- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
There is no political or economical theory that supports your assertions. You are putting together wild speculations combined with fantastical day dreams and calling it a guarantee. It won't work because you can't control costs, you can't recruit personnel and no government can sustain the system.
Government is a zero sum game (in some respects). So, if the government gives people health care, what does the government have to take? For one, they take money. Much more money than private health care if they provide the same level of care. If they provide reduced care (see Canada, Australia, France, Great Britain...) then they can do it for less. The government will also take freedom. They won't allow you to get the treatment you need, rather you'll get the treatment they think you deserve based on some chart. They'll also take the freedom to eat as you wish (see NY and San Francisco). They may even require you to exercise x hours per day.
The point is, there is a huge tradeoff if you allow the government to take over your health care. It is your health care, don't let a bureaucrat decide if you should or shouldn't have access to it.
Ok, so today's limitation on health care is affordability. Do you really want tomorrow's limitation...bureaucracy? Look at what is happening in GB. They are refusing care for breast cancer to women over a certain age because it isn't cost effective. How would you like to get that news? "Well Mr. Birdman, you have cancer and it is curable, but you aren't worth enough to the government to cure."
"See, I don't get that. You say everything the government handles is terrible. Why are you still here? Go move to Canada or something if you think the government is incapable of anything. Or maybe you're forgetting that for the past two decades we've been fighting a ridiculous war in the middle east which has been a constant drain on our economy."
How does the saying go? "Democracy is the worst form of government save every other form of government" Our government may be inept, but at least it is relatively passive in its ineptness. When the government becomes controlling and inept, then we'll see just how f'd up stuff can get. Go to Canada and you'll see what I'm talking about.
"Lets blame it all on the government, no not the big corporations to continually screw everyone else out of their money. Yeah, sure it's the government's fault. They screwed everyone sideways THEY did. No, I'm not saying the government is perfect but I'm sure we don't have the worst record in the world."
Our government doesn't have the worst record in the world. In fact, our government probably has the best record in the world and yet it is still incapable of providing services to the degree that private entities do.
You can blame corporations all you want. It is a popular and easy thing to do. After all, you don't control the corporation and so you aren't to blame. You do have a say in the government though. Do you really want to be to blame when our health care system crumbles at our feet?
"Lets blame it all on the government, not the media. God no, not the media. You ever wonder why they call this the age of apathy? It's a trend with countries that are more rich, people just don't care any more and they're being spoon fed the same bullshit story every day and being told that hope is useless(unless it's hope that there's a god, then it's totally cool, because everything else is bogus). The School Systems aren't failing, they just need time to adapt to the current state of mind the students in this country have adapted."
That has got to be the single lamest argument you can make. If I understand you right, schools have bad results because kids don't want to learn and that is the school's fault because they haven't adapted to that? Did you ever wonder why kids don't see the need to learn any more? Maybe it is because Obama has promised to pay for their gas and utilities and home.
"As for Katrina, I personally blame Bush for appointing that weirdo as the head of FEMA who probably didn't have any experience in that field at all. So yeah, that one was the people's fault for electing Bush."
You can blame Bush all you want, but I was there and I know what the response was like. At night, they had 5 miles of rescue helicopters lined up. During the day, those helicopters flew every minute they could, pulling people off of roof tops. The response to Katrina was astronomical. The problem wasn't the post Katrina response. Nothing could have been better. I saw it with my own eyes.
BTW....did you notice you started out disagreeing with my principle and finished in total agreement? That's right, you agreed that the government is too inept to handle health care by way of admitting that the government can't handle schools, food safety or basic rescue operations.
So what you are saying is that because there are a few hard luck cases out there, we should all be made to suffer under the same crappy health care system? I don't buy that.
If you are so worried about these hard luck cases, why don't you give money to one of the thousands of legitimate charities that are oriented toward health care? Why are you so sure that the government can do a better job?
Well I guess the government has a tremendous track record. I mean, just look at how they handled Katrina....ok...maybe that is a bad example. How about roads...no....another bad example. Well the government does a great job with schools....no....another bad example. Well the government does a great job of regulating financial instutions...no...another bad example. I've got it this time...the government does a great job of protecting us from contaminated food....oh...wait, there was that peanut butter scare, and the spinach scare and the tomato scare and the baby formula scare. Well surely the government keeps our streets safe...oh...no...wait, jails are full so they are letting criminals go. Well, we know this....the government does a great job of protecting our borders....gosh darn it, another bad example.
Sorry boss, I couldn't find anything our government does well. But I'm sure they'll excel at UHC.
"I believe that promoting general welfare is not intended for the federal government strictly due to the use of the term general instead of simply stating "Promoting the welfare of the federal government." Promoting general welfare would involve more than simply making sure the law/regulations we put in place do 'not harm the country.'"
Seriously? Your logic doesn't even remotely support your conclusion.
"You make the rash claim that, "Everywhere Universal Health Care has been tried, it has failed. UHC always becomes expensive, restrictive and lacks innovation." Can you expand upon one example where it has failed and what its failings were?"
If my claim is so rash...why didn't you just post one example of the shining ER on the hill?
Insurance companies aren't doing that. Medicare/caid, schip and other government programs are driving up the cost of health care.
Do you know what happens when you take cost down to a minimum? Demand goes up. If you have a segment of the population getting nearly free product (health care int his case) and the rest paying for the product....guess what happens? Those getting nearly free health care suck up as much of the product as they can and those of use paying for it are forced to pay premium prices for the artificially reduced supply.
1. It will do the opposite of growing the economy. When the government puts price controls on anything (which they have done in the past) you get several negative effects. The first is an artificial rise in demand. In the case of UHC, that means the government will have to ration care through means other than money. The second is you lose production when people that had made a profit off of the product leave because they can't earn a living any more. Finally, UHC would end health insurance. That means the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Nearly doubling our current unemployment.
2. They aren't. Check my post on the opposite side of this page.
3. No it does not. It puts our businesses at an advantage. We just have to get away from this mentality that someone else should pay our bills.
4. If you think that is socialism, than you are either being very disingenuous or you are incredibly ignorant. Do some reading on socialism.
5. Don't buy into those rankings. In France (and other countries) you only get health care if you are deemed worthy. The older you get, the less they will treat you. A 70 year old woman cannot get treatment for Cancer in France, but anyone can get treatment in the US. Does it cost more? Yes, but that has nothing to do with being socialized. It has to do with this mentality that someone else should pay our bills.
6. It can't be done right. The very idea is immoral.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!