Debate.orgThere are many ways to pay for any added costs of...
Single-payer universal health care
There are many ways to pay for any added costs of universal health care
Any source
Pro vs. con view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
PRO
-
PRO -
PRO A payroll tax could help fund universal health care
Single-payer universal health care
A payroll tax could help fund universal health care
-
PRO Universal health care makes a centralized national...
Single-payer universal health care
Universal health care makes a centralized national database possible
-
PRO Free universal health care motivates people to seek...
Single-payer universal health care
Free universal health care motivates people to seek preventive care
-
PRO Only the government can provide a coherent universal...
Single-payer universal health care
Only the government can provide a coherent universal health care system.
-
PRO Free, universal health care helps the unhealthy in times...
Single-payer universal health care
Free, universal health care helps the unhealthy in times of need.
-
PRO I would like to argue a position in favor of universal...
Universal Health Care
I saw another person attempt to start this debate but didn't have the time. I've lived in Europe, Asia, Canada, and the US and have some experience with health alternatives so I'll take up the PRO. I would like to argue a position in favor of universal health care for the US. Such an issue cannot be proven in absolute terms, but I believe there is enough evidence to make a persuasive case to reform toward such a goal.
-
PRO The positive end of the spectrum is a position of Life,...
There are universal, objective moral values
Con started the round with, “First let me define some of my terms, I think you might have been using different definitions. When I said "objective" I meant "not based on someone's opinions", I didn't mean a purpose or goal.” Con stated what “objective” was not, but failed to defined “objective” relative to his argument. Advice to Con, when starting a debate, one must make their definitions clear! Con went on to say, “And when I said "values", I didn't mean "a numerical amount (or the verbal equivalent)", I meant "worthwhile", "valuable", etc.” Con's values is Pro's social values. Values, aka social values, comes from morality. All cultures have values, traditions, beliefs, and language and these social traits can only come from morality. When social values keeps a society together, they are “valuable.” Therefore, morality is universal and an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights. Con stated, “You then go on to say that "life's unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of positive-feedback" is not a man-made idea, instead it's part of the physical laws of nature. Nothing has a right to life, there are infinite amounts of lives that don't exist. Did they choose to waive their rights?” Yes, one could choose to “waive their rights,” it is called suicide. All life has the Right to Life; otherwise, there is no life. In this universe, we have life; hence, the Right to Life. Life's Unalienable Rights is simply a bio-program where once alive all “Life,” must have the freedom (“Liberty”) in "the pursuit of" survival; otherwise, there is no life. Since we have life, survival is a form of positive-feedback and a prerequisite for human “Happiness” (http://www.amazon.com...). Unbeknownst to Thomas Jefferson (author of the US Declaration of Independence), he discovered, not developed, a primeval working function or life's bio-program found throughout all living-systems. He claimed a polished version of this primeval function, within the scope of humanity, giving it the label of Unalienable Rights in the celebrated form of, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” We could play the word game and get trapped in semantics on the definition of “rights,” however, Jefferson used the label, “Unalienable Rights,” and that is just a label to a primeval working function, or a bio-program, found in all life. “Unalienable” is a fact, for when alienating any of those bio-program terms or “Rights” the result is death. Notably, it would be impossible to take away any one of the Rights while leaving the other two intact, as all of the Rights are dependent on one another. Without Life, one cannot enjoy Liberty or pursue Happiness. Without Liberty, one cannot pursue Happiness, and as this pursuit often overlaps with the pursuit of survival, one is unable to continue Life. Without the pursuit of Happiness/survival, one cannot continue Life or enjoy Liberty. Because of their interdependency and tendency to wane simultaneously with various degrees of obstruction, the three Rights define a spectrum of positions. The positive end of the spectrum is a position of Life, Liberty, and Happiness (positive-feedback), while the negative end is a position of Death, Tyranny, and Distress (negative-feedback). The spectrums between Life and Death, Liberty and Tyranny, and Happiness and Distress, entertains a natural tendency during the struggle of survival to support, prolong, and improve “Life.” At the same time, there is an inherent drive to increase freedom (“Liberty”), with an ongoing effort to reduce and optimize the energy expended during “the pursuit of” an objective, while increasing and exploring new levels of “Happiness,” fulfillment, pleasure, and anything to do with positive-feedback. Life's Unalienable Rights helps life to thrive within the matrix of the Laws of Nature and interact with other living-systems. A bio-program, having an organically persuasive, self-adjusting, fine-tuning algorithm throughout the flux of life's Unalienable Rights; encouraging life to take the path of least resistance, in the attempt to satisfy the pursuit of its objectives, to maintain survival, or search for new levels of positive-feedback; this is the machinery of evolution and the Natural Selection Process. Con gave a number examples of Unalienable Rights can be “completely alienable.” Unalienable, we have life; alienable, we have death. Taking one of Con's examples will cover them all, “What happened to the unalienable rights of my food?” There are no inconsistencies with a nature-wide Unalienable Right to Life with the fact that all animal-life depends on killing other animals or at least plants for food. “The world is one big restaurant.” We humans are free to dine in a universe where we too could be the next meal from the appetite of viruses, parasites, cancer, occasionally lions, tigers, bears, etc. Therefore, nature is not cruel or kind, just indifferent as it gives all life the Right to Life through Liberty in the pursuit of survival. Survival includes the evolution of reproductive quantity, self-defense and hunting skills. This balance in nature made the evolution of life, which includes humans, possible. Morality is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights and therefore, part of the Laws of Nature, not man-made. Morality is simply embraces mutual positive-feedback between two or more entities, in group formation. Since morality is part of the Laws of Nature, it is universal. Con continues his God rant by stating, “A deity with less power than omnipotence can hardly be called a god.” As for beliefs in the super-natural or God, “omnipotence” or not, they are a function of cultural evolution via the machinery of morality coupled with Unalienable Rights. If beliefs enhances the moral equation, only benefits the efficiency of group formation and endurance through time. Therefore, beliefs serves a function in group formation. For example, Pro lives in the US observing these modern times as the power of beliefs give way to secularism. The traditional view of morality rest with religious organizations which blossoms through the home. Today's educational systems are becoming schizophrenic about the importance of morality in a secular society, and who is responsible for its teachings. If society does not have a good understanding of morality, more complicated laws emerge trying to keep the peace, institutional public surveillance becomes commonplace, militarization in law-enforcement is noticeable. Complicated laws morph into plundering dictates, while regulations kill economic freedom. In addition, the leaders of government are also part of this population having similar moral standing. If government controls education, then the moral decline will result in a soft tyranny. John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, once said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (http://www.john-adams-heritage.com...). Today the US is in a post Constitutional era while the ruling-class embraces a slow cancer known as the “living constitution,” and this cancer has metastasize. Today's Congress represents the lobbyist not the people, while the President, unconstitutionally, has a “pen and a phone” to make law, the administration branch (a fourth branch, not part of the Constitution's three branches) is made up of hundreds of departments (IRS, NSA, EPA, etc.). These departments employ hundreds of thousands of non-elected government employees, writing regulations having the same power as law, to control, monitor us, etc. Today, the people are essentially out of the loop, except on Election Day, and look what choices we have. There are basic “universal, objective moral values” to keep a group or society civil that protects and embraces the individual's Unalienable Rights. For example: Thou shall not kill. Thou shall embrace their neighbor's Unalienable Rights. From a “universal” standpoint, thou shall strive, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms within one's culture. From this “universal, objective moral” standpoint, society moves in the positive end of the spectrum towards the position of Life, Liberty, and Happiness (positive-feedback), otherwise, the position of Death, Tyranny, and Distress (negative-feedback) will be the outcome from moral ignorance. Going back to the US example, we are currently in a soft tyranny moving towards a hard tyranny relative to our Constitutional founding that was to support and protect Unalienable Rights. Again, today the US is in a post-constitutional soft tyranny era. For example, if my Friend Con lives in the US, Con probably did something “illegal” today. If the government wants to incarcerate Con, or spoil Con's day, or freeze Con's bank accounts, etc., they could because there are so many laws on the books, on the average we commit 3 felonies a day. http://www.amazon.com... http://blogs.loc.gov... As Lavrenti Beria, chief of Josef Stalin's secret police, once stated, “You bring me the man, I'll find you the crime” (http://www.qotd.org...). Funny how many in the US, still feels they live in a free country. The price a nation pays for lack of moral education.
-
PRO Over time, group-wide positive feedback is the genesis of...
There are universal, objective moral values
Welcome Edril (Con) to the debating floor, from your profile, this is your first debate. You came out of the gate, with morality (the subject of this debate), “human rights,” and “God.” I (Pro) will try to address all three. The “values” of morality is Right (moral) or Wrong (immoral). The “objective” of morality is to do the right thing to keep a group alive. That is, when two or more humans form a group, the group becomes alive. The life of the group is sustained through goodwill and kindness leads to a mutual moral respect for embracing the Unalienable Rights (“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”) of the members within the group. Goodwill is a Conservative force that promotes order, stability, and harmony through the pursuit of group-wide positive feedback. Over time, group-wide positive feedback is the genesis of traditions, social values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms. The individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms. The “objective,” of morality, to keep a group alive, is the evolution of traditions, social values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. The empirical evidence of the diversity of language and social norms throughout history and today demonstrates the “Over time, group-wide positive feedback is the genesis of traditions, social values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms. The individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms. The “objective,” of morality, to keep a group alive, is the evolution of traditions, social values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. The empirical evidence of the diversity of language and social norms throughout history and today demonstrates the “universal” moral thread that runs through the tapestry of humanity. On the subject of “rights,” life's Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback (“Happiness” for us humans),” are part of the physical Laws of Nature, not man-made. http://www.amazon.com... http://www.amazon.com... On the subject of “God,” for those of faith, know that God created everything. Therefore, the Laws of Nature is the handwriting of God. On the other hand, for those of faith, including preachers and prophets, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets--and, in some cases, God help us all. In addition, for those of faith, one may perceive morality as the fingerprint of God, which is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, which is part of the physical Laws of Nature, the handwriting of God. Of course morality is a man-made word that simply refers to the values of Right or Wrong. These values generates mutual positive- or negative-feedback, relative to the Unalienable Rights of another. Mutual positive-feedback, in group creation, is found throughout the spectrum of life in the beneficial formation in schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolves, tribes of humans, and even inter-species relationships, such as those between humans and their pets. Therefore, morality is “universal,” having the “objective” of group formation, and maintaining the “values” of Right and Wrong.
-
PRO Universal health care systems, in an effort to control...
Universal health care risks monopsony:
Universal health care systems, in an effort to control costs by gaining or enforcing monopsony power, sometimes outlaw medical care paid for by private, individual funds.
CON
-
CON ought - moral obligation. ... Outside of oratory or...
The United States Ought to Establish a Universal Healthcare
Definitions: these are just so certain necessary things are set in stone >United States - United States of America, "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave", etc. That country. >ought - moral obligation. >Universal Healthcare - Government funded healthcare for all citizens. Like a public school system, except for healthcare. I begin the argument against the resolution with a simple question directed at my opponent. His answer to it will be pivotal in deciding which direction I proceed with my side of the argument. So, Shingure. I would like to know. Outside of oratory or public debate (such as this one) in which you propose for the government to provide universal healthcare, what actions do you take in your life toward helping the needy receive medical assistance?
-
CON Profit motives and competition have lead to better...
We need a universal health care system. Here's one idea.
So basically for this debate im going to go with an overview of a universal health care and why it would not work in our current system of government. 1. There isn't a single government agency that is up to the task of implementing a universal program effectively. 2. If anyone hasn't noticed the economy in the US government is in the largest recession it has ever been in. To ask people to pay there way through this is absurd especially through taxes. 3. Profit motives and competition have lead to better programs offered right now as a way to lure people to work for them especially qualified personal. 4. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. 5. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. This has been proven in countries with a universal health care like India. 6. Healthy people who are hardly ever in the hospital will end up paying for people who smoke or do other harmful things to their body. Which if that is the case why should they have to. 7. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs and business closures, people who are already in work now 8. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Because face it as it is now people are opting to become doctors because of the fame and money. 9. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a right by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove it once costs get out of control. 10. As it is now many people come from all over the world to be treated because in the status quo we have the most effective and clean medical industry especially in fields of specialization. As a final note I think its safe to say everyone wants a universal health care, heck ill admit I would but the fact of the matter it is just not possible to do and maintain all the things we take for granted in our current society.
-
CON That's great, but the wait for the specialized doctor was...
The United States should design a universal health care system.
Hello Everyone, I want to start out by saying universal health care is not the solution to health care problems. First off, if you a believer that 45 million Americans are uninsured, stop smoking. Mark Steyln, a expert at Harvard University says that in that 45 million, 9 million aren't American, 9 million of them are actually insured, and 18 million of them are young and health and have no need for health insurance. The other millions left show to be wealthier than the average American. It shows that 37% of those without health insurance, that's 17 million, come from households that earn more than $50,000 a year. 19% or 8.7 billion of the uninsured come from households earning more than $75,000. So, for all of you crazy liberals that pull numbers out of nowhere, stop crying. Alright, I don't even know where to start with the problems behind it. First of all, it destroys our privacy. It will make everyone's problems our own. For example, if someone is eating unhealthy all the time, now we have to pay for them when they go to the doctor. Or if someone smokes 2 packs of cigarettes a day, now it will be our problem when they get sent to the hospital. The quality of universal health care would be horrible. The doctors would no longer have an incentive to provide quality care. Drug companies will not be making as much money and will have to cut down on research for new medication. I'm going to give you a perfect example why government ran health care is not the answer. My uncle who is an Army veteran is able to go to the VA which is a hospital that provides free health care to veterans. Two months ago when he had an extreme pain in his arm, he went to the hospital to see what was going on. The doctor he had couldn't figure out what the problem was, imagine that, so he referred him to a specialized doctor. That's great, but the wait for the specialized doctor was 37 days. So, here is my uncle having to wait 37 days for an appointment, while having a pain in his arm. Another great example of why government sponsored health care doesn't work, is Medicare. Under Medicare, the government forces doctors to perform duties at a certain price. For example, there is a set rate they must do surgery at and such. To bypass this, many doctors won't even accept Medicare patients because they don't want to be doing work for less money than it is worth. Now, before you start saying that doctors are too greedy and don't need all the money realize that they must go to school for 8 years and then have 5-8 years of an internship and residency. That leaves doctors no younger than 31 before they can even start to make money. I would like to see how you would react when you have that many student loans to pay off. We are definitely not the first country to think of this universal health care idea. There are many that are using it right now. For example, the great country of Canada. The one or two great stories you hear in the media does not mean it is working well for them. For example, a woman of Toronto had to give birth to quadruplets. The four girls ended up being born at a U.S. hospital because there was no space available at a Canadian neonatal intensive care unit. Is that what you would want to have to do when you're giving birth? Where would you run to, to give birth, can't go to Canada, can't stay here, is Mexico where you would want your kids being born? I sure hope not. On March 19th, 2005 Beth Duff-Brown reported in The Associated Press that a letter from a Canadian hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said that the appointment would be in three months, it also added "If there person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept out sincere apologies." Well, at least they give their sincere apologies hey? Oh wait, another example of why universal health care sucks. A 59-year old Ontario women on disability for a heart-related problem was complaining of age of discrimination after her local doctor rejected her. This was written on CTV.CA on March 17th, 2006. So, Great Britain is another country with great health care…right? Wrong, John Carvel wrong in the Guardian Unlimited on June 8th, 2007 saying, "One in eight Britain hospital patients still have to wait more than a year for treatments, the government acknowledged yesterday in its first attempt to tell the truth about health services." Another writer wrong in the BBC news on May 9th, 2007 saying that a third of stroke patients in Great Britain are stuck for over 3 months just to hear when they will be given their treatment. I don't know about you, but I don't think I want to be leaving my health care up to the government like that. Overall, you have to be crazy or communist to think universal health care is the key to the U.S. health care problems. There are many options that we can take to fix the problem instead of dealing with universal health care. The main thing we need to do is eliminate mandates. Mandates are things that the state and federal government require insurance policies to include. For example, there might be a mandate to have chiropractic service on your insurance policy. If we eliminate mandates, people buying health insurance can pick the things that they actually need and it will be much cheaper because they won't be paying for stuff that is useless. Another way to fix this problem is to control law suits against doctors. In this sue happy world we are in right now, baby doctors get sued all of the time if anything goes wrong in the labor. This leaves doctors needing more money which they get from the tax payers. I hope you all understand how serious universal health care is and realize it is not something you want to get the United States into.
-
CON The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sounds...
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be taken more seriously.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sounds inviting, and one could only hope such a list will one day make a difference. The point I (Con) is stressing is knowing the prerequisite for UDHR, where it is the prerequisite that "must be taken more seriously" for UDHR to stand a chance. The discussion I presented in the previous Rounds, is the debate the UN should be having to move UDHR forward.
-
CON If he can’t prove this than the statistics and study he...
Should universal health care be implemented in the US given current conditions
To conclude this debate I’ll mostly be making closing statements. For those of you following this debate feel free to check out the comment section. My opponent and I have been debating a lot in the comment sections and it would be a pity to miss those arguments. First I’ll be refuting some of my opponents’ arguments. My opponent and I have kept on arguing about the topic of this debate. My opponent stated in round 3 that he wants me to expand my argument about the implementing of this plan. I did, yet in the next round he says that I’m off topic. Do you think this is right? He asks me to expand my argument about implementation and then when I do answer his question he later says I’m off topic. Next my opponent says the word should is “loosely defined” this is one of the reasons as to why he should know that when I used it I was using its (first) and second definition: used to indicate what is probable (1). The reason why this is justified is because given that this is a political issue in political context whether or not you should do something does depend on whether you can actually do it. In other areas of life should is defined using its first definition. The problem is that in political context the word should won’t usually just refer to what we need to do but also whether or not we can do it. Since this is a political issue I’m using the word correctly given context. Further my opponent states that it would be fantastic if we could both stick to the debate. He’s being a hypocrite since he asked me to expand on my argument about implementation even though he thinks it’s of topic. He’s also being a hypocrite when he thinks that I haven’t read his arguments. He already admitted that he hasn’t read the first CEA study he has provided when he stated, “I do apologize for not looking for the exact wording "universal healthcare" in the article I cited”. On top of that he hasn’t responded to many of my arguments. For example in round 4 he literally devotes most of his time to arguing against my plan and then at the end says he thinks he’s responded to all of my arguments. He hasn’t. Now I haven’t addressed all his either arguments but at least I acknowledge this. In regards to the CEA study even after round 4 it seems as though my opponent still hasn’t read it. He says that it’s not relevant to the debate. Well if it isn’t then he shouldn’t have brought it up in the first place. Anyhow I think my opponent doesn’t understand the essence of the study. To conclude the part he quoted (since I already explained this) the study never said that expanding alone coverage would benefit our economy. Simply put it stated that in order to successfully reform our health care one thing we would need to do is cut growing costs by 1.5%. If those statistics are true (which they are only a prediction, not a fact) then my opponent would need to be able to provide evidence as to exactly how he’s going to cut these costs in order to grow our economy while still being able to expand our coverage to all Americans. If he can’t prove this than the statistics and study he brought out is simply useless. I already provided many reasons in round three as to why the study hurts his argument. Anyone reading this should know. My counterplan The first plan I provided I don’t support. I said that it’s better than standard universal health care though. My opponent still hasn’t stated why it’s worse. He only said that I don’t support it which is true. That wasn’t the purpose of it though. It was just to provide a plan that was better than universal health care not one that I support. My opponent has used most of his space in round 4 to attack it. First my opponent has stated I haven’t provided that much evidence which is true however he hasn’t provided any evidence against my plan so he’s again being a hypocrite. If he wants to prove me wrong then he can’t just say that because I haven’t provided any evidence it means I’m wrong. He has to try to prove me wrong by at least providing evidence against my case. My opponent also thinks my second counterplan is immoral because it denies coverage to the wealthy. Well sorry but they can easily afford their own health insurance. My opponent already said that the wealthy would be paying for other’s health care. What’s the difference between both our plans here? He also said that it denies coverage to the working class. It doesn’t. It only denies coverage to those that can afford to pay for it. I have highlighted the benefits of my plan and freedom of choice is one of them. Why should we force anyone to participate in a system? This is getting us closer to government tyranny. Further he states my plan is close to tyranny. I don’t know what he’s thinking when he states this. My plan promotes freedom of choice. His is plan forces all of us to participate whether we like it or not. His logic is twisted if he thinks that my plan is close to tyranny and somehow his isn’t. Dr. Ron Paul is one supporter of a plan similar to mine. The only real difference is that I think that the government should chip in a little bit while Dr. Ron Paul doesn’t think this way. Besides that, his plan and mine are very similar. He brings up a lot of good points about this plan while also argues against socialized medicine here’s a video of him talking about this. Closing statement. Throughout this debate my opponent and I have been arguing about the topic of this debate. I have been arguing that we should view this issue how it’s supposed to be viewed and that’s as a real life issue. My opponent though still wants to debate about this issue but specifically only the outcome. He doesn’t want to debate about the implementation, the potential consequences and many more issues related to this specific issue. Why do you think that he doesn’t want to argue the implementation of this plan? I believe it’s because he knows it would be very hard to actually debate this and doesn’t want to. I bet he would argue about the implementation of this plan if it was an easy thing to do and if it were easy to argue. My opponent has argued a lot against me but throughout this debate hasn’t addressed many of my arguments even though he’s claimed he has. In round 4 he used most of his space just to argue against my counterplan even though I also provided many other arguments that he should have addressed. Throughout this debate my opponent has made too many false accusations. I can address these in the comment section, but if you have been looking at the debate in the comment section my opponent only wanted to debate about sources. I still welcome him to debate me in the comment section. I have provided a lot of evidence, a lot of sound logic to this debate, I originally wanted this issue to be viewed as a real life issue but unfortunately my opponent doesn’t want to debate this way. I have already justified the reasons as to why we should be debating this issue as if it were a real life issue since it is. I think my opponent shouldn’t have entered this debate unless he was willing to debate the issue as a real life issue. Usually in politics we debate more than just the outcome. In politics we usually also debate how we can implement such a plan and maintain it. I have challenged him to another debate where we actually view this issue as a real life issue instead of debating about a fantasy world where only the outcome matters. Thank you! Please vote for con. If you have any questions feel free to ask me in the comment section. I hope my opponent is also willing to debate any unfinished arguments there. (1)https://www.google.com...
-
CON Murder is stealing another's life and scams steal...
The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens.
The government should only protect the basic rights of people, to protect the pursuit of happiness and prevent theft. Murder is stealing another's life and scams steal people's money, but who steals when one becomes ill? No one. Many governments will do more than protect its people's rights; they do charity work by giving people things they never worked for. Now I'm all for charity work if you are a charity organization or you are a person willingly giving up money to another out of compassion. However, what dignity is gained by giving money unwillingly to the government so that the government may act out its people's charity. Univ. healthcare is a charity in that the government takes more money from the rich to pay for the healthcare of the poor. Univ. healthcare is not free, it will in fact be more expensive. The healthy will pay the burden of those living less-healthy lifestyles, i.e. smokers. Finally, its such a complex process that will never be efficient and is better left alone.
-
CON Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and...
Universal Healthcare be provided to all American citizens
1) The Senate voted in 2007 to discontinue a number of government organizations that have added onto the already dismal economy and guess what. They voted to not discontinue any of them, so your arguement, while sensible, is unrealistic with our current government.* 2) You said that the government-run healthcare system would be non-profit. This is again unrealistic, because an average of 45% of donations to non-profit organizations goes to funding basic costs, and believe it or not, salaries of workers. ** 3) This claim is completely false. Hospitals are required to treat every patient, regardless of their financial status. So they are definitely not excluded. here are three new points... 1)Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if he had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.*** 2) Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.**** 3) Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?**** * www.usc.edu/econdept/healthcare **www.balancedpolitics.org ***www.universityofchicago.edu/levitt/essay4 ****www.usatoday.com/health
-
CON If the United States had universal health care, Billy...
The United States should implement universal health care modeled after the french system.
Thank you for accepting this debate, and good luck. There are several flaws in my opponent's argument, which I will attack in this round. Rebuttal: One flaw is that "Billy" could not afford health insurance and needed free universal health care. Universal health care is not actually "free". The way the government funds universal health care is through taxes. Every worker in France pays about 50% of their paycheck each month into health care. If the United States had universal health care, Billy would not be able to even afford food, and it would be unfair to the U.S. as a whole because every worker would have half as much money, and would also be paying for other people. Secondly, is the idea that he got turned away from the hospital. That would be impossible, as it is illegal for a hospital to refuse emergency medical service due to a lack of insurance or money. Even so, Billy could have received free treatment from a non-profit or government-run hospital.
-
CON But again, if there was less regulation and less...
Universal Health Care
I would like to thank ProgressiveSlayer for continuing my first (and surprisingly polite) debate. I was honestly expecting for this to result in an all-caps I'M RIGHT contest. :) First off, you attacked my bread and circuses point. You say 'the government is essentially acting as a middle man between insurance and the people". Really now? You do realize that paying insurance companies to give absolutely no real care is ridiculous? Case in point. Recently, the NHS waiting list for care in Britain has reached 2.9 million people! And I'd guess that a few of these people are waiting for, oh I don't know, life saving surgery? This is all because there is no real competition among hospitals OR insurance companies, so this is excruciating to people who need quick surgery. You repeatedly argue that a poor man can't afford insurance, usually. Absolutely correct. But again, if there was less regulation and less government interference, private insurance companies could compete more. With more competition, companies would be forced to have prices lowered, eventually reaching a point where the poor man could afford it. Now, this is circumstantial, but still better than a system where the man is forced to pay insanely high taxes for 'free' health care.I say insanely high because, let's be honest, to have a 'free' health care system, taxes would have to be completely abolished, and we would all have to live in some utopian, lollipops and rainbows state (i.e Obamanation). Also, the Who is extremely politically biased. Fox could say all non-But again, if there was less regulation and less government interference, private insurance companies could compete more. With more competition, companies would be forced to have prices lowered, eventually reaching a point where the poor man could afford it. Now, this is circumstantial, but still better than a system where the man is forced to pay insanely high taxes for 'free' health care.I say insanely high because, let's be honest, to have a 'free' health care system, taxes would have to be completely abolished, and we would all have to live in some utopian, lollipops and rainbows state (i.e Obamanation). Also, the Who is extremely politically biased. Fox could say all non-universal health care systems are best. Thing is, they're just as biased, so just as wrong. I look forward to your final arguments, and to the voting!
-
CON It would help if my argument made sense and was strong....
Same Sex Marriage is a Basic Civil Right, and Should be Allowed in All Countries
Thank you Pro. Pro hasn't addressed my arguments properly which is necessary to win this debate. He has simply brushed them off as assertions. Let's remember that Pro made the initial claim. Therefore, he must show that same-sex marriage should be allowed in all countries. My task is to show why it shouldn't, I do not have to prove my point but only disprove Pros. It would help if my argument made sense and was strong. I actually think my argument is strong and I could add more contentions onto my argument. Now let's take a look at what my opponent said last round and address it. Pro says my point that same-sex couples did not exist at the founding of marriage should be retracted. Well if I had made such a claim I would retract it but I did not make that claim. I said, "it establishes a founding institution for marriage. That founding institute has never included same-sex couples", saying that same-sex marriages were not in the institute of marriage, not that they did not exist. Us having this debate today, combined with the many countries that have already been shown to not allow same-sex marriage should be enough evidence for this point. My opponent agrees, "this point is the entire basis for this debate existing, if same-sex marriages existed, we wouldn't be debating this." Not until the 60's and 70's has same-sex marriage gained ground. Not a basic civil right 1) A history of longstanding, widespread discrimination "Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity, it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally. For example, airline regulations rightly discriminate regarding who is allowed into the cockpit of an airline. Those who are not trained pilots have no rightful claim to "discrimination" because they are not allowed to fly an airplane. When gay activists and their supporters cry "discrimination" they conveniently avoid the question of whether homosexual relationships merit being granted equality with marriage. Yet this question deserves our close examination, for the danger posed to our society by redefining marriage is no less than permitting unqualified individuals to fly airplanes." http://www.opposingviews.com... (2) Economic disadvantage Same-sex couples are not entitled to special treatment. Marriage is not a right to homosexual couples under the law. Therefore, advantages for married couples are not a right for same-sex couples. (3) Immutable characteristics Sexual orientation does not meet any of the three objective criteria in the protected civil rights categories. "Sexual orientation" should not be elevated to the category of a protected civil right." http://www.lc.org... Why it is not right Just because same-sex marriage has always been looked negatively on, does not make it wrong, it is wrong because it does not fulfill the relationship of marriage. Pro does not prove his point by any means. He is correct in saying that some laws in the past should have been corrected. But, he has not shown that same-sex marriage is one of them. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. Pro says he cannot find a definition with reproduction in it but male and female means procreation. "A rationale must be given for marriage law which explains the restrictions placed on entry and exit, the allocation of resources to marriage, and legal discrimination on the basis of it." http://plato.stanford.edu... This is the U.S. federal government's definition,"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." http://www.law.cornell.edu... "Legally and socially sanctioned union, usually between a man and a woman, that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners and accords status to their offspring. The universality of marriage is attributed to the many basic social and personal functions it performs, such as procreation, regulation of sexual behaviour, care of children and their education and socialization, regulation of lines of descent." http://www.merriam-webster.com... "Marriage -2a combination or mixture of elements: Marry -2join together; combine harmoniously. http://oxforddictionaries.com... All of these sources have a formal definition of man and woman. Same-sex couples do not combine harmoniously with nature, they are against nature. To put a male and female together is to symbolize procreation, only a male and female can procreate. Marriage is the procreation and nurture of children; as the only proper place for sexual intimacy; and for the sake of lifelong companionship. Even if they do not procreate, the symbol of procreation is still present through their male and female form. Therefore, any definition putting male and female together exhibits procreation. Pro appeals to marriage not necessarily needing procreation, so we should allow same-sex marriage. What about people who get married for reasons other that love, like citizenship, money, or social status. This indicates that society regards love as the basis for marrying, not producing children or advantages. This leads into the argument that should force everyone who is childless to take adopted children. My opponent skips this argument because it is outrageous. Therefore, this point is outrageous. Not a right in all countries "Con then claims that same-sex marriage isn't the will of the people, again please cite sources or retract." We can look and see that the majority of the world does not recognize same-sex marriages. http://en.wikipedia.org... Pro has problems with me using the term unnatural, I found a definition for him. Unnatural - not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Who can say that homosexual activity is a normal course of events from male and female design? If nature made male and female, can homosexuality be in accord with nature? Were homosexual impulses truly inherited, we should be unable to find differences in homosexual practice due to religious upbringing or racial sub-culture. http://www.biblebelievers.com... Conclusion What marriage represents is the fundamental relationship for human survival. But, same-sex marriage cannot contribute in that survival. Marriage is between a man and a woman by many governments and making them change policy is human right violations. Marriage is an institution founded on procreating and child rearing couples. Pro needs to demonstrate that same-sex marriage is being discriminated on. The male and female represent procreation and the biological function of mating. Pro tries to pull the institute of marriage away from raising and teaching children in a home with a mother and father. Pro needs to back up his argument. I send back to Pro.
