Post Deleted.
Of course it's biased... the writer is trying to sway the reader's view on universal healthcare, and doesn't claim to be unbiased or neutral in the least.Ok, long post time. To start, I thought this article was fairly biased. They love to use loaded words like "Slave" and "Rights".
I know that 'no offense' mean in all- but lets leave everyone's moral character out of it before someone DOES get offendedDwind, no offense meant at all, but do you really think that the fact that you or anyone else needs something, gives a person or a group of people (like the government) the right to take it, by force, from someone else? If your answer is "No," then you can not support "Universal Health Care." If your answer is "yes," well, I think you can see the implications that would have for your moral character.
#1: I dont agree with socialized medicine, I believe it should be privatized... unmandated. What I do believe Insurance and pharma. companies should have their prices and methods CHECKED by the government.The problems you describe later in your post are derivatives of government involvement in the business (through regulations and medicaid). The solution is to eliminate that involvement, not deepen it.
I understand why you agree with universal health care though though: you are not a doctor.
It would be funded by private citizens. You wouldn't need the govt involved at all, that was my point.err how would it be funded then? if you say voluntarily, then why do you need the government involved at all? people can just voluntarily donate to charities that help pay for the health care of the poor. and doctors can just volunteer thier services for free or at reduced rates if they wish. no need for the government to be involved.
The reason people want the government involved is because it is an agent of force. It can force taxpayers and doctors to support the program, not to mention force the consumer to use it.