Universal healthcare

Sorry for the long wait for my final round, I have caught the cold that has been passing through this area lately and I am not feeling well. So it seems that we agree on some of the things I had previously thought we would automatically disagree with on this issue, given our stances. I will try and isolate here what we still do disagree on. So you are saying that Laisezz-fare will take care of our sick, to be blunt. They have a need, and where there is a need and a dollar, capitalism will find a way to address the need. But what about where there isn't a dollar? You say that all these things - "roof over their heads, food, clothing, electricity, running water, gas, cell phone, microwave oven, transportation" - are taken care of anyway. But there still remains a need for social departments - fire, police, housing, healthcare, government officials. There are many that only have a place to stay due to socialized housing. We could just let these people sleep on the street. Evolution seems to dictate that we do just let the weak die, so the strong survive. But I don't think this is really an option. We should initiate universal healthcare for those of us who are alive, and also enact some population control measures (like China) by the end of the century to stop out-of-control population growth. Those who are not alive yet are going to have to be controlled heavily in the future, so that we can maintain good care of those who are. "our nature... not our obligation". An interesting idea, but I think the policy will have to reflect our nature. Truth is, all we are doing is ruining people's credit histories by leaving big medical charges on their credit reports. They did not make a conscious choice to get sick, and shouldn't have to be penalized for such basic procedures. Furthermore, most people are going to get treated whether they have the money or not, and we are not accomplishing anything by intimidating them away from the hospital. It is "our nature" to eventually take care of them, but this procedure should be streamlined through policy, and these people should not have to trade physical health for financial health. Many of us, including myself, are having to make the choice between going to the hospital and incurring a credit hit when we can't pay for it, or just trying to tough it out without hospital aid. You see, this is exactly the defining attribute of a capitalist vs. socialist argument. You have to decide whethere the said item/service is going to be more efficiently distributed one way or the other. Microwaves would not be more efficient as a socialist item, because they would cost more that way. Healthcare is, because getting people into the hospital more often for trivial visits reduces the huge complicating visits down the line. The fact that people are living longer doesn't affect either of our positions, I hope [unless you are going to argue to have people die sooner to save us money!]. You say you wouldn't let someone die in the street, but your paragraph is a little contradictory, I hope you will admit. You say you wouldn't let someone die in the street, personally, but that society should have the choice to(I gather?). Then you go on to describe a gamble of choosing to buy health insurance vs. not buy it. I don't buy this argument, and this general situation only goes to hurt people, not help them. Furthermore, it is only the bottom-rung of society that has to make this choice, and while I don't have a problem with the super-rich getting super-expensive doctors, I do have a problem with super-poor getting NO doctors. Otherwise, you have a very level-headed view of the situation in general, and you make some good points. Good debate!