Instigator / Pro
14
1614
rating
17
debates
85.29%
won
Topic
#653

National Healthcare in the US

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Pinkfreud08
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
8
1495
rating
47
debates
48.94%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.