Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc.

Fact: Thousands of working Americans lose their health insurance every day. Fact: Millions of insured Americans are one illness away from bankruptcy. Fact: Health care costs are spiraling out of control [1]. And here are some more facts for you: Despite popular belief, most doctors (nearly 60 percent) support UHC (Universal Health Care). In addition, 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine specialists, 65 percent of pediatricians, 64 percent of internists, 60 percent of family physicians and 55 percent of general surgeons favor a national health insurance plan [2]. These are bright individuals who work with patients every day, and know that for people without health insurance, their options are very limited -- they either choose to spend ALL of their income for whatever procedure/examination/medicine they need... thus bankrupting them entirely, which is not only bad for the individual, but for the entire state as well - OR - they just ignore their health problems which is also horrible for the individual as well as detrimental to society at large. Other countries with national health care programs (Britian, France, Canada, etc.) spend LESS on health care than the United States per capita, PLUS they achieve better results for patients [2]! This shows that there is definite need for reform in our country where over 47 million Americans live without health insurance. In that case, it is possible for UHC to be established and to benefit the people in this country in a way that provides better health services for a cheaper cost. Imagine that. Now if people achieved these results -- I'm pretty sure the United States of America is capable of competing with nations like Canada in terms of health care benefits -- remember that those who prefer privatized insurance programs can still go that route if we so choose. The whole "I shouldn't have to pay taxes for a program I don't agree with" argument does not and cannot apply; for instance the U.S. spends 12 BILLION DOLLARS on anti-drug programs that I do not agree with or support, yet I still have to pay taxes that fund these programs, don't I? Further, let's keep in mind that our taxes don't necessarily have to be raised (if so, not by much) if we would only change our priorities in terms of the allocations of funds. For instance, that $12B on anti-drug programs is unnecessary in my opinion. For those that don't agree, consider the fact that we spent upwards of $40 million dollars in terms of investigation on the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals (by the way - we only spent $15 million for the 9/11 Comission to examine the terrorist attacks of 9/11). We also spend 168 million dollars on abstinence-only education! And let's not forget that we spend more than $341 million dollars PER DAY on an incredibly unpopular and unsupported (not to mention uninstigated) war [4]. If only these financial "priorities" changed, we would have A LOT more money to spend on health care. The cost of the war in Iraq alone is infinitely more than the cost of UHC would be for our nation. For these reasons and others, I support universal health care in the United States. I don't think this makes me a "nut" and I believe referring to advocates of this program as such is disrespectful and quite unintelligent, actually, if you really take a look at the facts. So in that case, I believe I have said what I wanted to say so far in R1. I will now respond to each of my opponent's claims from his first argument: "If universal health care crowd were capable of being a little more consistent, they'd be communists." -- Nope. What a blatant exaggeration. I understand this reference was intended for dramatic effect, but it should not be considered relevant at all in terms of this debate unless my opponent elaborates on how the complicated economic system of communism would ensue just from the implementation of universal health care. "Despite the fact that nowhere in our founding documents is health care declared a 'right,' proponents who want to make it a right point to the fact that health care is a human necessity." -- Well, I'm a supporter of UHC but I don't deem it an absolute necessity; I just think it's an important thing to have. Further, nowhere in our founding documents are we given the 'right' to privacy or travel, but these are things we presume to be 'rights' and therefore have firmly established them in precedent and law. There is no reason why we can't do the same with health care. "If the degree of necessity is the criteria for converting a private service into a public entitlement, why isn't universal food, clothing, water, shelter, transportation, etc. on the agenda?" -- Isn't it though? First of all, again, I don't deem health care as much of a 'necessity' as I do food, clothing or shelter. However these are all things that must be provided - by law - say by a parent to a child. Therefore government programs or other amenities have been established to guarantee the basic transaction of these goods, i.e. food stamps or [free] water fountains in public parks. Medicaid is a start, but as we all know, it is severely flawed and nowhere near provides the medical coverage services that advocates of UHC wish to see in this country. Further, it is more likely that someone receive their nourishment needs via government than their health care needs in terms of currently existing programs. "...So many people without health insurance forgo it voluntarily to make room for their car and even cell phone payments." While that may be true for some (very few) people, it's certainly not true for all! I suppose it's easier to assume that this is the case to ease a few consciences about not supporting UHC. However the reality is that there are very poor individuals - who yes, are working - and cannot afford any type of health care, phone (let alone cell phone), transportation, etc. Again I ask that for this misguided argument to stand, my opponent should provide citation of factual evidence proving that this is the case for a majority of circumstances, otherwise this claim should not be considered evidence as part of the debate. ---------------------------- Sources: [1] http://www.amsa.org... [2] http://www.reuters.com... [3] http://www.parade.com... [4] http://www.nationalpriorities.org...