CreateDebate


Debate Info

8
2
Pro Con
Debate Score:10
Arguments:10
Total Votes:11
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Pro (7)
 
 Con (2)

Debate Creator

Ethanman99(18) pic



Should insurance companies cover treatment for infectious diseases??

Pro

Side Score: 8
VS.

Con

Side Score: 2
2 points

Especially infectious diseases.

Why? Well, um, because they are infectious!

Public health and safety is a necessity for any advanced society. There is little more pressing than the prevention of epidemics.

Side: Pro
1 point

Yes, I believe insurance companies should cover treatment for infectious diseases.

I believe insurance companies must provide coverage for the following:

1. Preventive care which leads to lower costs for everyone

2. Care to prevent the untimely death of an individual (if a patient has cancer I feel it is the responsibility of the insurance company to provide adequate care)

3. Care to prevent infectious diseases from starting (vaccinations for polio)

4. Care to prevent the spread of infectious diseases same as #3 but this would be care once an outbreak has occurred.

One might say the federal government should be responsible, and I agree with that only when a new disease arises or the disease threatens to become a pandemic.

Side: Pro
1 point

NO! They should let them all die ...if they haven't got the money for treatment ... and take as many of us with them as possible!

I'm being facetious, of course. But, REALLY???

Side: Pro
1 point

Insurance companies should cover treatment for infectious diseases for several reasons. Firstly, it's essential for public health. By providing coverage for treatment, insurers contribute to the containment of outbreaks and prevent further spread of infectious diseases. Secondly, it's a matter of social responsibility. Access to medical care during outbreaks should not be limited by financial constraints from https://sgwica.info . Ensuring coverage for treatment helps alleviate the financial burden on individuals and families affected by infectious diseases. Lastly, from a business perspective, proactive coverage for infectious diseases can mitigate the risk of larger healthcare costs associated with widespread outbreaks. Overall, including coverage for infectious diseases aligns with the principles of WICA Insurance Cost & Coverage by prioritizing swift and effective assistance to policyholders during challenging times.

Side: Pro
1 point

I'm getting the feeling that Obama has a great part in this and that Obama care is against this situation or not showing room for improvement.

Side: Con
ERnursebyday(13) Disputed
1 point

Hmm I'm getting the feeling there is no education behind your response. What about these infectious diseases:

Influenza

Ecoli

Ebola (yes was a recent threat)

Strep

Lyme disease

SARS

Staph

Tuberculosis

Pneumonia

Meningitis

So you are saying these should not be covered by insurance?

Side: Pro
0 points

If insurance companies cover treatment for infectious diseases it will lead to 1 bankruptcy for every 3 minutes which would lead to a debt of 4.3 million dollars.

Side: Con
IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
1 point

Um, a lot of insurance companies already do cover infectious diseases.

Notably, they aren't going bankrupt.

Side: Pro
Ignoramis(381) Disputed
1 point

There are more important things than money ... one example is not having to worry about catching a disease from every person you meet.

Side: Pro
Ignoramis(381) Disputed
1 point

Furthermore, the high costs are due to systemic corruption in the medical industry. High prices of drugs (like the scandal with Valient Pharm), engorged doctor salaries and mis-distribution of wages to older doctors, high service costs, high everything. Plus, they cover for each other.

Side: Pro