The Instigator
godsend221
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CJKAllstar
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Free market vs. government sponsered healthcare in the US

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
CJKAllstar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 896 times Debate No: 52211
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

godsend221

Pro

I am a proponent for the free market in the Healthcare business. I believe doctors and hospitals should be competing for customers in order to deliver the best value at the lowest price. Doctors and hospitals should openly publish their prices so customers can make their own decision as to the best value for them. Government needs to reduce it's presence in the industry to that which increases competition among providers.
CJKAllstar

Con

I accept and my stance is that government sponsored healthcare is better for the US. I hope for a good debate, and yes I am partly playing Devil's Advocate.
Debate Round No. 1
godsend221

Pro

In this debate we must draw a distinction between who delivers the care and who pays for it. When you control the money that flows into an industry, you control the industry. There should be no other person that decides what is best for the patient other than the patient and their doctor. Government insurance brings on government regulations which increase the cost of delivering services to patients which increases the cost of doing business. Having insurance doesn't mean you have care. It just means you have a means of paying for it that is acceptable to some physicians. Doctors do pay attention to how good of health insurance you have and they do practice medicine in a way so they get paid. The only determinant that should be present in deciding the level of care the patient receives is the patient and the doctor. No one else.
CJKAllstar

Con

Thank you for that point.

1. Private Healthcare is not Economically Viable

In England, the cost of private healthcare insurance is about £700 to £1650 a year[1][2]. Private healthcare is apparently more expensive in the U.S, but for the sake of proving my point I will use these figures. This translates to $1170 - $2760 a year. This doesn't exclude actual payments for things. Considering the average person has about 124 accidents a year[3], this could be anything from money spent on plasters to the £600 spent on an MRI scan, the extra price spent with private healthcare could easily add another $1000. So we now have about $3400 a year on healthcare. Considering almost 40 million Americans are in poverty[4], I don't think almost 1/3 off the minimum poverty threshold is something that those can pay. In the UK, if we take £25,500 as a wage, then £1094 is spent on the NHS[5], which is about 4.29%, so at that figure someone earning the minimum threshold of $11,344, would rather than pay almost a 1/3 of this, would pay $486.66. Which is cheaper, easier for them and if it is enough for 60 million people to have free healthcare lasting since 1945, then 300,000,000 people will certainly be able to provide sufficient healthcare. A government backed system means we can have lower prices and healthcare simply from tax which is much cheaper, and will be sufficient for those who cannot pay private healthcare easily, in this case almost 40,000,000 people. And this system can still only act as the lowest form. You can still have private health firms for those who want to pay more, and in turn the richer and the poorer benefit. Health is something that everyone needs and the role of a government to everyone but the anarchist is at least to look after the welfare of their citizens. To have a completely free market is to not care about those who are at a large disadvantage, which is why I have my stance.

Sources:
[1] http://www.thisismoney.co.uk...
[2] http://www.theguardian.com...
[3] http://www.theatlantic.com...
[4] http://www.npc.umich.edu...
[5] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
godsend221

Pro

godsend221 forfeited this round.
CJKAllstar

Con

A forfeit from Pro. Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
godsend221CJKAllstarTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and sources to con.
Vote Placed by Dan4reason 3 years ago
Dan4reason
godsend221CJKAllstarTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by travis18352 3 years ago
travis18352
godsend221CJKAllstarTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: pro used no sources and forfited the final round