Pro vs. con view
3026 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    Since you can't comprehend the English language, we may...

    The United States federal government should provide universal health care to its citizens.

    "I said it raises taxes beyond the necessary limit. Read my post next time, don't skim it. As I said, just paying for 10% of the population causes much less of an increase in taxes, so we should do that instead." Same to you - I can still apply the same argument to that. What if your "limit" of taxes has been reached, and the government decides it needs some minor funding for a highway project? Then the taxes will have been raised beyond the "necessary limit". I could go on with many different examples, so you see my point; you can't say this is a consequence of just health care. "Typo, smart one..." I realized that obviously... "Because Johnny can get the health care plan he wants rather than the one the government wants. That's why I emphasized monetarily. I was showing that Johnny doesn't need or want universal health care for himself." OK, so Johnny wants a better health plan than Bobby, so he gets it. Bobby wants it too, but he can't have it, because he's broke. How do you think Bobby feels? According to this whole "equal rights" thing we've been talking about, Bobby deserves the same health care as Johnny. So why shouldn't he get it? Especially if he was born into a position where he can't change his situation easily. "Okay, so the government should also choose what we wear so we don't have to decide that either. Also, it should choose what we eat, drink, buy, do et cetera. I definitely want the government making all my decisions for me. My point is is that Johnny can get the plan that fits his needs, or even get a free plan from his job, rather than paying high taxes to get government health care." I'm not saying the government should make decisions for us, you're over exaggerating it. I'm saying that we should all use one health plan, that covers common problems. Any additional problems can be given by his job, like he said. But basic needs should be given to all people. In fact, this way, since not as many things will be covered by a universal health plan (for example, uncommon things like tornadoes will not be included, but common things like surgery will be), it won't cost as much. Add in the fact that only 10% of the people will get the benefit and it will not monetarily affect the rest, and it's not that bad of a tax raise. "Since you can't comprehend the English language, we may have a problem. I meant they don't need the government to give them health care. Jack and Johnny both don't need government health care, Bobby does, give it to Bobby, and let Jack and Johnny pay lower taxes and get free health care from their jobs, or get health care that pays for spa treatments. My plan has more pros than yours." Well I do have a C or D in English...damnit! XD Oh well, back to the debate. Fine, I'll list the Pros and Cons of each plan. Pros of Universal: + everyone gets it Cons: - tax increase Pros of Non-universal: + no tax increase His plan doesn't have more Pros, but it has less Cons. However, let's analyze it further for a minute. His main benefit is that Bobby will get his free health care, while Johnny's is supplied by his job and covers his specific needs. Now, in a universal plan, everyone gets basic needs, and nobody would get specific benefits. However, Johnny's job can give him the extra benefits he needs. So instead of the job having the burden of providing ALL health care benefits, it only needs to provide the ones specific to that job. Also, everyone starts with an equal amount of health care (equal rights). So in a universal plan, less pressure is put on specific jobs, and everyone starts with equal protection. The only "problem" is a tax increase. However, it can be worked into the budget in place of something else to even it out. "Okay, first, just because it isn't in the Constitution does not mean it isn't a right. Second, you need a stable economy in order to allow people to effectively use their rights. Without a stable economy we fall into a state of nature like situation, and people aren't happy." Exactly. That's why one of the purposes of government is to stabilize the economy. But a stable economy cannot be compared to free speech for example; free speech is a fundamental right that cannot be limited. Economic stability, however, is just necessary to establishing good living conditions. It makes life good. It's not like the government doing a bad job with the economy would be taking away a right; it'd just be a bad government. "That's not what I said. I said that Johnny, if his job does not provide him with free health care, pays the same whether he has universal health care, or whether he is buying health care for himself under my plan. What happens is that people like Jack end up paying the same in a universal system as they did when they bought their own health insurance, but they are getting much less. What's the point of that?" Like I suggested earlier this argument, the job can provide any extra benefits Jack needs. He already gets common protections, though. So they are not getting less. And Bobby is getting more. That's the point of it. And for the record, your example sucks; why would you get free spa treatment with your health insurance? lol "Jack would rather buy his friggin' sweet health care plan than pay obscene taxes so that he gets free health care that isn't anywhere nearly as sweet" No, he would get the basic health care from the government, and then his job would give him the friggin' sweet part. So what he doesn't pay out normally (the unsweet part) would go back in taxes. No gain, no loss. Sweet enough? "So that also means that we must have equal houses, but rich people have to pay more for them? Sounds real fair to me." Did you notice that people who pay more for their houses, have bigger houses? Maybe that's why they pay so much. Rich people pay more, because they get more. Vote Pro because: 1. I have shown why universal health care does not mean paying more and getting less. 2. Universal health care keeps current health care bonuses while providing more care to those who need it.

  • PRO

    Doctors as well are also focusing on whether or not they...

    The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens.

    Universal health care should be open to all citizens. The United States has made health care for many residents unaffordable; even through businesses. People who are sick are not focused on getting better anymore, they are focused on whether or not they can pay for treatment. Doctors as well are also focusing on whether or not they will receive payment for this treatment. Knowing that many other areas in the world have universal health care shows it's not impossible for the United States to inquire; the transition may be a tough one as well as a shock to many, but it is definitely something the United States can do.

  • PRO

    There are basic standards of justice which merit global...

    Universal Jurisdiction

    There are basic standards of justice which merit global application. Certain crimes against humanit...

    • https://debatewise.org/debates/2735-universal-jurisdiction/
    • score
      BM25 score: 18.31
      universal: 12.17
      conclusion: 11.16 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 1.02 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.14)
      basic: 6.04
      premises: 5.45 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.58)
      sourceText: 0.59 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.88)
  • PRO

    Next I will attack your subsidization point, the simple...

    Universal Health Care

    First off I'd like to thank my opponent again for proposing this debate topic (Off the topic of the debate) there is no set format in these debates, but it helps to have some indicator of new arguments to make them easier to address and defend EXAMPLE: A) point 1 B) point 2 C) point 3 But to the debate: Your entire argument seems to be predicated on the 'fact' that the government is providing the care itself, so naturally I will answer your last point first. When you point to the roman program "bread and circuses" you are making a fatal analogy flaw..... the government isn't giving the people food and entertainment in exchange for salary..... the government is taking the little bit of salary and paying the businesses to give the people the food and entertainment which means that in essence the govt is just acting as a middle man between the people and the insurance companies. Next I will attack your subsidization point, the simple fact is that this isn't subsidization.... you see subsidization happens when a business that the society relies on cannot survive, the perfect example is farms which get many subsidies.... if they received no subsidies then they would have to raise prices of the products, if they did that then less people would be able to afford it.... so the govt tells the farmers to keep their prices down and in return helps them break even, because without this then the farmer industry would be destroyed and everyone would be in trouble. This is not what Next I will attack your subsidization point, the simple fact is that this isn't subsidization.... you see subsidization happens when a business that the society relies on cannot survive, the perfect example is farms which get many subsidies.... if they received no subsidies then they would have to raise prices of the products, if they did that then less people would be able to afford it.... so the govt tells the farmers to keep their prices down and in return helps them break even, because without this then the farmer industry would be destroyed and everyone would be in trouble. This is not what universal health care is.. put it simply a subsidy is the government negotiating prices with a company for the better of the company, universal health care is the government negotiating prices with insurance companies for the better of the people..... Because let's face it, YOU ARE RIGHT in the fact that these are businessmen and businesswomen, they don't give a rats behind about the people, they just care about the money, and that is exactly why we need the government to be able to put a leash on them.... they need to be able to negotiate... which is another one of your arguments that that quality decreases when the government negotiates.... the 37 best health care systems according to the WHO are as follows: #1 France (universal), #2 Italy (universal), #3 San Marino (universal), #4 Andorra (universal), #5 Malta (uni), #6 Singapore (uni), #7 Spain (uni), #8 Oman (uni), Austria (uni), Japan (uni), Norway (uni), Portugal (uni), Monaco (uni), Greece (uni), Iceland (uni) Luxembourg (uni), #17-36 are all universal and better than number 37 --- the United States........ Saudi Arabia beats us when it comes to health care, I don't believe I need to articulate how wrong it is what you said that universal health care diminishes the quality, it does 2 things, it increase quality and it decreases the cost..... I'd like to pull through my arguments from before about how health care being a right: (Contention 1: Health care should be a right the problem with companies providing health care is that it is, in a way, an inelastic demand. What is an inelastic demand? well it is a service that if the price was raised people could just stop buying it. A lot of people say "Well, You can stop buying health insurance," and this is a troubled way of thinking. Think about a man who is so poor that he can barely pay for the clothes on his back, he finds it hard to make it to every next meal; this man gets a cut on his hand, he wraps it up and moves on. 2 days later his hand hurts where he was cut; he has the obvious choice of going to the doctor and getting it looked at, or being able to pay for his next few meals. He chooses to eat, because you cant live without food, 3 days later the man is dead from staph infection.... This man had to choose between dying from starvation or dying from staph infection...... AND the government is the only thing suitable for providing rights to people because of the fact that there isn't that competition there.) And the argument that it saves Money (Contention 2: saves money You feel a pain in your side and ignore it, a few days later your appendix explodes and you're in the hospital getting an expensive surgery, if you had caught it at the pain and gone to the doctor then it would have cost a couple bucks of antibiotics, but the surgery cost thousands of dollars..... You can't pay it because you don't have insurance, you file bankruptcy and the cost of that surgery is added to the premiums of other people with insurance...... catching things early is key to saving money and we can't do that when we're so reluctant to go to the doctors, in Japan people go to the doctors 6 times a year on average.) I look forward to the next round.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Health-Care/22/
    • score
      BM25 score: 18.27
      universal: 17.24
      conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 6.47 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.56)
      sourceText: 0.98 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.05)
      should: 0.73
      premises: 0.65 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.51)
      sourceText: 0.08 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.66)
  • PRO

    Objective: “... based on facts; unbiased.” Value:...

    There are universal, objective moral values

    I'm glad Con finally put forward terms and definitions critical to his debate. Objective: “... based on facts; unbiased.” Value: “relative worth, merit, or importance...” Con went on to say, “There is no Objective: “... based on facts; unbiased.” Value: “relative worth, merit, or importance...” Con went on to say, “There is no universal objective criteria that applies to all things which can be used to decide whether something is morally right or wrong.” “A universal objective criteria that applies to all” groups is the “universal objective moral value” of “thou shall not kill” each other within the group; otherwise, there is no group. Since we have a diversity of separate social groups, having their own culture throughout the world and history, is testimony of clear empirical evidence of a “universal objective moral value, of “thou shall not kill” each other within the group. Life outside the group, typically other species, is food to sustain the group--bon appetite! Con went on to say, “In fact, the world would have 100% less suffering if I just destroyed the entire solar system.” A typical “Hitler” mentality in conquest to destroy other social groups with some self-proclaim righteous dogma. How obtuse, a clear example of one who does not understand morality. Many are not “suffering,” in fact, having a great moral time, while keeping their social groups alive by not killing each other. Life is great!

  • PRO

    My premise:** If we agree on a specific set of societal...

    CMV: Universal Basic Income (UBI) is, in concept, much more effective than a welfare state

    If your goal is to keep workers desperate and powerless, UBI is probably not an attractive concept -- so I'm going to narrow my focus down & make this pretty clean. **My premise:** If we agree on a specific set of societal goals (1), then we are much better served with my outline of UBI (2) than by the complex snarl of welfare systems most countries (particularly the US) employ at present. Rather than expand the minimum wage, etc, we should focus on testing and implementing a scheme for universal basic income. **1 - Societal Goals** Let's assume our goal in deploying welfare systems is to promote personal liberty, prevent privation & starvation, and ensure a healthy consumer base -- and that we're balancing that against a need to maintain workforce participation, and maintain a healthy economy & budget. **2 - What I mean when I say UBI** Here's what I'm describing: * Every adult, regardless of their income, gets a tax-free monthly payment of around $1,300 (enough to be over the federal poverty line if their income is zero). * All other income is still taxed in a progressive tax system * This plan replaces welfare systems like Social Security * The payments do not change based on where you live; earning more money doesn't make you lose the payments. **3 - Why I believe a UBI to be superior** 1. Versus other schemes (like a negative income tax), UBI is much more likely to promote continued participation in the economy. Any money you make is good -- there's no "income trap" to make you lose your benefits if you get a better job. 2. This is much, much easier to manage -- and because its simple, it'll require less bureaucracy, less overhead, and less policing. 3. It's a future proof solution. It won't need to be retooled every time technology destabilizes an industry or puts millions out of work. 4. It creates more natural and competitive markets. A lot of markets don't respond to supply and demand now, because one or the other is really fixed: 1. It'll reduce overpopulation in very expensive areas, and shift folks (who are looking for a lower cost of living in order to get more out of their UBI) into lower cost areas, making rent more affordable in the higher population areas. 2. It'll make owning and operating a small business less risky, because business owners' basic needs will be cared for -- which means more small businesses. **4 - My response to some normal criticism** 1. *People won't want to work anymore.* That's not been the outcome in UBI trials in the past -- it's *basic* income, knowing you won't be homeless and will be able to eat enough to live isn't what most of us are working for anyway. If having these needs met meant you wouldn't work (even in pretty unappealing jobs), nobody in high school would have a job. 2. *It'll lead to runaway inflation.* Inflation is based on a disparity between demand and supply; for us to believe that we'd see runaway inflation, there'd need to be a set of goods that lower income people will buy (now that they've got UBI) that they couldn't buy before, that *cannot be produced in greater numbers.* I don't think that's plausible, in general: 1. Some products are relatively inelastic -- that means you need to buy them, regardless of whether you've got the money. This applies to food, gas, car repairs, and so on. 2. Housing would indeed get more expensive ... if you didn't have the option of leaving for a cheaper market. If you can make $15K working at McDonalds and $15K from UBI, why not move somewhere with a rent 1/4 as high? UBI doesn't create more *people who need housing,* and so it's not going to make housing cost more as long as market dynamics can keep functioning. 3. Luxury goods manufacturers generally cannot benefit from economies of scale -- ramping up demand often brings prices down, not up. For example, demand for hot tubs spiked massively this summer, all across the globe ... and prices came *down*, because manufacturers were able to perform much larger production runs. 3. *We can't pay for it.* This is B.S.; it'd cost us about $2 trillion a year (which is, I admit, lots of cash) -- but the social programs we'd cut are costing us about a trillion and a half. We can't figure out how to fund a five hundred billion a year? 1. Put the two top income tax brackets back to where they were in the 1950s. There's $400B a year. 2. Put the corporate tax rate back where it was in the 1970s. There's another $100B a year. 4. *That's socialism.* No more so than any welfare program -- and it requires a good deal less government intervention than do our current models. I'm absolutely willing to change my view, but will be much more influenced by pragmatic arguments than philosophical ones; I'm not interested in arguing about whether or not giving people "money for nothing" is fair or ethical, and I need rebuttals to be substantive. Edit: Some folks have made really interesting and compelling arguments -- here are the summary of the changes I've made to my opinion as a result: 1. Social security couldn't be phased out all at once, politically speaking -- at the same time, UBI renders it unecessary, so it would need to be phased out gradually. 2. Housing benefits would also need to be phased out gradually, to mitigate community disruption. 3. Universal healthcare is required; I'm not behind the idea of UBI trumping health insurance. Because Americans pay far more for medical care per capita than other wealthy nations without seeing any improvement in outcomes, we can afford a single payer option, which (as the evidence of almost every developed country in the world can attest) is a perfectly feasible option and tends to be more cost effective.

    • https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/lfhyzg/cmv_universal_basic_income_ubi_is_in_concept_much/
    • score
      BM25 score: 18.23
      universal: 8.26
      conclusion: 4.85 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.55)
      premises: 2.61 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.63)
      sourceText: 0.79 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.66)
      basic: 9.43
      conclusion: 5.97 (boost 1.50, idf 7.19, tfNorm 0.55)
      premises: 2.85 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.83)
      sourceText: 0.61 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.92)
      should: 0.55
      premises: 0.47 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.08 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.63)
  • PRO

    It's common sense that faith is an immaterial reality....

    Faith is Universal

    It's common sense that faith is an immaterial reality. You can't weigh or measure the chemistry of faith. I stood on the premise of faith being an immaterial reality and is universal regardless of your worldview. You have already acknowledged that faith is universal. I don't see how it's winning in your favor. Don't give your hopes up. The burden of proof is for you to disprove me and demonstrate that faith is not immaterial and/or not universal. Faith is an abstract object like the laws of logic or philosophical propositions. Faith seems to exists as properties of persons, Not as mere abstractions. Since the abstract object faith is not itself faithful (just as quickness is not quick or laziness not lazy), It would seem to follow that in the absence of any people faith does not exist. Which seems to contradict the hypothesis. You can't leave them floating in the unintelligible way. The nature of faith seems to be grounded in a divine Creator and Lawgiver. Because faith is independent of human conventions just like the laws of logic. Humans just use words to describe it in order to verbally communicate it or create contingent things that represent their idea of faith. Now about faith in religion. Faith in the Bible means to simply trust. This stuff is not complicated. Saying faith is universal is not unfair. By definition if you have trust in anything then by definition you have faith in it. It's not tough. You can object to the term. You can use a different term to describe it. By definition that is what faith is or means. Abstract objects (which are immaterial) although can be EXPRESSED in material, Are independent of human conventions. For example the laws of logic are independent of human minds. Before there were any humans on the earth, Is the statement, "there are no humans on the earth" true? I'm going to say it another way. Faith is much like the laws of logic. Abstract objects and immaterial and independent of human conventions. Logic isn't a "thing" and neither is faith. It isn't created by anybody. Logic is a word that refers to the inescapable rules of existence. These rules are not contingent. They apply to everything that exists. For anything that exists, Exists, And it is false to claim that it does not exist. Everything that exists, Exists; and it doesn't non exist because if it didn't exist it wouldn't exist in the first place. Faith and logic isn't just "true in this universe or true in a material sense" it's true literally every case of existence. In any possible universe. Logic and faith is not "in" the universe. The universe does not contain "logic" or "faith. " Logic/faith and existence are not able to be separated from one another. But nobody is "forcing" the laws of logic or faith down your throat. There's no cosmic force doing that. Laws of logic (like faith) are necessary and couldn't be any other way. Logic or faith is NOT an entity that you can point out. It's woven into the fabric of everything that exists. You could say that it's a necessary part of any existent thing. The laws of logic applies to all existent things. Much like faith.

  • PRO

    If rights are relative, the laws that protect them must...

    Universal rights and collective compromises

    Cultural relativism is the philosophical belief that all cultures and cultural beliefs are of equal value and that right and wrong are relative and dependant on cultural contexts. Accordingly, relativists hold that universal human rights cannot exist, as there are no truly universal human values. If rights are relative, the laws that protect them must also be relative. If we accept proposition’s contention that culturally relative values can evolve in response to conflicts and crises, then any perverse or destructive behaviour given the force of ritual and regularity by a group’s conduct can be taken to be relative. If the group believes that a practice is right, if it ties into that group’s conception of what is just and good or beneficial to their survival, then there can be no counter argument against it – whether that practice has been continuous for a hundred years or a hundred days. Systems of law, however, reflect the opinions, practices and values of everyone within a state’s territory, no matter how plural its population may be. Similarly, objections to specific aspects of the If the group believes that a practice is right, if it ties into that group’s conception of what is just and good or beneficial to their survival, then there can be no counter argument against it – whether that practice has been continuous for a hundred years or a hundred days. Systems of law, however, reflect the opinions, practices and values of everyone within a state’s territory, no matter how plural its population may be. Similarly, objections to specific aspects of the universal human rights doctrine are fragmentary, not collective. While a handful of communities in Yemen may object to a ban on the use of child soldiers, many more throughout the world would find this a sensible and morally valuable principle. It is necessary for both the international community and individual nation states to adjust their laws to reconcile the competing demands of plural value systems. Occasionally, a value common among a majority of cultures must overrule the objections of the minority. It is perverse to give charismatic leaders who convince impoverished communities to send their sons and daughters into combat an opportunity to use cultural relativism to excuse their culpability for what would otherwise be a war crime. Officers, politicians or dissident commanders are much more likely than Yemeni tribesmen or orphaned Sudanese boys to understand the intricacies of such a defence, and much more likely to abuse it. The commanders of child soldiers are the only class of individuals who should fear the ICC.

  • PRO

    You stated that 6.5 (Canada speaks French as well) speak...

    English should not be considered an international or universal language.

    First off, English is ONE of the SIX languages of the UN. The others are Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish. The EU has 23 international languages. Some are Greek, Irish, Hungarian, Spanish, Portuguese, German. You stated that 6.5 (Canada speaks French as well) speak English, as well as a number of Caribbean countries (which speak English, but less than the Latin/Romance languages). That is barely scratching the surface. It is no where near universal. There are 196 countries in the world. Those organization you states use English as ONE of their MANY languages. why not call all 6 UN languages universal? A lot of Africa and the Middle East speak Arabic. Russia and former Soviet countries speak Russian. An entire continent (or half of one depending on your geographic views) speaks Spanish and/or Portuguese.

CON

  • CON

    For example, the individual wants to be free, wants to...

    There is no universal moral standard.

    Welcome to the site. You have selected an excellent topic, and I look forward to a good debate. Pro's opening argument does not define "moral standard" precisely, but I think it is best to proceed with a general understanding until a semantic issue arises. Pro is contending that morality is a strictly a construction of society. Pro says, "all moral conceptions are relative, hence established by cultural/geographical/etc. schema, rather than via a priori knowledge." If Pro is correct then, for example, there is no sound basis for asserting universal human rights, because enforcing rights embodies moral judgments from outside a society and, according to Pro, morality is merely an artifact of society. My position in this debate is that there is a transcendental morality (and hence universal human rights), and that absolute morality is derived from the nature of man. This is essentially the position of Jefferson and Madison. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson asserted "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." http://www.ushistory.org... The rights drive from a Creator, but Jefferson, being a Deist, did not believe in any form of divine revelation. Without revelation, how can one know what the particulars of universal morality are? Jefferson said they are "self-evident." Madison provided a similar rationale for the Constitution. He said it was derived strictly from "natural law," i.e., observation of the nature of man. http://www.answers.com... In Pro's formulation, I am claiming it is biologically based. The derivation of morality from the nature of man works as well for atheists as Deists. Consider for a moment the absolute morality of a different species, the praying mantis. In that species, the female characteristically eats her mate. This supposedly has something to do with recycling protein for the benefit of the soon-to-be-hatched offspring. We'll suppose that's true. If an unusually intelligent praying mantis were to write down a universal code of morality for the species, then it would be logical to consider a failure to consume the mate to be a form of child neglect. The point is: The nature of the species dictates the morality. Bears and tigers are not social animals. Tribal (herd) behavior obligations have no role for bears and tigers. Herd behavior is important for caribou. A responsible caribou does not strike out on his own. Humans are also creatures of instinct. There are instincts to protect the self, the family, and the tribe ("society"). For example, the individual wants to be free, wants to care for his children, and wants to be a part of a tribe that affords social conventions. There are no human societies that eat their young; there are species of fish that do. Humans universally avoid pain, want sex, want freedom, and want security. From this nature derives the universal rights to pursue these objectives. Societies that deny them are in those respects immoral. Animals do not have enough intelligence to worry about what they should be doing. Humans have instincts to serve self, family, and tribe and those instincts can conflict. this should not be interpreted as meaning that there are no moral absolutes. What it means is that even moral absolutes can clash. For example, consider "Free speech does not include the right to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." Morality demands that the individual be allowed to speak. Morality also demands that individuals not act to injure others in their society. Most of the time these two moral principles do not conflict, but in the crowded theater they do. Nonetheless, there are absolute rights to freedom and to avoid pain. Pro says, "After all, societies routinely incorporate what some of us would call "morally objectionable" actions into their daily lives, and they still exist and thrive." Pro is required to avoid saying anything IS "morally objectionable" so instead says "what some of us call morally objectionable." However, in what follows it is clear that Pro is in fact asserting an absolute moral standard. If Pro did not believe that there was any morality aside from that which societies have dreamed up, there would be no moral grounds for criticizing tribes that war endlessly or societies that happen to eat their child or anything else that a society might do. A moral relativist would have to take a blas� attitude of "Isn't it interesting how different societies do different things." ... and leave it at that. That's not the sense of what Pro is saying. Pro is saying that what those people were doing is wrong, and evolution has not made them stop it. Endless pointless warring is wrong, although I don't know for sure that in the case that Pro cites the warring was pointless. I'll assume it was. It's true that evolution didn't stop it. The explanation, however, is not that there are no moral instincts. There is a moral instinct to serve the tribe, and that has not been properly weighed against the instinct to protect the self, another valid instinct. Evolution only has to work well enough to provide positive survival rates. Humans have not fully evolved to walking upright, so half the world has back problems. Yet we do well enough to survive, and that's all that counts. The sub-Saharan folks very like could not survive without a very strong instinct to support a tribe. That translates properly to a moral obligation to support their society. That moral obligation is far more important for survival than the error of continual warring. In New Guinea, perpetually warring tribes have developed traditions that limit the frequency and severity of attacks. The warring deepens the tribal bond, but it is moderated to the point of not posing a threat to survival. Pro continually confuses "murder" with "warring." Murder is "unlawful killing of another human being with ... malice" http://en.wikipedia.org.... Killing in self-defense is not murder. Warring is legal and is for the perceived benefit of the society, either for offense or defense. Execution is killing an individual for the perceived benefit of the society. Pro wrongly equates all these things. It is moral to kill someone to protect your children, it is immoral to kill someone to steal their wallet. Pro argues, "In fact, it could be said that attempting to promote, or especially enforce, a universal moral code actually leads to more violations of human rights and human dignity than leaving a culture to its own devices." In making that argument, Pro is implying that there are universal human rights and that she knows what they are. A true moral relativist could only say, "Some societies have moral codes that involve imposing certain rules on others. There is no way to say whether that is right or wrong, it's just what they do." When Pro asserts that a universal code may be worse than no code, she is admitting that there is a biological basis that defines human rights. That is the only way she could know what is worse. What Pro is really asserting is that formulating and imposing an errant code can be worse than not attempting to formulate a code. that is true. Native peoples may have perfectly reasonable codes of morality, even though they haven't intellectualized them. The Founders were right, there are moral absolutes derived from the nature of mankind. You cannot rightly eat your children, period. All men are created equal and have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Genocide is wrong. The problem arrives with asserting too much as being absolute. We can recognize genocide as absolutely wrong while arguing whether or not a criminal death penalty is wrong. Arguable cases do not invalidate clear cases. The resolution is negated.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/There-is-no-universal-moral-standard./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 17.66
      universal: 16.40
      conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 5.63 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.36)
      sourceText: 0.98 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.06)
      should: 0.87
      premises: 0.80 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.63)
      sourceText: 0.06 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.37)
  • CON

    After all, you can't expect a company to have quality...

    Universal Health Care

    Hello. It is my argument that universal health care doesn't work. I have multiple reasons for this. First and foremost, in my mind, is an economic reason. When a government runs a 'business' as large as universal health care, lots of citizens flock towards the program. Now, because the government now has the majority of citizens in this program, major insurance companies begin to fail. This results in a loss of thousands, perhaps millions of jobs, and millions of dollars in revenue. Of course, another major problem arises; if there is no competition for the government, than who is to say what the quality of the insurance is? After all, you can't expect a company to have quality products unless it has a reason to become better. This means that the quality of health insurance drops significantly, and many people aren't happy with the program anymore. Now, I would like some opposition to this.

  • CON

    If any private business failed year after year to achieve...

    Universal Health care

    Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans? There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a transport vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? If any private business failed year after year to achieve its objectives and satisfy its customers, it would go out of business or be passed up by competitors. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it? Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive. Thank you, and I look forward to your response (if you accept) :)

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Health-care/13/
    • score
      BM25 score: 17.63
      universal: 13.42
      conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 2.70 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.93 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.95)
      basic: 2.55
      premises: 2.25 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.30 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 0.96)
      should: 1.66
      premises: 1.56 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.23)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.95)
  • CON

    The key connection pro makes between his argument and the...

    The West's Claim of Universal Equal Human Rights is Unjustified

    Thank you to Pro for making this debate. I will argue against the position that "The West's Claim of Universal Equal Human Rights is Unjustified" I will offer the definition of unjustified as "not shown to be right or reasonable." I will take "the west's claim of universal equal human rights" to refer to the collectively accepted body of documents and theory which is most readily embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also seen in other national and international charters. Rebuttal Pro's argument seems mostly focused on whether Aboriginal Australians have a lower IQ. This is largely irrelevant to the topic of the debate. The key connection pro makes between his argument and the topic under debate is his claim that: "This is not because the West embraces and upholds a human rights discourse whose fundamental principle is that all men and women ought be treated equally under the law, but because it consequently assumes it is THEREFORE the case that all men and women are biologically identical; that there are no intrinsic genetic differences between people or groups of people, and any scientific study that demonstrates otherwise is "a priori" false." Pro's claim is false. I will base this on three points: 1) His claim is completely unevidenced. Like the entirety of his post, Pro makes very definite claims about things but leaves them completely unevidenced, offering not a shred of proof. 2) The claim is absurd. Following Pro's logic, people who believe in human rights would refuse to believe that someone born with a genetic condition that left them completely legless is just as capable runner as a person born without any such conditions; that a person born braindead will be as intelligent as a normal person or that a male is just as capable of having ovaries and a womb that allows them to give birth as a genetic female. These claims are totally absurd but they are what people would supposedly believe if they did think "there are no intrinsic genetic differences between people". It is absurd to claim that people believe such a thing. 3) The actual evidence does not support it. For instance in the same Western nations that support human rights, it is very common for them to recognise that people can be genetic differences between people which result in drastic effects. Take for example the disability living allowance in the UK, where people with disabilities will be be paid money in recognition of the fact that is harder for them then it is for most people [1]. This is directly contrary to Pro's claim. Furthermore if you examine the text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights or any other similar document [2][3] you will notice that they make no mention of enforcing anything like what Pro suggests. The West's Claim of Universal Equal Human Rights is Justified What Pro seems to have misunderstood is that the western conception of human rights is founded on the knowledge that that are a whole range of differences between humans. However, the point human rights makes is that despite the differences of whether you're poor or rich, male or female, black or white, smart or dumb, atheist or Hindu - there is a shared commonality of humanity which qualifies people for certain rights and protections. To whit: - It is wrong to torture people for having the wrong colour skin. - It is wrong to deny someone the right to vote for having a certain gender - It is wrong to deny someone a fair trail due to them not reaching a certain metric of intelligence This does not mean it is wrong to acknowledge any difference as my opponent claims - if that was what they were trying to do then the UCHR could be a lot shorter - "Everyone has to treat each other as if they were all perfectly equal in every way, no matter how stupid that is". Instead it numerates specifics rights and protections that apply, not some limitless infinite protection. This was done to the drastic pain and suffering that has been incflicted by others in the past and recognises that there is a certain basic level of decency that should be accorded to all humans. Human Rights don't ignore our differences, they simply focus on the shared humanity. The development of human rights was brought about specifically to fight against injustice and suffering, spurred on by the likes of the Holocaust to try and ensure such events never happen again. Pro's claims are wrong and Universal Human Rights are entirely justified. [1] https://www.gov.uk... [2] http://www.un.org... [3] http://www.echr.coe.int...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Wests-Claim-of-Universal-Equal-Human-Rights-is-Unjustified/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 17.54
      universal: 14.58
      conclusion: 7.75 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 5.89 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.42)
      sourceText: 0.94 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.98)
      basic: 2.23
      premises: 1.77 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.51)
      sourceText: 0.47 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.47)
      should: 0.72
      premises: 0.65 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.51)
      sourceText: 0.07 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.47)
  • CON

    I ask my opponent to state why he thinks standard...

    Should universal health care be implemented in the US given current conditions

    My opponent keeps hiding from reality. Over the course of this debate my opponent has kept on dodging questions and seems to be always concerned about what’s relevant to this debate. When this debate was started it was supposed to be a debate based on reality and not science fiction. In the title it’s clear that this debate is about a current political issue. That’s why a part of the title states, “given current conditions.” My opponent really doesn’t want to argue one of the most important parts of this debate and that’s the actual implementation of the plan. I believe if it was an easy argument for him then he probably wouldn’t complain about whether or not it’s relevant to this debate and would probably argue it instead. Anyhow lately he’s gotten very technical with definitions. If he wanted to debate this way he should have let me know before the debate. This debate was supposed to be on common sense and logic. That’s why I never provided definitions or made rules at the beginning. If he wants to debate technically then maybe he should also use proper definitions for his own arguments. For example at the end of round three he states “I hope we can both… reach a civil agreement by the end!“ Technically a civil agreement is an agreement that’s usually reached through court. (1) Now do we all understand what he means? Absolutely. He doesn’t actually mean that he hopes we reach an agreement through court but rather just an agreement. This is just one simple example of how I wanted this debate to be. This debate was supposed to be casual where neither of us got technical and just focused on the issue of this problem not definitions. I ask my opponent to keep this debate on topic, relevant to reality and relevant to the real life issue we are debating on. Counterplan Since my opponent has asked me to provide a better plan on health care I will provide a very general outline of a couple plans that are better. I will keep it simple because my opponent has only stated that he believes we should implement universal health care which is a very general outline of a big plan. It’s only fair that I’m allowed to do the same. Universal health care plan (modified) I don’t like this plan but it’s better than the universal health care plan my opponent supports. What if we took the same plan but modified it to only pay for those who couldn’t afford to pay for health care. For those who could only pay a certain amount the government could help them pay and maybe split the bill in half. Really the man reason as to why this plan is better is because it will save our budget a lot. I ask my opponent to state why he thinks standard universal health care is better A competitive but safe market This plan is a lot safer for the real world since it’s easier to implement and there’s less room for corruption. In this plan the proposal would be keep the market competitive to lower prices but still keep a sense of security with some government aid. To keep the market competitive we would repeal unnecessary laws that made the market less competitive. This would help prices to become lower. Since it’s not right to force individuals to participate in a program they don’t want to we could give them tax credits if they decided to choose alternative medicine or some other form of medicine that the government doesn’t cover. This would help ALL health companies to stay competitive not just the pharmaceutical and big health companies. In order to keep a sense of security the government would pay for any costs that an individual couldn’t afford. Of course this plan depends on a lot of changes within our government, especially with our budget. That means that in order to be able to pay for this plan we would also have to cut other parts of our budget that aren’t necessary. Remember this is just a general outline of a bigger plan. My opponent’s plan is just to somehow implement universal health care the right way. Just these two plans that I have mentioned will definitely work better than universal health care. They are easier to implement and there’s less room for corruption. When I outlined the modified universal health care plan I have to say that I don’t agree with it but it’s better than a standard universal health care plan. I will now refute some of my opponents arguments My opponent wants me to expand on my argument that implementing universal health care would be close to impossible. It seems strange that he’s mostly been arguing that the implementation of universal health care is irrelevant to this debate but he still wants me to expand my argument on this important point. I’m glad to say that at least my opponent has addressed this point and I will easily refute his argument. My opponent thinks that drafting a bill with preventative measures would prevent fraud. The problem with this is that you can never guarantee if that plan would even pass through congress. Our current congress has a 2% passing rate (2) and if we had a president that doesn’t agree with this bill he could easily veto it even if the bill did somehow manage to pass. Further, if the president is corrupt and works for special interest groups and corporations he could easily put a line item veto on any preventative parts of that specific bill. Obamacare is an example of a program that couldn’t be fully implemented because of corruption and parts of government blocking this plan. This is just a simple example of how difficult it is to actually implement anything in our government. One of the next reasons as to why it would be difficult to make sure this plan is implemented right is because our government itself doesn’t work well. Think about it for a moment. Which program or office of our government actually works efficiently? Not really any part does. Anyone should know this if they have tried to work with the IRS or the DMV. If the government can’t even manage itself then we can’t trust the government to somehow manage such a complex program such as universal health care. Let’s just take another example, here’s just one person who’s in our government. How can you expect for us to have an efficient program when we have people like Hank Johnson. My opponent has made plenty of false accusations. Throughout the course of this debate my opponent has made too many false accusations. He’s made so many in fact that I don’t have enough space refute them all. If you have been following this debate then make sure to read the comments. At the bottom of the comment section a debate starts between me and my opponent. Since I don't have enough room to refute them all I will later refute the rest in the comment section. Next I will refute some false accuasations he's made. 1) My opponent has stated that, “my opponent cites the same CEA study I cited before, just after claiming it was not relevant to this debate.” This is false. If you have read my argument in round three NOWHERE in my argument did I state that the study he brought was not relevant to this debate. Further, he’s the one, who has stated that, Any plans for cleaning food sources or the environment, and educating the people, would be separate plans that could be used in conjunction with a Universal Healthcare plan, and that is what the CEA study was referring to This is again another false statement. The CEA study specifically said, “This is important because healthier lifestyle choices have positive, direct benefits on lowering costs” I think that my opponent doesn't understand what direct benefits mean but he originally provided the study not me. I further extend my unaddressed arguments from the previous round. My opponent hasn't addressed all my arguments and has made false accuasations. Further I hope he addresses my arguments and reviews his. (1) http://www.ehow.com... (2) https://www.govtrack.us... (3) https://www.whitehouse.gov...

  • CON

    Not all 'human rights' are necessary for existence. ......

    Universal human nature

    Not all 'human rights' are necessary for existence. The so-called 'right to free speech' and 'right to liberty' can both be removed from a person forcibly without ending their existence, and so cannot be justified on the basis of a 'The so-called 'right to free speech' and 'right to liberty' can both be removed from a person forcibly without ending their existence, and so cannot be justified on the basis of a 'universal drive to survive'. 

  • CON

    When it becomes universal, should I be forced to pay for...

    The United States should design a universal health care system.

    Thanks for the accepting this debate. I just want to start off by saying, there is a problem with U.S. health care SYSTEM. I just don't believe that Universal is the cure. My Points: 1. Number of people without Health Care is overstated 2. Destroys Privacy 3. Make everyone's problems our own 4. Doctor's have no incentive to provide adequate care 5. Companies cut down research on drugs 6. Examples Your Responses: 1. "First off, the number of uninsured Americans is worse then it has ever been before (http://www.cbpp.org......) and is growing worse. This indicates that our efforts either: A. Aren't working OR B. Never did. Either one isn't too good." - I want you to understand ust because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care. There are many nonprofits agency's and and government-run hospitals (like the VA) that provide services to those who don't have insurance. I also want you to understand that it is illegal to deny health care to anyone just because they do not have insurance. Uninsured Americans are a problem to our current system costs, but don't tell me that they are stuck with no health care if something happens to them. 2. "There was no reasoning behind this point. A simple claim means nothing unless you back it up. Please clarify how this happens." - What do you mean, no reasoning? Do you not understand what I'm saying? Do you understand what universal health care means? Well, in case you don't, I will tell you. It means that health care costs will be spread to all Americans, whether you are 20 and healthier than ever (don't need health care) or 88 and depend solely on health care. I think that this is very unfair. I'm a strong believer that you decide a lot of what your health is like. You can prevent some major illnesses earlier in your life if you have the right lifestyle. People who never exercise, sit on the couch all day, drink 8 beers a night, and smoke a pack a day are much more likely than someone who does the opposite. Why should the opposite person be responsible for the lazy ones? To tell you the truth, although I have health insurance, I don't need it and would be fine without it. I have it because my business pays for it. When it becomes universal, should I be forced to pay for health care when I don't even need it? 3. "If you mean that the tax payers would have to pay for this, well then that's true. However, studies show that, overall, universal health care could actually be beneficial in terms of the amount of money spent on it." - Yes, I do mean that the tax payers would have to pay for this. The expenses for universal health care would have to be paid for somehow so of course it would come from the tax payers. This means that we pay ridicously high taxes, we have have cuts in different areas of our government. For example, less education spending, less medical research spending or less military spending. So, as much people think that universal health care is "free", it really isn't because our taxes will be higher and/or we loose spending in our key ares. Is it really worth it if we have to cut these important things? 4. "Well, assuming all doctor's are profit driven and have no qualms over effectually killing innocents by not providing care, then yes... you're right. However, most doctor's get into the practice because they want to help people, not because they want money. You gave an example that the doctors need money to pay off loans, but can you give one example of a practicing doctor that isn't well off? The fact is, doctor's will always be relatively wealthy, even with pay-cuts." - I wouldn't go as extreme as killing innocent patients by not providing care. Come on, we all know that there are good doctors and bad doctors. With universal health care, all doctors would have government jobs. As being a government job, they would have statute-mandated salaries. With government jobs, there is not much flexibility for better performing workers or harder working workers. They will basically all be getting paid about the same no matter what the performance. I believe that many doctors go into the profession to make the big bucks AND care for people. If doctors wouldn't be getting paid as much, do you really think that many students would want to really go through the long torture of medical school? 5. "I fail to see the logic behind this. Please clarify. However, just assuming that there is logic behind it, here is a link that responds:" - How can you not see the logic around it? Cut in drug research spending = less research being done = less cures for diseases, etc. 6. "Uncle: Personal cites really aren't too useful in this debate. I'm not saying you're lieing, but there really isn't a way to tell if you actually have such an uncle. I could just as easily have an uncle in England whose live was saved by universal health care. Canada and England: First, let me point out that these are individual examples. If these were widely reciprocated, then that would be great (actually, it'd be bad, but whatever), but fortunately, they aren't. Additionally, each of these countries has a better health care system then ours: http://www.photius.com...; - As far as my Uncle goes, take it for what it's worth. I don't believe that it is issue with him. I think the overall service from a government ran hospital sucks. I am not going to sit here and lie to you, this is a debate and the point isn't to lie and win. I'm not worried about wins/losses, I'm hoping to help America understand. Can you give an example of a country that has a large amount of people that has a very good universal health care system? As far as those countries having a better health care system, that means nothing to me. I realize our health care system is bad, you don't have to tell me that. I can tell you that the U.S. has some of the most top notch health care as far as the care goes. We have more technology than most countries. I really have no care for how our health care system ranks right now, because something needs to be done. Being the best health care system doesn't mean there health care is good. It means that they have a decent system. Does it mean they have the most technology and are helping there patients out better than U.S. hospitals? NO Your Points: 1. "Democracy In a democracy, people choose. America is a democracy. America wants universal health care." I want to first start out by saying the "liberal media" wants universal health care. That was very brave of you to sum up from 3 articles that "America wants universal health care." Your right, everyone has a right to health care. And everyone does. If you are uninsured, you have the right to health care. Thanks for bringing this up, I think it helped me out. The individual and not the government or doctors should get the choice to determine what amount of health care coverage, if any, is appropriate for my needs. My New Points : - Look at other government ran agencies out there. Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is a great example of another government ran agency. I can tell you what, I don't hear much, if any good about those places. Workers are always crabby, you wait forever, and the service sucks. If your experiences are different, let me know where you live. When you have the government run agencies, it brings politics into the whole issue and that messes things up overall. - Government health care would decrease patient flexibilities. Before you start saying it would be more flexible, tell me if the government paid for everything under one plan, would you be able to get free eye surgery, breast implants, facial surgery, etc? Your probably saying, no because these things aren't needed. Well, what if you got in an accident and your face was damaged. Who decides what is needed and what is not? Sounds like a big headache to me! Since I really have no characters left. Good Luck!

  • CON

    Only if that someone else is forced to pay it. " ......

    Universal Health Care

    " I am showing universal healthcare in the rest of the world is considerably cheaper and performance is generally better than the US." With a faulty measure of costs. " It makes no sense to say the US system is worse than the rest of the countries because of the government. These other countries have the same government regulations as the US PLUS considerably more." We also aren't subsidized like they are by having a superpower take all the security problems of the world onto their backs. Because we are that superpower. The US bureaucracy has considerably more considerations to deal with, as such, we aren't as good at postponing the negative impacts of universal health care (yes postponing, economics is a long term game, so long term that most of the consequences of universal health care are in the future for the countries that already have it, because they haven't had it for all that long). " As the OECD data "R&D as a percentage of GDP" showed, nations with the highest R&D spending were universal systems, not the US. You cannot say R&D will SLOW to a "trickle" from government, when these countries already have HIGHER R&D rates and much more government.Drug R&D was the ONE THING you said remains private about the US." I made a mistake. We already have socialized R&D. Yet the government is clearly operating at capacity at the moment. Which would mean it would likely not mitigate the essential disappearance of the 25% of the market that is semi-private. " You also seem to be arguing there exists a global conspiracy to make private-system overhead costs look much higher than the rest of the world, including US publicly funded systems." It doesn't take a conspiracy to cover up such simple things, just whatever care for their own hides the bureaucrats have :D. " Increased marketing waste is a standard "Prisoner's Dilemma" economic scenario where markets can be less efficient than government. When a company starts to compete by increased marketing, competitors have to do the same. Eventually, everyone pays more with no increase in service." Information about what is available is an increase in service. "Research to deny potentially unhealthy people does NOT save money. It saves the insurer money, but passes the full cost on to someone else." Only if that someone else is forced to pay it. " Healthcare will never be an efficient market-system because nobody will "shop around" when they need care" Not all care is emergency care you know. "and providers will always maximize their profit." Don't you think maybe, the providers who provide cheaper care would be able to ADVERTISE that fact, and so negate this? Especially considering how health care was much cheaper before the employer-tied health insurance laws caused a lack of economizing on that front. "A person will normally pay everything to live, so you need an organized consumer agency to collectively negotiate prices, as every universal system does." Again, not every day is an emergency. And mandating prices by law does not count as negotiation. "In the US, each insurer has their own "network" of hospitals or doctors I must use." No, SOME insurers do. Others allow you to choose. And this is a consequence of the state-mandated extension of insurance. Health insurance was originally intended only to cover expensive emergencies, the rest to be paid out of pocket, and the rest was much cheaper as a result. The rise in expense results from the laws that state patients who cannot pay MUST be treated... meaning, we already HAVE a de facto universal system. Everyone gets health care, as long as they steal it openly by marching to the emergency room. "Finally, the doctor must call my insurer and negotiate any procedures, which they have a profit-incentive to deny" They only have a profit-incentive to deny it because they are legally forbidden to make a list of specific ailments they will cover and no more. If they did make such a list, the risk of such an easily losable lawsuit for violation of contract would reverse the profit incentive. " Actually, it says the US has shorter waits for ELECTIVE NON-EMERGENCY treatment than CANADA. " I.e. encouraging such problems to be left untreated in Canada, and thus encouraging it to become an emergency issue. "t also says the Americans were more likely to go without such care" Care they didn't pay for. And unfortunately they still manage to get it if they know where to go :D "The previous sources pointed out waiting for EMERGENCY care was longer in the US than anywhere else" Because the emergency room is where our current universal health care system is handled. "Americans wait more for emergency care, are more likely to go without elective care, but shorter wait times for those who get it is a better system?" The only relevant factor in judging a system is the experience of those who have earned it's services. The experience of the thieves is not relevant. " Universal healthcare is not "mob rule" because it is UNIVERSAL." Any system in which people can be stolen from, the only justification being the preponderance of numbers against them, is mob rule. " As for the economy, Europe is doing just fine. The IMF's richest 10 nations includes all of the Scandinavian and welfare states, with the highest tax rates and largest government health spending in the world. Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Qatar. The US has slipped out of the top 10." These are all much smaller countries. Their sample size is much smaller, thus, they are dealing with a different sort of country. Canada is a much more comparable country to deal with. Canada is the only "universal health care" country with a similar sample size, culture, etc. to the US. It is the only reasonable grounds for comparison. And hmm, highest tax rates... That means the least amount of what you earn remaining with you. That won't last. Economics is longer term than that.

  • CON

    It’s important to understand that it’s not limited to...

    Should universal health care be implemented in the US given current conditions

    To begin the next round I will be rebutting my opponent’s arguments. First my opponent has stated that universal health care can be paid for. This is very true but my argument wasn’t whether we can pay for it. My argument is that we can’t afford to pay for universal health care given our current situation which is a lot different. My opponent has provided a study by the CEA yet it hasn’t helped him. The study he provided by the CEA was never in favor of universal health care. As you can see in the actual study, the words “universal health care” are nowhere to be found (1). The first CEA report he provided has actually hurt his own argument in regards to universal health care. My opponent has stated that, “a properly implemented Universal Healthcare plan would actually help stimulate our economy.” Yet, he hasn’t provided any evidence to support his claims. Shortly after, he claims that, “The annual cost of healthcare in the US is currently growing at an exponential rate, and a study conducted by the CEA shows that even if we slow that rate of growth by only 1.5%, our countries gross domestic product would increase by nearly 8% by the year 2030." If you read this very closely the study has concluded that the current annual cost of health care is growing at an exponential rate. If we were to slow this rate by 1.5% then according to the study the economy would grow. According to this study about 46 million Americans are currently uninsured (1). Adding just them to our coverage and cutting rising health care rates by 1.5% would be extremely difficult, adding all Americans and cutting rising health care rates by 1.5% would be close to impossible. To conclude this paragraph I have quickly reviewed the first study he has provided. Based off of the study and my opponent’s conclusion I’m led to believe that my opponent hasn’t even read the study. My opponent hasn’t proven how a properly implemented universal health care plan would help our economy and these specific arguments that he has provided are false. On top of that they go against his very arguments as I have proven this in the above paragraph. For the next part I’ll be addressing my opponent’s arguments about the Billionaire class. First it’s important to understand that my opponent has put Donald Trump and the billionaire class in one section that can afford to pay for health care. It’s important to understand that it’s not limited to just the billionaire class but also most of the upper middle and wealthy classes in America that can also can afford health care. My opponent has stated that since Donald Trump would theoretically be paying more taxes than others that would mean that he would be paying for others health care and in turn he would help the plan of universal health care. Although I do know that we need to tax the rich more taxing them too much can create problems and become more dangerous than good. One problem for example could be a a massive flee of all the rich businessmen. Usually the rich don’t sit around and wait to be taxed. France has proven that just imposing more taxes on the rich can lead to the simple act of most wealthy businessmen relocating themselves to another country. When François Hollande the president of France introduced a new tax policy in 2012 that was higher than before and targeted the rich more he learned an ancient truth: Wealth taxes don’t redistribute wealth; they redistribute people. Shortly after this policy change many wealthy businessmen left the country including the richest man in France, Bernard Arnault (2). This is one example of how the wealthy will always try to avoid taxes. Even if under my opponents plan the US adopted an extremely strict tax policy and really went after the wealthy there would most definitely be a war between the wealthy and the US government which would be gambling with our economy and probably wouldn’t turn out very well. Conflict of interests My opponent has dedicated a paragraph to addressing this but in his entire paragraph he hasn’t stated how we would prevent a conflict of interests aside from stating that we should implement this plan properly. My question is exactly how? My opponent wants us to take his word for it as he has stated that he wants this plan to be implemented right. He hasn’t explained to us exactly how universal health care would be implemented and I ask him to elaborate on this issue more and describe exactly how we would prevent a conflict of interests from happening. Seeing health as more than just health care My opponent has agreed with me on fact that health is more than just health care and overall a lifestyle obviously this is common sense. Although my opponent agrees with me he has stated that, “it is irrelevant to this argument.” My opponent is wrong and it’s definitely relevant to this argument. In the very study he provided from the CEA it has a paragraph titled, Reorienting the financial incentives of providers toward value rather than volume. In this paragraph there are important insights so I have decided to put the whole paragraph below. Giving patients a greater role. Engaging patients in medical decision-making can lead both to better alignment of treatment strategies with patient preferences and to lower costs: well informed patients are more likely to be comfortable with less invasive, extensive, and expensive 56 Of course, different sets of measures could be specified for different patient populations. 57 Becker, Kessler, and McClellan (2005). 20 treatment options.58 Another strategy involves creating financial incentives for patients needing complex surgeries to use high quality, lower total cost “centers of excellence.”59 It will also be important to encourage individuals through education and incentives to make healthier lifestyle choices, such as exercising and healthy eating. This is important because healthier lifestyle choices have positive, direct benefits on lowering costs.60 As you can see the study by the CEA and used by my opponent doesn’t even agree with his views(1). My opponent thinks that viewing health as more than just health care is irrelevant to this argument but as you can see the very sources he provides disagree with his viewpoint. This again is another reason as to why I am led to believe that my opponent hasn’t even read the sources he has provided. The actual implementation of this plan My opponent has stated that, “the topic of this debate is not about if Universal Healthcare COULD be implemented, it is about whether or not it SHOULD be.” Maybe my opponent hasn’t read my arguments well enough just like how he probably hasn’t read his own sources that he’s provided. Near the end of my argument in round #2 I said, “Whether or not you should do something doesn’’t just depend on the morality of it and the outcome but also whether or not you can actually do it.” My opponent hasn’t refuted this argument at all and has only said that it’s not a part of this debate. It’s important to understand that whether this plan can actually be implemented is very important since being able to do something does depend on whether or not you can actually do it. If you can’t do something then you shouldn’t do it. My opponent also thinks that health care should be a right. If you would want to amend the constitution then your chances are very low. From 1789 to 2014 approximately 11,623 measures have been proposed to amend the constitution, to date the US only has 27(3). I ask my opponent to elaborate on exactly how we would make access to health care a right. Further, I also ask opponent to address this argument and elaborate on exactly how universal health care can be implemented. Conclusion I will say that since I don’t have enough room to write my full argument I will further elaborate it in the next rounds. I acknowledge that I haven’t addressed everything but I will make sure to in the next upcoming rounds. (1) goo.gl/MtxCHT (2) goo.gl/YDAebj (3) goo.gl/7Sy3Vl

  • CON

    Let's take for example two health insurance companies,...

    Should universal health care be implemented in the US given current conditions

    Given the current conditions in the United States it's clear that we should not implement universal health care. There are various reasons why and I will be going over a few. I would first like to state that our current health care system is flawed greatly and I agree that it needs to be fixed. We need to fix our health care system but implementing universal health care is not a good choice and I will explain why. Going to the debate one of the first reasons why we shouldn't allow universal health care to be implemented is because of costs. The US is currently 19 trillion in debt the deficit is currently at 494 billion dollars as of today and it keeps climbing higher as we speak (1). Although it's possible to pay for universal health care, it's still not worth it since there are better health systems that are cheaper and can produce better results. I will be introducing health systems that are more cost effective and effective later, for now I will provide two reasons as to why it would be illogical cost wise to implement universal health care. 1) It would cover all US citizens, even those who can afford it. It's simply not logical to help someone who doesn't need help. Let's take for example Donald Trump. Do you think he can afford to pay for his own health care? Absolutely! So why then would the taxpayer's dollar go towards paying for his health care? It's simply logical to only help those who truly need help and truly cannot afford to pay for their own health care. 2) Regulation of the economy and special interests The second reason is that there's too much room for corruption, special interests, and the government would gain more power through regulation of the economy. If the US were to implement universal health care exactly who would we be paying, the insurance companies, the current health industry, or would the government create their own insurance company? Either way there would be a conflict of interests. Let's take for example two health insurance companies, company A and company B, there would also be a government run health insurance company. Let's say that company A is a multi-billion dollar company and company B is a multi-million dollar company. Company A charges less money and covers only hospitals and medical centers that are a part of company A's venture or are mainstream, while company B charges more money but covers more alternative medicinal centers. How can you guarantee that company A wouldn"t lobby the government to leave out company B from being paid? How could you guarantee that the government wouldn"t take advantage of this situation and create a government run health insurance company that would just act like any other health insurance company and profit through taxes? The problem here is that there"s too much conflict of interests and similar situations that could easily happen just like the one mentioned above. Of course it"s not limited to only these situations but there are many other situations similar to this one that could occur. One of the next main reasons as to why universal health care shouldn"t be implemented in the US is because health is more than just an issue of whether or not we can access a doctor. The issue of health is more than just health care; many people associate health with having access to a doctor health but health is much more than that. Health is directly related to our diet, relationships, exercising routine and much more, in other words, being healthy is basically a lifestyle. The American lifestyle is one of the unhealthiest styles of living, our environment, our diet and especially our exercise and relationships. The government would be more useful if they would clean the environment, or enforce stricter regulations on food. Even if the government were to do the above there would still be problems with corruption, since there already are. For example, the ex-Monsanto executive Michael Taylor is the Deputy Commissioner of the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) (2). Whether or not you agree with Monsanto"s practices you can know that it"s probably not correct to have a businessman as one of the heads of the FDA. This is just one simple example of the corruption that exists. Ask yourself if the FDA is already corrupt, how then could we manage to implement an even bigger plan such as universal health care? The last point that I"ll be making for this round will be on the actual implementation of this plan. Whether or not you should do something doesn"t just depend on the morality of it and the outcome but also whether or not you can actually do it. For example do you think that we should press a button and make all issues be solved? We shouldn"t do this simply because it"s going to be next to impossible to actually do such a thing. Similarly it"s very important to realize that in order to actually implement such a plan (that actually works) especially in the United States is extremely difficult. Let"s take for example Obamacare; although I don"t agree with this idea, I do know that if Obama could actually implement his plan it would probably be much better than it is. One of the reasons why Obamacare doesn"t actually work very well is because it"s very difficult to implement such a plan with the way our government works. Right now the presidential election is happening. There"s only one major candidate right now that actually supports universal health care and we should all know its Bernie Sanders. The problem though is very clear, Bernie Sanders although lately has been gaining momentum is definitely losing and even for Bernie Sanders to win would be very difficult. Imagine if he actually did, it would be next to impossible for him to actually implement all of his plans with our congress, senate, supreme court and especially all of the opposition he would face such as the major corporations many politicians and much more. The problem with universal health care is that it"s very difficult to actually implement in the United States. These are some of the reasons as to why universal health care shouldn't be implemented. I look forward to my opponents response and hope we have a great debate! (1)http://www.usdebtclock.org... (2)https://en.wikipedia.org...