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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should America implement socialized healthcare?
While sports players, movie stars, and musicians are bringing in the big bucks, the poor people of America can not afford health insurance even with the Obamacare plan. In Canada, everyone is covered under socialized healthcare. Why is Canada kinder to their citizens than America? Socialized healthcare is also available in France, known to have one of the best healthcare systems in the world. Why can't we do what they do? How can we as a society justify paying an athlete millions of dollars or an actress millions of dollars, when so many of our citizens can't even go see a doctor? I think our priorities are screwed up.
If people were to actually look at where our money is spent, they would see that socialized healthcare is possible. If we (America) are going to continually claim to be the most wonderful nation in the world, we need to take better care of our citizens. Stop spending on wars in other countries, and heal the sick right here.
Can you explain how the government running a publicly operated health care system would be unconstitutional? Mind you, I am not talking about shutting down privately run health insurance and health care providers, just running one along side it.
The ACA is not socialized medicine, however. It's violation of the revenue clause does not demonstrate that socialized medicine would be unconstitutional, it simply demonstrates that it would need to come about a particular way.
You know the one that is screwing up the health-care of our veterans.
On the basis of this alone, I would be very wary of federal government operating a health-care system. In Canada and France, there might be a bit more trust in government, but here (and with good reason) not so much.
If the VA or anything is unconstitutional, and you are arguing for the Constitution, then you should argue against the VA as well as anything else that fits. It's not the only way to take care of our own.
So, would a mandate that all white male citizens age 18 to 45 must join the militia and "provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder" be unconstitutional?
George Washington who signed that bill and the 2nd Congress of the United States which passed it didn't seem to think so...
A mandate not only to procure a gun, but also to risk your life seems a bit more onerous than a requirement to purchase health insurance if you are likely to use the health-care system.
Actually it isn't. Socialized healthcare would mean the government is running the healthcare system, which means it would be payed for by tax dollars. That would not be forcing people to purchase anything.
The constitution gives the government the authority to regulate commerce, but it has no authority to create it or mandate it on individual citizens or states.
Again, Socialized Medicine would not "mandate" anything on said individuals for the reasons I have previously stated. I am not trying to be rude, but do you understand how socialized medicine (as opposed to the Affordable Care Act) works?
I disagree: Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, all exist and have for quite a while, and are based on precedent that date back to the era of our Founding Fathers.
So you are saying that France and Canada have less effective healthcare...
perhaps....I've never had healthcare there so I can't say.... however, at least EVERYONE gets to see a doctor. You talk about effectiveness, but you're only talking about the rich people who have insurance. Us poor slobs without insurance sure don't think that healthcare in America is very effective.
Yes, they have much less effective healthcare. My aunt, rest her soul, was Canadian. She needed surgery 4 times in her life, and every time she came to the US because the wait time in Canada was so long. And this was 20-40 years ago. She was well off financially, so she could afford it here.
Did you know that the average wait time in the US to see a specialist is 19 days. In Canada, it is 18.2 weeks. If you need orthopedic surgery in Canada the wait is almost 40 weeks.
Let me add one more item. We have socialized medicine in this country in the state of Massachusetts. The average wait time in Boston to see a specialist is 72 days. The average for Dallas is 10 days. Seems obvious to me which one I would prefer, what say you.
