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

PRO

  • PRO

    According to Prof. Jennifer Prah, "Lack of health care...

    The U.S. ought to guarantee Universal Healthcare to its citizenry

    The burden of the Pro is to show that some form of UHC is, on principle, should be guaranteed to the citizens of the United States. The Pro does not have to pick a specific type of UHC to support, nor does it need to offer a policy to implement it. Merely, the debate is about whether, on a moral/principle level, UHC should be granted. The Con should show that, on principle, UHC ought not be guaranteed. My argument: Essentially, we must be free from concerns over our survival in order to pursue those goals, desires we need in order to live fulfilling and happy lives. If we were starving or unsafe, those factors would unduly preoccupy our lives and threaten our independence. Thus, it is my Contention that universal healthcare is necessary to achieve true autonomy, because to be able to e self-actualize we must sate our basic needs. Sub-point A: Without universal healthcare, millions are endangered. According to Prof. Alan Derickson, "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, underscoring"the degree to which this problem afflicted the employed as well as the unemployed"" Currently, about 50 million go without healthcare. Derickson goes on to point out that millions of Americans are jeopardized by uninsurance. "The real meaning of health insecurity is not the fears stirred by the lack of a reassuring plastic card in one"s wallet"lack of insurance means otherwise preventable death, disability, suffering, and loss. People without health insurance receive less care and, as a result, suffer higher rates of morbidity and mortality"about fifty Americans die every day from illness or injury because they have no insurance. Beneath the policy jargon and rhetoric"is a tragedy of human sacrifice." According to Prof. Jennifer Prah, "Lack of health care access increases risk exposure; failing to meet health needs when they occur can expose individuals to even greater risk of illness or injury later on. Illness itself brings vulnerabilities: a potential further decline in health." Prof. Leonard Fleck, agrees, noting: "The Institute of Medicine reports that about 20,000"uninsured Americans die each year for reasons directly connected to their lack of insurance"They die prematurely. How can a society as wealthy as our own that wishes to think of itself as "just and caring" tolerate that unnecessary loss of life?" This enormous and wanton loss of life reinforces the concept that healthcare is necessary to simply survive, let alone be autonomous agents. As I stated earlier: to be able to pursue self-actualization we must have our basic needs met. Without universal healthcare, we cannot act autonomously, because needs go unmet. Sub-point B: Universal healthcare is necessary for physiological and security needs. According to Dr. Jeffrey Lobosky, "The huge population of uninsured"Americans have been priced out of the American health care system"" He observes that the uninsured pay most of these usurious expenses out of pocket, leading them into vast debt. This massive debt, notes Prof. Stephanie Woolhandler, is the cause of 50% of bankruptcies in the U.S. The sheer cost of healthcare presents a problem, considering that a family might have to choose between eating and paying a medical bill, preventing them from acquiring physiological needs. Additionally, community security is endangered by a lack of healthcare. According to Professors Chua Kao-Ping and Flavio Casoy, "Communities with high rates of uninsurance have less effective control of communicable disease" jeopardizing everyone"s health and that ""high rates of uninsurance and"uncompensated care costs weaken a community"s health infrastructure. Since healthcare is an important part of a community"s economic base, communities suffer economically." According to Dr. Kenneth Thorpe, universal healthcare could actually save between 320 billion and 1.1 trillion dollars over ten years alone. Prof. Dale Murray argues that universal healthcare would grant, "freedom from financial and care-giving burdens placed"by the uninsured, lower absenteeism, and more reliable productivity from a workforce that can access basic health services." Thus, a community"s stability and security are risked without healthcare and, conversely, are helped by it. Sub-point C: Universal healthcare is necessary for belongingness needs and esteem needs. Prof. Norman Daniels notes that the sick tend to be ostracized from society and that universal healthcare would help remedy this. He posits: "by keeping people close to normal functioning, healthcare preserves for people the ability to participate in the political, social, and economic life of their society. It sustains them as fully participating citizens"in all spheres of social life." Thus universal healthcare promotes belongingness, as it does esteem. According to Kao-ping and Casoy: "The suffering caused by uninsurance goes far beyond the purely physical suffering experienced by uninsured individuals. Emotionally, uninsurance contributes to anxiety, familial stress, depression, and fear. Financially, medical costs are a major cause of personal bankruptcy." Anxiety, familial stress, and depression, all serve to undermine esteem, observes the American Psychiatric Association. Without our basic needs met, it cannot be said that we are fully autonomous beings. Without universal healthcare we"ll forever be dependent, ill, and unable to pursue our own dreams. Thus, to have true autonomy, I urge an affirmative ballot.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-U.S.-ought-to-guarantee-Universal-Healthcare-to-its-citizenry/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.46
      universal: 15.47
      conclusion: 7.75 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 6.87 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.65)
      sourceText: 0.86 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.80)
      basic: 4.57
      premises: 4.16 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 0.41 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.29)
      should: 1.42
      premises: 1.34 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.05)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.86)
  • PRO

    Human life is not possible without any one of these...

    Universal human nature

    Fundamental human rights exist and are founded on universal human needs. Certain needs are necessary to human life in every instance and circumstance. These include food, water, shelter and security of person. Human life is not possible without any one of these things, and so these needs may be termed 'fundamental rights' necessary to the continued existence of that person. Every person has a right to the fulfilment of these needs as the alternative is non-existence, which is contrary to our basic human nature to survive. Because all humans everywhere possess at birth a drive to survive and all share these requirements, they are clearly fundamental to our nature and we have a right to their fulfilment and protection.  

  • PRO

    Well I believe that they get into the profession to care...

    The United States should design a universal health care system.

    I'll jump to it. 1. I realize that they still can get health care, but the problem is that it is more expensive to them, should they need it. Health care is generally considered to be a basic right, and people should have it. 2. This point was on privacy, not that the burden would be spread to everyone. I simply do not get how privacy is invaded by Universal Health Care. 3. You argued that taxes would be higher, but there is a trade-off. The government as a whole would save some 286 billion dollars annually from a Universal Health Care system from saved paperwork alone. This in turn translates to less required money from the people. 4. <<>> Well I believe that they get into the profession to care for people, and the benefits are just an after-thought and a positive. Barring some evidence into the matter, we are at an impasse. 5. Well, I understand that IF less research is done, there will be less cures. However, I fail to understand how Universal Health Care would cause less research. If anything, it would cause more (See link from round 1 argument). 6. << >> Actually, the report measured several things: Overall Level of Health, Distribution of Health in the Populations, Responsiveness, and Distribution of Financing. The report actually does report on whether the health care is good, thus negating your response. 7. (Democracy) You basically argue that these are biased polls. I'll admit, the CBS poll may be biased. However the Hill poll is a poll of Republicans, not the liberal left. The Third link I provided actually is a poll from the Washington Times, and therefore, if anything, would be biased in your favor. Looks to me like America wants Universal Health Care. 8. (DMV Example) Again, one example that could be isolated doesn't guarentee anything. 9. (Flexibility) I'm sure that the people who want these things (the superfluous things) could pay for the surgeries on they're own. Any extra paper-work wouldn't offset the billions of dollars we would save in a switch. My New Point: Policy Time! So basically, you argue that there is a problem with our health care system, yet the solution is not Universal Health Care. So you concede that a policy option is needed, and it isn't our current system doesn't suffice. So far the only other policy being presented to voters IS Universal Health Care. Therefore, unless you present an alternative option, voter's really have no choice but to vote for the only option presented today (Universal Health Care).

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-United-States-should-design-a-universal-health-care-system./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.17
      universal: 14.65
      conclusion: 6.40 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 7.24 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.74)
      sourceText: 1.01 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.11)
      basic: 3.01
      premises: 2.68 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.78)
      sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.02)
      should: 3.52
      conclusion: 1.96 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 1.47 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.15)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.99)
  • PRO

    What would it be like if governments provided an...

    Governments should provide a universal basic income

    What would it be like if governments provided an unconditional sum of money to all citizens regardless of income or property owned? That way, We can spread the wealth in our society, Thereby reducing the growing inequality across the nation or even the world. However, Others claim that recipients might lose sight of the value of hard work, Which is one of the most noble and treasured aspects of life.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Governments-should-provide-a-universal-basic-income/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.17
      universal: 8.63
      conclusion: 7.75 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.89 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.86)
      basic: 10.08
      conclusion: 9.53 (boost 1.50, idf 7.19, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.55 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.73)
      should: 2.46
      conclusion: 2.37 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.86)
  • PRO

    But, if everyone does not agree then we still have to...

    Morality is Not Universal

    For a brief road map, I will go over my opponents arguments and then enforce my own. His first argument was to say that it is "impossible to prove a certain set of moral beliefs to be true" Which is completely correct, until he goes on to say that certain key values can be determined to be moral whether everyone agrees or not. But, if everyone does not agree then we still have to fail to recognize morality as a universal concept since every person or group or society could have a different view of what morality is. Which he also stated in the beginning of his argument, that morality is a broad term. He mentions one of the basic key values of morality is the aspect of killing but as I said in my previous arguments other people and religions have different ideas of whether killing is moral or not. Which is what we are debating, whether morality is a term that can be used universally and accepted with the same ideas in mind. -created equal- I believe that my opponent is attempting to make the point that humans may not think they are superior to other humans and that they have no right to hurt others or to believe killing them is not immoral. Which is his personal belief and view as to what morality is. This argument is directed at my point that some Australian tribes believe it is moral to eat human flesh. I am not saying that I agree with this, but what I am saying is that others have different opinions as to what the definition of morality is. Which again, his argument does not fit in with the debate considering it is proving that his definition of what is moral is different from what the definition of morality is to other people. -logic- Again, his point is that humans do not have the authority or right to kill other humans. I agree, but there is other people who do not agree on the meaning of the word morality which is why it was possible for my opponent to say that morality is a broad term in the beginning of his arguments. He says it isn't ethnocentrism because it is logical to believe that humans cannot kill other humans. But just by saying that is an example of ethnocentrism. Saying that it is only logical to believe that you But, if everyone does not agree then we still have to fail to recognize morality as a universal concept since every person or group or society could have a different view of what morality is. Which he also stated in the beginning of his argument, that morality is a broad term. He mentions one of the basic key values of morality is the aspect of killing but as I said in my previous arguments other people and religions have different ideas of whether killing is moral or not. Which is what we are debating, whether morality is a term that can be used universally and accepted with the same ideas in mind. -created equal- I believe that my opponent is attempting to make the point that humans may not think they are superior to other humans and that they have no right to hurt others or to believe killing them is not immoral. Which is his personal belief and view as to what morality is. This argument is directed at my point that some Australian tribes believe it is moral to eat human flesh. I am not saying that I agree with this, but what I am saying is that others have different opinions as to what the definition of morality is. Which again, his argument does not fit in with the debate considering it is proving that his definition of what is moral is different from what the definition of morality is to other people. -logic- Again, his point is that humans do not have the authority or right to kill other humans. I agree, but there is other people who do not agree on the meaning of the word morality which is why it was possible for my opponent to say that morality is a broad term in the beginning of his arguments. He says it isn't ethnocentrism because it is logical to believe that humans cannot kill other humans. But just by saying that is an example of ethnocentrism. Saying that it is only logical to believe that you should not and cannot kill a person and eat their flesh is saying that that idea is superior to any other. The people in those Australian tribes believe differently and you are therefore saying that they are wrong and your idea is dominant over theirs is ethnocentrism. As for my on case, my points stand strong. According to the definition of morality any code of conduct that is implemented in a society or religion or group may be considered moral. Since there are many different groups of people, societies and religions with different ideas as to what is right and wrong we can see that morality is not a universal idea. I respectfully urge a vote for pro.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Morality-is-Not-Universal/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.15
      universal: 16.92
      conclusion: 11.16 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 4.77 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.15)
      sourceText: 1.00 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.09)
      basic: 3.16
      premises: 2.68 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.78)
      sourceText: 0.48 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.50)
      should: 1.07
      premises: 0.99 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.78)
      sourceText: 0.08 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.68)
  • PRO

    My opponent also says that the billionaire class such as...

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

    As I believe universal healthcare should be implemented in the United States, I will begin by refuting my opponents arguments. Jumping right in, my opponent says that Universal healthcare should not be implemented because of cost, yet shortly afterwards admits that it could be paid for. If we CAN pay for something that will improve our country and the happiness of our citizens, something that I believe should be a basic human right, then I believe we absolutely should. My opponent also says that there are other healthcare systems that are better and more cost effective; if so, please tell me more about them, because I think Universal healthcare is a good system that is most likely our best option. If you know of a better system, let us know more about it. Furthermore, a properly implemented Universal Healthcare plan would actually help stimulate our economy. The annual cost of healthcare in the US is currently growing at an exponential rate, and a study conducted by the CEA shows that even if we slow that rate of growth by only 1.5%, our countries gross domestic product would increase by nearly 8% by the year 2030. What that means is that the income in a typical American family would be about $10,000 higher annually, and the unemployment rate would go down by about 2%, or 500,000 people every year (1). And that's only with a decrease of 1.5%! It would save the average person money on healthcare, bolster their health, and thus make them more productive workers. It also helps reduce "job lock", and encourages small businesses and entrepreneurs by "leveling the playing field". For many people, their only access to healthcare is as a benefit through their job, forcing them to either stay or lose their coverage. With universal healthcare, it is much easier for people to choose a career they actually like, or start their own business, which helps money flow in our economy (2). My opponent also says that the billionaire class such as Donald Trump should not have healthcare provided for them because they can pay for it themselves. However, the average taxpayer would not be paying for Donald Trump's healthcare, as Donald Trump would theoretically be paying MORE taxes than them, and that extra money would help Universal Healthcare work. A homeless unemployed man can't pay for his own healthcare, but Donald Trump can easily pay for healthcare for dozens of people, and if his taxes are already higher, he is helping insure other people, and healthcare should not be denied to anyone. To address my opponents' concern that Universal healthcare would create a conflict of interests, I will just say that I am obviously arguing for a Universal Healthcare system done right, not simply a corrupt replacement of our current system. Of course if it is not implemented properly, such as in the scenarios my opponent outlined, then the results could be less than ideal. But if implemented carefully and properly, as I believe it should and could be, than these scenarios would all be avoided, and the payoff would be huge. My opponent says that health is more than just having access to a doctor, that the Americans should change their lifestyle, and that the government should regulate food and the environment. While this is certainly true and we agree on this point, it is irrelevant to this argument. Just because having Universal Healthcare won't magically solve all of the health problems in America does not mean that it should not be implemented, and even if Americans all managed to live a perfectly healthy lifestyle and our environmental problems were all solved, people would still need access to western medicine or prescription medication on certain occasions. There is a reason that life expectancy goes up alongside the advance of medical science. The government could easily implement a Universal Healthcare plan AND do more to fix the problems with our environment and food supply. As for the actual implementation of an effective Universal Healthcare plan, yes it might be difficult, but it is not impossible. Every other major western country has implemented a Universal Healthcare plan of some sort, and I believe that if EVERY OTHER similar country has done it, we Americans can probably manage someway or another. Obamacare is an example of a healthcare plan that has many problems, and I agree that it could have been implemented much more effectively, but the fact is, it HAS been implemented, and an improved system could easily enough be put it its place. My opponent also brings up Bernie Sanders; while this debate is not about the election, you cannot say that a candidate can't win when they won 8 out of 9 of the last primaries. And that is a perfect example of how something difficult can still work. However, the topic of this debate is not about if Universal Healthcare COULD be implemented, it is about whether or not it SHOULD be. So for the sake of this argument, we should both assume that proper implementation is indeed possible. Now I will present some of my own arguments for Universal Healthcare: I think that in our economy, all people should ethically be given access to healthcare, and that it should be a basic human right. Not everyone can afford healthcare, but most people need it at some time. Making people choose to either pay thousands of dollars to insurance companies that give them limited benefits, or die of disease is not morally right in my opinion. The pharmaceutical and insurance companies have become much too overpriced and have too much leverage over people, given that their services are often essential. As I said before, America is one of the only advanced western civilizations that STILL does not offer Universal Healthcare, and most countries that do, such as Sweden or Denmark, have happier average citizens. For example, in Denmark, citizens are about 77% happy, and in the United States, only 70% (3). One of the main reasons for this is the difference in our healthcare systems. Given the money that Americans already spend on taxes, we should absolutely get Universal Healthcare coverage without having to pay anything more. Money could be relocated from other areas where tax dollars are spent is excess, such as military spending. So a good Universal Healthcare plan would be essentially free (it would still be paid for by taxes, true, but the amount people are taxed would not increase), and it would greatly benefit our citizens. A properly implemented Universal Healthcare plan would boost our economy, increase the health, lifespan and happiness of Americans, and generally improve our country, all without costing the average American anything more than what they already pay in taxes, bringing us up to par with other advanced western countries. And I can't see why anyone wouldn't want that! (1) https://www.whitehouse.gov... (2) https://www.whitehouse.gov... (3) http://acculturated.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Should-universal-health-care-be-implemented-in-the-US-given-current-conditions/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.13
      universal: 14.56
      conclusion: 6.40 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 7.15 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.72)
      sourceText: 1.01 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.12)
      basic: 2.40
      premises: 2.18 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.63)
      sourceText: 0.22 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 0.70)
      should: 4.16
      conclusion: 1.96 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 2.11 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.65)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.10)
  • PRO

    If you believe it should be, please go ahead and accept....

    English should not be considered an international or universal language.

    English should not be consider universal. If you believe it should be, please go ahead and accept. Here is an outline of how this debate will work: Round 1: Not a debate round. Simply use it to accept my debate. Round 2: I give you my first point to why it should not be universal. You try to argue against it. Round 3: Same as 2, but with new point. Round 4: Same as 2 & 3, but with new point.

  • PRO

    Con may simply rebut or may include his own points but...

    Universal Health Care

    RESOLUTION That a universal health care system, on balance, is beneficial. DEFINITIONS Universal health care: noun A health care system organized by government and built around the principle of universal coverage to all citizens. Beneficial: adjective In this debate, beneficial will refer to an increase in the general standard of living. Further examination of the meaning does not need to be brought up in this debate. INTRODUCTION I'm am happy to be starting this debate which I have been planning to do with jimtimmy. I have been waiting tell I had more time to devote to debating. Hopefully there will be no forfeits here. May no one vote without reading and may they be honest in doing so. I will lay out a few short points that I may add to or expand on later. Con may simply rebut or may include his own points but there will be no new points by him in the last round. ARGUMENTS 1. Universal health care will decrease spending on health care According to OECD Health Data[1], the United States spends much more on healthcare per capita, US$ PPP than the U.K., Switzerland, Japan, Germany, France, Canada or Australia. And what is the difference between the countries and the United States? They all have universal health care and it doesn't. But how could this be so? There are a multitude of reasons but the most pronounced is preventive medicine. In countries without universal health care, namely the United States, the majority of individuals with ailments, whether they know of them or not, have a strong incentive to stay away from check-ups because it will cost them money that they are already struggling to hold onto. 2. Universal health care will save lives. The American Journal of Public Health confirms that around 45,000 people die each year in the United States due to lack of health insurance [2]. Arguments can be made concerning how much health care could cost. Even though, as I would see the evidence suggests, universal health is good for the economy, it doesn't even matter. For if it was bad for the economy, it is still putting a price on human life to say that we would be better without it. Not only human life but human health. While many die from lack of insurance there are still many more who will live in agony. Universal health care is the humane thing to do. 3. Universal Health care will help the economy According to the US Department of Labor, the average American spends about 3,175 dollars a year on health insurance [3]. Universal health care puts that money back into the hands of the people who need it. Based on the simple mathematics of shared cost, health care would cost the average person less in tax than it would in price. Even better when the cost is fronted by the rich who could barely bat an eye at losing 3,175 dollars that most Americans are desperate to keep. Securing basic needs will blunt the blade of any recession. This is why the International Monetary Fund urges that the most important thing nations can do in an economic downturn is to strengthen their social safety nets [4]. SOURCES 1. http://upload.wikimedia.org... 2. http://news.harvard.edu... 3. http://www.bls.gov... 4. http://www.imf.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Health-Care/18/
    • score
      BM25 score: 20.83
      universal: 18.33
      conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 7.51 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.81)
      sourceText: 1.03 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.16)
      basic: 2.46
      premises: 2.25 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.21 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 0.66)
  • PRO

    Yes, that is true, however, governments make up a very...

    English should not be considered an international or universal language.

    English is NOT a language spoken worldwide. It is only the 3rd largest native language (Mandarin is the first; Spanish the second), and there are thousands of languages spoken today. Only ~5% of the world speaks English at a native level. With ~480 million fluent speakers (both native and learned), which is only about 6% of the world population. That means 94% of the world cannot speak English. Now, you might argue that most governments speak English. Yes, that is true, however, governments make up a very small portion of the world population. For a language to be truly universal, it must be spoken by the majority of at least the middle class. In many countries, very few people speak English better than their native language. Most of them (except for powerful men and leaders of large business) cannot hold anything more than basic conversation.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/English-should-not-be-considered-an-international-or-universal-language./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 20.80
      universal: 13.77
      conclusion: 7.75 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 5.02 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 1.01 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.13)
      basic: 4.56
      premises: 4.17 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.22)
      should: 2.46
      conclusion: 2.37 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.00)
  • PRO

    We have agreed that this round will just be to present...

    Trotskyism is inferior to Third universal Theory

    We have agreed that this round will just be to present the two theories. What Is Third universal Theory? TUV is the belief in total direct democracy, nationalism and socialism. -First of all it affirms that popular rule is absolute. Secondly it posits that all Democracy today whether Single party democracy like North Korea or China or Liberal Democracy in the United States Or France. Both of them rely in on representatives or parties making political decisions in the name of the people or anyone person or group making decisions for others. This obviously does not work on any level as at the local level a legislative member in the United States is constantly under pressure from the Electorate, the party, the faction, the caucus, and special interest. Almost always do we find he who was the money and the speaking abilities wins the election and gets to make decisions in the name of the people. So we get frustrated when they cannot achieve what we voted for them for so we vote for the other candidate who has the money, speaking abilities and campaign team. Often we find the same problem. Beyond that when one finds these representatives being elected with 53, 51, or even 50.01% of the vote being elected to office. Are the 49.99% being represented? Did 100% of the people actually turn out to vote? This problem led to the Solution, Third Universal Universal Theory. -Government as a representative system disappears. Only a Higher Council for National Guidance, Military and foreign affairs remains. After the revolution goes global those positions too will disappear. All are decided by referendum at People's Congresses. These People's congresses act at local level and all decisions are by community referendum. Then those who choose go to a massive national wide general congress. they elect a National People's Committee. in contrast to Liberal Democracy they cannot do anything without a referendum to approve it. Local People's Congresses do the same. These committees are the only form of order in this society and have no choice but to act in total accordance with the will of the people. They simply assure that land being a right not a commodity is open for all to use, information and news remains publicly owned and never by private companies, taxes are played which the people themselves decide through public and are thus used to fulfill the projects the people decide. The Third Universal Theory goes onto to stress that every nation should be nationalistic in action or it will cease to be a language. Sports: "Public sport is for all the masses. It is right of all people for their health and recreational benefit. It is mere stupidity to leave its benefits to certain individuals and teams who monopolize these while the masses provide the facilities and pay the expenses for the establishment of public sports. The thousands who crowd stadiums to view, applaud and laugh are foolish people who have failed to carry out the activity themselves."-Green Book, M. Codification Both genders are equal however we must accept the inherent and natural differences between the two genders. Women should money to support them in motherhood and no other should care for the child but their natural mother and father. Making a mother work is unnatural as their role is motherhood and new expletive system should subject them to do so. Those are the basic defining principals of Third universal Theory and I will now turn it over to Con to present Trotskyism. http://www.youtube.com... explaining social aspect.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Trotskyism-is-inferior-to-Third-universal-Theory/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 20.44
      universal: 15.99
      conclusion: 8.87 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 6.19 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.49)
      sourceText: 0.93 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.96)
      basic: 2.60
      premises: 2.25 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.11)
      should: 1.85
      premises: 1.76 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.02)

CON

  • CON

    The taxes pay for them, and because everyone pays taxes...

    let it be resolved that universal health care is a bad idea

    Universal health care is a bad idea. The best results will be achieved through a market. Instead of having the government pay for everyone's health care people should buy their own insurance for catastrophic care and pay straight up for routine visits. The government does not pay for universal health care. The citizens of the nation pays taxes, which pays for the health care. A market in health care would keep costs down because doctors would compete with each other for who can treat effectively for a lower price. However, universal health care actually would keep costs down. The taxes pay for them, and because everyone pays taxes but not everyone gets sick, your health care costs will be partly paid by someone else. Instead of having gigantic and waste there would be incentives in place for competing health care organizations to stream line and be more efficient. It is not waste. You pay for them using taxes. There will be some tax money spare because not everyone gets sick. The spare tax money can go to elsewhere, like eduation. Instead of it being impossible to find a family doctor - as it is in Canada - everyone who wants one will have one (basic supply and demand, there are no shortages on the free market if demand is high and supply is low price goes up but the service is always available). In Canada, we CAN find family doctors. My family doctor is just blocks away from me. Just because there is universal health care does not mean that alternatives are banned. My arguments are: The universal health care is more affordable. People pay for it with taxes. Due to how taxes work, the rich pays more. With the extra money that the riches pay, we can subsidize those who cannot afford health care. Universal health care also reduces waste, because it us tax money in the right place. Health care on the market is a bad idea, because the poor will not be able to afford it, compared to how the riches subsidize them using taxes in universal health care. Everyone has the right to life. [1] If patients with life threatening diseases were unable to pay and there is no universal heath care, it is effectively violating their right to life by preventing them from accessing the cure. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/let-it-be-resolved-that-universal-health-care-is-a-bad-idea/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 20.30
      universal: 16.13
      conclusion: 7.75 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.43 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.79)
      sourceText: 0.95 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.00)
      basic: 3.11
      premises: 2.68 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.78)
      sourceText: 0.42 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.34)
      should: 1.06
      premises: 0.99 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.78)
      sourceText: 0.07 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.54)
  • CON

    Once the system is put into the government's hands then...

    basic healthcare is a right

    I would like to know where you go that information or if you are just making the wind blow where you want. America does offer more services in their healthcare but that aside a major reason that it is less expensive is that the government takes care of the cost's. Of course this is not out of charity but comes in the form of a 75% income tax but you know everyone loves to get 25 cents out of every dollar they earn. That is how they are able to afford this way of health care. If you like having everything decided for you and have little to no freedom then universal healthcare is the way to go! Once the system is put into the government's hands then what difference is there in that and a monopoly. If the government has control over the entire system and all insurers fall under their dominion what is stopping them from raising the price of the healthcare. However the government would never do that, right? If some of you are thinking that the government's control of everything would be good than why aren't monopolies good? If an entity has absolute control over an area of life or a good than people would throw a fit that the entity was corrupt and there needs to be something done about it. However when the government does it people are all more than happy to fall in line and celebrate because the people running the government are all "good and moral" citizens. There is no difference between a monopoly and a government gone rampant for power. Therefore the notion of universal health care can not and should not be a right in any sense of the form, people deserve what they work for not what they whine for. http://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.npr.org... http://www.slate.com... http://taxfoundation.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/basic-healthcare-is-a-right/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 20.05
      universal: 6.18
      premises: 5.26 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 0.92 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.93)
      basic: 12.65
      conclusion: 12.05 (boost 1.50, idf 7.19, tfNorm 1.12)
      sourceText: 0.60 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.89)
      should: 1.22
      premises: 1.14 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.89)
      sourceText: 0.08 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.76)
  • CON

    1-"My opponent is trying to make the argument that no...

    Morality is Not Universal

    1-"My opponent is trying to make the argument that no human being is superior to another and if they think that they are then it is their responsibility to prove that they are and why they believe it is so. But, that is not what we are debating." This is a misrepresentation on my argument. From my round two argument: "First off, I think it's impossible to prove a certain set of moral beliefs to be true (whether it's the morality of Christianity, Islam, or a particular tribe) but I do believe it's possible to establish certain key values to be moral, whether or not everyone agrees. One of the most basic ones, which I will focus on, is the aspect of killing". As I said, you cannot prove a certain set of moral rules as completely true, or completely false. But, as I said, I believe I can show that certain aspects of morality can be shown to be universally true, whether or not some people think so or not. The one aspect I chose to focus on was whether or not killing is universally, morally wrong. To show this, I made the argument that because no human is superior to another, he has no right to decide whether or not another human, or many humans, can live or die. If one cannot show that he is superior to another human, then it logically follows that he has no claim to the right to kill another human. In other words, killing another human is morally wrong whether or one believes so or not. That is the argument that I have been trying to make, and that my opponent has failed to refute. 2-Ethnocentrism My opponent accuses me and my arguments of ethnocentrism {1}, but I think I have shown that we can come to the logical conclusion that killing another human is wrong, without bringing in culture or any such thing into the picture. One can believe that it is morally permissible to kill other humans, but that doesn't make it moral. You may argue that because not everyone accepts it, that means morality is not universal. But as I said, all we need to do is use logic to come to the conclusion that killing is not moral. Ask someone who believes killing is ok why he believes so, and see whether or not it is a logical answer. As I have been arguing, to show that it is morally permissible to kill another human, one must show why he has the right to do such a thing to someone who is equal to him. If he cannot do so, he has no right to kill another human, making killing other humans morally wrong, and universally so. Universally accepted? Maybe not, but I can choose to believe that 2+2=5, but that doesn't mean that math is not a universal concept. 3-Conclusion In conclusion, I have shown that, while not every aspect of morality of a certain religious or ethnic code can be proven universal, I have shown that certain aspects, such as killing, can be shown to be universally morally wrong, using logic. And while some may choose not to accept it, that doesn't make it any less true. Just because one person believes it is moral to kill another human, doesn't make the idea of killing humans universally morally wrong false. I once again thank my opponent for a fun and interesting debate. Not an easy subject to debate, but certainly an enjoyable one.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Morality-is-Not-Universal/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 20.04
      universal: 17.24
      conclusion: 11.16 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 5.09 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.23)
      sourceText: 1.00 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 2.09)
      basic: 2.72
      premises: 2.25 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.48 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.50)
  • CON

    In fact, publicly funded health care would sidestep this...

    The US should not have universal or publicly funded health care

    I will first refute your points, then make my own. Throughout the debate I am basing my assertions about universal health care plans on Hillary Clinton's plan; as she is the Democratic front-runner (and Obama's is very similar) it is a good platform for what is actually being proposed. What she proposes, in brief, is this: 1. If you have health insurance now, keep it. 2. If you do not, you can: - buy private insurance direct from an insurer - buy private insurance through the government (like what Congress gets) - apply for a subsidized plan. These will be given need-based. 3. Everyone must have health insurance, and all plans must meet certain standards. "My first point, being that there isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?" It is easy to find examples of any system that does not run well. In fact, publicly funded health care would sidestep this problem by having the government do needs-based subsidizing for lower-income families. In terms of universal health care, Germany is a good example of what happens when it works right, and they spend much less of their GDP per capita on health care than we do. "My second point deals with how if we go through with public health care, it will become premanent just like social security turned out to be." It is meant to be permanent, as was Social Security. This is a bit of a non-issue. "And now my third and final point states that 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." The subsidized private plans that lower-income families will be purchasing will cover doctor's visits, of course - just like every other private health insurance plan that is worth its salt. "In closing, by establishing free and universal health-care, we will drastically hurt our economy, everything our nation stands for, and it may also harm our actual health, doing the exact opposite thing it tried to do. Thank you." You have failed to prove any of these. And now, for my points. 1. No industrialized nation except for us lacks some sort of universal health care system. It's a basic right. We are the richest nation in the world, and yet 47 million of us lack any health care. 2. No industrialized nation in the world spends more of its GDP per capita on health care than we do. If socialized medicine is so expensive, than why does the rest of the world spend less? Because hospitals transfer the free emergency room costs onto the medicare plans, because medicare cannot negotiate its drug or hospital costs. With a mandate for health care, there will be fewer costs at the hospital level, because everyone will have health insurance. Period. 3. This is not socialized medicine. A true socialist model is single-payer government, this is blatantly not. This is basic subsidization for those in greatest need. Everyone should be able to have access to quality health insurance.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-US-should-not-have-universal-or-publicly-funded-health-care/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 19.95
      universal: 13.06
      conclusion: 6.40 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 5.72 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 0.94 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.97)
      basic: 4.02
      premises: 3.47 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.00)
      sourceText: 0.55 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.75)
      should: 2.87
      conclusion: 1.96 (boost 1.50, idf 1.79, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 0.83 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.08 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.75)
  • CON

    due to this they hand the cost down to the people it...

    basic healthcare is a right

    You idea in the first paragraph would work in theory. However, the reason people want universal health care is because they can't afford the medicine needed to cure their illness. With good reason with the cost of medicine rising, faster than inflation, people are finding necessary and life-saving medicine out of reach. Giving them health care will not solve the answer. Why? who picks up the tab on the medicine because someone has to pay for it, right? the insurance companies, but when hundreds of family's need these life-saving and sometimes expensive medicine these insurers can't keep giving out of charity or they will go out of business.* due to this they hand the cost down to the people it insures, that can be compensated if the poverty rate was kept in check however poverty is on the rise (14.7% or 46.7 Million) and the cost of medicine is going up you can't sustain that sort of trend for very long. The average family that makes between $50,000-60,000 and the cost of the average cost to have health care for that average family is 16,000 a year, do you really think that family can provide with the profit of the money when you add taxes and necessary expenditures? But of course how selfish of that family to think of itself when other people are suffering because those that are suffering wasted their lives not making the most of it and getting a degree and a paying job to pay for their own private health care. the reason other countries do not spend as much on their health care is because they do not offer health services only wait lists.* The reason we spend much more than any other country is because we have not yet realized the cost of having * due to this they hand the cost down to the people it insures, that can be compensated if the poverty rate was kept in check however poverty is on the rise (14.7% or 46.7 Million) and the cost of medicine is going up you can't sustain that sort of trend for very long. The average family that makes between $50,000-60,000 and the cost of the average cost to have health care for that average family is 16,000 a year, do you really think that family can provide with the profit of the money when you add taxes and necessary expenditures? But of course how selfish of that family to think of itself when other people are suffering because those that are suffering wasted their lives not making the most of it and getting a degree and a paying job to pay for their own private health care. the reason other countries do not spend as much on their health care is because they do not offer health services only wait lists.* The reason we spend much more than any other country is because we have not yet realized the cost of having universal health care. We still believe that maintaining the same level and quality of health services will be available if we give it to all regardless of being able to pay it. Do you really believe that a country can maintain that level, that quality of health services; while still being able to pay it's doctors a livable salary (and one that can offset the cost of medical school) as well as maintain a premium that all citizens can pay and not have to sacrifice their family's true rights for the petty and immoral right of a universal health care? A universal health care is immoral, it feeds off of people who have worked hard and made a livable job that can pay for their families expenses; it forces families to give up the dream that America once embodied. The RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; not the right to life, slavery, and the pursuit of handouts. *http://www.latimes.com... http://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.forbes.com... https://www.theobjectivestandard.com... http://www.forbes.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/basic-healthcare-is-a-right/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 19.91
      universal: 7.19
      premises: 6.27 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.51)
      sourceText: 0.92 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.93)
      basic: 12.65
      conclusion: 12.05 (boost 1.50, idf 7.19, tfNorm 1.12)
      sourceText: 0.60 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.89)
  • CON

    America is often criticized for its lack of a universal...

    Universal Health care

    I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. America is often criticized for its lack of a universal health-care system comparable to the Europeans and Canadians, even though Germany, the United Kingdom and even Canada are increasingly turning to the private sector in order to relieve the financial burden on government and solve serious delivery problems, most notably "rationing by queue," the prolonged wait times for many services, including cancer treatment and cardiac surgery. Compared to the private sector, government programs are inefficient and the higher costs have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, or even medical research and development. This is a tradeoff that most Americans would not be willing to make. If low-income persons find health-care coverage unaffordable, they should be subsidized by the government, but they should retain ultimate ownership of their health-care resources and the choice about how those resources will be utilized. Such patient ownership and choice will create the demand for price and quality transparency necessary to make value-based health-care decisions. The fundamental flaw in America is often criticized for its lack of a universal health-care system comparable to the Europeans and Canadians, even though Germany, the United Kingdom and even Canada are increasingly turning to the private sector in order to relieve the financial burden on government and solve serious delivery problems, most notably "rationing by queue," the prolonged wait times for many services, including cancer treatment and cardiac surgery. Compared to the private sector, government programs are inefficient and the higher costs have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, or even medical research and development. This is a tradeoff that most Americans would not be willing to make. If low-income persons find health-care coverage unaffordable, they should be subsidized by the government, but they should retain ultimate ownership of their health-care resources and the choice about how those resources will be utilized. Such patient ownership and choice will create the demand for price and quality transparency necessary to make value-based health-care decisions. The fundamental flaw in universal health-care systems is a misplacement of incentives. The decisions that drive health-care costs and quality of care are made by individual patients and their health-care providers. These decisions should not be influenced by universal government mandates, administered pricing systems or expenditure targets, but should instead be based on an adequately informed assessment by individual patients and their providers about the value of services in a particular clinical situation. In conclusion, universal health care is not the kind of health care we can get. Thank you.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Health-care/13/
    • score
      BM25 score: 19.85
      universal: 17.40
      conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 6.68 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.61)
      sourceText: 0.93 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.95)
      should: 2.14
      premises: 2.05 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.61)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.95)
  • CON

    This is definitely an emotional gambit, but I certainly...

    Universal healthcare

    "Is this what I am to assume Republicans mean by universal healthcare ruining our great healthcare system?" This type of statement on the part of Republicans is pure rhetoric. You are right in contesting that the "greatest healthcare system" in the world is of little use if few have access to it. "I would hope that anyone would put basic healthcare ahead of most other things... how about ditching some of those useless liberal policies you were talking about?" I wish I was talking about trivial liberal policies that we could cut out in order to save a few bucks. But I'm talking about massive government intervention that has required healthcare providers (along with drug companies, supply manufacturers and equipment manufacturers)to spend billions to conform to government standards. It's impossible to accommodate champagne taste on a beer budget. "You know those wars we are fighting, against the Islamists and the potheads? I bet we could save a lot of money by cutting THOSE programs to help save the lives of our citizens!" You're preaching to the choir on this one. But I believe any savings realized by reducing our military ventures should go right back into the pockets of American tax payers, and not toward artificially inflated healthcare costs resulting from government interference in the free market. "And you said the liberal policies were ridiculous! Handsoff, you kidder! You knew all along that these twisted neoconservative policies are REALLY the ones crippling us financially and ethically!" Any spending (and resulting taxation) on the part of the federal government which is not absolutely required to defend just the most basic rights of its citizens is superfluous, wasteful and unjust. This includes entitlements to the undeserving, pet projects for state representatives, and unnecessary wars. I have a problem with wasteful spending, period-- regardless of which party is responsible. Your round 2 question: "Do we let the person bleed to death on the sidewalk?" This is definitely an emotional gambit, but I certainly would not let someone bleed to death on the street. Is someone who has not paid for medical insurance entitled to not bleed to death on the street? I'd say no. He has put himself at the mercy of others by opting to pass on health insurance. He is fortunate that society will find a way to take care of him. That is our nature, but it is not our obligation. "I see your point about government and healthcare - a more capitalist system would have allowed lower costs, and we could hypothetically not be in this mess... I could possibly consider going along with this" I'm glad you understand where I am coming from. I can definitely see your point as well. I want you to consider one thing: almost every product and service available in this country (via free enterprise) has been made available (at some level) to most people, regardless of economic status. I don't know many welfare recipients (much less working people) who do not have a roof over their heads, food, clothing, electricity, running water, gas, cell phone, microwave oven, transportation, etc. You can thank the free market for that. When the free market senses a need, products and services are immediately developed to accommodate that need, and at a price to satisfy almost every budget. Yes, quality is sacrificed in many cases. But the overall need is typically met. The same could happen with healthcare. There is currently a HUGE need or affordable healthcare, and entrepreneurs are chomping at the bit to get rich meeting that need. Unfortunately, government interference in the free market has made it implausible and unprofitable at this time.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-healthcare/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 19.57
      universal: 14.74
      conclusion: 11.16 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 2.70 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.89 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.87)
      basic: 3.91
      premises: 3.47 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 1.00)
      sourceText: 0.44 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.39)
      should: 0.92
      premises: 0.83 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.97)
  • CON

    As Con, I will be debating that Hong Kong should not go...

    Universal Suffrage in Hong Kong

    As Con, I will be debating that Hong Kong should not go for universal suffrage in the Legislative Council election.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Suffrage-in-Hong-Kong/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 19.57
      universal: 17.22
      conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 6.55 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.58)
      sourceText: 0.88 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.86)
      should: 2.11
      premises: 2.01 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 1.58)
      sourceText: 0.09 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 2.01)
  • CON

    What if you were a Republican in a Democratic government?...

    Universal Health Care

    http://www.youtube.com...#! I accept my opponent's debate and wish him luck! I am against universal healthcare. Argument Control If the United States put into effect a universal healthcare system then they would need a seperate government agency to run it. Think about America today. Name one department that runs efficiently. Social Security Administration? Nope! Department of Energy? Nope! I could go on and on. Face it, if the government even tried to run a healthcare system it would be terrible. If something is simple leave it be! If it's not broken don't fix it! Look at this statement from one of my sources: Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system [1]? Private businesses do far better when dealing with healthcare. If they didn't do well then they'd be out of business! If the government ran the healthcare system then they could ration equipment, drugs, and services. Anything could possibly get your healthcare rationed. Lifestyle, age, political ideaology, or how whoever's in power feels could change your healthcare. Any time you have politicians making health care decisions instead of medical or economics professions, you open a whole group of potential rationing issues [1]. For example, an elderly man could receive less healthcare than a man in his mid 30s. Elderly people might not be able to get the treatment they need to stay alive. What if you were a Republican in a Democratic government? Would they deny you healthcare services because of your party affiliation? Liver disease from alcoholism, diabetes from obesity, lung cancer from smoking; Would the government help you or tell you to change your lifestyle? Cost They say that medical costs have risen greatly. Of course they have. There are more advances in the medical field and way more technology to pay for. Cars, computers, houses, everything has gone up in price! Should we make them all apart of the government? Many things we buy today have increased in cost because of the addition of new technology, but allowing the government to intervene so they can supposedly wave their hand and reduce the price is more than wishful thinking, its unrealistic and its impossible to speculate the effect it would have on the nation. People think "free healthcare" is great because it has the word "free" in it. Nothing in the world is free. The people of the U.S would have to pay a great deal of taxes in order to support the government's healthcare. The government has to pay for the healthcare somehow. Like I said, NOTHING is free. So where would they get the money for this? Of course! The American taxpayers! Would it be worth the cutting of multiple funded programs in order to support our universal healthcare? Would funding/regulatory decisions on certain drugs, treatments, research, etc. be decided based on those who give the most political support? In addition, co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Eventually there would be a great deal of patients going to the doctors for minor things. Normal people would not go to the doctors for a headace, a cold, or some aches and pains. Why is this? Because there is money involved for every doctor visit. If it's free then why not go? Right? In this case, doctors would spend time on a headache patient who had an appointment sooner than a patient who is in dire need of assistance. Also, healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc via greater taxes. Universal health care would spread the cost of it throughout the nation. Healthy people would be paying the same as unhealthy citizens. 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? Personal Freedom If the government runs the healthcare then what's stopping them from taxing cigarettes, fast food, and other items that jeopardize people's health? With government-paid health care, any risky or unhealthy lifestyle will raise the dollar cost to society. People who enjoy a nice alcoholic beverage or a smoke will no longer be able to afford it. Therefore, those businesses would eventually crumble. Personal freedoms would be erased. The government could control what you eat, drink, and do. In conslusion, a government run healthcare system would ruin our country. Government would run your daily life and tell you how to live your life. Your freedom to eat, drink, or smoke will no longer be there. The cost would be immense as seen by my video. How can a government with TRILLIONS of dollars in debt possibly run universal healthcare efficiently? Thank you and thanks to 16kadams for the video! Sources [1] http://www.balancedpolitics.org... [2] http://healthcare.procon.org... [3] http://www.clarksvilleonline.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Universal-Health-Care/19/
    • score
      BM25 score: 19.47
      universal: 16.21
      conclusion: 9.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.84, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 5.50 (idf 4.15, tfNorm 1.33)
      sourceText: 0.92 (boost 0.20, idf 2.38, tfNorm 1.93)
      basic: 2.12
      premises: 1.77 (idf 3.45, tfNorm 0.51)
      sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 1.58, tfNorm 1.11)
      should: 1.14
      premises: 1.06 (idf 1.28, tfNorm 0.83)
      sourceText: 0.08 (boost 0.20, idf 0.24, tfNorm 1.65)
  • CON

    First as you did not do definitions You concede that to...

    English should not be considered an international or universal language.

    First as you did not do definitions You concede that to me. I define Universal: A person or thing having universal effect, currency, or application, in particular. In your first point you say that only 6 percent of the worlds population speaks English. This is misconstruing facts. Only 6 percent speak English as a first language. The real facts say that 27% of people speak English. This is also the most widely used language used in the world ,and the official language of the European Union and of the United Nations. Mandarin comes in at 18% as t next highest. http://en.wikipedia.org... In your second point you say that it does not matter that the most governments speak English. In my definition of universal i say it must have universal effect. The fact that the United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Great Britan and a number of Caribbean nations as well as the United Nations and the European Union makes it universal. For somebody to engage in any of these Agencies they must learn how to speak English. No other language has something that is this powerful. As with my definition English has a Universal effect due to the most powerful organizations in the world using it.