The Instigator
Mikegj1077
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
aaltobartok
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points

Gov. funded health care

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/17/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,687 times Debate No: 1919
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (15)

 

Mikegj1077

Con

"No industrialized nation in the world spends more of its GDP per capita on health care than we do. If socialized medicine is so expensive, than why does the rest of the world spend less?"

One reason no other industralized nation spends more than we do is because most other nations subsidize their health care, reducing indiviual cost. Health care in socialized nations, like Canada and UK, ration services, which also reduce per capita individual expense. Most of the rest of the world spends less, true, but they also get less.
aaltobartok

Pro

Subsidies are and would be included in GDP.

This is a non-argument; subsidies are absoultely included in any summary of health costs.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikegj1077

Con

Don't dismiss my position as a non-argument. You haven't offered any cost-benefit data for your socialized health care. More importantly, you haven't shown me an example (UK or Canada?) where this scheme has worked.

I always tell free health care advocates to look recently at the veterans hospital disaster two years ago where wounded soldiers were subjected to substandard conditions and shoddy medical treatment. That's government health care for you.

Would you like to guess how many Canadians (just to name one country) visit the Cleveland Clinic for bypass surgery or cancer treatment because they can't get their "free" health care in a timely fashion in their own countries?

CCanada can offer free pills and anal exams because they spend next to nothing on their own defense because they know the US will protect them. Socialized Canada and the UK piggyback off the United States.
aaltobartok

Pro

"Don't dismiss my position as a non-argument. You haven't offered any cost-benefit data for your socialized health care. More importantly, you haven't shown me an example (UK or Canada?) where this scheme has worked." UK - booming economy, Nationalized Health Service. Germany - booming economy, Nationalized health system.

"I always tell free health care advocates to look recently at the veterans hospital disaster two years ago where wounded soldiers were subjected to substandard conditions and shoddy medical treatment. That's government health care for you." This is not an example of government health care done well. It is an example of government health care done poorly. Just as I could rattle off any number of conservative implementations done poorly.

"CCanada can offer free pills and anal exams because they spend next to nothing on their own defense because they know the US will protect them. Socialized Canada and the UK piggyback off the United States." Canada does, in fact, have a strong military for self-defense. It is not interested in preemptive conflict like the US, therefore it has better things to spend its trillions on.
Debate Round No. 2
Mikegj1077

Con

"UK - booming economy, Nationalized Health Service. Germany - booming economy, Nationalized health system."

You're kidding? How long does it take to get bypass surgery or cancer treatment in the UK provided you're not over the government mandated age to qualify? Oh, that right. I forgot. They come here. UK has just enough health care.

"This is not an example of government health care done well. It is an example of government health care done poorly. Just as I could rattle off any number of conservative implementations done poorly."

That's a weak comeback. If you're going to rationalize that way, then what standard do you use, if any, to project the success of government health care? Is Canada's a poorly run system too?

"Canada does, in fact, have a strong military for self-defense. It is not interested in preemptive conflict like the US, therefore it has better things to spend its trillions on."

Canada does not have a strong military. Its per capita spending on defense is less than what California spends on its state police. Canada's contribution to past UN actions has been puny. The war on terror is important. By the way, you apparently don't understand the meaning of "preemptive conflict." Preemptive means we initiate action to prevent a possible future action against us. The USS Cole attack, various embassy attacks, the first World Trade Center bombing (1993), the last WTC bombing on 911, all provided a suitable bases for going to war (with UN and congressional authorization). That's not an example of preemptive conflict, unless you've been in a coma for the last 15 years.

But that's getting off point. Let me just say that as a military veteran, in my opinion, the government run health care sucks.

People in this country don't deserve free health care. The fat people, the cigarette smokers, the illegal immigrants who don't pay into the system, the lazy and the poor who don't pay into the system, the homosexuals and intravenous drug users who account for 90-percent of the AIDS patients... Screw them all. I take care of myself and don't partake in risky behavior, and I am not going to willingly share my paycheck with those people...
aaltobartok

Pro

"UK has just enough health care." We seem to agree...

"What standard do you use, if any, to project the success of government health care? Is Canada's a poorly run system too?" No. Canada's is a well-run system. Wealthy people can pay lots of money to get faster private treatment, but at the base there is a system for everybody to use, so that anybody can get basic health care.

"Canada does not have a strong military. Its per capita spending on defense is less than what California spends on its state police. Canada's contribution to past UN actions has been puny. The war on terror is important. By the way, you apparently don't understand the meaning of "preemptive conflict." Preemptive means we initiate action to prevent a possible future action against us. The USS Cole attack, various embassy attacks, the first World Trade Center bombing (1993), the last WTC bombing on 911, all provided a suitable bases for going to war (with UN and congressional authorization). That's not an example of preemptive conflict, unless you've been in a coma for the last 15 years." Canada's military is strong enough to protect Canada - they are not, like us, interested in being the world's police force. In terms of preemptive war, I was talking about the war in Iraq, not the one in Afghanistan which I support strongly.

"People in this country don't deserve free health care. The fat people, the cigarette smokers, the illegal immigrants who don't pay into the system, the lazy and the poor who don't pay into the system, the homosexuals and intravenous drug users who account for 90-percent of the AIDS patients... Screw them all." This is the best you can do? Insulting the groups you don't like (not surprised at the homosexual dig, you being a Huckabee supporter and all) while not providing any points that would support not having a government health system. This sums up the anti-health care approach: since data proves us wrong, let's insult everyone and anyone who gets in our path. As for AIDS cases, only 46.6% are from homosexuals. The rest are from good, upstanding straight people like yourself. As for smokers, your Republican party has a history of being against a raise of the cigarette tax. As for fat people, your Republican party is against raising health care rates on the obese. And when you start calling the millions who work two jobs, desperately trying to raise a family, lazy, you have lost all touch with the hard realities of corporate-run America.

Also, nobody other than Kucinich (who is probably the only person to take himself seriously) is proposing true socialized medicine. They are talking about subsidizing private insurance plans for the poor. This is not a socialized system, as the government would not run hospitals, etc. This is subsidized health care for those who need it most. Telling people without health care to go screw themselves (as you quite literally do) does not solve the massive crisis of healthcare in the US. We all have a moral imperative to provide universal health care in the USA.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
I hate the idea of universal healthcare. Period. Read my debates.
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

Newest to oldest. All post-voting period.
Posted by ahundredhighways 9 years ago
ahundredhighways
i just don't like the idea of politicians in washington deciding on my healthcare

i think that both people and employers should step up and pay for their medical treatment, i don't like the idea of government handouts, it spoils the people and makes them depend on the government, therfore the government has more control, i'd like to get into a good debate on the governments medical and social security policies with a supporter of them
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
Mikegj1077aaltobartokTied
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 Mikegj1077 9 years ago
Mikegj1077
Mikegj1077aaltobartokTied
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 Phyfe2112 9 years ago
Phyfe2112
Mikegj1077aaltobartokTied
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 cutie 9 years ago
cutie
Mikegj1077aaltobartokTied
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 Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
Mikegj1077aaltobartokTied
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 MarxistKid 9 years ago
MarxistKid
Mikegj1077aaltobartokTied
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 Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Mikegj1077aaltobartokTied
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 ahundredhighways 9 years ago
ahundredhighways
Mikegj1077aaltobartokTied
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 karlynjane 9 years ago
karlynjane
Mikegj1077aaltobartokTied
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 uiop 9 years ago
uiop
Mikegj1077aaltobartokTied
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