16
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: − + + + + + + + + + − Amendment 14 of the US constitution "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." We would benefit better by standing against the government telling us what to do.
Debate:Should Americans be required to buy health insurance? (view source)
Revision as of 13:28, June 6, 2016
, 13:28, June 6, 2016NO: edited second paragraph, added last sentence of the third paragraph, added two more paragraphs
It's unconstitutional to make people buy something. Neither doctors nor hospitals here turn patients away if they lack insurance, and many will treat first, bill later (even if they know you can't pay them).
It's unconstitutional to make people buy something. Neither doctors nor hospitals here turn patients away if they lack insurance, and many will treat first, bill later (even if they know you can't pay them).
Millions of the people without insurance here aren't Americans; they are illegal aliens. And around 10 million Americans are only without insurance because they are between jobs; it takes such a person typically 4 months to get a new job (and with it, [[health insurance]]).
Millions of the people without insurance here aren't Americans; they are illegal aliens. Also in European countries, where there is a government controlled health care system, illegal immigrants and refugees do not have health care as either officially do not exist, or it is not known whether they will remain in the country. These people's status is actually quite comparable to foreign tourists who neither have a health insurance in the United States.
And around 10 million Americans are only without insurance because they are between jobs; it takes such a person typically 4 months to get a new job (and with it, [[health insurance]]).
Amendment 14 of the US constitution "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." We would benefit better by standing against the government telling us what to do. The Democrat government could also have simply founded a health care system for people who could not afford one instead of forcing a large majority of Americans into its health care system.
A government should only intervene in health care issues if charity organisations cannot support the needy anymore and human lives are at risk. Forcing people to support cancer patients and others who live a responsible lifestyle but still cannot afford treatment is obligating people to save a life when they can which is a law in many American states. This is quite different from the liberal government using these issues to control more of its citizen's private space.
Being native to a European country and still living there, I can tell that a government controlled health system reduces self-initiative charity of citizens. More and more people simply consider it the responsibility of "Mother State" to take care of them and their co-citizens. This is not a Biblical way of charity, as citizens are simply paying a "charitable" institution rather than being charitable themselves.
[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]
[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]