CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
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.
Youre sweet, but if penis pumps can be covered, so should contraception. After all, they both are lifestyle medications and for me, it really is a medical issue. Pregnancy would kill me, so I want my tubes tied. I mean no rudeness so please dont be offended.
Dana, from now on - don't say ''don't be offended''
I am never offended on this site, I am here to debate, not fight, and I expect the same from everyone else. Don't bother to tell me not to be rude or offended, because I promise you now, I will never be. Okay?
After all, they both are lifestyle medications
There are a lot of things that are lifestyle medications. Just because one is free, does it automatically mean all others should too?
Hormone treatment is a lifestyle medication, among tons of other stuff.
Pregnancy would kill me, so I want my tubes tied.
There are much easier and cheaper things to do in order to prevent pregnancy, other than getting your tubes tied. The pill, condoms .. and there is always absence, which I heard is the protection you prefer.
Why the eff were you downvoted? I upvoted you. I am never offended on this site, I am here to debate, not fight, and I expect the same from everyone else. Don't bother to tell me not to be rude or offended, because I promise you now, I will never be. Okay? Roger that. There are a lot of things that are lifestyle medications. Just because one is free, does it automatically mean all others should too? My intention is to point out the inherent mysogyny in allowing coverege for penis pumps and Vagra, but not contraception. There are much easier and cheaper things to do in order to prevent pregnancy, other than getting your tubes tied. The pill, condoms .. and there is always absence, which I heard is the protection you prefer. A tubal ligation is the most effective means of female contraception there is available in America. I cant take the pill cuz my meds would make it less effective, the depo shot turned me into a raving bitch, I suppose condoms are effective, but I dont know how to use them.
My intention is to point out the inherent mysogyny in allowing coverege for penis pumps and Vagra, but not contraception.
None of those have anything to do with the other.
I cant take the pill cuz my meds would make it less effective,
That's not true, there are dozens of different birth control medicine, and this is done specifically because there are people like you and me who take medicine that will not make one kind of birth control effective - that's why they make a lot of different kinds, each for a specific group of people, such as people with a disease that makes the birth control uneffective or dangerous, or allergies, or people who take medicine that will kill the birth control, such as heart medicine and medicine for mental disorders.
I suppose condoms are effective, but I dont know how to use them.
Fortunately you don't have to, the guy will take care of that.
I guess other people didn't like my argument :) Theres a downvoting troll going around. None of those have anything to do with the other. I suppose my point is that if men can have there lifestyle covered, why can't women? I guess its the feminist in me :) That's not true, there are dozens of different birth control medicine, and this is done specifically because there are people like you and me who take medicine that will not make one kind of birth control effective - that's why they make a lot of different kinds, each for a specific group of people, such as people with a disease that makes the birth control uneffective or dangerous, or allergies, or people who take medicine that will kill the birth control, such as heart medicine and medicine for mental disorders. I have 3 mental illnesses and I take meds for them. Otherwise I say bye bye PMS and take the pill. LOL Fortunately you don't have to, the guy will take care of that. If i want to make things sexy, I can do it for him. ;)
The following dispute is meant for self expression only. "We all have some kind of lifestyle - we can't think ours should be free just because another is." I find it sexist to cover men but not women. Lets say your daughters father recieved time off work for about threee months, but you did not. I would totally be pissed about that inequality. I only used you as an analogy, not o attack. :)
Is it then homophobic not giving lesbians free artificial insemenation?
Hetero couples don't have to pay for conceiving, unless they suffer from some sort of deficiency, why should lesbians?
Lets say your daughters father recieved time off work for about threee months, but you did not
??
I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. If my daughters father got three months off work the only explanation would be that; 1. he got an extended vacation, which isn't unfair, since I can get a vacation if I needed it. 2. he was on sick leave - that's not sexist either
It is sexist to cover a man but not a woman. This really makes me mad. Not you, the current system. Do you honestly believe that penis pumps should be covered but not contraceptive methods such as the pill? Am I the only feminist on here who has a prob with this?
So it is also sexist to not give women free menstrual pads? Come on Dana, that's not at all sexist. Some things are free, some are not - the fact that one is meant for a woman and the other a man, has nothing to do with it. Condoms are A LOT cheaper than getting tubes tied, that's the difference. Money, not gender.
Also condoms do in fact cover women - as I recall, it takes two to have sex, usually a man and a woman... so. Condoms aren't meant to cover men, but to prevent sts and pregnancy for both parts - ergo the woman too.
Am I the only feminist on here who has a prob with this?
Not only are you the only feminist on here who has a problem witht his, you are in fact the only feminist I've met on here.
Not only are you the only feminist on here who has a problem witht his, you are in fact the only feminist I've met on here. No wonder I feel so alone. ;) As to condoms, getting my tubes tied is more effective. I believe that women have the right to choose what contraceptive method is right for them. I have no prob with a copay, as long as I get my contraception. Due to my medical probs, its justified.
Low income women can also not go to fancy restaurants like high income women. Low income women drive cheaper cars, they can't afford a vacation every year, they don't go around with expensive jewelry.
When you have a low income you adapt to that. You don't have money to buy everything you want, so you must buy what you can afford - which in your case is condoms.
The welfare system wasn't created so everyone can buy their own ferrari, it was so everyone could have access to medical help and medicine when they needed it. Contraception is not, and will never be considered medical help or a medical need.
There are other options, maybe not as effective but they are still effective.
Strawman. I am in no way shape form or fashion talking about cars and it is hypocritical to argue for free healthcare but not AFFORDABLE reproductive healthcare. You totally got on my case and strawmaned me for supporting AFFORDABLE contraception. You accused me of fighting for free contraception and now you fight for free healthcare? Come on. I know you are smarter than that. Please be consistant. This is not a drama post, I just prefer consistancy in a conversation. No harm, no foul. I would love to privately debate you on this? :) <3
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 !!
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 !!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
This is false. You guys pay through taxes, but don't count it toward your overall bill
The hospital charges the government in the UK. In the USA, the hospital charges an individual or private company. Comparing those two figures, hospitals charge more in the USA.I was talking about spend per individual.
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?
The hospital charges the government in the UK. In the USA, the hospital charges an individual or private company. Comparing those two figures, hospitals charge more in the USA.I was talking about spend per individual.
And you pay a percentage of your income every year to cover the costs the hospital charges. You pay more. Paying every year covers a lot more money.
No. Look. Imagine in both countries you take 5 people at random. There is more or less the same rate of disease. 2 of these people need to go to hospital. These two people pay 10k for treatment each in the USA and the state pays 1k each for the same treatment in the UK. The other 3 people in the USA pay nothing and the other 3 people in the UK pay 1k. Therefore in that year the average spend per year is 5k per person in the USA and 1k per person the in the UK. This is the figure I'm talking about about. The USA has a spend per year per person higher than any other country.
First, your math is bad 20K for 5 people is 4K on average. Second, there is no reason to think those numbers are accurate. I could use the same problem and change your random numbers to make it work in my favor. Every time numbers are discussed the amount paid in taxes is left out.
In which case the cost per person would be close to 0 for many european countries. The statistics take into account the cost to the state of the hospital and consequently the taxes. More is spent (by the people) on health care in the USA than anywhere else in the world
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
If everyone has a higher education, who is going to sit by the cashier? How are you gonna buy your stuff? Who is going to clean the hospitals, schools, shops and other public places? No one would ever get a higher education, and use it to clean.
Without the low class jobs, high class people would be pretty annoyed pretty soon.
1) Neither requires nor is benefited by higher education and 2) Cannot be performed by machines and computers.
Cleaning hospitals - hospitals need to be carefully sterilized. You need to get into every corner and clean, and I'm pretty sure they use people to ensure this happens.
Cab drivers, waitressing, and up in the north you need people to shovel the snow off the roads. Maybe the cashier could be replaced by a robot, but I don't really know how that would work. How could they ensure people just don't run off with their stuff? Dustmen, delivery and mailmen.
In a shop you often need people to guide their costumers - if I am in a shop that sells beauty products, I might have a couple of questions in what to buy. You don't need any education to be in a beauty shop, and a robot won't ask me which color fits me the best.
Also people who work on sea - you need people who are willing to clean and serve food. Here where I come from, you don't need to have any higher education to get a job as a dekchand, for example - deckhands are in every ship, and they can't be replaced by machines.
Middle class work, such as teaching 'and stuff' does, in fact, require higher education even now.
No - it can, but you can easily become a teacher without a degree in teaching.
For example you don't need to have a degree in order to be an art teacher in elementary schools.
. 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?
Yes, and that is how it works where I come from - It is illegal to be homeless.
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
I don't have a comment on that, simply because I don't really understand what you're suggesting. You are welcome to explain with words I can understand, if that is even possible.
body is entitled to anything simply by virtue of existing
I don't think it's a question about whether we're entitled to anything, but .. rather how we can imporve our circumstances. I don't see why a hard working cleaning lady at wallmart is less entitled to health care than a lawyer who sits on his ass everyday - just because the cleaning lady's work is less valued in money, doesn't mean it doesn't have value at all. I bet we would miss them if every single one of them got a higher education.
By the way - what do you think is wrong with a system like the one we use in Denmark?
If everyone has a higher education, who is going to sit by the cashier? How are you gonna buy your stuff? Who is going to clean the hospitals, schools, shops and other public places? No one would ever get a higher education, and use it to clean.
Self checkouts, or completely automated checkouts. These are extremely common- most larger stores these days have self checkouts, and I don't believe any online ordering involves a cashier handling each individual transaction.
Cleaning can be performed by machines- and better and more thoroughly than humans can too, I might add.
Furthermore, not everyone who is given the opportunity for higher education will pursue it. Not everyone who pursues it will succeed. Making it available to all does not mean losing our pool of unskilled labor.
Without the low class jobs, high class people would be pretty annoyed pretty soon.
Personal annoyance among the higher class does not constitute a reason to oppress the lower class financially. They should and would get over it.
Cleaning hospitals - hospitals need to be carefully sterilized. You need to get into every corner and clean, and I'm pretty sure they use people to ensure this happens.
Machines can clean more quickly, efficiently, and thoroughly than humans can. A machine also never forgets to wash its hands, never sneezes, and can clean things that even a full hazmat suit won't protect a human from, as well as survive the decontamination process afterwards.
Cab drivers, waitressing, and up in the north you need people to shovel the snow off the roads. Maybe the cashier could be replaced by a robot, but I don't really know how that would work. How could they ensure people just don't run off with their stuff? Dustmen, delivery and mailmen.
There are, even now, self-driving cars. Furthermore, sufficient expansion to our mass transit infrastructure could potentially eliminate the need for cabs.
Waitresses can be replaced by machines that never mix up your order, never bring it to the wrong table, don't require tipping, and work significantlt faster without ever dropping a tray.
Self-driving car tech can be expanded to handle snow clearing, mail delivery, and many other roles as well. And as I noted before, cashiers have already been replaced by self-checkout machines in many places, and by automated applications on websites.
In a shop you often need people to guide their costumers - if I am in a shop that sells beauty products, I might have a couple of questions in what to buy. You don't need any education to be in a beauty shop, and a robot won't ask me which color fits me the best.
There are many people who pursue this type of thing out of sheer interest. If most cashiers and stockers are replaced by machines, the demand for a human specialist for customer assistance increases- this type of thing could become a real career, rather than a basic job primarily populated by high school students. Instead of many generalists that are comparable to waitresses, a smaller number of specialists comparable to sommelier could be used, and provide better service for the same cost.
Also people who work on sea - you need people who are willing to clean and serve food. Here where I come from, you don't need to have any higher education to get a job as a dekchand, for example - deckhands are in every ship, and they can't be replaced by machines.
I have years of experience sailing. There is nothing a deckhand does that cannot be replaced by a machine. The other tasks could easily be replaced as well.
No - it can, but you can easily become a teacher without a degree in teaching.
For example you don't need to have a degree in order to be an art teacher in elementary schools.
That depends on the district in question. Many areas require some form of degree to do any teaching at all. Some even require some education for substitute teachers. Other areas are more lax. But even so- there are many people who specifically go to school to become a teacher, so making higher education more accessible would not detract from this.
Yes, and that is how it works where I come from - It is illegal to be homeless.
So, what? If you don't have a home, you get locked up, deported?
I don't have a comment on that, simply because I don't really understand what you're suggesting. You are welcome to explain with words I can understand, if that is even possible.
A lack of jobs is, in the United States, a localized phenomenon. There are a number of places where the demand for labor outstrips the supply, and a number of places where the supply outstrips the demand. One of the characteristics of the impoverished is mobility issues- many do not have vehicles, and many of those who do cannot support them. Expanding and subsidizing mass transit allows individuals who live in an area with more supply of labor than demand for it to commute to areas where there is a higher demand for and lower supply of labor. It expands the area within which any given individual can reasonably look for a job. Furthermore, expanding the infrastructure in and of itself creates more job opportunities.
I offer myself as a personal example here. I have a commute to work of roughly 40 miles each way that requires driving on a toll road. I spend ~400 USD a month combined on car insurance, gasoline, and tolls for my commute to work- thats without having a car payment. Moving closer to my work would mean moving into a less desirable area with a higher cost of living increase than what I spend on my commute. Furthermore, there are few jobs in my field that are closer to my home, and those that are pay substantially less than those in the city do. My mobility allows me to seek a more competitive rate of pay in an area with higher demand for my services, and puts me in a better position than I would be either living where I am and taking a local job, or moving closer to my current job and paying the cost of living there.
I don't think it's a question about whether we're entitled to anything, but .. rather how we can imporve our circumstances. I don't see why a hard working cleaning lady at wallmart is less entitled to health care than a lawyer who sits on his ass everyday - just because the cleaning lady's work is less valued in money, doesn't mean it doesn't have value at all. I bet we would miss them if every single one of them got a higher education.
I'm not suggesting that the hard working cleaning lady at walmart is less entitled to health care than a lawyer is. It's the opposite; I am suggesting that a lawyer is no more entitled to health care than the cleaning lady is- that is, neither is entitled to it at all.
By the way - what do you think is wrong with a system like the one we use in Denmark?
Hard to say- I'm not particularly familiar with Denmarks system, but I am interested. Could you point me at some good resources for it?
Self checkouts, or completely automated checkouts.
Shops aren't just checkouts - who would put the products on the shelves?
Furthermore, not everyone who is given the opportunity for higher education will pursue it. Not everyone who pursues it will succeed.
So what's your point? We should spend 20 years of our life in school, not get a job and no money for health care?
Personal annoyance among the higher class does not constitute a reason to oppress the lower class financially. They should and would get over it.
Yeah, I'm sure you're gonna love it when the shelves in your grocery store are empty, because the staff got higher class jobs.
There are, even now, self-driving cars.
They are invented, but they are illegal in most places.
Also who would bring you the pizza when you want it delivered? Sure the car can drive itself, but can it drive to the door, ring the bell and take the money?
this type of thing could become a real career
No it couldn't. Telling me which mayonaise I should buy could not become a higher education career.
So, what? If you don't have a home, you get locked up, deported?
No, you get a home.
I am suggesting that a lawyer is no more entitled to health care than the cleaning lady is- that is, neither is entitled to it at all.
Well, as you said in your orignal argument - health care costs money, which the lady at walmart doesn't get - at least not in the same amounts, which is stupid. You can't say someone is equally entitled to something, but then say they need to have money to get it.
Hard to say- I'm not particularly familiar with Denmarks system, but I am interested. Could you point me at some good resources for it?
You said in your original argument, that health care is not free, the government will pay, and the government is dependent on taxes from citizens.
But with a welfare system you pay about half (give or take, depending on how rich you are, and where in Scandinavia you live) in taxes, but thus get everything else free. You will of course have less money - but imagine the hospital bills, braces for your kids, college and all that is going to cost you? If you add everything you would get free in Denmark, but wouldn't in America, for instanse, it would in the end be cheaper for the average paid person - the one's who will pay more are of course the one's who got more money to pay, and then there are people who make a really really low salary, they will of course not pay nearly the price they would without welfare.
With the welfare system, we've made a law, that says you are done working when you turn 67. You can work if you want to, but only a certain amount of time (certain amount of paid time) If you get paid over the limit, then you lose your pension.
I think that is a really good law, because people who would like to stop working when they're old should have the oppurtunity to do so, without going banktrupt.
In my opinion, the bill will be sent to the citizen no matter what you do - but with a welfare system, the bill will be low if you are poor, and high if you are rich.
Shops aren't just checkouts - who would put the products on the shelves?
More machines. In fact, stores themselves could be redesigned and likely condensed in size if they weren't designed under the premise that humans would have to be involved in every single part of the chain.
So what's your point? We should spend 20 years of our life in school, not get a job and no money for health care?
My point is to make education accessible to everyone, improve the overall competence of the average american worker, reduce the cost of the average american business with automation, boost our overall GDP, and improve things for everyone. Spending more time in school won't hurt your chances of getting a job- it will either remain neutral or increase. This also has the effect of reducing the costs of health care by automating tasks that were previously performed by individuals.
Yeah, I'm sure you're gonna love it when the shelves in your grocery store are empty, because the staff got higher class jobs.
I'll like it even better when everything I want is already in stock because purchasing trends are tracked, driverless trucks deliver all of the goods, and the shelves are stocked kept stocked by machines.
They are invented, but they are illegal in most places.
Also who would bring you the pizza when you want it delivered? Sure the car can drive itself, but can it drive to the door, ring the bell and take the money?
Current legality is not a factor here- laws are subject to change, particularly as technology improves.
It could do one better- equip the car with a telescoping arm that extends up to my second story window to take the money and then deliver the pizza. Now I dont even need to go down the stairs.
Barring that, a simple machine capable of ascending stairs, with a slot for accepting money and a credit card reader would do the trick.
No it couldn't. Telling me which mayonaise I should buy could not become a higher education career.
Sure it could- you're thinking too narrowly and oversimplifying. Instead of a bunch of teenagers who are just giving you their uninformed opinion regarding grocery store items, suppose instead the store kept a couple nutritionists and graduates of culinary school on hand? Better, more thorough advice.
Well, as you said in your orignal argument - health care costs money, which the lady at walmart doesn't get - at least not in the same amounts, which is stupid. You can't say someone is equally entitled to something, but then say they need to have money to get it.
Excuse me, but yes I can. I can say two people are equally entitled to something by stating that neither is entitled to it at all- just as I did. Why is either of them entitled to expensive medical treatments without covering the bill for said treatments?
I'll have to read up on your link for more info and get back to you- but I can say that due to the distribution of labor, the varied costs of everything, and the sheer number of individuals and corporations involved in any kind of supply chain in the US, that it's not nearly as simple as taking a system that works in another nation and dropping it on us.
I still feel that the benefit is greater in making education affordable and accessible than making health care affordable and accessible. Health care benefits people while they are sick- but education benefits people whether they're healthy or sick, and helps but each subsequent generation on better standing. It's a better return on the investment.
If I had to pick between subsidizing health care and education, I'd pick education every time. I'll acknowledge that the two are not mutually exclusive, but right now higher education is overpriced in the US, even as compared to health care.
More machines. In fact, stores themselves could be redesigned and likely condensed in size if they weren't designed under the premise that humans would have to be involved in every single part of the chain.
I doubt all these machines are cheaper than people.
My point is to make education accessible to everyone,
What's the point if everyone's dead of cancer before they even afford medicine?
Current legality is not a factor here
Oh okay? I really don't see why that ain't a factor.
suppose instead the store kept a couple nutritionists and graduates of culinary school on hand? Better, more thorough advice.
I can read that myself on the product, I wanna know what tastes better. A machine can't taste.
Why is either of them entitled to expensive medical treatments without covering the bill for said treatments?
By putting a price on it you are automatically saying someone is less entitled, because they have less of what you are asking in return.
Health care benefits people while they are sick- but education benefits people whether they're healthy or sick,
What if they're health makes them unable to get an education? Mental disability, or some kind of physical maybe?
I doubt all these machines are cheaper than people.
You'd be wrong. It's $15k + taxes to employ someone at minimum wage, full-time, for one year. That's just wages, not taking other costs into account. I doubt there are many jobs that a person can do that can't be replaced by a machine that pays for itself in 1, 2 years tops.
What's the point if everyone's dead of cancer before they even afford medicine?
How many people are being cured of cancer in the current system? How many of those are fit for work during their treatment? Just how high do you think the cancer rate is?
Oh okay? I really don't see why that ain't a factor.
Because something being illegal now is not, in and of itself, a reason for it to continue being illegal in the future. Were that the case, slavery would still be common practice throughout most of the developed world, and womans sufferage would still be all but unheard of- not just in the US, but again, throught most of the develped world.
Driverless cars are currently illegal due to a number of laws that involve the driver/operator specifically, a lack of support infrastructure, and the fact that the technology is still new. Any new car, regardless of whether it involves a driver or not, is not street legal in the US until it meets specific legal conditions- an individual can build his or her own car from scratch, but will not be allowed to drive it without some laborious inspections. If we're to treat current law as being sacrosanct, this entire line of discussion is a waste of both of our time, as free health care itself is not yet the law in the US.
I can read that myself on the product, I wanna know what tastes better. A machine can't taste.
Did you miss where I said a nutritonist and a graduate of culinary school? Said graduate could advise you not only on the taste, but also make recommendations as to what types of meat, cheese, etc pair well with it. It's exactly what you're asking for.
By putting a price on it you are automatically saying someone is less entitled, because they have less of what you are asking in return.
No. By putting a price on it we are acknowledging that a given treatment requires resources that are in limited supply and also the investment of a significant amount of a medical professionals personal time, both in actually performing the procedure and in attaining the education needed to know how to perform the procedure.
By making healthcare free, you are saying that the value of the resources and effort involved is zero.
What if they're health makes them unable to get an education? Mental disability, or some kind of physical maybe?
I'd of course advocate benefits for those who are actually disabled. I never said I didn't. What I'm opposed to is universal free health care.
You'd be wrong. It's $15k + taxes to employ someone at minimum wage, full-time, for one year. That's just wages, not taking other costs into account. I doubt there are many jobs that a person can do that can't be replaced by a machine that pays for itself in 1, 2 years tops.
Can you support this with some sources of what a machine like one to put stuff on a shelf would cost?
How many people are being cured of cancer in the current system?
A lot
And cancer isn't the only disease out there. There are tuns of diseases that will kill you without medical care - like pneumonia.
Because something being illegal now is not, in and of itself, a reason for it to continue being illegal in the future.
Okay, so we should also think about killing people, because the fact that it is illegal now is irrelevant?
By putting a price on it we are acknowledging that a given treatment requires resources that are in limited supply and also the investment of a significant amount of a medical professionals personal time,
And those supplies are apparently more entitled to rich than to poor.
By making healthcare free, you are saying that the value of the resources and effort involved is zero.
We're not making it free - we're splitting the bill between every citizen in the society, not equally, but a fair amount of your payment.
What I'm opposed to is universal free health care.
And an automated cart (prices aren't listed on the site, you need to call or email for details, they run from low end around 10k to around 40k from this dealer)
And a lightweight computer server for a few grand to control it all, and a few odds and ends here to extend the capabilities, as well as management software- lets say another 4 grand for all that.
We end up with a range of about 17k-60k all told depending on how complicated you want to make the system, and thats using commercial prices for hardware rather than a system specifically designed for it.
That 17k+sales tax is going to be cheaper than paying a minimum wage employee 15k+all the taxes and other fees associated with that, so it can in theory be done on par or cheaper than a minimum wage employee for one year. If you go all out, it still pays for itself in 4 years.
A lot
Citation needed.
And cancer isn't the only disease out there. There are tuns of diseases that will kill you without medical care - like pneumonia.
And you're still missing my point. You're treating this like it's no health care for anyone. The US currently does not have free health care, and our poor are not dying off of cancer and pneumonia left and right.
Okay, so we should also think about killing people, because the fact that it is illegal now is irrelevant?
If you think the only reason to keep killing illegal is because it always has been illegal, sure. Are you suggesting that killing is only illegal because it always has been, and that there aren't other reasons for making it illegal?
And those supplies are apparently more entitled to rich than to poor.
No. Neither are entitled to the supplies, period. The rich have the means to compensate for the cost of the supplies; the poor may not. Neither one is entitled.
We're not making it free - we're splitting the bill between every citizen in the society, not equally, but a fair amount of your payment.
How is a fair amount of payment not equal? If I've put the time and effort in to increase my earnings, why then should I have to pay more? If I've not bothered to do so, why then should I get to pay less?
I could accede to that, if we got rid of tax breaks across the board in the US. That would mean the poor don't get out of paying taxes for being poor, and the rich don't have loopholes to avoid taxes with- a flat tax is something I would support, but isn't realistically going to be passed with the current culture in the US.
Why?
I've already detailed this, repeatedly. I refer you to reread my first couple posts in this exchange.
Okay, let's forget everything for a second, and let me ask you this; What are you going to do with 7 billion higher educated people? Where would they work? What would they do?
By replacing everything with robots you are killing billions of jobs. With your system you are going to end up with 9 billion starving, sick and probably a lot of dead people. But hey, at least they have a higher education, right?
I would also like to comment on this;
How is a fair amount of payment not equal? If I've put the time and effort in to increase my earnings, why then should I have to pay more? If I've not bothered to do so, why then should I get to pay less?
Fair is never equal.
You are giving money more value than they actually have. With your argument, you are basically saying those who can't afford medical help shouldn't get it - which will lead to a severe loss of population. What you are doing is giving money more value than human life, and that in itself is stupid.
People who earn more pay more so the one's who can't don't have to pay as much - that is fair to me, maybe not to you. It is not like these people ''don't bother'' to earn more. Some people can't.
a flat tax is something I would support, but isn't realistically going to be passed with the current culture in the US.
We tried the flat tax, and the only thing that would result is the everyone getting less. The rich wouldn't get what they get now, and the poor wouldn't either. Everyone was unhappy with that system.
Okay, let's forget everything for a second, and let me ask you this; What are you going to do with 7 billion higher educated people? Where would they work? What would they do?
There will NOT be 7 billion higher educated people. Making higher education available to everyone does not mean that everyone will pursue it, and it does not mean that everyone who does pursue it will successfully complete the program.
The idea is ridiculous; even amongst those who manage to secure higher education for themselves- whether through a hard-won scholarship or the investment of a lot of capital- there is a certain percentage who drop out. Even amongst those teenagers who are affluent and/or capable of seeking higher education- there is a certain percentage with no interest in such.
The very premise you started opposing me on is flawed- this isn't going to eliminate the demographic that is uneducated, and it isn't going to eliminate the unskilled labor pool entirely, either. My suggestions regarding robots and machines were merely to rebut your assertions that we NEED unskilled labor, and that the world would collapse without it. In practice, machinery would likely be looked to as a stopgap measure should the available labor decrease. It will not replace unskilled labor entirely, nor will it need to. Just like your assumptions that the entire world will drop dead of cancer if suddenly free health care isn't available to everyone- free health care ALREADY isn't available to everyone, and the rate of new cancer cases doesn't bear out with your claims even if there was no cancer treatment available.
I don't mean to dismiss your concerns out of hand, mind you- but your assumptions are all extreme scenarios that couldn't actually happen in the real world. Really- everyone on the planet, or anywhere close to that, all willingly pursueing and successfully completing higher education? Not a chance.
Fair is never equal.
You are giving money more value than they actually have. With your argument, you are basically saying those who can't afford medical help shouldn't get it - which will lead to a severe loss of population. What you are doing is giving money more value than human life, and that in itself is stupid.
Who says that fair is never equal? I call your scenario unfair.
I think you are devalueing the effort and resources invested into medicine. I am not giving money more value than human life- I am making a valid observation that when there is a greater demand for something than there is a supply for it, some will have to go without. It is in the best interest of our species in the long run to preserve those who contribute to the production of resources, as well as their own personal effort, into the economy that sustains the medicine that saves them. If we spare those who are already a drain on our resources while sacrificing those who constribute- the same amount of people die, and the pool of resources and labor stimulating that same economy is reduced. If we're going to consider extreme assumptions (like 7 billion people with university degrees, or 7 billion people simultaneously contracting cancer) then it is entirely fair for me to assume that this model is completely unsustainable and will have an end result of the extinction of our species.
People who earn more pay more so the one's who can't don't have to pay as much - that is fair to me, maybe not to you. It is not like these people ''don't bother'' to earn more. Some people can't.
Except... some people actually don't bother. The overwhelming majority of individuals on welfare programs in the US are not abusing the system, but the very small minority who are still constitutes hundreds of thousands of people. By expanding mass transit infrastructure and making higher education accessible, we are eliminating most of the group who "can't-" that is, those who are in an area that is already saturated with unskilled labor will be able to either commute to areas where unskilled labor is in higher demand, or will be able to better their position. I've already noted that those who are actually disabled and physically unable to work would be accounted for and covered- the only ones who lose here are the ones who are actually 'not bothering.'
We tried the flat tax, and the only thing that would result is the everyone getting less. The rich wouldn't get what they get now, and the poor wouldn't either. Everyone was unhappy with that system.
A single trial is insufficient. But fine, maybe bracketed tax groups can work- but I believe that all tax exemptions and deductions should be done away with. Charge the low-income groups a low amount of tax- do not give them exemptions. Charge the middle class a moderate amount of tax- again, no exemptions. And charge the high income groups a higher rate of tax- you know where I'm going with this.
Perhaps a large tariff on imports and exports is in order as well, so the affluent can't sidestep taxation entirely by taking their business to a foreign market.
I think if you want to make the assumptions and assertions you are regarding the US, you should do some reading up on how our taxation actually works. In practice, the lower class pays nothing, the upper class pays a pittance, and the middle class pays for almost everything. Maybe fair isn't equal, but surely you aren't suggesting that THAT is fair.
I've followed your argument, and I agree with you. I think that there is a misunderstanding between you and Shoutoutloud, due to Shoutoutloud's future visions and potentials being very limited. He only focuses on the problems that can be changed immediately, where as you focus more on the future and the potential it has.
Shoutoutlouds point of 7 billion higher educated people having lack of jobs fitting for them, I disagree. With less effort and resources put in simple manual labor, there are more higher thinking and problem solving brain power. There will be more jobs available for the maintenance of previously mentioned machinery and even development of more efficient products etc.
Nobody is entitled to anything simply by virtue of existing,
It is when we all ready pay for it via taxes, we have no problem getting military protection off our tax dollars, no matter how you twist it, it is morally wrong to not provide healthcare when we all ready paided for it.
It is when we all ready pay for it via taxes, we have no problem getting military protection off our tax dollars, no matter how you twist it, it is morally wrong to not provide healthcare when we all ready paided for it.
This would be great if we do already pay for it via taxes- but lower income groups have nearly all taxes waived, and generally receive more in direct benefits from the government than they ever pay in. Higher income groups are able to take advantage of tax shelters and legal loopholes and avoid paying more than a pittance in tax. In practice, this is the middle class paying for everybody's medical bills. And military protection, for that matter.
It is morally wrong to not provide healthcare when it has been paid for, I'll agree.
I do not believe it is morally responsible to provide healthcare when it has NOT been paid for, though. If a patient cannot pay for his or her health care up front, they should be required to pay it off after the fact.
This would be great if we do already pay for it via taxes- but lower income groups have nearly all taxes waived
True but lower income still get the protection from the military and they didnt spend a dime, all that needs to be done is we need to shuffle around out tax dollars on things that matter, did you know that we pay from our tax dollars NASCAR, LOL yes NASCAR but yet we grip about healthcare, we also spend over 50% of our budget on military which is absurd, we spend more on military then the next ten top nations combined so there is no need, its a waste of our hard earned money.
We need to shift our dollars around to maintain the health of all citizens, even the freeloaders if we fund NASCAR.
Freeloaders or not all Americans should have protection from enemies and disease, that should be our right as Americans first and foremost, then the rest is up for debate but freedom, security and and health should not be negotiable no matter what.
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.
But without the markups, these products would have never been developed in the first place.
For example, when developing a new drug, there are many things that could go wrong. There is no guarantee for the developers, and if it does not work out, the lose in millions, or even billions. Why after all this risk, would they sell it for the correct price? The high markup accounts for the potential loss they went through. If you risked your life to develop a new drug, but the actual ingredient costs of that new drug costs a dollar, would you only sell it for a dollar?
Also with surgeries, the price must be high as their salaries must be high. Acceptance into medicine school is one of the most difficult entry, and more effort must be put into it, relative to other subjects. With the hours they put in their education, with longer time needed to graduate than any other degree, don't they deserve to receive a high payment? Many people would not choose to become doctors if their pay is as low as the common fast food worker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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