Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, Check users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, oversight, protect, ratelimit-exempt, rollback, Administrators
20,462
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 30:
Line 30: − + + + +
Debate:Should Americans be required to buy health insurance? (view source)
Revision as of 16:12, June 6, 2016
, 16:12, June 6, 2016→NO: my two cents
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.
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.
A government should only intervene in health care issues if charity organizations 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.
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.
Forced "insurance" causes many complications, and eventually it is very likely that a "new, efficient" single-payer system will be introduced. This is also know as socialized medicine, which has proven to cause poor healthcare with tremendous wait times, often resulting in death of individuals waiting for an often simple treatment. This will also often lead to healthcare rationing and even what have been referred to as "[[Death panel]]s" which would decide who can receive care and who cannot.
Many of the uninsured people do not need insurance, as they are healthy young individuals. While portrayed as poor, neglected people, they often are saving incredible amounts of money by not wasting it on insurance they wouldn't use.<ref>https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/04/carla-howell/why-we-need-more-uninsuredamericans</ref>
[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]
[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]