What are the arguments for and against a universal health care system?

Students of many subjects are always recommended to treat their academic material in a certain way, or to adopt a particular way of engaging that material. For example, math students are asked to structure their thinking according to certain intermediate steps. This isn't only a way to express an answer, but actually to think through a problem. Is there anything like this in philosophy? How do you read philosophy? What kind of thinking routine do you follow?

I am a Zimbabwean student studying in South Africa and like many, am distressed quite deeply by the events of Zimbabwe's recent past. I am particularly opposed to the blinding lights of patriotism and nationalism-and the inextricable fetters it places upon human thought. However, at the moment I feel that much of my disgust and my desire for change in Zim is motivated by that very patriotism I tend to abhor. Is nationalism ever justified? Or does it always form the pretext for the ideologies of hate that grip the world so voraciously? Also, is the use of force justified in opposition to the government's fierce crackdown on civil protest? Is civil disobedience of Mahatma Gandhi's brand the only justified response to tyranny?

As regards the point at which we should accord rights to that which would eventually be a child (an embryo, a fetus, etc.), does someone who argues that a given stage is not sufficiently mature have also to answer the question of which WOULD be the critical stage? Or is it enough to say, "Well, I don't know when this thing becomes a person, but it's not a person at day 1."

Does the individual consciousness depend on the actual atoms or only on the configuration of the atoms? Suppose we have mastered cryo-freezing and atom-manipulation technology. We can freeze and unfreeze people at will. We freeze Sarah. We replace Sarah's atoms one by one. With all atoms replaced, we wake her up. Is it the "same" Sarah? (the same to herself, not just to us). Thanks, Mario

Is it important to save endangered species?

I was thinking, Is "absolutely nothing" logically possible? And I would just like to know what you would think of this argument. IF it is accepted that 1) "X is true if X corresponds to reality" then it would be logically impossible for "absolutely nothing" to exist. "Absolutely Nothing" implies no reality. If there is no reality then one can never say that "absolutely nothing" can exist, since "absolutely nothing" does not correspond to reality. But I ask you, if "absolutely nothing" is even possible. And if it is not possible, then what logical proofs are there. Thank you!

Do you ever find the questions of philosophy to be mundane and rather inconsequential to our lives, not just in the daily sense but in totality? What about poverty, inequality, war, and our individual responsibility in these areas? Isn't there so much to learn, and if so, why are we philosophers instead asking about the finer details of whether a hypothetical barber of a hypothetical village shaves the hypothetical beard of hypothetical men??

Dear Philosophers, I am a 34-year old undergraduate (junior level, at a very good liberal arts college), majoring in philosophy and art history. I fully understand that I am already 5-10 years behind those with whom I would potentially compete for positions in higher education. My question is the following: Do you believe I have the same capacity (given the rigorous nature of the discipline) and chance (given that I complete doctoral studies) to make a meaningful contribution to my chosen specialized field (aesthetics)? I know that there are personal variables that make success more or less likely.

Does a proposition about the future have to be true today? If so does this preclude contingency and is every proposition of the future necessary?