Any source
Pro vs. con view
3026 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in...

    Universal health care reduces administrative costs (i.e. paper work)

    Medical professionals are often challenged with massive amounts of paperwork in private health care systems. A universal health care system will help coordinate and reduce paperwork, allowing doctors to concentrate on treating patients. A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork. Administrative costs in the US health care system are estimated to be substantially higher than in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of US health care spending.

  • PRO

    The difference between this and normal welfare is that...

    That UBI should be implemented in the western world

    UBI is an undeniably good choice for the western world, as it eliminates extreme poverty and allows more economic freedom. For those who don't know UBI, or Universal Basic Income, it is where the government gives every citizen a base income of around $10,000 that you can spend on anything. The difference between this and normal welfare is that most public welfare goes by the system that you earn the amount of money from the welfare but any amount above and you lose said welfare, acting as a box as opposed to UBI which is a pedestal. This is because it acts as a base income that you can build off. This will be accomplished by abolishing most welfare projects. We must have UBI to ensure the ability of anyone to have a, although low, stable income.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/That-UBI-should-be-implemented-in-the-western-world/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 13.25
      universal: 5.72
      premises: 5.02 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 0.70 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.47)
      basic: 4.73
      premises: 4.17 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 0.56 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.76)
      should: 2.80
      conclusion: 2.71 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.89)
  • PRO

    This third of the expenses would be completely, 100%...

    Universal Healthcare be provided to all American citizens

    To begin, I'm glad that you're finally giving credit where it is due, to the places that you're taking your arguments word-for-word from. Your first two cases were blatant plagiarism, and I'm glad you've decided to cite your sources from here on out. 1) Again, you're relying on the logical fallacy that because the government has sometimes performed poorly in the past, one can assume that it will perform poorly in this particular case. As I pointed out before, this is inherently flawed logic. There's nothing stopping the government from cutting back on programs; just because they failed to do so in 2007 does not mean that they would fail to do so again. 2) You're basing this off of private non-profits, that operate outside of the government as charities. That's not at all what we're talking about here. A private non-profit is like the Red Cross; a government non-profit is like the education system. The point I was making here is that a full third of ALL medical expenses go into corporate profit and executive salaries - this is not counting the maintenance costs and employee pay that would still be there under a government non-profit system. This third of the expenses would be completely, 100% eliminated, and replaced with *nothing* because there would be no executive salaries or corporate profit. 3) Hospitals do not treat all patients, regardless of ability to pay. If you've ever been to the emergency room, you'll know that there is always a discussion about the patient's ability to pay. There are horror stories of hospitals refusing care, and even paying taxi cabs to dump people without insurance or the ability to pay out-of-pocket in front of homeless shelters. Besides, there's a lot more to the healthcare industry than hospitals. What about private doctor's clinics? They are by no means required to treat anyone, and they will not treat anyone who cannot pay them, through their insurance or out-of-pocket. What about prescription drugs? Those have to be paid for, by insurance or out-of-pocket, before you can have them. The fact of the matter is that people who do not have the ability to pay for healthcare are excluded from healthcare. And, as I said, it makes much more sense to base exclusion on the necessity of the procedure than on the patient's ability to pay, and that's the way it would be under a government-run system. Onto your new points: 1) On the claim that people would seek medical care for unnecessary things: As you said yourself (in your third point in your Round 2 case), under a government-run system, the government would have regulations against procedures deemed unnecessary. You're completely contradicting yourself here; you complain about the government excluding people from unnecessary procedures, and then proceed to complain about people getting unnecessary procedures. 2) On the claim that it would reduce doctor flexibility: As it is now, doctor flexibility is reduced by insurance companies, which are a whole lot less predictable than set government standards would be. These days, a doctor never knows if they should go through with a procedure, because there's no knowing if the patient's insurance will suddenly throw a curveball and deny payment, leaving the patient to pay out-of-pocket, leaving the doctor unpaid until the patient can work out a way to pay, which can take some time. Under any system that's managed beyond the doctor level, be it by the insurance compaines or by the government, the doctors will never be 100% flexible and in control of what's happening. What we're talking about with universal healthcare is replacing an unpredictable set of restrictions with a predictable, concrete set of restrictions. 3) On the claim that costs would be spread to all Americans, regardless of heatlh: I cannot deny this claim; indeed, this is exactly the point. This is the fundamental basis behind any government program, from Welfare to Medicare to Social Security to the education system. People who don't have children still pay the extra taxes necessary to run an effective education system. So unless you're completely against all taxpayer-funded social programs, including education and social security, you cannot cite this as a reason to be against universal healthcare. And it's not about punishing or rewarding anyone. It's about showing some solidarity, as one nation and one people, and helping those who cannot help themselves in their time of need.

  • PRO

    From the observed evidence we know that these new species...

    Last Universal Ancestor/Common Descent of ALL species.

    This round, per the rules, I will simply present main points under broad categories since the evidence for evolution is so varied and there are so many different avenues that demonstrate evolution and the common decent of all life. As Con indicated in the comments, I also included the basic direction that my rebuttals will likely take. Molecular Evidence This is some of the strongest evidence for evolution and a link for all life to a common single ancestor is seen at the molecular level. This area includes our common DNA and protein functional redundancy where many basic structures are shared and support the most basic functions of life. We can also trace ‘fossilized’ DNA no longer useful and junk DNA strands to link different species and to demonstrate where different forms of life branched off from their ancestors and all future species in the line share these characteristics. Historical Phylogenetic Tree This area is often demonstrated with broad branching trees that originate at a common ancestor branching from a common root culminating in modern species or extinct branches. These start with bacteria and eukaryotes and end with all modern forms of life. Here common decent was largely established based on observable characteristics of species often in the geological fossil records and confirmed, when possible, by genetic evidence. Macro/molecular vestigial characteristics from the past in adults and embryology There are many examples of animals with anatomical vestiges from the past such as whales with hind limbs. There is also a lot of embryological evidence where different developing structures form different features depending on the species. Observed speciation events and key transitional forms There are several observed examples of ‘speciation’ where one species experiences a minor changed that stops interbreeding. From the observed evidence we know that these new species continue to change and develop new features as supported by the fossil record. There are prime examples from the fossil record to demonstrate many of the major lines of evolution and speciation events. Observed changes in animals over time For now, Con has conceded this but then suggested that this stops for some unknown reason within a species. This is akin to saying that you can see how a person could count to 1 thousand but it would not be possible to count to 1 million. There is no reason to suspect that this gradual change stops preventing major changes as observed in the fossil record. “Opportunism and Evolutionary Restraint” This area reveals that new structures form from old structures making rapid changes difficult and certain changes nearly impossible. This is often demonstrated in the lengthy path of certain arteries in a giraffe’s neck that travel through a long loop from the head down to near the chest rather than a straight path of a few inches mimicking previous forms of life with much shorter necks. - Billions of years are required Depending on how the arguments go I will address this issue and establish that the earth is in fact closer to ~ 4.5 billion years then 10,000 and establish the credibility of the many dating methods as this becomes an issue. Irreducible complexity This argument typically amounts to a suggestion that we do not know how some features evolved and are unable to prove this is impossible or improbable. Historically many of these claims have been resolved only to be replaced by new ‘examples’. Some times there is not enough research or interest in these issues since creationists can always find examples for structures that scientists have no clear idea how they evolved. This is often used as a ‘God of the Gaps’ argument for a creator. We are the one species with a particularly high intelligence/civilization Intelligence or civilization is not the goal of evolution and evolution is not a ladder culminating in us. All bacteria, plants and animals have evolved to survive in their niche environments. Intelligence and civilization is one unique adaptation to survive. As Con indicates, intelligence and the ability to make choices has also caused problems such as self destruction. Why are there still monkeys? Humans are still monkeys. We are also eukaryotes, vertebrates and mammals (animals do, in a way, ‘produce after their own kind.’) Some species have remained the same for many millions of years since it takes selection pressure to change a species but monkeys are not one of them. The majority, if not all, monkeys like ourselves have changed dramatically from our ancestors ~ 6 million years ago. “If all species shared one ancestor, there would be many different chains and stages of evolution” I think this is fairly accurate and evolution phylogenetic tree looks like a bush with many evolving pathways leading to dead ends and roughly 99%+ species that have existed are estimated to be extinct. As to the suggestion that there was a global flood I would save that for another debate. If you can tie it to the resolution I will respond. That should do it for now. Thanks to Con for setting up the debate, I’m looking forward to it! [1] http://www.talkorigins.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Last-Universal-Ancestor-Common-Descent-of-ALL-species./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 13.17
      universal: 8.26
      conclusion: 7.75 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.52 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.09)
      basic: 4.16
      premises: 3.62 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.05)
      sourceText: 0.54 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.72)
      should: 0.74
      premises: 0.65 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.51)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.81)
  • PRO

    Privacy is far more important for society than security....

    Privacy should be valued over security

    Privacy is far more important for society than security. When we examine what privacy stands for, we realise that it essentially translates to freedom. If you take away a man's privacy, you are taking away his freedom and this is something that we simply do not do and that modern governments do not stand for. 1. Privacy is a basic human right Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." It is important to recognise that we cannot violate these basic Human Rights Laws put forward by the United Nations. If we undermine and take away something as simple as privacy, then we are undermining all our basic human rights. 2. Our privacy is our freedom Everybody deserves the right to do whatever they want, as long as it is legal, without the scrutiny or surveillance of anyone else, including governments. They should be allowed to go on the internet knowing that they are not being secretly monitored by some agency. They should be allowed to pass through airport security without their naked bodies being scrutinised by others. We all know that everyone has a right to a fair trial and in fact, this is a foundation of our democracy. But a fair trial is where someone is innocent until they proven otherwise with evidence that they have done something wrong. When a person's internet browsing is monitored for possible wrongdoing or suspicious activity, we are punishing them without even knowing if they are guilty or not, and this completely violates their constitutional and human rights. Conclusion Privacy is an absolute necessity in a developed society like ours today. It is a sign of development, an indicator that a government respects its citizens and is willing to grant them their fundamental human rights. Why would we throw this out for security? If we put security first, we are saying that we'd be willing to give up our human rights for a hypothetical threat that may or may not yield an outcome. This is why privacy must come first, otherwise, its illogical, unconstitutional and completely pointless. Let me conclude today by reminding you of something that Benjamin Franklin once famously said: "those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Privacy-should-be-valued-over-security/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 13.10
      universal: 3.60
      premises: 3.23 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.78)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 0.77)
      basic: 5.23
      premises: 4.72 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.37)
      sourceText: 0.51 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.61)
      should: 4.28
      conclusion: 2.71 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 1.47 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.15)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.10)
  • PRO

    However, conceivably, all countries have people like that...

    The United States ought to guarantee universal healthcare for it citizens

    Contention 1- The State must provide HC Turn his argument against him, I do agree with the fact that the United States has a Constitution, however this works in the affirmatives favor, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (Article 1, Section 8) SCOTUS affirmed the fact that it is within the government's constitutional powers to tax people in order to provide healthcare. As a single payer tax system would be funded by taxes, which are within the power of the Federal government, and as it would provide for the 'explicitly stated' general welfare, it is within the fed's power and his argument falls. Extend the Jones card explaining that the State must protect its citizens from threats to life and points out the inconstancy by stating “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" He did not respond to these points. Contention 2 a.The US TRAILS IN MULTIPLE HEALTH INDICATORS-My opponent makes the claim that our system is flawed due the government intervention. As it was previously agreed upon that all claims must have warrants, which he has failed to provide, his point is moot. Moreover extend the Lobowsky card analyzing the WHO's (World Health Organization) study. This study clearly shows that the United States’ current system is detrimental to its citizens and that the countries that have the best health indicators have Universal Health Care and my opponent has not provided any actual warrants to show otherwise. b. US HEALTH SYSTEM BROKEN, SPENDS MORE FOR A LOT LESS-My opponent misinterprets this point, Handler rather explains the fact that the United States is spending more per person than any other country currently but our results are a lot worse. Universal Health care systems are cheaper than our current system (Handler and AMSA) and result in better health indicators therefore his point is moot. His point in regard to the cancer patient is moot as as UHC provides for comprehensive preventative care therefore cancer patients are going to be identified in stage one as opposed to stage four and therefore more likely to survive which is shown by the better health indicators in the WHO study provided in subpoint a. c.Approximately 100,000 people die prematurely annually due to no healthcare-Con brings up the point of lifestyle issues that UHC doesn’t solve for. However, conceivably, all countries have people like that yet those countries still consistently outrank the US in regard to Health Indicators (WHO and Handler) and have significantly less preventable deaths (Boyd). He states that he doesn’t want to have to pay for these people, however turn that argument on him as according to the American Medical Student Association in regard to UHC, “each of these four options [referring to implementing UHC] would save money over 10 years. The first two options would save $320.5 billion over 10 years, the third option would save $369.8 billion over 10 years, and the fourth option would save $1.1 trillion over 10 years.” Meaning that the United States would be saving money. You can also just ignore con’s warrantless points. d. Uninsured Americans continue to grow-con did not negate this so extend the Derickson evidence Contention 3 a. Health is a prerequisite to achieving ends and exercising rights-Con brings up a good point in regard to dependency, however he doesn’t address the main point of it which was that health is a prerequisite to achieving ends and exercising rights therefore even if UHC resulted in more ‘dependence’ on the government, the end result, health results in more liberty, freedom, and being able to exercise your other rights because rights of no use when one is dead. b. THE ADVANTAGES OF UNIVERSAL COVERAGE ACCRUE TO EVERYONE, NOT JUST THOSE WHO USE THEIR INSURANCE- Con posed a question, asking how people will be more efficient in the workforce when they know, regardless of their work, they will get healthcare. Well that is due to the fact, that because of the extensive preventative care, the workers will be more productive and there will be less absenteeism due to health care being available therefore the workers will be more reliable. Additionally I will pose a question back to you, is the only reason your parents and family work hard in their jobs is to get healthcare? Is that truthfully the sole driving force you believe people have to work? Regardless, con has not presented any actual warrant in this, as we had agreed upon, therefore his rebuttal can be ignored and you can extend the Murray evidence and see that UHC leads to advantages for the entire society. Con makes the point that people will have to be responsible for the really sick person and pay more. However, due to the fact that UHC provides extensive preventative care, less people are getting sick. Kao-Ping Chua explains “Lack of preventive care and adequate care of chronic diseases: Because the uninsured do not get the preventive and chronic disease care they need, they are more likely to develop complications and advanced stage disease, both of which are expensive to treat.” As UHC provides this preventative care people aren’t going to be getting as sick in the first place and therefore they will be less expensive to treat. Additionally note the fact that Con still has yet to provide any warrents throught this entire debate. Con notes that some people are naturally stronger and healthier ans so they shouldn't have to pay, however all that medical care would still be available for them because even the healthiest people get sick, additionally it still is beneficial for that person to have a healthy productive society, something that UHC results in therefore the healthy person still reaps the benefits of the system c. Upholding life is the ultimate moral standard-Con states this is irrelevant because it’s about philosophy, however I explicitly stated in the opening round that we are talking about moral obligations of the government therefore this is entirely topical. As he did not respond to this extend the Rasmussen evidence and we, knowing that affirming upholds life better, can affirm the resolution on this point alone. Do not allow Con to make new arguments in regard to this next round as that does not allow me to respond to them as he could have very well made the argument last round. Aspects of it, not its entirety No, and single payer system is not socialized medicine, see No, also a State with UHC is not communistic, look to almost every other industrialized nation in the world, they have UHC but are not communistic. Don’t know much about it Health care and k-12 education should be run by the state, aside from that sure The resolution was phrased as ought defined as moral obligation, so yes for this resolution Sure, but remember that the constitution has been and will continue to be amended Taxes Single Payer System Voters: My opponent has not provided any actual warrants throughout any of his rebuttals, not a single citation nor source, as we agreed upon at the beginning. I followed the outline I proposed which was claim, warrant, and impact where it applied. I have shown the fact that it is a part of the State’s obligation to provide HC through my Jones evidence and even Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Then I showed clearly that the US trailed in regard to health indicators compared to other countries, in our current system, is spending far more, 100,000 people are dying prematurely every year due to lack of UHC, and that the problem is getting worse. Then I showed that HC is a prerequisite to achieving ends and exercising rights, that UHC is beneficial to everyone, not just those who require medical care, and the state’s ultimate goal is to preserve life. Affirm :)

  • PRO

    He works hard, full-time, to build a sufficient fund for...

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

    I accept the parameters. I will address my opponent's argument and then provide my own. " . . . funding it requires raising taxes . . . " Boo freakin' hoo. I guess we can't do that, can we? =P " . . . and unnecessary restriction on our freedoms . . . " What unnecessary restrictions? "There is no need to give the 90% who can afford health insurance the benefits, nor is it necessary to foot the whole health bill for those who can pay for at least some of the costs." Is it fair to give those who need health care the free benefits, and make those who can afford it pay for it? Observe example 1. Bobby lives just below the poverty level, by himself, in an apartment. He works two jobs at separate fast-food chains to sustain his living conditions. Because he cannot afford it, the government provides him free health care. Now we go to Johnny. Johnny is a middle class newlywed who lives in a townhouse. He works hard, full-time, to build a sufficient fund for his expected child. He has to pay for his health care, because he can afford it and the other necessities to live. Sounds fair, right? WRONG! Why He works hard, full-time, to build a sufficient fund for his expected child. He has to pay for his health care, because he can afford it and the other necessities to live. Sounds fair, right? WRONG! Why should Johnny, working hard to start a family, have to give up a large portion of his salary to his health insurance company, while lonely Bobby gets it for free? "Paying for health care in the form of welfare, that is, only giving people what they need is much more appropriate, so, in short, universal health care is the wrong idea." Welfare is not a sufficient substitute for health care because they don't perform the same function. Welfare helps you to be financially stable, while health care helps you to be...well...healthily stable. =============================================================================== Now for my contention. Ladies and gentlemen, my opponents states that the only purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people. However, to my knowledge (from my class on U.S. government), the four main purposes of government are to: 1) Protect citizen rights 2) Maintain order and safety 3) Maintain economic stability 4) Provide necessary public services With this in mind, the government needs universal health care to fulfill its roles of maintaining safety, providing public services and as my opponent stated, protecting citizen rights. Take my above example. Who is going to pay for Bobby's surgery when he gets run over by a car and stabbed multiple times? Not me, that's who. You won't either. You'll be laughing at him while he lies face down in the street, and while he's on the hospital bed. But you won't pay for his surgery, because it'll be too expensive. You might even have trouble paying for your own surgery when YOU get run over by a car and stabbed multiple times. So the government is just going to let Bobby die? I don't think so. A government needs to maintain the safety of Bobby, and protect his right to life. So they need to give him health care. Of course, you may ask, "What about Jack, the shrewd, multimillionaire entrepreneur who also got run over by a car and stabbed multiple times? Does he get free health care as well?" The answer is yes, he does. The government has as much of an obligation to protect Jack's safety and rights as they do Bobby's. Besides, maybe the surgery cost is so great that Jack will be living in poverty once he finishes paying his bills. You can't have that, can you? Otherwise he'd leech off YOUR governmentz for welfare money, and get rich off it because he is shrewd. But I digress. I stand by this: Universal health care is necessary to protect the safety and rights of all citizens. Furthermore, it would be unfair and detrimental to provide free health care to certain people instead of all people.

  • PRO

    Balanced Politics.Org - "The number of uninsured citizens...

    Millions don't have health insurance in US; universal health care would address this

    "Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?". Balanced Politics.Org - "The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 40 million. Since health care premiums continue to grow at several times the rate of inflation, many businesses are simply choosing to not offer a health plan, or if they do, to pass on more of the cost to employees. Employees facing higher costs themselves are often choosing to go without health coverage. No health insurance doesn't necessarily mean no health care since there are many clinics and services that are free to indigent individuals. However, any costs not covered by insurance must be absorbed by all the rest of us, which means even higher premiums."

CON