Question: Should a Universal Basic Income be Provided to All?

The United States should not adopt a universal basic income (UBI) for all its citizens. I will present arguments against the implementation of a UBI and address counterarguments. Firstly, a UBI is not financially feasible. According to The New York Times, providing every American with $1,000 a month would cost approximately $3 trillion annually, which is nearly the entire US budget and more than double the discretionary funding. Secondly, a UBI would contribute to a dystopian future. With increased automation, Fox Business predicts that 22.7 million jobs will be lost by 2025, and CNBC states that only with proper adaptability and commitment can the workforce avoid rampant unemployment. A UBI would disincentivize job-seeking, exacerbating unemployment and taking focus and funds away from more effective systems like a jobs guarantee, which costs only $158 billion annually. Furthermore, a UBI would lead to a loss of political rights, as Sapira argues that economic participation is directly correlated with political rights. Societies with state economies that require only a small, fixed number of people to maintain tend to develop autocratic regimes with little concern for citizens' welfare. A UBI is an expensive, frivolous system that would cause job loss and harm our political rights. Now, addressing counterarguments: entrepreneurship would not increase because people would have financial security; a negative income tax could remove financial insecurity and raise entrepreneurial spirit. Education and college attendance would not increase due to a UBI; a negative income tax could accomplish these goals. Lower work hours would not result from a UBI, as the evidence presented was for a negative income tax, not a UBI. Economic inequality would not be reduced by a UBI, as the rich would also receive more money, leaving the gap unchanged. Other systems like a jobs guarantee or negative income tax would better address income inequality. In conclusion, a UBI is flawed, unnecessary, and I urge a vote against it. Sources: 1. NY Times - Porter, Eduardo. "A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty." The New York Times, The New York Times, 31 May 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/business/economy/universal-basic-income-poverty.html? module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Economy&action=keypress"ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article. 2. Fox Business - Lee, Laura. "Automation Is Killing These Jobs

This round calls for conclusions. I have shared the voters with reasons why Welfare should be abolished, and how we should replace it. Con fails to negate my argument. For the most Part, Con agrees with most of the points I was making. Con fails to prove to us that the system doesn't get taken advantage of. Instead, he agreed that it does get taken advantage of and that "The poor steal from the rich". Con simply agrees that the system gets taken advantage of. Con doesn't provide any reliable sources or facts to prove *any* of his points. Instead, all of his arguments are based merely on his opinion. And Pro, I have sucesfully shown how the system gets taken advantage of, why, and how we can solve and replace it! Sorry for keeping this so short, but that really summarizes the debate. Thanks to Con for debating this with me! :)

I have seen the rampant hypocrisy in your argument. I will elaborate on my argument further on, but let me start off by stating that your argument is entirely referrable to Communism, which is a socio-economic ideology that prohibits the ownership of private property. What you say, is that instead of a population forming around the successful, they should instead form around the unsuccessful. Instead of everyone having lots of land and wealth, everyone should lack wealth and land, as to create equality. Communism sets to create synthetic equality by eliminating the need for more, which in turn creates inequality. A Democratic Republic, or anything of the latter, sets to create equal opportunity, rather then equality altogether. If you look at the human population, there is nothing but inequality. Different race, religion, gender, size, strength, intelligence, etc. Instead of creating equality altogether, which you cannot do without a complete racially motivated genocide, you should create equal rights and equal freedoms. By looking at your statement, you should give up your own home, your own computer, and your own belongings, because others lack some thereof. Do you now understand the hypocrisy in your statement? "Most people cannot grow their own food" - this is untrue. Everyone, by definition, has the ability to grow food. They, however, lack the will to do so, because that service is provided for them by people who are entrusted to grow food, and then sell it at a price. This is called a profession, and that profession provides a type of service or a type of product, which in this case, is food. Without private property, which you seek to abolish, we get rid of all industry altogether. We get rid of competition, which gets rid of incentive. When we get rid of incentive, we state that harder or smarter work means you will gain the same amount as one who works poorly. You cannot support a nation in this way. As Winston Churchill stated "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Also, upon analyzing your statement once more, I come to see that you have denied your own claim. At the start you say "Most people cannot grow their own food", and then you begin to say "Everyone can grow their own food." I await your response.

In this debate, I will be arguing that there should be no minimum wage anywhere, but specifically in the United States, with my opponent arguing that there should be one. Although it is not typical here, I would like to try a cross-examination round. Rounds: 1. Acceptance 2. Introduction/argument 3. Cross examination 4. Answer questions 5. Conclusion

Again you say "how can we" as if the lives of all Americans are dependent on welfare. All Americans are not dependent on welfare- only a few are. You also act as if welfare is the only option. The better option would be getting a job. Getting a job will easily pay the few bills a poor person should have. You asked me to give you "One" reason why welfare should be abolished. I have already given you many, I spent a while giving you a full fledged argument. Although it centered upon your central argument, the argument about food- I included many reasons, many more than one in fact. I would make a longer post, but you don't give me much to work with. I work for a while on my responses and you reply with one run on sentence, apparently not giving me the respect to acknowledge my argument. While some of you might not exactly agree with my opinion here in this debate, I trust members of this website will be able to look at both of our arguments objectively and decide who actually won this debate. The person here who took the effort to attempt to make a logical argument, or the one who relied entirely on emotion.

1. The first arguement that id like to take up on this point is that yes medicare does help alot of people, lower income etc this just further fuels my point on point 4 so thank you. The second part is that while yes it does work it is not a universal program it only focuses on a section of the people not everyone. Also as a side note one person cant keep an entire system working and by saying you have a good president still wont solve the problem of having a working program, its just to big of a job. 2. The first point on this flow id like to say feeling good because its one less thing to worry about wont protect the people from the absurd taxing like you proposed in the plan. Also they wont be paying less because as it is now the companies help pay and fund the different insurances. In all a unviersal health care would completely collapse our already fraying economy. 3. So this whole argument contradicts the point of a universal health care, to keep hospitals and doctors still private would not reach the perspective of a universal health care since not everyone is entitled to the same thing. Bringing us back to the heart of capitalism, competition which will be lacking if the plan is implemented. 4. Your still missing the point there are systems like Medicare like you mention that cover people who are in need of it. The reason why I mentioned this is because you could argue that if people wouldn't get attention which i was proving incorrect but since you agree theres no need to argue this any more. 5. Really the points you make here are just not true, when funded by the government like every other program ran by the government the doctors will be told what to do and how to do it. I mentioned India because they have a universal health care system and it is one of the poorest in the world this being the leading reason, doctors don't care as much anymore. 6. No it wouldn't lower because in this new system everyone basically pays the same amount, for people like me I go in once a year for a physical other than that I'm relatively healthy so why should i pay that much more, when other people who choose a unhealthy lifestyle and cost more a year eventually raising prices for me to help take care of the unhealthy person thats why a universal health care system would be bad. 7. While that may be true eventually its the transition that will kill the economy before the cavalry comes. Also look to point 8 on the flow and this ties in with this point in the fact that less doctors would want to do the job so they wouldn't be in such large demand. 8. Again look to point 3 and how this contradicts the point of a universal health care if everything is still privatized. To deny the fact that doctors become doctors because of the fame and status is just ignorant, sure some may not fit the type but the vast majority do. 9. So basically your conceding to the fact that since our health coverage is working why change it so thank you. As another side note any country with a universal health coverage none of them have a good system, just a bare system. Also its not a right its a privilege that you should work hard for not be given to you on a silver spoon. 10. The point to this argument here is that health care in other nations like India, see point 5, because they are so poor and ours is so great changing that would hurt everything in our medical infrastructure and see my other points as to how universal cant be socialized or privatized. It may not be everyone which yeah i suppose i can attest to that but in the status quo nothing is broken when you compare us to every other country, just try and name one with a better health system.

As usual, this argument will begin with me refuting my opponent's opinions.Now. I believe my opponent does not understand some of the various points I am making, due to the nature of some of his "rebuttals". He says all in the course of one sentence that it is true we can pay for universal healthcare, but also says that "we can't afford to pay" for it. My opponent doesn't seem to realize that these are synonymous statements, and he has contradicted himself. If we can pay for universal healthcare, we can by definition afford it. With all due respect, maybe my opponent should review his argument before clarifying what he is trying to say.My opponent's statement that the study by the CEA has hurt my argument is false; even if it has not strengthened my argument, it still has done nothing to disprove it. I do apologize for not looking for the exact wording "universal healthcare" in the article I cited, however the spirit of the statistics remain true (for example, even if the plan proposed by that study was not exactly a universal healthcare plan, it WAS a reform which would help provide coverage to more Americans for a reduced cost, thus slowing the rate of growth of insurance cost, a result that would also be achieved and even amplified by an entirely universal healthcare plan paid for by redistributed taxes. So the increase in GDP and benefit to our economy would theoretically be higher than what was proposed in that plan). I have provided several new sources that all support the statement that Universal Healthcare would benefit our economy (1, 2, 3). Please look them over at your leisure, and do some fact checking before you incorrectly attack the fact that a Universal Healthcare plan would benefit our economy. Furthermore, on the subject of sources, my opponent's only cited sources in his last argument are broken links to a Google search, not actual sources. He also provided Wikipedia as a source for his previous argument (a notoriously unreliable source due to the fact that anyone could edit its information, even my opponent). I neglected bringing this up before for the sake of keeping this debate on topic, and avoiding petty arguments about details, but since my opponent decided to take this debate that direction, I thought I should point it out. Perhaps my opponent should check his own sources more carefully before attacking mine. I would like my opponent to expand on his statement that implementing an effective Universal Healthcare system would be close to impossible in America; so far he has made this accusation many times but never backed it up. Now I will address my opponent's accusations about taxes and the Billionaire class. My opponent bases this entire argument on the assumption that my plan would involve "an extremely strict tax policy" on the wealthy; I challenge my opponent to find a quote in any of my arguments where I propose this plan. Never did I say that the wealthy should be taxed an extreme amount more than they already are. MAYBE they should be taxed a slight bit more, but nothing that would come close to causing this so-called "war" between the upper class and the government in America. About conflict of interests, it would be a simple matter to draft preventative measures into a bill for Universal Healthcare. In the examples my opponent provided in the second round, the bill could include a statement that the government cannot leave an insurance company from being paid, or run the healthcare system for profit. Both of these situations seem like common sense and should be easy to avoid. However, as I said before, this debate is not actually about how Universal Healthcare COULD be implemented, it is about whether or not it SHOULD be. It's in the title. My opponent doesn't seem to understand this, despite being the one who instigated this debate. If we could stay more on topic, this debate might be more productive. When addressing health as more than healthcare, my opponent cites the same CEA study I cited before, just after claiming it was not relevant to this debate. If you are going to ignore my argument that Universal Healthcare would benefit the economy, then you cannot expect me to take your argument seriously after citing the same source. Now, I already said I agreed with my opponent that the government should do more to make our food and environment healthy, and yes, I believe educating the people of America about healthier lifestyles is also beneficial. However, neither of these issues address the topic of Universal Healthcare. Yes, health IS more than just healthcare. But Universal Healthcare is just a subset of that issue. Universal Healthcare IS healthcare, and nothing more: a plan to provide insurance for free or a low price to all Americans. It is not a plan to force Americans to exercise more. This debate is about Universal Healthcare specifically, NOT the whole subject of health. Again, it's in the title. Any plans for cleaning food sources or the environment, and educating the people, would be separate plans that could be used in conjunction with a Universal Healthcare plan, and that is what the CEA study was referring to. They would not actually be part of the plan. So yes, they are irrelevant to this debate. My opponent's next statement, that "whether or not you should do something doesn't just depend on the morality of it and the outcome but also whether or not you can actually do it" is, again, false. In round 2, my opponent used a rather poor example and said "do you think that we should press a button and make all issues be solved? We shouldn't do this." This statement is based around a misused word; my opponent says "shouldn't" when he really means "couldn't". SHOULD we press that button to solve all issues? Absolutely we should! Who wouldn't want to do that? The problem is, we CAN'T. My opponent should review his phrasing on statements like this. He also says, "if you can’t do something then you shouldn't do it." Again, he is confusing himself by misusing "shouldn't". If a loved one is dying but you don't know how to save them, should you still try? Yes! However, using his logic, my opponent would say that you shouldn't. The same applies to this debate. My opponent demands that I propose a fool-proof plan for implementing Universal Healthcare in order for him to admit that it SHOULD be implemented. But I am not a politician. Once again, I'm not here to debate how Universal Healthcare COULD be implemented, but if it SHOULD be. I will say again, it's in the title. If my opponent could stick to the topic of this debate instead of repeatedly straying into the land of legislation, then that would be fantastic and we could reach a more concise conclusion. About healthcare being a right: I am not saying that an actual constitutional amendment should be put in place, but I believe it should be something that everyone has access to, because of how essential it often is. My opponent simply misinterpreted what I said. I look forward to the next round, and I hope we can both continue to enjoy ourselves throughout this debate and reach a civil agreement by the end! (1) http://www.bloomberg.com...(2) http://www.demos.org...(3) https://www.quora.com...

Yes, sure it can provide for those who do not get A+ as a back up, but generally is it still worth the time and money when you can get training and experience at the workforce. " We should also keep in mind that the grades students get in high school is only an initial stage and that things can be very different in College or University, as those who don"t do as well in High school can go on to do much better in college and the A+ students in High school can end up realising that their potential is limited once they are in college or University. So presuming that High School A+ students should have the opportunity to work before the students who are not up to that level, YET, is very unfair." even if it is an initial stage there are all stages anyway, taking college and uni out of the picture can still provide for those who didn't get A grades, it can be an open system. "Yet, is very unfair" If they are somewhat disadvantaged it's alright as there are disadvantages and advantages to certain people anyway like scholarships, uni fees, course prerequisites. " There is a fine line between education and qualification and a University degree is the proof of both. Colleges and Universities will not only deal with the subject you are training for but they will also educate you further on morals and ethics and build you up with discipline and knowledge which High school and jobs alone can"t do. And as for employers, why would they put their effort, time and possibly money to train and qualify employees to work for them, especially while the global economy is becoming increasingly competitive. Wouldn"t they rather have employees with University degrees that show that they are full on ready for work? Some employees maybe willing but most would probably not be so willing." Education and qualification can be gained by the individual and proof of both can be tested when applying for a job. You have no sources or proof that university does educate you further on morals and ethics maybe the workplace does an even better job of that. "discipline and knowledge which high school and jobs alone can't do" still no proof i don't see why paying for a few extra years in a government scheme is any better than the workforce. Many who have dropped out of university or never even attended ended up being successful and somewhat knowledgable and ethical so i'm sorry but being educated and having dignity does not rely on University it can be developed by the individual if he attends or not. Just with the letter 'A' 'a' to 'l' S. Daniel Abraham, billionaire founder of Slim-Fast. Joined the Army at the age of 18 and fought in Europe during World War II. Did not attend college. Roman Abramovich, richest man in Russia, billionaire. Dropped out of college. He studied at the Moscow State Auto Transport Institute before taking a leave of absence from academics to go into business. He later earned a correspondence degree from the Moscow State Law Academy. Abigail Adams, U.S. first lady. Home schooled. Ansel Adams, photographer. Dropped out of high school. Bryan Adams, singer, songwriter. High school dropout. Calpernia Adams, transsexual showgirl. Never attended college. As she noted, "My parents thought that college leads you away from God, so they hadn't saved any money." Sandy Adams, U.S. congressperson. Dropped out of high school at the age of 17 to join the Air Force. Later got her GED and attended the police academy before being hired as a deputy sheriff. William Adams, aka Will.i.am, singer, songwriter, music producer, founder of the Black Eyed Peas, actor, entrepreneur. He formed his first group in high school. Never attended college. Gautam Adani, commodities billionaire from India. Dropped out of college. Adele, aka Adele Laurie Blue Adkins, singer and songwriter. Intended to go to college but got signed to a recording deal just after her high school graduation. Sheldon Adelson, billionaire casino owner. Dropped out of City College of New York to become a court reporter. He made his first fortune doing trade shows. Trace Adkins, country music singer and songwriter, actor. Studied at Louisiana Tech University but never officially graduated. Went to work on an oil rig instead. Mortimer Adler, author, educator, editor. Left high school at the age of 15 to work. Later received his high school equivalency degree and attended Columbia University. Ferran Adria, chef. Has been called the world's greatest chef. Did not finish high school. Miguel Adrover, fashion designer. High school dropout. Ben Affleck, actor, screenwriter. Left the University of Vermont after one semester; then dropped out of Occidental College to pursue acting. Andre Agassi, tennis player, winner of 8 Grand Slam titles. Quit school in the ninth grade and turned tennis pro at the age of 16. His father would drive the kids to school but, instead, actually took them to local tennis courts to practice. Dianna Agron, singer, dancer, actress. "I didn't take the typical path and go to college after high school. Instead, I saved up money from teaching dance classes and moved to L.A." Christina Aguilera, singer, songwriter. Never finished high school. Danny Aiello, actor. Dropped out of high school at the age of 16 to join the army. Later received a high school equivalency degree. Troy Aikman, Superbowl-winning football quarterback, TV sports commentator. In 2009, he finally graduated from UCLA, 20 years after leaving college to play in the National Football League. Aikman had promised his mother, when he left school just two courses shy of a degree, that he would return and finish. In 2009, at the age of 42, he finally fulfilled that commitment, earning A's in his last two courses, thus earning a bachelor's degree in sociology. Malin Akerman, model, actress. Enrolled in York University (Toronto) but left after about a year to see what else was out there. She moved to Los Angeles to become an actress. Dennis Albaugh, billionaire founder of pesticide company Albaugh Inc. Earned a 2-year agriculture business degree from Des Moines Community College. Did not continue on to a 4-year degree. Edward Albee, playwright. Dropped out of Trinity College after three semesters. Jack Albertson, Oscar-winning actor. High school dropout. http://sharevdo.com... - and those who not only never dropped out but never attended, incredible While it can be useful to many my point is that it shouldn't be 'necessary' that's the point of the argument In reply to your last few points, it may be the government's interest to educate and build a strong nation but that's the whole trap you just said it. Trying to pay off a loan for a few years sounds like a farmer, farm animal situation. We are slaves into make a "stronger nation" i think we deserve more liberty and the government should be using taxes more wisely. "where there is an assurance that learning is taking place" you can't assure that, i see more people enjoying online ways of learning like khan academy rather than the classroom, and i already stated that the sense of 'community' can be formed online but that alone shouldn't require that much money "-Because an exam for a job only limits your knowledge to that one profession and does not show that you are educated, may show that you are qualified, but not educated. Whereas a degree shows a wider range of skills and knowledge." how so? you didn't justify, a degree doesn't show someone's overall educational status either it just limits the knowledge to the one degree like you stated. Yeah social democracy is the increase of liberty for the nation and looks like the best step to take in regards to 'indirect slavery' as I like to call it

"Is this what I am to assume Republicans mean by universal healthcare ruining our great healthcare system?" This type of statement on the part of Republicans is pure rhetoric. You are right in contesting that the "greatest healthcare system" in the world is of little use if few have access to it. "I would hope that anyone would put basic healthcare ahead of most other things... how about ditching some of those useless liberal policies you were talking about?" I wish I was talking about trivial liberal policies that we could cut out in order to save a few bucks. But I'm talking about massive government intervention that has required healthcare providers (along with drug companies, supply manufacturers and equipment manufacturers)to spend billions to conform to government standards. It's impossible to accommodate champagne taste on a beer budget. "You know those wars we are fighting, against the Islamists and the potheads? I bet we could save a lot of money by cutting THOSE programs to help save the lives of our citizens!" You're preaching to the choir on this one. But I believe any savings realized by reducing our military ventures should go right back into the pockets of American tax payers, and not toward artificially inflated healthcare costs resulting from government interference in the free market. "And you said the liberal policies were ridiculous! Handsoff, you kidder! You knew all along that these twisted neoconservative policies are REALLY the ones crippling us financially and ethically!" Any spending (and resulting taxation) on the part of the federal government which is not absolutely required to defend just the most basic rights of its citizens is superfluous, wasteful and unjust. This includes entitlements to the undeserving, pet projects for state representatives, and unnecessary wars. I have a problem with wasteful spending, period-- regardless of which party is responsible. Your round 2 question: "Do we let the person bleed to death on the sidewalk?" This is definitely an emotional gambit, but I certainly would not let someone bleed to death on the street. Is someone who has not paid for medical insurance entitled to not bleed to death on the street? I'd say no. He has put himself at the mercy of others by opting to pass on health insurance. He is fortunate that society will find a way to take care of him. That is our nature, but it is not our obligation. "I see your point about government and healthcare - a more capitalist system would have allowed lower costs, and we could hypothetically not be in this mess... I could possibly consider going along with this" I'm glad you understand where I am coming from. I can definitely see your point as well. I want you to consider one thing: almost every product and service available in this country (via free enterprise) has been made available (at some level) to most people, regardless of economic status. I don't know many welfare recipients (much less working people) who do not have a roof over their heads, food, clothing, electricity, running water, gas, cell phone, microwave oven, transportation, etc. You can thank the free market for that. When the free market senses a need, products and services are immediately developed to accommodate that need, and at a price to satisfy almost every budget. Yes, quality is sacrificed in many cases. But the overall need is typically met. The same could happen with healthcare. There is currently a HUGE need or affordable healthcare, and entrepreneurs are chomping at the bit to get rich meeting that need. Unfortunately, government interference in the free market has made it implausible and unprofitable at this time.

I didn't say it would have to be abusive and/or grossly underpaid labor. If the worker doesn't like it, they can leave. But if they can't do anything else, they can keep the job. Oh, and the welfare, what I meant was people sitting on their a**es watching TV all day, not working and being paid for doing it. We can't afford it. You have to earn your own money.

Okay, I accept your challenge. I do have a problem though, I am for revamping welfare in a way that it wouldn't cost the government any money, I am not for abolishing it completely. Nothing should be given away for free, doesn't matter if you have children and need food. My safety net would be a compulsory factory service for financial assistance if you're looking for a job. The work would be available nationwide, giving families the ability to stay upright while at the same time discourages dependence based on the hard work for minuscule pay. It can work around your schedule, especially if you have college work. Children would be allowed to work in non-hazardous jobs there is they so wish, teaching them independence if they have parents that shouldn't even be parents. So the result is a higher GDP, more productive population, a surplus from the welfare programs, a system that could show some children the quality of hard working independence, and an effective safety net. The products made in the factory would be sold/used based on what was made, though I would primarily hope to sell them abroad. Also welfare is not only for parents, in some states, like Connecticut, medicaid is for all adults. http://www.ct.gov...


Question: Should a Universal Basic Income be Provided to All?

The concept of a basic income tax should be eliminated. Eliminating income tax can boost individual motivation to work, as people would retain more of their earnings. This could potentially lead to a more productive society, as individuals would have the incentive to work harder and longer, knowing that they would not be heavily taxed on their earnings.

Since my opponent does not define Universal Health Care, I will do so now. Universal Health Care refers to a government run single-payer public health care system. Since this does not actually cover the UK- which my opponent references multiple times, we'll agree for argument's sake that countries with health care systems largely run by the government are close enough for comparison. My opponent makes 3 main points against universal health care which I will refute in turn. 1) My opponent asserts that universal health care is a poor financial choice He opens his argument by throwing a lot of figures out, but doesn't attempt to give context to these figures or tell us what they mean. Unfortunately for him these numbers, almost without exception, are actually fine reasons to implement a universal health care system. As my opponent stated, the US health care system constitutes 17% of GDP- largest percentage in the world- and is considered one of the worst systems among industrialized countries(1)(2). Clearly, what we're doing is not the answer. A universal system would lower costs through a single payer system(3), it would remove the element of high "administrative" costs from insurance companies (which are enormous by international standards) (4), and lower medical costs overall by giving access to preventative care to those that could not normally afford it(5). In fact it is estimated that we could lower the health care costs from the private sector by as much as five times what they are now(4)(6). My opponent makes the assertion that it's the poor's fault that they're poor and that poor and undocumented immigrants don't deserve medical treatment. This is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever seen followed by one of the most callus, but it's a moot point. My opponent doesn't want universal health care because he doesn't want to pay for these people to have medical care, but we already do. In fact, we also pay for the financially stable people my opponent mentioned who are too short sighted to pay for health insurance as well as those that get the "wrong" insurance and don't have necessary procedures covered. As my opponent stated, we don' turn anyone away who needs emergency care- if they're uninsured and can't pay, the hospitals have to cover the costs with other patients and this is reflected in costs of care and insurance premiums for us and our employers (in the area of 1100 annually)(6)(7). The assertion by my opponent that people without insurance simply "rather pay cash" is unsupported and baseless. With universal health care it would create a fair method of payment for all citizens- stopping those who simply don't pay their bills or try to "game the system" (jumping in and out of insurance as needed) from having a financial advantage over those who follow the rules. My opponent finishes his argument by stating that ". .. socialist style health care has been a complete failure everywhere. .. " which is unsupported and blatantly false. Universal health care is utilized in many countries around the world, often with enormous success. In fact, it's been in Germany for over 100 years (8). Even in the UK where the health care system is in trouble, people are clamoring to avoid going to a "US style" health care system (9). 2) My opponent asserts that universal health care would reduce the quality of care. His main evidence is accounts of the UK health care system. While this evidence is largely anecdotal, I do not dispute that the UK system has many problems. However, to assume that the UK problems are due to the universal system is a logical (inductive) fallacy. Wait times are a concern to many opponents and, honestly, supporters of universal health care. This misconception stems from a belief that the US has good wait times- which isn't entirely true. While the US does well with elective surgery and specialist appointments, it is among the worst with appointments with GPs and after hours care(10). Canada and the UK generally don't have very good wait times (though in many fields, still better than the US[10]) but these are not prime examples (although Canada has a quality system, it is not among the better universal systems), and many countries have better wait times with similar systems. Countries with universal and near universal systems like Japan, Germany and Switzerland all have wait times far better than the US almost across the board(9). Another common misconception about universal health care is that the quality of treatment would go down as a result of implementing the system. The fact is that countries with universal systems have longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality rates than the US. Preventative care is much more prevalent in systems that are more concerned with health than money, because there is more profit in providing treatment than providing prevention(4). The idea that universal health care would stop competition makes no sense, because universal care does not automatically make hospitals and doctors' offices government run facilities. The level of competition would not change at all unless a single price was established across the board for procedures- in which case hospitals and doctors would still compete for business. 3) Possibly the most baffling argument against Universal health care is that people would lose control over their care. In fact, you would have much more control over your health care because you would not be hit with "out of network" fees when you went to certain doctors, hospitals or specialists. The only freedom you lose with a universal system is the opportunity to roll the dice and have other people pay for it if your gamble does not pay off (7). Aside from a blanket statement from heritage house, a self styled conservative analyst, my opponent offers no evidence of loss of control. As for the death panel nonsense, this is a complete myth meant simply to raise an uninformed stink about health care reform. I'm out of characters, but I'll try to get to it next round. Until then: (SEE VIDEO) . http://www.youtube.com... And that's why people make fun of Sarah Palin. Even a casual glance at the state of the US's health care system shows that it's not working. The United States is one of the most capitalistic countries in the world, and it's largely worked for us. However, capitalism as a rule values nothing higher than profit, so when it comes to an industry where something more important is at stake, like human lives, letting the market sort things out isn't the best course of action. Through Universal health care we could lower the total percentage of GDP used on health care- improving the health care system and quality of care while lessening the financial burden of the lower and middle class and not affecting the wealthy significantly. It is simply a system that- if implemented correctly- makes a lot of sense, it isn't just a load of empathetic hooey from those damn liberals. (1). http://www.huppi.com... (2). http://www.visualeconomics.com... (3)NPR's oxford style debate (4). http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com... (5). http://www.dhs.state.or.us... (6) . http://content.healthaffairs.org... (7) . http://www.time.com... (8) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (9) Frontline: Sick Around the World (10) . http://getbetterhealth.com...

Once again, bigwigs messed up the system. If you believe our government does not do the same, you are mistaken. So you should just admit that, if no one is hurt or excessively hungry, it is good. Enjoy your day.

I affirm. DEFINITIONS Universal health care (UHC) – Healthcare for everyone. Should – Morally obliged to (do action X) Support – participate in, believe in. OBSERVATIONS 1) No specification of locality: The significance of this is that we are not talking about specifically in the US, in Zimbabwe, in Mongolia, but as a general concept. 2) No specification of time: This means we can go to any era in this debate, as long as the idea of UHC existed during that time. 3) Nothing is mentioned about implementation: Therefore, we aren't talking about any consequences that actually arise out of a specific UHC system. If we talk about a problems that, say, X country's Y aspect of its UHC system is faulty, then we're no longer talking about UHC as a whole, but rather, nitpicking at nontopical issues. 4) The definition of support does not necessarily mean that a supporter must be registered to some sort of organization legally, nor does it mean that a supporter must be an activist. For example, let's say a person likes the idea of small government. However, just because he supports something similar to libertarianism does not mean that he has to be registered with the Libertarian Party, nor does it mean he has to participate in libertarian activities, nor does it mean he IS a libertarian, nor does it mean he needs to speak about his opinion at all. All it says is that he supports the idea. It's just the same with this topic: all this resolution is asking whether or not we should believe in the idea of universal healthcare; not that we should go out and protest for it. Value: morality Morality is defined as "the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct" by dictionary.com. The question the topic poses is a completely moral one: when we look to the purpose of health care, to actually care for health, things like economics just fall away. Is it right, or is it wrong to support UHC? But morality is too broad, so we'll narrow it down by looking at whoever achieves the value criterion the best… Value Criterion: benevolence What defines right and wrong; what defines good and bad, is if it helps other people. If you use your toaster to make breakfast, that's not really moral or immoral. The only place where morality comes in is when we have interactions with each other. Dictionary.com defines benevolence as "desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness", and since we are not looking to the implementation or real world effects of any specific UHC system, a good intent is all one needs to achieve what is right. My sole contention is that supporting a universal health care system encourages the concept of helping others. Using an example of a society today that does not have universal healthcare, the United States leaves the healthcare of its citizens to the "private sector". Corporations then are free to provide and deny insurance to people at will, and the people are given the idea that everyone really is out for themselves. However, by supporting a universal health care system, it enforces the exact opposite idea; that we can help each other instead of just looking out for ourselves and maybe our families. We no longer live in Hobbes's ‘State of Nature', yet today many Americans still act as if we are in an ‘every man for himself' world. It, simply put, is not. Former president John F Kennedy once said, "The links first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure." This idea that we live in a global community was not in JFK's mind alone: It has been repeated to us by many of our greatest leaders, over and over again. Yet too many people still continue to believe that everything is a war, and when one man wins, another man loses. That's not how it works with healthcare. Just because one citizen is granted insurance doesn't mean that a certain number of others need to be denied that same access. That whole mindset can be changed for the better by supporting universal health care. Universal health care supports a point of view in which we can and do help each other – something that would let us all do more of what's right.

'It could work two ways: everyone becomes rich, or everyone becomes poor.'The problem with this idea is that this is not what communism is about, people would not be either rich or poor. If we eliminate the idea of wealth, we simultaneously eliminate the idea of both wealth-y, and wealth-less. If we also additionally remove the state, then there is no class, everyone is on a equal playing field. 'As history has repeatedly demonstrated, the latter almost always wins out.'I am curious as to know what history you are referring to, since the basic idea of communism has never been truly been tested. If you are referring to the USSR, the DPRK, the PRC, or any other country that uses an offshoot of Leninism, then your argument is null and void. Leninism does not subscribe to the definition of communism as I have stated, since it involves the idea of a state, let alone a socialist state, being formed for the people to adjust to, then having it magically decay into a stateless society.'In communism, nobody has more than each other, whether or not they worked or they were lazy.'This isn't true, in actual communism, the point isn't that everyone cannot have more than the other, it is that everyone inside of a commune has all rights to everything produced inside of the producers of the commune. As I stated, people would go into a warehouse, and distribute to themselves what they need, and later when there is a surplus of goods, what they want. Now, you may argue that someone will take more than they need, when there is a scarce amount of goods in the warehouse. This is illogical, since this person is effectively committing associatorial suicide. It will effectively dismantle this persons credibility, therefore people will not wish to associate with them since they were greedy.To answer the laziness argument, this would affect a persons credibility as well. The point of working in a communist society is to pursue your ambitions, however, you would need to organize horizontally with others to achieve your goals. Since association is a must in communism, those who are lazy can be denied association from those who do not wish to work with them due to their reputation. Therefore, laziness would be seen as something that can ruin you, so it would be undesirable to be lazy.'It simply wouldn't fit the definition of humanitarianism, which is supposed to provide welfare for the people, not poverty.'The definition of humanitarian[1]:Humanitarian: having concern for or helping to improve the welfare and happiness of people.If we view the idea of welfare as being able to supply good fortune, health, happiness, and prosperity, then Communism as described will ensure this, the rich would not become impoverished by the implementation of Communism. The only thing that would be taken away would be their indivual ownership of collective property. Their survival, liberties, and personal property will still be ensured. In fact, they would be able to pursue whatever they wished to pursue, the only thing that would change is that the poor are on an equal playing field, since there is no such thing as money. This would actually stop the conflict between the rich and the poor, since the exsistence of a class struggle has been demolished through the abolition of all forms of vertical organization. Thereby instilling an order amongst the populace. Since there is no strife, then there must be peace, if this peace stays, then the opposing factions repsect each other, if they respect each other, a sense of equality will ensue, since there is a sense of equality, there is no class, and since communism can provide these people with the means of their survival, liberty, and happiness, then it can improve the welfare of the people. Therefore, it is humanitarian.Sources:- http://dictionary.reference.com...

I like money, don"t get me wrong here, I do not love money, I need money, money is important, but only because people are important, and people need money. Anyway, when you are working for 1$ a hour in 1944, you are earning 24$ a hour, which is a living wage, but then Lyndon B Johnson passes the Coinage Act of 1964, which doubles inflation, so now you are working for that same dollar an hour in 1968, but that dollar is now worth 10.10$. Then Richard Nixon passes the "Economic Recovery Act of 1970" even though our economy does not need to recover because there is nothing for it to recover from, then you are working for 3.35$ a hour, it stays there until the 1990"s, now your Federal Minimum Wage is raised to 7.25$, but there is a problem, that is not enough to support your family, so then you would have to apply for welfare which is funded partially by your tax dollars, and the rest by the big boss man whose money is earned by you, so let me get this straight, you slave for 8 hours a day, and get a sliver of the money you produced, then you have to APPLY for another sliver of what is rightfully yours, and you get hated on for it . I am no communist, I am a strictly free market capitalist, and this is why I hate this issue. According to Thomas Pains "Common Sense": "The works of his hands we may consider rightfully his", so why are these guys slaving for a big fat boss man, 8 hours a day for not enough to live off of? And why is this boss man getting his pockets stuffed because you are slaving away for 8 hours a day? I swear, if Adam Smith saw how our money system works today he would have had a heart attack and died. Now let"s get this thing cleared up ok, just because Karl Marx agreed with this being a significant issue does not mean I am a Marxist, for example; me and Karl Marx can both agree that the sky is blue, but that hardly means that I am a communist. This issue is fairly simple, it"s just about as simple and obvious as the sky is blue, it just so happens to be that Karl Marx used this issue top reinforce his idea of communism. So here"s my solution: Free Trade, just return to free trade. I cannot understand how any capitalist can call himself a capitalist, when he didn"t even read "The Wealth of Nations", it would be like a person calling himself a Christian even though he never opened the bible in his life. Smith"s book, his thesis statement, is that the common man is more than capable of choosing the price for his goods and services, and yet we establish the Federal Reserve. I want you to just consider this, a popular myth is that the Federal Reserve lowers inflation, how is the Federal Reserve any more capable of giving the same commands than congress? A congressman is just as capable of saying "Tighten Monetary policy" or "Loosen monetary policy" as a Federal Reserve chairman. So let"s get this straight, we think that the Federal Reserve Board of Governors is superior in decision making than us, and that we are incapable of deciding for ourselves, and we are supposed to call ourselves capitalists?!? Adam Smith supported free trade, this is the core of capitalism, that all men are created equal, and that the common man is capable of choosing his own trade, his own prices. That every human ought to have an equal shot at life. Our system is no capitalist system, our current system is a hybrid between communism and feudalism, in no way are we capitalists

I'm really unsure where to begin in this round because Con stated his argument in R1. So I will begin by refuting his argument now, then by defending my argument. Con states "Getting Rid of welfare would help very few, but it would harm many. Who would you be trying to help by not having welfare?" Here, con agrees that abolishing of welfare would do some people good. He did not negate my topic, but agreed to it. Con then says it would harm many, yet he doesn't provide any proof for such a statement. Con says "Who would you be trying to help by not having welfare?"Taxpayers. They wont need to pay for people who misuse it, or don't put it in use for what its actually provided for. Con states "Do you believe that it would help people on welfare find the motivation to find work? Study s show that an average person in the USA if missing two pay checks could be homeless." It's obvious for any family. If they have one less income, it's possible for anyone to become homeless. Not only those who depend on welfare. Con goes on to say that 'This welfare helps the sick and keeps people from being so desperate that they kidnap the rich like they do in other countries with a large gap between the billionaires and the incredibly desperate." Con believes that welfare is provided for criminals because they steal from the rich. Does this mean we still provide them with money? Defending my case; "What would happen to the poor if welfare was eliminated? What would happen is a small percentage of them would find employment with no Medicare and most likely not making enough to support a family. We are also living in a technilogical revolution which is making it so machines can do allot of factory work that has employed people for generation, other job such as ones provided by GM motors, the biggest USA employer in until the 1980s, have outsauced dew to globalisation. " It's not new news that machines build most things that we make. They put together toys, cars etc. We don't need employees for this since machines already do this for us. A person should go to college to get a degree if they really wish to get a higher paying job. Some jobs don't even require a degree. Arguing that machines have taken away jobs from employers is false. this has been going on for many years. Your rebuttal is invalid. "NY State Police-Malone said via WPTZ that those arrested were using their food stamp cardsin a manner that was against the law.Well how canwe judge what the poor, desperate, mentally and phyically sick spend what little money they are given on?" Con argues that these people who have stolen and committed illegal crimes are okay. They should suffer no consequences, and the actions they commuted are okay. He merely states that these people have a reason (which is okay) to commit these illegal crimes. Con says ". Charity's are not as affective as the federal government and cannot be relied upon to support yourself and a family and take away small digneties which i believe everyone is entitled to but espesially the children and pentioners and the disabled who deserve it." Yet, he doesn't prove to us *how* its not effective. After all, every little bit counts.

Firstly I have a few rebuttals to make. I include them in the first round (with the exception of the third rebuttal) because they lead up to, later arguments, or stand alone as arguments. The latter case applies especially to the first second and 3 Rebuttal 1: My opponent states in the second sentence of their argument that welfare isn’t helping anyone. This point is made from a stance that the people who are on welfare, could just go to work and get off it if they so chose. I’ll say more about that later, but right now I would just like to point out the obvious fallacy here. Clearly my opponent has not seen the studies on the distribution of welfare, because if she had, she would know that “91 percent of the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households” [1. ] Nearly all of the people on welfare either can’t work or are already in working households, and truly are being helped by it. This doesn’t even get to cases like single mothers. Rebuttal 2: For the “taxpayers picking up the tab for a flawed system,” to be a valid argument, I think it is fairly clear that you have to prove that the system is flawed, which my first rebuttal and later points will address. Additionally, welfare is only 11% of government spending; taxpayers pay more for government pensions (25%. ) The only reason that we are discussing the welfare spending is that it has been extensively demonized by the right wing media [2. ] Rebuttal 3: money shouldn’t be going to churches because of separation of church and state, and the percent of GDP being spent on welfare is currently decreasing. Money isn’t being taken away from schools and parks by welfare, but by things that are on the rise such as defense spending. Rebuttal 4: Many people on welfare who are able-bodied are working part time or looking for work. In fact only 27 % of women on welfare were idle. “The rest, nearly three-fourths, combined welfare with low earnings (20 percent), worked some of the time and were on welfare between jobs (23 percent), worked limited hours and looked for work (7 percent), or looked for work the entire time they received welfare (23 percent). ” [3] Rebuttal 5: Children of parents on welfare are not encouraged to stay on it, given that most of those who are able-bodied and on welfare (as your source so rightly mentions) get off it. As empirical evidence, welfare spending is going down, but if children were to be incentivized this way you would see a cascade effect resulting in greater and greater numbers of people on welfare. Clearly this isn’t the case because “The 2011 survey [of the number of people on welfare] had 5.8 million. For 2013, we found 3.7 million [people on welfare]. ” [1] As a last comment (before I start my own case) your numbers of the amount of people on welfare are completely skewed. The census (where these numbers come from) double counts, including all members of households in which one person receives welfare. Additionally other types of benefits are included in the census study. Welfare recipients make up only 1.1% of the population, and the numbers of people on benefits are lower than you state as well. [4] Now I will present my own arguments. Contention 1: Welfare helps those who can’t work. Welfare is essential for the elderly and disabled. It would be extremely cruel to propose that we discontinue a program that helps those who can’t help themselves. As a civilized society, one measure of our merit must naturally be how we help our week, and care for our old. Furthermore, abolishing welfare would make poverty worse (I’ll state more reasons for this later,) because those who are elderly and disabled who are on welfare would now have to be supported by their families, increasing the strain on them. In many cases, these families are also impoverished (otherwise they wouldn’t have relatives in need of welfare,) and could not support their relatives; many would become homeless and many would suffer greatly. This is a massive impact because elderly and disabled persons who are at a far greater risk of death due to exposure etc. resulting from homelessness. If my opponent wishes to talk about those on subsidized housing and food stamps (which are not directly under the TANF welfare system,) the problem clearly becomes far worse. Contention 2: The problem isn’t that people are lazy; there just aren’t enough jobs to go around. My opponent claims that welfare allows for people to be lazy, however, as one of my rebuttals stated, this is simply not the case. Most people who can work that are on welfare look for work. If they are looking for work, one must ask what the real problem is. The problem is a lack of job vacancies. One example comes from Milwaukee; “Job vacancy surveys in the Milwaukee metropolitan area have found that even with an unemployment rate in the 4-5 percent range, there are three to five persons needing work for every available job. ” [3] To put that in perspective, in the last year, unemployment in America has wavered between 6.1 and 7.5 percent. People who are on welfare and are able-bodied aren’t lazy; it is literally impossible for all of them to have jobs. [5] Contention 3: People on welfare find it difficult to get jobs. Even most entry-level jobs require job experience and education. For those who had to drop out to help their impoverished families or stayed in high school instead of looking for work to aid their families have one or other of two problems. Either they don’t have the education or the work experience to apply for most jobs. Probably the most blatant example of this is a study done at McDonald's. The study, conducted in 1993, found that 14 people had applied for every job opening. The 13 out of 14 of them that were rejected found it immensely difficult to find work; so much so that 73% of them didn’t have work a full year after initial research was conducted. Additionally, young applicants had the most difficulty, because most people needed extensive experience to get a job at McDonald's. [6] To help the impoverished, disabled and elderly, and to sustain those who are unable to or find it difficult to acquire a job, lets keep and reinforce a system that brought us out of two depressions. Removing welfare would be cruel, rash and would put more stress on an already broken country. Instead of fighting welfare, lets look to the real causes of problems in America. Thank you, I look forward to your rebuttal. [1] . http://www.cbpp.org... [2] . http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... [3] . http://www.njfac.org... [4] . http://www.statisticbrain.com... [5] . http://data.bls.gov... [6] Katherine S. Newman and Chauncy Lennon, Finding Work in the Inner City; How Hard is it Now? How Hard Will it be for AFDC Recipients? (New York, Columbia University, 1995. (via the 3rd source)

Final thoughts: I was thinking a bit more about what would be, perhaps, a more entertaining con argument. If I had to do this one over again, I think I would go less semantic, and instead argue that to truly end poverty we would actually no longer be human. Essentially I"d argue that to remove poverty, you would have to have extreme homogeneity and equality, a state that would render us something beyond humanity and be more awful than poverty itself. That argument is really complicated, philosophically tinged, and would probably loose. It would still be great fun.

Social Credit is certainly not socialist! It's one of the many ideas put forward by capitalists in order to rectify what is wrong with pure capitalism! The fact that I am playing the devil's advocate in this debate does not change the quality of my debating in any way - I encourage you to do the same. You really shouldn't say you're not against capitalism when that's what we're debating... But I'll assume that you originally intended to debate the following... Capitalism - an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. rather than currency, which is entirely different. The above certainly does not preclude government intervention in order to rectify it, as you agreed earlier in the debate, allowing me to mention how capitalism will be solved in future. I'm not saying that robots becoming creators of inventions and such is impossible, but I think that the Social Credit system of taxing and redistributing wealth whilst maintaining capitalism and private enterprise will be the solution used rather than the much more radical one of ending capitalism altogether. Money games allocate resources better and thus move the economy forward. Nice dramatic ending, by the way, but it is incorrect to say I made no points. The following points I made will be summarized here... Con - Capitalism doesn't work because machines will take all the jobs Pro - Machines must still be owned by people, programmers will still be needed, private enterprise will merely expand and we'll become more productive. Con - But what happens when machines even make themselves and program themselves? I didn't say you had to go for pure libertarian capitalism, only the use of capital. Pro - Alright, in the far future wealth could be redistributed directly to the people, people who want advancement can own businesses, people will still be needed for ideas but mostly people will live off government distributed money, private property, investment etc. will still exist however. Con - Money hasn't always been used Pro - But in industrialized societies it is and from there we kind of got off topic. But, although I am playing the devil's advocate and I don't think that changes the strength of my points in any way, I think that pro should probably have answered my rectifications for capitalism and gone deeper into the definition of capitalism itself. Is capitalism currency? Investment? I enjoyed the debate and thought that the opposition had good ideals and thoughts in mind, although towards the end I thought that their argument became weaker. Regardless, I thank the opposition for an excellent debate, and hope that voters vote with me for the strength of my debate rather than be biased by my actual opinions.

So it seems my opponent returns to a new argument in his final round. He has failed to meet his burden and has failed to refute all of my arguments and rebuttals. ~Counterarguments~ ". .. What about lets say the drug test. I think that the people that are on welfare should get a drug test to get money from the government. We need to STOP giving money to drug attics! " --> Yes, let's give them a drug test! So even if I agree with this point, how is this an argument against welfare? Is this not more of a proposal to refine aspects of the (I assume) US welfare system? Either you win or lose this point does not matter; you have failed to meet your burden. ~Conclusion~ My opponent has failed to refute both my argument and my rebuttals. His last point should be discarded, since even if he wins on that single point, it does nothing for his side.


Question: Should Every Individual Receive a Universal Basic Income?

Universal Basic Income: A Necessary Measure for the Future

Let's discuss the merits, practicality, and need for a Universal Basic Income (UBI). As technology continues to advance, it is inevitable that the demand for human labor will decrease, leading to higher unemployment rates. This scenario highlights the necessity for a UBI in the near future, as a means to ensure financial stability for all individuals in the face of technological unemployment.

I believe that over the course of the next decade or two, makind can create a massive leisure society in which everyone has plentiful supplies of anything they could possibly want, without having to work for it. This will be made possible by automation, improving fabrication technologies, the Internet and the Open-source movement. It is possible because there exists an abundance of all necessary resources. The proposal is detailed at adciv.org Automation (in the form of automated harvesting, processing and transporting of materials) will free create free resources. It is now techlogically feasible to have fully automated productive infrastructure, including self-repairing and self-maintaining machines. Automated infrastructure means effortless plenty. Better fabrication technologies will allow for anyone to make anything they need: farming equipment, medical devices, housing, etc. Production of technology can become radically decentralized so that everyone makes for themselves the technology they need. This will reduce people's dependence on the corporate-economic infrastructure. The Internet will allow people free access to education, medical advice and the designs needed to make the technologies mentioned in the previous paragraph. People can collaborate openly (as with Wikipedia and open-source software) to provide information of all kinds for free. Gradually, as more and more things become free, there will be no need to use money at all. Just like many people now have all the music they want without paying for it (by downloading) so all products and goods will become free and abundant. Because of advanced digital fabrication, we will be able to download hardware as well as software; people will download the design for a car, and fabrication devices will turn raw materials (scrap metal, plastic, carbon) into a car. There are huge amounts of these raw materials (our entire planet is made of them!) so that is not a limiting factor. I propose that the world has more than enough of every resource we need: food, water, land, minerals, energy etc. The apparent scarcity of water, oil, food etc. can easily be overcome by applying the know-how we have to increase production or decrease consumption. To take one example, the apparent 'water crisis' can be neutralized by desalinating seawater with nanofilters. Our planet's surface ifs 69% water, so as long as we apply our know-how in utilising that water, there is no way we can run out. Similar logic applies to all essential resources. There is no reason to ration our resources any more, because they are so abundant at everyone can take their fill and there'll be plenty for everyone. It no longer has to be you-or-me. This is the SparkNotes version. The plan is put forth in great detail at adciv.org. Please offer some criticisms – tell me why this can't work, won't work, or shouldn't work, because I have been thinking about it for several months and can see no flaws in these arguments.

Thanks for the pleasantries. I am against universal health care, but not because it doesn't sound nice. It certainly does. We're all liberals at heart. In fact universal housing, food, clothing, cars, college, income, etc.(etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam) also sound very attractive. The only problem is this: no one has a right to any of it. This country currently confiscates gobs of money from its rightful owners to provide a plenitude of unearned goods and services to undeserving and largely ungrateful recipients. Do we really need one more form of wealth redistribution in this country? Might we stop before there is nothing left to distinguish us from your average European country?

Thanks for your speedy and impassioned reply, Andhisnameis. Not entitling citizens with a minimum wage certainly can cause worker dissent in some circles. Certainly not in all working people's circles, such as the ones which I am associated with, in which case workers encourage hard work and reject entitlement. We need to weigh out impacts here though. Sure, we can pay off priveleged people with entitlments to stop them from acting out, but we would do much better to attack the root of the problem. China is a very special case. The people there are given low wages, but also have most of their economic liberties regulated by the ruling class. It is not the same in the Western World, in which we are provided abundant freedom and oppurtunity to make our fortune in billions of creative ways. We have benefitted from the level of oppurtunity we have in this slice of the Earth, and as long as we keep the majority ruling class out of the economic sphere, we can continue to maximize our economic oppurtunities to the utmost level. Minimum wage laws are counter to what has worked so well for us in the past. We should also be wary about giving in whenever someone doesn't like their circumstances. With all the energy these people put into lobbying their government to raise their wages, it is hard to convince many Americans that they are actually struggling to make ends meet. I am of this mindset too. It is easy to make a living in this world through hardwork, strength, and determination. If someone really feels oppressed, then I do encourage one to take what he has been denied, but when someone wants to use someone else to enforce their will over others, then we have a real problem. As for the advocacy for socialism, I disagree with the premise Andhisnameis implying. These nations have plenty of social spending policies, but all then nations listed also have the least amount of economic regulations in the world. For example, Switzerland, the top country Andhisnameis listed, doesn't even have a minimum wage in any conventional sense of the term. One of the other things that should be taken into account with welfare states, is that they are living on borrowed money, and are the most economically dependent, as well as the most likely to completely collapse during an economic recession. Resources dwindle overtime, which means we need to be increasing our self sufficiency and economic independence to match such rising challenges. About welfare, it isn't actually true that the government pays 1000$ in welfare. They actually pay MUCH more. That is irrelevant though. The main problem is that they are paying any money at all, when citizens are more than capable of acting as strong independent individuals, and using their skill and ingenuity to procure a living standard of wealth. Let's not forget either, that this money is often forced out of the hands of those who earned it through hard work to begin with.Something else that hits me the wrong way is how we define what a living wage actually is. Truth be told, Western peoples live in gross excess. What we consider a living wage here in America is complement in providing what would be considered luxuries in the third world. Material wealth is meaningless. Food, a bed, and a network of family and friends to provide love and support is all us humans really need in life, besides some dreams to strive for personally. To say someone with little material wealth is always going to be less happy than someone with much material wealth is an assumption that is more often than not, untrue. To conclude my final rebuttals, I would like to simply try and convince the judges and the people of America of one basic, unacknowledged fact... You can appeal that the majority ruling class have a right to rule over the minority slave class, but such a system is fascist in nature. We, the people of the minority, wish to live in a strong and empowered society free of entitlement and privelege. Must the majority ruling class step on our toes and use their paramilitary arm to force us into betraying our moral beliefs? I think not!

The right to getting proper care is a right, how efficient that right is another matter. Thus, people should have access to free health care, no insurance, just go to the clinic and get yourself patched up. Moreover, this also counts for accidents, and not getting broke after.

You certainly shouldn't pay someone who is not good enough for the minimum wage. If the person isn't good enough for the minimum, then fire then or don't hire them. If you're still willing to keep them, then don't given them a raise, but you kept them so it's their own choice to keep them. As for menial jobs like picking dandelions, I have already agreed to make exceptions.... but most jobs that pay minimum now are worth it to the managers to continue the business and still pay the minimum wage. Someone will always not be able to hire for beans.... but that doesn't mean we don't keep them, it just means they shouldn't be in business if it's a job that could be worth it to anyone else who could afford it. (if it's not that then it might be an exception) "You certainly should pay someone more than minimum wage if he/she does a better job. However, in reality,teenagers, workers in training, college students, interns, and part-time workers all have their options and opportunities limited by the minimum wage.You cannot make a living and support a family on a minimum wage job." These are all actually arguments for a minimum. Those just starting out would have peanuts for wages and not be able to pull ahead very well. We say pull yourself up from your boot straps, but what if you have no boot straps to pull yourself up with? If they want to support a family, then can get a better job somehow.. we can't take care of everything. but anyway, your point about them not being able to afford a family makes my argument more than yours in taht sense, so i'm not sure what your point even is with that statement. "Also,there has been a lot of attention lately on the subject of job "outsourcing"" We simply prohibit the outsourcing then, as much as possible. We live in a wealthy country, and it's not right for employers to maximize their profits while using our resources by exploiting cheap labor in other countries. I could become very welathy if i hired a poor mexican to do my bidding, doesn't mean it's right, and oesn't mean it's fair to my fellow countrymen, who's resources and wealth i'm using. If we allow outsourcing, then we'd all be paid beans, because labor is for practical purposes infinite. (the loical end of capitalism completely unfettered would be those rich will be so rich as to own everything as the poor would keep falling behind. thyis is proven because the gap between the rich and the poor continues to increase in this country) "Obviously, minimum wage isn't enough to support a person who lives in the cities of New York, Washington, or Los Angelas. However, it may be more than enough to support people living in rural areas or small towns." So... it is helping the people in the small towns and such, and at least keeping things from being worse in the new york areas... I don't see your point?

I won't argue with you that MOST goods should not be socialized, like housing, clothes, etcetera. But doesn't there exist goods that ought to be? What about fire service? If your house is on fire, are the firefighters going to discriminate between those who have firefighter's insurance and those who do not? If the person in the apartment below you has firefighting insurance and you don't, should they only extinguish the fire on the floor below you? Police service follows the same argument, and arguably speaking, our government in general is a sort of socialism in itself, since the poor have an intrinsic right to it whether or not they can afford it. I have the utmost respect for the concept of Laissez-fare capitalism, however there are areas in which it works well, and areas in which it does not. Monopolies, for instance, represent one of the peculiar areas in which Laissez-fare must be controlled. If our Government were purely capitalist, it would be equal in corruptness to a purely socialist one. The technique of forming an effective government, therefore, lies in knowing what areas to capitalize and what areas to socialize. I am arguing that healthcare is an area best socialized. I have no health insurance at this time. I'm not trying to whine, I just want to use myself as an example. Last year I got sick, went to the hospital, and got treated. I was unable to pay for my visit, so the bill went to a collections agency(I did eventually get it paid, but my credit was harmed and I had to postpone payment of other important bills). My situation is reciprocated countless times throughout the country, and it is logical to presume that many people will never get to paying that hospital bill. Medical assistance is a fundamental need, and should be guaranteed by any modern country whether or not you have the ability to pay. When you cannot pay, your credit is ruined as if you went out and bought some product you can't afford. My friend recently went to secure a car loan, and was denied due to an old medical bill on his credit report, so even though creditors are supposed to give you a little extra leeway because it is medical in nature, this clearly does not make that much of a difference. We are harming our citizen's credit histories with these medical bills, and those who do pay their hospital bills can be crippled financially. When you make your monthly budget, you usually aren't going to have extra money set aside for medical emergencies. Health insurance is a complete ripoff, expensive, and hard to get for students (like myself) who cannot afford to work full-time. I sustain enormous pressure right now to drop out of school and go work for some crappy employer who will offer me health insurance at an affordable rate. Even when you have health insurance, you are still going to be hit with hundreds of dollars of bills if you get sick, and you're lucky just to break even with what you have already spent on the health insurance payments. This whole situation is simply a disaster that does not need to be an issue if we simply switch over to universal health care. And I don't mean the insurance kind. .. The insurance companies have been preying on our citizenry long enough and it is about time we free our citizens from the deceitful practices that these outfits engage in. I personally do not have any plans to obtain health insurance in the near future, not because I don't want to, but because I cannot afford it. If something happens to me anytime within the next four-five years then my credit will be destroyed and I will never have the chance to secure a loan in the future. The only chance I possibly have is to pray that one of these democrats gets elected and enacts universal healthcare, and does it SOON. So handsoff, I'll pose you a hypothetical. A poor person is sick, and does not have health insurance, and is definitely not going to be able to pay the bill. Do we let the person bleed to death on the sidewalk, and then clean it up and send the family the cleaning bill? Or do we let the person in to be treated, and absorb the cost. As it is now, the person will not be left outside to die (thankfully), but the person's credit history will be destroyed, and it will be that much harder for them to climb out of poverty. What good does it do you to ruin this person's credit? Your not going to suck the money out of this person no matter what your policy suggestion, so why perpetuate this problem? I hear the Republicans saying that we will "destroy the best healthcare system in the world", and without even going to statistics, how are we "saving" the healthcare system right now as it is? We still have to treat the person anyway, so it doesn't make any sense that we are saving it at all. The only possible way we can save it is to deny treatment to sick people, and let some rich people in who are better off. Sure, we can coerce these poor people to not get treated in the first place (threaten them with a crippled credit rating) but their long-term health detriments will multiply in old age and they will end up costing the system even more money when they eventually do get treated. I'm sorry, handsoff, but universal healthcare is the only just way to approach this issue. Please explain to me how your argument is not terribly immoral. Please explain to me how these european countries are so bad that we have to stoop down to their level, those dirty socialist europeans. And finally, please explain to me how I am not entitled to healthcare. Thank you!

If people want moderation then you would be the ideological norm, but what people want and what they get are different, people want less government involvement (because the feds have gotten more into the world's problems [refugees] then the nation's economy, thus are selfish gits) and more national economic programs. But I want to give people what they need if they work, if you've a hobo you will eat until there is a shortage. Money is the cause of all crime, all poverty, and the worsening of all famines since the development of the global economy. Thus it should be destroyed, to put this in metaphorical terms all people should understand, think of the myth of St.George and the dragon, the princess is the proletariat, we communists are st George and the dragon is the bourgeois.

"I will try and isolate here what we still do disagree on." HERE IS WHERE I THINK EACH OF US STANDS: 1. You think people are entitled to free health care as one of their natural rights-- if not a natural right, a right that we should secure after the fact, similar to public education. My view: I do not think free health care is a natural right, but that affordable health care is a need likely to be met by unfettered private enterprise. I believe it is the responsibility of the individual to realize the importance of such a need and budget for health insurance appropriately, just as he does for food, clothing and rent. I feel the same about education. 2. You think, because health care is a natural right (or close to one), we should find a way to guaranty it to all. Although you might agree that government would not be the most cost-effective way of providing it, it must because private industry may allow some people to fall through the cracks. So efficiency sacrificed in exchange for certainty is worth the cost (in taxes). My view: Since I never agreed with the presumption that health care is a right, I don't think we morally have a say in how it should be provided, at what cost, to what extent, nor by whom. I believe it should be left to the free market to provide very affordable services (hence very affordable insurance) of acceptable quality wherever there is a need. If health care is still not financially feasible for some, then family, friends or charitable organization may or may not step in. But without insurance there is no guaranty. THAT'S MY VIEW ON OUR DIFFERENCES. HERE IS MY ROUND 4 ARGUMENT: "So you are saying that Laisezz-fare will take care of our sick, to be blunt. They have a need, and where there is a need and a dollar, capitalism will find a way to address the need. But what about where there isn't a dollar?" If government got out of the way, entrepreneurs could provide extremely affordable medical services, and that in turn would result in extremely affordable private health insurance. I realize some would still fall through the cracks, but that is where family, friends and charity may or may not step in. There are no guaranties. However, I have no problem with city or state governments deciding to provide additional safety nets beyond this point. At least citizens can decide whether they want to live there and pay the taxes required to support such programs. But, given that costs would me much less due to our hypothetical deregulation, it may not be that costly. "You say that all these things - "roof over their heads, food, clothing, electricity, running water, gas, cell phone, microwave oven, transportation" - are taken care of anyway. There are many that only have a place to stay due to socialized housing. We could just let these people sleep on the street." I am not for government providing housing to anyone. No one has a natural right to housing. The government is here to protect our natural rights. Anything beyond that is the job of private charity-- another industry that government intervention has crippled by forcing prospective voluntary donors to give involuntarily by way of taxation. Can you imagine how much more charities could do if taxes were lowered so individuals had more to give? A SIDE NOTE ON GOVERNMENT SERVICES VERSUS PRIVATE CHARITY: With government taking over half one's income it's amazing any private charities survive at all. Government is in the business of taking money from would-be donors and inefficiently spreading it about, all while robbing donors of any good feeling in exchange for their forced generosity. I read somewhere we are luck to see one of every four dollars spent on welfare programs reach the recipient in some form. That means government needs to confiscate more than four times the amount required to solve the problem. If citizens were allowed to keep the tax revenue currently spent on welfare programs they could pocket half, donate half to charity and nearly double the current dollar value of services provided to recipients. A similar analogy could be drawn from the money spent on unnecessary wars. Imagine how low are taxes would be and how well charities would do. "our nature... not our obligation". An interesting idea, but I think the policy will have to reflect our nature." I always accuse liberals of being like the protective parents who feel (because it is in their nature) they must create a safety net for their child to save him from the real-life consequences of his behavior or lack of. Case in point would be the 35-year-old unemployed slacker still living at home. His well-meaning, good-NATURED parents have effectively robbed him of the benefits of life's harsh lessons, which would have been helpful to him in developing his own self-reliance. Which brings me to my opinion on your personal credit situation. If feel you are one of the most fair-minded debaters on this site, and have enjoyed our acquaintance. But allow be to be blunt for a moment. By having your credit ruined, life has handed you a consequence in response to your behavior-- that of not securing private medical insurance. This action (or lack of) essentially led to your involvement in what is tantamount to grand theft of medical services. You should feel fortunate that you are being harassed by creditors and not by law enforcement. I don't see pilfering $5,000 worth of medical services from a doctor as any different from stealing a $5,000 motorcycle out of his driveway. I think you simply felt insurance was not a priority. I'm willing to bet you have a cell phone you pay for each month, rent, food, nights on the town, etc. You may even have a car payment. If so, you are like so many others who go on and on about how important universal health care is, yet they choose to spend their money on everything but health insurance. Your friend is a perfect example. He's bummed that his credit it trashed because he couldn't afford health insurance, yet he's out car shopping and obviously believes he can afford a monthly car payment. I'd ride a bike, use pay phones and eat Top Raman before I stopped making my health insurance payments. My values (how I spend my money) demonstrate how important I believe health care is. But again, it is not my right. "people should not have to trade physical health for financial health." No, just as I should not trade the condition of my house for financial health. That is why I bought a homeowners insurance policy. Private companies have devised a way to make it relatively affordable to avoid a major financial crisis in case my house burns down (similar to assurances provided by government in exchange for tax dollars, but much more affordable). In fact they are able to insure a home worth more than $500K for a measly $600 per year. But then again, the government has not gotten involved in the contracting industry and made the cost of rebuilding a burnt house astronomically high. "You say you wouldn't let someone die in the street, but your paragraph is a little contradictory, I hope you will admit. You say you wouldn't let someone die in the street, personally, but that society should have the choice to(I gather?). Then you go on to describe a gamble of choosing to buy health insurance vs. not buy it." I searched for a contradiction here and could not find one. I will come back to it if you are able clarify it to me in the comments section. If so I will correct my position. I see no contradiction when I say that people are likely to (but not obligated to) help others, and that as a result of this fact it would be wise to get insurance. I hope I've clarified my position and helped you hone your's. We agree on what an ideal outcome would be: adequate and affordable healthcare for ALL. We disagree on how to get there and on whether people have an absolute right to said outcome. Thanks for your time and thoughts on this.

In this debate I intend to produce compelling arguments against universal health care in general and against my opponent’s arguments. The United States spends $2.6 trillion on health care annually. This is roughly 17% of the country’s GDP. Due to programs like Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program), and state and public health care programs, the government is responsible for approximately 50 cents out of every dollar spent on health care. Health care is one of the most highly regulated sectors of the American economy. (1) And as this source points out, more government control means less personal freedom. I personally believe that Americans are smart enough to handle their own finances and the citizens who are not financially secure are not taking advantage of the opportunities that a free-market system gives them. There should be no level playing field, in my opinion. Everyone is entitled to the pursuit of happiness, but no one should have it handed out to them by the government. In 2009, there were 50.6 million people in the country uninsured. That is up from 46.3 million in 2008. (2) This is a large number, and it does indeed continue to rise. Out of this number 9.9 million are not citizens or, they are illegal aliens. (2) Now if you believe that even illegal aliens should be provided with health coverage, than these numbers will not matter to you. It is my belief, however that if a person is in the country unlawfully they should not be allowed privileges that American citizens are allowed. With that being said, we are left with a number of 40.7 million uninsured in America. In 2009, the average price of health coverage was $4,824. (3) That breaks down to $402 per month. (4) In 2009, 9.3 million of the uninsured in America made $50,000 to $75,000 per year and 10.5 million made over $75,000 per year. (2) If health care was such a high priority to Americans, than why are people who have ample finances to afford it, not buying it? The face of Universal Health care… Wait times in ERs in the UK were so long that the government created a target mandating that patients be seen in less than four hours. (5) The government could not meet this target and tens of thousands of people who call for medical emergencies, are held outside of the hospitals in ambulances for five or more hours before being picked up and in some cases, before being let into the ER. (6) “People prefer not to be admitted for Christmas and doctors prefer to keep them out of hospital, Dr Robinson said. But to discharge so many more on Christmas Eve – 8 to 10 per cent more than on an average day – implies a change in discharge criteria.” (7) One reason doctors do not “care” as much under a socialized health care system, is because there is no competition to keep the doctors up to par. And when a patient is admitted and then discharged the same day, it doesn’t change the fact that it costs the taxpayers 1000 Euros per patient when admitted in the ERs within the target. (7) “Cleaners at Good Hope hospital with a poor record on superbugs have been told to turn over dirty sheets instead of using fresh ones between patients to save money” (8). I don’t have to point out the obvious problems with this. This is another example of how medical care will become very poor under universal health care. Other incidents include doctors asking patients to bring drugs from home (8), to people having to resort to home remedies, and super glue for teeth crowns because medical personnel cannot be found (9). An organization by the name of NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) has the job of literally telling you what your life is worth, in money, and if it is worth living or not. Newspapers in the UK are littered with stories of drugs and treatments that are to “pricey” to extend life. Yet NICE is actually envied by a large portion of the world. Top health officials from around the globe closely watch and mimic the procedures of NICE. (10). In Canada right now, a family is fighting to keep the hospital from removing a breathing tube from their son as a judge has ordered the family to allow the hospital to do so. Obviously, this is not something that would happen in America as long as the parents are legally sane. Liberals make fun of Sarah Palin, but you cannot deny that there are death panels, as evident by this story. (11) Another argument from supporters of universal health care is that health care is a right and should be guaranteed to all Americans. However, health care is never mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The only rights in the founding documents are rights to action. Americans have the right to pursue happiness. They don’t have the right to have somebody else pay for it or achieve a level of happiness at the expense of someone else’s happiness. Moreover, no citizen or non-citizen can, by law, be turned away from an emergency room. Millions of people who are uninsured, who liberals use to argue that we need universal health care, simply don’t want to pay for it. They would rather pay cash each time they visit the ER. Government ran, socialist style health care has been a complete failure everywhere it has been instituted. We need to be responsible for our own health care. This will bring costs down as the government will not have to spend quite as much per dollar spent on health care. (1)-www.heritage.org/Initiatives/Health-Care (2)-http://www.census.gov... (3)-Kaiser Family Foundation; Health Research & Educational Trust (4)-My calculator ;) (5)-http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (6)-http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (7)-http://www.timesonline.co.uk... (8)-http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (9)-http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (10)-http://blogs.wsj.com... (11)- http://www.foxnews.com...

Once again, bigwigs messed up the system. If you believe our government does not do the same, you are mistaken. So you should just admit that, if no one is hurt or excessively hungry, it is good. Enjoy your day.