I would like to get the ball rolling on this most provocative of topics, national health care.

I believe that a national health care system would cause Americans to become even more apathetic to their own health and or well being. This would thus fall, as if a yolk, on the back of all of the bourgeois and cause taxes to increase significantly. Please understand that this argument is based on American society, I am more interested in your opinion than just enforcing my own. Also realize that I have sympathy for the insurance industry and thus would like our current system to promulgate. Fire away.

You want my opinion on National Healthcare, you got it. Here are my opinions about the healthcare industry. (I'm assuming we're basically talking here about our beliefs and then go on to prove why either of our beliefs are illogical?)

Mmkay.

My beliefs:
There's a sick person.
There's a doctor.
Sick person.
Doctor.
Sick person pay doctor.
Doctor cure sick person.

American system:
There's a sick person.
There's a doctor.
There's a middleman. Called the Healthcare Industry.
Sick person.
Healthcare Industry.
Doctor.
Sick person pay 100 dollars to Healthcare Industry.
Healthcare Industry pays 100-X dollars to doctor.
Doctor cure sick person.

There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER why there needs to be a middleman between the sick person and the doctor. If it was possible, I'd just advocate that there is a direct link between doctors and patients, but nowadays, with all the new equipment, methods, etc etc etc, there needs to be someone that pays for it. I think that it's better that the government provides it, because all citizens are due health, and because its a better alternative to the system we have now. The system we have now basically spews propaganda to the people about how the healthcare industry cares about the people living around, when clearly, they pay the doctors and they pay their employees bonuses every time they exclude someone.

I believe that is immoral.

But regardless of morality or immorality, I simply do not see why we NEED a middleman. Again, the only justification is that there needs to be a money flow, and I say that since individuals (generally) don't have that sort of money, the government ought to pay for it. Some people bring up arguments that national HC means big taxes blah blah blah but when I hear this, I basically believe that it's a fallacious argument and they don't really think about what they're talking about. Generally speaking, people acknowledge that humans are worth something, and we shouldn't discriminate, dehumanize, exclude or enslave other people. However when people say that we can't afford a tax increase because the economy can't take it, they're basically saying that the cash flow of the world is more important than the lives of several million citizens.

And even if that's not true, I don't see how tax increases will crash the stock market.

Then again, I haven't taken Econ yet.

I dunno.

I just think that providing national healthcare is a just and moral thing to do.

Sorry about the poor post;
I am not stating that I in any way, shape or form am trying to deface the health care recipient or trying to take stabs at a national health care system. It seems to me it would place a large burden on the government, ideologically it holds sound yet when tried practically, well D'Holdback could have sparred in other ways.

The problem lies with people who cannot pay for their health care; are they to receive care with the governments and therefore tax payers money?

I am not debating whether this is a moral issue or not, I am concerned if a national healthcare system would work out practically.

Let us lay the framework out and see where it lies.

Oh, so it's about the practicality of the system.

Well, I think it was explained pretty well in Michael Moore's "Sicko" that if just about every other industrialized government in the world from France to Cuba can afford to give healthcare, there's no reason why the United States can't afford to give it as well.

As for "the people who cannot afford to pay", well, we care for them too. There's this whole thing in America about only caring for yourself - Well, what happened to caring about other people? Like seriously? Okay, I agree, that's getting back into the whole moral-just-mushy area, but if France, England and Cuba can afford to pay for their citizens who CAN'T afford to pay for the healthcare, and America has the most amount of billionaires in the world, how CAN'T we afford to pay for those sick homeless and broke people?

Oh yeah, and it's not like everyone pays $X000 dollars a year; it's a certain percentage of everyone's income. That's how things will work out; everyone helps out each other.

I sincerely believe that if we told corporations to suck up their **** and if we stopped letting the Healthcare Industry boss us around, if we stopped letting rich people just bathe in their own gold while not giving a freakin' **** about the people around them dying from the simplest things, we could implement a healthcare system that would work. Yes, in the United States.

Since my opponent has forfeited, all my arguments still stand and therefore I win the round.

I will use this round to refute "Conservative", a commenter on this debate who I think shares the same view as my opponent and basically summarizes most of the points presented by the anti-NHC-system side of this issue.

Yes I do, "conservative".

If I am rich and I have the ability to help other people, I have the obligation to help them. It's similar to seeing a drowning person: You currently are in the position to save a drowning person, and that person is going to die; I believe that you have an obligation to save him/her. The only reasons you WOULDN'T be obligated is 1) if you're drowning yourself, then I would argue that you're justified in saving yourself first, and 2) you're not able to swim.

If we're in a society, and one person has the ability to look out for others, and he doesn't need all that excess money, then he should be helping other people. If I am making accusations about them, the only thing I am saying is that they're not fulfilling their obligation

As for "busting their @$$ all day long", just compare the work an office person or a CEO of a car factory does compared to the guy actually putting the pieces onto the car. There's a big difference between who's putting more effort into it.

Your "seeing many poor people not working" is exactly the same as my argument of rich people bathing in gold. Both of the arguments are conditional and therefore nonunique. Even then, I have two responses: 1) Some of the people you see not working are not hired by companies because those people are homeless, and therefore they're not able to work. Regardless, this does not take out my argument. 2) There are a lot of poor people that ARE working, and my example of higher paying work compared to lower paying work stands true. However, as a society we ought to be helping each other, and as human beings we have the obligation to help those in need.

Unless you advocate that others shouldn't help you when YOU'RE in need
Unless you advocate the dehumanization of other citizens,
You have the moral obligation to vote PRO.

As for all the 'economic problems' and 'how do we pay for this national healthcare", I have already proven that it will work in my previous rounds, citing other empirical examples where it has worked.

For all those reasons, vote PRO.