Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

Shops aren't just checkouts - who would put the products on the shelves?More machines. In fact, stores themselves could be redesigned and likely condensed in size if they weren't designed under the premise that humans would have to be involved in every single part of the chain.So what's your point? We should spend 20 years of our life in school, not get a job and no money for health care?My point is to make education accessible to everyone, improve the overall competence of the average american worker, reduce the cost of the average american business with automation, boost our overall GDP, and improve things for everyone. Spending more time in school won't hurt your chances of getting a job- it will either remain neutral or increase. This also has the effect of reducing the costs of health care by automating tasks that were previously performed by individuals.Yeah, I'm sure you're gonna love it when the shelves in your grocery store are empty, because the staff got higher class jobs.I'll like it even better when everything I want is already in stock because purchasing trends are tracked, driverless trucks deliver all of the goods, and the shelves are stocked kept stocked by machines.They are invented, but they are illegal in most places.Also who would bring you the pizza when you want it delivered? Sure the car can drive itself, but can it drive to the door, ring the bell and take the money?Current legality is not a factor here- laws are subject to change, particularly as technology improves.It could do one better- equip the car with a telescoping arm that extends up to my second story window to take the money and then deliver the pizza. Now I dont even need to go down the stairs.Barring that, a simple machine capable of ascending stairs, with a slot for accepting money and a credit card reader would do the trick.No it couldn't. Telling me which mayonaise I should buy could not become a higher education career.Sure it could- you're thinking too narrowly and oversimplifying. Instead of a bunch of teenagers who are just giving you their uninformed opinion regarding grocery store items, suppose instead the store kept a couple nutritionists and graduates of culinary school on hand? Better, more thorough advice.Well, as you said in your orignal argument - health care costs money, which the lady at walmart doesn't get - at least not in the same amounts, which is stupid. You can't say someone is equally entitled to something, but then say they need to have money to get it.Excuse me, but yes I can. I can say two people are equally entitled to something by stating that neither is entitled to it at all- just as I did. Why is either of them entitled to expensive medical treatments without covering the bill for said treatments?I'll have to read up on your link for more info and get back to you- but I can say that due to the distribution of labor, the varied costs of everything, and the sheer number of individuals and corporations involved in any kind of supply chain in the US, that it's not nearly as simple as taking a system that works in another nation and dropping it on us.I still feel that the benefit is greater in making education affordable and accessible than making health care affordable and accessible. Health care benefits people while they are sick- but education benefits people whether they're healthy or sick, and helps but each subsequent generation on better standing. It's a better return on the investment.If I had to pick between subsidizing health care and education, I'd pick education every time. I'll acknowledge that the two are not mutually exclusive, but right now higher education is overpriced in the US, even as compared to health care.I'll edit more later.