The Instigator
MasturDbtor
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
wierdman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Health Insurance Should Be Abolished & Health Care Covered For Only Those Who Need It

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,647 times Debate No: 20635
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

MasturDbtor

Pro

Insurance is effectively gambling. Imagine if there was a casino on every street corner. The effects on society would be disastrous. Health insurance is even worse because they are betting on people's health. It is pure exploitation. The "service" of "health insurance" is only necessary, because the industry exists and puts people into a social scenario where health care prices are too high to afford services without it.

1. The system of health insurance drives up health care prices.
When more people have health insurance people are more likely to turn to their doctor about anything, even when there is no real problem. This has lead to problems such as over-prescription of antibiotics. It is also easier for hospitals to charge higher prices for services when big insurance companies rather than individuals are paying the bill. The effect is to drive up prices for health care services as a whole higher than what there would be with no health insurance.
2. Some people argue we should have all health care covered by national health insurance or paid for directly by the government. However, this would stifle innovation. What good is served by having the government pay for a billoinaire's kidney dialysis. If someone can afford to pay for their own expenses they should pay for their own expenses. The government should provide a social safety net for when people can not afford to pay their own health care expenses. Compassion demands that people not have to declare bankruptcy or worse yet just die simply because they do not have the money to afford health care services.

With health insurance illegal and the government covering health care services only when a person can not afford to pay out of their own money the general costs of health care services would go down.
wierdman

Con

While I think and completely agree with the notion that the health insurance service as a whole is flawed and perhaps require some reforms, I do however have to disagree with the notion that it should only be available for a select group of people. A new finding by the Harvard Kennedy School reveals that " Americans are more likely to seek care, follow doctors' advice and feel better when provided access to health care insurance."
( http://www.hks.harvard.edu... ) Upon looking into this finding, we can not even fathom the disadvantages that would follow the providing of health insurance to a select few.

To formally begin this debate, I would like to go through my opponent's argument and from there branch out and provide my arguments. beginning with:
1. The system of health insurance drives up health care prices.
While I agree with my opponents argument that many physicians and doctors will try to take advantage of the individual's insurance policy, I strongly disagree with my opponents theory that this will lead to multiple over-prescription. All formal doctors are bound by certain rules and regulation that they must follow. When a patient comes to you, you are required to take care of that patient, and it is your job to make sure that this patient is suffering from what you think he or she is suffering from. If there are any doubt as to what you think the patient is suffering from, then you are either to perform an extensive check up on that patient. If any doubt still arises, then you are required to direct the patient to another doctor or another facility, where a more thorough diagnosis an be performed. In general, when it comes to a fetal or injury caused by misdiagnosis and over-prescription, it not the insurance company who would pay, but the doctors who prescribe. This then makes it in there best interest to perform at there best regardless of the individuals insurance status.

No use for full health care

My opponent mentioned brought up an argument about billoniares taking advantage of insurance policy, however the resolution states that health care insurance should be provided to those who need it. With out defining the word "need" we can then assume that my opponent was talking about anyone who feels the necessity to have a health care insurance. With these said, we can then conclude that these billoinaire's no matter how rich they might be, feel the need to have a health care insurance and should for into this category. Without defining what need is, there is absolutely no need to pass this resolution as everyone who currently uses health insurance can and most likely will fall into the category of the word "need". If some one can pay for there own expenses, then the only reason to have this insurance is to ensure that you are always able to acquire the insurance that they need in case something bad is to happen. Ones again, you can't expect a middle class man capable of paying his own health care, do you expect him or her to be able to pay for it every time or pay for a checkup every time they need one. Taking away ones insurance will limit the amount of times they visit the doctor for emergency.

Abolishing the health care w8ill not reduce the price of health care, but increase it as the most paying customers are no longer in business with these companies forcing them to increase prices to accommodate there need for resources. The government would be forced to pay more thus leading to excessive spending and destabilization of the economy.

Thank you and I hope to recieve your responce soon.
Debate Round No. 1
MasturDbtor

Pro

My opponent is confusing health care and health insurance.

The proposal is to ban ALL health insurance, and to cover health care(notice that these are not the same things, if you have enough money you can buy health care WITHOUT health insurance) by the government for only those who need it(can't afford to foot the bill from their own money), effectively guaranteeing that all people have access to health care when they need it WITHOUT using any kind of insurance system.

The proposal is NOT to provide health insurance to the select few or in fact to anybody at all. The government paying for health care is not the same thing as insurance. I propose the government NOT use an insurance model for any of the health care needs it is covering, instead using a tax-and-spend model where revenue is simply allocated to health care expenditures.

Rebuttals
1. I never suggested any deliberate taking advantage of. Personal biases are active whether we acknowledge them or not. Just because the conscious intent is to "perform there best" does not mean there will be no biases involved.

Currently there is documented evidence of medical overtreatment causing health problems.
(http://www.cbsnews.com...)
1/5 to 1/3 of tests and treatments we get are estimated to be unnecessary, and not only that can have dangerous side effects. For example, too many CT scans increases the risk of cancer, thousands who get stents for blocked arteries should have gotten medications first, and antibiotics are often prescribed for infections they can't help. The overprescription of anti-biotics is also particularly disconcerting because it can breed superbugs.

2. "With out defining the word "need" we can then assume that my opponent was talking about anyone who feels the necessity to have a health care insurance."

This is majorly removed from context. The resolution states "Health INSURANCE should be abolished & Health CARE covered For Only Those Who NEED It"(capitalization for emphasis). So it is health CARE being covered NOT health INSURANCE that is at issue here with "need". The definition is self-explanatory. A person needs their health care covered by the government if they can not afford to pay for it with their own money.

3. This is far less expensive than any kind of "insurance" scheme. Having "insurance" as the middlemen between the patient and the doctors requires a whole administration or bureaucracy to run that "insurance". It is much better for people to either pay for health care the way they normally pay for goods and services OR if they can not afford to do that then the government should pay for them directly just like they would for welfare services or highways and not through the medium of any kind of unnecessary insurance mechanism.
wierdman

Con

I thank my opponent for his quick response.

To my opponents claim that I am confusing health care with health insurance, I would like to say that I understand the two phrases well enough to formally distinguish the two.

Heath insurance is a financial tool used to pay for healthcare. {1} In stating that the government would cover the cost of health care for the citizens who need it, then my opponent is basically advocating that the government then becomes the health insurance for this citizen. This idea itself is flawed in the sense that 1. My opponent did not make it clear as to which government to give this responsibility to (federal or state) 2. How this can be possible considering the already overflowing agenda put on both the federal and state government. 3. Where this money will come from (where would the revenue mentioned by my opponent would come from). 4. How the entire department will function in terms of how it will organize it self, and finally, what qualifies you for this benefits. (people who cannot afford it can range from middle class citizen's who can afford a one time checkup, but not a continual one, to people who can afford simple check up but cannot afford needed surgery.) Looking into all these unanswered question, we find that this resolution simply cannot pass as its is too vague. Unless My opponent is able to answer all these questions, then health insurance remains to serve as the best policy for the American citizens.

RE-Rebuttal:
". I never suggested any deliberate taking advantage of. Personal biases are active whether we acknowledge them or not. Just because the conscious intent is to "perform there best" does not mean there will be no biases involved"

My opponent neglect one crucial information, conscious intent is not the only reason for these doctors to work at there best, physical intent plays a major part as well. If they do not work there best in insuring maximum service and protection, then they could loose there jobs, loose there licences, go to jail, never get another descent job, end up with depth and so on. The fact that all these end results are so dire, is enough to convince them to do there job properly.

"1/5 to 1/3 of tests and treatments we get are estimated to be unnecessary, and not only that can have dangerous side effects."

This might be true however, according to the citation provided in my previous round, eliminating health insurance, can have the side effect of less people going to see the doctor despite there situation simply because they don't want to pay for the care. over 87% of all Americans are middle class, meaning that over 87% of all Americans will reside in the same position hoping that there illness will just fade away, simply because they can't afford to go to the clinic for a check up or diagnosis more than twice a year. With less people going to the hospital or clinic, the price of health care will sky rocket to compensate for there lack in costumers resulting in either the government taking in addition the 12% of people who are of low income and the 87% middle class, or leave approximately 87% of the people in the U.S to go without annual check ups and doctors visit. We must also look into the fact that drugs are expensive, so in additions to the check up and the diagnosis bill, every individual above the line of what is considered poor (considiring my opponent provide us with one) would also have to pay for the drugs resulting in thousands if not several hundred dollars EACH check up.

"This is majorly removed from context. The resolution states "Health INSURANCE should be abolished & Health CARE covered For Only Those Who NEED It"(capitalization for emphasis). So it is health CARE being covered NOT health INSURANCE that is at issue here with "need". The definition is self-explanatory. A person needs their health care covered by the government if they can not afford to pay for it with their own money."

what qualifies you to get this aid from the government? I could be rich and still unable to pay for my surgery and recovery fee. Will the government pay for all these expenses? If so, How can they generate such large reservoir of money to pay.

"This is far less expensive than any kind of "insurance" scheme. Having "insurance" as the middlemen between the patient and the doctors requires a whole administration or bureaucracy to run that "insurance". It is much better for people to either pay for health care the way they normally pay for goods and services OR if they can not afford to do that then the government should pay for them directly just like they would for welfare services or highways and not through the medium of any kind of unnecessary insurance mechanism.

My opponent makes this statement without regarding the fact that allowing the government to take over the health care payment of many citizens will be far more complicated as it does not center itself on health care like most health insurance does, making its organization quite questionable. Privatization as seen in every other public affair is far more efficient than public ownership.

Sources:
[1] http://marginalrevolution.com...

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
MasturDbtor

Pro

1. The Difference Is Clear

“Health Insurance” is when you pay some person or organization to pay yourself later if you have certain health care expenditures.

Two examples of a person getting health care without health insurance:

1. A person has a billion dollars, no health insurance, and requires his appendix be removed. He writes a check from his bank rather than flash an insurance card. He is rich, so no insurance, no middleman is necessary. Even if he has health insurance it is less expensive for him to just pay straight up with a check than bother with what ever copays and administrative costs there are in health insurance

2. A person qualifies for a government program paid for by the general fund(which is what I advocate for when a person can not afford health care). This is not the same thing as health insurance. Health insurance entails that there is a separate program paid for much the same way health insurance is paid for with premiums, deductibles, and copays. I propose a government program that pays for people’s health care if they can not afford it based on medical necessity and individual affordability and not based on how much the individual has “paid in” to any kind of insurance scheme. Making mandatory insurance would not help either, since it would effectively work as a regressive tax, requiring the same non-percentage payment from everyone thereby requiring the poor to pay a higher percentage of their own wealth than the rich have to pay from theirs.

“Health insurance” is just one financial tool, a specific financial tool to pay for health care. Simply writing a check can also be a tool, and either the individual or the government could simply “write a check”. For the government to run “health insurance” is wasteful and unnecessary when the government could pay for health care by “writing checks”. It costs more taxpayer money to include “health insurance” as a medium for this exchange. I do not advocate the government pay for all health care, but for the remaining health care I advocate that to keep prices low so the government will have LESS health care to pay for we ban health insurance, so that if an individual is paying for themselves they are paying out of their checkbook and if they can not afford it then the government will pay for it or part of it depending on need out of its own “checkbook”, out of the “general fund”.

2. Not Specifically Federal Or State

I’m just debating that this would be a good policy in general. The states could do it or the federal government could do it.

3. Where this money will come from?

The general fund, what ever money the gets through taxes, tariffs, fines, and other financial transactions it is involved in. No different than any else the government pays for.

4. How the entire department will function in terms of how it will organize it self?

The government has created similar departments and programs(Medicare, Medicaid) that have had their share of things to criticize but which most would agree we are better off with than without. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. An expansion of “Medicare” or “Medicaid” perhaps with a merging of the two into one organization for the sake of efficiency would suffice.

5. Finally, what qualifies you for this benefits?

Reasonable standards should be passed. A free minimum numbers of appointments depending on age and condition of health would have to be set for various types of appointments from simple checkups to dental checkups to checkups specifically for certain ages. If an individual wanted more he would have to pay for that on his own and without using insurance to do it.

Besides the appointments if someone needed surgery it would depend on the person’s income if they got any government aid and how much. Other financial situations such as taking care of children, having children in college, or being in college would also be taken into account.


RE-Rebuttal:
". I never suggested any deliberate taking advantage of. Personal biases are active whether we acknowledge them or not. Just because the conscious intent is to "perform there best" does not mean there will be no biases involved"

6. Physical Intent?

Con states that physical intent plays a major part in doctors working their best. What does Con mean by “physical intent”? Is that even a term?

Furthermore Con missed my point. Yes, doctors have every incentive to TRY their utmost to perform their best. My point was human imperfection. You can try your best and still fail. And just because you are trying your best does not mean biases will not influence your decision-making.

Let’s say a doctor is reasoning about whether or not to give a patient a test involving radiation to diagnose for a possible disease. A doctor could reason “I should not give this test, there isn’t enough evidence anything is wrong so this would just add pointless radiation that would increase my patient’s cancer risk” OR he could reason “I should give this test, there is a little evidence, the radiation is unlikely to give my patient cancer, and if the patient actually has a problem and dies as a result of not getting this test I could be sued”.

No doctor is going to want to reason “I know I’m only increasing my patient’s risk for cancer from radiation and that this is a total waste of time, but just in case I don’t want to be sued”, because if he uses that reasoning he will feel unethical. Naturally the bias is to use either of the two reasonings in the previous paragraph. Since there is next to no risk that even if it is a bad idea to perform the test and cancer results that it would be linked to the test and the doctor sued, but substantial risk that if a problem comes up after refusing to test for it that the doctor may be sued and may lose his license the incentive is biased in favor of the doctor picking the second reasoning and ordering the test.

In less serious conditions such as when a patient complains of having a mild infection doctors are more likely to prescribe than not, even prescribing antibiotics to treat viruses when the antibiotics only affect bacteria. There is also overpresription for the most mild bacterial infections, which can encourage the mutation and evolution of dangerous superbugs.

7. People Not Going to the Doctor

Intelligence encourages people to go to the doctor at least once in a while. Those that don’t go are weeding out the gene pool. For children and adults under guardianship there should be some requirement to see the doctor, and since it is required then the government should pay for it.

8. Not Affording

Con says “over 87% of all Americans will reside in the same position hoping that there illness will just fade away, simply because they can't afford to go to the clinic for a check up or diagnosis more than twice a year.”

If they can’t afford it then the government will pay for them. Before the bill is signed into law sociological and economics researchers should gather data so that a scientific assessment can be used to determine who can and can not afford to pay for their won.


9. What qualifies?

It’s not if you are rich or poor it is if you can afford it.

10. Large Reservoir of Money

How does the government pay for Medicare and Medicaid now? How does the government fund the military? How does the government pay for anything? It’s easy. We will pay primarily out of general taxes. Cuts to other things could be made or taxes could be raised.

11. “Privatization as seen in every other public affair is far more efficient than public ownership.”

My opponent is arguing that privatization is automatically more efficient. I ask what is efficient about giving extra money away to the “health insurance industry” instead of it just being an exchange between hospital, doctor, or clinic and the patient? Adding that extra element is not efficient.

Furthermore, what exceptions is Con willing to make. What about the court system, police, and fire department?

wierdman

Con

Final Rebuttal:

The difference is clear:

My opponent brings up a scenario in which he proposes that a rich man is able to pay for his appendix with a written check. He then goes on in defining this check as a tool to pay for your bills. When looking at this scenario, we find that 1) the billoniare could easily pay this bill through his health insurance without having to go through the process of writing out a check. A tool is an instrument used to facilitate your work, the more efficient tool is one that can make your work far easier and efficient than the other tool can. The health insurance in all ways can make the payment of health care far easier than writing out a check. Lets now look into how similar my opponents plan is to the current system. The richer pays for his/her own health care: This is similar to the current system as 1) the richer acquires the "better" insurance plan requiring him/her to pay a series of monthly bills. The richer can not qualify for the "free" health insurance due to income and can only acquire one that requires them to pay. 2) The current system is not mandatory meaning that you could pay for your health insurance by hand if you feel it to be more efficient. More American's including a large number of rich people decide to get health insurance proving the current system to be more efficient. 3) Technically the government pays for the health insurance of those who cannot afford to buy there own. Using Tax revenues, they are properly able to provide these people with good health care to cover there annual check ups and in emergency situations. In conclusion, there is no need to pass my opponents resolution as it is so similar to the current plan that passing it would be a waste of time, money and effort.

Not Specifically Federal Or State:

My opponent states that "I���‚��„�m just debating that this would be a good policy in general. The states could do it or the federal government could do it." However, this can not be a good policy if he is unable to find the perfect government to hand the responsibility to. Seeing as both government would handle it differently, it is important to see which government my opponent gives the responsibility to and how they would handle it in general. Upon looking into this matter, we can then conclude if the policy itself is a "good policy".

Where this money will come from:

The government is already struggling to accommodate its expenses in the already high taxation, and my opponent proposes that we dumb a responsibility as big as this one on the government knowing fully well that its fiscal need would and must lead to increase in taxation and increasing in governmental spending. With the health insurance, the government is able to pay a set bill to medicaid and other public insurance companies, however, passing this resolution would mean that the government pays for every health care needs per person. We are talking about thousands if not hundreds of dollars per person, both monthly and annually.

How the entire department will function in terms of how it will organize it self:
My opponent agrees that we are better of with medicaid, a form of insurance and in his words said that we are better of with it than without. The fact is that if this program proposed by my opponent follows the same organization that the medicaid does, then it is essentially a health insurance. The organization of medicare, medicaid requires the government to pay a set bill, if we were to follow this organization, Then the government would be paying for a set bill and thus making it an insurance policy. The fact is that either way, the insurance policy system is still more efficient.

Finally, what qualifies you for this benefits:

While my opponent takes the limit to the amount of times you can take advantage to these benefits, he never fully tackles the answer to the question "what qualifies you." With this said, lets look into the limitation. This limitation means that if one were to become sick after he or she is to exhaust all there limitation, he/ or she would have to pay from there pockets, there health care bill despite there financial status. exactly how is this better than the current health insurance?

Physical Intent:

My opponent asks me the question of what physical intent means. This simply shows that my opponent did not fully read my last argument or this question would have been easily answered. My opponent brings up human imperfection, however human imperfection exist regardless of the system used. So, the doctor regardless of how you plan to pay your bills will do what ever he or she sees fit. This argument should be droped as it has no ties to this debate what so ever.

People Not Going to the Doctor:

Intelligence might consider one to go to the doctor whenever they feel ill, however finance discourages them as they are unable to pay. My opponent mentions a requirement forcing all Americans to visit the doctor, however if the government is paying for these check ups, then they have to pay for the diagnosis, the medicine if needed and future care that links to the problem diagnosed. That's millions if not billions of dollars wasted or rather spent by the government each year.

Not Affordable:

Are you suggesting that the government pay for over 87% of American health care? If so, then this is outrageous.

What qualifies:

"If you can't afford it" Is not a reasonable answer. You might be able to afford it ones but not twice, do you qualifgy for the second one only or for both. This is a question that my opponent did not answer. I was looking for income bar to show how much you have to make to be able to qualify for this program.

"Privatization as seen in every other public affair is far more efficient than public ownership:

I never declared that privatization will be better, i simply stated that looking into many departments that deal with the public affairs, privatization seemed to be the best policy.

VOTERS:
My opponents resolution is highly flawed as it fails to properly answer questions that proves it efficiency over the existing policy.
My opponent have not shown us that his new policy is more beneficial than health insurance
My opponents resolution fails in finance requiring huge reservoirs of money that we don't currently have.
My opponents plan fails in organization not even looking into the government.
In conclusion, My opponents plan is so vague that in no way is it better than the already existing policy.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.