Obamacare, Good (pro), Bad (con)

All right, Lets get started. Argument 1 Socialism is actually a very bad system. The seven arguments you gave have no positive affect on our country. Here is a reason why socialism is bad. "An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed. "[1] In a socialistic government no one will try to advance society. Argument 2 You claim that Canada has the greatest health care system in the world but If national health care is such a good thing, why did the Premier for Newfoundland, one of Canada's eastern provinces, abandon his health care system when he had heart surgery? Bob Barr, a former member of the United States House of Representatives states. "The fact that a high-ranking Canadian government leader would forgo receiving medical treatment in his own country and travel instead to the United States to be treated in a health care system that is not yet controlled by the government, has created somewhat of a PR embarrassment for advocates of Canada's government-controlled system. It really shouldn't be an embarrassment; and it certainly shouldn't surprise anyone."[2] Another Canadian primer, Jean-Robert Bourassa, also came to America to have his skin cancer treated. If these high ranking officials can't even trust their own system, why should we adopt it? Also addressing the fact that they have cheaper healthcare is true, but this is bogus? The following evidence shows why. "Pierre Lemieux, an economist at The University of Quebec, wrote in the April 23, 2004 issue of the Wall Street Journal, "The Canadian system is built around a compulsory public insurance regime that provides most medical and hospital services free." Lemieux adds that the system is not, of course, free for the Canadian taxpayer. Twenty-two percent of all taxes raised in Canada are spent on its health care system.[3] Last August, the New England Journal of Medicine reported health care spending absorbs only 10 percent of the Canadian gross domestic product, compared to 14 percent of U.S. GDP. The Journal credited Canada with being more efficient in the application of administrative costs--but the real difference is explained by the fact that U.S. citizens are permitted to pay privately for health care services, while such spending does not take place in Canada. In Canada, it is illegal to seek or convey private medical assistance."[3] Argument 2 The problem with doctors being discouraged and the younger generation is also discouraged is the following question. Where are all the doctors going to come from if no one wants to be one. Also if you look at the evidence I provide you for doctors you can see that Dr. Martha Boone loves to treat people, but she can't do a good job because of Obamacare. Argument 3 You say that a few bad apples won't ruin the rest of the people. But according to my evidence it states that hypochondriacs are increasing the waiting time for others who need the treatment. (I'll address the 46 million uninsured argument later.) Argument 4 There are three things wrong with this argument. First, You are supposed to give a portion of evidence and explain it, you aren't supposed to only give a site for evidence. Second, even if this was acceptable, there are no sources which you clam to have cited. Even if you had evidence to site you can't out number the amount of patients that die as a result of national health care. "There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent " 130,000 " are of patients who were on the LCP."[4] Because of national health care 450,000 people are dying. Argument 5 The so called 46 million uninsured people is an exorbitant number. Michael D. Tanner from the Cato Institute states "A second study, by Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania and Kate Bundorf of Stanford, concluded that nearly three-quarters of the uninsured could afford coverage but chose not to purchase it. And most of the uninsured are young and in good health. According to the CBO, roughly 60 percent are under the age of 35, and fully 86 percent report that they are in good or excellent health." [5] So those who are uninsured are not necessarily people who need insurance and cant get it. [1]http://www.freerepublic.com... [2]http://blogs.ajc.com... [3]http://news.heartland.org... [4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [5]http://www.cato.org...