CreateDebate


Debate Info

34
61
No, it's not feasible. Yes, it's a right.
Debate Score:95
Arguments:32
Total Votes:125
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No, it's not feasible. (12)
 
 Yes, it's a right. (20)

Debate Creator

Hamandcheese(408) pic



Should America have Universal Healthcare?

Freemarket Vs. Socialism

No, it's not feasible.

Side Score: 34
VS.

Yes, it's a right.

Side Score: 61
5 points

Every time the government interferes with a program originally run by the free market, the quality of the program decreases. Before the government started to interfere with health care, the U.S. had a health care system that was the envy of the world. It was cheap, and for those who couldn't pay for it the doctors would still see them regardless or private organizations were willing to help out.

Now that the government is interfering with health care, we have seen insurance rates and prices skyrocket and they say the only solution is more government interference. The only solution is to have the government back off completely and allow the free market to return to controlling health care and we will see the quality increase dramatically.

Side: No, it's not feasible.
simsoy(10) Disputed
1 point

actually, America's Health Care never was the envy of the world, because big corrparations and banks always look for a way to get more for themselfs, and here more than any other part of the world. I'd say Canada's healthcare is the envy of the world because you can have it for free or a cheap on from another country and stuff. Even Mexico has a better health care system than us (if you live in a city with a hospital instead of out in a area with like 2 people per mile)

Side: Yes, it's a right.
4 points

The US Government is already having a horrible time trying to manage the current healthcare system.

According to the 2008 report by the board of trustees for Medicare and Social Security, Medicare will spend more than it brings in from taxes this year (2008). The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will become insolvent by 2019

If the US can't manage a smaller system, why would anyone think they'd do well managing a far bigger system?

Side: No, it's not feasible.
3 points

I don't see anywhere in the constitution that says we have a 'right' to health care. I think this would be yet another step toward a socialist government and away from the Republic that our forefathers created.

And, like ThePyg said, our government has a really crappy record when it comes to running businesses.

Side: No, it's not feasible.
beevbo(295) Disputed
1 point

If there is no mention of a "right" to healthcare in your constitution there probably should be. The American Constitution, much like the Bible is not a perfect document, as much as people would like to believe they are. Just because something that was written over 200 years ago makes no mention of health care doesn't mean you don't deserve it, or have a right to it.

The right to health care is akin to the right to life. Everyone of us has the right to exist, and thus have equal access to facilities that preserve that existence.

If you can prove to me that a private system delivers equal access to health care then I would be happy to recant my position of universal health care . . . but you can't, can you?

Side: Yes, it's a right.
ThePyg(6743) Disputed
2 points

there is statement of the right to private property. Universal Healthcare is part of redistributing wealth and brings about more socialist legislature. So in reality, our constitution is against it.

but like i said, there should be coverage for critical situations. but Universal Healthcare is way too dangerous to our rights.

Side: No, it's not feasible.
0 points

No, the government is shitty at running a business (in this case, the medical world). and yes, the medical world is a business.

We start with Universal Healthcare as a "right" to all Americans, we go to providing homes for all homeless. and then 3 meals for all people. and then making sure that everyone has a job.

of course, if you believe in a centralized government, all of this would be perfect. But i believe the government (especially in a country like the USA) would be shitty at it, and, this is redistributing wealth.

look at Cuba's hospitals (the real ones, not the "tourist" ones from Sicko). and look at Canada's system (where you have to wait for so many fuckin' weeks to get some.)

yeah, we should provide for critical situations, but just providing healthcare for all americans is seizing of our civil liberties and private rights.

then again, i'm more for capitalism than socialism (a lot more).

Side: No, it's not feasible.
kenpochris(1) Disputed
2 points

everyone deserves the right to healthcare. Not because our forefathers said so because we said so..... It's our country now and we get to make those decisions. When I can't afford health insurance, I can't afford a doctor, and I can't just drive to another country to get some "REAL" care. WTF do I do. Well move to Canada and wait 3 weeks no thanks. Move to Cuba haaaaa....

How about this, If America is the greatest country they should have the best Health care. if anyone can give all their citizans proper health care its the USA. Just like making your own self better you must look inside not outside. Quit spending money on other countries Iraq, Afghanistan etc. and spend it on ourselves. We have poor. we have people in need.

When we make it a right it will be one it's as easy as that. Think before America there was no freedom of religion. We are the leaders and everyone is looking to us to fix the problem lets get off our high horses and actually do something.

Side: Yes, it's a right.
beevbo(295) Disputed
-1 points

While there are long wait times in Canada, they aren't so far beyond reason that Americans should look to Canada as an example of why public health care does not work. For most minor health issues or check ups I can simple go to a walk-in clinic and be looked at within an hour, at no charge, of course. (To be fair, major surgery is a different story with wait times sometimes up to two years.)

I live in Alberta where the conservatives have been in power for decades. In the mid 90's our provincial government made major cuts to health care and the system is still reeling to this day. Many of our doctors fled for your country in search of better pay while the quality of service in Alberta dropped.

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Clancy_Roy/2008/03/20/5055151-sun.php

The truth is that our system is underfunded, and we are taking steps to correct that. In my city of Edmonton we just built a whole new wing of Grant MacEwan college dedicated to training nurses to help deal with the demand for more health care workers. My girlfriend is entering that program this year.

Ours is not a perfect system, but I would wager that ours isn't nearly as broke as yours.

Side: Yes, it's a right.
5 points

If your system is underfunded, imagine how underfunded the U.S. system would be?

The U.S. can't even figureo out how to fix its broken roads and bridges. Hey we've got over $9 trillion in deficits. Our trade deficit alone eclipses $600 trillion a year.

And the U.S. is supposed to figure out funding for a massive, nationwide health-care system?

I can already picture all the best U.S. (and from your previous post, Canadian) doctors leaving the states and going where the grass is greener.

Side: Yes, it's a right.
9 points

I'm from the UK, where we have the National Health Service. This basically means that if I am involved in an accident, become ill, require medical advice of any kind, need dental work, etc, etc, I can simply visit the hospital, my local GP or my local dentist for (practically) free. I don't need to worry about whether I can afford the medical care.

Now, as a taxpayer, I do pay for this service - but would I be paying more or less without the National Health Service?

I currently pay around £750 (approx $1500) paying for the NHS via taxes per year. Private healthcare, on average, would cost £1000 a year. So, I'm basically £250 better off from the get-go.

Obviously, the level of care available with private healthcare is better than that of the NHS, but the NHs being there doesn't make the private healthcare any worse. So, by having a social healthcare system I'm saving money, don't have to worry if I find that I have to hospital or to the doctor, and I' not stopping the people who can afford private healthcare from the getting the service they paid for. I literally can't see what arguments there are against social healthcare.

Now, the way this may be implemented in America may be different, but someone would have to reply and let me know that. From what I quickly researched for this argument, it seems like it would be the same system (single payer social healthcare system). The arguments I've seen also suggest that America could save $100-200 billion by implementing social health care.

Also, on a side note, trust America to call a national healthcare system "Universal Healthcare."

Supporting Evidence: Universal Healthcare in America (cthealth.server101.com)
Side: Yes, it's a right.
1 point

The people who don't want it are the Republicans who think the Gov't is only good for: War, being a thing that is unwanted and over all useless. (IE: Conservatism policy: Take care of your own damn self!) Also Republicans are backed by these giant health care companies that give them and people they like better service and money for lobbying for them. The Reps don't want one of there primary sponsor lose even the smallest atom of money so they are against this. I'm only 15 and i know this :)

Side: Yes, it's a right.
7 points

Yes, the United States ought to have universal coverage. The United States currently spends about 16% of GDP on health care and does not have universal coverage. All of the other industrialized nations have universal coverage and they spend roughly 11% GDP on health care. The argument that universal health coverage necessarily means higher costs is wrong and people opposed to universal coverage should not be opposed to it for reasons of cost.

It is morally reprehensible for a nation to spend $3 trillion dollars on a war of choice in Iraq and let some of its citizens unduly suffer due to lack of health care access. Lack of health care access kills far more Americans each year than terrorism.

Side: Yes, it's a right.
3 points

Correct, Shunted, the US spends too much on a broken system. We'd spend far less if we had a health care system akin to any one of the other modern industrial democracies.

Supporting Evidence: Wikipedia on Universal Health Care (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: Yes, it's a right.
5 points

that's true.

the US's military already get the kind of health care where their families don't have to spend thousands on healthcare since the government covers most of it, and it would be nice if everyone got that same treatment.

Side: Yes, it's a right.
rockyboy(48) Disputed
1 point

Shuhted you have to be the smartest person on this Website. As to voting I have no idea who gives the points but they are way off on your statement. You should have 10 Points. Tamisan you need to educate yourself! Go to Health Care Bill . Gov.....

We the USA do not have the same health care system as Canada and England because of the Republican Party. Their Health Care System is called Socialized Medicine. Hillary Clinton wanted this for all US Citizens. However people are to stupid to vote for an individual that has the Countries best interest at heart. Instead the people of the US voted for Presidents like Bush that talks with a fork tongue. Now that our Country is completely bankrupt because of Bush, the Republican's are blaming everything on Obama the poor guy has only been in Office for a little over a Year. Just look at what Bush did to this Country, he spent over 50 Trillion dollars in the first two months of Office. Clinton had saved that reserve surplus while in office, unemployment was at it's all time highest, we went to war that we had no business being in. And now you have the Republican's lying about Obama's Health Care Bill. Obama is going to take the financial burden off the working class and tax the higher income tax payers that make $250.000 yearly. As long as Obama is in office the working class will benefit from the health care bill. Anyone making under $250.000 a year will not be taxed for the Federal Health Care. The Republican Party doesn't want the Health Care Bill. 1) Because in order to be a republican the average republican has to make over $275.000 dollars yearly in-order to benefit the tax benefits of the republican party. 2) The Big Health insurance companies has their hands in the republicans pockets, republican president's are elected with the financial help of the Big health insurance companies that back the Republican president candidate. That way the Health Insurance Companies example(Blue Shield, Blue Cross) set the health insured Premiums as high as they want, not to mention if you have a preexisting condition you will either pay some unknown amount or you just won't get insured. 3) The goal is to give the people of the US the choice to pick their own health Care Insurance at the most affordable price to them. Taking away from the Private H/I Companies and paying Premiums with the Federal H/C. Their biggest goal is to weed out the Private H/C Companies. The End result will be a US citizen will be able to afford to get SICK........

Side: No, it's not feasible.
2 points

the least responsibility of government is to take care of it'speople

Side: Yes, it's a right.
Paul-ish(77) Disputed
3 points

I would like for my goverment to NOT "take care of me". I want as little of the government's attention as possible. Besides, what ever happened to people taking care of themselves? You know, independence?

Side: No, it's not feasible.
rockyboy(48) Disputed
1 point

Our country has everything to do with the government. When you retire and are over the age of 65 years old where do you think Medicare comes from. You better hope you don't ever get sick! Where do you think SS comes from? I guess you won't need that also?

"the least responsibility of government is to take care of it'speople"

So you are saying that we don't need the Military. Who do you think protects the people in the USA, seems to me it's the Military that is the government.

Side: No, it's not feasible.
Kinda(1649) Disputed
1 point

He's trying to say that the least a government should do is take care of it's peoples...

He just worded it very badly....

Side: Yes, it's a right.
1 point

Bluefish my apologies, your sentence is worded as if you disagree. And I agree with you.

Side: Yes, it's a right.
1 point

As a christain i feel i have to help my fellow persons. Also America has the worst healthcare system in the world out of all the countrys that are good (Europe, north america, asia) Mexico has a better health care system! We need to chatch up with the world and help people who wern't born in to nice, middle class or rich familys like we were.

Side: Yes, it's a right.

People should not live in fear of having an astronomical bill for medical treatment. Universal Healthcare is wonderful and a country that provides such a program is a benevolent one.

Side: Yes, it's a right.
0 points

SIMPLE:

The way it is now:

- Only you pay

- It's expensive; some people can't afford it

- You don't always need it

The way is should be:

- Everyone pays all of the time

- It is expensive; together, everyone can afford it

- Not everyone needs it all of the time

YES

--------------------------------------------------------------|

A bonus for US, if we were to do this we could neglect care

for smokers and fat people, and they will all die.

Side: Yes, it's a right.
itsnotright(24) Disputed
1 point

I would a whole lot rather my hard earned money go towards paying the health bills of smokers and fatties than illegal aliens that don't pay one red cent, for any dime they make, towards taxes. But, altogether, it is not my responsibility to "make up" for anyone elses well being. I don't have insurance, and you know what, when I DO have to go the doctor, I get in quicker than someone with insurance. Also, the majority of doctors' offices will set you up on a monthly billed cycle. If I become terminally sick, that's my problem, nobody elses. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

Side: No, it's not feasible.
simsoy(10) Disputed
1 point

Illegal immigrants wound not get the health care because you have to show proof you are a US citizen. You also would be aloud to KEEP the health care system you already have, this is for the 40 million people in America who need help. Some people can't pay taxes because they spent so much on medical bills they can not keep a job or house, if it were free that person could keep there job and money and pay taxes and by American made goods.

Side: Yes, it's a right.
rockyboy(48) Disputed
1 point

You really need to educate yourself on the HC bill if you are going to comment on it. Yes only you pay, who is paying your H/I now? No, H/C is not expensive tax payers that make over $200.000 a year are going to be taxed for the H/C Bill. Do you make that much money a Year? I didn't think so. You're smart who doesn't need H/I? EVERYONE! Don't worry about smokers and fat people dying, your the one without health insurance!

Side: No, it's not feasible.