8 added 2 characters in body
source | link

First off, the word "free" that was originally in the question is a complete misnomer at best (at worst it would be putting words in their mouths). Nothing is free. Most universal coverage schemes are paid for at least partially through some kind of income or payroll tax, which every employee/employer pays (even if the workers in question are not citizens or are using fake SSN's). So undocumented immigrants for the most part would be paying into these systems, and thus would not be getting anything for free"free" any more than anyone else would.

That being said, there are three basic arguments for true Universal coverage. They are generally used together, so look at this as a complete philosophical package, not a menu. You may not necessarily agree with it all, but this is the logic I see used:

  1. Its the morally right thing to do. Jesus himself commanded his followers to treat the sick multiple times. He seemed quite insistent on it. See Matthew 25 ("I was sick and you took care of me"), and Matthew 10:8:

Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment.

Some Christians may think they have reasons to dismiss the relevance of these directions, but this is a big deal to Christian liberals like Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, and Corey Booker.

Of course these values weren't pulled out of thin air. Nearly all other religions, philosophies, and ethics codes, have some version of the Golden Rule. The basic principles of humanism many atheists are philosophically aligned with demand taking care of the sick and injured. There are certainly some moral systems out there where's it just fine to deny people medical treatment because of who they are, but they are very few. This one is about as universal a human moral code as they come.

  1. It is the safe thing to do for yourself and those you do care about.

You may think you and your family are a different class of person than immigrants, but diseases don't. If there are legions of untreated sick people running around the USA, that's a danger for all of us.

  1. Its the financially responsible thing to do.

Hospitals are required by law to treat anyone who shows up (see #1 above if you don't like that). Those who can't pay are essentially paid for by higher costs paid by those of us who have coverage. Hospitals are also the most expensive place in our entire medical system. This means the financially stupidest decision possible is to use hospitals as the only place where US residents have universal access to treatment (regardless of status or ability to pay), and that's exactly what we are doing right now.

It would save all of us collectively a lot of money* if everyone just had coverage down at the general practitioner level, which is the cheapest part of our system.

* - Theoretically. However, the relative expense of our system against those of countries with universal coverage makes a pretty strong case.

First off, the word "free" that was originally in the question is a complete misnomer at best (at worst it would be putting words in their mouths). Nothing is free. Most universal coverage schemes are paid for at least partially through some kind of income or payroll tax, which every employee/employer pays (even if the workers in question are not citizens or are using fake SSN's). So undocumented immigrants for the most part would be paying into these systems, and thus would not be getting anything for free any more than anyone else would.

That being said, there are three basic arguments for true Universal coverage. They are generally used together, so look at this as a complete philosophical package, not a menu. You may not necessarily agree with it all, but this is the logic I see used:

  1. Its the morally right thing to do. Jesus himself commanded his followers to treat the sick multiple times. He seemed quite insistent on it. See Matthew 25 ("I was sick and you took care of me"), and Matthew 10:8:

Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment.

Some Christians may think they have reasons to dismiss the relevance of these directions, but this is a big deal to Christian liberals like Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, and Corey Booker.

Of course these values weren't pulled out of thin air. Nearly all other religions, philosophies, and ethics codes, have some version of the Golden Rule. The basic principles of humanism many atheists are philosophically aligned with demand taking care of the sick and injured. There are certainly some moral systems out there where's it just fine to deny people medical treatment because of who they are, but they are very few. This one is about as universal a human moral code as they come.

  1. It is the safe thing to do for yourself and those you do care about.

You may think you and your family are a different class of person than immigrants, but diseases don't. If there are legions of untreated sick people running around the USA, that's a danger for all of us.

  1. Its the financially responsible thing to do.

Hospitals are required by law to treat anyone who shows up (see #1 above if you don't like that). Those who can't pay are essentially paid for by higher costs paid by those of us who have coverage. Hospitals are also the most expensive place in our entire medical system. This means the financially stupidest decision possible is to use hospitals as the only place where US residents have universal access to treatment (regardless of status or ability to pay), and that's exactly what we are doing right now.

It would save all of us collectively a lot of money* if everyone just had coverage down at the general practitioner level, which is the cheapest part of our system.

* - Theoretically. However, the relative expense of our system against those of countries with universal coverage makes a pretty strong case.

First off, the word "free" that was originally in the question is a complete misnomer at best (at worst it would be putting words in their mouths). Nothing is free. Most universal coverage schemes are paid for at least partially through some kind of income or payroll tax, which every employee/employer pays (even if the workers in question are not citizens or are using fake SSN's). So undocumented immigrants for the most part would be paying into these systems, and thus would not be getting anything for "free" any more than anyone else would.

That being said, there are three basic arguments for true Universal coverage. They are generally used together, so look at this as a complete philosophical package, not a menu. You may not necessarily agree with it all, but this is the logic I see used:

  1. Its the morally right thing to do. Jesus himself commanded his followers to treat the sick multiple times. He seemed quite insistent on it. See Matthew 25 ("I was sick and you took care of me"), and Matthew 10:8:

Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment.

Some Christians may think they have reasons to dismiss the relevance of these directions, but this is a big deal to Christian liberals like Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, and Corey Booker.

Of course these values weren't pulled out of thin air. Nearly all other religions, philosophies, and ethics codes, have some version of the Golden Rule. The basic principles of humanism many atheists are philosophically aligned with demand taking care of the sick and injured. There are certainly some moral systems out there where's it just fine to deny people medical treatment because of who they are, but they are very few. This one is about as universal a human moral code as they come.

  1. It is the safe thing to do for yourself and those you do care about.

You may think you and your family are a different class of person than immigrants, but diseases don't. If there are legions of untreated sick people running around the USA, that's a danger for all of us.

  1. Its the financially responsible thing to do.

Hospitals are required by law to treat anyone who shows up (see #1 above if you don't like that). Those who can't pay are essentially paid for by higher costs paid by those of us who have coverage. Hospitals are also the most expensive place in our entire medical system. This means the financially stupidest decision possible is to use hospitals as the only place where US residents have universal access to treatment (regardless of status or ability to pay), and that's exactly what we are doing right now.

It would save all of us collectively a lot of money* if everyone just had coverage down at the general practitioner level, which is the cheapest part of our system.

* - Theoretically. However, the relative expense of our system against those of countries with universal coverage makes a pretty strong case.

7 added 30 characters in body
source | link

First off, the word "free" that was originally in the question is a complete misnomer at best (at worst it would be putting words in their mouths). Nothing is free. Most universal planscoverage schemes are paid for at least partially through some kind of income or payroll tax, which every employee/employer pays (even if the workers in question are not citizens or are using fake SSN's). So undocumented immigrants for the most part would be paying into these systems, and thus would not be getting anything for free any more than anyone else would.

That being said, there are three basic arguments for true Universal coverage. They are generally used together, so look at this as a complete philosophical package, not a menu. You may not necessarily agree with it all, but this is the logic I see used:

  1. Its the morally right thing to do. Jesus himself commanded his followers to treat the sick multiple times. He seemed quite insistent on it. See Matthew 25 ("I was sick and you took care of me"), and Matthew 10:8:

Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment.

Some Christians may think they have reasons to dismiss the relevance of these directions, but this is a big deal to Christian liberals like Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, and Corey Booker.

Of course these values weren't pulled out of thin air. Nearly all other religions, philosophies, and ethics codes, have some version of the Golden Rule. The basic principles of humanism many atheists are philosophically aligned with demand taking care of the sick and injured. There are certainly some moral systems out there where's it just fine to deny people medical treatment because of who they are, but they are very few. This one is about as universal a human moral code as they come.

  1. It is the safe thing to do for yourself and those you do care about.

You may think you and your family are a different class of person than immigrants, but diseases don't. If there are legions of untreated sick people running around the USA, that's a danger for all of us.

  1. Its the financially responsible thing to do.

Hospitals are required by law to treat anyone who shows up (see #1 above if you don't like that). Those who can't pay are essentially paid for by higher costs paid by those of us who have coverage. Hospitals are also the most expensive place in our entire medical system. This means the financially stupidest decision possible is to use hospitals as the only place where US residents have universal access to treatment (regardless of status or ability to pay), and that's exactly what we are doing right now.

It would save all of us collectively a lot of money* if everyone just had coverage down at the general practitioner level, which is the cheapest part of our system.

* - Theoretically. However, the relative expense of our system against those of countries with universal coverage makes a pretty strong case.

First off, the word "free" that was originally in the question is a complete misnomer at best (at worst it would be putting words in their mouths). Nothing is free. Most universal plans are paid for through some kind of income or payroll tax, which every employee/employer pays (even if the workers in question are not citizens or are using fake SSN's). So undocumented immigrants for the most part would be paying into these systems, and thus would not be getting anything for free any more than anyone else would.

That being said, there are three basic arguments for true Universal coverage. They are generally used together, so look at this as a complete philosophical package, not a menu. You may not necessarily agree with it all, but this is the logic I see used:

  1. Its the morally right thing to do. Jesus himself commanded his followers to treat the sick multiple times. He seemed quite insistent on it. See Matthew 25 ("I was sick and you took care of me"), and Matthew 10:8:

Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment.

Some Christians may think they have reasons to dismiss the relevance of these directions, but this is a big deal to Christian liberals like Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, and Corey Booker.

Of course these values weren't pulled out of thin air. Nearly all other religions, philosophies, and ethics codes, have some version of the Golden Rule. The basic principles of humanism many atheists are philosophically aligned with demand taking care of the sick and injured. There are certainly some moral systems out there where's it just fine to deny people medical treatment because of who they are, but they are very few. This one is about as universal a human moral code as they come.

  1. It is the safe thing to do for yourself and those you do care about.

You may think you and your family are a different class of person than immigrants, but diseases don't. If there are legions of untreated sick people running around the USA, that's a danger for all of us.

  1. Its the financially responsible thing to do.

Hospitals are required by law to treat anyone who shows up (see #1 above if you don't like that). Those who can't pay are essentially paid for by higher costs paid by those of us who have coverage. Hospitals are also the most expensive place in our entire medical system. This means the financially stupidest decision possible is to use hospitals as the only place where US residents have universal access to treatment (regardless of status or ability to pay), and that's exactly what we are doing right now.

It would save all of us collectively a lot of money* if everyone just had coverage down at the general practitioner level, which is the cheapest part of our system.

* - Theoretically. However, the relative expense of our system against those of countries with universal coverage makes a pretty strong case.

First off, the word "free" that was originally in the question is a complete misnomer at best (at worst it would be putting words in their mouths). Nothing is free. Most universal coverage schemes are paid for at least partially through some kind of income or payroll tax, which every employee/employer pays (even if the workers in question are not citizens or are using fake SSN's). So undocumented immigrants for the most part would be paying into these systems, and thus would not be getting anything for free any more than anyone else would.

That being said, there are three basic arguments for true Universal coverage. They are generally used together, so look at this as a complete philosophical package, not a menu. You may not necessarily agree with it all, but this is the logic I see used:

  1. Its the morally right thing to do. Jesus himself commanded his followers to treat the sick multiple times. He seemed quite insistent on it. See Matthew 25 ("I was sick and you took care of me"), and Matthew 10:8:

Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment.

Some Christians may think they have reasons to dismiss the relevance of these directions, but this is a big deal to Christian liberals like Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, and Corey Booker.

Of course these values weren't pulled out of thin air. Nearly all other religions, philosophies, and ethics codes, have some version of the Golden Rule. The basic principles of humanism many atheists are philosophically aligned with demand taking care of the sick and injured. There are certainly some moral systems out there where's it just fine to deny people medical treatment because of who they are, but they are very few. This one is about as universal a human moral code as they come.

  1. It is the safe thing to do for yourself and those you do care about.

You may think you and your family are a different class of person than immigrants, but diseases don't. If there are legions of untreated sick people running around the USA, that's a danger for all of us.

  1. Its the financially responsible thing to do.

Hospitals are required by law to treat anyone who shows up (see #1 above if you don't like that). Those who can't pay are essentially paid for by higher costs paid by those of us who have coverage. Hospitals are also the most expensive place in our entire medical system. This means the financially stupidest decision possible is to use hospitals as the only place where US residents have universal access to treatment (regardless of status or ability to pay), and that's exactly what we are doing right now.

It would save all of us collectively a lot of money* if everyone just had coverage down at the general practitioner level, which is the cheapest part of our system.

* - Theoretically. However, the relative expense of our system against those of countries with universal coverage makes a pretty strong case.

6 added 12 characters in body
source | link

First off, the word "free" that was originally in the question is a complete misnomer at best (at worst it would be putting words in their mouths). Nothing is free. Most universal plans are paid for through some kind of income or payroll tax, which every employee/employer pays (even if the workers in question are not citizens or are using fake SSN's). So undocumented immigrants for the most part would be paying into these systems, and thus would not be getting anything for free any more than anyone else would.

That being said, there are three basic arguments for true Universal coverage. They are generally used together, so look at this as a complete philosophical package, not a menu. You may not necessarily agree with it all, but this is the logic I see used:

  1. Its the morally right thing to do.Its the morally right thing to do. Jesus himself commanded his followers to treat the sick multiple times. He seemed quite insistent on it. See Matthew 25 ("I was sick and you took care of me"), and Matthew 10:8:

Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment.

Some Christians may think they have reasons to dismiss the relevance of these directions, but this is a big deal to Christian liberals like Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, and Corey Booker,.

Of course these values weren't pulled out of thin air. Nearly all other religions, philosophies, and ethics codes, have some version of the Golden Rule. The basic principles of humanism many atheists are philosophically aligned with demand taking care of the sick and injured. There are certainly some moral systems out there where's it just fine to deny people medical treatment because of who they are, but they are very few. This one is about as universal a human moral code as they come.

  1. It is the safe thing to doIt is the safe thing to do for yourself and those you do care about.

You may think you and your family are a different class of person than immigrants, but diseases don't. If there are legions of untreated sick people running around the USA, that's a danger for all of usall of us.

  1. Its the financially responsible thing to do.Its the financially responsible thing to do.

Hospitals are required by law to treat anyone who shows up (see #1 above if you don't like that). Those who can't pay are essentially paid for by higher costs paid by those of us who have coverage. Hospitals are also the most expensive place in our entire medical system. This means the financially stupidest decision possible is to use hospitals as the only place where US residents have universal access to treatment (regardless of status or ability to pay), and that's exactly what we are doing right now.

It would save all of us collectively a lot of money* if everyone just had coverage down at the general practitioner level, which is the cheapest part of our system.

* - Theoretically. However, the relative expense of our system against those of countries with universal coverage makes a pretty strong case.

First off, the word "free" that was originally in the question is a complete misnomer at best (at worst it would be putting words in their mouths). Nothing is free. Most universal plans are paid for through some kind of income or payroll tax, which every employee/employer pays (even if the workers in question are not citizens or are using fake SSN's). So undocumented immigrants for the most part would be paying into these systems, and thus would not be getting anything for free any more than anyone else would.

That being said, there are three basic arguments for true Universal coverage. They are generally used together, so look at this as a complete philosophical package, not a menu. You may not necessarily agree with it all, but this is the logic I see used:

  1. Its the morally right thing to do. Jesus himself commanded his followers to treat the sick multiple times. He seemed quite insistent on it. See Matthew 25 ("I was sick and you took care of me"), and Matthew 10:8:

Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment.

Some Christians may think they have reasons to dismiss the relevance of these directions, but this is a big deal to Christian liberals like Pete Buttigieg and Corey Booker,

Of course these values weren't pulled out of thin air. Nearly all other religions, philosophies, and ethics codes, have some version of the Golden Rule. The basic principles of humanism many atheists are philosophically aligned with demand taking care of the sick and injured. There are certainly some moral systems out there where's it just fine to deny people medical treatment because of who they are, but they are very few. This one is about as universal a human moral code as they come.

  1. It is the safe thing to do for yourself and those you do care about.

You may think you and your family are a different class of person than immigrants, but diseases don't. If there are legions of untreated sick people running around the USA, that's a danger for all of us.

  1. Its the financially responsible thing to do.

Hospitals are required by law to treat anyone who shows up (see #1 above if you don't like that). Those who can't pay are essentially paid for by higher costs paid by those of us who have coverage. Hospitals are also the most expensive place in our entire medical system. This means the financially stupidest decision possible is to use hospitals as the only place where US residents have universal access to treatment (regardless of status or ability to pay), and that's exactly what we are doing right now.

It would save all of us collectively a lot of money* if everyone just had coverage down at the general practitioner level, which is the cheapest part of our system.

* - Theoretically. However, the relative expense of our system against those of countries with universal coverage makes a pretty strong case.

First off, the word "free" that was originally in the question is a complete misnomer at best (at worst it would be putting words in their mouths). Nothing is free. Most universal plans are paid for through some kind of income or payroll tax, which every employee/employer pays (even if the workers in question are not citizens or are using fake SSN's). So undocumented immigrants for the most part would be paying into these systems, and thus would not be getting anything for free any more than anyone else would.

That being said, there are three basic arguments for true Universal coverage. They are generally used together, so look at this as a complete philosophical package, not a menu. You may not necessarily agree with it all, but this is the logic I see used:

  1. Its the morally right thing to do. Jesus himself commanded his followers to treat the sick multiple times. He seemed quite insistent on it. See Matthew 25 ("I was sick and you took care of me"), and Matthew 10:8:

Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment.

Some Christians may think they have reasons to dismiss the relevance of these directions, but this is a big deal to Christian liberals like Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, and Corey Booker.

Of course these values weren't pulled out of thin air. Nearly all other religions, philosophies, and ethics codes, have some version of the Golden Rule. The basic principles of humanism many atheists are philosophically aligned with demand taking care of the sick and injured. There are certainly some moral systems out there where's it just fine to deny people medical treatment because of who they are, but they are very few. This one is about as universal a human moral code as they come.

  1. It is the safe thing to do for yourself and those you do care about.

You may think you and your family are a different class of person than immigrants, but diseases don't. If there are legions of untreated sick people running around the USA, that's a danger for all of us.

  1. Its the financially responsible thing to do.

Hospitals are required by law to treat anyone who shows up (see #1 above if you don't like that). Those who can't pay are essentially paid for by higher costs paid by those of us who have coverage. Hospitals are also the most expensive place in our entire medical system. This means the financially stupidest decision possible is to use hospitals as the only place where US residents have universal access to treatment (regardless of status or ability to pay), and that's exactly what we are doing right now.

It would save all of us collectively a lot of money* if everyone just had coverage down at the general practitioner level, which is the cheapest part of our system.

* - Theoretically. However, the relative expense of our system against those of countries with universal coverage makes a pretty strong case.

5 deleted 30 characters in body
source | link
4 added 11 characters in body
source | link
3 added 77 characters in body
source | link
2 added 77 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link