Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

If everyone has a higher education, who is going to sit by the cashier? How are you gonna buy your stuff? Who is going to clean the hospitals, schools, shops and other public places? No one would ever get a higher education, and use it to clean.Self checkouts, or completely automated checkouts. These are extremely common- most larger stores these days have self checkouts, and I don't believe any online ordering involves a cashier handling each individual transaction.Cleaning can be performed by machines- and better and more thoroughly than humans can too, I might add.Furthermore, not everyone who is given the opportunity for higher education will pursue it. Not everyone who pursues it will succeed. Making it available to all does not mean losing our pool of unskilled labor.Without the low class jobs, high class people would be pretty annoyed pretty soon.Personal annoyance among the higher class does not constitute a reason to oppress the lower class financially. They should and would get over it.Cleaning hospitals - hospitals need to be carefully sterilized. You need to get into every corner and clean, and I'm pretty sure they use people to ensure this happens.Machines can clean more quickly, efficiently, and thoroughly than humans can. A machine also never forgets to wash its hands, never sneezes, and can clean things that even a full hazmat suit won't protect a human from, as well as survive the decontamination process afterwards.Cab drivers, waitressing, and up in the north you need people to shovel the snow off the roads. Maybe the cashier could be replaced by a robot, but I don't really know how that would work. How could they ensure people just don't run off with their stuff? Dustmen, delivery and mailmen.There are, even now, self-driving cars. Furthermore, sufficient expansion to our mass transit infrastructure could potentially eliminate the need for cabs.Waitresses can be replaced by machines that never mix up your order, never bring it to the wrong table, don't require tipping, and work significantlt faster without ever dropping a tray.Self-driving car tech can be expanded to handle snow clearing, mail delivery, and many other roles as well. And as I noted before, cashiers have already been replaced by self-checkout machines in many places, and by automated applications on websites.In a shop you often need people to guide their costumers - if I am in a shop that sells beauty products, I might have a couple of questions in what to buy. You don't need any education to be in a beauty shop, and a robot won't ask me which color fits me the best.There are many people who pursue this type of thing out of sheer interest. If most cashiers and stockers are replaced by machines, the demand for a human specialist for customer assistance increases- this type of thing could become a real career, rather than a basic job primarily populated by high school students. Instead of many generalists that are comparable to waitresses, a smaller number of specialists comparable to sommelier could be used, and provide better service for the same cost. Also people who work on sea - you need people who are willing to clean and serve food. Here where I come from, you don't need to have any higher education to get a job as a dekchand, for example - deckhands are in every ship, and they can't be replaced by machines.I have years of experience sailing. There is nothing a deckhand does that cannot be replaced by a machine. The other tasks could easily be replaced as well.No - it can, but you can easily become a teacher without a degree in teaching.For example you don't need to have a degree in order to be an art teacher in elementary schools.That depends on the district in question. Many areas require some form of degree to do any teaching at all. Some even require some education for substitute teachers. Other areas are more lax. But even so- there are many people who specifically go to school to become a teacher, so making higher education more accessible would not detract from this.Yes, and that is how it works where I come from - It is illegal to be homeless.So, what? If you don't have a home, you get locked up, deported?I don't have a comment on that, simply because I don't really understand what you're suggesting. You are welcome to explain with words I can understand, if that is even possible.A lack of jobs is, in the United States, a localized phenomenon. There are a number of places where the demand for labor outstrips the supply, and a number of places where the supply outstrips the demand. One of the characteristics of the impoverished is mobility issues- many do not have vehicles, and many of those who do cannot support them. Expanding and subsidizing mass transit allows individuals who live in an area with more supply of labor than demand for it to commute to areas where there is a higher demand for and lower supply of labor. It expands the area within which any given individual can reasonably look for a job. Furthermore, expanding the infrastructure in and of itself creates more job opportunities.I offer myself as a personal example here. I have a commute to work of roughly 40 miles each way that requires driving on a toll road. I spend ~400 USD a month combined on car insurance, gasoline, and tolls for my commute to work- thats without having a car payment. Moving closer to my work would mean moving into a less desirable area with a higher cost of living increase than what I spend on my commute. Furthermore, there are few jobs in my field that are closer to my home, and those that are pay substantially less than those in the city do. My mobility allows me to seek a more competitive rate of pay in an area with higher demand for my services, and puts me in a better position than I would be either living where I am and taking a local job, or moving closer to my current job and paying the cost of living there.I don't think it's a question about whether we're entitled to anything, but .. rather how we can imporve our circumstances. I don't see why a hard working cleaning lady at wallmart is less entitled to health care than a lawyer who sits on his ass everyday - just because the cleaning lady's work is less valued in money, doesn't mean it doesn't have value at all. I bet we would miss them if every single one of them got a higher education.I'm not suggesting that the hard working cleaning lady at walmart is less entitled to health care than a lawyer is. It's the opposite; I am suggesting that a lawyer is no more entitled to health care than the cleaning lady is- that is, neither is entitled to it at all.By the way - what do you think is wrong with a system like the one we use in Denmark?Hard to say- I'm not particularly familiar with Denmarks system, but I am interested. Could you point me at some good resources for it?