Health care continude

i am letting you continue your argument. so here you go try once again....................................

guess not man (it must be at least 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 charcters in length dosnt it)

I, first of all, am sorry that I (2 times in a row) accidentally procrastinated to the point of forfieteing.

Here is my argument, in rebuttal to your final post in our previous debate. I will leave it up to you whether you choose to make another rebuttal to this, I am perfectly fine if if you choose to do so.

"No this is wrong the purpose of the goverment is to punish the evil and to defend from outside threats."

Yes, "punishing evil" is one EXAMPLE of a way that it helps society. This is TOO SPECIFIC a definition, because you can find HUNDREDS of exceptions. For instance, the fire department. Dopes the fire department "punish evil"? NO. Thererefore my opponent's definition of the purpose of government is flawed.

The US government is supposed to promote the general welfare (sound familiar?).

"second you know what insurance companies are not here to pay your bills there there to follow a contract you signed and if you were to stupid to read the fine print well you desevere to die cause of natural selection."

IF I was too stupid to read the fine print? That does not even make sense. How is reading the fine print stupid? I think it's rather smart. I assume it was a typo.

And yes, the insurance company does not pay your medical bills, isn't that kind of missing the point? The point is that society would be better, because less people would be bankrupt, if there was universal health care. By saying that they don't pay completely for your health care, only proves my point. It proves that people aren't getting proper medical care.

Oh yeah, and no one deserves to die because they don't have as much money as you.

"yet once again not the goverments problem whose fault is it that they have not worked to get what they need to survive"

All right, please do not take any offense, but, quite frankly sir, you are not talking from experience. It's not as black and white as all that. My opponent is making the claim that not having a lot of money ALWAYS means that it was the result of not working hard.

As an example, Paris Hilton has never worked in her life. There are people that work A LOT harder than her, and are living in complete poverty.

And, I don't know why you are assuming that I am blaming the government. I never said. I'm just saying that it would help, and make life better, if the government stepped in.

You were most likely born into a rich family, were you not? You probably do not need to work as much throughout your life, because you were rich from the moment you were born. There is nothing wrong with this….but can you honestly claim that you work harder than most people who were born into poor families? Can you? And if we decide that people who can't afford health care don't deserve it…isn't that, then, a lot like royalties? Isn't that going to separate America as if this were the middle ages…with know middle class?

"ok the 9 million that are childern i am sorry for them. the other 38million that is there own fault"

This is the same deal again. You really have some pretty misguided misconceptions of how and why people live in poverty.

"agian not part of the goverments responsibilites"

The preamble to the constitution to the USA:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "
I don't get what you are saying. You say that, even if we have an opportunity to make society better, we should ignore it, because it is not the government's "responsibility". What this attitude encourages is a BARE MINIMUM. It encourages a state where the government does absolutely nothing to PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, but instead, only follows its RESPONSIBILITIES. It is not the government's responsibility to have a fire department or libraries, or post offices, these are all thiungs the government does to promote the general welfare.

"This just says were being cheap and not spending the 100-200billion that is nescary for those 263million to be insured and adding ther stress of another 47million."

What? I don't get it. It hurts my head trying to decipher it. I'm sorry. Who is "we"…What "stress"?

The plain fact is that universal health care would help the economy, as shown BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

"my point was not that bill gates would suffer from taxes but that he would suffer from not getting the help he needs. So far this is what your entire argument has said to me those who dont work and dont pay there fair share in taxes should get the health care that those who sweat every day for it should get while they get ignored cause they work hard. that is what your argument says to me."

Why would they get ignored? They would also get health care. Look, if you want to start a debate about income tax, you can, in a DIFFERENT debate, but this debate is about health care.