Instigator
Pinkfreud08 avatar
Points: 14

National Healthcare in the US

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Pinkfreud08
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Health
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender
Sparrow avatar
Points: 8
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
Greetings today I will be addressing and debunking some of the major arguments against national healthcare, To be clear and concise I will address affordability, Universality, And quality.

Affordability:

- One of the major arguments I hear against national healthcare is it would cost Trillions every year and would bankrupt America, While this is true it is a very one-sided argument and here's why. According to the Washington Post, Bernie's healthcare plan would cost 7. 35 trillion yearly, While private healthcare would cost 7. 7 Trillion yearly. It is very obvious that national healthcare would actually be cheaper than privatized healthcare. Therefore the affordability argument is debunked.

Universality:

- By the US implementing a national healthcare model, ALL Americans rich and poor alike would have access to healthcare. This would provide a number of benefits such as higher life expectancy, Better worker productivity, And an overall boost to happiness in America. This would also reduce the number of people going bankrupt in the US, According to the commonwealth fund, " 41 percent of working-age Americans" or 72 million people "have medical bill problems or are paying off medical debt, Up from 34 percent in 2005. " Very clearly many Americans are struggling with paying off health care debt, And by the US instituting national healthcare, This would alleviate that stress.

Quality:

- By far the most common argument I've heard against national healthcare is the wait times and the overall downturn in quality it brings. This is quite simply a baseless accusation that is not backed up by statistics at all. The US according to healthsystemtracker.org and Business insider, Wasn't even in the top 10 in life expectancy compared to it's higher counterparts with universal healthcare such as Japan, Switzerland, And Australia. 

- Statistically, 45,000 people die from our privatized healthcare model, this is equivalent to a monthly 9/11. 

- An argument I heard in the last debate was that the US has the best doctors in the world, therefore private healthcare is bad. Statistically, this is sorta true as according to countrydetail.com in 2016, the US only ranked #1 right behind Germany which has a mixed healthcare system. Besides other countries with national healthcare still rank high on the list, Norway, Canada, and Japan all have great doctors according to this list. 

- Another common argument against the quality of national healthcare is the wait times in these countries. This is true for countries such as Canada, However, This is mostly for specialists and surgeries which of course are going to have longer wait times. The only reason the US doesn't have these long wait times is simply that less and fewer people have access to healthcare in the first place. However, Two countries with mixed systems do perform just as well as the United States does, So this seems to indicate that a private healthcare system is not necessary for short specialist wait times. Ask yourself what is more important, Wait times? Or the thousands of people who die due to not affording healthcare and the millions going bankrupt due to healthcare? Plus statistically according too,  countries with mixed healthcare such as Germany and Switzerland have around the same wait times as the US does, what this means is that privatized healthcare doesn't automatically equal too faster wait times. 

SOURCES:











Published:
Affordability:

- One of the major arguments I hear against national healthcare is it would cost Trillions every year and would bankrupt America, While this is true it is a very one-sided argument and here's why. According to the Washington Post, Bernie's healthcare plan would cost 7. 35 trillion yearly, While private healthcare would cost 7. 7 Trillion yearly. It is very obvious that national healthcare would actually be cheaper than privatized healthcare. Therefore the affordability argument is debunked.
7.35 trillion is more than 7.7 trillion, therefor your argument is debunked.

Universality:

- By the US implementing a national healthcare model, ALL Americans rich and poor alike would have access to healthcare. This would provide a number of benefits such as higher life expectancy, Better worker productivity, And an overall boost to happiness in America. This would also reduce the number of people going bankrupt in the US, According to the commonwealth fund, " 41 percent of working-age Americans" or 72 million people "have medical bill problems or are paying off medical debt, Up from 34 percent in 2005. " Very clearly many Americans are struggling with paying off health care debt, And by the US instituting national healthcare, This would alleviate that stress.
I will bring up a few points to counter this:

A) The planet is currently in crisis because there are too many humans on it destroying the ecosystem. To state it very plainly, the human race would be better off in the long term if more humans were dead right now.

B) The quality of healthcare is better with a private system, which I will address later in more detail.

C) Privatized healthcare provides more consumer choice and is less overwhelming of a burden on medical establishments. With national healthcare, far more people will be relying on the same institutions for their healthcare, which means longer waiting lists and less diversity of healthcare options. Private healthcare creates a market for different methods and philosophies to compete rather than the monogamous state-run healthcare system you are advocating, thus it creates more opportunities for new techniques to develop and for businesses to flourish whereas a national system would stifle innovation and kill business for those who aren't working for the national system.

By far the most common argument I've heard against national healthcare is the wait times and the overall downturn in quality it brings. This is quite simply a baseless accusation that is not backed up by statistics at all.
The statistics you went on to link in support of this statement do not necessarily indicate that the US has lower quality healthcare, in fact your own list of which countries have the best doctors proves this. The lower life expectancy indicates that less people have access to healthcare among other factors such as poor dietary habits and higher wealth inequality etc. While less people having access to healthcare seems bad on the surface, private healthcare not only produces better quality healthcare but also increases the quality of the people being helped by the system. In a nationalized system, a hobo who has never contributed anything to society may be ahead of an engineer or entrepreneur on the waiting list, and we will lose good people who could have payed for their own healthcare with their hard earned money if it wasn't for a system that insists every deadbeat who contributes nothing has access to free healthcare on the backs of working, tax paying citizens. On top of that, the US life expectancy is still higher than the vast majority of places, is not that far behind those that are higher on the list and most of the ones that are higher have a mixed system rather than a fully nationalized one.

Statistically, 45,000 people die from our privatized healthcare model, this is equivalent to a monthly 9/11
The US has a significantly higher population in general than the nations with national healthcare so naturally more people will be dying annually in the US.
An argument I heard in the last debate was that the US has the best doctors in the world, therefore private healthcare is bad. Statistically, this is sorta true as according to countrydetail.com in 2016, the US only ranked #1 right behind Germany which has a mixed healthcare system. Besides other countries with national healthcare still rank high on the list, Norway, Canada, and Japan all have great doctors according to this list. 
The US seems to be doing pretty well despite it's supposedly backwards and primitive healthcare system. Also the list you provided has a mixture of private, national and hybrid systems. If Nationalized healthcare is ideal for the quality, why do the three highest ones on the list have private or mixed systems?

Also, I have noticed you making quite a few syntactical errors, just something for you to work on.

Another common argument against the quality of national healthcare is the wait times in these countries. This is true for countries such as Canada, However, This is mostly for specialists and surgeries which of course are going to have longer wait times. The only reason the US doesn't have these long wait times is simply that less and fewer people have access to healthcare in the first place.
There are other reasons, for instance with a private system there are simply more options, which means that (as I stated previously) there are less people relying on the same institutions and overburdening them.

Ask yourself what is more important, Wait times? Or the thousands of people who die due to not affording healthcare and the millions going bankrupt due to healthcare?
These things are unfortunate, but I would argue that one is entitled to ensure their own survival to the best of their ability using their own money moreso than every random hobo on the street is entitled to taxpayer money which is taken by force by the government. You are essentially arguing for a system that steals money from people who earned it fair and square, money that they could be using to pay for the healthcare they see fit whenever they should need it, and giving it to people who contribute less to society at the expense of those who contribute more.

Imagine this, a hard working and successful engineer is forced to pay high taxes to pay for "free" healthcare for some deadbeat who never had a job in their life, meanwhile the engineer unknowingly has cancer which will become severe ten years down the line. When the time comes, a thousand deadbeats are put on a government hospital waiting list ahead of the hard working, upstanding, tax paying American and so the bright and successful taxpayer dies because he was forced to pay for a bunch of welfare babies with no job instead of keeping his own money to use it as he sees fit.

countries with mixed healthcare such as Germany and Switzerland have around the same wait times as the US does, what this means is that privatized healthcare doesn't automatically equal too faster wait times. 
The US has similar wait times to these countries with significantly lower populations and thus less people requiring medical services at a time, this looks like a good indication that private healthcare works fairly well because it is handling a much larger burden with the same efficiency as mixed systems which have less patients to deal with.

Round 2
Published:
- " 7.35 trillion is more than 7.7 trillion, therefore your argument is debunked. "

- Ok, you do realize that 7.7 trillion is equivalent to 7.70 million right? the .7 means 70 in math. 

" The planet is currently in crisis because there are too many humans on it destroying the ecosystem. To state it very plainly, the human race would be better off in the long term if more humans were dead right now."

- This does very little to debunk nationalized healthcare as you provided little to no elaboration onto why this somehow debunks it. This also does little to prove that privatized healthcare would suddenly solve this issue better than a national healthcare would. 

" Privatized healthcare provides more consumer choice and is less overwhelming of a burden on medical establishments. "

- Privatized healthcare is very limiting from it limiting consumers onto 1 establishment and on certain coverages. National healthcare not only allows consumers a wide variety of establishments but gives consumers coverage for EVERYTHING. 

"  thus it creates more opportunities for new techniques to develop and for businesses to flourish "

- There are many reasons why the US is the home for the most innovation in the medical industry than just " people are paid more". The US as it stands as one of the best economies in the world and the most influence in the world. Plus technological innovation is irrelevant if only a small portion of people can even afford said innovation. 

- Regarding your second point concerning business, other countries with very robust economies which are arguably better than the US's, such as Switzerland, Germany, and Norway, all have various forms of national healthcare and still have great economies.  

" The lower life expectancy indicates that fewer people have access to healthcare among other factors such as poor dietary habits and higher wealth inequality etc"

- Then explain how similar countries such as Germany and literally almost every other country have rising life expectancies while the US's life expectancies are dropping. Also, healthcare contributes also to have better dietary habits. 

"In a nationalized system, a hobo who has never contributed anything to society may be ahead of an engineer or entrepreneur on the waiting list, and we will lose good people who could have paid for their own healthcare with their hard earned money if it wasn't for a system that insists every deadbeat who contributes nothing has access to free healthcare on the backs of working, tax-paying citizens."

- Wrong on almost all accounts, the way nationalized healthcare works is that it provides healthcare to those who need it above people who don't need it. So a person going in for a life-threatening surgery will go first in line over a person who sprung an ankle. Also, the reality of the situation is that poor people are generally covered by Medicaid and Medicare while rich people currently have more than enough money to pay for healthcare. Going off of this, the people MOST affected by a privatized healthcare are those who aren't rich but also don't qualify for social programs, in other words, the middle class which last time I checked sustain jobs. 

- Also, do you really believe the stereotype that poor people are just lazy deadbeats? While some poor people are defiantly like this, 99 % of poor people are working hard and working longer hours to provide for their families. Not everyone is so fortunate to have a job or even be able to work. With the way technology is going, AI robots are taking over peoples jobs and reducing the number of jobs needed to be performed. Besides, do you really hate deadbeats so much that you'd be willing too put innocent hardworking poor people without medical care just to punish a small minority that does abuse the system? 

"  On top of that, the US life expectancy is still higher than the vast majority of places, is not that far behind those that are higher on the list and most of the ones that are higher have a mixed system rather than a fully nationalized one."

- Just because it is better than the vast majority of places, does NOT make it better. I could make the absurd argument that we shouldn't have a police force since the crime rate would still be better than the vast majority of places or that we shouldn't have welfare since our poverty rates would still be better than the vast majority of other countries. 

- Regarding your point on mixed and nationalized, I am convinced that you didn't read the list since countries with fully nationalized such as Canada and Norway have higher life expectancies even with their nationalized systems. 

" The US has a significantly higher population in general than the nations with national healthcare so naturally more people will be dying annually in the US. "

- You miss my point, I was NOT stating that more people would die in the US from being underinsured, my argument was that the US has 45,000 annually
dieing

. 45,000 regardless of population size is still 45,000. 

"  If Nationalized healthcare is ideal for the quality, why do the three highest ones on the list have private or mixed systems?"

- Because what this shows is that Privatized healthcare does NOT correlate with better doctors when mixed healthcare systems have equal or better doctors than the US does. 

"  for instance with a private system, there are simply more options, which means that (as I stated previously) there are fewer people relying on the same institutions and overburdening them."

- Already debunked this argument earlier in the debate, but just too briefly summarize my earlier point. Privatized systems only provide the person with what the person pays for. 

" You are essentially arguing for a system that steals money from people who earned it fair and square, money that they could be used to pay for the healthcare they see fit whenever they should need it, and giving it to people who contribute less to society at the expense of those who contribute more. "

- Again I already addressed this argument earlier, however, I will briefly summarize it again. The majority of people burdened by these insane medical prices are the middle class, and the majority of poor people are hard workers who may have just been unfortunate. 








Published:
- Ok, you do realize that 7.7 trillion is equivalent to 7.70 million right? the .7 means 70 in math. 
lol you caught me. I still don't know where you are getting this information from though, because it's my understanding that publicly funded healthcare would cost more in tax dollars than healthcare which is not payed for in tax dollars, if that doesn't seem obvious enough.

- This does very little to debunk nationalized healthcare as you provided little to no elaboration onto why this somehow debunks it. This also does little to prove that privatized healthcare would suddenly solve this issue better than a national healthcare would. 
What I'm saying is we could use some natural selection. It is simply not practical or logical to take from contributers and give to non-contributers. In fact, it is even less ethical to do so because while you may be helping some individuals you are weakening the nation and the species as a whole by taking from the capable to give to the incapable.

- Privatized healthcare is very limiting from it limiting consumers onto 1 establishment and on certain coverages. National healthcare not only allows consumers a wide variety of establishments but gives consumers coverage for EVERYTHING. 
This is not necessarily true as the current system which forces you into government mandated insurance plans is not a universal model of privatized healthcare. Also your ideal of national healthcare is not a universal model for national healthcare. What if a given national healthcare policy DOESN'T give you any choice or cover certain things?

- There are many reasons why the US is the home for the most innovation in the medical industry than just " people are paid more". The US as it stands as one of the best economies in the world and the most influence in the world. Plus technological innovation is irrelevant if only a small portion of people can even afford said innovation. 
The US has one of the best economies in the world because they are not socialists who redistribute the wealth of successful people by force. If only a small portion of people can afford the innovation, at least it still matters to them. On what basis do you make this claim that the quantity of people helped by the system automatically makes it better, regardless of the quality or free choice involved? It's also a bit hyperbolic to say only a small portion benefit, I am not rich but I have been able to benefit from medical establishments without getting buried in debt.

- Then explain how similar countries such as Germany and literally almost every other country have rising life expectancies while the US's life expectancies are dropping. Also, healthcare contributes also to have better dietary habits. 
US life expectancies are not dropping to my knowledge. The sources you provided don't demonstrate that. Rampant consumerist culture inducing higher rates of obesity and heart disease through the shoveling in of cheeseburgers is one thing I can think of that keeps American life expectancies lower. The average fat American has a doctor that tells them to eat better and a lot of them don't listen due to their own stupidity. Why should my wealth be stolen to pay for their poor dietary choices?

- Wrong on almost all accounts, the way nationalized healthcare works is that it provides healthcare to those who need it above people who don't need it. So a person going in for a life-threatening surgery will go first in line over a person who sprung an ankle. Also, the reality of the situation is that poor people are generally covered by Medicaid and Medicare while rich people currently have more than enough money to pay for healthcare. Going off of this, the people MOST affected by a privatized healthcare are those who aren't rich but also don't qualify for social programs, in other words, the middle class which last time I checked sustain jobs. 
What if a hundred people with the same condition are on the same waiting list? What if there was a different system of privatized healthcare than the one currently employed in the US?

- Also, do you really believe the stereotype that poor people are just lazy deadbeats? While some poor people are defiantly like this, 99 % of poor people are working hard and working longer hours to provide for their families. Not everyone is so fortunate to have a job or even be able to work. With the way technology is going, AI robots are taking over peoples jobs and reducing the number of jobs needed to be performed. Besides, do you really hate deadbeats so much that you'd be willing too put innocent hardworking poor people without medical care just to punish a small minority that does abuse the system? 
I do not believe that poor people are all a bunch of deadbeats. I believe your system benefits deadbeats at the expense of those who are not deadbeats by forcing them into a socialized system that takes what they earn and prevents them from having a say in when or how they are treated. Nothing I am saying is based on a desire to punish people, I believe the answer is freedom and innovation, and that things will naturally become better, cheaper and more efficient at a faster rate in the free market as opposed to a bureaucratic government run system.

- Because what this shows is that Privatized healthcare does NOT correlate with better doctors when mixed healthcare systems have equal or better doctors than the US does. 
The best ones on the list are not social democracies or socialist systems, they are centrist systems.

Privatized systems only provide the person with what the person pays for. 
So?
They also provide people with the innovation that happens in a free market, therefor by getting what you pay for rather than taking what others earn you make more available to be payed for and benefited from.

- Again I already addressed this argument earlier, however, I will briefly summarize it again. The majority of people burdened by these insane medical prices are the middle class, and the majority of poor people are hard workers who may have just been unfortunate.
That's because instead of making things affordable for the middle class, the government forces them to give their money to insurance agencies who never give them anything in return if they can help it.



Round 3
Published:
lol you caught me. I still don't know where you are getting this information from though, because it's my understanding that publicly funded healthcare would cost more in tax dollars than healthcare which is not payed for in tax dollars, if that doesn't seem obvious enough.
Well I listed you my sources in my rebuttal. While tax dollars would raise, it is still almost irrelevant. Think about it this way, I pay 1,500 dollars of taxes for national healthcare, however since healthcare costed 2,000 dollars, I saved 500 dollars. The values aren't exactly like this mind you, however the concept is still the same.

What I'm saying is we could use some natural selection.
Ok this is not only an immoral argument but an absurd one. The reality is many people in the US are unable to contribute to society, old people, mentally deficient people, or crippled people. There are also many people unable to find a job in general, with the rise of AI robots many people are getting replaced by robots.

It is simply not practical or logical to take from contributers and give to non-contributers.
First of all, do you really hate non contributors that much that you would rather see them die than to see us take from contributors? I would personally rather see contributors be taken advantage of than to see non-contributors die. Secondly like I previously stated in my rebuttal, the majority of people effected by healthcare are the middle class as they do not qualify for government benefits, but also don't have a great deal of money to spend on healthcare. Also by this same logic, you would be against funding the police force, the militarily, education, or anything the government does on tax payer dollars since you would be taking from contributors and giving to non-contributors by this same logic. 

What if a given national healthcare policy DOESN'T give you any choice or cover certain things?

According to the Common Wealth Fund, Canadians obtain all healthcare benefits as long as they are Canadian Citizens. Regardless private healthcare providers do not provide everything to their citizens either, assuming that national healthcare doesn't cover certain things, this system would still at least cover everyone with decent healthcare. In the private system if you don't pay for healthcare,  you don't obtain healthcare plain and simple.

The US has one of the best economies in the world because they are not socialists who redistribute the wealth of successful people by force.
Last time I checked, the US has redistributed wealth for the majority of our life span, this is what taxes are.

On what basis do you make this claim that the quantity of people helped by the system automatically makes it better, regardless of the quality or free choice involved?
I've already debunked the free choice argument since in privatized you only get 1 healthcare plan. Also quality still matters too to some extent. I would personally rather see everyone obtain good cheap healthcare, than to see only half of the population obtain AMAZING healthcare which is also expensive. So in short, quality is important however quantity is also very important as well.


It's also a bit hyperbolic to say only a small portion benefit, I am not rich but I have been able to benefit from medical establishments without getting buried in debt.
Well that's great that you obtain good healthcare without getting burdened, but again what about the rest of the population? I already previously cited a source that stated that 45,000 people die yearly due to being under-insured, however according to The Balance, around 1 million bankruptcies happened in 2009 due to private healthcare insurance. This is equivalent to a bankruptcy every 30 seconds.

US life expectancies are not dropping to my knowledge.
According to the Washington Post, the US's life expectancy has been stagnating and declining over the last century every since WW1. For the best economy in the world, the life expectancy should be higher. I mean get real, explain how a small crappy country like Spain (I'm Spanish by the way so don't call me racist) is doing better than the US?

What if a hundred people with the same condition are on the same waiting list? What if there was a different system of privatized healthcare than the one currently employed in the US?

And what happens if a hundred people with the same condition are on the same waiting list in a privatized system? The system would dictate that the highest bidder would win. In other words, the rich go first, than the middle class, and than the poor.

I do not believe that poor people are all a bunch of deadbeats.
Earlier in the debate, " These things are unfortunate, but I would argue that one is entitled to ensure their own survival to the best of their ability using their own money morose than every random hobo on the street is entitled to taxpayer money which is taken by force by the government."

Also earlier in the debate " When the time comes, a thousand deadbeats are put on a government hospital waiting list ahead of the hard working, upstanding, tax paying American and so the bright and successful taxpayer dies because he was forced to pay for a bunch of welfare babies with no job instead of keeping his own money to use it as he sees fit."

- I mean do I really need to explain these quotes? Like seriously in these quotes you call people " deadbeats" and " welfare babies with no job". You than proceed to act as if these people don't have the right to life because of this.

- And again the people most affected by healthcare in the country, are middle class citizens and not " welfare babies" or " deadbeats".

, I believe the answer is freedom and innovation, and that things will naturally become better, cheaper and more efficient at a faster rate in the free market as opposed to a bureaucratic government run system.
Are you sure about that? Because in the US 45,000 people die from healthcare yearly, around 1 million Americans go bankrupt from private healthcare yearly, and the US's life expectancy has been stagnating and dropping over the past century.
Published:
Well I listed you my sources in my rebuttal. While tax dollars would raise, it is still almost irrelevant. Think about it this way, I pay 1,500 dollars of taxes for national healthcare, however since healthcare costed 2,000 dollars, I saved 500 dollars. The values aren't exactly like this mind you, however the concept is still the same.
Ah so when you said it was cheaper you weren't talking about the taxpayer or the country, just for the one receiving healthcare at the time. And it still isn't cheaper for them, because 99% of the time they're just paying the super high taxes the system would require. See, it's not really cheaper when you consider that every tax paying citizen is constantly paying higher taxes, it's only really cheaper for those who don't pay taxes and live off the government.

Ok this is not only an immoral argument but an absurd one. The reality is many people in the US are unable to contribute to society, old people, mentally deficient people, or crippled people. There are also many people unable to find a job in general, with the rise of AI robots many people are getting replaced by robots.
The greater good is to place the species, the nation and the planet above the needs of individuals. Besides, I am not saying all those people need to die, I'm just saying it's not my responsibility to pay copious amounts of money for everyone else when I can afford my own healthcare.

First of all, do you really hate non contributors that much that you would rather see them die than to see us take from contributors? I would personally rather see contributors be taken advantage of than to see non-contributors die.
I think freedom of choice and not having everything run by the state is more important than giving non-contributers free stuff. It's not that they don't have a right to life, it's just not everyone's responsibility. If someone is drowning and I don't help them does that make me a murderer? No it doesn't, and I probably would help them anyway but that doesn't mean I should be forced to do so.

Last time I checked, the US has redistributed wealth for the majority of our life span, this is what taxes are.
The US was founded in part on not forcing people to pay huge taxes, that was one of the main things the founders were aiming for.

I've already debunked the free choice argument since in privatized you only get 1 healthcare plan.
You have it backwards. In a private system you get what you pay for, which is not perfect but it's better than a system where everyone is forced to pay for and receive the same government healthcare. Also keep in mind we are talking about national healthcare VS private health care in general, you don't get to cherry pick a given system used in a given nation and conflate it with all private or national healthcare systems that could possibly exist.

And what happens if a hundred people with the same condition are on the same waiting list in a privatized system? The system would dictate that the highest bidder would win. In other words, the rich go first, than the middle class, and than the poor.
Wealth is not a perfect way to determine who is more important, but it's better than completely arbitrary like a national system. In a national system the most useless people are given the same priority as the person who is paying taxes to keep them alive and works 30 times harder than them.

Earlier in the debate, " These things are unfortunate, but I would argue that one is entitled to ensure their own survival to the best of their ability using their own money morose than every random hobo on the street is entitled to taxpayer money which is taken by force by the government."

Also earlier in the debate " When the time comes, a thousand deadbeats are put on a government hospital waiting list ahead of the hard working, upstanding, tax paying American and so the bright and successful taxpayer dies because he was forced to pay for a bunch of welfare babies with no job instead of keeping his own money to use it as he sees fit."

I am not saying that all poor people are losers and Hobos etc. I am saying that complete losers are given the same priority as engineers and firefighters and what have you. I am using extreme language here to illustrate my point, people deserve to have a choice with what they earn more than the government should be entitled to take it and give it to others by force, especially if those people who are paying for everything get less benefit from the system than they would otherwise. Is it really more moral to increase a successful person's chance of dying to save a non-contributer? No it is not, because while it is good for people to be helped it is also immoral for that to be made everyone else's responsibility by force and at their own expense.

- And again the people most affected by healthcare in the country, are middle class citizens and not " welfare babies" or " deadbeats".
And who do you think would be hurt by a national system? The rich will survive a tax increase and the extremely poor will just be given free healthcare but the middle class will have their taxes raised which will only keep them down more than they are already kept down.


Round 4
Published:
And it still isn't cheaper for them, because 99% of the time they're just paying the super high taxes the system would require. See, it's not really cheaper when you consider that every tax paying citizen is constantly paying higher taxes, it's only really cheaper for those who don't pay taxes and live off the government.
First of all, this is an anecdotal claim. I have already provided you with statistical data earlier in the debate that proves that if the US adopted a universal model, the costs would actually be cheaper than the privatized model. You have provided me no statistical data to prove otherwise.

Secondly living off of welfare is impossible, the amount of money you obtain from the welfare system isn't something you can live off of. The welfare money is something you obtain to help. And again 

Thirdly do you really hate poor people this much that you would rather see them die than to see them abuse the system? 

Fourthly, this again does not make any sense since poor people currently already obtain government benefits while the rich don't have to worry. Therefore it only makes sense that the middle class are the ones most affected by it. 

 I'm just saying it's not my responsibility to pay copious amounts of money for everyone else when I can afford my own healthcare.
Really so you don't want to adopt the cheaper model that also gives everyone else healthcare? You would seriously rather lose money in the privatized model than to see a bunch of needy people obtain healthcare? 

No it doesn't, and I probably would help them anyway but that doesn't mean I should be forced to do so.
This logic also works for funding of the military, funding of the police force, and funding of schools. I guess I don't have any responsibility to pay taxes for these services than. 

The US was founded in part on not forcing people to pay huge taxes, that was one of the main things the founders were aiming for.
Again the national healthcare model would actually save people money. 

 In a private system you get what you pay for, which is not perfect but it's better than a system where everyone is forced to pay for and receive the same government healthcare.
Even if this were the case, why is consumer choice such an issue that you'd be willing to bankrupt and let people die just for it? Is consumer choice really that big of a deal to you? 

Secondly, if you are going to use the argument that government healthcare is bad, then how do you explain the fact that the US is nowhere near other developed countries with national healthcare systems such as Canada, Japan, or Spain. Or other mixed healthcare models such as Germany or Switzerland? 

Wealth is not a perfect way to determine who is more important, but it's better than completely arbitrary like a national system. 
Again this is not accurate, in a national healthcare system the most urgent surgeries get put ahead first. At least in this " arbitrary " system, everyone gets healthcare and not just who pays more. 

I am not saying that all poor people are losers and Hobos etc.
You called them welfare babies, deadbeats, and you are acting as if they shouldn't have a right to life equal to other more fortunate people. 

Is it really more moral to increase a successful person's chance of dying to save a non-contributer? No it is not,
Again this is not backed up by statistics. Statistically successful people are going bankrupt, the life expectancy has been stagnating and dropping, and 45,000 people die yearly from being underinsured. And again you are acting as if poor people don't work at all when in reality many work 2 jobs just to feed their families. 


Published:
First of all, this is an anecdotal claim. I have already provided you with statistical data earlier in the debate that proves that if the US adopted a universal model, the costs would actually be cheaper than the privatized model. You have provided me no statistical data to prove otherwise.
It's not an anecdotal claim, national healthcare is only cheaper for people who don't pay taxes because if you are regularly paying high taxes that is obviously more expensive than only paying for what you need.


Secondly living off of welfare is impossible, the amount of money you obtain from the welfare system isn't something you can live off of. The welfare money is something you obtain to help. And again 
If I go to the grocery store with food stamps buying groceries is cheaper, but the taxes it requires to pay for my food stamps are more expensive.This is why welfare is more expensive in reality even though it seems less expensive to the one receiving it. Funny how that works, right?

Thirdly do you really hate poor people this much that you would rather see them die than to see them abuse the system? 
This is not an argument. People die all the time, it isn't my responsibility to keep them alive just because I have more money than them.

Fourthly, this again does not make any sense since poor people currently already obtain government benefits while the rich don't have to worry. Therefore it only makes sense that the middle class are the ones most affected by it. 
Yes and in a nationalized system the only thing that would change is that the middle class would be paying high taxes instead of high medical bills. In my opinion the only answer is to make healthcare cheaper and better with scientific innovation in the field of medicine and with an open, free market with some regulation to prevent malpractice and medical negligence.

This logic also works for funding of the military, funding of the police force, and funding of schools. I guess I don't have any responsibility to pay taxes for these services than. 
America's military is way too overblown to begin with, it could do with some budget cuts. The police are important because without the police criminals would run a muck, and schools are what turn hyper-active children into productive, bright and disciplined citizens who can afford their own healthcare. All those things are  fundamental to society.

Even if this were the case, why is consumer choice such an issue that you'd be willing to bankrupt and let people die just for it? Is consumer choice really that big of a deal to you? 

It means everything to me, that's the only reason capitalism works. Without consumer choice there is no free market, and without a free market innovation is stifled which is evidenced by all of modern history.

Secondly, if you are going to use the argument that government healthcare is bad, then how do you explain the fact that the US is nowhere near other developed countries with national healthcare systems such as Canada, Japan, or Spain. Or other mixed healthcare models such as Germany or Switzerland? 
How do you explain that fully nationalized systems are not the ones you are using as examples here if the system you advocate is truly the best? America is second best in terms of quality, it's only quantity of people helped that is the issue. That issue can be fixed by making healthcare cheaper and making poor people more wealthy, that is the ONLY way because national healthcare is just a utopian pipe dream where everything supposedly gets magically cheaper due to massive tax increases and everything magically gets more efficient due to a massive monolithic state run medical bureaucracy.

Again this is not accurate, in a national healthcare system the most urgent surgeries get put ahead first. At least in this " arbitrary " system, everyone gets healthcare and not just who pays more. 
Once again, what if there are a hundred hobos with the same exact condition as a successful person? Will the successful person be allowed to use what he earned or will he be doomed because of a system which forces him to pay for a bunch of losers to be put ahead of him on the waiting list? I do not believe that all people are equal, I believe that someone who has done things with their life is more entitled to what they have earned than a random deadbeat smoking crack in some dank alleyway.

You called them welfare babies, deadbeats, and you are acting as if they shouldn't have a right to life equal to other more fortunate people. 
Yes, I called them all of those things. That doesn't mean I think that of all poor people. Like I said money is not a perfect standard by which to judge someone's merit, but it is better than putting the same priority on everyone's life whether they are a crack head who never worked in their life or a rocket scientist quantum computer technician.


Round 5
Published:
I am not going to read an article explaining your reasons, I want to hear YOUR reasons. One who relies on quotes with little to no analysis will not gain my respect. Citing an entire article is not only lazy but poor conduct. 

This is not an argument. People die all the time, it isn't my responsibility to keep them alive just because I have more money than them.
- This is an appeal to futility since you're basically stating " since we can't prevent ALL suffering, this makes ALL suffering ok". By this logic, I shouldn't have to fund the military or the police force since " it isn't my responsibility to keep people alive just because I have more money than them". 

- Also again national healthcare not only benefits millions of Americans but also helps you in return by offering cheaper and more stable healthcare than the current system. 

Yes and in a nationalized system the only thing that would change is that the middle class would be paying high taxes instead of high medical bills
Again this is false since the statistics prove that high medical bills cost more than high taxes. Personally, I'd rather pay higher taxes than higher medical bills if it means that it's cheaper and everyone has access to it. Again the math is pretty simple, I pay 1,500 on healthcare, however now that the healthcare is nationalized I now have to pay 1,200 dollars more on taxes. Therefore I save 300 $. 

In my opinion the only answer is to make healthcare cheaper and better with scientific innovation in the field of medicine and with an open, free market with some regulation to prevent malpractice and medical negligence.
The reality is putting something as important as healthcare in the hands of greedy corporations that would rather see people die than to see their profit margins fall isn't wise. This could be applied to the industrial revolution, in the industrial revolution working conditions were poor, quality of life was terrible,  disease ran ramped, and everyone was unhappy. In our current system, people are going bankrupt, our life expectancy is dropping, and 45,000 people die yearly which again is equivalent to a monthly 9/11. 

America's military is way too overblown to begin with, it could do with some budget cuts.
Well, at least we can both agree on that. 

The police are important because without the police criminals would run a muck, and schools are what turn hyper-active children into productive, bright and disciplined citizens who can afford their own healthcare. All those things are  fundamental to society.
And healthcare and the overall quality of life of citizens isn't important? Healthcare increases worker productivity, life expectancy, and the economy. Tell me why healthcare isn't " fundamental to society,?" 

without a free market innovation is stifled which is evidenced by all of modern history.
No country minus possibly during the industrial revolution has ever had a free market and been an overall prosperous nation. Again during the industrial revolution which was arguably the greatest surge of free markets out saw poor living conditions, poor quality of life, and poverty. 

How do you explain that fully nationalized systems are not the ones you are using as examples here if the system you advocate is truly the best? 
I have used Canada, Japan, and Spain all of which have higher life expectancies, cheaper healthcare, and around the same quality of doctors as the US. I pull up example such as Switzerland and Germany to simply show that mixed healthcare systems are a viable option as well. 

that is the ONLY way because national healthcare is just a utopian pipe dream where everything supposedly gets magically cheaper due to massive tax increases and everything magically gets more efficient due to a massive monolithic state run medical bureaucracy.
Since you have provided no statistics nor reasoning to prove that my statistics are wrong, this is purely a baseless accusation. National Healthcare isn't " unrealistic", other countries such as Canada, Spain, Japan, and the UK all have national healthcare and have higher life expectancies and cheaper healthcare than the US does. In fact, any other developed country has a higher life expectancy than the US does.

Yes, I called them all of those things. That doesn't mean I think that of all poor people. 
Quotes insulting poor people throughout the debate Part 2, 

" Once again, what if there are a hundred hobos with the same exact condition as a successful person?" 

" which forces him to pay for a bunch of losers to be put ahead of him on the waiting list?"

"  I do not believe that all people are equal, I believe that someone who has done things with their life is more entitled to what they have earned than a random deadbeat smoking crack in some dank alleyway."

"  When the time comes, a thousand deadbeats are put on a government hospital waiting list ahead of the
hard-working, upstanding, tax paying American and so the bright and successful taxpayer dies because he was forced to pay for a bunch of 
welfare babies with no job instead of keeping his own money to use it as he sees fit."

" These things are unfortunate, but I would argue that one is entitled to ensure their own survival to the best of their ability using their own money morose than every random hobo on the street is entitled to taxpayer money which is taken by force by the government."

It's very obvious you lump people who are unable to pay for healthcare into the same " hobo," " random deadbeat smoking crack," " deadbeat," and " welfare baby " category. You have used these insults several time throughout the entire debate and yet ironically enough you still try to defend yourself. You have stated numerous times throughout the debate and have the mindset that you'd rather see a poor person die than to see a successful person be taken advantage of. Even if this was the case ( which it isn't I've already debunked this argument numerous times) I'd personally rather see a few successful people be taken advantage of that to see 1 third of Americans being underinsured, people going bankrupt, our life expectancy dropping, and 45,000 people die yearly. 


Published:
It is at this point that we are starting to go back and forth on the same things and not really presenting new arguments. I will let things stand as it is and see who the voters deem victorious.
bsh1 avatar
Added:
--> @K_Michael
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: I personally agreed with Pro, but Con made several good points. Overall, I think Pro refuted most if not all. Neither was 100% clear and there seemed to be some misunderstanding, mostly on Con's part.
>Reason for Mod Action: First, the voter fails to sufficiently justify the argument points they award. To award argument points, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision. The voter completes none of these steps, when, in fact, they needed to complete each of them. Second, the voter fails to sufficiently justify the sources points they award. There is no explanation in the RFD about why awarding the sources points was appropriate. The RFD must clearly justify each of the points it awards.
************************************************************************
#10
Alec avatar
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
It happens to a lot of people including myself so it's fine. I know what it is like. I try to maintain discussions with people like dustryder and I just don't have the endurance.
#9
Pinkfreud08 avatar
Added:
--> @Alec
Honestly, I'm kinda burnt out on debating and having conversations at the moment. I'll probably take a break from debating for a while. I hope you don't think I'm just making up excuses to weasel my way out of a discussion. I've just done it so often I no longer have a passion for it anymore sadly.
Instigator
#8
Alec avatar
Added:
--> @DebateArt.com
There is a glitch that you might want to check out.
#7
Pinkfreud08 avatar
Added:
For some reason debateisart is blocking my comment, ill try to post it soon
Instigator
#6
Alec avatar
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
If every American gets $2000/month coverage, UHC in the US would cost about $7.68 Trilllion per year. This would triple our taxes. America cannot afford that. How does private healthcare cost $7.7 Trillion? Many places have UHC, but it's not good coverage. It's just basic coverage. A lot of the reason why other 1st world countries tend to have higher life expediencies then the US is because they:
-Don't have a heroin epidemic. This is why the US life expectancy has been going down whereas in Japan, they have been going up.
-Tend to live healthier lifestyles in general. The US is an obese nation. The way to cure that is not doctor visits. The cure to that is by being healthy.
You mention that people would be more productive in the workplace, however, that's only nominal since most days are not sick days.
You say that 45,000 people die due to our current healthcare model. How do you figure this? How many die due to a national healthcare system/UHC?
For those that can't afford it, they can live healthier lifestyles in order to avoid having to pay high health costs.
You state that wait times are nominal but this is not the case. If you have 7 days to live unless you get treatment/surgery, and there is a 10 day waiting period, your probably going to die.
#5
Virtuoso avatar
Added:
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: BigBoonj // Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD: While I don't agree with the Pro, the Con's arguments were very bad.
Reason for mod action: The voter fails to meet the standards set forth by the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
#4
omar2345 avatar
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
Don't listen to That1User.
It is welcome to DA!
It sounds better and I did see bsh1 call it DART but I can't be banned for using a different acronym so pick mine.
It is less characters which results in if you continue to be on this site for a long time and said DA rather then DART you would have saved a lot of characters.
Thank me later if you do use DA.
#3
Pinkfreud08 avatar
Added:
@That1User
Thank you
Instigator
#2
That1User avatar
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
Welcome to DART!
#1
Ramshutu avatar
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Affordability
Pro argues it’s cheaper. Initially con argues that 7.75 is less than 7.35 - which is odd. There doesn’t seem to be any argument that it’s cheaper as a whole. Cons argument is that it’s only cheaper for some people, and doesn’t appear to fully thrash out or explain what that means or how he knows that.
1-0 pro.
Universality
Pro argues healthcare would be available to everyone. Cons counter starts off trolling - indicating that the planet is overpopulated - I’m going to reject that one right now as wholly irrational
Con also argues that it private healthcare produces more choice, and is better quality. He also argues that you don’t want equal access (with his hobo example). Con doesn’t provide any warrant for this last point - or any real reason for me to accept why treating both individuals rather than just one is beneficial.
Pro argues that the choice for standardized medicine is better - people aren’t restricted to coverage and could go to other locations. He also points out innovation isn’t due to privatized medicine but other factors. Cons response here really starts becoming speculative with a series of what ifs that pro deals with by using Canadian example. Con launches into a rant about wealth redistribution that pro mostly bats away with pointing out that this is what taxes are.
Pro rounds this off by pointing out the issues with access, bankruptcy, etc that indicate that there is lack of benefit in the current system.
This one really boils down to con asserting that the rich shouldn’t pay for the poor. And poor people shouldn’t give any access to healthcare if they can’t afford it. Pro points out that tax is effectively doing the same thing. While I would liked to have seen a better defense by pro - con doesn’t really give any deep argument to sink my teeth into. The harms pro shows clearly outweigh the simple loss of cash to people who have money that con indicates.
Pro 2:0
Quality. Pro argues life expectancies indicate healthcare isn’t a barrier - and argues that there’s no evidence that socialized medicine causes a lowering of quality. Pro does offer a contrast between death and wait times for some procedures. Pros examples indicate fully national healthcare systems have equal quality
Cons seems to be mainly to cast doubt on the conclusions without really offering anything to tell me that the healthcare system is poorer in nationalized systems.
Cons argument merely serve to break the link between all statistics and the quality of healthcare. Pro seems to be showing that countries don’t have a significant impact when on national healthcare and that’s good enough for me. Con can’t simply say all the cases where it appears better are due to other factors, and all the cases where it appears worse are due to the system. Con doesn’t do more than muddy the water.
Pro 3:0
Arguments to pro.
Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Reasons for Argument Point.
Pros side
1.Affordability
Pro pointed out that the common critique of affordability is contradicted by economists and even referenced the Washington post which strengthen the argument quite a bit.
2.Universailty.
Pro provides some nice sound societal oughts, but I would have preferred more steel manning here. Pro makes an appeal to necessity, citing problems paying off debt. Decent argument, but could have been stronger.
3.Quality
Pro established a standard for quality which seemed somewhat reasonable but sounded like a tournament system at best. Decent but could have been better.
Finally pro makes an argument about how we can reduce wait times. It seems pro covered the quintessential prongs on the healthcare argument. Let's see what con did.
Con had no actual opening statement, but rather immediately Jumping on pro and attempting to rip him to shreds. Ultimately, Con's point boiled down to the bold statement that a privatized system was better. Con gave little evidence for this, went on a rant about
"C) Privatized healthcare provides more consumer choice and is less overwhelming of a burden on medical establishments. With national healthcare, far more people will be relying on the same institutions for their healthcare, which means longer waiting lists and less diversity of healthcare options. Private healthcare creates a market for different methods and philosophies to compete rather than the monogamous state-run healthcare system you are advocating, thus it creates more opportunities for new techniques to develop and for businesses to flourish whereas a national system would stifle innovation and kill business for those who aren't working for the national system."
Even though Con is rebuttaling, Pro had already addressed these critiques in round 1 and Con keeps up this pattern of unwarranted contention without ever providing a starting point for an argument. Since Con was arguing for privatized health car, I think Con came up weak.
Ultimately, Pro covered the 3 major prongs and Con did nothing but deny while producing no justifications for his own position.
All other points tied.