Views as expressed in the profile....

.. .. . Yes, while a socialized Healthcare system may cost others money it ensures insurance for everyone, not Just those who can pay. Having health insurance reduces the mortality rates by 10-15%. There are currently around 45.7 million people without Healthcare. If you factor in the reduced Mortality rates you will find that it will cause a massive difference in the U. S. But really what are the negatives? people need to pay a little bit more, but remember these people will also be covered by the government and so will not have to pay for Health Insurance. So it is essentially a Win-Win scenario. Now My opponent is of the belief that this healthcare violates rights of the people paying, Buisnessmen and doctors. Now I do not see how, yes people pay a little extra, but people have to pay taxes, this does not violate rights, how does socialized Healthcare? Now the fact is that under current U. S law, a hospital still has to treat you even if you can't pay or don't have insurance. So under a nationalized Healthcare system these people would be insured which would, in the long run, save hospitals money. how does wanting everyone to have the right to medical treatment deny reality? The thing is that under such a program what would be the risk to insurers? how would it even remotely change to expertise of the hospital staff? What it WOULD do is it would provide health coverage for people who otherwise would not have it. My opponent has given these apparent Horror stories about nationalized healthcare, which are but two examples. In France and the Netherlands the Infant Mortality rate is lower than in the U. S and the Life expectancy Higher. (OECD)(World Health Organization) Also how is the U. S system be any better? The difference in Cancer rates? this is just because the U. S is a leader in Medical technology. The simpel fact is that waiting a month for a doctors visit is better than not getting one at all. The Emergency rooms would still function as normal and the health coverage of those already insured would not change, but it would make sure everyone HAS this coverage. Now my opponent makes a grand statement saying that "Those who can not afford to pay for their own health care should rely on private charity " So we should back off and allow people to give money for healthcare? where has this gotten us? 45.7 million uninsured people? No, we need the government. Then we goes on to talk about the fact we would be stealing from those "deemed productive enough" so now we should decide who gets health, and in the long run, who gets to live based upon how productive they are? So essentially we would be telling these people, many of whom are below the poverty line, that they need to be able to work harder, get more skills or else they can't get medicine? That is a VERY bad way to run society. It infact embodies that almost anarchic idea of "survival of the fittest" Now my opponent makes Nationalized healthcare out to be communism. now as I am sure you all now there is a large difference between the two. We would not force doctors to work in a specific sector, but merely provide everyone with the health they need. Doctors would be paid for their work and patients shall be treated. Lets look again at why Nationalized Healthcare is a good and moral idea. 15.3% of the population is uninsured, or around 45.7 million. On top of this 15 million adults are underinsured. If we ensure them it will reduce mortality rates as well as ensure that everyone has the ability to be treated when in need and are not denied the basic right to life, merely by their economic standing