they still need it !! .

Side: Yes
6 points

Not everyone can have a higher education. We can't all be doctors and laywers. We need people who will do the lower class work - like cleaning and that sort of work, and also middle class work like teaching and stuff.

Don't they deserve a proper medical care, since they are needed in our society?

Side: Yes
10 points

Not everyone can have a higher education. We can't all be doctors and laywers.

Prove it.

Who says that not everyone can have a higher education? Higher education is not limited to doctors and lawyers. Just about every field either flatout requires or stands to benefit significantly from higher education.

We need people who will do the lower class work - like cleaning and that sort of work, and also middle class work like teaching and stuff.

No, we don't need people who will do the lower class work. Name a single job that 1) Neither requires nor is benefited by higher education and 2) Cannot be performed by machines and computers.

Middle class work, such as teaching 'and stuff' does, in fact, require higher education even now. Higher education also isn't limited to college/university. Technical schools are higher education. Apprenticeship programs are higher education. Becoming a Master Plumber or Electrician, for example, require a mixture of education and experience that many university degree programs don't even come close to.

Don't they deserve a proper medical care, since they are needed in our society?

Nobody is entitled to anything simply by virtue of existing, and I don't believe we have an actual need for unskilled labor. If we're going to talk about what people deserve, then doesn't every taxpayer deserve a sizeable piece of land, a nice house, and a wide selection of foods that are both healthy and delicious, simply by virture of their contribution to society?

Your skepticism also assumes that everybody who is offered higher education will be able to take full advantage of it- this is not the case; even amongst those who qualify, there are numerous individuals who drop or fail out of university. Limiting the accessibility of higher education to the affluent does a disservice to our entire society, as there are intelligent individuals who lack the affluence to seek higher education, as well as a rash of individuals taking higher education for granted and drinking/smoking their way through college until they drop out.

You also have ignored my suggestion that we improve our infrastructure, including mass transit- these in and of themselves both create new career opportunities and make existing career opportunities accessible to individuals who otherwise would not have a way to make the commute.

Side: No
full-of-fuck(4) Disputed
5 points

No .

Side: Yes
5 points

Yes .

Side: No

No but it should be affordable. .

Side: No
shoutoutloud(4303) Clarified
7 points

What is affordable?

Affordable for you might not be affordable for someone else. And affordable for someone else might not be affordable for you.

Side: Yes
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
6 points

What is affordable?

Affordable is some number that may or may not be within your grasp, but can be wiped clean off the books of a business with out the business going under. An example of affordable is an item currently sells for $500.00 and it cost the retailer $100.00. In this example: one throws in operating cost ($50.00), the price they paid for the item ($100.00) and a small profit so that the owner has some income (10-20%). Affordable is what the business needs, not what it wants to get out of it.

Operating Cost $50.00

What they paid for the item $100.00

Plus the owners mark up 10-20%

Total affordable amount $150 x 10-20%

Not affordable the $500.00 asked for.

Hospitals, insurance companies, drug companies, hospital suppliers, etc. all are currently charging this kind of mark up and it is not acceptable and it's certainly not affordable.

Side: Yes
6 points

No thanks, I'm taxed too much as it is. .

Side: No
randomMAN(22) Disputed
4 points

Not only you everyone taxed too much !! .

Side: Yes
Hellno(17753) Disputed
6 points

Are you related to RandomDude? .

Side: No
6 points

Health care should not be a right because it is inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence, which guarantees the right to "pursue" happiness, not the right to happiness or free medical services.

Health care should not be considered a right because the Preamble of the US Constitution states that its purpose is to "promote" the general welfare, not to provide it.

Health care should not be considered a right because it is not listed in the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights lists people's rights that the government cannot infringe upon, not services or material goods that the government must ensure for the people.

Side: No
4 points

In short, there is no free lunch -- ever. The debacle at the VA is a perfect example of this.

For those advocating "free" health care, look at the "success" of the "Affordable Care Act" -- people are having trouble finding a doctor to accept their insurance, since the government pays so far below their costs, that they can't afford to take those patients.

For some in California, people have to drive 100 miles for dental care.

The cost is enormous -- where does the money come from? On top of a $17 trillion dollar deficit (nearly 18 now), where will the money come from? Should we "tax the rich"? The problem with that is, "the rich" don't have enough money. If we tax everyone earning over $1,000,000 per year at 100%, it doesn't cover that year's deficit.

Would it be nice for everyone to have free, quality health care? Of course; it would also be nice if everyone could live in a mansion -- but that's not going to happen.

There is no free lunch.

Side: No
4 points

Badly worded question I believe in universal health care and a single payer system. But the question asks if it should be free. In that system it is not free because it is paid for by tax dollars that everyone (in the workforce) would contribute. So it would not be free. It would be like a health insurance plan where everyone is in the pool.

Side: No
4 points

No free health care I am no expert on political issues since I am a only teenager but I believe that health care should not be free for everyone. Most people out there who will read this will probably tell themselves that this kid wants some people to go without a necessity of life, they would be wrong. What I do not want is the government controlling the health care. I believe that if a person cannot afford health coverage, that he or she should search for financial aid from the community they lives in. Also, as a member of that community, one should help as much as possible and not blow that person off thinking someone else will help them. I am not a stranger to the people in my community who truly need free health care, many of my friends need it. However, the government has a hard enough time making a website for their health care plan and I, for one, do not want to put my life in their hands.

Side: No
randomMAN(22) Clarified
5 points

If health care is considered a right, then government bureaucrats will be making health, life, and death decisions that should be up to the patient and doctor to decide.

Side: Yes
Ashour(147) Disputed
4 points

But i think that every country should give their people a health care !!

Side: Yes
2 points

^,^'' .

Side: Yes
4 points

Did you know that 46.3 million people in the US were uninsured in 2008 according to the US Census Bureau. In 2007, health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion - 16.2% of the US economy. Health care is the largest industry in the US, employing more than 14 million people.

Proponents of the right to health care argue that it would stop medical bankruptcies, improve public health, and reduce overall health care spending. They say that no one in the richest nation on earth should go without health care. A June 12-16, 2009 poll shows that 64% of Americans say health care should be a right.

Side: No
Ashour(147) Disputed
4 points

@,@'' ... this information support my side !!! .

Side: Yes
4 points

No its too free as it is.

The enormous cost of health care is paid for by the tax and national health insurance payers and always has been..It is mainly free to most folk ,those who do not and never have paid anything into the system. Yet too much is wasted on the takers taking, and stupid expensive operations for 90% implant jobs,transgender jobs,gastric bands for lazy people. Nothing is free, too many people want free all the while. Workers have to pay for it

Side: No