The Instigator
epicray1
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
debate-master1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Healthcare and Education Should Be Free

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: 9/20/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 931 times Debate No: 79910
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

epicray1

Pro

I would like to say that I am NOT a socialist and am a supporter of free market and private industries or capitalism. Having free healthcare and education does not equal socialism, as socialism is having no private industries at all, which I'm against. Anyone can challenge and I would like to hear the challenger's opinion first. Thank you.
debate-master1

Con

I accept.

Definitions

Healthcare: the prevention or treatment of illness by doctors, dentists, psychologists, etc.

Education: the knowledge, skill, and understanding that you get from attending a school, college, or university

Free: not costing any money

Sources

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://www.merriam-webster.com...





Debate Round No. 1
epicray1

Pro

Alright, let's start. To begin, healthcare and education are fundamental rights that all humans should have, and we should not have to pay for our rights. No human should be uneducated, as education equals knowledge which equals power. Keep in mind that I do not believe that all colleges should be free, but I believe that some community colleges should be free in order to provide some level of education beyond K-12 education for people who cannot afford or qualify for other colleges. Therefore, public education and community colleges should be free so everyone gets to be well-educated without having to worry about about financial drama. Education is right and not a privilege.
Secondly, no humans should have to worry about being sick or have to go into financial turmoil because of having to be treated of any serious illness they might get. In 2007, 62 percent of bankruptcies were due to medical bills (http://www.cnn.com...), and many of the people who went into bankruptcy were well-educated, middle-class citizens who could not control the fact that they got an illness for the most part. Nobody should have to worry about getting sick because of financial reasons, especially the uninsured. Therefore, healthcare is also, like education, a right and not a privilege.

Sources: http://thelawdictionary.org...
http://www.cnn.com...

I also believe that our America can afford free healthcare and free education and community colleges. If North Korea can afford free healthcare and education, then we sure can. One way we can make our budget able to afford these things is to cut some military spending. America currently spends more than the next seven countries combined (https://en.wikipedia.org...) (http://pgpf.org...), so, while you can arguably say that our military is, in a way, declining, it is certainly not because of the fact that our budget is too "small", but it because we are spending our military budget wrongly. If countries with smaller military budgets than us can have great militaries, then we can cut our military budget and still have a great military as well. Anyways, as long as we cut our military budget and cut wasteful spending, I believe that we can afford and provide free healthcare and community college (sorry for the misleading title, as it said free education, which might lead some people to believe that I mean ALL colleges should be free, which I do not believe in).

My idea is that America should have a free public healthcare system, and, if people want better healthcare, they can pay for better private healthcare. Community colleges should be free as well as to expand the concept of having free K-12 AND community college education.
debate-master1

Con

Thank you to make your argument

I will give two reasons why education and healthcare should not be free.

Arguments

1. The cost to the state is far too great to sustain universal free university education

The social-democratic model, most prevalent in Europe, is a failure. The system of paying for universal healthcare, education, pensions, etc. threatens to bankrupt the countries maintaining them; it is simply unsustainable. The cost of paying for free university education is ruinously high. The government money needed to be channeled into universities to provide for free education, as well as into various other generous social welfare benefits, has been a case of borrowing from future generations to finance current consumption1]. For these countries to survive, and lest other countries attempt to follow suit with similar models, they must rethink what they can afford to provide freely to citizens. In the case of education, it seems fair to say that all states should offer access to their citizens to primary and secondary education opportunities, since the skills acquired during such education are absolutely necessary for citizens to function effectively within society; reading, writing, basic civics, etc. are essential knowledge which the state is well-served in providing. University, on the other hand, is not essential to life in the same way. People can be functional and responsible citizens without it; it can be nice to attend, but one can live effectively without it. For this reason, the state must consider university in the same way it does any non-essential service; people may pay for it if they wish to partake, but they cannot view it as an entitlement owed by the state that will simply provide it to everyone. The cost is just too high, and the state must act from a utilitarian perspective in this case. Instituting fees will place the cost of education upon those wishing to reap the benefits of education, and not on the taxpayer.

2. The quality of education suffers when university education is free

Without university fees, universities become dependent on the state for funding. The problem with this is that the state’s aim is to increase university attendance levels for the sake of political gain, while at the same time striving not to increase spending on the universities. The result is an increase in attendance, without commensurate increase in funding from the state. This leads to larger class-sizes and less spending per student[1]. Furthermore, these problems result in disconnected lecturers who, due to increased class sizes, cannot connect to their students or offer more than cursory assistance to struggling pupils. The decline in teaching quality is further exacerbated by their need to focus less on teaching and more on research, which is more profitable and thus encouraged by cash-strapped universities. With fees, on the other hand, the quality of universities increases for three reasons. First, funding improves, as university may charge in accordance with need rather than with making do with whatever the state gives them to fund teaching. The result is a consistent quality in education resources rather than it being dependent upon what the state happens to give universities, and on how many students it pushes to be accepted. Second, quality of teaching is improved. Because a university wants people to attend and to pay fees, the programs and degrees they offer have to be good signals of quality. Universities thus stay in business only so long as they remain purveyors of high quality educational goods. They must thus let in smart people, irrespective of their financial background, which will in part serve to admit and finance capable people from disadvantaged backgrounds through targeted financial aid programs. Third, the average quality of students attending university will improve. This is because students feel they need to get the most from their investment in education, which can be quite substantial. They will thus be more attentive and more interested in doing well. An example of higher quality education stemming from fee-paying higher education systems is that of the United States, which has twenty of the top fifty ranked universities in the world[2]. Quality is clearly improved when university is not free.

Rebuttal

1. In Pro's first argument he said that education should be free. However there is no free in the world. Everthing has a cost. Of course, if the educations or healthcare be free, they are working for nothing. They don't get any money. Also we need the military budget because we need to be prepared when anything bad happens. When they get no money, for example no one will go there. They will get bad teachers which equal to bad education. This is basically slavery in the school hours which is bad. For example, if a worker in Samsung goes around making phones and they get no money? Why would they work? They would have no influence of teaching and just be mad all times.

2. In Con's second argument he said that healthcare should be free. Same as education. The doctors will get nothing. They need a right and money for all those materials. If they get do not get money where will they get the materials? Everyone need a reward of what they do. Lets say there was a private hospital. It was free. All the doctors did not get any money of what they were working. Because of their bad influences, they will not do hard work. What if in the end someone died or got more injured? It will all be the doctor's fault. There are few more reasons why I think that healthcare should not be free. This is because they have a huge risk. Of what was going on in South Korea which was called MERS. If the hospital was free why would they do it. They have a 40% risk of dying. This means that if they have money they will be more influenced in their job.

For these reasons we urge you to vote for Con.

Debate Round No. 2
epicray1

Pro

Thank you for your argument, Pro. For starters, I would like to something up. For one, when I meant free education, I meant free community colleges/ two-year colleges but not free large colleges or universities that are not small community colleges. Community colleges already are very low-level when compared to other universities but are still a way to get education beyond the K-12 teachings for some people, so, as a safety net, community college should be free for those who need it. Now, I will state my reasons and rebuttals to Con's reasons.

Rebuttal #1: Con stated that he/she believed that it would be too expensive to sustain free community college and healthcare. This is wrong, as if countries like North Korea can afford free healthcare and education, then so can we. There are a few things we can do, however, that can make free healthcare and community college/ two-year colleges free. To begin, as previously stated, we can cut military spending, as our military spending is way beyond other country's military spending. USA's military spending still dwarfs other country's spending, and if other countries can have great militaries with lower spending, then we can too. By cutting military and useless spending in the government, reorganizing the tax system to make taxes easier to understand and easier to pay, and by smarter spending, smart spending cuts, and a reorganized tax system, then the U.S. can afford free healthcare and community college without raising taxes through the roof (as countries like Japan that have very low-cost universal healthcare have taxes similar to ours).

Rebuttal #2: Con also stated that he/she believed that free healthcare and education could make the quality of education lower. However, this is also not accurate. For starters, I only want free community colleges and two-year colleges, and these colleges are already not the highest quality, so making them only funded by taxes wouldn't affect their quality by to much. K-12 education is already pretty much funded by the government as of now, so the quality of our K-12 education right now is probably not being lowered by the fact that it's essentially free, as many states with free or close to free education have very good education programs. Healthcare, on the other hand, may have lower quality, but there is also a solution to that. Free public healthcare can still be free and available to all and funded by the government (which I believe can be done well if the government can spend and fund smarter). This would act like a safety net for people who cannot pay medical bills and would provide some level of healthcare to everyone. There would then be private healthcare, which would have to be paid for if you want it and would offer higher quality healthcare. This way, we would have free public healthcare with doctors paid for by government funding, which would naturally lower quality, but we would also have private healthcare, which would have to be paid for and would have higher quality. Many doctors today already work for public healthcare that is still have to be paid for and doctors who cannot work or cannot qualify for working in private healthcare can work in public healthcare. You can do this by restricting the number of doctors working in private healthcare in order to have a good supply of doctors working in both private and public healthcare in order to keep the quality of healthcare, and restricting the number of doctors working today is already what the AMA do today.

In conclusion, while Con had some good arguments, his/her arguments are not good enough to show that healthcare and community college/ two-year colleges shouldn't be free. To live in a country that does not even freely provide people with their basic rights and standards for living would take way its citizen's dignity. This is why healthcare and community college should be free.
debate-master1

Con

I have some answers to your rebuttals

1. In Pro's first rebuttal which was that that we can cut the military spending. However North Korea uses tons of military spending and also they don't teach them any good stuff. Even if they give a those good things the government will start failing by not getting more taxes. The teachers will get poor. Also there might only be the smart kids who have the money to spend these efforts to go into a university. You won't give a university spot to a poor dumb dude then a smart a rich dude.

2. Pro's statement has a few errors. First they have worser quality of effort of anything if they don't work hard. If the government gives them money, they can't do anything else important.

In Conclusion I think that healthcare and education should not be free.
Debate Round No. 3
epicray1

Pro

I do not understand why you constantly believe that I believe that universities and four-year colleges should be free, because I don't. I only believe two-year colleges and community colleges should be free so some people who can't qualify for bigger colleges, are getting prepared for larger colleges, or can't afford four-year colleges or universities can still get a level of education beyond K-12 education, and since community colleges are already just a low-level of tertiary education, free community college would admittedly have worse quality than universities but would still provide some level of tertiary education. My idea is that most people who want higher levels of education can pay to go to universities or four-year colleges, but some people who can't go to these colleges could go to community colleges as a backup plan. I do not that the quality of education is being worsened by being free because K-12 education is pretty much free in America as of now, but the quality of teachers isn't bad at all but instead it is the content we're teaching is bad, but that has nothing to do with the fact that K-12 education is free but more to do with the fact that our way of teaching is bad. The current salary for a teacher isn't too bad right now as well (as many of the teachers I've had have had good lives financially), but it can be improved with better funding and smarter spending from our government. However, it is not the fact that it is free's fault.

Public healthcare that is funded by the government and essentially free might have lower quality, but my idea is that we can still have high-quality PRIVATE healthcare that people would have to pay for. This way, we can still have plenty of high paid doctors, and if the standards for being a doctor in private health industries are high (as they should be), then we can still have a good amount of public healthcare doctors that can also be paid well through the government. The lower quality (but not too low of quality) public healthcare would just be a safety net in case people can't use private healthcare.

Con stated that "there might only be the smart kids who have the money to spend these efforts to go into a university". Well, if you think about it, this is already the case right now, as many universities often cost over 200k, and many schools cost 250k to attend for four years, so having free community college and two-year colleges wouldn't really make a negative difference on the cost of universities overall.

Finally, I believe that our government can afford free healthcare and community college. I believe it would be good for us to cut our military spending, as we can still maintain a great military if we spend smartly (after all, many countries with a smaller military budget have great militaries), and, with the large amount of wasteful spending in the government today, I believe that if our government cuts spending wisely to create less debt and a larger budget, then the government can afford free healthcare and community colleges/ two-year colleges.
debate-master1

Con

I do not believe about 4 year university and never said you did, so that is a misunderstanding. It is the same even if you get the two year fee.

Even if you get it, still you have to pay. Then why don't we just pay in the first place?

Why I won this debate

I made good a strong arguments. However my opponent's were slightly weaker than mine. I made strong rebuttals and answered all of the opponents rebuttal, when the opponent did not answer. My opponent made some misunderstandings of what I said.

I will restate my arguments again.

1. The cost to the state is far too great to sustain universal free university education

The social-democratic model, most prevalent in Europe, is a failure. The system of paying for universal healthcare, education, pensions, etc. threatens to bankrupt the countries maintaining them; it is simply unsustainable. The cost of paying for free university education is ruinously high. The government money needed to be channeled into universities to provide for free education, as well as into various other generous social welfare benefits, has been a case of borrowing from future generations to finance current consumption1]. For these countries to survive, and lest other countries attempt to follow suit with similar models, they must rethink what they can afford to provide freely to citizens. In the case of education, it seems fair to say that all states should offer access to their citizens to primary and secondary education opportunities, since the skills acquired during such education are absolutely necessary for citizens to function effectively within society; reading, writing, basic civics, etc. are essential knowledge which the state is well-served in providing. University, on the other hand, is not essential to life in the same way. People can be functional and responsible citizens without it; it can be nice to attend, but one can live effectively without it. For this reason, the state must consider university in the same way it does any non-essential service; people may pay for it if they wish to partake, but they cannot view it as an entitlement owed by the state that will simply provide it to everyone. The cost is just too high, and the state must act from a utilitarian perspective in this case. Instituting fees will place the cost of education upon those wishing to reap the benefits of education, and not on the taxpayer.

2. The quality of education suffers when university education is free

Without university fees, universities become dependent on the state for funding. The problem with this is that the state’s aim is to increase university attendance levels for the sake of political gain, while at the same time striving not to increase spending on the universities. The result is an increase in attendance, without commensurate increase in funding from the state. This leads to larger class-sizes and less spending per student[1]. Furthermore, these problems result in disconnected lecturers who, due to increased class sizes, cannot connect to their students or offer more than cursory assistance to struggling pupils. The decline in teaching quality is further exacerbated by their need to focus less on teaching and more on research, which is more profitable and thus encouraged by cash-strapped universities. With fees, on the other hand, the quality of universities increases for three reasons. First, funding improves, as university may charge in accordance with need rather than with making do with whatever the state gives them to fund teaching. The result is a consistent quality in education resources rather than it being dependent upon what the state happens to give universities, and on how many students it pushes to be accepted. Second, quality of teaching is improved. Because a university wants people to attend and to pay fees, the programs and degrees they offer have to be good signals of quality. Universities thus stay in business only so long as they remain purveyors of high quality educational goods. They must thus let in smart people, irrespective of their financial background, which will in part serve to admit and finance capable people from disadvantaged backgrounds through targeted financial aid programs. Third, the average quality of students attending university will improve. This is because students feel they need to get the most from their investment in education, which can be quite substantial. They will thus be more attentive and more interested in doing well. An example of higher quality education stemming from fee-paying higher education systems is that of the United States, which has twenty of the top fifty ranked universities in the world[2]. Quality is clearly improved when university is not free.

Please vote for Con!

Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.