CreateDebate


Debate Info

13
33
Yeah, me too No, it doesn't change my mind
Debate Score:46
Arguments:28
Total Votes:51
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yeah, me too (11)
 
 No, it doesn't change my mind (17)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(39822) pic



1 point

Why do you change your mind isn't this a fairy tale. "This is all one big fairy tale I ever saw"- in the words of Bill Clinton. Remember when Obama said how his wisdom is going to make every thing so much better. Well fairy tales aren't true and some of you forget that all those speeches before Obama got elected were nothing but political talk instead of straight talk. Bush was the same, he had fairy tale speeches too and the American people elected him too. I feel who ever has a fairy tale speech next elections there going to get elected too. Look Mccain was telling you all the truth that some you couldn't accept. And Mccain was right for example he still wanted authority in Iraq.Well we elected Obama and handed the authority back to Iraq officials. And you guys saw what happened more troops died in a long time when the authority was handed back. Well all I got to say is "LONG LIVE THE FAIRY TALES". Nothing is going to change, us sensible poeple like me is just going to have to get used to it.

Side: Yeah, me too

We either insist on asisted suicide or we allow countless of illegals to become citizens, take American jobs, pay taxes and thus help us pay for the baby boomer's social security which is otherwise backrupt. ;)

Side: Yeah, me too
ledhead818(637) Disputed
4 points

I think you misheard Oregon as Obama. The program in question is Oregon's medicaid program, not "Obama's" program which does not exist yet. The health care bill does not insist on assisted suicide I really hope you realize that. And it does not offer free health insurance to illegal immigrants: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/no-free-health-care-illegal-immigrants-health-bill/

Now referring to the video, the reason that Oregon's medicaid program would not pay for her was that she had a less than 5% survival rate over 5 years. The program has a policy that they will not pay for treatment if there less than 5% survival rate. It seems harsh, but medicaid programs do not have excess cash floating around, and if they always paid for expensive treatments for people who really had no chance of living they could run out of money to pay for treatments which would very likely or almost certainly help people a lot. It's really a choice of the lesser of two evils, but if it's either the program goes bankrupt or people with no chance are not treated, then you can see how they would choose the latter. By the way the manufacturer of the drug gave it to her for free and she died 6 months after being denied by medicaid. I'm not saying I think rationing is a good thing to do. I think everyone in the country deserves access to the best treatment available and if there isn't enough money in the program allocate more and just cut from the military budget. But I want to you see that A) This woman's situation was more complicated than the shallow coverage led you to believe and B) The US health care does not contain any rationing provisions so its a moot point.

I don't understand how you can be against health care reform. As you may have heard we spend a greater percentage of our GDP than any other country 16%. Yet the WHO ranks our quality of health care at 37th in the world among the worst of the developed world. This isn't an issue of left vs. right. This is an issue of the insurance companies vs. citizens. Premiums continue to increase as do insurance companies profits, yet our care gets no people. They make money by denying coverage. They are screwing us all over and laughing all the way to bank. The health care bill will not eliminate private coverage. If you are happy with your care awesome. Adding a public option will simply prevent insurance companies from reaming us quite as hard. If you don't like the conditions of the public option, which are highly exaggerated, then stick with your private insurance. All of this crap misinformation that is being spread about health care reform originates from, big surprise, insurance companies. I read a leaked document that planned out in exquisite detail how to propagandize the public with lies and destroy the debate. You can follow the trail of money with this stuff and see right where it leads to. Please as Americans we need to stop falling into the stupid political theater that works so well for these people profiting of us and open up our eyes. It will benefit everyone except private health insurance companies to have this bill passed. You can get the public option if you don't have insurance and if you have private insurance your premiums will go down through competitive forces.

If you have any questions you want to ask me about stuff you are concerned about that you have been hearing about the health care bill or health care reform in general please do so. I want you and all conservatives on our side where you belong. It pains me to see people, on either side, being used as puppets by people looking out for their own selfish interests.

Side: No, it doesn't change my mind

I don't have questions. All I have to do is look around at other socialized medicine as example of what can happen here. Sort like this:

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor;

Side: No, it doesn't change my mind
asdf789(349) Disputed
2 points

This is an issue of the insurance companies vs. citizens.

There is a difference between health CARE reform and health INSURANCE reform. What you are talking about is health insurance reform, which I am in favor of also. We don't need to drastically change our health care as they are proposing in Congress, it is unnecessary. All we need is some strong health insurance reform and we will be right near the top as far as the quality of health care is concerned.

Side: Yeah, me too

Oh, so close. You almost had me untill the end when you said, "It pains me to see people, on either side, being used as puppets by people looking out for their own selfish interests."

I trust companies a lot more than I trust the government. Sure the govt. paints a pretty picture but think about this. Welfare started as a program to help needy people. Right now, every Tom, Dick and Harry can sign up.

When the baby boomers start using up govt. benefits more than they are now, like requiring more and more health care benefits, they will be denied (for the same reason I don't expect to get social security) there wont be enough money.... oh wait,..., unless Obama just prints it and devalues the dollar thus eroding my savings. Nice ;)

Side: No, it doesn't change my mind
4 points

This is Oregon State Care link

As you can clearly see, the people receiving the care, do not pay into the care, so it's funding is significantly lower than a National Healthcare Plan that people actually have to pay into would be... I mean I realize that took me all of 10 seconds to find, I would never expect Joe to have looked into it.

this is the most vital point which is why it is bold. Without Oregon State Care that lady would have 0 care and would already be dead. Oregon State Care in spite of being underfunded has kept her alive longer than the private healthcare she cannot afford

What part of "public option" do Joe, Pyg, and you others not understand? If that lady could afford Private insurance, she would have every right to get it. Hence Public "Option."

Now that you all see that this video has 0 bearing on this debate, and in fact it shows how much better it is to have a public option, I'll for like the 900th time give all of you facts that you can conveniently ignore while your distracted by NWO and birthers and socialism and whatever other crazy ass conspiracies you have dancing around in your heads.

link

There you have it again, we're still ranked number 37,

with every industrialized nation, and several that are not in front of us,

and we are still behind every single nation that has some sort of nationalized healthcare... that's right, our healthcare is still a joke in spite of Joe's silly video and misleading tags.

Here's another stat you can conveniently ignore link

Now this is going to cause the geniuses who didn't see what a fallacy that video was within 10 seconds a migrain, but with a little concentration you'll realize it's not in order. The US is in the middle, and you'll see we spend way, way, way, way, way

more than any other country. Yes, we pay more per capita now then any of those 36 courtries that have better healthcare than us.

1. there is no death panel

2. no one is taking anyone's medicare

3. medicare is government run healthcare

4. every country that has nationalized healthcare or a public option has better healthcare than us

5. we pay more than any other country for healthcare now

There is not one reason under the sun that anyone has come up with not to have a public option,

not one reason.

No one on this site has come up with a legitimate reason,

no one in the media has come up with a legitimate reason,

no public official has come up with a legitimate reason.

It is nothing but fear mongering, lies, misrepresentation, and run of the mill ignorance.

And the Health Ins. industry is laughing their assess off at all of the idiots voting against their self-interests,

in favor of them getting even richer while they provide an absolutely shitty product.

So yeah joe, keep coming up with clever little tags that make no sense while our healthcare system continues to be the biggest joke the industrialized world has ever seen.

Side: No, it doesn't change my mind

Yeah, because socialized medicine is such a great idea... kinda like this:

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor;

Side: Yeah, me too
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
2 points

lmao,

I have no idea why I continually attempt talking sense to you.

1. It says in the first 4 sentences that it's not sure those cuts will even be made... ie it hasn't happened yet.

that would be like me saying, "well, this piece of paper I wrote says that aliens may attack tomorrow, I have no proof, but let me talk about it for a page and a half anyway..."

2. Yep, Canada's National Healthcare is not perfect, in fact, no one's is in the whole wide world.

But you're taking one fictional example from one sub-category of a very very large issue.

Do you have a comparison of how many surgeries aren't going to be performed in the US next year because people don't have insurance at all? Or because the insurance they think they have is allowed to drop them whenever the hell they want if they get too expensive?

Of course not, because that then would actually create a legitimate debate.

3. In spite of this one article, which is about something that has not even happened, with 0 US stats to make any kind of legitimate comparison,

in spite of that the Canadian healthcare system is ranked a solid 6 places ahead of us,

and Canadians live longer, and have a lower infant mortality rate.

Keep trying though.

Side: No, it doesn't change my mind
asdf789(349) Disputed
1 point

No one on this site has come up with a legitimate reason,

I'll take a stab at it ;)

Why we do not need a public option:

1. How are you going to pay for the estimated $1.6 trillion system without raising taxes? Employer benefit taxes, higher payroll taxes, taxes on soft drinks and alcohol, a VAT tax, or another income-tax hike for successful earners will bring down the economy in one way or another.

-------

2. The free lunch syndrome- removes incentives for competition (in the tax code there is an exemption from the income tax if you have employer-provided health care) and cost control because we are paying for health care with someone else's money, in this case the govt. A govt-backed insurance system will intensify this syndrome.

------

3. Medicare and Medicaid are lurching toward financial disaster and they are both gov't run, what's not to think the same will happen with a gov't backed insurance system?

-------

4. There are other options out there such as a co-op and a voucher system. No one has seen either though in a bill, so its really hard to argue for or against these.

-------

5. The public option opens the door that leads to a single payer system. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E)

-------

6. Democrats are being pushed into it by unions:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/18/labor-warns-dems-well-sit_n_262232.html

------

7. The government has shown that they will spend much more than they make and businesses cannot do that. The added expense of continually borrowing from other countries will make the 'public option' cost more than it originally seems down the road.

I'll stop there for now, I have about 3 more but i'm still researching.

Side: Yeah, me too
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
3 points

1. Every proposed bill shows conclusively a public option would be cheaper for employers and individuals alike. A public option, (unlike the VA and medicare, which are considered incredibly successful by all but the furthest fringes of the right wing) would actually increase the number of people paying for healthcare, as all proposed bills make paying into the system mandatory, actually increasing the funding for healthcare, and improving overall health since individuals would no longer wait until the last second to go to the doctor, and won't have to depend on expensive treatments which are the number one cause of bankrupcies in the US.

You guys seem to be under the impression a public option is a hand-out. It's not. The system already is a hand-out. If you're dying and you don't have insurence, they still treat you at the public's expense. Now more of the public would be paying into the system, hence, no more "hand-outs"... You and Joe of all people should be for that.

2. lmao, again, refer to my link with the amount we spend on healthcare compared to nations with a public option.

3. No, they're not disasters at all. And old people love those two government programs, and you would see a geriatric revolution if anyone tried to take them away. Again though, those are two programs that the benefactors do no pay into any longer, and they are only funded up to the amount we say we will fund it. This is nothing like the public option at all. The public option is designed to pay for itself after the initial cost.

4. I'm not against the co-op, as long as certain aspects are gauranteed:

A. private insurance can no longer legally drop patients. Today a private insurance company is allowed to drop anyone who needs a procedure they find too expensive no matter how long that person has been paying for that insurance.

B. private insurance cannot deny service based on cost alone. ie, maybe an 80 year old with terminal cancer doesn't need a fifth round of kimo-therapy. Fine, that's something to think about on an individual basis. However, a 3 year old should get every treatment known to man regardless that her parents had only been paying into the system on her behalf for a couple years. Currently that is not the business plan of private insurance at all.

C. price caps. I don't know what those would be, but the whole idea of any kind of insurance is "incase something bad happens." Lately though, insurance has gotten it in their heads that people should just give them a free check every month even if they don't use their service, then when god forbid someone does need the service THEY STILL MAKE THAT PERSON PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES! This is completely dispicable, and completely legal, and is a very common thing.

In fact, it is, again, the number one reason people go bankrupt in this country. These people have insurance by and large, but the insurance simply says "we're not paying"

so the person gets an expensive procedure, files bankrupcy, and you and me are paying anyway while that insurance company's profits go up 400%

That is criminal in my book and needs to be stopped no matter what the final plan is.

D. Every legal citizen is covered who wants to be covered. People who can afford it are forced to pay (kind of like car insurance)

You would be enormously surprised I believe by the amount of money that can be generated from the 30 million uninsured if the ones making more than X/ year are made to pay into the system. I believe, and it has been shown in other countries to be true, that it would easily pay for itself after the initial expense.

And myself being one of them, I think I can safely say that the vast majority of us would have 0 problem paying anything from 100 to even 300/ month for the rest of my life, so long as I know if I ever need it, it is there.

Do you know what private insurance would cost me right now?

500 to 1000/ mo!

wtf? I am one of t he healthiest people I know!

Hence I pay 0 into the system,

and there are millions like me.

Side: No, it doesn't change my mind
2 points

LOL, sadly this is probably what will happen. Killing someone is much cheaper than keeping them alive.

It's not that I have too much of a problem of free healthcare (really, it isn't, but close enough I guess). My main problem is with who's running it (the same people who run FEMA which totally saved New Orleans and the DMV).

Side: No, it doesn't change my mind
1 point

Yeah... because those are all the same thing as healthcare.

Why not the people that sent someone to the moon, or defeated the Nazis or all the other great things we've done? Because it goes against your point? Well that makes sense.

I'm not saying that the government necessarily will do a good job managing the whole thing, only that your argument doesn't make sense.

Fortunately though, when it comes down to it, the same doctors will be performing these procedures, they're just getting paid by someone different.

Supporting Evidence: Comic that makes strawman argument somewhat related to my point (www.farleftside.com)
Side: No, it doesn't change my mind

The reason Pyg didn't use "the people that sent someone to the moon" or "defeated the Nazis " is because those people are not around anymore. If we still had those people running the show, this country wouldn't be in shape it's in. ;)

Side: No, it doesn't change my mind
ThePyg(6737) Disputed
1 point

Doctors do not fund the procedure, government does.

And it's really upsetting that you're willing to gamble our health care "well, it could be a disaster but it could end up alright... i guess we'll see LOL".

Side: Yeah, me too

From the video:

"At the Willamette Valley Cancer Center where Wagner gets her care, the Medical Director says the Oregon Health Plan has not kept up with the dramatic changes in chemotherapy...What we're looking at is today's treatment, but we're using 1993 standards. When the Oregon Health Plan was created, it was fifteen years ago, and there were not all the chemotherapy drugs we have today."

The main argument made was not necessarily against rationing of care, but instead the those people making the decisions have not kept up with current medical treatments. Assuming this accusations is valid, it is certainly something we can learn from in our new healthcare plan.

I think what this story neglects to talk about is the other side... the people that 4,000 dollars a month ended up helping.

Look, obviously any healthcare plan is going to have sad stories... cancer sucks. The point though is to be able to put the available resources to help the most people possible. This means we may have to make some pretty grisly calculations... ideally we could give everyone every single possible treatment, but this is reality and we can't. Fortunately with the new healthcare plan what we can offer everyone healthcare in one form or another. For some people this may not be as good as there current healthcare plan, and if this is the case they can choose to remain on that coverage...no one's forcing people to leave their insurance companies, and in fact, this plan shouldn't even effect people's ability to pay for their insurance costs because those that are going to be taxed most are people that make over 350,000 dollars a year.

Edit: Just realized I probably posted on the wrong side...oops.

Side: No, it doesn't change my mind

Grisly calculation huh? You mean like this?

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor;

Side: No, it doesn't change my mind
1 point

No, I was already against health care reform before the video. We need health insurance reform, and what is being proposed in Congress to not address this issue squarely.

Side: No, it doesn't change my mind

It doesn't change my mind at all...I'm for it. I'd like to see the truth come out before the vote is on the table and take all the naysayers accustions out and debunk them.

Side: No, it doesn't change my mind