The Instigator
clockworkmechanicalman
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
donald.keller
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

America Should have Single Payer Healthcare

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,641 times Debate No: 37522
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

clockworkmechanicalman

Pro

I'd be a Libertarian if they believed in government grants for college, increasing the minimum wage, labor unions, and Universal Healthcare, or Single Payer Healthcare (Socialized Medicine if you want to you scary buzz words). For the sake of debate I'll only focus on healthcare.

They claim they only believe in the Bills of Rights and the Constitution, so let me recite part of the Preamble to the Constitution; "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Furthermore in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the "general welfare" thus: "The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . ."

So we have taxes for our Military Defenses, but what about our Modern Day health concerns? What about those defenses? It seems to me that the easiest way to insure Tranquility and to form a more perfect Union, would be to make a healthier Union.

Listen, no matter how Conservative one is one would argue through and through, until they're blue in the face if America deregulated our Fire Fighters, Police, Libraries, Post Offices, and Public Schools. All of which was not listed in the Bill of Rights, but all of which is federally funded and helps to make a more perfect Union. So why not Healthcare?

Private Healthcare is a ponzi scheme, were only the healthy and wealthy can afford to be seen by a Doctor, (at least one that will give you the healthcare you rightfully deserve), but instead our healthcare system is based on money. Money that Doctors can get from you or your insurance, and giving you only what is provided by your private Insurance, not necessarily what you need to survive.

As we approach financial cliff after financial cliff, and so on, I am reminded that health care, and the term "pre-existing condition" were a large chunk of my own financial woes.

My wife has a terminal illness and we've sold her family house for pennies on the dollar due to the debt that her ailments generate. Nowadays she's too disillusioned to see the doctors, and frankly I don't blame her.

Conservatives will say survival of the fittest. Which is a bastardization of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. According to Darwin survival doesn't go to the fittest, but to the species that's willing to adapt to change. In this sense of the word conservatives are a doomed species. Doomed by their ostrich in the sand thinking. By burying their heads in the sand and hoping for the best they accomplish nothing. Which is what they want to do to healthcare. Nothing. No regulations which would only led to Doctors, the healthcare industry, and the pharmaceutical industry charge what ever they want for the cost of their services.

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 was signed into law by President George W. Bush has highlighted what's wrong with the conservative and Republican thinking, when it comes to healthcare. It restricted folks on prescription plans to just a networks of providers, thus severely limiting their medical options. It restricted prescription drug choices, by allowing HMO's to create more formulary plans, and care other than emergency care was restricted to a particular region.

Lately, the Republicans in Congress are trying to repeal Obamacare for the 40th time. While Obamacare isn't the Universal Healthcare I dream of one cannot convince the conservatives of this. Their panic reminds me of Chicken Little warning everyone on the farm that 'the sky is falling', which it's not. The sky is very much there, and is still made up of the private healthcare providers that make us all put a price tag on our bodies.

President Obama's greatest problem with healthcare is that he showed up to this game of strip poker half naked. The public option being the clothes that he left behind. As Bill Cosby said, "I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." That's what President Obama did with his healthcare plan. Now, it will be treated like automotive insurance, as you'll receive a fine for not having it. Democrats claim that costs will be made lower, but I'll believe it when I see it.

We're the only western nation with no form of free healthcare. On average the poorest Canadian lives 3 years longer then the richest American. In the United Kingdom that number grows to about 5-7 years longer. In both nations even the conservatives wouldn't take their national health systems off the table, as healthcare (like police, firefighters, schools, libraries, and the post office) are viewed as basic human rights, and as well they should be.

Conservatives claim that it would be a waste of spending to provide healthcare to everyone, (both rich and poor). However, I feel that the trillions wasted in failed wars, (including the failed drug war) are the wasteful spending, along with the alphabet soup of federal police agencies that plague our civil liberties. Admitted we need federal police agencies, but why do we need more than a dozen, when other western nations need at most two? I guess the answer would be checks and balances, but if that's the case why do we need more than three?

In closing we need healthcare for all, and there are numerous ways to make it as to not raise taxes to the general public. One would be legalization and taxation of marijuana. This would not raise conservatives taxes at all... that is permitted he or she isn't going to be purchasing any cannabis. In addition to this shutting down a hand full of overseas military bases, and dismantling the ATF and DEA couldn't hurt either.
donald.keller

Con

Rebuttal I: They claim they only believe in the Bills of Rights and the Constitution, so let me recite part of the Preamble to the Constitution; "WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...

Pro has misunderstood the Preamble. We the People does not mean the Government, it means the citizens... That's basically we the people giving Government the right to exist.

And what the Government is to do isn't black and white. I'll explain that later. It says the Government must provide all these things, but then says the Government must PROMOTE General Welfare. This implies the Government must promote, but not necessarily provide, general welfare.

An issue with using Article 1 Section 8 is that it gives the Government the power to [insert here]. There is a difference between Can and Should. Sometimes providing for the General Welfare is best done by not doing something. This is what I meant be not being Black and White. Somethings, like Healthcare, seem like they would be for the General Welfare of the nation, but in fact hurts the nation.

This is the same with Pro's 4th paragraph. A perfect union can not always be made by having the Government do things. I will list examples of this in Argument II.

Rebuttal II: Private Healthcare is a ponzi scheme, were only the healthy and wealthy can afford to be seen by a Doctor...

By law, no one may be refused Medical Attention for any reason besides ensuring more serious patients (as in more serious injuries, not wealthier people) get in first.

As for Private Healthcare being a ponzi scheme, you should have filled your BOP for this accusation. Your whole argument is crap. Nothing supports your accusation accept for the fallacy you used to defend it... Appeal to Wealth.

Besides, government-ran programs often find the most monetary corruption, as Japan and Canada shows.(1,2)

1) http://tinyurl.com...
2) http://tinyurl.com...

Rebuttal III: As we approach financial cliff after financial cliff, and so on...

Seeing as Government Healthcare is bankrupting the UK, and would add a huge cost onto the US budget, a cost that keeps increasing as the CBO keeps reassessing it, this claim is slightly misinformed.

You seem to want to make that debt everyone else's problem. As wrong as me saying that may sound, life is harsh and the many shouldn't suffer so you don't have to. The government can not nanny everyone out of a problem. Government Healthcare would cost everyone $1215 a year ($176 billion a year.)

Rebuttal IV: Conservatives will say survival of the fittest.

The idea of Independence must be upheld. Independence comes with major responsibilities you may not want, but you can not cherry-pick which parts of Independence you want, or you (like the Brits, as I'll later explain) will lose it.

Argument I: Bodily Autonomy

Bodily Autonomy, often called Bodily Integrity, is a Supreme Court supported freedom, and is granted by the UN. What it means is that only you may govern your body. This is why a doctor can't perform a life saving surgery if you say no.

"Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. It considers the violation of bodily integrity as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal." -WIkipedia.

Why is this so important? Look at the definition. It's basically about Personal Autonomy and Self-Determination over our bodies. As we know, freedom doesn't stop when our convenience stops.

Autonomy
1: the quality or state of being self-governing; especially : the right of self-government
2: self-directing freedom and especially moral independence
3: a self-governing state(3)

So to break it apart, Bodily Integrity is the idea of having Governance over our body. Governance over your body comes with being responsible for your body. You govern your body, therefore it must be your responsibility and not mine. Unless we BOTH consent to me being responsible.

Universal Healthcare goes against the premise of Self-Governing because you take away everyone's Bodily Autonomy. Health Insurance is personal to everyone, they maintain autonomy, but Government Healthcare literally makes your body a public matter.

3) http://tinyurl.com...

Argument II: Well-being of the Nation

The Government must ensure everyone's well-being. Government Healthcare seems like it'd care for everyone's well being, but does it?

In the UK, patients are often rejected because their issues aren't serious enough. Many people aren't getting put into a hospital until it's too late, or near to too late(4) and yet despite the UK's best efforts, the NHS is still financially collapsing. This is serious since the nation has a tiny military budget, even relative to size. With a little Military Budget, the NHS budget shouldn't be failing.

People can't enter a hospital until they have Government Approval, even if they are willing to pay the bill. Government controls when they may enter.

While the UK is European, they aren't that different from the US, but even than, a better example might be needed. Canada.

Canada, despite being more like the US than most any other nation, is also facing issues. How bad is Canada's system? 900,000 on a waiting list at a time. This, matched with Hospital Waiting Time. In the US, it's 45 minutes, but it's 4 hours there.

The only notable Healthcare System that isn't financially failing is Sweden's, but that might be because they own 75% of the economy, and has 55% taxes.

Healthcare examples around the world show mass inefficiency in some of the best nations. It'd be in the best interests of the people's well being that Healthcare remain privatized.

4) http://rt.com...

CONCLUSION: It is in the interests of Independence and the General Well-being of the people that Healthcare stay Privatized.
Debate Round No. 1
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by evangambit 3 years ago
evangambit
"So to break it apart, Bodily Integrity is the idea of having Governance over our body. Governance over your body comes with being responsible for your body. You govern your body, therefore it must be your responsibility and not mine. Unless we BOTH consent to me being responsible."

Is not the idea of health insurance in general -- whether or not it is funded/provided/etc. by the government -- to divide up risk/cost/"responsibility" for the insured entity in question? But certainly having house insurance doesn't make one's house any less theirs! Similarly, having PRIVATE health insurance doesn't steal someone's governance over their body (or are we not in agreement on this?). If you agree that privately purchased and run health insurance doesn't detract from my governance of my body, why does the legal context matter?
Posted by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
Below are my notes, taken as I evaluated this debate. They are rough, and are only intended to show my observations in real-time.

It is obvious that I removed large sections from them. I felt that this verbiage was not useful to the debate, and would detract from the overall argument.
Posted by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
"Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution requires Congress to support the "general welfare"
"Healthcare is as important as emergency response, post offices and education, and so if these things can pass constitutional tests, then so should healthcare
"Private Health care cannot adequately service all public health needs
"American health care system is outperformed by other systems, such as in Canada
"Health care costs can use money that is currently being wasted or misspent
In closing we need healthcare for all, and there are numerous ways to make it as to not raise taxes to the general public.
-vs-
"We the People does not mean the Government, it means the citizens... That's basically we the people giving Government the right to exist.

"Government must provide all these things, but then says the Government must PROMOTE General Welfare. This implies the Government must promote, but not necessarily provide, general welfare.
"By law, no one may be refused Medical Attention for any reason besides ensuring more serious patients (as in more serious injuries, not wealthier people) get in first.
**(This negates the argument of "Bodily Autonomy," found below, since the American government requires that these persons be treated. This is a concession to the resolution that all Americans be afforded health care regardless of ability to pay, i.e. "Single Payer.")
"As for Private Healthcare being a ponzi scheme, you should have filled your BOP for this accusation. Your whole argument is crap.
**(This is an unacceptable conduct violation.)
"Besides, government-ran programs often find the most monetary corruption, as Japan and Canada shows.(1,2)
Posted by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
Argument I: Bodily Autonomy
Universal Healthcare goes against the premise of Self-Governing because you take away everyone's Bodily Autonomy. Health Insurance is personal to everyone, they maintain autonomy, but Government Healthcare literally makes your body a public matter.
**(Does CON change the use of the word "autonomy here?)

Argument II: Well-being of the Nation
People can't enter a hospital until they have Government Approval, even if they are willing to pay the bill. Government controls when they may enter.
**(This confuses the earlier argument that "by law, no American may be denied health care, " since American government authority "law- controls health care access to the indigent.)
CONCLUSION: It is in the interests of Independence and the General Well-being of the people that Healthcare stay Privatized.
**(Only the "independence" portion of the conclusion can be seen as intact after the rest of the arguments. This alone does not convince a skeptic that they might be mistaken about their support for single payer.)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
clockworkmechanicalmandonald.kellerTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro only made unsupported assertions, many false, and none with a trace of evidence. for example, "Fire Fighters, Police, Libraries, and Public Schools" are not funded by the Federal government. The government has put in some money in recent years, but they are all primarily state and local. Before Obamacare, 85% of Americans were satisfied with the health case system, so obviously it's not the rich. Con should have had more references and a more thorough refutation, but he at least had some references and his refutations were sound. In a one-round debate, Pro cannot refute any Con argument, so it's nearly impossible to win in any case. It's not a conduct violation to insult an argument, only to insult an opponent personally. "Crap" is pushing the site rule "No use of profanities or swear words." I think it's borderline, but passable. I can see the case for it being over the line.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
clockworkmechanicalmandonald.kellerTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources obviously to con. Conduct to pro for con calling his arguments crap. This was such a short debate that it was hard for pro to win, he rambled on with opinions such as poor Canadians live longer than rich Americans. None of this is cited or proven, and he also did not discuss the quality of healthcare in america vs Canada or the quality of doctors. Con had an easy time disputing his arguments, even if at one part it did possess a lack of etiquette.
Vote Placed by Tulbakra 3 years ago
Tulbakra
clockworkmechanicalmandonald.kellerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to pro, con made several unnescasary statements about pro's arguments such as, "your whole argument is crap" Spelling and grammer tied, Pro made several points that con failed to refute, and while Con's setup was pretty, it only beat up strawmen rahter than pro's actual arguments. Con had better sources, even though they might not be super accurate, pro sited none.
Vote Placed by RedMoonlight 3 years ago
RedMoonlight
clockworkmechanicalmandonald.kellerTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Almost identical RFD to DeFool, so it would be redundant to list everything again. However, I must award Pro arguments because his did convince me more in the end, despite his poor writing skill and presentation as compared with Con.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
clockworkmechanicalmandonald.kellerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has lost his mind if he thinks shutting down the ATF and DEA is a good idea. Props to con for using sources and making sense.
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
clockworkmechanicalmandonald.kellerTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: A rambling and less-than-concise argument presented by PRO, against a sharper but self-negating argument by CON. I cut away the confusing language and unnecessary verbiage to reveal the following arguments: PRO - we should have a single payer system because the Constitutional requirement for Congress to promote the general welfare demands that this action take precedence over more frivolous matters. CON: Allowing health care to all regardless of ability to pay will reduce bodily autonomy, and autonomy is freedom. The argument to "National Well being" negated the arguments to bodily autonomy and confused the suggestion that the poor in America are not harmed by their membership within a lower social class as pertains health care. (See comments.) I could not award arguments to either side. Sources must go to CON, conduct to PRO, (for the "your arguments are crap" comment.)