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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Do Americans have the right to universal healthcare?
I honesty have no idea whether it should be or not, millions of americans went bankrupt and are still because they can't afford medical expences, but then again it's not the governments responsiblity to pay for your medical bills. But in the declaration of independence it states that all men have the right to "life" which entails the health care provided to ensure life. In the preamble it states that it's purpose is to promote general welfare for it's people, but then it's saying to promote it, not to provide. but americans have the right to decide whether or not they want financial ruin, or paying to stay alive with medicines and treatments.do you think that's right? one or the other. either way your ruined. but allowing americans to have free healthcare would mean they are healtheir and can live longer meaning that they contribute more to their society. Free healthcare would promote equal oppertunity.by decreasing the number of people who are economically disadvantaged in society due to bad health and medically related financial trouble. I don't know, I have to say yes. But if we did have free healthcare would healthcare lose it's stability. I mean with all americans with full coverage that means more doctors and clinics, and that means more people going to school for that profession. Would healthcare start to get careless? You can disregard that last statement, even im not sure if it's right. But if you understand what im trying to say in that last bit then post your replies pertaining to it.
There is no constitutional right that guarantees universal health care, nor is there any constitutional amendment that forbid it. The question we should be asking ourselves is whether it would benefit more Americans than our current system of health care providers.
Certainly I think if applied properly a National health-care system could be very beneficial. I wouldn't be opposed to something along the lines of what the United Kingdom has. I am very skeptical of the plan Obama has proposed, I don't have very high expectations of it, but time will tell.
The amendment that opposes federally run health care is the tenth amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Whereas the Constitution does not give the Congress the authority to distribute healthcare, it cannot. The states or the people themselves can provide the people with healthcare. Now the government can clean things up to promote healthcare or healthful activity promoting to "promote the general welfare." But my concluding argument is it isn't a right if it's not God-given. If healthcare were a right we would all have a naturally strong immune system that can block all disease etc.
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Honestly, I agree with you that healthcare clearly wasn't intended in the constitution as a right, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still talk about it. The constitution also never mentioned a Federal bank, an environmental protection agency, a food and drug administration or really anything else specific like that. Things have changed since then however, and now our nation could feasibly afford to provide healthcare to all its citizens...the only question is if we should, and if so what would be the best way to do it.
Foregoing means previously stated. So if universal healthcare would help any of the 18 powers vested in Congress it would be legal. P.S. I'm anti-central banking.
1)Taxation, providing for the common defense and the general welfare. Welfare meaning safety and well-being.
2)Borrow money.
3) Regulate commerce between foreign nations, among the states, and with Indian tribes.
4)To establish uniform rules on naturalization and bankruptcies in the US.
5)Coin money regulate value of that and foreign coin and make system of weights and measures.
6)Punish counterfeiters.
7)Establish post offices and post roads.
8)Promote science and useful arts through patents.
9)Create tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.
10)To define and punish piracy and crimes on the high seas, and offenses against the laws of nations
11)To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning capture.
12)To raise and support armies, and no appropriation will last more than 2 years.
13)To provide and maintain a navy.
14)To make rules for the government and military.
15)To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws, suppress insurrection and repel invasions.
16) To provide for disciplining the militia.
17) To have exclusive legislation over lands ceded by the states.
Does the well-being of citizens include their health?
I promise I'm not trying to be a smart ass, and I can honestly respect someone who says no, but certainly you must admit that it's something that could be considered.
It is considerable. Sweden probably has the best system of socialism ever. But the US is a completely different place. We don't trust our politicians, our government is inefficient, we don't like taxes, and we have an inbred fear of communism. It is a noble idea, but highly impractical in the US.
Touche' I had forgotten about that. I guess conceivably you could interpret a certain clause to include healthcare, but whatever the case may be should I presume you advocate a state-run healthcare?
No when you say state do you mean government in general or subfederal states? If by the former I am an opponent of too much governmental power. If by the latter I am also an opponent for the same reason as the first.
I cans see how that might be confusing. By sate-run I mean....Alaska, Michigan, Texas, New York, Alabama, Washington, Virginia would all have their own system.
Well for example Romneycare in Massachusetts was a failure http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v30n1/cpr30n1-1.html I am a citizen of NY and my state, I don't know if it's in the papers where you live, is extremely corrupt. The legislators haven't gotten a budget on time in years. Gov. Paterson is the only person that cares in Albany and he isn't running again. Whenever any entity with authority granted by law has the power over my health, I might as well be a slave.
Whenever any entity with authority granted by law has the power over my health, I might as well be a slave.
Well then you already are. The government regulates air pollution, it regulates food safety, water treatment, garbage disposal etc... On top of that you have police department, fire-department, Armed forces.
Are you opposed to all of these? When push comes to shove this "government is out to get me" paranoia, ultimately proves fruitless.
All of those things have to do with my safety not my health. My real problem with government healthcare is that it is illegal. The Constitution only gives the Congress 18 powers. And the regulates air pollution, it regulates food safety, water treatment, garbage disposal etc These are mandated by law not by people, so it cannot be arbitrarily changed. I'm only afraid of a government out to get me when the government doesn't follow the rule of law. A government of people is dangerous, a government of the law is just.
Just a wee bit curious, some Americans are not privileged with money, what are they supposed to do when they can't afford health care? I think this is the problem, Most people say health care shouldn't be free because they would assume that most Americans can afford it, and for those who can't oh well, it's not my responsibility. I can see where this topic gets to a socialist stand point in a sense. Having everything handed to you.
This is a very touchy subject. This isn't a yes or a no for me. I'm undecided in the matter.
while i may sound like a jerk. no person has a right to forcefully take the money of some one else and bestow it on some one else (even though the government does it with taxation).
i believe in direct payment meaning people out of the good of their heart will pay charities and the such to help others who need health care. but this government ordained crap is ridiculous. why should i worry about every other schmo out there while i can barley support my family?
1. We already have it. A hospital is not allowed to not treat a dying person because they cannot afford it.
2. the argument is affordable healthcare. We currently pay the most, for one of the worst healthcare systems in the Western world. It's pathetic and we've all become insurance companies bitches.
3. The new laws do nothing more than ensure that ins. cannot rape us anymore, and that more of the people who pay 0 for healthcare are going to have options they can afford... turning 0 into $
4. This will lower costs for everyone including those already insured.
5. That this is even a conversation is more proof of big corporations strangle hold over the right wingers. You'll argue against your own self-interest so they can get even richer and continue raping you.
No one has a right to universal health care. Think about what that means. It means that someone else is forced to pay for your health care. Why should anyone be forced to do something they do not want to do? When you are born, the world doesn't owe you a damn thing. Why should you owe the world anything?
Because at the end of the day, everyone else is a person, just like you. Well, maybe not just like, but very similar to. Everyone else has feelings and emotions, hopes and dreams. Unfortunately, not everyone is privileged enough to be born rich. Not everyone is lucky enough to be born with the skills that allow them to move up in the world. Who are you to say who gets to live and who is to die? And this "someone else" that you speak of- how inconvenienced would they be to give a small amount of their daily earnings to the well being of everyone else? A national insurance system would spread the risk of a few sick people across the population of the entire United States.
you sound like a genuine mother Tressa. but the fact is my money is mine. now don't get me wrong i would help people locally with health care if they came to me but the government has no right to tax me more to help some one else. the means does not justify the ends. and theft for health is not right.
you sound like a genuine mother Tressa. but the fact is my money is mine. now don't get me wrong i would help people locally with health care if they came to me but the government has no right to tax me more to help some one else. the means does not justify the ends. and theft for health is not right.
This is essentially what the barrier to healthcare presently is. Selfish people who make up excuses to justify their stinginess.
It's amusing because people like you reap the benefits of taxes every day. The roadways you drive upon, the water systems, free education for you and your children, just to name a few. We presently pay more collectively for our healthcare than other countries with socialised medicine because we are paying twice, for medicare and our insurance instead of having just one system. We would be saving money and have healthier people (which means a more productive society) but idiots like yourself can only think about their pocket books and short-term goals.
first of all don't call people idiots and degrade them when your argument is easily arguable, its just mean and unsportsmen like.
being a libertarian I'm sure your aware of the fact that privatized services can easily take the place of government monopolized institutions which would increase freedom and capitalism.
as for the selfish part, did you not hear me say that i would donate to charities and the such? so how am i selfish then?
as for the whole me justifying my unwillingness to have my money forcefully stolen and given to others is not mean or evil. as i said earlier the means does not justify the ends.
theft does not justify national health care. and my property is mine to choose what to do with it.
first of all don't call people idiots and degrade them when your argument is easily arguable, its just mean and unsportsmen like.
The hypocrisy of your former argument frankly irritated me, but you're right, calling people names doesn't make an argument.
being a libertarian I'm sure your aware of the fact that privatized services can easily take the place of government monopolized institutions which would increase freedom and capitalism.
It only works when the services are provided by numerous companies competing with each other to better serve their niche, and only when the service works under the capitalist model. Healthcare presently doesn't fit this model very well, as we see from insurance companies that consistently disqualify their customers, take advantage by charging rates that do not match the service offered, etc. As witnessed in true socialist countries, government healthcare is actually cheaper and provides quality, essentially they are getting more "bang" for their dollars.
Also, take care in associating a free market with personal freedom. The two are separate entities.
as for the selfish part, did you not hear me say that i would donate to charities and the such? so how am i selfish then?
It is selfish to wish to deny money which would cover families' healthcare because you don't see them personally.
as for the whole me justifying my unwillingness to have my money forcefully stolen and given to others is not mean or evil. as i said earlier the means does not justify the ends.
In this respect healthcare is no different from public education, the roads, water, welfare, unemployment, medicare and medicaid, etc. However you use some of these services but are willing to complain about others. The bottom line is that a government can only provide for its people when it has enough income to do so, and taxing universally accomplishes this.
theft does not justify national health care. and my property is mine to choose what to do with it.
It isn't a simple matter of your property. You are allowed to live in this society in exchange for an agreement of loyalty towards your government. Essentially a contract where you provide money and skill, and the government provides infrastructure, law, and protection from foreign powers, amongst other rights.
lol so the main thing to dispute here is you calling me selfish cause i only worry about the people around me? do you sir, help pay for every mans meal in the world? their education? their health? if not, then you too i guess are selfish.
and again i said taxation is theft also, so this whole i only dislike some and not the other is wrong. i wish we had every thing privatized. as for taxation, it is theft, regardless of my will it is taken or i recover consequences.
and no i do not accept the whole being a citizen of this country i must pay taxes. i will choose to fight against things that are wrong like the founders did before me. of course i wont use violence and i will end up paying taxes cause I'm believe in peace as the first means for any thing first. but being that this country still allows freedom of speech i will talk about what i wish, and taxation being theft is one of them.
lol so the main thing to dispute here is you calling me selfish cause i only worry about the people around me? do you sir, help pay for every mans meal in the world? their education? their health? if not, then you too i guess are selfish.
I don't know how you came to this conclusion.
and again i said taxation is theft also, so this whole i only dislike some and not the other is wrong. i wish we had every thing privatized. as for taxation, it is theft, regardless of my will it is taken or i recover consequences.
You use the other services so it's a matter of hypocrisy. We used to have everything privatised, do you know what it was like back them? Dirt roads, river water and hand pumps, no sewage treatment, many had foregone school for work and therefore we had high illiteracy rates. The private sector in contemporary times is too greedy to provide for our basic needs at an affordable rate.
Taxation is a property of government, it allows our infrastructure to work.
and no i do not accept the whole being a citizen of this country i must pay taxes. i will choose to fight against things that are wrong like the founders did before me. of course i wont use violence and i will end up paying taxes cause I'm believe in peace as the first means for any thing first. but being that this country still allows freedom of speech i will talk about what i wish, and taxation being theft is one of them.
The issue isn't freedom of speech, it's about you arguing a point that has little merit. Taxes are a necessary tool to fund the things we take for granted, like schools and roads.
i would love to argue about this but instead just see my debate, "is taxation legalized theft" it explains my stance and others. i already poured my sweat over the keyboard arguing about it in the other debate and I'm not in the mood to do it again.
but again to explain my points so you can see what i defend if you decide to look at my debate.
i believe and show en that privatized services can work.
taxation is theft regardless of the good it brings because you receive punishment for not paying and you have your property forcefully taken.
also that free health care just increases taxes not making it free and forces me to pay for every other person i don't know when i can do it far more successfully threw charities and organizations who actuality care and put effort into it. not just to do it for more power and control and to make it "easier" for the government in the long end.
No one has a right to universal health care. Think about what that means. It means that someone else is forced to pay for your health care. Why should anyone be forced to do something they do not want to do? When you are born, the world doesn't owe you a damn thing. Why should you owe the world anything?
So I guess your entire life you've lived in a shack in the mountains off the grid, otherwise you're a hypocrite for taking services paid for by us, but wanting to avoid giving back.
What I want is to be given the option. Currently what happens is that my money is taken from me and I am NOT given a choice.
It really cannot work that way. If people had an option, suddenly there would be the risk of incomplete funds for infrastructure and healthcare, and the need to create overhead in the form of paperwork for those who opted in to support the streets, schools, medicine, etc. and thus if they are permitted to use it.
No, It isn't in our constitution or bill of rights. We, as Americans, have no right to health care as much as we do not have rights to a job or a home. But, I am sure that is next on the liberal agenda no doubt.
and what I am saying is "do Americans have the right to universal health care" meaning the same health care Canada has. meaning basically free health care. You jackass. ( I believe Canada only has a small monthly fee depending on you're income, if you are not very wealthy they will work with you and you're health care will be cheaper, but for all those who can pay the original price it stays that way.)
But, take a look at Canada. You have to wait weeks for an appointment and the quality is just shitty.
As I said in my original post, with every American, (meaning everyone certified as an American mudkipz you jackass) with full coverage will it be the same way? will it lose it's foothold and eventually just start spiraling down the drain?
Is it really a good idea?
I have to disagree and say no, I don't think it would be a good thing for the American people, it's not that much, pay for you're health care people, it's not that bad. And no matter what you're going to be taken care of anyways.
But, take a look at Canada. You have to wait weeks for an appointment and the quality is just shitty.
Only when you make an appointment for things like a check-up. When you go into an emergency room because you are having a major problem, you see a doctor much faster. This is because those without insurance in the US all have to wait until the last moment to go to the emergency room. This is one of the many reasons this chart is so relevant link
Granted, Canada is not much better (ranked 30 compared to 37), but Canada's system if I'm not mistaken is closer to the one the US just signed than it is to those available in England and the Scandinavian countries.
As I said in my original post, with every American, (meaning everyone certified as an American mudkipz you jackass) with full coverage will it be the same way? will it lose it's foothold and eventually just start spiraling down the drain?
This is not a static problem. The US has steadily been falling behind, while prices have drastically been increasing each and every year. Our healthcare is already spiraling out of control.
I have to disagree and say no, I don't think it would be a good thing for the American people, it's not that much, pay for you're health care people, it's not that bad. And no matter what you're going to be taken care of anyways.
This is completely untrue. In fact, some people have policies that literally cost more than their mortgage right now in the US. Part of the bill recently signed guarantees insurance has to spend something like 90% of profits on actual healthcare. This will automatically lower costs because currently many companies spend less than 50% on actual care.
It is a misconception that a public option within the US would raise costs for some because 1. new laws ensure this won't happen by lowering profit margin instead of increasing costs 2. more will be paying into the system as those making over X amount will be paying a low rate, instead of 0.
Here is how much the US currently pays for the 37th best healthcare/ capita link The US spends almost twice as much as any other country as it is.
The entire debate is basically the third richest corporations in the land, the Health insurance providers, paying millions upon millions to misinform the populace so they can continue charging ridiculous amounts for crappy service. Everyone from Bill Gates to welfare mothers of 5 will be served better by this bill.
First of all, no! Universal healthcare has never been a right and nor should it be. I ask all of you believers in this system, why is it beneficial? What makes it 'free?' Why should high earning taxpayers have to pay for a homeless man's surgery? Perhaps you will enlighten me though granted, you ae liberals. :)
Perhaps you will enlighten me though granted, you ae liberals. :)
Maybe. The Enlightenment is a part of the liberal legacy - as are many philosophical and institutional concepts that modern conservatives not only take for granted, but defend with great zeal.
Why should high earning taxpayers have to pay for a homeless man's surgery?
First, the qualification of "high earning tax payers" is unnecessary. I would even go so far as to suggest that it's disingenuous. Second, medical care is treated as a right in America. Hospitals aren't allowed to reject people: citizen or non-citizen, legal or illegal immigrant in emergency situations. So that homeless person receiving care is already funded by taxpayers, as the treatment is subsidized by public funds. But what's more important in, my opinion, is that its good citizenship. People living in the same society should treat each other well, out of a social obligation or a moral one.
I ask all of you believers in this system, why is it beneficial?
There are some obvious benefits: we can have a healthier population, which tends to be more creative and productive; there is also the very real potential for decreasing financial burden for paying for medical care.
What makes it 'free?'
It's free in the sense that roads are free. While tax money funds all public goods, you don't have to pay a toll every time you drive your car on a road, or pay a monthly due to any number of private companies for using different roads, or highways, thoroughfares or little side streets.
Hospitals aren't allowed to reject people: citizen or non-citizen, legal or illegal immigrant in emergency situations. So that homeless person receiving care is already funded by taxpayers, as the treatment is subsidized by public funds.
Okay, so this was a bad example. I am talking about a non-emergency situation.
There are some obvious benefits: we can have a healthier population, which tends to be more creative and productive; there is also the very real potential for decreasing financial burden for paying for medical care.
Of course these are ideal situations. I'm sure most would like a healthier population, but this will not happen without making someone unhealthy (in a metaphorical sense). It's just the nature of capitalism. If you don't have as much money as someone else, the quality of these types of things will naturally be a bit lower, and rightfully so. This communism ideal has been tryed before, the results much less than satisfactory.
It's free in the sense that roads are free. While tax money funds all public goods, you don't have to pay a toll every time you drive your car on a road, or pay a monthly due to any number of private companies for using different roads, or highways, thoroughfares or little side streets.
Yes, but it simply is adding taxes. That is like saying you can use someone else's credit card and it is completely free, no charge to you. No, this simply will not and cannot work.
I'm sure most would like a healthier population, but this will not happen without making someone unhealthy (in a metaphorical sense).
I don't understand the metaphor. -_-
It's just the nature of capitalism. If you don't have as much money as someone else, the quality of these types of things will naturally be a bit lower, and rightfully so.
(Technically not true for a great many things. But I'll accept the point for the sake of argument.) This actually seems like a good reason as to why healthcare ought to be a public good, a right established or maintained by the government.
This communism ideal has been tryed (sic) before, the results much less than satisfactory.
Communism has never been tried. But universal healthcare has a historically good track record in countries that institute its various forms.
Yes, but it simply is adding taxes...
I don't mind paying more taxes if you and I both are going to benefit from it in the short and long run. Making healthcare a public good would actually help you keep more of your money, and you'd still have access to quality healthcare.
This actually seems like a good reason as to why healthcare ought to be a public good, a right established or maintained by the government.
So, you want to make the United States more socialist?
Communism has never been tried.
What?! Communism has never been tried? What about the USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, and many, many others?
I don't mind paying more taxes if you and I both are going to benefit from it in the short and long run. Making healthcare a public good would actually help you keep more of your money, and you'd still have access to quality healthcare.
Not if I already have health insurance, it won't benefit me. It will just cost me more money.......
So, you want to make the United States more socialist?
Nope.
What?! Communism has never been tried?
Nope.
What about the USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, and many, many others?
Consider for a moment that the North Korean government refers to itself as a Democracy and a people's Republic. And then consider that I don't find the ideological proclamations of despotic regimes to be legitimate or consistent with their practice. We both know that North Korea is neither a Republic nor a Democracy - and would never use North Korea as an example of a democratic form of governance. I would also hope that you would, too, not promote juntas and autocratic governments as examples of communism or socialism.
Not if I already have health insurance, it won't benefit me. It will just cost me more money.......
It would be cheaper, actually. Increasing the number of sources of input equals generally lower overall costs per individual. It's one of the primary reasons why certain things can be easily subsidized and other things can't. The cost of Private vs Public schools is a ready example of this cost distinction. Public schools are cheaper by an order of magnitude than their private school counterparts because they are publicly funded.
My parents were hardly rich, but I was sent to a private primary and secondary school. Why because they worked hard for me as I will work hard my children. I will work hard so that they can go to private primary and secondary and post secondary school.
And don't you feel fortunate that you happened to be born to parents who could afford to do this? I know I do since I essentially won the lottery when it comes to parents since I was born in the late 20th century in America to parents who could afford to send me to the best schools. I also understand, however, that it wasn't my own hard work that caused this to happen, and that those children whose parents can't afford to send their children to private schools aren't to be blamed for their unfortunate circumstance. Should these children not have any chance at education simply because their parents did a poor job at making money? Of course not.
We can't ensure that every child has an equal chance at success but we can at least give them some chance. If this means that the wealthier people (like your parents and mine) had to pay a little more, and that you and me will probably have to pay for other people's kids then fine. I'm happy to do so, so that the American dream is true for all citizens regardless of who they were born to.
Of course, I feel fortunate that my parents could afford to do this, but they didn't do it because they got government handouts as you suggest, no, they did because they learn from their parents that with a little hard work, you can achieve.
My parents are not wealthy. They are working middle class. How is that wealthy?
If this means that the wealthier people (like your parents and mine) had to pay a little more, and that you and me will probably have to pay for other people's kids then fine. I'm happy to do so
Well, at least that you admit that government forces people to pay for school and health care twice.
Well, keep up the government sponsored charity work?
Why do you feel you owe something to society?
Government handouts don't work, never did and never will.
Some Public schools still fail despite all the money that they receive.
Of course, I feel fortunate that my parents could afford to do this, but they didn't do it because they got government handouts as you suggest, no, they did because they learn from their parents that with a little hard work, you can achieve.
Sounds like you had good parents.
My parents are not wealthy. They are working middle class. How is that wealthy?
What I meant to say was that your parents are wealthy enough to afford to pay for a separate education. I don't know you or your family so I'm not going to presume anything, however, your parents clearly valued hard work and education enough to send you to a private school, and they had the means to do so. Compared to a lot of people who can't afford anything, this is wealthy. I guess we're just worried about semantics here. Is fortunate a better word?
I am keenly aware that our current public school system is flawed in many ways. Some public schools are good, but many do fail to graduate even half their students. I would be open to any changes hat may help to improve the school system, and as I've said in previous debates a voucher system sounds like it might work.
Why do you feel you owe something to society?
Because society has been so good to me. I can't blame little kids for being born poor, so why not give them the education to improve their situation? Educating the youth helps the whole country and makes America stronger. If these kids don't have an opportunity to graduate from high-school then they could turn to crime in order to put food on the table. That makes the country less safe for everyone.
Well, at least that you admit that government forces people to pay for school and health care twice.
Not exactly. It gives everyone the option of paying for it once. Those that can afford better though, get that option, and it obviously costs more.
Well, keep up the government sponsored charity work?
The government has a certain responsibility to help children. Like I've said about 100 times now, we don't choose which vagina we popped out of. I could just have easily been born in a poor ghetto to a single mother. Should I abandon my fellow citizens just because I was lucky? Of course not. We need some type of public schooling. I personally try and help with charity work of my own in my communities to help the less fortunate, so don't act like I'm trying to force the responsibility on everyone.
Some Public schools still fail despite all the money that they receive.
And some do well. We need to figure out how to fix the broken ones, not scrap the whole thing.
Government handouts don't work, never did and never will.
The G.I. Bill essentially made the U.S. the secondary education leader of the world. In addition, I attend a school that is funded in part by the state, but I don't think anyone would claim that it's a waste of money even though people from that state that choose to attend a different school are technically paying extra.
First of all, you're looking for "tried". Second, I see that you have never heard of a country named Sweden, which is socialist by virtually every definition of the word, and yet is one of the world's most competitive economies. Sweden also has a higher average lifespan, lower infant mortality, and spends less of its GDP on healthcare than the US. We are spending more and getting less. It is insane that people are still arguing against universal healthcare.
You forget that in America, the propensity for the government to take something noble and turn into some corrupt power play is extremely high. The bill is over 1000 pages long. Who wants something like that keeping them healthy? If Sweden's is working it must be maybe 40 pages. And again the Swedish government is much more trustworthy than the American.
So you are not opposed to it because you think it's bad but because you think it will be corrupted? From this standpoint you should oppose all politicians and all bills EVER. It's an untenable argument.
If the government has a say over my right to live, then I lose my liberty to keep my life or I lose my life to keep my liberty. The results are slavery or death. With free market healthcare I give willingly give up my property to live, with universal healthcare I die or am bound by chains of servitude. To quote Henry, "Give me liberty or give me death." Many Americans feel that liberty is worth dying for. What good is healthcare where people die as a result from loss of liberty?
this question is as idiotic as asking if gay people have the right to look at rainbows. every one needs health care and a better argument would be if all humans have a born right to health care. but as said in our constitution that we all have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness we can already see that Americans do have a right to health care. (face palm)
First of all, the right for a gay person too look at rainbows, is nowhere near as important as universal health care issues. That is completely off topic and it does not pertain to what I am saying at all.
All humans? this is an American issue at hand right now, it does say that in the constitution but if you actually payed attention to what I had said It states that general welfare is promoted, not provided.
the title of this debate it stupid. do Americans have the right to health care? you should of posted it as should America have health care. how you set up the debate makes it sound like that Americans regardless of character have a right to health care. thid debate is like asking to chines people have the right to health care? it sounds idiotic as if Americans have a supreme right to health over others. so i used the gay rainbow joke in response to how the debate was poorly built.
as for the second paragraph you are right. if you set the debate up better then i would agree with it being a only American issue, but the bestowing of undefined health care only allowed for Americans required me to ask, do you mean America should have health care? or just Americans.
but as said in our constitution that we all have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness Really? Really? That is what the Declaration of Independence says. Nowhere in the Consitution does that phrase appear. If I could downvote you more than once I would. That is possibly the worst thing ever, making up words in the Consitution.
Nowhere in the Constitution does that phrase appear.
Well, you need to learn how to read?
14th Amendment to the United States of America
Section 1:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
I didn't know you can spell the pursuit of happiness as property. So again I say show me where the prase life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are there.
the quote life, liberty, and pursuit of happens originated from john lock i believe. and the ending being property means any thing a man owns. you have a t.v? it is a sort of happiness correct? so there fore property means a pursuit of happiness, our founders saw it like this and decided to clarify the quote better to meaning happiness instead of property, but back then it mean the same thing. so yes the quote is there but simply translated.
same difference of where it came from. that quote is famous and is what America is principally built upon. as for the rest of your statement it is just babbling.