The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

A National Health Care System should not be passed through Congress.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,616 times Debate No: 11062
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




I'm sure this topic has been debated before, but I'll do my best.

A nationalized health care system is defined as a federal regulation of a country's medical centers, hospitals, hospices, etc. It makes health insurance mandatory to all citizens and decisions for these citizens will be made by the government as opposed to by themselves.

This debate will be primarily moral, close to a Lincoln/Douglas debate.

Contention 1: Forcing an individual to invest in health insurance is Unjust. Health insurance can cost $5,000 to $20,000 a year. A broken leg may cost about that much. But the chances of somebody actually breaking a bone are fairly low- I personally have never broken a bone in my life, and in a large, random crowd of people, you may only see one or two people with broken bones. But the individual will still have to pay that amount of money to a health insurance company yearly whether or not they use any of it. Far better than this, I can put that amount of money into a bank account, get interest off of it, and use the savings if I need to. If I don't, I have now made money from the bank instead of losing it forever. Compare this to a nationalistic health care. Now EVERYBODY must pay taxes to equal everyone else's health care costs. Given how inefficiently the government runs, this would be entirely disastrous. This leads me to:

Contention #2: The government does not run well enough to run health care. The post office, Amtrak, and Medicaid are only examples of this. All lose billions of dollars a year and are destined for bankruptcy. Any businessman could see this, but the federal gov. only continues to pour millions and billions into these programs. Why? Because politicians have absolutely nothing to lose to such things. This relates to individual liberty because our choice is taken from us not to follow an inefficient plan.

Contention #3: Our national debt cannot handle the strain of this plan. We are already drowning in debt and over the next couple decades, a health care system will do nothing to help. Our children and our children's children will be paying this debt, and that directly interferes with personal liberty.

And finally, Contention #4: The health care system is unconstitutional. The Constitution is the only thing protecting individual rights- like the right NOT to buy health care. In the end, it the constitution that governs us, not Congress, not the president. Thank you for reading this. I hope this will be a good round.


I would like to thank Pro for beginning this debate.

Resolved : A National Health Care System should not be passed through Congress

As Pro failed to properly state sources or define all parts of the definition, I would like to now do so, with all definitions from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

national – although this is not the only definition, or even the best available, I believe this to be the definition intended by Pro : "belonging to or maintained by the federal government."

health care- "efforts to maintain or restore health especially by trained and licensed professionals"

Therefore, may the resolution be equal to "A mass effort to maintain or restore the health of all the people in the United States, which shall be led by the federal government, ought not be implemented as law by the representatives of the citizens."

While I do not oppose Pro's definition of a nationalized health care system as "a federal regulation of a country's medical centers, hospitals, hospices, etc." I do find fault with her next statement: "decisions for these citizens will be made by the government as opposed to by themselves." The one and only decision made by the government would be that they cannot decide whether or not they will have health insurance. They will have it. Even then, Pro has failed to prove that this is a bad thing.

I will now rebut Pro's contentions.

Contention 1:
A. Pro has failed to provide a definition for unjust. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, unjust means "characterized by injustice," with injustice meaning "absence of justice: the violation of right or rights of another." In her contention, she never states why a national health care system would be unjust.
B. Pro complains of the cost of health care. If you think about it, she would not be able to complain about the cost of health care if she was DEAD because she did not have it. Health care saves lives, and I find it ridiculous to value money over other people's lives.
C. Pro would like to use the example of a large crowd of random people, and the number of whom have a broken leg. I would like to use that same exact crowd of random people. How many people have a a broken leg, or arm, or any bone, OR allergies, asthma, bronchitis, a sinus infection, a head cold, or glasses, or contacts, or have or have had braces, a retainer, a tooth pulled, a cavity, a crown, strep throat, the flu, a virus, an infection, inflammation, diarrhea, constipation, nausea, congestion, a runny nose, OR something more serious like cancer, a heart problem, cirrhosis, an STD, HIV, AIDS, are an amputee, are blind or deaf, have joint problems, back problems, arthritis, osteoporosis, or anything else? And all of them, I assure you, were born, which requires surgery.
D. Pro points out the various other things that the money could be used for. However, even if a person does not use the money themselves, the money will still be used for other individuals. Wanting the money sitting in a bank account instead of saving someone else's life is appalling and selfish.

Contention 2:
This contention discusses the opinion that our government does not run as it should. However, these things are not true for all government operations. The examples given do not suggest that the government itself is inefficient, only that the few people in charge of said operations are not thrifty. I fail to see the connection.

Contention 3:
Pro complains of the costly of the program for the government. However, she previously complained about the cost to the people. If the people are paying for this, why would there be worry over the government spending? I have already given attacks for the costs to the people.

Contention 4:
Pro states that a national health care system would be unconstitutional. Pro also mentions "individual rights." Pro does not state what part of the Constitution is being referenced.

Throughout the case, individual rights are mentioned. Pro states that "the plan" would violate them. Pro never specified what "the plan" would entail. Because of this, she cannot prove that "the plan" impairs individual rights.

I will now provide my own case.

The Social Contract: "Voluntary agreement in which individuals relinquish some of their individual liberties in return for governmental protection of their natural rights to maintain law and order. This assumes that by being born into a country and remaining in it, that people accept its precepts. Some philosophers say that where there is not law, there can be no freedom." – Nolan's Lincoln-Douglas Debate Resource Guide

Nationalized health care protects individual rights. When small liberties are given to the government so that it may govern better, the entire community, in this case, the entire nation, benefits. Because the government further secures the lives of its citizens, those citizens are provided the vast amounts of individual rights enjoyed by other citizens. The small liberties given up do not equal the amount of liberties, rights, and freedoms enjoyed by those who without nationalized health care would not be alive.

Because Pro failed to do so, I will now provide not one, but TWO plans for a national health care system.

Sytem 1: A model of the French health care system. The government supplies basic health care to all its citizens. Private insurance companies are still available for the citizens who wish for more coverage. The companies are not government operations and ensure that the citizens retain individual rights.

Sytem 2: The United States government requires all citizens to have insurance. Because of the government involvement in the health care system by requiring insurance, this meets the definition of "national." However, the government itself does not own or operate any part of the health care system in a way that it does not now. Also, the option as to what type of insurance is not decided by the government. A person with glasses may get eye insurance while a person with braces invests in dental insurance.

I urge voters to negate this resolution.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for his well thought out arguments and for providing the definitions, which I will accept. I would also like to tell my opponent I am male- obviously there was a little confusion. (Don't worry, I'm not offended.) I'm also sorry for taking so long to reply.

I will first defend my own contentions.

A)"In her contention, she never states why a national health care system would be unjust." In my contention, I said that the forcing of an individual to buy health care was unjust. This is unjust because although statistics show that 41 million Americans do not have health care, there is no evidence to show that they actually want it. People can get along without it, as I have shown, with a savings account or other emergency planning with no loss to themselves. There may be no reason to need health care, and forcing it upon someone who doesn't need it is unjust.

B) The Con said that I "complained of the cost of health care" and how it would "save people's lives." However, as I have pointed out, this is a cost to the individual, and unnecessarily giving to an insurance company or a government program won't save my life- a savings account easily could. Given how insurance companies can be inefficient on occasion, saving money would be a far easier way to do things.

C) Yes, many Americans suffer from many deadly illnesses. But, forcing somebody to pay who doesn't happen to have any of these conditions is unjust.

D) You say that "Wanting the money sitting in a bank account instead of saving someone else's life is appalling and selfish." Is it not appalling and selfish to, in the name of taxes, take that money that I worked for and give it to somebody who didn't? If i think that the money could be better used, I could give to one of many charities- I happen to belong to a church that donates very, very heavily. But for the government to mandate my charity is wrong and once again, prevents some individual rights.

#2 Besides the military, I cannot think of a Government program that operates at 100% efficiency. Why would we want the government in our health care system? My opponent failed to mention one. Estimates give Medicaid another year before it goes bankrupt, and this is with the Feds pumping billions of dollars into it. But we're not getting rid of it, we're now trying to pass health care legislation that will pump it with steroids, only causing more government waste.

#3 Con says that costs to the people and government do not relate, and that (if I understand correctly) if it costs the people so much, it shouldn't cost the government anything. However, this is a double edged sword. The more people are taxed, the more our economy flounders and the more it costs everybody. As I've said about how inefficient the government runs, the more we tax people, the lower the economy is, and the more debt individually and federally we grow. Remember the housing market? When the government decided to force all banks to supply loans for everybody, they couldn't handle the strain and the banks fell. So the government decides to dump billions of dollars into them and we end up more in federal debt. The same thing will happen with health insurance. Individual debt and federal debt is very much linked.

I will now rebut my opponents argument, which seems to be Social Contract. From what I gather, con says that we should give up some rights for the safety of others. I have several problems with this:
A: "Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin. I whole heartedly agree with him. Given how many died in wars for the cause of liberty, liberty can be called a higher value in the lives of many. I am not demeaning human life, but as Patrick Henry said, "Give me Liberty or Give me death."
B: Con assumes that the overall health insurance will save lives. But let's look to countries that have nationalized health care, like Canada, Britain, or France. All of them have tanking economies, falling populations, and no military to speak of, in comparison to our own. In many countries that have nationalized health care, the care is rationed and it takes at least a year on a waiting list to get a surgery that would be done in days in the United States. Currently, the United States has the best health care in the world. Leaders of other countries fly into America for our doctors and profesionals. Why should we decide to change this and put ourselves in a worse position than before by trying to become like other countries?
C: It seems like the Con is implying that most would be willing to sacrifice their liberties to save lives. However, as of January 21st, 67% of Americans are opposed to the health care plan put up by Congress. So it is not the people giving up rights to help other people. It is the government taking our rights whether we want them to or not and deciding who to help. As our President has said many times, he will be passing it whether the American populace wants it or not. How is this justice? And what does this say about our Liberties?


readynow2012 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I will leave my opponent to counter my arguments if she chooses to so later. There's still more rounds- the debate can go on! Vote pro.


readynow2012 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


It was probably just my sheer intimidating masculine figure that scared her off.
(If you knew me, you'd know I was kidding.)
Vote Pro since Con dropped everything.


readynow2012 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
It started out as a good debate, but Con's forfeits lost conduct and left Pro's arguments unanswered. Clear win for Pro.
Posted by Ore_Ele 8 years ago
I'll be looking forward to this, but I don't like the way PRO is defining NHC to take all choice away from people. Since there are NHC methods that don't do that.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40