Pro vs. con view
3026 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    But if this is a debate using common sense, my opponent...

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

    Recently my opponent's tone has become rather hostile, and it seems he refuses to read my responses. Am I concerned about what is relevant to my debate? Absolutely! And I should be. My opponent is continuously taking this debate off topic and discussing things such as legalities and how a plan COULD be implemented. Now, for those of you actually reading this debate, you will know that I have said this before: WE ARE DEBATING IF UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE UNITED STATES. WE ARE NOT DEBATING HOW OR IF IT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED. Unfortunately, my opponent has yet to learn the meanings of these two words. The word "should" is loosely defined as being "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness" (1). "Could" is defined as being "used to indicate possibility" (2). My opponent seems to have made a mistake when titling this debate. He wants to debate how possible implementing Universal Healthcare is in the US, but in reality what we agreed to debate was whether or not it would be morally correct to implement Universal Healthcare because it would benefit our country. It is true that this is about a current political issue, but "given current conditions" just means everything would be like it is now. Nowhere in the title or opening statements does either of us say we would be debating if Universal Healthcare COULD be implemented. If we could stick to debating what we both agreed on, that would be fantastic. My opponent also accuses me of being overly technical with definitions; I would just like to say that I am only being "technical" about this particular definition because the topic of this debate depends on it. My opponent is trying to debate something entirely different from what we agreed on, and it is important that we get that straight. The reason I am dismissing some of my opponent's arguments is because they should be an entirely different debate, and the ARE irrelevant here. If I used the same logic as my opponent, I could all of a sudden start debating whether or not 911 was a conspiracy, and if my opponent said that was irrelevant (which it is), I could accuse him of ignoring an important issue. This is a logical fallacy. But if this is a debate using common sense, my opponent should already know that. Next I will address my opponent's healthcare plan: First of all, my opponent starts the argument for his plan by saying he doesn't even like it. If you don't even like your own plan, why would you support it? Now, there are dozens of problems with my opponent's plan: If, as in this plan, we only provided healthcare to the poor, do you really think that is fair to everyone else? How many people would actually support this kind of plan? If the government is helping to pay for healthcare for the poor, is that money coming from taxes? If so, that means the middle class and wealthy would be paying for healthcare for the poor and getting absolutely nothing in return. Does that not seem a little totalitarian to you? My opponent also says that his plan would save our budget a lot, but provides no studies or sources to support this argument. In addition to this, actual Universal Healthcare would actually benefit our economy and gain us money in the long run, as I proved in previous rounds. My opponent also says his plan is easier to implement and less corruptible, but again provides no proof. He says that we would "keep the market competitive" in order to lower prices... But the fact is that if we "keep the market competitive" at the level it is now, prices will not go down, and they will continue to rise. He says we could try to solve this by repealing "unnecessary laws", but does not specify which laws he is talking about or how that would help. He says that anyone who does not want to participate in his program would not have to and would instead be given tax credits. The problem with this, however, is that if enough people opt out, there will not be enough funding from taxes for the program to even work. And what about the wealthy who don't even have the opportunity of opting in? Would they still be paying taxes towards this, or would they get tax credits? If they do, who is paying for the homeless people's healthcare when they cannot afford to pay? The government? But where is THAT money coming from? Either way, there is a budget shortage because of the flawed logic of this plan. Unless of course, as my opponent says, we make "a lot of changes within our government"... yet he calls a simple Universal Healthcare plan impractical. His plan is infinitely more complicated and impractical than Universal Healthcare. But at the end of outlining his plan, he says, with NO support anywhere in the plan for this statement, that it would be better, safer and easier than Universal Healthcare. This statement is OBVIOUSLY false. My opponents' plan is heavily flawed, it has not been carefully thought out, it is immoral as it denies coverage to wealthy and working class citizens, there is no proof for any of his arguments, and, even though this is not supposed to be part of the debate, it would be much harder to implement than Universal Healthcare. Despite all this, my opponent still says Universal Healthcare should not be implemented just because it might be hard to implement. While what my opponent says about how Universal Healthcare could be vetoed is all true, the same applies to any other plan, and is amplified in regards to his own plan (think of trying to implement "a lot of changes within our government" instead of just passing one simple bill). Universal Healthcare would also provide the most coverage and benefits to our country, and it is quite simply our best option. About what my opponent says regarding the CEA study: my opponent was the one who pointed out that this study was not actually about Universal Healthcare. Universal Healthcare is exactly what this debate is about. Therefore, you in essence said the study was not relevant. If you admit that it IS relevant, than all of my statistics from Round 2 still hold true and your attacks in Round 3 were all false accusations. I believe I have addressed all your arguments, and I hope you think your plan out more carefully before calling it superior to Universal Healthcare. (1) https://www.google.com... (2) https://www.google.com...

  • PRO

    Increased marketing waste is a standard "Prisoner's...

    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. Such statistics and data are not "bunk" - if the system is better, then the US would be better to use it. My proposals are based on objective facts we can measure, rather than a hypothetical dream that has never existed. 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. The most successful nations have government providing up to 90% of healthcare costs, and have excellent research and economies as well. To clarify my sources, I use journals, NGOs and government agencies because these are the standards used in academia. As published for peer-review, they are most reliable sources. 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. http://titania.sourceoecd.org... Yes, my source did say Americans produce fewer doctors and nurses than universal systems... "Despite the relatively high level of health expenditure in the United States, there are fewer physicians per capita than in most other OECD countries. In 2002, the United States had 2.3 practising physicians per 1 000 population, below the OECD average of 2.9. There were 7.9 nurses per 1 000 population in the United States in 2002, which is lower than the average of 8.2 across OECD countries." http://www.oecd.org... Although 75% was not used by the report's authors, their data clearly stated the pharmaceutical drugs discovered ALL relied on some government funding, but the government research provided the primary discovery in 73% of the first group and 83% in the second. This was after 2/3 of the drugs were set aside because they had been discovered by foreign countries. http://www.pnas.org... 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. The article from the New England Journal of Medicine makes its definitions quite clear and it is consistent with every other major journal publication on the matter. 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. Other countries rely on physicians to make medical decisions on published research, not drug companies paying doctors to promote their drug or marketing directly to consumers with no medical training, as in the US. Research to deny potentially unhealthy people does NOT save money. It saves the insurer money, but passes the full cost on to someone else. The cost to the entire economy is actually much higher as a result. Healthcare will never be an efficient market-system because nobody will "shop around" when they need care and providers will always maximize their profit. A person will normally pay everything to live, so you need an organized consumer agency to collectively negotiate prices, as every universal system does. If you don't believe the NEJM, perhaps I can show how overhead waste exists in the US private system. In Canada or the UK, I simply show my health card and any doctor's office or hospital has my information available. They know my history, concerns, and can rush me in right away. In the US, each insurer has their own "network" of hospitals or doctors I must use. Before I can even be seen, I must fill out paperwork and guarantee I have an insurer within the "network". Finally, the doctor must call my insurer and negotiate any procedures, which they have a profit-incentive to deny (physicians are trained to negotiate differently for each major insurer). This is very wasteful. "[Source] admits that the US has much shorter wait times for those who deserve (pay for) a procedure, and that universal health care would increase the wait time." Actually, it says the US has shorter waits for ELECTIVE NON-EMERGENCY treatment than CANADA. It also says the Americans were more likely to go without such care, which seems like a much worse trade off. The previous sources pointed out waiting for EMERGENCY care was longer in the US than anywhere else. 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? Although better than the US, Canada has unique problems which aren't common in most universal systems and wouldn't exist in the US. Physicians can be trained by Canadian taxpayers and move away to the US where most physicians have high debt and must demand higher wages. Canada cut back on spending in the 90s, when a surplus of physicians was a greater problem. Canada is the best healthcare system to attack because it is the most similar system to the US. Universal healthcare is not "mob rule" because it is UNIVERSAL. All taxpayers get it, and they all get the same basic level of insurance. Your article even criticized the admirable fact that Sweden's Prime Minister could not "cut in line" ahead of the poor. Actually, EU and US obesity rates are quite similar. In many EU countries, obesity is even higher. Smoking (a more serious killer) is also higher in Europe. They also have higher rates of immigration, especially in nations like Sweden, Denmark, or Germany. http://www.guardian.co.uk... 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. http://tinyurl.com... Many people forget to adjust for population growth and fail to realize Europe has actually grown faster than the US over the last decade once we account for this (US growth is mostly due to faster population growth). US deficits, low savings, falling dollar and rising inflation suggest America isn't likely to catch up soon. http://tinyurl.com... http://www.sciam.com... http://www.policyalternatives.ca...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Health-Care/7/
    • score
      BM25 score: 18.05
      universal: 16.43
      conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 5.63 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.36)
      sourceText: 1.01 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.12)
      basic: 1.59
      premises: 1.27 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.02)
  • PRO

    Clearly agreeing on one verbal language would be...

    CMV: There should be a universal sign language the whole worlds learns in school or by parents.

    In 2021, it seems perplexing there is not a universal language. Clearly agreeing on one verbal language would be difficult (such as English or Mandarin). I realize there are many sign languages too, which again, is a similar problem to verbal languages in the sense of 'how do you pick one over the other'. I think we should create a universal sign language of like 100-300 simple words. It would make the world a lot better. Tlde: the world would benefit from a universal sign language Edit: The language would be composed of 100-300 simple nouns and adjectives to help navigate foreign countries. This is not ment to be a full language, just a partial language to get by in the world, not to have complex discussions about philosophy. Edit 2: In a Vsauce video on YouTube titled Zipy, he discusses how 50-100 words account for 50% of our daily language. Thereby making 300 more than sufficient for minor communication to occur through a new sign language.

  • PRO

    In contrast, there is something quite pleasant about the...

    There are universal, objective moral values

    I see there is agreement with Pro's argument when Con stated, “It is already agreed that the human sense of morality facilitates our persistent survival. Can that case be finally closed?” That “case” cannot be “closed” because that is the case that represents a “universal objective moral value,” that is, “Thou shall not kill” each other within a group, otherwise, there is no group. This “universal objective moral value,” is found throughout many species. For example, the subtle nonverbal communication between a parent and infant is miraculous, and it flows through life's Unalienable Rights in harmonious inter-species symmetry. This symmetry is apparent when we hear the cries from the screeching chirps within a nest, to the whimpering pups in a den, to the cries of a human infant along with the feelings those sounds evoke; the sounds throughout the tree of life. In many species, a newborn cries instinctively, elevating its cry to a scream when something is wrong--such as hunger triggered by the genetically programmed need to pursue food. Among humans, the parent is instinctively annoyed or alarmed by this cry and, in distress, tries to seek mutual Happiness by catering to the infant's desires. In contrast, there is something quite pleasant about the sight of a smiling infant, as it naturally invites the sharing of Happiness. The behavioral difference between a smile and a cry are the tenets of right and wrong, the primitives of Morality. Therefore, the cries throughout the tree of life is the stimulus for mutual Happiness between the parent and child group, in the “universal objective moral value” of “Thou shall not kill” your child, in order to preserve the parent-child relationship within the family group. Without this “universal objective moral value,” humanity will not be here. Con went on lamenting about: selfishness, mass slaughter, killing each other, greenhouse gas, genetically modified cows and crops, destroying the planet, etc. Ah the humanity! Unbeknownst to Con, said lamenting is a morally good and natural activity within the context of a “universal objective moral value” in the evolution of group Happiness. Con's distress is input to the evolution of social group values moving the group in a better direction relative to Con, and others like Con. Con stated, “Self-proclaimed righteous dogma is the source of every idea concerning morality.” Con is confusing social values, beliefs (dogma) with morality. Morality is like a force in nature that brings life to a group via mutual positive-feedback between members within a group, which is the genesis of social values, beliefs, etc. Therefore, the “universal objective moral value,” that is, “Thou shall not kill” each other within a group, while embracing the Unalienable Rights of others, is the foundation to this moral force that keeps a group alive and civil.

  • PRO

    I want to provide two forewarnings: first, it is...

    Universal Truth/Morality

    I want to provide two forewarnings: first, it is necessary to be very specific and careful about what language means on this topic. I will lean heavily on the distinction between what we can know and what we do know. If my language is confusing, ask about it in the comments and I'll get back to you. Second, I am not religious, so I won't be using that as an argument. Your thesis is plainly stated: "I believe that truth is not universal, but relative and that it changes as a result of personal opinion" I have a few arguments: 1. Does this argument apply to the claim that truth is relative? That is, is the claim that truth is relative also relative. If so, when I disagree and say that truth is not relative, what could your response be? You can't disagree with me, because truth is relative. How can I take anything you say seriously and how can you have a debate at all? 2. I will define truth roughly as "agreement with reality". So, proposition P is true IFF (if and only if) P is the case in the world. Now, a basic principle of logic is the law of non-contradiction which states that two mutually exclusive claims cannot be simultaneously true at the same time. So, let's take the claim that I am typing and the claim that I am not typing. Both cannot be true and both cannot be false, because they contradict, so one must be true and one must be false. This fact is true for all people, in all places, at all times. Now, this does not mean that I, or anyone, knows which is true and which isn't. I am highly sensitive to the claim that it is beyond our epistemological ability to know what the truth is in many situations. But, what I am arguing is that TRUTH itself is not relative, the problem only comes in our ability to approach truth.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Truth-Morality/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 17.91
      universal: 14.46
      conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.70 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.89)
      sourceText: 0.97 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.04)
      basic: 3.38
      premises: 3.07 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.89)
      sourceText: 0.30 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 0.96)
  • PRO

    it's because they have the infrastructure to support...

    Universal Health Care

    First off on the bread and circuses point....... um what? case in point? you have given no warrants for how they are doing nothing, you do bring up the NHS waiting times in the UK but let's take a look at your conclusion drawn from it.... you say this is all because of no competition between hospitals or insurance companies but this is wrong..... The real problem with the NHS waiting times is an influx in patients where the infrastructure of the health care system isn't built in a way to handle it, so it slows down.. Let's look at Japan who also has a universal health care system yet is able to keep waiting times down.... why is this? it's because they have the infrastructure to support it......... (Also life saving surgeries don't go through the NHS in the UK which means that they wouldn't be waiting) On your second point you say that if there was less interference then private companies would compete more...... if this was true then we would've had the best health care system in the world for the last 40 years..... however we see through US history that this isn't the case as the World Health Organization has ranked us as 37th..... Your other point about free health care not actually being free is correct in the that instance however when you say that the average man would have to pay insanely high taxes , this isn't true... Let us remember that when you have the govt involved as the middle man they are able to negotiate the prices lower so it is more affordable...... ALSO you have not attacked my point when I was talking about Health care being an inelastic demand, this means that companies can raise their prices and people still need the insurance just as much and so they are forced to buy it anyways. the WHO ranking is based on first off the quality of our care, which we ranked 15, and secondly how much it cost which we came in 1st place, as in our health care costs the absolute most.... this gave us an overall ranking of 37..... if you want to call it biased then that's your choice but these are the 2 issues here, that I have stated over and over, it costs too much, and it lacks quality. You have stated that if we left the companies alone then we would see better quality and lower prices... this hasn't been the case when we did leave them alone so we know that that isn't true... There has still been no argument against mine that universal HC should be a right There has been no argument against mine that universal HC saves money.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Health-Care/22/
    • score
      BM25 score: 17.82
      universal: 16.44
      conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 5.67 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.37)
      sourceText: 0.98 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.05)
      should: 1.07
      premises: 0.99 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.78)
      sourceText: 0.08 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.66)
  • PRO

    I see no reason to believe there will be fewer doctors or...

    Universal Health Care

    I don't think most objective readers would agree taxes are "slavery" and use that to justify any position. If democratic institutions can provide a superior service, then I'm willing use them. I enjoy living in society and I recognize taxes are the price of using those benefits. To remain objective, I will also stick with non-political sources (NGOs, Government reports, medical journals, mainstream publications). I have to admit I am probably taking the easy side of this debate, as every other industrialized country has already debated this issue and settled on universal healthcare. Only the poorest countries have no such systems. Your ideology says universal systems will cause fewer people to become doctors. The facts show the US produces FEWER doctors and nurses than most universal systems. MORE people become doctors in universal systems because the government usually subsidizes their education. http://www.oecd.org... You say there will be less research, but the facts show the countries that spend largest share of their economy on medical research are the Nordics, France, UK, and Japan. The Nordics have the largest public share of healthcare and still perform much better in all areas of research. http://www.oecd.org... Even in the US, most of the discoveries are made by government funding - not the private sector. The NBER and Congressional JEC Commission found 75% of the most significant US pharmaceutical drugs came directly from GOVERNMENT R&D. They also found a 700% rise in private research was mainly to alter existing drugs for new patents, without offering any new advantage or discoveries. R&D is only 1-2% of US medical spending - I think we have a lot of room to cut without impacting research. http://www.pnas.org... I see no reason to believe there will be fewer doctors or less research when many universal systems already do better in both these measures, and the US' primary discoveries are already made by public spending, not private. So, here are my arguments for public health insurance for all: 1) Universal systems cost less because they are more efficient. The US spends about twice as much per person (18% GDP compared to 9% or $7000 vs $3000), but remains the only country unable to insure 20% of its population. The largest cost difference is overhead and administrative waste, which accounts for 31% of the private sector costs and 1/3 of healthcare jobs. If the US could only increase efficiency to Canadian levels (one of the least efficient systems, at 15%), we could extend insurance to all Americans without spending an extra dime. The US medicare and medicaid programs are much more efficient, covering older and poorer people for much less than the private sector. High private sector overhead costs are due to marketing, inability to share information across competitors, the research to identify & deny high risk individuals, profit, lower economies of scale, etc. Universal systems scale well and medical records are often digitized, available to all medical providers. They do not face the waste you see with thousands of different providers trying to negotiate with countless insurers in the US. http://www.pnhp.org... http://content.healthaffairs.org... 2) Universal systems create a healthier society. When individuals are sick or develop conditions, they are treated earlier in universal systems before they become life-threatening or have to use more expensive emergency services. "U.S. patients are more likely to report experiencing medical errors, to go without care because of costs, and to say that the health care system needs to be rebuilt completely. U.S. patients are also the least likely to be able to get a same-day appointment with their physicians when sick and the most likely to seek care in emergency rooms as an alternative." http://www.commonwealthfund.org... 3) A universal insurance system allows Americans to be more mobile, take greater risks, and hire workers. Unexpected health conditions are the largest cause of bankruptcies in the US and most of these people had homes, health insurance, and good jobs. People can start businesses without risking their health and they can be more competitive as they can add employees without incurring additional insurance costs. http://www.bloomberg.com... 4) Public services are regulated by democratic participation. People care a lot about their health and every program is measured by agencies and watched closely by the public. A well-funtioning society balances both democratic institutions and market-mechanisms and doesn't rely on one exclusively. 5) We know universal systems cost less and generally have better results than the current US system because we have other examples to look to. It would be prudent to pick the best from each system and adapt it in an American way. SOME countries have wait times, but many do not. As market-friendly Businessweek pointed out, "In reality, data shows the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems". And Economist Paul Krugman noted, "America ranks near the bottom among advanced countries in terms of how hard it is to get medical attention on short notice... [and] is the worst place if you need care after hours or on a weekend." Wait times are almost exclusively found for non-emergency procedures, especially for the elderly (cataract surgery, hip surgery) in countries like Canada. Although the US does not typically have wait-times for such procedures, they are currently funded by the US GOVERNMENT already through medicare. This advantage is not provided by a superior private system, but a better funded PUBLIC system. http://www.businessweek.com... http://economistsview.typepad.com... Canada is the closest system to the US. They have state-run universal insurance, but doctors and hospitals are private. They are one of the least efficient models, but nowhere near as expensive or poor-performing as the US. Joint US-Canada government studies show Canadians were more likely to receive care than Americans (despite wait lines for the elderly). Canada's problems are isolated to a sharp cutback in health spending in the 90s, when it was determined there were TOO MANY doctors. Physicians felt their wages were suffering from too much competition. http://www.cdc.gov...

  • PRO

    Universal Health Care is good a.Health is a prerequisite...

    The United States ought to guarantee universal healthcare for it citizens

    C1. The State must provide HC It is a part of its obligation to protect citizens, Gary E. Jones, professor of Philosophy explains, "the proper function of the State is to provide basic protection to its citizens (then) there seems to be a basis for the right to at least minimal health care. At the national level, the State is charged with the protection of the national citizenry. In so far as this refers to the citizenry taken as individuals, it would seem that the State has an obligation to protect individuals from threats to life. At local level, the existence of publicly funded protective services suggests that at least health care for imminent threats to life from illness or accident should be publicly funded. It is flatly inconsistent to publicly fund protection by police and fire agencies of not only life but trivial forms of property, and yet place medical treatment in emergency cases on a fee for service basis. Consideration of either level of government shows that some governmental responsibility for health care is indicated." As it is generally agreed that the state has an obligation to protect its citizens from substantial threats to life and it has been agreed upon that this encompasses police force and firefighters it would rightly follow that this too must encompass health care, if lack thereof is deemed a substantial threat to life in the country. C2. Our Current System is Bad a.The US TRAILS MANY OTHER COUNTRIES IN MULTIPLE HEALTH INDICATORS, Lobosky explains, " The WHOs data bank provides a reasonably accurate accounting of the health status of member countries. How does the American health system measure up? Life expectancy is a place to begin. American men can expect to live seventy-five years and American women eighty years. Those figures tie for twenty-ninth and thirtieth in the world. Infant mortality in the US ranks thirty-third in the world. Maternal mortality rates are not much better; the US is ranked thirtieth. Canada, with the so-called horrendous health system, loses 5 mothers per 1,000 live births. Select almost any of the parameters studied by the WHO and the US system falls short in almost every single category: cancer-related deaths (ninety-ninth), deaths from heart disease (twenty-sixth), childhood deaths from pneumonia (twenty-fourth), mortality rates from traumatic injuries (fifty-seventh) These figures are unsettling," The United States ranks poorly in relation to the rest of the industrialized world (on a side note the United States is the only industrialized nation in the world to not have universal healthcare and to view access to healthcare as a commodity) b.US HEALTH SYSTEM BROKEN " SPEND MORE FOR A LOT LESS THAN OTHER COUNTRIES Handler, a Medical Professor explains, "The health-care delivery system in America is indefensible. $2 trillion fuels the system, some 16 percent of our national productivity. If we were all covered, that"s more than $6,500 per person. About 40 percent of us can"t afford the care we are told we need, either because we are inadequately insured or payments out of pocket would bankrupt us. Medical bills broke the back of over 40 percent who declare bankruptcy, this sorry state continues to deteriorate. Clearly the cause is not a lack of money. Every other resource-advantaged country indemnifies their entire population with less, usually far less, than half we expend " and with better national health statistics" The United States is currently spending more than any other country yet trails in multiple health indicators. c.Approximately 100,000 people die annually in the U.S. due to lack of universal healthcare. A study done by Boyd in 2012 explains, "of the 19 industrialized nations studied, the United States came in dead last , Researchers tracked deaths that could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, They estimated 101,000 people die prematurely in the United States each year because of lack of timely access to medical care.. Almost 50 million Americans lack insurance, and in a private health care system like ours, that means they also lack access to effective and appropriate care. The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals and efforts to improve health systems make a difference. As shown in Subpoint a, the United States ranks poorly in regard to health indicators, as shown by subpoint b the United States spends more, now as shown by subpoint c many people are dying as a result. d.NUMBER OF UNINSURED AMERICANS CONTINUES TO GROW " UNIQUE AMONG DEVELOPED COUNTRIES. Derickson, professor of Labor relations at Penn States explains, "Since 1980, the number of uninsured Americans, the vast majority of whom are members of working families has risen. The revelation that the ranks of the uninsured swelled from 33 million in 1983, a year of severe recession, to 37 million in 1986, a year of buoyant recovery, underscored both the immensity of the problem and the degree to which this problem afflicted the employed as well as the unemployed. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, every other country in the civilized world provides its citizens with the dignity of accessing health care without having to beg for it." The United States" problem is only getting worse C3. Universal Health Care is good a.Health is a prerequisite to achieving ends and exercising rights, Hurley explains, "Health is ethically good to the extent that it contributes to the realization of the ultimate end sought-happiness, capabilities and functionings, fulfillment of a rational life plan, health is often accorded special ethical significance because it is necessary to achieving most intermediate and ultimate ends. Ill health represents a time of considerable vulnerability and dependency on others, giving society's response to those who suffer illness and injury particular ethical salience. " When one is unhealthy one is impeded from achieving their own ends and pursuing happiness. When one is ill, liberty and responsibility quickly turn to dependency therefore health is necessary to achieve most ends while retaining independence. b.THE ADVANTAGES OF UNIVERSAL COVERAGE ACCRUE TO EVERYONE, NOT JUST INDIVIDUALS WHO USE THEIR INSURANCE, Murray explains, "Major advantages from universal or near-universal coverage of the population accrue to virtually everyone. In regard to efficiency, these include more accessible preventive care, lower inappropriate use of emergency rooms (which operate as providers of last resort for the uninsured), freedom from financial and care-giving burdens placed on others by the uninsured, and lower absenteeism and more reliable productivity from a workforce that can access basic health services. In regard to justice, these advantages include the presence of well and ill alike in a common pool for sharing the costs of care, so that no one finds fair equality of opportunity in life blocked by the direct expense of illness or insurance. This avoids situations where people fail to pay into insurance pools because they believe they are well enough not to need insurance, only to have to be bailed out by others who end up providing them significant care." Universal healthcare would be beneficial to everyone c.Upholding life is the ultimate moral standard. Rasmussen a Professor of Philosophy at Bellarmine and St. John's explains, "the ultimate end as the standard by which all other ends are evaluated. Life as the sort of thing a living entity is, then, is the ultimate standard of value, and since only human beings are capable of choosing their ends, it is the life as a human being-man's life qua man-that is the standard for moral evaluation. " Therefore because life is the ultimate moral standard, and universal healthcare upholds life, then Universal healthcare is indeed a moral obligation of the government to guarantee. I urge an affirmative ballot.

  • PRO

    For example, a society which guarantees the security of...

    Universal benefits of human rights

    All humans benefit from the protection of the human rights of others. For example, a society which guarantees the security of person for all its inhabitants means every individual can feel assured of their safety and thus live a happier and more productive life, whereas in a society where this was not guaranteed to all, everyone would have to live in fear of their person being violated in the present if they cannot guarantee their own security, or in the future if they For example, a society which guarantees the security of person for all its inhabitants means every individual can feel assured of their safety and thus live a happier and more productive life, whereas in a society where this was not guaranteed to all, everyone would have to live in fear of their person being violated in the present if they cannot guarantee their own security, or in the future if they should lose the ability to protect themselves which they may enjoy in the present. This fear would lower the quality of life for all, and make society worse. Therefore, it could be argued that, even if fundamental human rights do not exist, it is still beneficial for us to believe in them and protect them, as we are all better off as a consequence. This applies internationally as well; the conception of universal human rights which everyone possesses has meant that many modern instances of humanitarian disasters, such as the 1984-1985 famine in Somalia, have been met with a vigorous response by nations, groups and individuals concerned with human rights, helping to alleviate the human suffering there.[1] This can be compared to historical examples in times when there was less concern with universal human rights and where therefore much less action was taken to alleviate famines and human suffering, such as occurred in the Irish Potato Famine between 1845 and 1852.[2] [1] de Waal, Alex. “Famine Crimes: Politics & the Disaster Relief Industry in Africa” African Rights and the International African Institute, 1997 [2] Kinealy, Christine. “This Great Calamity: The Irish Famine 1845-52.” Gill & Macmillan 1995

  • PRO

    It is, therefore, not "necessary" for the government to...

    Universal health care in the US is not a "necessity".

    Health care is not a right. It is, therefore, not "necessary" for the government to provide universal health care. A public plan, subsequently, is not a "necessity", in-so-far as it may offer It is, therefore, not "necessary" for the government to provide universal health care. A public plan, subsequently, is not a "necessity", in-so-far as it may offer universal coverage.

CON