CreateDebate


Debate Info

12
14
True False
Debate Score:26
Arguments:27
Total Votes:27
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True (10)
 
 False (10)

Debate Creator

excon(18260) pic



Creating affordable health care for all is INCOMPATIBLE with modern conservative ideology

Hello:

Are they writing a tax cut bill and calling it a health care bill??

excon

True

Side Score: 12
VS.

False

Side Score: 14
2 points

Since as far as I can see what passes for "conservatism" now, at least in the USA, has no real ideological underpinning other than moving as much money away from the poor towards the rich as possible, I'm inclined to agree with you here.

Certainly affordable health care for all would probably reduce the capacity of certain corporations to make as much profit as humanly possible (an appropriate phrase, given that you conservatives think that corporations count as human beings for some unfathomable reason) and would hence be incompatible with the wish of many Republicans to continue receiving sweet, sweet lobbying cash. I don't really see any "ideology" behind it, however, just naked avarice.

Side: True
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

Hey Dummy if Obiecare was so affordable then why was there a need for a penalty for not having health insurance ? Come on what you got to say !!!!!!!!!

Side: True
stswebb(73) Disputed
1 point

The penalties are there for the fairly simple reason that they are important to discourage the already healthy from remaining uninsured, and hence to try and prevent insurance only being purchased by the already sick, which would risk resulting in increasing costs in a fairly classic "death spiral". It's that thing called "basic economics" which you are always accusing we liberals of not understanding.

The funniest thing about you conservatives is when you arrogantly ask a question to which you think there is no answer, but for which the answer is actually very simple and gettable if you were to think about it for a while.

Side: True
1 point

Free healthcare for 320,000,000 people is incompatible with reality. We are realists. We believe that Muhammad was a pedophile or a liar, that 9/11 is real, that money does not grow on trees, and that socialism fails every single time. Liberals believe in fairies, unicorns, kind goat humpers, and invisible magic money and lots of other magical concepts and ideas. Fiction is fun for the liberal.

Side: True
excon(18260) Disputed
1 point

Hello N:

There AIN'T no free health care... Isn't that what you right wingers keep saying??? We're spending a FORTUNE on health care right now.. Truly, we ARE..

IF we STOPPED the insurance industry from RIPPING us off, with what we're spending NOW, we'd have MORE than enough to cover 320,000,000 people and buy a few aircraft carriers with what's left over...

excon

Side: False
1 point

Okay do us the math on what it would cost to cover 320,000,000 people while keeping us from going even further into debt while China sells off said debt, a sign of near economic collapse... Then tell us, if we somehow magically could find the funds, why we should be obligated to fund those who refuse to work from our paychecks and why we should be obligated to pay more and more and more to then cover all these immigrants that liberals demand we let in. Estimates say the U.S. will have 1.2 billion people by the end of the century. Now tell us how to fund that. Then tell us why, if the government will support our every waking need and want, why we shouldn't just all quit working and live off of free opiods and medical marijuana and food stamps. Then tell us how they magically afford THAT.

Side: True
1 point

There AIN'T no free health care...

No shit. Democrat politicians tell you its free, then pay for it from your kids' wallet. They may die in the streets, but at least YOU were covered... Maybe... Let's see how far we can kick that can before the whole system is controlled by those we owe. The problem with Socialist ideas, is eventually you run out of other people's money because they know you cannot pay your debts.

Side: True
1 point

True. Conservative ideology is my money is my money and if you don't have money then that's your problem. Then all the other twists, whether it's religion or race or immigration or whatever are just variations on justifying why your money is your money and not theirs.

Side: True
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

January 2016

Massachusetts Obamacare Co-Op Struggling To Stay Afloat

The latest news out of Massachusetts seems to suggest that the trend of failing co-ops will continue. Minuteman Health, the Massachusetts CO-OP (which stands for consumer operated and oriented plan) is a non-profit insurer that was supposed to provide lower-cost insurance in local markets, but according to the latest estimates, Minuteman is facing serious financial issues. CO-OPs like Minuteman rely on having enough members to offset their costs, which as start-up health care organizations, can be quite substantial. Minuteman estimated that they need roughly 40,000 members “just to break even,” and expected to sign-up 30,000 in their first year. Instead, they signed up less than 2,000 their first year. Last year they reached 14,000 (only 35 percent of their breakeven enrollment) and they hope to have 23,000 by the end of 2016, which is likely overly optimistic given the markets they are operating in.

Minuteman was one of the 23 insurers launched two years ago as part of Obamacare, with $2.4 billion in seed money from taxpayers. Minuteman got $156 million to get off the ground, a now they’re facing the same struggles that have led to more than half of the CO-OPs shutting down.

What is so affordable about Obamacare ?

Side: True
1 point

Should increase taxes slightly and create an NHS (National Health Service) like we have in the UK. This gives us free health care and prescribed medicines for everyone and free dental care for all under 16's.

Side: True
1 point

In a free Market, with little regulation; privatized Hospitals have an economic incentive to bill as many procedures from a given customer (patient) as they can get away with: this is a combination of reducing the possibility of Malpractice suits, and for simply greed.

Also, in a free Market, with little regulation; private insurance companies have an economic incentive not to cover the people who require healthcare due to pre-existing and long standing conditions, and have an economic incentive to challenge as much of peoples claims as they can get away with.

For their to be substantial price reduction in an economic free market; the laws of supply and demand mean that the supply needs to be higher than the demand. As the barriers to entry into a market (IE: building a hospital) are high (equipment, and doctors), and there is a limit to the overall supply of doctors; most of the time there will be a limited supply of healthcare and the choices available will not be broad enough to substantively reduce cost due to choice and competition.

Moreover, such a free market works against rural hospitals and limited-patient area's which are likely to need to operate at a loss to provide the essential service.

So, that's the outcome of free market philosophy.

For society; the best outcome is to maximize the health of the population: poor health limits the earning potential of individuals, raises levels of poverty, decreases overall happiness of the population and costs money to companies in terms of lost productivity and sick days. It also prevents individuals from otherwise maximizing their own potential which would be to the maximum benefit of the society.

Finally, while many individuals would haggle over the vaguries of whether x or y should be provided by the government; no one would argue that the Government is there to provide for the safety and security of it's citizens.

Given all of this, it should be fairly clear that the goals of market capitalism in healthcare are orthogonal to the goals of the individuals and society; meaning it is not a good practical solution to healthcare.

Even worse, some of these problems can be partially solved by regulation: forcing operators to work against market incentives and for the benefit of society; which is often a naughty word to conservatives.

With this in mind, it is generally a net positive to have government control of healthcare; as the goals cease to be about money and start being about the people involved.

It is, however, impossible to have the most excellent possible level of healthcare accessible to every single person: it will simply be too expensive. Government accessible healthcare will make sure everyone has access to great healthcare.

In this vein, it is correct that it trades one set of problems (poor insurance, lack of access) with another set of problems (lack of resources in some area's, lack of ability to provide comprehensive everything to everyone leading to rationing decisions): but in general those problems are not as bad as the ones they are replacing.

A testament to how good government mandated healthcare is around the world can be boiled down to it's popularity:

There are three words that would absolutely guarantee a massive landslide electoral loss to any party that uttered them out loud any developed country where Socialised Medicine is in place: "Lets privatise Healthcare"

Side: True
3 points

The problem with the Democrats is far too often they equate affordable with free. Just about everyone can afford to pay something every month for health care. Medicaid is abused by far too many. When states started making work mandatory for food stamps the rolls plummeted. The same would happen with Medicaid, make people work and the amount the governments spend would drop drastically.

Side: False
2 points

You are 100% CORRECT!

It hs been proven a thousand times that getting tough with welfare and medicaid fraud, illegal immigrants, criminals, terrorists, etc. WORKS!

It has been proven that tough love WORKS!

Why on earth are progressives such fools not to get it?

The truth is that they do get it and don't care. They will watch our nation go bankrupt to transform America to their Godless socialist so called uptopia.

The only people benefitting for a time will be the politicians living off everyone else. When it all comes crashing down, these inhuman liars will blame the other side.

Side: False
2 points

You hit it on the head when you said most working people can afford to pay something for their healthcare, but the Leftwing fools refuse to allow it.

Every person who ever has a beer, or dinner out, or casino trips, or vacations, or cell phones, or nice cars, or any of the thousands of plesures we enjoy, CAN AFFORD TO GO WITHOUT SOME OF THESE THINGS AND PAY FOR SOME OF THEIR HEALTHCARE PREMIUMS.

The GOP wants to bring sanity back to our nation's debt crisis.

Side: False
excon(18260) Disputed
1 point

Hello f:

The problem with forcing medicaid recipients to work is that 64% of them are in nursing homes...

excon

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/science/medicaid-cutbacks-elderly-nursing-homes.html

Side: True
foratag(257) Clarified
2 points

I was not talking about people in nursing homes. You should have been able to figure out that I meant people who are of working age and not incapacitated.

Side: True
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

CON you are just a broken record !!!!!!! Now i know the New York Times is all truthful LMMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: True
1 point

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/states-health-benefit-exchange-struggling-for-viability/

Financial challenges are threatening the survival of Washington’s Healthplanfinder insurance exchange.

First, the marketplace is facing a state budget proposal that would provide roughly two-thirds of the money that exchange officials say they need.

Then this week, U.S. officials warned that exchange spending plans include what could be the illegal use of federal grant dollars.

The Senate’s budget plan “threatens the viability” of the exchange, Ron Sims, chairman of the board overseeing the exchange, said in a recent statement.

Officials with Healthplanfinder sought $127 million for its two-year budget starting in 2015, plus $20 million in federal grants it already has received. The Democrat-led state House of Representatives included $124 million for the exchange in its proposal while the Senate, under GOP leadership, earmarked $85.9 million over two years.

Hey DUMMY government run healthcare is not affordable

Side: False

It isn't incompatible. I identify myself as more of a centrist than a conservative, but my views on health care skew more in the conservative direction. All that I ask is that the government doesn't pass another healthcare system that issues free healthcare to illegal immigrants (Yes, Obamacare does/did do that).

Additionally, the pathetically manipulable part of the system that allows AMERICAN citizens to soak the system and be issued consistent GovProv's without having to get a real job and contribute to society (Yes, this does happen. I have witnessed it firsthand).

Finally, the word "affordable" is not synonymous with the word "free." Even in Canada, their "free" health care is not really free. It is made up for by significantly higher taxes (a minimum of 15% on your income, even if you only make 10k a year; 33% if you make 200k+; and 13-16% sales tax [depending on the province], no matter what you're purchasing.) However, their economy has adapted to the system, and it works. There have been proven methods of what the general populace of America wants, but they always seem to seek new alternatives that don't actually suit EVERYONE's interests.

Side: False

Yup... DEM CONSERVATIVES is STOOPID, EBIL, ands wants peoples to dies in dem streets.

Side: False

Poor little fool boy. You refuse to answer why 700 billion dollars in cuts to medicare, by democrats, would not create old people dying in the streets, as you said medicaid cuts, by republicans, would do.

You think you are so cute spewing worthless rhetoric with no basis, and then refuse to admit what your side has done.

Yup... DEM CONSERVATIVES is STOOPID, EBIL, ands wants peoples to dies in dem streets.

Side: False