CreateDebate


Debate Info

66
72
individual healthcare universal
Debate Score:138
Arguments:52
Total Votes:179
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 individual healthcare (23)
 
 universal (29)

Debate Creator

richie(5) pic



healthcare

individual healthcare

Side Score: 66
VS.

universal

Side Score: 72
4 points

Capitalism at its best.

Side: individual healthcare
2 points

You'll quickly change your mind when you need to get a procedure done to save your life; which in turn and painfully ironic produces a stress induced aneurysm (the bad kind in which you die) due to being indebted for life.

Side: universal
JakeJ(3255) Disputed
5 points

"due to being indebted for life."

What do you mean?

Side: individual healthcare
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

Universal health care doesn't have to mean giving up the benefits of capitalism. We can have both public and private health care operating at the same time.

Side: universal
AngelOfDeath(14) Disputed
2 points

No we can't have public and private at the same time. Here is why. Alright, the government passes a healthcare bill. Now, this is going to cost a LOT of money. We're talking well over a trillion dollars. I know the government says it will be around 900 billion or whatever the current estimate is, but anytime a government program is passed it always end up being more. now, lets says it costs 1.2 trillion dollars, which is a reasonable estimate. The government will need extra money to pay for this program. Now, where will the government get that money from? There isn't enough money in the upper class, the middle class is where the real money is at. That means that the government will have to raise taxes on the middle class, and small businesses which are almost exclusively owned by middle class people. The government will increase taxes on the wealthy, who own the remaining small businesses. Now, small businesses employ 70% of our jobs in this country, that is a well known fact. Small businesses are already struggling today, that is another well known fact. If the government is going to increase taxes on small businesses, they will have less money to pay for healthcare plans for their employees. The government plan will be infinitesimal in price compared to the private healthcare plans. This means that small businesses will be forced to have public plans to cover their employees, which by the way, will be horrible compared to the private plans. Actually, the same process will happen to large businesses too, because they will be taxed a great deal. This will destroy private insurance, because there will be such a minute percentage of the population buying their insurance. Even if private insurance does survive, it will be greatly marginalized and very, very few will be able to get these plans because they will be so expensive.

Side: individual healthcare
4 points

The thing about universal health care, is that it's definitely not free. The money for it has to come from somewhere, and that of course is from taxes... and as Government involvement in the health care industry has only made things worse overall and not better, I don't see how it's possible that 1) giving them even more power will make anything better, and 2) that it's justified to implement this policy at the expense of both the sick and the healthy. If someone chooses to eat sugar-frosted sugar lumps for breakfast and drink bladder-busting bottles of cola, every day until they get severe diabetes, why should everyone else have to pay for their treatment? Takes away an incentive to choose a healthy lifestyle.

The system as it stands now is no good at all, largely because of Government involvement. It seems to me that the Insurance/Pharmaceutical industries have penetrated Congress with their lobbyists to such an extent as to get regulatory laws passed that stifle fair competition, giving them the advantage of a cartel. They don't need to lower prices like they would in a true free market, thanks to Uncle Sam's help... that's the system we should be fighting against, not trusting those who caused the problem to have universal control over 'fixing' it.

Side: individual healthcare
4 points

Universal health care has a lot of issues. I live in Canada and I know these issues. Pill pushing doctors that don't work hard, a lot of administrative work that push up costs on governments, long lines and extremely long wait times for surgeries and specialty medical attention. I read the first post, that people should be equally entitled for good affordable health care. The fact is that a free market, capitalist, profit driven health care system ends up costing less per person and offers a higher quality of service.

Canada pays $5000 a person per year for health care with an estimate that it will cost $7000 in 20 years. There are 30 million people in Canada and this is the reason why Canada is not as prosperous as other capitalist countries. High taxes create less jobs and innovations. In Canada we pay more taxes than California but we have the same GDP/GSP and same population. Canada actually pays 40% more taxes.

Side: individual healthcare
3 points

Individual health care is better for all involved:

First why individual is better:

--Free market system allows for innovation on the part of the healthcare industries, creating new and better, and more than likely cheaper, medicines and procedures. A socialized system will put a cease to competition, and will thus end almost all source of motivation for innovation.

--Allows for more areas of the economy for the government to have tax income from.

Now, why socialized is worse:

--Very high tax hikes, the government needs to pay for the health care of an entire nation, which will inevitably come from tax payers pockets. Now, we have to assume that people, on average, will use more health care services when its all free, than when the price has to come from their own pockets. Since all of this will be paid for in taxes, which will be spread out evenly throughout the social classes, thus each person will, on average, be paying just as much, if not more, for health care. Since everyone will be using different amounts of this health care, some people will be paying for more than they are using, and others using more than what they are paying for. This goes against every tenet of a free market system.

--Will inevitably reduce the quality of the doctors, procedures, and medicines. Since all governments want to have the lowest budget possible. Any government will look to the cheapest options, which will most likely be the lowest in quality.

--Further more, the amount of bureaucracy necessary to regulate and record these new industries will be incredible, adding to the tax increase, but also creating a waiting period for people who need all sorts of medicines and procedures.

As you can see a free market, individual, health care is the better system for all involved.

Side: individual healthcare
3 points

lets look at countries who have universal care like Canada: Scenario: lets say you have a certain cancer like colon cancer in stage Iv and your doctor recommended erbitux if Erbitux offered hope, your insurance didn’t: you received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting your claim for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companies—in the United States. you live in Ontario, Canada. When you appealed to an official ombudsman, the Ontario government claimed that your treatment was unproven and that you had gone to an unaccredited clinic. But the FDA in the U.S. had approved Erbitux, and your clinic was a cancer center affiliated with a prominent Catholic hospital in Buffalo. This January, the ombudsman ruled in your favor, awarding you the cost of treatment. you represents a dramatic new trend in Canadian health-care advocacy: finding the treatment you need in another country, and then fighting Canadian bureaucrats (and often suing) to get them to pick up the tab.

But if Canadians are looking to the United States for the care they need, Americans, ironically, are increasingly looking north for a viable health-care model. is there anything wrong with this if we are looking for canada and if canada is looking to us is the choice obvious. it is not single payer and most definitely not universal care

Side: individual healthcare
-1 points

Look at us.

Look at Russia.

Peace out.

Side: individual healthcare
HGrey87(750) Disputed
5 points

Look at Germany.

Look at France.

Fail to understand completely.

Side: universal
AngelOfDeath(14) Disputed
1 point

Look at France.

Look at Canada.

Look at Germany.

You have to wait weeks in these countries to get a basic procedure done. I've heard from many people who moved to the United States that a major reason they came over here was simply for the healthcare system.

Side: individual healthcare
3 points

Look at us.

"The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system." ( Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations, Institute of Medicine at the National Academies of Science, 2004-01-14 ; The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States )

"Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 15% of GDP, the highest in the world. A study of international health care spending levels in the year 2000, published in the health policy journal Health Affairs, found that while the U.S. spends more on health care than other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median by most measures. The authors of the study concluded that the prices paid for health care services are much higher in the U.S. An estimated 84.7% of citizens have some form of health insurance coverage, either through their employer, purchased individually, or through government sources. The number of uninsured, at 45.7 million in 2007, decreased slightly from 2006, because government programs covered nearly 3 million more people."

Supporting Evidence: Uh Uh Uh, you have to say the magic word (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: universal
2 points

It's more profitable to treat and re-treat symptoms, rather than addressing the causes. Yay for King Capitalism :(

Side: universal
4 points

I think that the government should offer Universal health care because there is already over 40 million uninsured Americans living in the U.S. We do live in the 21st century and we have just about everything imaginable, except Universal health care.

Side: universal
3 points

Universal healthcare makes business sense.

1) Ensuring the health of all citizens benefits a nation economically. Sick and injured people are less productive.

2) When you have multiple competing insurance companies, each company has to repeat the same work. Each company needs it's own secretaries, computer people, lawyers, etc. These duplicated costs can be eliminated with a single payer system.

3) In countries with universal health care, the government spends less tax money per person on health care than the U.S. For example, in France, the government spends $569 less per person on health care than in the United States. Thus universal health care would actually mean less government spending and lower taxes. (source)

Side: universal
3 points

#2: "Single Payer" does not refer to the consolidation of the companies, and as such is not completely socialized; they still exist independently in a Capitalist sense, but private or public are paid by a single social fund.

As for #3, holy crap.

Side: universal
1 point

Haha, looking back on this debate, I realize I didn't really understand the difference between "public option", "single payer", and socialized healthcare. And I consider myself a reasonably knowledgeable person.

It's no wonder it's so hard to move forward with stuff like this. It's confusing as hell. The complexity makes people hungry for simple answers like "government takeover".

Side: universal
AngelOfDeath(14) Disputed
3 points

1) This is why we shouldn't destroy the system, and rather should institute common sense healthcare reforms such as allowing people to buy healthcare outside of their state, cutting down on malpractice insurance, and increasing benefits for health savings accounts

2) This is true, however, things always cost more when the government is running it. This is because private businesses must be most efficient with their funds to survive, otherwise they will be overtaken by other businesses who are more efficient with their funds. The government has no competition, and therefore doesn't have to be as efficient with their funds.

3) Yes, but what you don't metion is how unhealthy our lifestyles are compared to europeans on average. All the great healthcare in the world can't make up for that.

Side: individual healthcare
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

You make some good points. I don't think you really prove that for-profit health insurance is better, you just show that there's no clear answer.

One thing I strongly disagree with is the notion of "buying across state lines". That's a bad idea because it would lead to a race to the bottom. It would be like it is with credit card companies -- all the health insurance companies would set up shop in whatever state would allow them to gouge their customers most effectively. Every state would want those companies doing business within their borders so they would be incented to pass laws favoring insurance companies over their consumers. We would end up in a situation where customers get completely screwed over.

The important thing to realize is that we can have universal coverage without socialized care. The best way to get their is probably to give subsidies to those who can't afford care and let them select a provider for themselves. And have some kind of regulatory mechanism to ensure fair behavior from insurance companies. Which is what ultimately got passed.

Side: universal
headphoneguy(3) Disputed
2 points

1) ensures that all 2nd class citizens are in more debt because of higher taxes

2.) exactly except that in the spirit of equality every ones health plan will be the same since it is set by the the government so no need for those things called insurance companies

3.) what you don't mention is how much the people pay taxes and how many doctors there are

Side: individual healthcare
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

1) What? What do you mean by "2nd class citizen"? And haven't you ever heard of progressive taxation? The richest would be paying most of the bill here.

2) You're exaggerating hugely. We can have minimal coverage for everyone while allowing more expensive plans if people are willing to pay.

3) Yes people would pay for healthcare in part through taxes. It's worth it to keep people from dying. The doctor shortage is a separate issue. In for-profit medicine you still have rationing, it's just that the rationing is massively skewed toward those with money. Universal healthcare is more just and fair and reasonable.

Side: universal

Because everyone deserves the right to receive good medical attention without having to be in debt for life.

Side: universal
LeonKrahe(20) Disputed
5 points

I ask, where does this "right" derive from? If health care is a right, why not food, or housing too? I mean, if a right is something that the Government grants us, then what stops them from revoking that right when they don't feel like granting it any longer?

For example, even the Soviet Union had a Constitution, wherein the Government granted its citizens, for the betterment of the Socialist state, the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and protest. However if their Government felt your speech, etc. wasn't "for the betterment of the Socialist state", then those rights didn't apply to you. The United States Constitution credits rights as being "endowed by our Creator", such that no argument can be openly made that the Government can revoke them.

To re-define the meaning of what a right is, just because we think it'll help give us something that we want, puts us in a dangerous position where we'll be at the Government's mercy to grant those rights.

The Government doesn't own us, so therefore it shouldn't have to take care of us like our mother did.

Side: individual healthcare

I think you might not know enough about how universal health plans work. Using the soviet union isn't the best example, especially when you didn't even note anything on health care policy. What about all the countries that have universal health care now? (more than half of the world!) Please refer to this as a list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

Here is an interesting argument:

"About 60% of the U.S. health care system is already publicly financed with federal and state taxes, property taxes, and tax subsidies - a universal health care system would merely replace private/employer spending with taxes. Total spending would go down for individuals and employers"

This is a type of universal plan called single payer plan.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php

The link is from Physicians for a National Health Plan organization.

Side: universal
2 points

Oh yeah, one more point. You fail to forget the government systems in place currently that assist with food, housing, and health care. I would suggest you do some further digging Leon.

Side: universal
headphoneguy(3) Disputed
3 points

what are you a dolt universal means higher taxes which means everyone pays for it and even so it isn't enough and where will you get the doctors for universal healthcare and furthermore the taxes that you pay for this so called healthcare isn't even enough

Side: individual healthcare
2 points

it definitely is a right, but hasn't been in this country as of yet unfortunately. i know certain other countries feel we have a pretty evil way of dealing with health care here, with the whole "privilege" way of thinking.

Side: universal
1 point

I don't think health care is a basic human right, but I do think it is the right thing to do, morally speaking.

Side: universal
AngelOfDeath(14) Disputed
1 point

That's why we don't want a government-run system, because you won't be able to recieve good medical attention.

Side: individual healthcare
2 points

A nation is only as good as its worst-off citizens. We all have the right to health. A government that refuses to provide any assistance to it is an aberration.

Know the best health system in the US? Highest rated, best treatment, lowest retention, etc? The Veteran's Health Administration. The only completely socialized health system in the country.

The problems with HMO's and private health care are too numerous to list. Coverage is a gamble against your own health. Private health treats symptoms rather than causes, because it's profitable. Doctors push pills when treatment would do, because pharmaceutical companies have incredible sway.

Side: universal
2 points

Universal without a doubt in my mind. more than 40 million Americans go in fear of getting hurt or becoming sick due to not being able to afford to. If you lose a finger and want that finger put back on its more than 50 thousand dollars to replace it, that is ridiculous when surgery is free in England. 50 Gs is enough to put middle or lower class person into debt with ease. The question becomes " should I just lose my finger or should I file for bankruptcy "

Side: universal
2 points

Universal healthcare isn't perfect nor is individual healthcare. I support universal healthcare because I believe that if we can develop a system in America that will grant all citizens the medical care they need we can make it better than our current system. And if we face the issues of waiting-lists for surgery we must find a way to make sure that all of our citizens receive quality round the clock healthcare.

Side: universal
2 points

It is logical to distribute the cost of the burden of health care to the body public.

There are a million ways to justify it, but here are some simple ones:

1) By the same rationale that you do not know when you are going to be robbed and murdered...

and by which you distribute the cost of maintaining a police force:

Therefore, you do not know when you are going to become sick, ill, or be injured...

and by such you ought distribute the cost of maintaining health.

2) What does having monetary wealth have to do with deserving life and health?

Example proper: Does an unhealthy newborn baby that has no wealth in his family deserve life?

Why, I think he does, but, what if his lungs are not working so well? Should we deny him access to our machines that he may live? No. Then what, I repeat, is the sense in requiring wealth of his parents for his life to begin? There is none, and I gladly chip in my tax dollar on his behalf...

There is no real difference from the newborn to the adult...

3) Is it ethical to charge large sums of money for a solution to a life threatening disease that you have a patent for a fix to? What if when charging that amount of money, you cause people who cannot afford it to ail and die? Is your wealth and the cost of your research worth human life?

I think not.

4) Why does it matter from where a doctor receives his money? Should not the government pay him, when it is the government's taxpayers and other assets that he is keeping in good order?

5) Why should a profit margin be made available for the management of people's insurance money? Doesn't this provide a terrible position from which to take advantage of people's sickness?

6) Why should a person who is interested in his bank account be allowed to decide if my payments for 10 years should cover my sickness? Shouldn't that decision be made by someone more impartial?

How many do you need? The world has spoken, and though your greed and hatred of the poor may drive you to quickly make the wrong decision, remember that your decision on this matter does have the weight of life and death upon it, even if you don't see the old woman choke to death on her own lungs who could have lived 10 more years and imparted wisdom upon her grandchildren, she still died, partially, as a result of your participation in what you thought was a silly little argument with the liberals. Don't forget the power of your own tongue (or fingers).

Side: universal