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.
Not all socialized healthcare systems are the same.. For example, mine will treat EVERYBODY for EVERYTHING with NO waiting, and money left over to buy an aircraft carrier or two..
It's easy, really.. All we gotta do is ELIMINATE the private health insurance industry.. Do you know how many $$ zillions those health insurance executives make? Under my plan, ALL that money would go toward actual health care..
Not all socialized healthcare systems are the same.. For example, mine will treat EVERYBODY for EVERYTHING with NO waiting, and money left over to buy an aircraft carrier or two..
Except that the dollar amount on your exact plan "Medicare for All" is estimated to cost tens of trillions of dollars over a decade.
Several independent studies have estimated that government spending on health care would increase dramatically, in the range of about $25 trillion to $35 trillion or more over a 10-year period. Specifically, a study released over the summer by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University estimated it would cost $32.6 trillion, $3.26 trillion per year, over 10 years. For comparison, the entire federal budget proposal for the fiscal year 2019 was $4.4 trillion, the Congressional Budget Office states.
SUPER STUPID who pays for HEALTHCARE FOR ALL and what is the price
Hello Poochy:
W'us up? I've published it before and you didn't get it then.. What makes you think you'll get it now?? I mean, it's ARITHMETIC, after all..
However, I'll show you again.. My plan doesn't take a whole lot of intellect either.. It just takes math skills..
So, we start with what we already spend as a nation for health care.. It's around $3.5 trillion.. Then we SUBTRACT what we spend for the health INSURANCE industry, because my plan ENDS it. That's about $.5 trillion.. Then we SUBTRACT the amount we're gonna SAVE because we're gonna LOWER drug costs and that's another $.25 trillion savings.. Then we SUBTRACT the savings we get when we ONLY pay our doctors a decent living, and that's another $.25 trillion..
If everybody is covered for everything, there's NOTHING for an insurance company to do, so the ONLY job Medicare has, is writing checks.. That'll take a couple hundred people and'll cost about $5 million.
So, as you can SEE, my plan results in $1 trillion MORE going toward actual HEALTH care, that is NOT going towards it today. With the additional $1 trillion, we'll be able to cover everybody for everything, and buy a couple of aircraft carriers..
That means your health care, while NOT free, won't cost you a PENNY more than you're NOW paying.. You get that, right???
ROTFFLMMFAO !!!!!!! MEDICARE will be gone in 2026 and you want PRIVATE HEALTHCARE done away with so SUPER STUPID being the HEALTHCARE GENIUS you are give us your PLAN !!!!! Come ON you BRONT TROLL spell out your INSANITY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so SUPER STUPID being the HEALTHCARE GENIUS you are give us your PLAN !!!!! Come ON you BRONT TROLL spell out your INSANITY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hello again, poochy boy:
So, you MISSED it.. DUDE! Look.. Here it is again, just for you.. Do they teach math in Bumfuk?
So, we start with what we already spend as a nation for health care.. It's around $3.5 trillion.. Then we SUBTRACT what we spend for the health INSURANCE industry, because my plan ENDS it. That's about $.5 trillion.. Then we SUBTRACT the amount we're gonna SAVE because we're gonna LOWER drug costs and that's another $.25 trillion savings.. Then we SUBTRACT the savings we get when we ONLY pay our doctors a decent living, and that's another $.25 trillion..
If everybody is covered for everything, there's NOTHING for an insurance company to do, so the ONLY job Medicare has, is writing checks.. That'll take a couple hundred people and'll cost about $5 million.
So, as you can SEE, my plan results in $1 trillion MORE going toward actual HEALTH care, that is NOT going towards it today. With the additional $1 trillion, we'll be able to cover everybody for everything, and buy a couple of aircraft carriers..
That means your health care, while NOT free, won't cost you a PENNY more than you're NOW paying.. You get that, right???
SUPER STUPID pay attention !!!!!!! MEDICARE will be INSOLVENT in 2026 and you want PRIVATE HEALTHCARE eliminated so how does your IGNORANT PLAN work ??????????
SUPER STUPID pay attention !!!!!!! MEDICARE will be INSOLVENT in 2026 and you want PRIVATE HEALTHCARE eliminated so how does your IGNORANT PLAN work ??????????
Hello again, poochy boy:
It works like this:
Start with $3.5 trillion (which is what we, as a nation, spend NOW)
Subtract $.5 trillion (Health insurance industry)
Subtract $.25 trillion (prescription drug savings)
Subtract $.25 trillion (what we overpay doctors)
That leaves $ 1 trillion that'll go to actual health care that isn't going toward health care now.. With that $ trillion, we'll cover everybody for everything and it won't cost a penny more than we're now spending..
Look. I KNOW you're not gonna GET this.. But, it's NOT meant for dufus's like you.. It's meant for people who understand words and can add numbers..
Riiiiiiight. And they still have to pay for it in some way, which is taxes.
Hello bront:
Please note that the FIRST entry into my plan is: The amount we're spending on health care NOW That's NOW as in present day.. IF we manage to spend that much NOW, then we'll certainly be able to spend that much under my plan.. It's just re-allocated. So, your argument about HOW we're gonna raise the money is moot.. Again, it's money we're ALREADY spending.
It's true, you won't pay that money to the doctor, or to the hospital, or the pharmacist, or the insurance company.. You'll pay it to government..
In summary, you'll pay SAME amount, but to the government instead of the health provider..
Riiiiiiight. What your "plan" completely ignores, is that now, under your plan EVERYONE gets seen for EVERY disease and illness. Not some people or the same amount of times. It all goes up.
$1 trillion only applies if you have the exact same amount of patients. You'll have way more, and you want to include millions of illegals, which will then create mass healthcare migrations from worldwide immigrants. Foreigners just travel to the US and see the doctor, multiplied by however many people that is.
If we excluded illegals, it'd cost at minimum $10,000 per person, and half of the country do not work, thus $20,000 per working person.
Now put the illegals into the equation? We go bankrupt and all starve. The equal sharing of misery is your plan.
It's true, you won't pay that money to the doctor, or to the hospital, or the pharmacist, or the insurance company.. You'll pay it to government..
Exactly. The worker still pays for it, but now they don't just pay for themselves. They have to help cover for a patient number, and times seen, that will go up unsermountably due to every disease and illness being "covered". And this excludes illegals you want on the dole.
So now the worker owes MORE money (but owed to the government not insurance), waits in longer lines, gets lesser care from lesser doctors, and may not be high on the priority list, because obviously they'll have to rank patient need and ration care.
As was exemplified in an earlier debate, due to massive lines, now one may wait 2 years to be seen for cancer, and if you are old, you may be put last as a "lower priority". Gotta keep those workers healthy first, eh con?
Riiiiiiight. What your "plan" completely ignores, is that now, under your plan EVERYONE gets seen for EVERY disease and illness.
Hello again, bront:
Of course, it does.. What good is a health care system that doesn't PROVIDE health care???
Look... If you're poor, and you've got an ingrown toenail, you can go the ER and get services.. It'll cost the taxpayers a FORTUNE, but you'll get seen..
Under MY plan, you'll get seen in the doctors office, which DOESN'T cost a fortune..
So, TODAY, we're treating EVERYBODY for EVERYTHING anyway.. I'm simply suggesting that we do it in the most efficient way possible..
Under MY plan, he'll get seen in the doctors office, which DOESN'T cost a fortune.. So, TODAY, we're treating EVERYBODY for EVERYTHING anyway
No we are not. You'd be flooded with every person who has any disease or imagined disease. The system would overload.
The VA and the Native American systems are microcosisms of what you would see. I've seen it first hand. It doesn't work like a "well oiled machine". It's a clusterfuck. And it has nowhere near the doctor to patient ratio your system would create.
How are you going to expand a system where we are losing doctors in a circumstance where they are paid like gods, when your system cuts their pay and ups their already high workload?
What good is a health care system that doesn't provide health care???
Not much good. That's why I don't want your proposed system. I'm getting decent care now with relatively short lines. You're not?
Look... If you're poor, and you've got an ingrown toenail, you can go the ER and get services.. It'll cost the taxpayers a FORTUNE, but you'll get seen..
Which would be an argument for the system we have now, per your own logic.
It's just re-allocated. So, your argument about HOW we're gonna raise the money is moot.. Again, it's money we're ALREADY spending.
Which is demonstrably false because your "reallocation" falsely assumes that the exact amount of patients and times seen per person won't skyrocket once everything and everyone is covered.
Which is demonstrably false because your "reallocation" falsely assumes that the exact amount of patients and times seen per person won't skyrocket once everything and everyone is covered.
Hello again, bront:
You forget about the $ TRILLION I saved.. When MORE people seek care, we'll spend that..
You forget about the $ TRILLION I saved.. When MORE people seek care, we'll spend that..
The $1 trillion you saved by cutting what doctors make just cost you doctors and added trillions of dollars due to more patients seen more times. (And as an added bonus, we have giant waiting lines)
Your price goes up, not down. Your efficiency tanks.
The $1 trillion you saved by cutting what doctors make just cost you doctors
Hello again, bront:
When my plan is instigated, Medicare for All will be the single payer.. Therefore, doctors won't be able to get insanely rich anymore.. They'll be replaced by doctors who wanna serve humanity, and NOT their bank accounts..
Yes, of course, we'll mandate the cost of a medical education too...
Look.. I'm a capitalist.. I WISH the health care industry would fix itself WITHOUT government interference.. But, that simply AIN'T happening..
What part of covering EVERYBODY for EVERYTHING don't you understand?
I understand it, but you can't cover the cost, prevent massive delays in urgent care, or prevent prioritizing of who does and does not get care in a timely manner, if at all. You cannot prevent doctors from quitting due to the pay vs work isn't worth the time or headaches or schooling. Your concept will tank the system from multiple fronts.
I can say "free trips to Mars for everyone". Sounds nice, but cannot be done.
Sometimes the grown ups have to explain to the little ones that sure, it'd be nice for everyone to have wings, but we just don't.
In this great country of ours, a RIGHT, is a RIGHT, IS a right.. If health care is a RIGHT, then it IS..
Explain to me how someone has the right to a doctor's goods, services and knowledge.
Do I have a right to a mechanic's ability to fix my car? Sure, it'd be nice if he just does it out of the kindness of his wonderful heart, but most won't, and to force them to is tyranny, and they'd all just quit.
Secondly, show me in the Constitution where you have the right to another's goods and services.
Now tell us, will your plan include illegal aliens
Hello again, bront:
What part of covering EVERYBODY for EVERYTHING don't you understand?
Okay. So we have limited funds, our debt is climbing, and you literally want to make it legal for a million of the Chinese to get free medical care by crossing into Alaska, and on our populace's fucking dime. Jesus fucking Christ.
Look. I KNOW you're not gonna GET this.. But, it's NOT meant for dufus's like you.. It's meant for people who understand words and can add numbers..
Now, fetch this stick.
Right. That's why you have ignored at least 5 requests by me as to how there will not be outrageous lines and a system that "prioritizes" who gets care first and who gets care last.
When services are scarce, lines form.. When services are abundant, there are NO lines..
Services will become monumentally more scarce. More patients. More times seen per patient. Less money to doctors? Less doctors.
What makes you think that services will be scarce under my plan? Is it because you simply can't fathom a well oiled machine
You haven't described a well oiled machine. You've described a dumpster fire.
1)Same amount of doctors, if you're lucky, and you won't be.
2)More patients. More patients seen more times for everything imaginable.
3)
Why would I assume that the medicine will not quickly run out due to a mass influx of people on hospitals and pharmacies? Why would I assume they wouldn't start prioritizing who is sicker to give limited medicine to, and that sick people may just have to go without?
Let's look at this Con. In the past, if you got sick, you sure were lucky if there was someone around who could help you and provide you a service. Most people just got sick and died or had to live with it.
Well, later, these types of people, with healing knowledge and skills became commodities, and many people needed their help. So many people wanted their help that they started charging for their services. People were even luckier now because instead of hoping you knew someone with healing abilities, you could just find the healer's residence and give him a chicken or a goat in exchange for his healing service.
Later, even more people wanted the healer's services, thus supply went down, and demand went up, but the quality of service and healers got better over time too.
But hmmm... you didn't want to pay two goats for illness care.
And then, this guy comes along, and says, if you'll pay me a few eggs per month, I'll cover your healer costs in a gamble. Hopefully you don't need to get healed a lot, but I'll take the risk to get some eggs.
Wow! This guy's even luckier than the last guy! He can sacrifice just a few eggs and get healer care as needed.
And then we have this new "liberal" caveman comes along and says no. 3 eggs a month won"t work. I won't give 3 eggs. I won't give two goats. I won't give anything.
So liberal caveman finds the healer and makes him give him healing care with a club, thus? The healer decides it's not worth it to be in the healing business. I get a club and no eggs, goats, nothing.
Your ideology is the stupid caveman. Caveman don't wanna pay healer. Caveman don't wanna pay gambler a few eggs to cover costs.
So what happens? The angry mob of cavemen come make the healer heal or? The angry mob of cavemen controls the healer, and charges 4 goats and a basket of eggs, and you'll be lucky if you see the healer at all or for more than a minute.
And now, Granny sure could use the healer right about now, but healer is super busy. Healer is controlled by the mob of cavemen, and mob says granny is last priority because she's old and healer "probably can't heal what she has anyway". Granny dies never seen by healer.
When MEDICARE is gone and PRIVATE INSURANCE is eliminated how is FREE HEALTHCARE FOR ALL is provided ??????? Come on BRONT TROLL can you provide an answer ????????
I've shown the math about 20 times right here on THIS website.. Did you miss it, or should I show it again??
If you have one, present it to your tyrannical, psychopathic party that wants segregation. Perhaps you should tell the Brits too while you're at it so they'll end 2 year waiting lines and putting the elderly on secondary priority.
None of the American left's plans are plausible and are all mocked by economists and experts.
Not all socialized healthcare systems are the same.. For example, mine will treat EVERYBODY for EVERYTHING with NO waiting, and money left over to buy an aircraft carrier or two..
It's easy, really.. All we gotta do is ELIMINATE the private health insurance industry.. Do you know how many $$ zillions those health insurance executives make? Under my plan, ALL that money would go toward actual health care..
excon
ROTFFLMMFAO !!!!!!! The HEALTHCARE GENIUS has spoken and here is what the IDIOT BRONT TROLL said - Under my plan, ALL that money would go toward actual health care..
I personally am somewhat torn on this issue because I don't want people to not get treated because they have no coverage. On the other hand I pay a lot more money into the NHS than I would for private healthcare. I then receive the same service as someone who pays nothing, at a price several times greater than a service where I would be seen and treated instantly and with a higher quality of care.
Make a note to yourself. The definition of "troll" is not "correcting your factual errors".
You can calculate how much of your money is spent on the NHS with some simple math.
Now you are shifting your narrative. You said you pay money into the NHS and that is false. You pay tax, which would happen regardless of whether the NHS was there or not. The government decides how much tax money (if any) goes towards funding the NHS, and obviously they are putting too little into it, not too much, as you seem to believe.
The only reason private healthcare and insurance can be so cheap here is that the existence of the socialized NHS drives down costs. Americans pay a LOT more as their total of taxes plus private insurance, and everything medicine-related is far more expensive in the US. That's because there's nothing to drive down the cost to the consumer. In fact, the pursuit of profit continually drives the costs up.
The American government pays nearly three times per capita what the UK government pays for the socialized element of their system, while individuals still have to buy health insurance. The costs are astronomically larger than in any socialized single-payer system.
So feel free to buy your BUPA for a handy £15 a month and access your cheap private healthcare, courtesy of a monopolized NHS that refuses to pay 'Murican prices for medicines and equipment. Don't knock it: without it there to keep costs down, you'd be charged through the roof so some shareholders of some equipment and medicine manufacturers, insurance companies and private hospitals could walk away with a fat bonus at the end of the year.
The costs are astronomically larger than in any socialized single-payer system.
There is a way to address the problem of health providers having all the power in the consumer relationship without a single-payer system. Obama first tabled the suggestion of a "Public Option" before "Single-payer" and what was eventually settled for (which gave the U.S. health insurance companies more power by the way - because now legally everyone has to have coverage in the U.S.). What do you think about the idea of a "Public Option"; a government run health insurance provider with the power of collective bargaining and the ability to compete with price gouging insurance companies in order to keep their prices down.
Your madcap logic implies that as the government of the day decides how to allocate tax revenue, the taxpayer ''pays nothing''towards defense, education, infrastructure or policing.
Or, do you want us to believe that your storyline applies only to the funding of the National Health Service?
This is my body, I have the right to live. If not, at least euthanize me, so i don't have to suffer without healthcare........................................................................................................................
The cancer patient had the freedom to pay for private treatment if they wanted. The difference between your country and my country is that there is a free health service available for those who can't afford private treatment in my country, and there isn't in your country. Hence, the patient gets treated after 541 days in my country, and never in your country.
Well firstly, there is no such thing as a free health service as some have suggested.
A significant % of the taxes paid by all those in employment goes towards funding the N,H.S.
There has been a growing strain placed on this service due to mass, unregulated immigration and the array of diseases these flea ridden migrants bring with them.
In addition to this self-imposed burden, and in common with most western nations people are living longer and many of the aged require 24 hour medical attention.
The health service needs to be reformed with nominal fees being introduced for such facilities as Doctor's appointments.
The imposition of a charge would reduce the number of unnecessary appointments and contribute directly to the coffers of the N.H.S.
An increased fee for all prescriptions is another MUST as this would lower the unrestrained, and in many cases, too many cases, the gratuitous issuing of expensive drugs.
With a little streamlining the first national health service in the world could once again set the standards and become the envy of the world.
The problem is that due to the voting power of the great unwashed political parties are shit scared to meddle with what is, in its present form a dysfunctional service.
The single biggest obstacle to faster treatments is a political choice by the Conservatives to criminally underfund the service. We all know the conservatives would happily sell off the NHS if they thought they could pass it off to the electorate. IF that's not possible now, perhaps it will be in ten years when they've chosen to underfund the NHS to the point that it goes to pot.
As for your comments regarding immigrants, statistics show that immigrants bolster the NHS and are over-represented in nursing and medicine. "Health tourism" accounts for about 0.2% of NHS expenditure, and even at that, a person doesn't qualify for full NHS treatment on the same basis as UK citizens unless they are "naturally resident" in the UK. If it is an emergency and the patient is from the EU (where a person has been injured in an accident or indeed, as you've mentioned, they are in labour): then they are given treatment, but such costs in those circumstances are covered by the European Health Insurance scheme, which means that the EU country of ordinary residence, or the health insurance company to which the patient is subscribed, pick up the tab.
IF the patient comes from an area outside the European Economic Area (for example Africa), then their health insurance company are billed. If they do not have a health insurance company, the individuals are billed at 150% of the cost of their treatment, which nearly always must be paid in advance (barring emergencies), which fundamentally deters anybody from a poor country attempting to cheat the system for NHS treatment. And finally, anybody who comes to the UK from outside the EEA for a short visit ordinarily must pay a £200 surcharge along with their visa application.
But as usual, in your effort to further a fascist agenda that paints brown people and foreigners as scrounging scumbags, you fail to mention any of those facts.
The single biggest obstacle to faster treatments is a political choice by the Conservatives to criminally underfund the service.
Absolutely accurate, which makes it even more despicable that they use their own choice to underfund it as some kind of attack against socialism. Idiots.
The upshot is that due to the National Health Service being overwhelmed by the flood of ailing immigrants requiring immediate medical attention those who have made their National Insurance Contributions all their working lives are being denied the medical treatments for which they have paid.
As a result of the Politically Correct Left wingers we see doctor's waiting rooms crammed with grime faced Johnny Foreigners, most of whom can't speak the national language of the country they invaded while the ailing indigenous patients are pushed to the back of the queue.
Health Tourists visit the U.K., from backward countries to have their diseases treated free on the *National Health.
Women from many African countries travel to the U.K., to have their babies born in Britain and avail of the high standards of midwifery, again all courtesy of the hard pressed British taxpayer.
you r the types of guy who puts a bagel on his dick and fucks a barel of cream cheese then runs a triathlon around a giant bagel with bagels around your wrists and ankles and cock.