CreateDebate


Debate Info

22
9
Yes No
Debate Score:31
Arguments:21
Total Votes:31
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (14)
 
 No (7)

Debate Creator

Nautilus(628) pic



Universal Health Care: Should the US have it?

Yes

Side Score: 22
VS.

No

Side Score: 9
4 points

It works for other countries, I see no reason it wouldn't work for us.

Side: yes
AltonSmith(111) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: No
KirstenC(4) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: yes
2 points

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.

Side: yes
1 point

Universal heath care would be great but we can't afford it the Obamacare is BS and unconstitutional.

Side: yes
1 point

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 .

Side: yes
1 point

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.

Side: yes
1 point

Should this even be a debate? Of course the answer is yes!

Side: yes
AltonSmith(111) Disputed
2 points

For what reason? What evidence suggests that it is superior to a private system?

Side: No
1 point

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?

Side: No

It would be ideal. Americans would never have to worry about a medical bill ever again.

Side: Yes
1 point

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.

Side: No
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: yes
AltonSmith(111) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: No