|
Opinion #1
Debater: paraquat99
|
|
Gov't. will pick up tab for elderly/infirm/disabled one way or the other.
|
|
Goose makes several good points but I AGAIN ask him to define a "normal" society. If his definition is "first-world" nations, I doubt that "people are cared for by their communities and families when they become old or infirm." Because in most European nations (and even Canada) countries have a broader, cradle-to-grave-style social welfare programs that include not only the young, old and infirm but pretty much everyone else (i.e. universal healthcare, et al). While I too wouldn't necessarily like to see that expansive in the U.S., he fails to answer the following: w/o programs like S.S., what happens to the elderly or infirm whose families have abandoned them or all-out died? Society will either a) still pick-up the tab to assist them OR b) let them sink and perish. Before S.S. the infirmed were all lumped together and put-in gov't.-funded, often abusive, institutions anyway. The elderly poverty was twice as high as it is today. Abolishing S.S. is idealistic but NOT realistic.
|
|
|
|
Opinion #2
Debater: Jtaylor1
|
|
Gov't funding for the elderly will only 'cause finanacial debt and lazyness
|
|
How long will the elderly suffer if the Gov't won't stop funding because of their lazyness. One points that Pi always equal to 3 and not 3.14 and so on. Second of all, universal healthcare is so expensive, it's draining the money out of Fort Knox and the Deparment of Treasury. Abolishing Social Security should help the government's financial debt and build a better currency exchange. If an elder wants healthcare, he or she should find theirselves a retirement job instead of sitting around in a expensive retirement home, complaining, and being a sloth. This goverment is not a system for American who are lazy, gluttonous sloths. America needs to get off the couch and work for money. America doesn't need social security for the lazy, good nothing, sloths.
|
|
|
