CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Not necessarily. Look at waiting times for basic procedures in countries like the U.K. and Canada. They are much longer than in the United States. Also, consider the cost issues associated with the health care systems in said countries and the conditions in hospitals.
That demonstrates that it most certainly does not work.
I would be okay for waiting for treatment as long as i can trust that i will be getting some. Knowing there will be people trying there hardest to help me would make the long wait not as bad. Unlike in the U.S yes we dont have to wait BUT not everyone can pay and not everyone gets cured.
I live in Canada and I am very happy knowing that if I get sick or get in some unexpected accident I won’t gain large debts just be able to afford to save my own life. In Canada the average life expectancy is 81, but in the US it is 78, personally I would like to live 3 years longer. I think a universal health care system like Canada’s is much better than the United States current one. One thing about the US medical system is that the CIA ranks it 46th in infant mortality, so 45 countries are better at keeping newborn babies alive than the land of the free and the home of the brave, in fact the US is getting beat by Taiwan, that startles me. Now I’m going to name some countries: Denmark, Finland, Austria, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Belgium, Ireland, Germany, Sweden, the UK, Canada, and Spain. The thing these countries have in common is they all have a higher percentage of their population satisfied with health care than the United States, and they all have universal health care. Universal health care works, and that has been shown by the countries who have implemented it. Almost all European countries have some form of universal health care and are happier with it than Americans are with their system. I don’t see how people can say it is wrong to have a system where everyone gets the medical treatment they need. For a country like the US, which is mostly Christian, which is supposed to be about helping the lowest of society and sharing, you know, stuff that Jesus would do, to not have universal health care system astounds me. Is it right for thousands to die needlessly so you can hoard a little bit more money for yourself? I really don’t think so, but I would like to hear what others have to say about it.
I believe the answer is yes. What’s the purpose of being on this planet if it’s not to help our fellow men when in need .
for some reason America is going all the wrongs way of doing so. I believe America is too control by third party interest ,that have an agenda of their own ,they new healthcare program is a scam, and it goes against the constitution, but now a days I fell like that a text that it supposed to be the guiding force is treated like just another piece of paper when it convenient to do so , and it makes me sad that most of the population are ignorant, about what’s going on . The new healthcare bill doesn’t favor anyone, but those that gain from it, and that’s definitely not the American people .
I agree we should treat others with compassion and consideration. Families and friends are suffering because of the health care system. I believe it is time for change.
I think the U.S should have universal health care because not everyone is able to pay. Most families cant afford it. Its not fair that just because a child with cancer cant be treated only because his or her parents cant afford it. They should not have to pay to be treated. Thats like paying for your life. If you do not pay, you die. Thats only if the condition is serious enough. Adults and children cant live normal lives because they have to live with a disease. 9/11 veterans dont even get free health care. Im disapointed that doctors are refusing to help and save innocent lives because they dont have the money to pay. What kind of world are we living in?
No. A sufficient privatized system can eliminate any issues associated with health care. While there are problems with the American system, the disadvantages involving government-run health care are far more numerous. It shifts the costs for health care services to all taxpayers. As population, and, consequently, costs, increase, that increases the tax burden.
Furthermore, a government-managed system is quite inefficient, as evidenced by those in countries like the U.K. and Canada. Ensuring that free market principles are maintained is the superior option.
The US is the only Western nation that does not have some form of public care option or State run healthcare, and every Western nation and several 2nd and 3rd world countries have better healthcare than the US according to every poll, study, and expenditure analysis not directly funded by Insurance companies in America.
We are toward the bottom both in life expectancy and infant mortality, and we are one of the least healthy countries in the world.
When healthcare costs are broken down to per person, per person in the US we spend more than twice as much as the second country, the UK.
Let's review, privatization has given us the worst healthcare in the industrial world, and we per person pay over twice as much for this care than any other nation.
The top rated countries for healthcare are all Scandinavian countries, and they all spend the least, and they all have State run healthcare.
It is a better system. The only thing stopping us from switching is a vast marketing that tricks people like you, and the millions insurance spends on lobbyists to keep everyone dumb and scared of healthcare that actually works.
The US is the only Western nation that does not have some form of public care option or State run healthcare, and every Western nation and several 2nd and 3rd world countries have better healthcare than the US according to every poll, study, and expenditure analysis not directly funded by Insurance companies in America.
The United States already have limited public health care in the form of Medicare, RomneyCare, CHIP, and other institutions, with other examples.
It is very good that it is not a universal system. There are certainly issues with private health care. These can be remedied with the proper solutions. Just because the polls that are conducted by agencies with an agenda does not mean that they accurately reflect reality.
When healthcare costs are broken down to per person, per person in the US we spend more than twice as much as the second country, the UK.
This could be construed as a reflection of quality in the health care systems. There are numerous reports of extreme waiting times for rather conventional treatments.
Also, why do so many dignitaries travel to the United States to receive treatment? There is no reason to do so if their own health care systems are superior and cost-efficient.
The only thing stopping us from switching is a vast marketing that tricks people like you, and the millions insurance spends on lobbyists to keep everyone dumb and scared of healthcare that actually works.
That's odd. The health care reform law passed. If the entrenched insurance elite are capable of preventing that, one would assume that they would have done so.
"It is very good that it is not a universal system."
- do you mind pointing out what they are as opposed to vaguely eluding to them
"This could be construed as a reflection of quality in the health care systems. There are numerous reports of extreme waiting times for rather conventional treatments."
- I would still prefer a system with longer waiting times and get the medical attention I need, then a short line that most people can't afford to be in.
"Also, why do so many dignitaries travel to the United States to receive treatment? There is no reason to do so if their own health care systems are superior and cost-efficient."
- This is because they can be treated faster in a system that provides better care for those who can pay for it. Of course things will get done faster in a privatized system because you are paying for that luxury, the only thing is a lot people cannot afford it and die needlessly every year. They are not travelling to the US to save costs, they will pay a lot to have get their medical attention but they get what they pay for, the fact that a system works well for the wealthy elite is not a reflection of how well it saves lives for the general public. I think medical facilities should be more concerned with saving as many lives as possible, not maximizing profit from a business.
*on a side note how do you bold the font in the text, ctrl + b does not work and I would like to know how it can be done
It's long. If nothing else read the links and who funds the organizations that provide the numbers. You'll find they have nothing to gain by lying and are quite legitimate despite so many attempts by US private insurance to delegitimize them.
The United States already have limited public health care in the form of Medicare, RomneyCare, CHIP, and other institutions, with other examples.
All of which the right is desperate to defund, and all of which do not provide adequate care. It is a two healthcare system whereby those most likely to become ill, the uninsured, have the least access to it. This results in a system where for the vast majority of the population, very expensive diseases are not caught until they are very expensive, while had the individuals who became ill been able to diagnose it earlier, it would have been significantly less expensive to treat.
And that is the exact reason bad healthcare is more expensive than efficient healthcare. Which is why the US is less healthy and pays more.
It is very good that it is not a universal system. There are certainly issues with private health care. These can be remedied with the proper solutions. Just because the polls that are conducted by agencies with an agenda does not mean that they accurately reflect reality.
The issues with private healthcare are that they are for profit. As long as this is the case there is no incentive to cure, only incentive to treat, incentive to reject claims, and by the rules of publicly traded companies, not only incentive to charge more, but incentive to charge the most one would possibly be willing to pay for it.
This hurts employers even more than individuals, and small businesses (not the Business Association made up by the likes of BoA, Boeing, GE, etc that Fox is always talking about, I mean businesses with their corporate here in America with a few thousand or less employees who are actually the backbone of our economy) are all for a public option of one sort or another.
And the "polls" you refer to are not ones with an agenda, it is an international body with little interest in US specific politics. They take numbers and read the results, that is all. link - this is a copy of the W.H.O. rankings. link It's multinational and there are no multinational for profit health organizations that would have anything to gain by influencing results, plus when healthcare is public it is a tax and an expenditure for a nation, theoretically (if it did not work so much better than a private system) it would decrease a nation's GDP - a negative thing. In short there is no reason for them to lie while there is tons and tons of reason for US insurance to delegitimize them and come up with their own skewed results. Which they do all the time.
W.H.O. results are completely legitimate and accurate.
This could be construed as a reflection of quality in the health care systems. There are numerous reports of extreme waiting times for rather conventional treatments.
They don't use these numbers when ranking a country's quality of care. Price has no bearing they are only ranking quality. It could cost a billion per person but if they had the best they would be number one. They are two different charts. Here is what people pay for their healthcare. link - the second chart is particularly disturbing. Japan is high in life expectancy do to other factors, but you see the trend there. Our privatized monopoly system is literally killing us financially and literally.
Also, why do so many dignitaries travel to the United States to receive treatment? There is no reason to do so if their own health care systems are superior and cost-efficient.
Oh, we have the best doctors, there's no doubt about that. And with certain diseases we are the best if you can afford it. While our lower education is lacking, the US still has something like 7 of the top 10 Universities in the world, and this includes for doctors. I won't argue that. The problem is the best doctors can only afford to treat people who are rich or insured, otherwise you're having cancer diagnosed by a nurse with an associates and a computer print out.
By the same token though I will say that more "dignitaries" go to Scandinavian countries and Germany than the US, it's disease specific. For example, say you can't afford your own jet but have a decent nest egg, you would go to Mexico for anything relating to Stem Cells because despite their vast poverty, on this continent they are number one in that field.
That's odd. The health care reform law passed. If the entrenched insurance elite are capable of preventing that, one would assume that they would have done so.
It's called healthcare reform to make progressives like me happy. In reality it's insurance reform. It's a start and will decrease our debt and improve our care. And honestly it's the best we could get in the current political climate. If the US wants to get where we belong, where the richest, and most advanced country in the world should be, we need to educate the population on the difference between "socialism" and a public option (not the same, not by any definition of either term) and implement a true public option or a true Universal Healthcare system.
We will not be able to do that as long as big insurance puts out sparky ads and comes up with catch phrases that scare old people like "death panel" unfortunately. Only problem with democracy is the ruling party (people) are often easily fooled and a bit slow.
All of which the right is desperate to defund, and all of which do not provide adequate care.
They are not adequate because of the problems inherent in any publicly-funded healthcare apparatus.
This results in a system where for the vast majority of the population, very expensive diseases are not caught until they are very expensive, while had the individuals who became ill been able to diagnose it earlier, it would have been significantly less expensive to treat.
Hospitals and clinics already utilize and indeed comprise a vast infrastructure that aids in the early detection and treatment of diseases, with more technologies and methods becoming available every year to better provide care at the preliminary stages of numerous disorders.
The issues with private healthcare are that they are for profit. As long as this is the case there is no incentive to cure, only incentive to treat, incentive to reject claims, and by the rules of publicly traded companies, not only incentive to charge more, but incentive to charge the most one would possibly be willing to pay for it.
There are issues with the American health care system as it exists currently. However, issues such as corruption are easily eliminated through legal means, whereas in a government system it is often far more challenging by virtue of the fact that members of the government are far more entrenched.
In response to your other claim that the profit motive dominates the industry., that drives innovation and quality. Insurance and healthcare providers are encouraged to provide higher quality because that attracts more customers, and, as a consequence, higher profits.
There are measures that can reduce existing prices, such as allowing insurance companies to market policies across state lines, in addition to tort reform.
Insurance reform will require that such companies raise premiums to account for the sudden increase in their expenditures as mandated by the somewhat recently passed law.
This hurts employers even more than individuals, and small businesses (not the Business Association made up by the likes of BoA, Boeing, GE, etc that Fox is always talking about, I mean businesses with their corporate here in America with a few thousand or less employees who are actually the backbone of our economy) are all for a public option of one sort or another.
Those claims are false. Members of the businesses, including small businesses, will be impacted negatively as they often must invest their own funds in the business, especially as owners. In addition, the requirement that they provide healthcare policies to employees or face a penalty is financially harmful. Furthermore, the resulting tax compliance codes will mandate additional business spending.
And the "polls" you refer to are not ones with an agenda, it is an international body with little interest in US specific politics. They take numbers and read the results, that is all. link - this is a copy of the W.H.O. rankings. link It's multinational and there are no multinational for profit health organizations that would have anything to gain by influencing results
Unless the assumptions that underly the ratings are incorrect.
Oh, we have the best doctors, there's no doubt about that. And with certain diseases we are the best if you can afford it. While our lower education is lacking, the US still has something like 7 of the top 10 Universities in the world, and this includes for doctors. I won't argue that. The problem is the best doctors can only afford to treat people who are rich or insured, otherwise you're having cancer diagnosed by a nurse with an associates and a computer print out.
We do have the highest quality healthcare on the world, as reflected in our doctors, and the treatments that are offered continue to provide care for conditions that were previously considered fatal.
It's called healthcare reform to make progressives like me happy. In reality it's insurance reform. It's a start and will decrease our debt and improve our care. And honestly it's the best we could get in the current political climate. If the US wants to get where we belong, where the richest, and most advanced country in the world should be, we need to educate the population on the difference between "socialism" and a public option (not the same, not by any definition of either term) and implement a true public option or a true Universal Healthcare system.
Government intervention in a public healthcare system encroaches on socialism by definition. What we need to do is improve the existing private system so as to promote innovation and quality. Increased spending and taxation to maintain this law will increase the debt and will not encourage an economic recovery.
They are not adequate because of the problems inherent in any publicly-funded healthcare apparatus.
-Such as? You love saying there are all these problems with universal health care even though all the other countries which have it have more people satisfied with their care, higher life expectancies, lower infant mortalities, more preventative care and treatment for everyone. please tell me how a privatized system is better for the entire population.
hospitals and clinics already utilize and indeed comprise a vast infrastructure that aids in the early detection and treatment of diseases, with more technologies and methods becoming available every year to better provide care at the preliminary stages of numerous disorders.
- which only works if you can afford it, which a lot of people can't. That's why universal health care works, because everyone can get these early detection tests, but no, people like you want to have them available for the rich who can afford them but defund things like cancer screenings for poor people who can't afford to live.
In response to your other claim that the profit motive dominates the industry., that drives innovation and quality. Insurance and healthcare providers are encouraged to provide higher quality because that attracts more customers, and, as a consequence, higher profits.
- but your motives are still profit and not healing people. You know what is a lot more effective at providing quality care to EVERYONE, not just those who can afford it like you think should exist, universal health care, that has been shown to work in countries that have it.
Unless the assumptions that underly the ratings are incorrect.
You are literally ignoring reality right now, you have been presented with statistics from impartial global organizations that don't support your cause, so you simply ignore reality and substitute your own.
We do have the highest quality healthcare on the world, as reflected in our doctors, and the treatments that are offered continue to provide care for conditions that were previously considered fatal.
- Sure you have high quality health care, but only for those who can afford it. What use is a great medical system with the potential to save so many lives if it works for profit and allows thousands to die who can't afford it. If anything, your system as a whole is terrible because it has the capability to save lives but holds back treatment in the name of profit. You know what, I hope you get terribly sick for years on end and I hope you can't afford it, maybe then you will realize a life is more valuable than money. Just put yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute. Imagine you are born into a low income family, you get cancer as a child, not only could you not screen for it before it progressed because that option was defunded and you can't afford it, but now it has progressed to a stage where you cannot afford to be treated by your family even though the technology exists. You die, because you live in a capitalistic system that cares more about profit than saving lives.
Government intervention in a public healthcare system encroaches on socialism by definition
-so what? what is wrong with that other than it encroaches on a scary word. You are willing to let thousands die needlessly every year because you don't like the idea of having a couple hundred less dollars in the your pocket at the end of the year. Universal health care works for everyone, not just the rich. That has been proven, whether you are looking at the world health organization statistics, or the costs and satisfaction of people in the system, the average health and life expectancy of people in the system. The only way you can say universal health care doesn't work, is if you just ignore reality, and substitute fox news, which you seem to have done a long time ago.
You love saying there are all these problems with universal health care even though all the other countries which have it have more people satisfied with their care, higher life expectancies, lower infant mortalities, more preventative care and treatment for everyone. please tell me how a privatized system is better for the entire population.
I don't "love" to say it; it merely is a truthful statement.
which only works if you can afford it, which a lot of people can't. That's why universal health care works, because everyone can get these early detection tests, but no, people like you want to have them available for the rich who can afford them but defund things like cancer screenings for poor people who can't afford to live.
Please cease making baseless assumptions about my beliefs. Our private system enables innovation that drastically reduces costs over the years. It is also economically sustainable, whereas a universal system is not.
but your motives are still profit and not healing people.
Our doctors are extremely passionate about what they do. For the developers of technologies and hospital management, the motive for profit necessarily means that quality is pursued because that it how to avoid lawsuits and maintain customers.
that has been shown to work in countries that have it.
Please demonstrate (despite all of the evidence to the contrary) how such a system is economically sustainable, how waiting times are not egregious (they are, however), and how quality is enforced in a universal healthcare system (it isn't).
If anything, your system as a whole is terrible because it has the capability to save lives but holds back treatment in the name of profit.
The current insurance reform law that was signed last year will cause increases in premiums simply because it mandates higher expenditures on the part of insurance companies. That seems to be contrary to the notion that prices must be decreased, and as such is a demonstration of the ways that such reform can be harmful.
Also, the public systems in other nations require government funding. That can come immediately from taxes, or they can borrow, but ultimately raise taxes to repay those borrowed funds. Or, they could control expenditures by drastically rationing care.
so what? what is wrong with that other than it encroaches on a scary word. You are willing to let thousands die needlessly every year because you don't like the idea of having a couple hundred less dollars in the your pocket at the end of the year. Universal health care works for everyone, not just the rich.
I was merely responding to the earlier point that suggested that universal healthcare and socialism may not be interrelated. Economic systems that resemble or mimic socialism necessarily increase debt and must repay that, implementing measures such as the austerity policies in Greece. Just look at it, as well as numerous other nations with mounting debt as a result. Socialism is not economically sustainable.
Read my original post, then read the links in my second reply, then look up the definition of socialism.
Why do you debate if facts have no bearing on your position? Are you paid to argue? The point of debate is to find a solution, not to argue for a point simply for the sake of argument.
It is a ridiculous circle. Facts are facts. Our system is poor, every system with a public option or universal care spends less money on better care. That this is an argument is only a tribute to right wing propaganda, it is not a matter of you magically proving here 1+1 = 3. No amount of right wing talk would ever prove that. As they will never prove this specific opinion.
Numbers can be counted, it's not opinion, and they have been counted and you are incorrect. To the detriment of our nation and at the cost of lives and national debt.
Why do you debate if facts have no bearing on your position? Are you paid to argue? The point of debate is to find a solution, not to argue for a point simply for the sake of argument.
I do believe that I have provided sufficient support for my points. The purpose of debate, particularly of the informal, leisurely type found on this website is to serve as a forum where opposing ideas are compared and compete, not to find solutions.
I have indeed provided solutions for the issues here.
It is a ridiculous circle. Facts are facts. Our system is poor, every system with a public option or universal care spends less money on better care.
It seems that you are not aware of two key facts.
First, in the countries that provide any acceptable level of quality in healthcare, that must be funded by the government. Obviously, that money ultimately comes from taxpayers. Eventually, they will have to raise taxes to provide for the spending, while increasing the national debt levels.
Second, there are countries with such systems that already offer decreasing levels of care. Look at Canada and the U.K. as adequate examples. Waiting times have increased compared to the United States, in addition to harsh conditions in the hospitals and rampant corruption.
