This is a consistency argument. To be consistent, any state that provides public education ought to also provide a universal basic income or government-subsidized health care. — Rex

What I find interesting is that there are food banks, public education, and assistance programs, but, to my knowledge, not many effective healthcare assistance programs. If public education is a right, shouldn't some form of public healthcare be a right? I've heard this argument many times. After pondering on it, I feel as it is a pretty good one. The problem lies in the principle of people believing whether health care is a right or a privilege. The people against healthcare to be a right seem to not support helping someone on the street who has been stabbed or a person who is injured from a car accident. Also, public assistance programs should include drug rehabilitation, mental illness help, etc. If there are working people in society, who are less fortunate and can't afford these services, how are they expected to perform work? How are they supposed to be functioning members of society?

To add to the ideas aforementioned, I think we should focus on the 'function' principle as well. You shouldn't expect people to 'function' in society if they can't have some sort of basic healthcare assistance. Health is more important than work. Health is also more important than education. So why isn't this granted?

The universal basic income is better. — Rex

I think some sort of basic public healthcare is better. Reasons? First, a universal basic income might actually worsen the problem. If someone is given money, it probably won't be enough to cover healthcare expenses, thereby forcing the person to still need proper care. Second, it might strengthen the pro-private health care case. If people are granted money, why should we have both universal basic income and public healthcare? Seems like printing money and overspending would occur from the government(s). Therefore, this would bolster the pro-private healthcare people's argument further--in terms of spending and proper fiscal/monetary management in the government. Third, universal basic income, while it is a good idea in principle, may be hard to control in reality. I'm not against it, but there needs to be a clear plan against some of these insurance companies jacking up prices on people. Therefore, I think basic healthcare should be the priority first, then universal basic income might be able to come into the mix of policies down the road.

Anyhow, thanks for the interesting post mate. I love to discuss and think about these topics. Cheers!

The justification of public education is that high school education is required for a good life. — Rex

I find it interesting that people justify high school education as a requirement for a good life. I don't think it is necessary at all. It may be sufficient for some or a part of a combination of sufficient conditions, but I've met some people who didn't finish high school and proclaim that they have a good life. I have also met people who precisely state that high school was the worst part of their life and that college, elementary school, and other aspects made their life much better than if they had just stopped at high school.

What is interesting to me is that people justify many things for the requirements of a 'good life.' However, the more requirements, like someone having a 'public high school education' is an act in itself that makes someone more prone to having a 'bad life' in their own perception. In other words, they pack on a list of requirements that they themselves think makes a 'good life,' and then if they didn't have these requirements, they don't yet have a 'good life.' Another possibility is that more fortunate folks proclaim that if they didn't have the best forms of these requirements of a 'good life' then they too don't have a 'good life.' But action in these ways, in my opinion, makes these people absolutely miserable. What constitutes a 'good life' should be a much smaller list. Or does a 'good life' even require a list?

If there is such a thing as a 'good life' and a list of requirements for such a thing, then having proper health care should probably be the first thing on the list. Not having proper health can lead to many other activities being spoiled. It can also lead to depression, anxiety, as well as boredom of not being able to do certain things in which one wants to do. So, if we use the 'good life' thought experiment in arguments against people that are against public healthcare for people in need, then appears to me to be pretty good so far. But this is all just my 2 cents on the matter.

You don't want to have an event that turns a place intended for the best minds and souls to come together to better themselves and others in the process into a thing where people just show up for the free stuff and leave or otherwise lounge around until the next bone is thrown while others actually contribute. It's not fair to the productive. Same argument as the insurance, really.

That may be a possibility and a consequence of universal basic healthcare, but that is only a possibility of forces outside the argument. This possibility has to deal with immigration, and who is entitled to this healthcare in the legal language of the law that would be drawn up by legislators. Since you have brought up fairness, how is it fair to people who can't afford items for their health or livelihood? The first thing that comes to mind is insulin prices in recent times, where insulin and EpiPens were costing thousands of dollars. How is this fair to people who can't afford these items? Since there is only 10% of the American population that can afford these items, what are we supposed to do for poor people with diabetes? Even if this isn't the case anymore, there are a plethora of other health problems and costs for those problems that poor people simply cannot afford. So, is the solution to keep this system in place just because of the fear that people may come to the country and mooch off of the free basic healthcare that may be drawn up? This kind of answer is a cop-out, in my opinion, because it deals with the issue of immigration and who exactly is entitled to the some sort of public healthcare services given to these poor citizens.