The Instigator
wjmelements
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Derek.Gunn
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

A government-run healthcare program would stimulate the advancement in medical technology.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Derek.Gunn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,259 times Debate No: 5321
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (14)
Votes (5)

 

wjmelements

Con

One of the few times in the history of the United States where the government ever caused innovation was in the Cold War, when nuclear innovation was booming. The atomic bomb was develped by the government, and the Hydrogen bomb came afterwards.

Innovation comes much quicker when there is competition. Breakthroughs in medicine and technology require much money and much research. In an effort ot compete with Miocrosoft, Apple released iPods and The Mac. These were new advancements in entertainment that increased the quality of life. To compete with other car companies when gas prices began to soar, fuel economy was almost doubled through competition in eight years. The hybrids and many other ideas including ethanol-powered, solar-powered, and hydrogen-powered cars were brought to the table and made practical.

So it is competition that creates innovation.

However, a government-run bureaucracy would not have innovation. Nationalizing the healthcare industry would not only kill millions of jobs, but also many people. The cure to cancer would not be developed in the United States. The cure to diabetes would never emerge. AIDS will never have a vaccine. The future will be no different than it is now.

On the contrary, competition, inspired by the human need for money in order to survive and prosper, will create these cures and vaccines. Corporate greed will be used to save lives. The company that produces these cures will make a fortune and drive out other companies and so make even more money. They know this, and they are working and investing they're profits to accomplish this.

So, even though national healthcare seems like a good idea, and people have to pay through the wazoo, the government monopoly is not the answer. The alternative is to have a healthcare savings in a bank or to have quality health insurence. The more people taht seek this quality insurence, the more insurence companies will try to have a higher quality of insurence.
Derek.Gunn

Pro

Some corrections:
1) The atomic bomb was invented during WWII - Hot war, not Cold (via government funding by the way).
2) Apple did not release iPods to compete with Microsoft (who had no such thing at the time).
3) Many things have been invented without the pressure of competition (see below).

You need to show that:
"A government-run healthcare program would NOT stimulate the advancement in medical technology."
Absolutely no advancements.

And yet I can provide examples of government-based medical advancements.
For example:
The huge discoveries of Louis Pasteur - immunology, vaccinations and Pasteurisation while at �cole Normale Sup�rieure in Paris. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Penicillin, perhaps the greatest medical advance of the 20th century was first isolated by Alexander Fleming while working as Professor of Bacteriology for St Marys Hospital (a teaching hospital in London) http://en.wikipedia.org...

There are hundreds of government-funded universities and research institutes around the world.
Do you honestly believe that they produce nothing???

Certainly, money is an incentive, but it's not the only incentive.
Otherwise Medecins Sans Frontieres and the Red Cross would not exist.
When Willem Johan Kolff invented the World's first artificial kidney during WWII, he did it to save patients, not to make money.

You now have to prove that the above examples did not occur.
Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
wjmelements

Con

I did not misspeak on the cold war. The major advances in nuclear technology occurred during the cold war. Fusion came from the cold war after the atomic fission technology was leaked to the public.
http://www.globalsecurity.org...

You are correct that people do have the inner incentive to save lives. Let's not get this mistaken.
Pasteur did not work for the government. He was working as for the University, which allowed him to research and was not controlled in a national healthcare industry. His discoveries were not spawned from companies or any government bureaucracy's encouragement. The other cases are similar.

"There are hundreds of government-funded universities and research institutes around the world.
Do you honestly believe that they produce nothing???"

Government-funded education facilities are not government-run health facilities. Government-funded research facilities are not usually created by the government. I'm sure my opponent will give examples after hours of digging on the internet, but there are more research facilities that are ran from the pharmaceutical companies than the government.

At the executive level, rather than the research level, more money is invested in research when there is competition than when there is no cororate need for innovation. This is similar for what would be agovernment-ran health company, however, there would be no competition. There'd be no need for innovation in the executive bureaucrat's mind, when the bureaucrat has to meet a budget. Funding would be minimal, and future Pasteurs would be out of a job. Unable to come up with the money themselves, there would be no research.

The power of choice is what allows competition to produce much investment form the most points of view, producing medical advancement faster than goverment.

In order for you to win the debate, you must show that "a government-run healthcare program WOULD stimulate the advancement in medical technology".
Derek.Gunn

Pro

Certainly, competition and private research facilities also produce advances in medical technology.
However, because they are driven by the profit motive, you have to wonder - would they ever release a discovery which was essentially free?
Suppose they discovered that boiling instruments killed all germs AND that sterilising them with an expensive antiseptic did they same thing?
Which do you think the public would get told about? Just the one that makes them the most MONEY.

Pasteur of course, told all surgeons to boil their instruments and wash their hands between patients.

Pasteur was funded by the French government.
Fleming was funded by the British government.
Their unparalleled, world-changing discoveries in healthcare were the result of government money.
These are examples of government run healthcare in which medical technology advanced.

One last example...
Just recently my older brother, Professor of Pediatric Research at Auckland Medical School (part of our national health care system) invented the "cooling cap", a device which dramatically reduces/prevents brain damage in children suffering oxygen deprivation in difficult births. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...

Cheers,

Derek
Debate Round No. 2
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Everything in the fridge died.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
You almost sound disappointed you didn't get the same action your neighbours did!
What did you do without power? Ate everything in the fridge I guess. Early to bed?
When does the hurricane season end?
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
It rained a lot and we got 60 mph winds where I live. Trees fell on our neighbors houses, but not ours. We lost power for a week. That's about it.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Ohh the hurricane.
What was it like? How much rain? Much damage about?
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
I did okay in Ike and I have my power back.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Could anyone who has voted against me, care to say why?
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
unless everytime was us.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
I know.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Okey doke.
Funny that it's been viewed over 60 times and we've only had one vote :-(
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
This is actually going to be a hot debate, but some people, like the only voeter, seem to not read the debate and just vote based on original opinion.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by DisneyFTW 8 years ago
DisneyFTW
wjmelementsDerek.GunnTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
wjmelementsDerek.GunnTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
wjmelementsDerek.GunnTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
wjmelementsDerek.GunnTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Stereoprism 8 years ago
Stereoprism
wjmelementsDerek.GunnTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70