Paintball Guns and Gear forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Imperator
Joined
·
19,071 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm doing a debate for a class and I have to argue against Public (Universal) Healthcare in the USA. I'm having a hell of a time finding good sources against it though, as most are for it. I was hoping maybe you guys could find some good stuff. I know a lot of you are pretty good at that.
 

·
Shine on Rick Wright
Joined
·
3,235 Posts
Edit: Thought it said argued for public healthcare. Scratch everything I said.
 

·
We The People
Joined
·
5,925 Posts
This should be easy.

First off, is healthcare a right? No, it isn't. Not in the USA, anyways. Whether you think it should be or not isn't the point. The very simple point is this - the United States Constitution (which our entire government should be based off of) does NOT guarantee health care. Simple as that. So in essence, unless an amendment is made, the Federal government has NO AUTHORITY to provide national public health care.

States, on the other hand, can certainly vote into law a state-wide public health care system, thanks to the 10th Amendment. Really this should be the end of the argument. That is the system that out Founding Fathers imagined. States rights, and a relatively weak federal government. Sadly, this is not the case, and further argument is needed.

I would not want my state to offer public health care. First, look at their terrible track record. Since when has a government program (any program) been the epitome of efficiency? Except for perhaps the military, the government is usually always second-class to private organizations or businesses. Examples: DMV, USPS, IRS, and perhaps most important, the Veteran's clinics. If you want to see what public health care would look like in the U.S., look no further. The government of today is bogged down in bureaucracy and red tape, and the private sector is much better equipped to handle the health industry. The government has no motivation to provide the best care at the lowest cost if they are the only game in town. Companies, however, function just the opposite in a free market - the best and cheapest survive. Or that's the idea, anyways, as the recent bailouts seem to show us this no longer applies. But when left in the hands of the private sector, health care actually flourishes. However, all we hear about today is reform and how bad our system is. But why?

Well, the answer is simple - THE GOVERNMENT HAS INTERVENED TOO MUCH! Yes, that's right. Those who call for public health care have completely ignored the fact that the whole reason why our health care system is in the state it is is for the simple fact that the federal government has imposed so much legislation, intervention, mandates, etc. that the free market cannot function properly when it comes to health care. If you look back at the history of health care in the U.S., you will see it used to be the best in the world. It was affordable for almost everyone. What happened? Why did it change? Well, this was before the day of HMOs. HMOs have brought us to where we are by messing with what should be a free market system. Who created these HMOs? Congress, in 1973 (HMO Act of 1973). Which, by the way, they never should have done, because it's UNCONSTITUIONAL!

But even if we ignore the unconstitutionality of a national, federal, public health care system, and ignore how awful the health care would be, and ignore everything else, there is still one point that comes screaming back - the cost. The fact is, the United States is in NO position to pay for health care. We can't even pay for what we have now - our debt is out of control. The programs we do have, such as Social Security and Medicare, are underfunded and near bankruptcy as it is. Yet somehow people think we can afford to provide public health care to everyone. No way, no how. A quote from Ron Paul's book, The Revolution, explains the situation better:

The Revolution said:
David Walker, the comptroller general at the U.S. Government Accountability Office, tells us that Social Security and Medicare are headed for disaster because of demographic trends and rising health care costs. The number of younger taxpayers for each older retiree will continue to decline. The demand for "free" prescription drugs under Medicare will explode. If present trends continue, by 2040 the entire federal budget will be consumed yb Social Security and Medicare.
So, in short, I think public health care is possibly the worst decision we could make. To recap, it does not make sense for the following reasons:
1.)It is currently unconstitutional, unless an amendment is made.
2.)The government is not capable of providing good, quality health care.
3.)Health care in the U.S. was once affordable and excellent. Then the government intervened. Now we have HMOs, which has driven the cost way up. To fix it, people want more government intervention. See the problem?
4.)We cannot afford it.

Hope this helps. thumup:

-Jinjiro
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
the United States Constitution (which our entire government should be based off of)
*aside* I can't stant this argument. If you honestly think that a constitution written over 200 years ago can set a complete precident for the contemporary world, one in which they could have never predicted, then man.. damn.
 

·
Erect member.
Joined
·
2,323 Posts
*aside* I can't stant this argument. If you honestly think that a constitution written over 200 years ago can set a complete precident for the contemporary world, one in which they could have never predicted, then man.. damn.
Mebbe that's why it's amendable? :)
 

·
i play for keeps
Joined
·
7,001 Posts
Dooms,

Make sure you look at arguments FOR state-provided healthcare as well. You have to know those points and how to respond just as much as the points that you'll use to argue against them.

Healthcare works in places like UK, Scandinavia, other places. See why and how it works in those successful places, and youll be able to base a much stronger stance against it.
 

·
i play for keeps
Joined
·
7,001 Posts
It should be read the way it is. It is a document that took over a decade for the states to agree upon how it was written. There was lots of deliberation and back-and-forth, and this was the result. Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers ftw.

Of course, no document is perfect, and it is a living document. There have been dozens of amendments. Though something as foundational as a constitution should not be so dynamic that it is easily changed. The deliberate and extensive process to amend the constitution is meant to weed out the "mob". Meaning people change sentiments so quickly. People are emotional and rash. A document that takes a long time to change becomes more resistant to those rash changes. As a result, only the truly worthy changes are made, and the emotional sentiments and quick-pick changes are left to the wayside, as they should be.

It is the basis for the American government. It grants powers both explicit and open-ended. Some may argue that granting healthcare is something that the Constitution implies or allows, others argue that this oversteps the government's bounds. Both sides have valid points, and because it is a document, it is open to multiple interpretations.

Constitution for life!
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
No, I definitely understand the merits of a constitution, but it must be amendable. I agree, the process ought to be set up in such a way as to check the 'mob', but to argue that since the constitution doesn't say anything about Health Care then the country shouldn't have health care, well that's just stupid. It's pretty crazy that the states doesn't have health care.
 

·
We The People
Joined
·
5,925 Posts
No, I definitely understand the merits of a constitution, but it must be amendable. I agree, the process ought to be set up in such a way as to check the 'mob', but to argue that since the constitution doesn't say anything about Health Care then the country shouldn't have health care, well that's just stupid. It's pretty crazy that the states doesn't have health care.
No, it's not stupid. The whole idea is that if there is a demand for public health care, then an amendment would be made. The argument that the document is too old to be effective is an uneducated one (not trying to attack you personally, Smalls). The more I study the Constitution and the ideas and principles of our Founding Fathers, the more I am simply amazed at how effective the whole system really is. Please realize that what the United States has today is NOTHING like how it's supposed to be. Dhill is right - it took years to create and agree upon, and every little detail was written for a reason.

If politicians actually upheld the Constitution as it was supposed to be, we would not have the problems we have today. The Founding Fathers realized that people disagree, and that to create national laws that affected everyone's personal lives was irrational. If we followed the Constitution, California could allow gay marriage and legalized marijuana, while Texas or Alabama perhaps would not. The states would decide, because people in different places need different things. Laws change based on the people and place. That's why Congress and the Federal government is supposed to be limited in it's powers. And that's why when there IS a demand for a federal law, there is a clear path towards getting the Constitution amended.

People forget that we are NOT a democracy. That word is thrown around so much in the U.S., but it's wrong. A democracy means 51% of the population rules over the other 49% (in a sense, at least - you know what I mean). We're a constitutional republic, which is simply a brilliant solution. Too bad that today this is becoming less and less true.

-Jin
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top