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.
Nothing is free. But this is one very important thing we should collectively contribute to. U may never collect a SS check if u die early. But u r 100% guaranteed to collect back on a healthcare fund. I have paid taxes all my life for kids to go to school and I HAVE O KIDS!!?? How is that not socialism!!?? All those fucking Catholic s popping out kids - I pay for their school.
All those fucking Catholic s popping out kids - I pay for their school.
I know it is not an original idea, but we should convert the schools to slaughterhouses, and then butcher the children. We could distribute the meat to feed the poor.
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Yes it should. Not everyone can afford a normalised price, people die because of it unnecessarily. Raising taxes to provide free healthcare means everyone can afford it. They can pay a share of their earnings instead, which is something they can do.
Yes it should. Not everyone can afford a normalised price, people die because of it unnecessarily. Raising taxes to provide free healthcare means everyone can afford it. They can pay a share of their earnings instead, which is something they can do.
Again the Mental Midget speaks and admits there is no free healthcare LMMFAO
Guess what, Nomo? If you don't work, you shouldn't get any benefits. If healthcare were somehow impossibly free, those without jobs would get benefits for essentially doing nothing. And no, raising taxes doesn't mean everyone can afford it because clearly, those without jobs receiving this "free" healthcare can't afford the taxes necessary. So, the healthcare is still paid. But, it's paid for by complete strangers.
Not everyone who doesn't work does so because they're lazy. Many just can't find anything, or don't have the necessary skillset for the available jobs they've rounds. And the government shouldn't discriminate against those that don't work, by not letting them be able to have healthcare. Especially in emergencies, this could be very damaging and potentially life-threatening.
It's not the responsibility of good, hard-working citizens to pay for the mistakes of others. The government doesn't discriminate against those who don't work, they reward those who do work. If you can't find a job near you, look outside of your city or state or region.
Pay attention here if you can. No one has to go without healthcare insurance. Medicaid is in place in all 50 states(or 57 states if you are confused as Obama was) and those that need it can apply for it. Get up to speed with reality or is it that is a scary place for you.
There's no guarantee they treat your cancer with socialized healthcare. Some socialized countries use a risk, cost, reward system, so if they think you will die, they don't waste money trying to treat you.
The only thing that's dying is what America tried to protect with the Korean War and Vietnam War.
Makes it just like pensions, no?
No, actually, because pensions are paid for by the person receiving them or the company they worked for. And, that means that the person receiving pensions deserves them because they've put in the work. The jobless, on the other hand, have put in exactly zero hours of work to get healthcare, and no one should give them hand-outs.
The only thing that's dying is what America tried to protect with the Korean War and Vietnam War.
Could you elaborate?
Ok, would you support tax supported healthcare if it was only afforded to those that work?
It's also worth mentioning that the jobless are not necessarily unemployed due to a lack of desire to work. This will be increasingly apparent as we resort to cheaper automated replacements.
Not everyone can afford a normalised price, people die because of it unnecessarily.
"No one gets out of here alive." (J. Morrison)
The reality is that people die no matter what healthcare policies we have or what care they receive.
The pertinent question is whether you want people to be able to live free, or would you rather enslave some people to pay the medical bills, etc. for other people.
The reality is that people die no matter what healthcare policies we have or what care they receive.
True. But not all deaths are unpreventable at that time. Better policies can result in fewer dying.
You think taxes are enslavement? Everyone receives healthcare, this is a fundamental service, everyone should have access to it. Therefore everyone should be expected to pay it.
Everyone receives healthcare, this is a fundamental service, everyone should have access to it. Therefore everyone should be expected to pay it.
But people do not use it at anywhere close to the same rates.
I chose to have a vasectomy instead having kids. That means my small outpatient procedure balances out the prenatal care, delivery, inoculations, and lifetimes of medical care that resulted from a pair of idiots who mistakenly thought their genes were worth passing on to however many kids they made.
Why should they share in the cost of $2000 dollars worth of my treatment, but make me share in potentially $millions of dollars of the treatment they are ultimately responsible for?
Free for those who can't afford it, or like the working poor or disabled, but no taxpayer funded sex changes or abortions. I have the religious right to not pay for that.
I believe that healthcare should be paid because a lot of money is also financed there, for example, salaries for doctors, cleaning of premises, or the purchase of software for healthcare ( https://inoxoft.com/industries/healthcare/ ) - this all costs money. Therefore, this definitely cannot be free for us.
Right, but instead of a kid needing "free" lunch because his parents are working and aren't able to pay for it, it's a jobless socialist saying that healthcare is a right. Like you said, healthcare should always be somewhere in your budget, no matter your income.
No, of course not. Healthcare should be paid for, just like other services. Leftists may argue that "it works in Denmark!", but the middle class' tax rate is 55.8%. The median household income before taxes, by the way, is only $43,597. So, Danes are giving away half of their household income for "free healthcare". It would actually be cheaper to just pay for healthcare in that case.
Free healthcare doesn't require an increase in taxes to extremes as in Denmark. Denmark provides other services aside from healthcare that put tax rates over 50%, it's not as though that's just for healthcare.
In the UK, the majority of the population pay 20% (with earners above $61k paying 40-45%) income tax and they have free healthcare.
If they're paying taxes, and the "free" healthcare is federally funded, then it's not free for those who are paying taxes. You don't deserve healthcare if you don't do anything you might require it for.
You're right, free healthcare is not free. It's paid for by taxes, no surprises as that's what we both said, right?
As for those that don't work, there's still pressure for them to work to provide for themselves and their family. 'Free' healthcare means that people with a history of illness, low income households, and the unemployed that can't find jobs aren't needlessly given short straws and left to die.
This is particularly important as we progress towards a future with fewer people being employed at all. As more jobs are cut or automated this is one of many solutions that need to be put in place. If we take it to the extreme, we'd have all jobs automated, with only the people owning the machines able to afford basic needs like food, whereas the 99% starve. This needs to change.
there's still pressure for them to work to provide for themselves and their family
That's a predicament. You know what, how about they get a job?
aren't needlessly given short straws and left to die
No one in America leaves you for dead, and that's the beauty of our country. You can do or say whatever you want (as long as you aren't a conservative, apparently), and no one will care. If you're in a low income household, you should go to school and prove that you're worth a scholarship. If you choose, however, to slack off in school and not go to college, you aren't deserving of healthcare. Healthcare isn't a right, it's a reward.
with fewer people being employed at all
Then, instead of protesting for free healthcare, why don't you go create a few jobs? Start a bakery or a retail store or a factory, and fix the problem that way instead of trying to force hard-working American taxpayers to pay for someone else's mistakes.
If you choose, however, to slack off in school and not go to college, you aren't deserving of healthcare
This assumes equal opportunity for all. This isn't the case. Inheritance. You often need money to make money. Most low paying jobs don't get you access to healthcare. The poorest can't afford university. Many can be stuck just by interest repayments on debt.
You're also expecting kids, the sort of people concerned only with the now; relationships, hobbies, domestic disputes, to be liable for deciding their future.
Then, instead of protesting for free healthcare, why don't you go create a few jobs? Start a bakery or a retail store or a factory, and fix the problem
This is what we've been doing for centuries. Creating meaningless work to make jobs then pushing them through natural selection. We've created an overly consumerist culture this way, not that I disagree with it, but I feel the principle in furthering it is wrong.
This solution is becoming less viable as we replace more people with machines or efficient methods, even the busywork jobs.
someone else's mistakes
The problem is that we're tripping them up and scolding them for getting dirty.
Even if they made mistakes, you think that justifies cutting them off?
That's just not true. Money isn't necessary for more money, intelligence is. We live in a society, thankfully, where the intelligent survive and the idiots are weeded out.
Most low paying jobs don't get you access to healthcare
Then you should've done better in school so you would look more appealing for grants and scholarships.
The poorest can't afford university.
That's why scholarships and grants exist. You're asking for the wrong thing here. Free healthcare won't solve your problem of poverty, but school reform might. Maybe that's what your looking for.
to be liable for deciding their future
Your parents are responsible for your actions until you're 18. When you're 18, you're on your own. No one will baby you at 19. You have to advocate for yourself, and make yourself look appealing to universities. If you don't do that at a young age, you're not going to do well.
The problem is that we're tripping them up and scolding them for getting dirty.
How are we tripping them up? Public education, paid for through taxes, is given to you until the age of eighteen. So, we're actually giving them water and scolding them for getting dirty.
you think that justifies cutting them off?
Why should they get multiple chances in life? Because they were young and dumb? You have to take life seriously and not make dumb mistakes.
Yes, it is. There is a correlation between intelligence and prosperity, but it is in no wy absolute. Aside from that, the intelligent take loans, paying others interst to give their ideas a mere chance. But for any large moneymaking scheme, a very large amount of capital is required to get anywhere. Think businesses, homeowners, traders.
Then you should've done better in school so you would look more appealing for grants and scholarships.
I'm sorry, but this is short sighted. We still need people to do the jobs we give shit pay for. On average something like $1300 is paid before insurance kicks in, and that doesn't include insurance payments. Others may be paying far in excess of that. This is a huge hit to the wallets of most of the working class, and if caught by surprise they're screwed. Anyone with a family will typically be struggling to keep up as is. Funding healthcare via taxation means the people that need the help will effectively be paying a little less, not all at once.
Maybe that's what your looking for
A diversion to something you agree with? Both would be good though.
How are we tripping them up? Public education, paid for through taxes
Yes, this is something that is done to help them. There are other things that aren't. Healthcare is one of them, something that truly results in no second chances.
Why should they get multiple chances in life
Well if nothing else I get where you're coming from now. I don't agree with that sentiment though. Too much is left to chance in life to not give at least some leeway. You've been heavily focused on the poor though, what about the converse, where those with inherited wealth, or those that obtained wealth disproportionate to their effort and risk, or those that obtained wealth unfairly are able to easily afford healthcare?
Of course not. You could have a 400+ IQ and be eating Oreos in your grandmother's basement. But if you are like that, maybe you weren't meant to make it in the first place. I think what you mean to say is you're able to make money by having money, rather than you have to.
a very large amount of capital is required to get anywhere.
And where does that money come from? From making money. And where did you get that money from? A job. How did you get that job? By passing high school, most likely, and possibly college as well. So, intelligence is actually required to make money most of the time.
we give shit pay for
If you're getting paid piss-poor wages, it's closer to slavery than to paid labor. I don't believe jobs should exist for those not intelligent enough to get a high school diploma. Mind you, that's 14 or so years of your life, pre-K to the 12th grade.
paying a little less, not all at once.
In 2012, the average American spent $9,596 on healthcare. That means the average American spent 18% of their annual income on healthcare. How could you raise taxes to the point where universal healthcare exists and is at its best for the poorest Americans while at the same time costing a little less?
There are other things that aren't. Healthcare is one of them
Yes, but here's the thing: American children have equal rights to American education under the 14th Amendment. There's nothing in the Constitution, however, about healthcare.
are able to easily afford healthcare?
In my opinion, those children shouldn't have that money at all. I'm extremely happy about the few celebrities who've decided to leave their children little to nothing. But, just because I don't like that those kids have that money, doesn't mean I get to take it away and give it out. Via inheritance, it's rightfully theirs and they can do what they please with it.
The problem is that we're tripping them up and scolding them for getting dirty.
Even if they made mistakes, you think that justifies cutting them off?
Those who want to cut them off should be free to do so. Those who want to help them (give them second chances, hire them, pay their medical bills, etc.) are still free to do so.
You seem to think that nothing can happen unless the government does it. People are clearly capable of looking out for each other without government involvement.
The most important things should not be in the hands of government because government is unfailingly inept, ineffective, wasteful, and inefficient.
If you think paying somebody else's medical bills is really important, then don't depend on the government to do it; do it yourself.
Those who want to cut them off should be free to do so. Those who want to help them (give them second chances, hire them, pay their medical bills, etc.) are still free to do so.
That's a good point. I don't think that's a consistent idea in policy but fair enough. Are you at least consistent with this view? I think insurance, particularly mandatory insurance, would fall under similar scrutiny if you were.
You seem to think that nothing can happen unless the government does it
I don't think nothing can happen outside government, but policy is far more reliable than relying on goodwill. Particularly through something as harshly operated as taxes.
The most important things should not be in the hands of government because government is unfailingly inept, ineffective, wasteful, and inefficient
This is true in some cases, but I'd say leaving it in the hands of regular people is worse. Charity has been going on for a long time for the same issues in the same places. When you donate to help solve a problem it's disheartening to see no change as a result of a lack of support. What's more, charity programs have to market themselves to even reach you. That's a very inefficient process right there.
This isn't even outside your own country though, I would have thought most would be in support, or at least a majority, such that taxation funded healthcare would appease most. Even if you didn't care for others, there's a self interest too. Nobody would want to find themselves in a situation where they can't treat a cancer, or have to consider abandoning a child that will cost too much to treat because of some unfortunate condition. Supposedly about a third of us are in for a date with cancer, perhaps more given increasing lifespans.
I would have thought most would be in support, or at least a majority, such that taxation funded healthcare would appease most. Even if you didn't care for others, there's a self interest too. Nobody would want to find themselves in a situation where they can't treat a cancer, or have to consider abandoning a child that will cost too much to treat because of some unfortunate condition. Supposedly about a third of us are in for a date with cancer, perhaps more given increasing lifespans.
Here you illustrate what I think is the foundation of our difference.
Your focus is on solving problems, which is fair enough, and fine as long as you say it fast.
The problem is that it chains everybody to government, and enslaves the entire population to EVERYBODY else's needs. This is especially vicious because as a population becomes increasingly better off, more and more things are added to the category of "need." Currently there is a movement to designate needs as rights, which is an insidious conflation, because people are already conflating wants with needs
We never get a chance to buy our freedom back. There is always some new thing that people need, some new right that they have. An it is all under the control of an ever hungry government, that never receives enough taxes or garners enough power to be sated.
My focus is on preserving what freedoms we have, and reinstating those freedoms that have been stolen from us. At the core of freedom is independence, and that means that people need to be willing to address their own problems, and accept the consequences of their carelessness, failures, and limitations.
Personally, I would much rather struggle against the odds and to live and die as a free adult man than live on my knees as a perpetually enslaved child who suckles on the government teat while being endlessly bled by my fellow citizens.
There is no such thing as a free product or service. Somebody has to pay for whatever it is.
What this question is really asking is Should we FORCE some people to pay other people's (strangers') health care bills?
In Canada, Britain, Australia, and the EU, etc., there are already national health services. In the US, we already do this with Medicaid and we force some people to subsidize old people's health care through Medicare. Because that is already happening, we often fail to really consider what is happening.
Let's make the question less abstract.
Should Amarel be able to FORCE Nomoturtle to pay Amarel's medical bills?
If you object to the conflict of interest in how the question is framed, let's change it to
Should TheMadGadfly be able to FORCE Excon to pay for Brotoraptor's medical bills?
Once it is phrased that way, there is no way for an affirmative answer to even appear fair to anybody who values freedom and individual personal property rights.
Now, if Nomoturtle or Excon want to VOLUNTARILY contribute to a fund to help Amarel and Bronto, that is their business, and it would be a kind gesture, and might even inspire the rest of us to pitch in, as well. However, stealing from some folks in order to give to others is wrong, even if we use the law to do it.
