The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
sarsin
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

Basic Minimum- don't have a cow?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 3/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 782 times Debate No: 3093
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (8)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

Basic Minimum, don't have a cow?

i am one to push for all who work to get a basic minimum.

i've used examples like a giant on earth who tries to claim everything to the exclusion of everyone else to make my example. i think the following example i've used is best.

back in the day, the frontier days... if you wanted a surgery, you would simply give the doctor, at most, a cow, and he'd do it for you.

i've used this example before, somewhat facetiously, so i thought i'd bring it pu again as i got no major response.

do people have access to the cow metaphorically today?

if the average cost for a surgery is 14k and the average open heart is 100k, and we consider these to be pretty basic, then a working person to me should be able to get it. so, there should be catostrophic subsidies for those who need it from the government.

now, we can build into this things like the requirement to save in health tax accounts etc for yourself etc, and that if you make more you're more responsible to save etc. and we don't need insurance for all and paying for everytime ya go to the doctor. but that doesn't really say the thigs that matter.

but, to say no help at all.... when say all those 30 belows out there couldn't afford it primarly... is at least not addressing my metaphor.
(arguably this could apply to manys but it gets more gray)
by the time you're 20, you should be able to afford a cow. i don't think most 20 year olds could practically speaking.

if you disagree with me, but have no substantial methaphors back at me, won't you at least explicitly acknowledge that you don't think it's just to have the government do this, and ulitmately then don't care that that happens at least in the sense that of governmental help?

also... i used this point with that giant on earth but it's applicable here.... if we deny the earth etc to people to take at will and as much as they want with laws of claims and such.... aren't we responsbile for ensuring that at the least everyone has a basic cut to it?
sarsin

Con

It sounds that the basic metaphor is this: back in the day everyone had cows and you could trade a cow for services thus meaning said service was available to everyone. As time went on, this service started to cost more and more and more cows until you needed a whole herd, which most people cannot afford or even have.

You contend that the government should step in and provide extra cows to people that do not have enough for this service. I contend that this would actually make things worse. Let's say I'm a provider of this service, and I need to charge 2 cows to stay in business. Maybe the cost of defending my cows from unruly people has gone up (lawyers). It's unfortunate, but hey I need to make something or there's no point to providing my service. Now the government steps in and says "Poor people cannot afford your service. Charge them 1 cow and I'll make sure you get the difference".

So now, I am getting a lot of cows from both people and the government. Unruly people see me with a lot of cows, and try to steal them more often. So I have to hire more security and my costs go up. It's cool though, the government will give me more cows to cover it. Maybe I'll even *say* my costs went up. More cows for me.

Now the question is: where does the government keep getting all these cows from? By taxing the people that it is trying to help.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

one incidental problem with your argument is the assumption that lawyers are causing the problem. do you know how much the typical doctor pays in malpractice insurance? a small fraction of his salary. do you know how much a doctor on average makes? 160000, 100k just starting out. if surgeons as the topic of this, much much much more. if you're going to blame anything, blame the existance insurance for giving the rich an enticement to have insurance, use it more than natural, then make the demand so high it sucks for everyone else. if you're going to blame someone, blame the AMA.... they haven't opened medical schools since the 80s, while the population has continued to climb, and talented individuals are being denied access to the schools. blame doctors too, as they are the ones all too happy to reap the benefits from people's pain. people often lodge that argument at lawyers, but it could jsut as easily be lodged at doctors-you don't see them doing this stuff for cheap. it's too easy to blame lawyers, but it's not even them that's much of the problem.

now, with that said. there's still the main point about demand being too much such that it'd just drive the cost of services up even more. one, is that surgeries aren't something that are as common as just going to the doctor. two, if the copay is high enough, the patient will have an incentive to shop around and make it effective. so, if the costs do go up bc of the gov induced demand, it won't be as much bc of those two reasons.

the main point is that... if there are tons of people with tons of cows, and a doctor will be his blood sucking self, in the bad way, and charge more, then that is just what it will take to ensure everyone has a basic minimum. the playing field will be more leveled.

we can regualte insurance, regulate doctors, regulate any bad effects we want, not necessarily paying out if you don't like the idea of paying- the main idea is we do something- the cow is more the act of getting care than it is having the money to pay for it. but if we do pay out, we can still regulate bad consequences.

those who can't pay represent a minority, the young and poorer. if say this is 10% of the population, and this cause costs to go up ten percent, then it's still cost permissive for the others to go, it just costs more, and maybe they won't go as much. but now, everyone can go.

it strikes me as you're finding a theory to justify a preconseived notion that you dont want to help them. not that you're finding theory and seeing that helping them would be not economically doable so you don't want to. the reason i think this, is because it seems pretty apparent to me the effects wouldn't be that bad. can you give specifics like i did, how you claim it's as bad as you say?
sarsin

Con

sarsin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
sarsin

Con

sarsin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
In New York the annual premium for malpractice insurance is $44,401 for neurosurgeons, $32,261 for obstetricians and $37,643 for orthopedic surgeons. I would hardly call that a small fraction of $100,000 or $160,000b I would call that being shaken down by the mob
Posted by sarsin 8 years ago
sarsin
Well, let's not put the blame all on the doctors. The "no capitalist competition" works both ways. The mob-style tactic of "Boy it'd be a shame of something happened to you. Do you know how much a heart attack costs? No? It's a LOT. You better keep paying us".

Lawyers bilk the doctor's, doctor's bilk the insurance companies, which turn around and bilk us. I don't claim to be anywhere near smart enough to figure it out how to fix it, but I know two things for sure:

1. My insurance has a financial incentive to insure I never receive medical care and fight payment on everything I do get cared for.

2. Socialized medical care is not the answer. To me that sounds like a change in management of who is ripping me off.

And I guess a distant 3rd, I actually found something I agree with sadolite on. :P
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
OK sorry about that, my miss understanding.
Posted by Shorack 8 years ago
Shorack
i was referring to the debatestarter his opening round :)
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Doctors created the concept of medical insurance to raise their wages because the cost and time spent in becoming a doctor was so high. It wasn't worth the effort, not to mention being sued for malpractice which has artificially added ten to twenty times to the cost of health care.
Posted by Shorack 8 years ago
Shorack
i can't get to understand even remotely what you're talking about. :/
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
The introduction of medical insurance is what has caused health care to cost so much. It eliminates competition because no one has the need to shop for cheaper services because the bill will be paid no mater how much it is. As far as those without medical insurance, you are at the mercy of the going rate at which insurance companies pay doctors, they are not going to charge less when they can get more. The hypocratic oath is worthless.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2csarsinTied
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 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 sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
dairygirl4u2csarsinTied
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 Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
dairygirl4u2csarsinTied
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 cmrnprk07 8 years ago
cmrnprk07
dairygirl4u2csarsinTied
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 dairygirl4u2c 8 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
dairygirl4u2csarsinTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Issa 8 years ago
Issa
dairygirl4u2csarsinTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 8 years ago
bigbass3000
dairygirl4u2csarsinTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 8 years ago
liberalconservative
dairygirl4u2csarsinTied
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