Medical services should be free
For
Side Score: 18
|
 |
Against
Side Score: 17
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
In Britain here it is, and it's fantastic. Ill? ok, go to the hospital you'll be fine! You've payed 17.5% tax on EVERYTHING (or not if your on benefits (for lazy people) ) so you can have it. Obviously some people abuse it, but not as much as the hospitals abusing your right to medical treatment. Side: For
1
point
Morally yes it should he free but our government wants that money and people want money. Doctors want to be compensated. Not all doctors though. Some love their job and will help anyone but some love the pay. Our hospitals do this because they have to pay for a lot when they really shouldn't. If businesses helped out the hospitals im sure the amount you owe on a hospital bill will drastically decline. If businesses could provide hosoitals with these things then we probrably would have to pay anything. Side: For
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Yes, I believe that it should. Of course, there's no such thing as "free" medical care, so we'll have to pay for it one way or another, but we need a system to nationalize the health care industry and take the profit right out of the equation. This includes the hospitals and insurance providers, including malpractice insurance providers. Taking the profit out of the equation would leave enough money to cover a whole lot of uninsured people. Side: For
1
point
|
Nothing is ever free. What people mean by free medical care is that other people should pay for their services (i.e other taxpayers). I don't want my tax money to be used to pay for other people's services - I'd rather just pocket it, save it, and use it for when I need it. Side: Against
1
point
Don't think I'm telling you you're wrong, because it's idiotic to say someone's opinion is wrong, but think about this hypothetical please. Say you were a lower class citizen, to the point where you weren't able to put food on the table some nights. You pay your taxes, because you're a good citizen but then you become deathly ill and the hospital services cost more than you make in a week. Would you want your tax money that you gave for others who might need it to be used at this moment? It's an ideal of a community of sharing. I accept that you would rather not share, because I too want to be stingy sometimes, but if it could save your life later, wouldn't it be good to share? Side: For
It's an ideal of a community of sharing. I accept that you would rather not share, because I too want to be stingy sometimes, but if it could save your life later, wouldn't it be good to share? It would be sharing, if I actually had a choice in the matter. Forced sharing can't be called sharing anymore - it's theft. I think people should be able to choose what services they want and what services they don't want - while you may not want to risk your health for the sake of monetary increase, many people would take that chance. Just like some people choose to smoke regardless of the risks involved. If the taxes weren't so damn high, then your hypothetical low class worker would not only have enough money to feed himself, but he'd be able to save money too for these occasions. It's an ideal of a community of sharing. I accept that you would rather not share, because I too want to be stingy sometimes, but if it could save your life later, wouldn't it be good to share? But my problem is that it is not sharing, it is involuntary wealth distribution. I'm forced to sustain people I don't know and don't care about - whereas I could use that money to sustain myself, my family and my friends or in otherwords, the people I do care about. Side: Against
1
point
When someone talks about government paying for all of anything (free education, free health care, etc.) then the responsibility that used to be required by the people is thrown out the window. This is the responsibility to use their judgment over if something is necessary, makes sense, and is required. For example if you have to pay for plastic surgery you will stop and consider if you really need it, how much it will cost, and so forth. If instead the government paid for it (and all medical procedures) then far more people would wake up one morning, decide to change their appearance and have it done for free. Therefore, Medical services should not be free. Maybe the government should decrease the cost of basic medical services like consultation and etc. Side: Against
If medical services should be free, should we: 1. Pay for people wanting to be a doctor to go to med school? 2. Make all medical and pharma companies part of the goverment? 3. Take all decision making about treatment out of the hands of the individual and their doctor? I think not! Side: Against
I have a question for you Andy, and I legitimately don't know the answer. Why is it that Medicare would take all decision making about treatment out of the hands of the individual and their doctor? Does it pertain specifically to Obama care? Here's why I ask. I live in Canada, and we have free Medicare. Our health decisions are not taken from us or our Doctors. Side: For
1
point
I have no standing about 2. and I feel that 3. would be a bad thing, but 1. makes some sense to me. Scholarships are basically free money from the government to people who want to learn something to better society. I think if becoming a doctor was less expensive, there'd be more. Even the rules of economics say that if the number of producers is high, the price of products will be low. In this situation the doctors count as producers and heir services the product. Side: For
1
point
|
