Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry  The reason why I have the high ground in this debate at the moment is because I'm refusing to use the extreme worst case scenario as my example. That is what national health care supporters do. I don't believe that such examples should be used to establish public policy because 1. they are not a representative sample and 2. there are better solutions to their problem then billing the public.
***
My bottom line on this issue is this: if your average able-bodied single person is really, truly having such a hard time in life, they should join the military.
***
While I might stop and ask "why didn't Joe average receive basic trade skills in high school", I think that making the argument would to open a whole other can of worms. |
The problem for you is that this "worst case scenario" isn't a "scenario", it is a reality. There are millions of people in this country who work hard and they work full time and they simply cannot afford healthcare. Moreover, by not covering these people we are incurring additional costs in the way of emergency bills, disabilities down the road, and the social expenses of having an entire class of individuals that may miss work, lose jobs, or die because of easily treatable illness. Those consequences further put stress on our country by creating instable communities, families, and workplaces.
These are just the practical reasons for providing healthcare for those Americans that cannot afford it. Most importantly, I think it is the right and moral thing to do. I once believed that healthcare for the needy could be achieved by private charity, but thus far my life experiences have proven that notion entirely false. The only way to provide healtcare for those that cannot afford it regardless of religion, culture, or location is to have a national healthcare plan. It is the right thing to do, we can afford it, and we should do it.