universal healthcare

First, I'd like to say that there is nothing wrong with supporting the bottom part of America. Universal healthcare is not 'punishing' the rich, it is simply rewarding them slightly less for being successful. Universal healthcare does not even require a heavily-progressive tax system, like we have now. However, any tax system taxes the rich more than the poor. I will attempt to explain why it is justifiable to allow the rich to pay more for universal healthcare than the poor would. ____________ Contention 1: Minimum Standard of Living All publicly provided services, such as public roads or public schools, are in place so that no member of society, no matter how poor, is denied certain services. As we as a society become more and more prosperous, there comes a higher minimum standard of living that we should allow everyone to have. We are simply too prosperous as a nation to require people to have a certain amount of money to get an education. We are simply too prosperous as a nation to require people to have a certain amount of money if they want to travel from place to place on roads. We are simply too prosperous a nation to require people to have a certain amount of money to get the medical attention they need. Anything implemented like this does put an uneven burden on the rich. This is a necessity based on the issue it is trying to address. ____________ Contention 2: Supporting the Poor The poor, if left to fend completely for themselves, will often not do so well. As a whole, this hurts our nation, lowering our productivity and standing in the global market. Public schooling, for instance, helps our nation immensely: so many people who would otherwise not be able to afford an education are able to get an education and be much more productive members of society. An uneducated worker is not a good worker (this is not true for a few job markets, where unskilled labor works fine). In the same light, an unhealthy worker is not a good worker (this is true for all job markets). Ratehr than trapping our poorest members in a cycle of poverty, universal healthcare would allow them to be as productive as they can, and they would therefore be much more able to support themselves and their families. America prospers as a whole when all our workers are prosperous. Thus, even the rich would eventually be better off because of universal healthcare. ____________ Contention 3: Magnanimosity 'Tis selfishness for the rich to only look out for their own interests. In order that we all prosper as a collective, the strong must be magnanimous to the weak; the rich must be magnanimous to the poor. I realize that the virtue of it no longer exists if it is forced by a tax, but I am not arguing that they should be magnanimous because it's virtuous. They should be magnanimous because the collective must look out for all its members' needs. It is the government's job to protect its citizens and insure their well being, and if that means making the rich pay more than the poor for the same service so that all might have it, then so be it. ____________ I have provided a few threads of reason for why universal healthcare is a good idea, despite the inherently higher burden on the rich. That'll be all for round 1, good luck to my opponent and may this be a good debate.