Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

Okay, let's forget everything for a second, and let me ask you this; What are you going to do with 7 billion higher educated people? Where would they work? What would they do?There will NOT be 7 billion higher educated people. Making higher education available to everyone does not mean that everyone will pursue it, and it does not mean that everyone who does pursue it will successfully complete the program.The idea is ridiculous; even amongst those who manage to secure higher education for themselves- whether through a hard-won scholarship or the investment of a lot of capital- there is a certain percentage who drop out. Even amongst those teenagers who are affluent and/or capable of seeking higher education- there is a certain percentage with no interest in such.The very premise you started opposing me on is flawed- this isn't going to eliminate the demographic that is uneducated, and it isn't going to eliminate the unskilled labor pool entirely, either. My suggestions regarding robots and machines were merely to rebut your assertions that we NEED unskilled labor, and that the world would collapse without it. In practice, machinery would likely be looked to as a stopgap measure should the available labor decrease. It will not replace unskilled labor entirely, nor will it need to. Just like your assumptions that the entire world will drop dead of cancer if suddenly free health care isn't available to everyone- free health care ALREADY isn't available to everyone, and the rate of new cancer cases doesn't bear out with your claims even if there was no cancer treatment available.I don't mean to dismiss your concerns out of hand, mind you- but your assumptions are all extreme scenarios that couldn't actually happen in the real world. Really- everyone on the planet, or anywhere close to that, all willingly pursueing and successfully completing higher education? Not a chance.Fair is never equal.You are giving money more value than they actually have. With your argument, you are basically saying those who can't afford medical help shouldn't get it - which will lead to a severe loss of population. What you are doing is giving money more value than human life, and that in itself is stupid.Who says that fair is never equal? I call your scenario unfair.I think you are devalueing the effort and resources invested into medicine. I am not giving money more value than human life- I am making a valid observation that when there is a greater demand for something than there is a supply for it, some will have to go without. It is in the best interest of our species in the long run to preserve those who contribute to the production of resources, as well as their own personal effort, into the economy that sustains the medicine that saves them. If we spare those who are already a drain on our resources while sacrificing those who constribute- the same amount of people die, and the pool of resources and labor stimulating that same economy is reduced. If we're going to consider extreme assumptions (like 7 billion people with university degrees, or 7 billion people simultaneously contracting cancer) then it is entirely fair for me to assume that this model is completely unsustainable and will have an end result of the extinction of our species.People who earn more pay more so the one's who can't don't have to pay as much - that is fair to me, maybe not to you. It is not like these people ''don't bother'' to earn more. Some people can't.Except... some people actually don't bother. The overwhelming majority of individuals on welfare programs in the US are not abusing the system, but the very small minority who are still constitutes hundreds of thousands of people. By expanding mass transit infrastructure and making higher education accessible, we are eliminating most of the group who "can't-" that is, those who are in an area that is already saturated with unskilled labor will be able to either commute to areas where unskilled labor is in higher demand, or will be able to better their position. I've already noted that those who are actually disabled and physically unable to work would be accounted for and covered- the only ones who lose here are the ones who are actually 'not bothering.'We tried the flat tax, and the only thing that would result is the everyone getting less. The rich wouldn't get what they get now, and the poor wouldn't either. Everyone was unhappy with that system.A single trial is insufficient. But fine, maybe bracketed tax groups can work- but I believe that all tax exemptions and deductions should be done away with. Charge the low-income groups a low amount of tax- do not give them exemptions. Charge the middle class a moderate amount of tax- again, no exemptions. And charge the high income groups a higher rate of tax- you know where I'm going with this.Perhaps a large tariff on imports and exports is in order as well, so the affluent can't sidestep taxation entirely by taking their business to a foreign market.I think if you want to make the assumptions and assertions you are regarding the US, you should do some reading up on how our taxation actually works. In practice, the lower class pays nothing, the upper class pays a pittance, and the middle class pays for almost everything. Maybe fair isn't equal, but surely you aren't suggesting that THAT is fair.