The Instigator
BeatTheDevil89
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
kcirrone
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Doctors should not be allowed to compete with other doctors' prices

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: 6/9/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,526 times Debate No: 4375
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (8)

 

BeatTheDevil89

Pro

In the American system, almost all forms of business compete with rivals, the medical sector is the exception. While competition generally leads to lower costs, it does not always lead to better services. Cheaper products, more often than not, indicate an inferior product. The product we are referring to in this particular debate is the labor and services of a doctor. I am taking the position that allowing doctors compete for the bid of insurance companies would hurt our medical system and reserve the best doctors for the wealthy, leaving the rest of the country with inferior forms of medicine.
kcirrone

Con

Resolved: Doctors should not be allowed to compete with other doctors' prices.

First off I will use an a priori (in an odd way) to first undermine a portion of your opening argument.

A Priori: The US is the leading country in both the medicine itself AND the services of the doctor. So therefore since this is a proven truth your assertion about cheaper price is false.

Rebuttal: My opponent fails to realize the implication of the resolve. By affirming the resolve, then America's great medical sector could fail. I doubt anyone would want that. Essentially by making one set price between all doctors, then there would be no incentive for better price, quality of service, etc. The biggest loser is the patient.

He then says that all the good doctors would go to the wealthy. This would be worse by affirming the resolution because then illegal "medical" practices would be taking place and/or it would also mean that the wealthy would leave the country for foreign doctors, which would be cheaper. Link this to my A Priori in that my opponents supposed plan would only increase medical out-sourcing, therefore hurting our own economy in the process. The Wealthy will always win out since they got money. It's a no-unique argument on my opponents part. With or without this proposed plan, the wealthy would always get the doctors.

*Also, I believe the debate community should also look at the products and not just the survive. My opponent makes it a service only resolve, however to look at the bigger picture and the bigger implication, the debate community should also look at products. Also, both service and products go hand-in-hand.

Moving onto my contentions:

Value: Justice
Value Criterion: The Preservation of a Free Market System

1) Even in the medical sector competition spurs on cheaper price and better service. Ultimately the more competition there is the better for the patient it is (for the most part.) Once you take away the incentive to draw in patients then quality would go down because no one would go to that doctor. It is a balancing effect: If both the product/medicine and the services are not good then the patient would look for another doctor, meaning the doctor loses business. Competition is necessary so the patient wins out, which everyone wants.

2) This proposed resolve undermines a Free Market Society. The whole idea of how the US system works is competition between companies. That includes doctor's as well. To determine the affirmation or negation of the resolve, we must look at what the background of our system is and how it works. We are a free market system. Free Market systems help the buyer and the owner. Thats why are economy is so good. (Don't hold me to that in today's situation, that has to do with the housing situation.)We still beat China, Japan, and India in quality of service and products. However, this resolve undermines this, as I stated in my rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
BeatTheDevil89

Pro

I would like to begin by saying that the presentation of my debate is incredibly informal, especially compared with that of my opponent so if my posts become difficult to read i apologize, however the content is here. Anyway, on with the debate.

My opponent begins with an A priori, asserting that since health care in the United States exceeds all other, my statement about cheaper prices resulting in inferior products is false. If my opponent had dome his homework he would not make such a case. A study by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine compared 19 industrialized nations such as Canada and European nations, and ranked the U.S. last. The basis for the study was the number of deaths that resulted from deaths by treatable illnesses; 100,000 of these deaths occur a year. Japan, France, and Australia ranked highest. Our infant mortality rates are also one of the worst, 5 in every 1,000 babies die a year. Second, none would argue that all doctors in the United States are equal. The smartest doctors (and consequently the most expensive) are usually better than those who attended Guata La Hara or other inferior medical schools in South America. My opponent talks about the outsourcing of medicine, the labor of the doctor cannot be outsourced by the quality of that labor can.

http://www.alternet.org...
http://www.livescience.com...

My opponent also assumes that I am advocating a set price for doctors, I in fact make no such proposition. Doctors should be paid for the service they provide, not set prices for each visit. I would also like an example of the "illegal 'medical'practices" to which he is referring. He also assumes the position that my proposition would lead to the collapse of the market. Here is a quick history/economics lesson. (1) When our health care system was originally founded, it was against the law (and still is to a lesser degree today) to allow doctors and hospitals to compete and the system did not collapse (2) The system also collapses when prices rise as well, which has been the trend despite the 'managed competition' in today's medicine.

The most important component of this debate is the quality of the service provided. If doctors are allowed to freely advertise prices and compete with insurance companies bids, quality will decrease. The doctors who went to Harvard medical won't drop their prices just to compete with the cheapest doctor who's tuition bills are less than the former. The decrease of quality will not be a tolerable one, not like between Abercrombie and Old Navy but like between a nice Italian restaurant and McDonald's. While it is true that one my choose to opt for the better doctor, their insurance provider may not and many won't be able to afford the better doctor and are essentially stuck with the McDonald's version.

Secondly, better care comes from hospitals, doctors, and companies collaborating to maximize effeciency. If they start to jockey for position, they loose interest in the patient. Instead of offering the best solution to a paticular situation, they will offer the cheapest. Medication instead of physical therapy or other inferior solutions. Assume for a moment that a doctor invents a revolutionary procedure or pill tht cures the worst of any cancer, that one doctor has two options. One is tell the medical community, or (the more common with perscription drugs) put a patent on it and monopolize it.

Third, the basic free market model relies on supply and demand, the driving force being the demand. In medicine the demand comes from the doctor telling the pateint what he or she needs. There is an enormous amount of trust between the doctor and the pateint becasue the average - even the above average comsumer does not know enough about the medical feild to self-diagnos anything more than a common cold. Plus they do not have the power to make a perscription. The pateint puts all faith in their doctor, the doctor then will have two choices under a competitive market. (1) perscribe the best course of action or (2) perscribe the least expensive so the insurance company doesn't complain about the money they have to dish out. Furthermore, the competitive model, a Harvard buisness professor Michael Porter wrote "competitors do not create value they divide it..." Maggie Mahar commented further in her book "Money Driven Medicine" that passing the costs like a hot potatoe creates a net value of zero. She also notes that this adds to further administrative costs, an important note for the next point. In short, insurance companies become the deciders and not the doctors. The insurance companies also do not have the mental knowledge to make such decisions and are more interested in profit than in the pateint. This is one of the ways we got things like Viagra, it sells.

Finally I would like to clarify that the cost of medicine in the U.S. is outrageous and something must be done about it, but cutting the doctor's paycheck is not the way to do it. Evidence suggests that over one third of health care costs goes to unneccasary tests, duplicate tests, unproven experimental procedures, bueracracy, and overpriced drugs (which I have shown above how companies monopolize new medical breakthroughs.)

Please excuse any and all grammatical errors, spellcheck isn't working.
kcirrone

Con

Ok:

He responds to my A Priori with a bunch of stats and how the US ranked last. Ok, observation: this has nothing to do with anything, and the list he provides is misleading. Infant morality, etc. doesn't have to do with the quality of HealthCare. There are many factors that play in, e.g. drug and alcohol abuse. This effects all the given factors. My A Prior still stands because we are the leader in HealthCare. E.g. the Canadian Prseident came to the US for a triple bypass because its not provided there; its too expensive for their Universal Health Care System.

He then brings up that he never proposed a implemented pay for doctors. Ok...then what is he trying to advocate? How can you stop doctor's from competing for price, if you don't make them all pay the same price. He does say however they should be priced on the quality of service. Ok, then this contradicts a statement in his opening argument; that only the rich get the good doctors, therefore we should make them not compete. If we price based on quality then the bad doctors would be less expensive while the good doctors are expensive. As i brought up before, the rich will always get the better doctors, no matter what, its a non-unique argument.

My opponent has a lengthy argument, so ill attack it very quickly. Here is the breakdown: I say the quality of medicine comes foremost. If the medicine is bad, then the quality of service means nothing. There is no way to affirm resolution because my opponent's plan will decrease quality of medicine, and then lead to all the negatives I posted in my first argument.

My Case:

Extend my Value, Value Criterion, and all points, since he failed to attack them. This is an easy negation, ty.
Debate Round No. 2
BeatTheDevil89

Pro

ToTo begin, the list of studies is not misleading. My opponent believes that the studies fail to prove my point because their are "many factors that play in, e.g. drug and alcohol abuse." This would lead one to assume that the United States is the only country that has problems with drug or alcohol abuse, which is not the case. These so-called "factors" are also factors in other nations, meaning my attack on your a priori holds water. By the way, I would like a citation for your comment about the Canadian president using doctors here BECAUSE the particular procedure isn't offered in Canada.

To clarify, no I am not advocating a set price for doctor's pay. I am advocating that the individual doctor charge the amount he/she deems adequate and they shouldn't do what all other companies do with prices, which is advertise how low they are and how high other competitors might be. This way doctors are paid what they need to be paid. Some companies like Best Buy price their computers so low in price that they actually lose money on them, but they do it to be competitive. Once doctors start losing money, there goes the quality. Moreover, my opponent mis-quoted me when he claimed that I said the doctors should be paid on their quality of their service when I said "Doctors should be paid for the service they provide, not set prices for each visit" Such as, they should be paid for their time, their assistants time, use of the equipment, and any other overhead.

I would now like to address another issue. My opponent has stated that the rich will always get the best doctors, this is true. But there are still good doctors that can treat the middle and lower classes. It is these doctors that I worry about losing.

Next - my opponent brings up the point that the medicine is what is most valuable to the patient, and this is true. But I would ask him and all the readers how that medicine is given out. The doctor must prescribe it. I do not limit this to prescription drugs, but also more complicated procedure like surgery and chemotherapy. Tests must be done, numbers crunched, more tests must be done, and then finally the best course of action must be taken. As stated earlier, we want these doctors to prescribe the best course of action not the cheapest. When doctors compete for the bid of the insurance companies, they are essentially owned by those companies. As stated, the company doesn't want the best course of action they want the cheapest and those two things rarely go together. I cite the teenager in California who died when the insurance companies refused to pay for a liver transplant deemed necessary by her doctor's and I encourage everyone to click on the link below and learn more about the reluctance of insurance companies to pay up.

http://www.pajamadeen.com...

Finally, some more of those statistics my opponent seems to dislike. Keep in mind the previous (and unanswered) quote above were I stated "Evidence suggests that over one third of health care costs goes to unnecessary tests, duplicate tests, unproven experimental procedures, bureaucracy, and overpriced drugs (which I have shown above how companies monopolize new medical breakthroughs.)" While doctors in the United States earn more money than doctors in other nations, they also pay less for other related expenses such as prescription drugs (the latter costing more money than the former) and almost all workers in the U.S. are paid salaries higher than those in other nations. The average doctor makes around $250,000 a year, which is a nice sum of money, but the average CEO and other high ranking executives of a drug companies can make million's more in that same year.

I will end with a comparison, that of teachers and schools to that of doctors and medicine. If you want to cut costs in the school in order to better the system and make it more efficient, you do not do that by cutting the salaries of the teachers for performing an invaluable service. Your do things like reduce waste, use both sides of the paper, ect. Same goes for doctors, if you want to cut cost, look at my citation above for the culprits.

I would like to make a small comment about my opponents "Value, Value Criterion". Justice is defined as "the moral principle determining just conduct." Looking out for those who need it is just conduct. Furthermore I would contend that my opponents Value criterion does not apply, because even if my proposition isn't upheld (As I mentioned before, doctors do not compete normally as Home Depot and Lowes does they have something called managed competition which is why there are no commercials advertising their low low prices.) The reason for this being the basic principle of supply and demand. Demand comes from the consumer's needs and the supply comes through producer. In the case of medicine the supply and the demand comes from the doctor because the consumer (patient) doesn't know what they usually need, especially in cases of severe diseases like lime disease, diabetes, STDs, cancers, ect. Since one person controls both forces, the free market system does not apply no matter what happens.

I hope that I didn't leave any of my opponent's points un-attacked, as he seems to think I have (like he would have actually given me the heads up if it were true).

I would like to also apologize to my opponent seeing has he dislikes my long arguments, but that is a small side effect of having facts.

http://hypertextbook.com... - doctor salary
http://www.forbes.com... - For what they are paying these high rankers.

P.S. Citations are a nice touch.
kcirrone

Con

kcirrone forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by BeatTheDevil89 9 years ago
BeatTheDevil89
Wow did this guy really close his account before we could finish?
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
The mentality that health care recipients should not be free to search for lower-priced and even inferior treatment is one of the reasons we have sky rocketing health care costs. It doesn't take a medical degree to stitch someone up or know when to perscribe penecilin, but recipients must pay full doctor rates for such services. Rediculous.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 9 years ago
JBlake
BeatTheDevil89kcirroneTied
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 Tigress 9 years ago
Tigress
BeatTheDevil89kcirroneTied
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 Quango 9 years ago
Quango
BeatTheDevil89kcirroneTied
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 Dorian 9 years ago
Dorian
BeatTheDevil89kcirroneTied
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 Ryana177 9 years ago
Ryana177
BeatTheDevil89kcirroneTied
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 BeatTheDevil89 9 years ago
BeatTheDevil89
BeatTheDevil89kcirroneTied
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 ekta2gupta 9 years ago
ekta2gupta
BeatTheDevil89kcirroneTied
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 brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
BeatTheDevil89kcirroneTied
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