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.
As it turns out, the government already has nationalized health care (no need 4 a new 1)
If you do not have a job or
If you just can't afford health care or
If you just want the government to pay for your health care
All you have to do is...
Join the military. Not only will you get free health care (paid by the government) but you will also get a job, a chance to travel to exotic places, meet interesting people and get a chance to put that government paid for health care to good use ;)
You know, you may have a point there. I'm allergic to work. So, instead of paying for my health care to take care of my allergies, the tax payers should just pay me directly and bypass the middle man ;)
I would love to discuss your allergens but that is not the subject of our debate. If it is your wish, you may do so on the recent healthcare-obesity debate in which I am currently debating. I would like to be focused on the idea of the military being a form of healthcare. And so I ask again, what of those opposed to the military?
if everyone one who was jobless, with out healthcare, and UNABLE to serve in the military, then what the hell are they contributing. but if you can serve and u do u get a job, and healthcare and are a functioning member of society. so if there is someone out there with out a job, or healthcare and they want some one else to take care of them, well tough shit, go out and do something.
What if you can't join the military for, let's say, health reasons? Then what?
Or what if the issue isn't that you don't have a job, but that you don't make enough money from your current job to afford healthcare for your whole family.
Or what if you have a kid who is uninsurable because of preexisting conditions.
But yeah other than those minor flaws, I guess the system is perfect.
You can join some other government institution... like... the postal service.
If your job sucks, and it doesn't pay enought to cover your family, then get another job (I hear they are going to be hiring for an all expense paid tour of Afghanistan ;).
The military will take care of your uninsurable kid.
This is outrageous!! What about in the current economy when so many people cannot find better jobs? They will receive only what is needed to live? Why should someone with money be entitled to better health care?
Are you saying that you are willing to part with say..., your iPod, cell phone, game console (xbox-360, Wii, PS3, etc.) and car so that someone else can have a better life?
Well actually, every industrial country in the world except the United States has followed suit. I am not saying the Canadian system is flawless because believe me it not. I am saying it is much closer to the right idea than privatized health care.
Yes you are right and i completely agree.....Human nature will never allow for a flawless system.Canada is tho, a far more admirable country than the United States.As an Aussie...i would rather Canada over America any day.
Oh My God! Dacey, you really weren't kidding when you said you wanted to get paid for staying at home playing video games? What kinda of commie Aussie are you? ;)
Nah....................................I dont think I fall into any political catagory......................I didnt say that, i said ,play with toys........................................................:)
Are they really?I thought it was kids who they payed to play with toys ,considering they would be the best judge of clean fun,But tell me joe are you trying to suggest something of a adult nature?....i hope not ,as that would raise a few more questions.
NO. I do not have to pay higher taxes or sacrifice anything in order for them to have health care. I am not asking for them to live at any level. I am asking that their basic needs be taken care of.
In fact, you currently pay higher taxes.
In Canada federal tax does not even apply under 8000. in the states it is already 10% then your maximum tax threshold is 35% for income above 357000. Here we do not exceed 29%. Go figure, we can still afford to provide health care!
You are probably wondering where we get that money from. Its because we don't spend $939,110,562,025 on WAR!!! www.costofwar.com
Put 10% of that into health care and nobody would have to pay more in taxes, nobody would sacrifice anything and everyone would be insured.
Why? Why should person A be forced to take care of person B? Person B should be able to take care of himself. If he happens to find someone who lends him a hand (i.e., person A) then that's great. But person A should not be forced.
What if the government decided to increase your taxes in order to subsidize to the poor Japanese Whailing crews? Since they can't find enough whales to hunt, Green Peace keeps on harrasing them and they thus can't make a decent living. Oh, wait, maybe Japanese Whailing crews are not the people you mean. Maybe you're one of those that doesn't want to see a cute little puppy killed but an it's OK to kill an ugly rat.
As I already pointed out, you would not need to raise taxes, it is a matter of where those taxes are being spent. People are not being forced to pay for anything except the taxes they already pay.
Maybe you're one of those that doesn't want to see a cute little puppy killed but an it's OK to kill an ugly rat.
HAHAHA. You never fail to amuse me Joe! I could not care less about the rat or the puppy, I believe health care is a fundamental necessity and as I have mentioned before, I believe the government should take care of those necessities
You are trying to tell me that you would not have enough defense with 10% less money? Give me a break. Its not a handout. People need to be healthy. Why do you have no sympathy for the poor?
A handout is not sympathy. Think about this.... would you take in a wounded Polar Bear Cub and make him dependent on you? Or would you make sure he remains true to his nature so that when the time comes for him to be released back into the wild, he can manage.
If the person doesn't have to pay it back, it is a handout and it destroys the person's pride and it makes me sick. Liberals are ot aware of the harm they cause with their freaking causes. For example, Bilingual education does more harm than good because it takes away the child's incentive to learn the new language. When I came to this country there was no such thing. They said, "Sink or swim." And I was speaking English before the end of the school year.
It is not a matter of making them dependant or any other flawed excuse you can come up with. As I already pointed out, many other countries have better education, unemployment rates AND still have health care, their citizens are not lazy or dependant.
All of these countries offer universal health care.
Canada also ranks 6th on Life expectancy which is way higher than any of the countries mentioned including, you guessed it, the good old United States.
Those numbers are not fair because we are going through a recession right now. You need to either pull up the numbers from before the recession or wait until the recession ends.
The recession is worldwide! We are in recession too! This is a useless excuse. Besides, you would not be in recession if you hadn't spent to date $939,886,734,048 on war!!!(www.costofwar.com) This is precisely the point I am making, its not about paying more taxes or taking anything away to give 'handouts', its about redirecting a portion of those taxes to benefit your own citizens.
Who falls in the 'we' you mentioned? I would venture that the 45 million people without health care in your country would not fall in that category. I am not being self righteous. Believe me, there are many things Canada needs to improve on, including our health care as good as it is. Americans are the most self righteous bunch out there! Sometimes other countries have the right idea and you can learn from them.
Thanks ...............So you admit, your saying,.. "because, it was this way when I(JOE) were a kid",then therefor, "SO thats how it should be for everyone, for the rest of eternity." .....................................IM not asking a question joe,im just stating facts!
This mentality is the reason The United States is 37thin the world for health care. Considering you are one of the richest and most prosperous, that is pathetic. I reside in Canada and I never even knew growing up that doctors got paid. Our health care is unconditional.
This brainwashed junk about how universal health care will lead to socialism, is just a way to justify people living in the only industrialized nation without health care.
So if we nationalize health care, what exactly improves?
What does 37th in the the world for health care mean?
Does it mean that the quality of our health care sucks or that not everyone gets health care?
Are you saying that just because we are one of the richest and most prosperous countries in the world, that we should pay for everyone's health care? Do you have any idea how people get rich? I mean, you didn't even know that doctors got paid.
Do you know how a country becomes prosperous? A country becomes properous when its citizens are productive. Why would anyone be productive if all they have to do is force someone else to support them?
Do you know the meaning of Socialism? Do you understand the concept of "slipery slope"? Do you know how many socialist programs the U.S. already has and you want to add to that list?
Do you realize that all we want is for every socialist in the U.S. to leave and go live in some socialist country and leave us alone!
Are you saying that just because we are one of the richest and most prosperous countries in the world, that we should pay for everyone's health care? Do you have any idea how people get rich?
There are many rich people in many parts of the world that have universal health care. This argument has no relevance.
Do you know how a country becomes prosperous? A country becomes prosperous when its citizens are productive. Why would anyone be productive if all they have to do is force someone else to support them?
If that were the case, how do you explain the fact that you are the only industrialized nation WITHOUT some sort of universal health care? Plus, do you think citizens in Canada, England or Sweden for example do not work hard just because of a good welfare system or a good health care system? I somehow doubt that. There must be people earning and putting into this system or it would collapse. Hasn't collapsed so far, hmmm maybe because it works!
What does 37th in the the world for health care mean?
Does it mean that the quality of our health care sucks or that not everyone gets health care?
Both. It means what quality of health care do citizens receive as a whole, on average. Plus, many other factors such as, level of care, quality of doctors and accessability. I have tons of family in America, Germany, England, and Canada. By far the Americans pay the most for health care because it is private.
Do you know how many socialist programs the U.S. already has and you want to add to that list?
No actually, I don't. However, I do know that I have lived in two countries with universal health care and neither of them are headed to socialism.
The fact that there are many rich people in many parts of the world that have universal health care has no relevance. People do not become rich by giving their money away. The same goes for any given country.
Canada, England and Sweeden are not world powers in the same league as the United States of America. This country is more prosperous because we do not have universal health care. Your argument that the average person in those 3 countries is more prosperous than your average person in America requires data.
If the quality of our health care is so poor, then why is it that whenever someone with money (regardless of where they live) gets seriously ill, they come here to get treatment? Sure, we may pay more, but the care is better. I had a condition that required a specialist that doesn't exist in the countries you mentioned because it is an extremely rare condition.
This country is more prosperous because we do not have universal health care
I doubt that is the reason. For the sake of this debate though, lets say it is, what is your definition of "more prosperous"? I am sure we have two very different views on this. Canada, England and Sweden are just as if not more prosperous in my opinion because I gage prosperity on the quality of the lives of our citizens. Most Americans gage prosperity on how much power they have in the world. Just because you have more weapons, does not make you more prosperous.
If the quality of our health care is so poor, then why is it that whenever someone with money
This is another media stunt. There ARE people who will opt to go to America for health care simply because they can pay someone to treat them for something that is not life threatening and therefore they would have to be put on a waiting list here however, people with money go to many other countries for treatment as well. This is simply for the convenience and the fact that they can. Even the people going to America, would tell you they believe in universal health care.
HAHAHA. This one made me laugh! You are right though. Couldn't exactly call you wealthy anymore. However, the mentality that Americans need to force democracy on every country and destroy everyone else is the reason. If you spent a third of what is being spent on this war on health care or your welfare system, we wouldn't even be having this debate.
as i have personally noticed that when you get old lets say 50 you need more health coverage but you know what you cant join the military!!! and i for one don't want a grandpa out fighting a war that a twenty year old can.
There are other government jobs he may qualify for.
But aside from that, my retirement plan involves getting thrown in jail. They get 3 full meals a day, a bed, TV (in the rec room), and full health coverage. ;)
No, they can then go out and get a better job. If they are not educated enough to get a better job, then they can go out and get better educated. We do have education assistance programs.
The bottom line is to provide the tools to better one self, not to give hand outs. Give a person a fish and he'll eat for one day. Teach him to fish and he'll have food for the rest of his life.
OK first of all, many people cannot afford to quit the low paying job they have to get an education. Secondly, many people cannot find another job that pays more, especially at 50+ when they need health care the most.
What happens in countries that have these 'handouts' as you call them?
What happens? Well, if they can't take care of themselves and they don't have anyone to take care of them, they die. What's the big deal? We all have to go sometime. And it's not like those people are contributing anything to society.
Those people earning less still pay taxes so yes they are contributing. Also, is their life worth less than yours because they have a smaller paycheque?
No. Their life is not worth less than mine. But I also don't expect (nor want) a handout. Handouts rob a man's drive. And that is a sin (not a religious sin but a sin just the same).
Health care is not just some handout it is a necessity to survive. Besides, if these handouts rob a mans drive so bad then why is america's unemployment rate higher than in many countries that have welfare AND health care?
If the only thing Nationalized Health Care covered was life and death situations, then one may consider it a necessity. But it doesn't. it covers colds. That is not a necessity. So if you use Nationalized Health Care for a common cold and you don't ever have to pay it back, then it is a handout.
OK first of all, you convienently avoid questions you have no answer for such as, why is it that countries that give these 'handouts' as you call them, have a lower unemployment rate and a higher education rate? Secondly, the government does many things that we never pay back, are they all handouts? NO, thats what taxes are for!! Its a pooled risk.
Why is it that countries that give these 'handouts' as you call them, have a lower unemployment rate and a higher education rate?
Because they are subsidized by the government. A company in France, for example, can't just fire a lazy employee. For all practical sense, they are forced to keep him. An American company is so hampered.
As far as the education rate, show me the data. If American Universities are not (at least one of) the best in the world, then why do so many foreigners come here to study?
If American companies, technology and know how is not among the best in the world, why are we a world power?
Because they are subsidized by the government. A company in France, for example, can't just fire a lazy employee.
Thats not true. Simply put they must have just cause and proper paper trail to fire someone unlike many states where it is an 'at will' state and you can be fired at any time for any/NO reason. It is called workers rights.
OK, so let me get this straight. If you invest your hard earn money into creating a business, your employees can force you noit to fire them? What ass backwards concept is that? What about the owner's rights? You freaking socialist! The only people who have rights are the wretched, unproductive, huddled masses. No thanks. Keep your welfare state. I don't want it.
If you invest your hard earn money into creating a business, your employees can force you nit to fire them? What ass backwards concept is that?
OK now you are just being ridiculous. I DO have hard earned money in my family business and I CAN fire people. They cannot just 'force' you not to fire them, you need JUST CAUSE to fire them! If someone's livelihood depends on the job your company gives them and they follow code, show up on time, work hard and do their job then why should you be able to just fire them without notice? Or what about those that fire you for your beliefs or race? Should they not be held accountable?
What about the owner's rights?
Here is where you are mistaken, owners have many rights as well. With just cause they can fire you and even roll back your wages with notice in times when they are struggling. Plus, in times when a woman is on maternity leave, the owner can keep her on payroll even though the government is paying her wages and will get tax breaks to cover her shifts till she returns. There are many other benefits that I would have to find.
So what's the incentive to start a family business?
Look, all I'm saying is that if you're happy with your system, great! I'm happy with our system. And I don't want it changed. So who the hell are you to pass judgement over us? What if we passed judgement over you and if you refused to change, we'll just annex you ;)
JUST ANOTHER DEBATOR ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB WHO WAS ASKED FOR THEIR OPPINION.....PUT "residents of AMERICA only" on your debates in the future joe ...if you dont want the rest of the worlds views!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FUCKING TYPICAL .
Thanks dacey. I am noticing this is a frequent occurrence on this website. People from all over the world join and start debates but a few of the Americans figure every debate is exclusive to them.
"Hey, this site was built by Americans.... what do you expect? You people come here and ride our coat tails"....Then dont open a debate site to the rest of the world.You invite us in ,even offer icons with our flags,then deride our opinions.Thats just plain rude.
As far as the education rate, show me the data. If American Universities are not (at least one of) the best in the world, then why do so many foreigners come here to study?
I am not arguing that you have some of the best universities in the world, what I am talking about is your education rate as far as literacy of your citizens, the average education level of a citizen etc.
What I am saying is there are ways to have an educated, hard working public while still providing health care. Your argument that these 'handouts' make them dependant is flawed.
Oh and for the record, we have thousands of immigrants come to Canada for an education too. That doesnt really prove anything.
The Average Literacy is flawed because other countries keep on sending us their tired, their poor, their huddled masses yearning to breathe free, their wretched refuse of their teeming shore. They send us, their homeless, tempest-tossed to us. Basically, their idiots.
Give us time to send the illegals back to their respective countries and watch that number change. ;)
Oh give me a break! It is 10 times easier to get into Canada! We allow people like that in willingly! You my friend, are just a victim of brainwash! Your system is flawed open your eyes!!
The reason Canada doesn't have an illegal immigration problem is that no-one wants to go there, it's so damned cold. That's why I hope Global Warming really heats things up. Then we can send you our wretched. Hell, instead of trying to force us into Nationalized Health Care, Why don't you Canadians take all these people here who want it? ;)
The reason Canada doesn't have an illegal immigration problem is that no-one wants to go there, it's so damned cold.
You are the most ignorant person I have talked to. Canada is KNOWN for the amount of immigrants we allow in every year! We are also known for being one of the only truly multicultural societies unlike the melting pot in places like America. People love to come to Canada because we allow them to keep their culture, clothing, beliefs etc. without judgement.
Why don't you Canadians take all these people here who want it?
We do not have the problem of illegal immigration as bad as you because we do not share a border with Mexico then make it next to impossible for them to get in legally. Make them legal or kick them out and make it easier to get in but harder to stay after that but that is a whole different debate.
Or you could try a different approach. Why not give them incentive to come legally and work? If they come and within 6 months have no work or education, send them back? OR give all the illegals incentive to turn themselves in such as promising them that if they are self sufficient, you will make them legal
OK, think about this way. You have a house and there are more than a few homeless people standing outside your house. Do you invite them in to live with you as long as they do their fair share of the house work?
OK, first off, this analogy makes no sense. I am talking about giving them status, if they become self sufficient in lets say 6 months, they stay, if not you kick them out. You are not inviting them to live with you, you are giving them the opportunity to a better life.
The real problem is the companies hiring these people for below minimum wages illegally, tackle them first. If the illegal immigrants had no way of working until becoming legal, your problems would be cut in half. As I said though, this is a whole different debate.
