Defend Against Disease.

Health care saves lives so having accessible health care is clearly a life saver.  Now if you don't have accessible health care some of those people will die, because they didn't get diagnosed early enough or they didn't get treatment because they couldn't afford it.  Now people with health care will also die and some of them will die because they didn't use their benefits.

You can't confuse those two groups as in the debate sometimes the second one is used as an example of why health care doesn't work.  Unused health care is the same as no health care, probably worse since it was available but its those who get health care and live longer fuller lives we should look at.

Also, having affordable health care might persuade some from group b to start getting check ups.

Every estimate I've seen, and I don't thnk its actually debated, just the actual number, shows the current Republican plans insuring less people over time.

That means some of those people will die who could have lived longer because they didn't have insurance, its a statistical certainty.

The goal of this is vague, its claimed it reduces premiums, but certainly not for the people who need it the most and while it will reduce Medicaid costs that will be at the cost of lives.

Now one of the things our Government is supposed to do is defend its citizens from all enemies both foreign and domestic.  I would argue that disease is clearly an enemy of the citizens that they need to be defended against.

Now the current system can be improved, but any change should insure more people, not less.