It's better than no healthcare. You are being very very vague in your explanation. A simple, "government touches it, and it's bad" is a poor argument. C'mon. Convince me. Well, the government is in charge the social security and I think that's a good program. Better than privatized social security, in my opinion.

What's so bad about nationalized social security as opposed to privatized social security? You fail to even provide evidence or examples. And what do you mean "give it back"? After receiving health care for free, why would I want them to take it away? Nations like Canada, and France, along with others seem to be doing just fine in this respect.

Kinda figured you'd say that, being republican (no offense), but I'm glad you presented both sides of the argument. I think if you become a doctor you can't get so far in the profession if you are doing it only for the money. I think many of them feel they are helping people and they probably feel pretty bad when patients die on them. That just means, they care about the people they are trying to help. And I think they wouldn't mind the inconvenience too much if they would be able to help more people than they already are. But, I want to know how it is doctors and medical professionals get screwed? (And just if it counts I'll throw it in. My mom is a registered nurse and she supports universal healthcare. She believes in will benefit her patients and/or potential patients)

It's better than no healthcare. You are being very very vague in your explanation. A simple, "government touches it, and it's bad" is a poor argument. C'mon. Convince me. Well, the government is in charge the social security and I think that's a good program. Better than privatized social security, in my opinion.

The younger generation will probably never see a penny of social security money.