What then? I’ll stay away from those countries. That’s what. 
And there you go! That’s another right of your’s.
Both, please. But only in America.
I favor both UHC and gun control, but as only the former is realistically achievable in the US in my lifetime, and benefits more people, I’d favor a candidate for UHC.
[QUOTE=
I have a right to be as healthy as I want, but I do not have a right to free (government-provided) medical care.[/QUOTE]
Utter friggin’ nonsense. If you were just half as clever as you seem to think, then maybe you would be able to discern the difference between “free” health care and universal coverage, available to all.
It’s not “government provided” health care and it’s not “free”, it simple means that all share the cost and all have access. There would still be ‘for profit’ providers and insurers, there would still be market competition and there would still be consumer choice. At least find out some details before you decide to condemn an idea.
Not nonsense. Perhaps Crafter_Man should have said Government mandated health care. If this ‘share the cost’ ‘all access’ idea is so great, why aren’t private companies already doing it? As it is, the Government mandates that you cannot be turned away from emergency rooms, with the cost borne by taxpayers and health insurance ratepayers. Why not expand this to cover all health care? Because it’s a bad idea that no taxpayer or ratepayer is going to do voluntarily, only through extortive taxes and threat of incarceration for non-compliance.
I’ll vote for the Republican, to keep Democrats from making me pay for other’s health care at gunpoint.
Republicans are strong on 2nd Amendment rights in case it becomes necessary to go out and shoot Democrats. It happened in the 1860s, and could happen again.
–P.J. O’Rourke said it first.
In this scenario I’d vote for the Republican, no question at all. RTKBA is a sacred right , UHC is a disaster that many are attempting to force down our throats. It’s an easy choice, I can’t imagine anyone choosing otherwise.
The problem with government-run health care is that it used the police power of government to force people like me to pay the health care bills of others. What right does the government have to take my property at gunpoint and give it to someone else for their own benefit? Sounds like socialism to me. I hate socialism. Socialism sucks.
I heistate to play Junior Modman, but I was just asking opinions; not looking for debates (as there are current threads in GD).
I wonder if I should have asked the OP differently? For example, ‘If you are pro-gun control, would you drop that part of your platform in order to get UHC?’ Or: ‘If you are against UHC, would you drop your opposition in order to guarantee gun rights?’
All taxation is at gunpoint. But what makes healthcare such a special thing that it is henious for the government to run it? After all, we already take for granted that children 6-18 get free government funded education. We all get free highways and roads. We pay for an extremly beefed up military (in comparison with the rest of the world, our per capita military spending is through the roof). What, specifically, is so evil about using tax dollars to help sick people?
You can’t drive on sick people, or drop them on cities. Oh, wait…
Someone like George W. Bush appointing the head of the department using those tax dollars and setting policy on how to help sick people.
It’s goes way beyond the mandate of the constitution. Yes, so much has, but at some point I say ‘no more’.
How about ‘All employment shall be overseen by the Federal government’
What’s so bad about helping poor people find jobs?
How about ‘All housing shall be overseen by the federal government’
What’s so bad about helping poor people find housing?
Sorry, Johnny L.A. , to sum up and say no more, I wouldn’t trade the 2nd Amendment for UHC.
I’m continually bemused by “fiscal conservatives” who oppose universal health care as a waste of tax dollars. What do these folks think happens when those who can’t afford health care when younger end up having chronic problems later on? That’s right, since we don’t marginalize our citizens, they become giant burdens to the taxpayer in the form of medicare and other social care programs. Perhaps preventive care when younger would forestall a lot of the diabetes, emphyzema, heart disease, etc. until much later, and allow our older folk to enjoy later life instead of suffering through it. But the long view has never been a strong suit of the right.
Easy choice for me, I would never vote Republican.
Where are these “free” roads that you speak of. 95 cents per gallon of gasoline I purchase pays for roads. I pay an addditional $310 a year as part of my property taxes to pay for roads. About half of the fee to license my vehicles goes to roads. Part of the sales tax I pay when I buy stuff goes to roads. I would hardly call that free.
That’s not the argument. That has never been the argument. The argument is that government cannot administer things as well as the private sector. In most cases that is in fact the case, but for health care something went screwy. I do not believe that government can administer health care efficiently, but I do believe that they can provide an adequate amount of care at a lower price than our current mess. It’s a trade-off. Quality of care will probably drop a measurable amount, but it will be more available. I can live with that.
Then we should do away with Medicaid and Medicare.
Call me crazy, but I would much rather live in a free country where I might starve, become homeless, or die without medical care than live in a socialistic country where all my needs are taken care of courtesy of government-sponsored theft.
This country was based on freedom - freedom from government. Just as each person should be responsible for their own food, clothing, and housing, each should be responsible for their own health care. I understand taxation for *general * needs (e.g. the building of roads), but IMO it is immoral to use the police power of government to force people - at gunpoint - to give their property to someone else for their own, *specific * needs.
The distinction isn’t that clear to me. I think of RTKBA as preventive health care.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
Please don’t shoot me-I can’t afford medical insurance.
See what happens when we digress from the OP?
I’m outta here. 