CreateDebate


Debate Info

6
6
Great idea. Horrible creation.
Debate Score:12
Arguments:12
Total Votes:13
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Great idea. (5)
 
 Horrible creation. (4)

Debate Creator

cownbueno(407) pic



Universal Healthcare, Pros/Cons.

I see a lot of people put down universal health care in European countries and Canada, but for the life of me I can't understand the hate? Imagine being mangled in a car accident and not have to worry about the financial stress? Would that not help with recovery and help alleviate further burdens on top of being injured? Many people in the states, from what I hear are left to perish from illness because of a lack of healthcare access. Does this seem fair?

Great idea.

Side Score: 6
VS.

Horrible creation.

Side Score: 6
1 point

When a country has, by FAR, the most expensive health care in the world, when that health care only reaches 37th best in the world after all that expense, SOMEBODY is ripping U.S. OFF! When the majority, if not ALL of those 36 countries ahead of U.S. have some form of universal health care, ......DUUHHH ....! I think, as a "Pro", I'm being "Conned"!

We NEED universal health care to keep up with the rest of the free world ...or not. We NEED our elected officials to work for U.S., NOT big Pharma, NOT the capitalists that own the hospitals, the insurance cartel, the lobbyists, the right wing (and even a few left wing) Congressmen that BLOCK anything that might hurt the hands that feed them! WE, the PEOPLE, need health care that will not bankrupt our families! WE need a Congress that will WORK (not obstruct) to get U.S. a universal health care that WORKS ... like it does for 36 other industrialized countries NOT totally run by paid capitalist lobbyists!

Side: Great idea.
0 points

It depends. If your country is a stable country that has a ton of decent people who contribute and benefit the society (Switzerland, Luxumbourg, Finland, Norway), than yes. But if your country has 250,000 - 1 million new immigrants each year (ie. USA, Canada, UK, France, Sweden, others), of which most of them are poor migrant workers who live off of welfare, and burden the social system....it wouldn't be fair that these newly arrived people can benefit from something that my ancestors for generations have worked, toiled, sacrificed in this land for. And please, it's not a racism thing. It's a logical thing.

If my great grandfather, grandfather, father all worked, toiled, sacrificed to make my country great so that I, their heir to their hard work, can benefit from and have free health care, that's logical. It makes sense. But why should some migrant worker from Mali or Bangladesh who just arrived 2 weeks ago and 20,000 of his brothers coming next month, get free health care too? What did they do and sacrifice for my country? Logical.

But you know that the moment you make a policy that says only natives can get free health care and the new immigrants must wait until 2nd or 3rd generation to qualify, they will use the "racism" card (as I said, it's a weapon, not a real thing), to shame you to the world so that they can get whatever they want.

Side: Great idea.
cownbueno(407) Clarified
2 points

Just to clarify, Canada has extremely specific immigration requirements, not a lot of people without the capital to invest in the country are allowed to immigrate here. Refugees on the other hand are another story, but the ones in city are by no means free loaders and most come with an education. Syria and the Middle East has a lot of smart, university graduates that are already, or will be contributing once they get their legs on the ground. Canada does not put up with laziness re: immigrants. On top of all this, immigrants sometimes wait up to 5 years before they even have their own doctor so they're not prioritized by any means.

Side: Great idea.
2 points

I absolutely agree with you Cowbueno.

I think is very narrow minded to think that all immigrants are "ignorant or poor".

An other interesting thing bout what LOGICALJOE is saying is that you would basically prefer not to have access YOURSELF to public health care, even though your grand grand parent "would have wanted that for future generations", just so that immigrant or "poor immigrants" as you named them, would´t have access to that either. I don´t think that´s good for the people that hae lived in the country for generations nor for new immigrants...

Side: Great idea.

Am somewhat undecided which column to occupy but everything considered I chose this one.

I think Logicaljoe has it pretty well summed up when he points out the high numbers of ''welfare tourists'' such a scheme would attract.

Tens of thousands of immigrants, especially E.U. eastern Europeans come to the U.K to have medical treatment including childbirth every year.

This puts an intolerable strain on the national health service and makes a change in the system where those requiring medical attention can make a contribution towards their treatment nigh impossible.

Everything considered the present system in the U.S, is better for everyone.

It teaches, or it should teach everyone to be self reliant the necessity to make provision for illness.

Once that responsibility is taken up by the state the individual becomes more irresponsible and this inevitably leads to a more unhealthy life style for millions.

An attitude of, why worry about overeating, smoking and drinking?, if I fall sick the government will pick up the tab.

The hospitals would be full of Mexicans and obese, whiskey swinging junkie smokers.

Side: Horrible creation.
cownbueno(407) Disputed
1 point

The way I see it, yes some people will take advantage of it, but in regards to the elderly it's an amazing idea in my opinion. My grandparents have gone through multiple bouts of cancer and it didn't cost a penny whereas a cancer diagnosis and treatment in the U.S. could mean familial bankruptcy, could it not?

Side: Great idea.
Winklepicker(1021) Clarified
1 point

You raise a good point about the elderly but it could be argued that everyone, from an early age should be required to make provision for illness, especially in their later years.

This may not always be possible, (although I don't see why not), and this is where central government could empower local councils to grant special status to the elderly and perhaps other categories to receive state aided medical financing.

BY THE WAY, I'M GENUINELY SORRY ABOUT YOUR GRANDPARENTS.

Cancer is the scourge of our times. I hope your kinsfolk make a recovery.

Side: Great idea.
1 point

"Many people in the states, from what I hear are left to perish from illness because of a lack of healthcare access." Where might you get your information ? Your comment is so stupidly false that is deserves to be attacked. Lack of information is what makes you dummies dangerous. Do you some research and inform yourself so you don't look so stupid.

Side: Horrible creation.
1 point

The body bags that are piling up in Chicago with those that are shot and wounded because they have no access to healthcare is a real problem. There in Chicago they are just throwing the wounded at the door of the emergency room where they are dying in the street.

Side: Horrible creation.
cownbueno(407) Disputed
1 point

"Many people in the states, from what I hear are left to perish from illness because of a lack of healthcare access." You just said this was false and then you just confirmed that it wasn't.

Side: Great idea.
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Have you seen the movie Forest Gump? I just realized that's who he reminds me of.

Side: Horrible creation.