How about if healthcare was free for everyone not everybody would be able to have it on a timely basis. This would lead to large numbers of deaths removing them and their future generation's carbon footprint from the planet therefore reducing global warming.

1. Because so many people do not take care of themselves, physically.
2. The communist agenda requires the control of healthcare.

1. Reference people who use universal health care as pets. Well we need UHC just like we have to take care of our pets. Dehumanize them

2. UHC will allow us to sterilize undesirabl, unproductive populations just like Margaret Sanger and the progressives have wanted to do since the 1920's. In addition, it will be possible to ration healthcare to those productive citizens (throw in something about engineers, construction workers, truck drivers, and first responders) and limit the care for the unproductive citizens (mention liberal arts professors, social workers,lawyers, and politicians) since only those who actually pay into universal care should get the full benefit of the care - no tragedy of the commons. UHC will also allow full oversight of medical school admissions in order to eliminate that racially prejudicial behaviors of allowing certain groups to score lower on the MCAT and still be given preferred enrollment.

That should set him on fire

I did the same thing with a sociology professor who wanted an example of just and unjust war. I argued that Vietnam was a just war and Clinton's involvement in Bosnia was unjust. I basically dared him to fail me. Got an A.

So far I have got "every country, both developed and developing, needs some form of healthcare system"... Now I just need a second

Here is something you can use for a positive.

Talk about how in other countries they were unable to treat all of the covid patients. Because of this they had to ration healthcare based on age and importance. It was a net benefit to society because those countries were able to reduce pension costs and human population.

This allows for better resources for the youth and helps with global warming.

Your professor will be so horny even if it's a woman she will pop a boner. You will be able to make fun of socialized medicine and make the professor admit to loving communists.

seems like you should be able to answer this but i guess if you need advice, cite the reasons you think that people shouldn't have health insurance if they're unable to pay for it

answer one or the other (pro or con) and tell Prof there is no good argument for the other side, That's why your argument is so convincing.

The two that I can think of:

1. There is so much wealth that we will most likely be dead and buried before we burn through it all and the ponzi scheme / house of cards collapses and the entire thing goes bankrupt.

2. with so many people convinced that they are entitled to the labor and resources of others, it may be better in terms of societal stability to just give the lazy socialists what they want rather than have to deal with the widespread temper tantrums.

They're not good reasons, they're just the most convincing of the ones available.

Simply compare and contrast strengths and weaknesses of various ‘universal healthcare systems’ (e.g. ‘single payer’ vs. government run vs. Obamacare-style regulation/exchanges vs. unregulated/free market — there is always some limiting principle being used to prioritize cases and control health care spending) and state your position for or against the best qualifying definition of “universal healthcare”.

Then identify the two best arguments for having it. (Lower patient delay from symptom onset to seeking of care, and reduced risk of bankruptcy outcomes for individual patients are probably the two best — most every other argument falls apart upon greater scrutiny, especially when comparing long-term systemic outlooks — for example, patients seek care faster in ‘socialist’ systems, but tend to receive effective care slower than patients in ‘free market’ systems, depending on certain variables, if that makes sense)

Here’s a starting point:

https://bongino.com/do-countries-with-socialized-medicine-really-live-longer/

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/20/january-20th-2020-presidential-politics-trump-administration-day-1096/comment-page-1/#comments

https://archive.fo/3UxJN

https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive

1. After it fails no one can say we didn't try.

2. Now that abortion will be made illegal it might be feasible.

I know one of them is an argument about 'think of de keeds' and the other is a mystery

Do you want real arguments or Gotchas? I can do both lol.

1. To thin the herd. Rationing of healthcare caused by universal healthcare can eliminate the older unproductive people and allow more resources for those who can survive the rationing.

2. Doctors and nurses could use a pay cut. They can be put on the local teachers salary guide.

Based on quality of service as reported by people who use VA Healthcare: Universal healthcare is a great way to ensure that people do not live too long and stay around as a constant burden on other systems in the country.

You could also make a great argument for UHC by going full 1940s eugenisist and pointing put that it would be a great way to ensure that certain people don't breed by slipping contraceptives/sterilizing agents in to an undesireable's meds.

20 years ago I was in a political science class with a democrap professor. She split the class into R's vs D's. Since is was a night class with mostly working adults, the class was split ~70% R and ~30% D. We had to negotiate a Universal Health Care plan. It was mandatory, no other result besides UHC. No other idea's or thought permitted except UHC.

If you want to pass regurgitate their bullshit and move on.

Otherwise make an argument like, “the general public is not to be trusted with their own health, therefore universal care and governmental rationing of care is necessary to ensure the limited supply is distributed in the best interest of the state. Etc etc.”

Because enslaving doctors is the best way to ensure all persons are medically treated equally by promoting a redistribution of care, all will receive the same standard of care. Given out by a depressed, underpaid, overworked employee of the government who no longer develops personal relationships with his/her patients, so as not to show favor to them, we ensure that, while you may not receive the treatment necessary, or to the extent needed, we receive that which, while not justified, is wholly and completely equal. No reward for going above and beyond for patient survivability, allows for an equal chance of an equal outcome (death). Because equality matters more than life.

Do not use this as an answer. You could claim to be a conscientious objector to the premise of the question. Maybe.... I dunno, just felt like responding. Brain washing is real. This is yet another example of it. Even though you dont believe it. Tell me why it's good for you, or you fail.

Convincing to whom? What arguments did the UK use to pass it before it was proven to be a deadly and unmanageable system?

I think if it were me, I’d write my answer giving the most convincing arguments against universal healthcare, because you don’t believe there are any “convincing” arguments for it.

"Because if the democrats decided that we are all entitled to sub-standard Healthcare, then ipso-facto we are all guaranteed free sub-standard hi-point pistols."