Universal healthcare, unless it is horribly misnamed and has been woefully mis-advertised everywhere, means nobody starves to death and nobody dies of exposure as long as the system is being continued. Telling me that I have to work to live in such a system is self-contradictory.
Ah. Semantics.
Spain has universal health care (you furriners are covered too, if you get sick here), but the guv’mint doesn’t pay for food or housing. Maybe it’s a right-wing plot to keep us working?
Yours is the very first argument against universal healthcare I’ve ever seen that rolls housing and food into the term. When we talk about universal healthcare, we’re talking about medical care: doctors, hospitalization, health coaching for preventative purposes. Nobody who advocates universal healthcare (other than possibly a few fringies) is talking about shelter and food when they reference “universal healthcare”.
You don’t have to work as long as you don’t want to drive, you don’t want decent clothes, you don’t want decent meals (rags will keep you warm as long as you have enough of them and food doesn’t have to taste good to be nutritious), you’re not concerned about what your accommodations are like, you don’t care about all that crap on TV (because you won’t have one), etc. etc. etc.
You’re right, you wouldn’t have to work to live. You would simply join the hundreds of thousands in america who are homeless. I hear it’s really great.
You have to have the right paperwork.
Heck, where oranges grow, the living is easy.
If I spoke fluent Spanish I would be out there now
Ah Derleth, although I wholeheartedly disagree with Universal Healthcare as a concept (because Universal Healthcare is no more a right of the indolent than owning a car), I recognize that your sole point in posting this topic is not to argue your beliefs, but to stir the pot and watch people argue.
How can you provide Universal Healthcare? Seeing a Doctor b/c I have a cold is not a right. It is a service that I should be willing to pay for like cable TV. If I cannot pay for it - then I should tough it out. I realize that this sounds harsh, but our society is over medicated and over treated. It is possible to sustain “life” on respirators way beyond what is reasonable. If there are two people who need to have a transplant and they are in exactly the same critical state and there is only one organ - it is the moral choice for the person who can pay for it to get the new organ. That way whatever systems are in place to help those less fortunate (charity, government, etc) can go farther.
Universal Healthcare assumes a “right” that I disgree with. Healthcare is a wonderful thing, but it is not a “right”.
What is your definition of Universal Healthcare? 
Here in the UK, we have a National Health Service (NHS). This provides medical treatment. It does not provided food, shelter or spending money.
There are charges for prescription drugs, with exemption for categories like the elderly.
There is a parallel private service, with faster treatment times and more options on things like cosmetic surgery.
There is no evidence that anyone uses the NHS to avoid working.
There is evidence that the NHS is very popular indeed (unlike FRDE’s personal anecdote):
‘The Liberal Democrats on Wednesday decided to step aside from a contest in the Midlands in favour of an independent candidate campaigning to save a hospital from closure.’
On the other hand, the above argument could earn you some dough by scaring off crows.
Many countries do.
Is seeing a doctor because you have a cancerous growth a right?
Or if you can’t afford the operation and chemotherapy, presumably you should ‘tough it out’? :rolleyes:
Cite?
It is possible to watch poor people die for lack of treatment. At least it would save you money. :smack:
How about the person who has been waiting longer, or who needs it more urgently? Do you think that is a moral choice?
As for relying on charity, some societies prefer to look after sick people.
All those poor people, demanding healthcare, education and a chance in life. It must make you sick!
Cite.
Well Glee just don’t get sick - and if you do make sure that it is a research oriented ailment.
Possibly the parent of some of your pupils have put you on a white list.
Sounds likely to me.
It used to be that people had the “right” to things expressed as verbs. They had the right to speak freely, worship as they pleased, and get a jury of their peers. They did not have the right to nouns - “living wage”, “welfare”, and “universal healthcare.” I say a little reversion is a good thing.
Let’s ignore your strange definition of “healthcare” and say that the government does indeed cover all the things you want.
You get 100% subsidized housing, food stamps, even a small stipend for clothing and other incidentals. All of this without any strings attached. What have you got?
Well, you’ve got a small apartment likely in a bad part of town. You’ve got all the generic bran food the government thinks you should eat. You’ve got some clothes you’ve got from goodwill. You might have a few bucks in your pocket if you’ve managed to save them.
What do you do with yourself? Walk to the public library? Sit around and contemplate your own idleness? Scrimp your pennies together until you can offered a cheapo brand TV and explore the wonders of broadcast television?
Yeah, that’s a real satisfying lifestyle right there. I find it hard to believe that even if the basics are provided for that people won’t work to get the upgraded model.
Having roads to drive on, police to help protect and serve, a fire department to help in emergencies, a military to help protect national interests, a sewer to carry away poop, etc., are not “rights” either, but there they are.
Perhaps there should be a toll booth every 100 yards on the roads, and the police and fire dept. should charge a user fee. After all, if two people are being robbed and raped in a dark alley, and only one cop to help the victims, it is the moral choice of the person who can pay for it to get that help. Perhaps two people whose homes are on fire should engage in a bidding war to determine which one gets help to extinguish the fire.
I don’t know what the big deal is. We’ve already got this system in place. It’s called prison.
Well, you can keep your cherished right to bear arms. I’ll take my Canadian right to healthcare over gun ownership anyday.
Since when did any sort of health care, universal or otherwise, guarantee survival for all?
As has been pointed out, you can have everything you need provided to you in the USA right now; just have yourself sent to prison. So what’s the motivation to not go to prison? You tell us.
My apologies for what appears to be a totally misplaced statement. It was my assumption that he was going for the “since society provides everything already, where’s my incentive?” angle. Otherwise, asking why you have to work when everything else still costs is a bit of a silly question.