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.
Health Care is not a privilege, and it shouldn't be a commodity, it should be a right of all citizens. If we can find money to kill people, nearly a trillion dollars in just the war in Iraq, then the richest nation on earth can certainly find money to heal people. And if that means we have to take a few billion dollars away from our bloated and inefficient military, so be it. The United States if the only western industrialized country without universal health care, and even most third-world countries have it, which puts our country in quite the shameful position.
Most third-world countries have free health care because the United States of America pays for it! the only shame is in your heart that your country can never do enough for the rest of the world.
Wow, your argument literally made me laugh -- mostly due to your last point.
Care to give me any facts that back up your hypothesis? ;] The United States donates about 13b a year, Japan donates about 10b a year...I don't think that's enough to pay health care for every third-world nation on earth.
Fiscal Year 2010 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Department of State must be fully empowered and funded to confront the multi-dimensional challenges that face the United States today – from working with allies to thwart terrorism, to spreading health and prosperity in places of human suffering. To meet these challenges, the FY 2010 request reflects President Obama’s commitment to strengthen U.S. foreign assistance capacity by significantly increasing the core programming, policy, and management capabilities of the State Department and USAID.
The resources in this request put the United States on a path to double U.S. foreign assistance by 2015, thereby providing the resources needed to help the world’s weakest states reduce poverty, combat global health threats, develop markets, govern peacefully, and expand democracy worldwide. The FY 2010 Function 150 International Affairs request totals $53.9 billion, an increase of 9 percent over the FY 2009 total, which includes both enacted and requested emergency supplemental funding. The FY 2010 Foreign Operations request for USAID, the Department of State and other foreign affairs agencies totals $36.7 billion, an increase of 8 percent over the FY 2009 total.
No the U.S.A does not pay for it where did you go to school?and don't you even say Harvard.Plus it doesn't sound like his ashamed of his country it sounds like YOU hate the U.S.
"No the U.S.A does not pay for it where did you go to school?"
The U.S.A. Spends Billions in foreign Aid! Billions every year, and if its not going into the pockets of tin pot Dictators its going to the welfare of the citizens of the country receiving the aid.
As for my schooling, read your post, correct your grammar and shove Harvard up your A.
HELL YEAH!! "WE" THE TAX PAYERS PAY ENOUGH DAMN MONEY FOR OUR COUNTRY TO HAVE IT! INSTEAD OF WORRYING ABOUT THE FUCKING WOULD LETS WORRY ABOUT OUR OWN PEOPLE!!!!!!!
Nobody should go bankrupt because they are not healthy. You can say that people need to "own up" and "contribute equally," but the truth is that not everyone can and it shouldn't be the end of someone's existence if they can't.
Too many people in the USA go bankrupt because of health. Given the inflated cost of health care and the lack of justified support from insurance companies (and downright dishonesty), it should not be allowed for them to continue to treat health like a business.
I'm from England where we have a NHS paid for through taxes.
I get sick of reading in the newspaper about Republicans and some Democrats talking about how it's a poor system and telling horror stories about it.
No one should have to suffer debt or bankruptcy because they cannot afford healthcare.
Obama was compared to Hitler for trying to help 49 million people have a higher standard of living? Clearly some people don't know who Hitler was and if your comparing Obama to Hitler than I'm not going to take your opinion about anything seriously.
Yes, we are given the right to live as soon as we are born. In many cases health care is essential to life just as water, food, and air are. The right to live should not be able to be taken away by the greed of an other; this amounts to nothing more than murder. I know, it'll be expensive but, what is money? Money is just paper and digits. Why is a society willing to trade paper and digits for the lives of fellow human beings? People need life.
It should be. But I have long understood that this is just a dream. Health care is a big burden for citizen, and it is also too much a burden for government. But if this is to be real, the numbers of life insurance company
Yes I think it should we pay thousands in taxes every year I live in California Idk about other states we save money and when u get older u loose everything u made and more in paying doctors and prescriptions u end up worst than you started
First, there is no such thing as free health care anywhere.
Two options-
Government Controlled-pay through taxes. Perceived to be free because when you need care, you go to the hospital and it is already paid. Well, it can be free, if you pay no taxes.
Private Controlled-pay through premiums and deductibles.
Government interference in the economy can be most harmful; however, government health care is the most equitable form because health care is really a matter of right rather than privileged especially in a rich society. Health care is one of few interventions of government support.
Nobody is arguing for "free" health care. All the Democrats want to do is make some minor changes to our existing system so that it works better for everybody.
Republicans have dumped millions of dollars into spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about these proposals. Do a little research. Don't let the bastards fool you into voting against your own best interests.
Why link to the full bill? If a regular Joe asks you how an airplane works you don't send them a full engineering schematic -- you send them a summary. Here is a summary of the House health care bill:
Just because it's a big bill doesn't mean it gonna lead to big changes. That's just the way our messed up legislative process works.
What makes you think they want to "dismantle" the health care system? That's so stupid. Why would anyone want to do that? Read the summary I posted. It's a good bill.
Your first link doesn't work. And if Howard Dean doesn't like the plan, it's obviously because he wants to do more. Howard Dean is strongly liberal; of course he wouldn't like this sensible, centrist bill.
Your second link is an article from the freakin' Wall Street Journal, one of the most notoriously conservative publications in existence. How about I respond by linking to an equally biased article from the New York Times? Come on, this is no way to have an honest debate.
And even then, why are you going on about the House bill? That's not the one that's going to become law. It has to be reconciled with the more conservative Senate version first.
you cant read the first link so you assume what might be said and comment on it as fact, the second link you dismiss because its from a news paper, then you send me a link from the Annenberg Public Policy Center, now thats not biased! and a freakin' news paper.
I'm going on about the house bill because the House writes the bills not the Senate.
My question to you is why do you want me to pay for your health insurance? cant you fend for yourself?
Ok, you fixed the link. And look at that, I was right. Howard Dean is calling for a public-option. Yes, a public-option would help in lots of ways -- but guess what? You asshats in the Republican party killed it! So yes, the bill doesn't do as much as good as it could, and that's why Dean is unhappy.
Annenberg Public Policy Center is non-partisan. Just look at FactCheck.org. They clearly call out both parties. And not all newspapers are strongly biased. Some, like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, are famously biased, but not all.
"I'm going on about the house bill because the House writes the bills not the Senate."
That's just wrong. Bills can be introduced in either the House or Senate.
"My question to you is why do you want me to pay for your health insurance? cant you fend for yourself?"
I have insurance just like the majority of Americans. This bill is mainly about making some common sense changes to the system in order to make it work better. Yes, we are also offering a little aide to the very poor who can't afford insurance. How horrible! Do you honestly think people deserve to die if they can't afford health insurance? You disgust me.
People only go to the emergency room for stuff like heart attacks. What if someone has skin cancer and can't get treatment because they don't have insurance? You can't treat cancer in the emergency room! You bet your ass that person is going to die.
Besides, guess who has to pay for their visit to the emergency room? All the rest of us! So why not give them insurance since we're going to end up paying either way?
Why do you think that letting people keep the money they make "cost" anyone? the American people do not want this bill and if the boobs on the hill vote for it, it will "cost" them their jobs.
One more report regarding the Canadian health care system
"I would've been criticized if I had stayed in Canada and had been perceived as jumping a line or a wait list. ... I accept that. That's public life," he said. Waiting list in Canada? wow that sucks if you have cancer!
Canada has full-blown single payer coverage. Meaning people don't even need to buy insurance, they can just walk in and get whatever treatment they need at no cost.
That's nowhere near what the Dems are proposing for the US.
At no cost? the Doctors work for free? no overhead at the hospital? that sounds great! another lie! the Canadian tax payer pays for it all ( the people who work)
the highest tax bracket that exists in Canada is 46.41% that doesn't include the other taxes like a dump sticker, beach sticker, hunting tax, fishing tax and so on; add it up and they are paying 55 or 60% or more of their income to the government. move out of your parents basement and take care of yourself.
No cost meaning the patient doesn't pay directly. Duh.
Income tax in Canada is not relevant to this debate. Also, you didn't cite a source for those numbers, so I'm going to assume you pulled them out your ass.
Earlier this week it was revealed that Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams was going to the United States for heart surgery. Like most Canadian politicians, Williams is a big proponent of Canada’s socialized health care system.
The premier’s office has been tight lipped about exactly what is wrong with Williams and has only said that whatever treatment that he needs is not available in his home province.
I wouldn't make a page like that I have a little class! Has your opinion changed following the Presidents talk with the Republicans or shall I say talk at the Republicans? I didn't see the whole thing but I listened more then the President did. Your thoughts?
Yes, my opinion has changed. I am now even more convinced than ever that the Republican party is completely full of shit.
One Republican says, "This program is increasing entitlement spending too much!" Then ten seconds later another one says, "This program is cutting Medicare too much!" Which do you want? Less coverage or more? Pick one you idiots!
Then they say the want to "start over". Bullshit! It's so obvious what they mean is delay, delay, delay, just so they can watch the American people get fed up with the Democrats.
The sad thing is they could be improving the bill by negotiating with Dems to keep costs down. The Dems would be all over that. It would be good for the American people. But all those fuckers care about is their poll numbers.
The whole Republican party is just a bunch of stinkin assholes.
Dude you have some serious anger issues! I'm not a Dr. but I would recommend a vacation. (I think the Republicans will pay for your trip) good luck with your therapy.
"It's from a bi-partisan committee. If you have a better summary, I'm happy to use it."
I just think you wouldn't be calling it bipartisan if you disagreed with it. None the less, I would still like my answer. Are the people on that comity liberal? Or do they at least lean left? I'm only Curious.
And just because I don't trust a summary doesn't mean I have my own better summary. That's a childish response, of course I don't have one. What makes you think it's valid to ask me that?
"I'll stop belittling you guys when you stop being stupid."
Let me get this straight, You'll stop saying we're saying something we're not saying, .. when we stop saying it?
Come on Jake, you can do research just as well as I can. Don't be lazy.
I know little about the committee. I just googled "health-care summary" or something and found the page. Here's a list of the committee members: http://edlabor.house.gov/about/members/
I'm going to play devil advocate, so no one assume I would just let a person die if they cannot pay their bills, I support charity and giving and its sad that the world does not work that way. What I want to know is how "free" health care will improve my life. When I look at a government run business, the words fast and efficient or innovative do not come to my mind. To prevent a counterpoint of NASA or some other program I don't know about, I will say the government does produce technological innovation, but not in a field where its objective is to provide a service. As sad as this is most people do not discover a medicine that cure a condition without a desire for profit, so why will people create new/more cost efficient technologies, when it earns them nothing. I may be wrong here and if someone can prove me wrong, then good, I would rather live knowing that all the people that created a new invention did so out of the goodness of their heart, not for profit, but it seems to me that government businesses do not produce innovation, and in a field where there is still so much to discover, why should we stunt its growth for a small percentage of a population. (My grammar and spelling may be off and I apologize for that)
Here in Australia we have subsidised health care. It's not free, but we pay a lot less out of pocket than people in the US, and people who have low or no income can sometimes get the government to cover the entire cost of their medical bills, and the major portion of their medications. It doesn't teach people to be lazy. What it does is allow people to get a good standard of health care on a regular basis. This means that people go to their doctor at the start of their illness, rather than waiting until they're so ill that they need emergency care.
We do pay for our health care through our taxes and I don't think health care should be free, however there are some major benefits to subsidised health care. It reduces the amount of down time due to illness for the low income workers, and makes them more able-bodied. It also reduces the chances of people catching communicable diseases. If anything, it means that people work more, not less.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Earlier this week it was revealed that Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams was going to the United States for heart surgery. Like most Canadian politicians, Williams is a big proponent of Canada’s socialized health care system.
The premier’s office has been tight lipped about exactly what is wrong with Williams and has only said that whatever treatment that he needs is not available in his home province.
1. (Quality) There is actually free health care in many countries. Problem is, people of those countries tend to favor privet hospitals over government ones due to quality of service issues. This include poor people because when you really need a hospital, you would rather pay than die.
2. (Knowledge Level) Doctors pay will decrease making the job less attractive for those smart and hard working doctors. Your grandsons will end up with a barber shop kind of doctors like in many developing countries.
3. (economy effect) Medical care is 1/6 of US economy. Government sponcered medical care will kill thousands of insurance companies and private practice clinics and hospitals.
I can think of many more reasons but gotta go to sleep now. So, i will be back if someone is interested.
