The Instigator
HandsOff
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
JTSmith
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points

If Obama and his followers were consistent they would resemble communists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+14
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 7 votes the winner is...
HandsOff
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,818 times Debate No: 5211
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (7)

 

HandsOff

Pro

Despite the fact that nowhere in our founding documents is health care declared a "right," Obama (and his supporters) declare it a right because it is a human necessity. But there is a huge problem with using this type of logic to justify government's role in providing services. If the degree of necessity is the criteria for converting a private service into a public entitlement, then universal food, clothing, water, shelter, transportation, etc. should also be on the agenda. Most of these items are considered even more important to our immediate survival than health care. It is simply inconsistent to have the government universally provide one service over another that is equally or more vital. If Obama and the Democrats were consistent, they would be attempting to lull voters with promises of providing not just one, but ALL of life's necessities.

It is my belief that since Obama followers are thrilled to sell their votes in exchange for free health care, they would quickly opt for receiving the rest of life's necessities at no charge. Although these services would need to be introduced incrementally over a long period of time (as not to appear like communism), each would eventually be perceived as no worse an idea than universal health care. So in the case of Obama and his followers, consistency with regard to government services would eventually lead to a situation resembling communism.
JTSmith

Con

It is a fair logic but very flawed and for two HUGE reasons.

1. Barack Obama is not giving away free healthcare, by any stretch of the imagination. Too many people attack his health plan before even looking at it. Barack Obama's health plan creates an agency where people can BUY affordable healthcare. He is not giving it away, and thusly, would not be inclined to give away any other necessity of life.
2. Even if Barack Obama WERE giving away free healthcare (which he is not by any stretch of the imagination) the difference between healthcare and the rest of life's necessities is that healthcare is too expensive. The VAST majority of Americans have food,clothing,shelter, and transportation without government help. Their needs are already met. Healthcare, on the other hand, is a need that millions of americans HAVE NOT met, which would be why the government would agree to provide it.

Either way, Barack Obama's followers would not resemble communists because they are not giving away free healthcare. Obama would still require Americans to purchase their own healthcare. Last time i checked, that was pretty Un-Communist!

I have provided below a summary of Barack Obama's Healthcare Plan so that readers and my opponent can further see why Obama's plan DOES NOT resemble communism as well as to provide a source for my information.

******Barack Obama's health plan consists of two major parts.

1. Providing Healthcare for the Uninsured
and
2. Limiting Insurance Costs

I. Providing Healthcare for the Uninsured
Sen. Obama will create a health plan created from the same framework as the plan used to cover congressmen and senators. This health plan will provide coverage to all uninsured citizens at very affordable rate. The premiums will be very affordable. There will be no deductables and no one will be denied no matter their age, their history, or because of any pre-existing conditions they may have. Everyone gets covered.
The bonuses of this plan are:
a. Barack Obama does not hand out anything for free. People are all legitimatly paying for their own healthcare from a legitimate healthcare provider. The government will literally act as a business by managing an independent insurance enterprise.
b. This costs the government no money. It earns its management costs through its profits.
c. The plan will cover birth control, pregnancy costs, and mental healthcare, so no one is getting a half deal. This will be better than a lot of privately owned insurance companies.
d. It is not temporary. This coverage will become a lasting government operation.

II. Limiting Insurance Costs
Sen. Obama will create what will be called the National Health Insurance Exchange. The purpose of this organization will be to indirectly manage the cost of healthcare by spurring competition. The NHIE will lay down a set of requirements to earn its "thumbs-up" or "stamp of approval". These requirements would include things like premium maximums, coverage for all ailments both mental and physical, perhaps coverage for birth control; almost replicating the governments own provided insurance. With the creation of the new NHIE, the American demand for NHIE approved insurance companies will be very high! Insurance companies, jumping at the chance to get a head start on meeting that demand will reorganize their current policies and win the NHIE's approval, becoming part of the organization. Other insurance companies will be forced to meet the NHIE's requirements just to compete against the companies that have already joined the NHIE. Before long most insurance companies will be following the NHIE's guideline completely out of their own free will and their desire to be competitive.
The NHIE will be a permanent institution, not a short term relief program. It will manage healthcare costs simply by spurring competition.*****

(For further information or reference, see:
http://www.barackobama.com...)
Debate Round No. 1
HandsOff

Pro

I believe you are splitting hairs when you try to distinguish Obama's plan from other forms of universal health care. Obama has made it clear he is for universal health care, and will stop at nothing to make sure everyone in the country receives health care coverage one way or another. Whether said services are provided directly by the government or just paid for by the government makes little difference for the purposes of this debate. Furthermore, Obama's plan is just that-- a plan. Unfortunately it is a plan that relies heavily on low-income Americans doing the right thing. We all know who will be left holding the bag if his naivet´┐Ż becomes law. According to his plan, the millions of voluntarily uninsured (those who manage to afford cell phones, Direct TV, car payments, booze, etc.) will suddenly find the discipline to budget for health insurance payments, while the small percentage of involuntary uninsured (those who truly cannot afford it) will be subsidized completely by tax dollars. If his plan works the way he is guessing it will, the tax payers still pick up the lions share of the tab. If it does not work as planned, do you honestly believe Obama and a democratic congress will toss their hands up and walk away? Not a chance. They will reach for the wallet of one to pay for the health care of another.

If you are dead set on debating whether Obama is for socialized health care, we can do so in a separate debate. For now, and to avoid derailing the spirit of the original resolution, you will need to concede that Obama and his party is for universal health care. If not, I can modify original resolution in another debate to "If those who are for universal health care were consistent, they would resemble communists." Let me know.

But let me handle a few of your other points:

"Either way, Barack Obama's followers would not resemble communists because they are not giving away free health care."

When the government requires one tax payers or employers to entirely pay for, or partially subsidize, the health care services of another, it is certainly is "giving away free health care" to the recipient.

"Even if Barack Obama WERE giving away free health care... the difference between health care and the rest of life's necessities is that health care is too expensive."

This is not true. Food and housing are more expensive than health insurance. Often so are car payments. I insure my family of 5 for $390 per month, with no help from an employer or the government. It's probably my 4th largest fixed expense. If Obama and the democrats were to be consistent in having the government pay for vital services simply because they are expensive, then food, housing, and transportation should be provided before (or at least along with) health care.
JTSmith

Con

First, I believe that you misinterpret the meaning of the phrase "universal healthcare".

Universal Healthcare simply means health care for ALL citizens. What you are reffering to is "Socialized Medicine" or "Socialized Healthcare". Socialized Healthcare is healthcare provided for all citizens at the government full expense.

Universal healthcare DOES NOT have to be socialized and thusly, communist. In Obama's plan, people will be able to provide themselves with healthcare by BUYING THEIR OWN policies. No one is given free coverage at all.

The fact is, Healthcare costs have sky-rocketed.
http://www.oftwominds.com...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Over the last 15 years, the cost of healthcare as doubled!!!

Thats why most people who dont have insurance, Honestly Cant Afford It! Its easy for someone like my opponent who claims that he makes over $150,000 a year to say otherwise but there is a new problem arising now that wasnt as bad 20 years ago.
I work in a restaurant. I dont have time for a higher paying job. Im in school full time. I make enough for rent, food, and gas. Thats it. I dont have money for insurance. Since I am in school, my parents plan will cover me until I graduate. Were I not so fortunate, I wouldnt have coverage. Period. There is no chance.
The problem is not just mine either. Most of the people I work with range from 19-42. They dont have coverage because they dont have money. They live paycheck to paycheck, drive their beater cars around as little as possible, and hope that they dont get sick or hurt because heaven forbid, they need to go to the ER! Now they owe THOUSANDS to the hospital that they dont have. They cant pay it. Thats just a fact. They have no money. Now their credit is awful. Forget a home loan, or buying a new, more fuel efficient car. Forget getting that loan u needed to finish school, or that business loan you needed to start your own business. You cant even live in a decent apartment anymore without a cosigner! All because you got in that car accident that wasnt even your fault...
Lives are runied because of this.
I think more people are a bit more disciplined than you think. The problem is not just with poor older couples. The problem lies in the younger generation. The millions of college kids with no time to earn enough to cover their books and fees, let alone health inurance. It lies with the thousands newly weds and the new parents, who have found that the financial demand for raising a kid or taking care of themselves was more than they expected. These people DONT WANT to be uninsured. They just plain dont have a choice.

Now that we have clarified the healthcare crisis in NOT just a fantasy of a financially unidisciplined mind like my opponent has asserted, I will continue to address his other points.

1. Again, no one is recieving free healthcare. They are paying for AFFORDABLE healthcare on their own. No one is getting a free government ride, and nothing is resembling communism.

2. My opponent stated:
"If you are dead set on debating whether Obama is for socialized health care, we can do so in a separate debate. For now, and to avoid derailing the spirit of the original resolution, you will need to concede that Obama and his party is for universal health care. If not, I can modify original resolution in another debate to "If those who are for universal health care were consistent, they would resemble communists." Let me know."
- In response, we ARE debating the possibly socialized nature of Barack Obama's plan. Were it not for your opinion that his plan is socialized, then you would not be claiming his plan to resembled communists. You set that tone in your previous round. In all honestly, my friend, if you believed that Obama's healthcare plan was not in anyway socialized, than you could have never made your assertions.
In summary: The only way for Obama's Plan to resemble communism is through a socialist nature. Seeing as it does not have a socialized nature, it cannot resemble communism.

3. Lastly, you are right in saying that healthcare is not the most expensive of life's necessities. I should have worded my thoughts better. I will reorganize my point like this.
I made 1200 dollars this month.
I need food for the month - $250
I need to pay my rent - $550
I need to buy gas for the month - $180
I need to pay for my phone and internet - $100 (I need internet. Im going to school and already dont have cable)
I need to pay my car insurance - $120
Total: $1200
Point: Where am I gunna get the extra $200 for my insurance?
I have to prioritize. I need all of those other things first. I have to.
I need food or I'll starve.
I need to pay rent so i have someplace to live
I need to buy gas to i can get to and from work and school and run other errands
I need a phone and i need internet or I cant complete my school work
I need car insurance or I cant drive my car.
All of these come first...and I can only hope I dont get hurt cause I dont have anything left to put away for health insurance.
Me and Millions of americans...

No its not the most expensive, but its TOO expensive.

I still stant by my point, a plan that does not involve government give-aways of any kind, cannot resemble communism.
Debate Round No. 2
HandsOff

Pro

If you believed that Obama's health care plan was not in anyway socialized, than you could have never made your assertions. It seems we will stay off topic, but I'm enjoying the discussion."

I do believe Obama's plan will call for the U.S. tax payers to pick up the bill for all, if not most of the services Obama seeks to make available, and I explained why. I also believe our failed attempts to come to agreement on that would prevent us from discussing whether those in favor of government-sponsored health care ought be in favor of government-sponsored services which are equally vital, and would therefore resemble communist.

That said, let me prove to you that health care is not a priority for you or most uninsured Americans, and that it is evident in they way you and others are reluctant to sacrifice elsewhere to make it the priority you say it is.

Here is your story: "I work in a restaurant. I don't have time for a higher paying job. I'm in school full time. I make enough for rent, food, and gas. That's it. I don't have money for insurance. Since I am in school, my parents plan will cover me until I graduate. Were I not so fortunate, I wouldn't have coverage. Period. There is no chance."

Listen, a kid your age is only going to need about $100 to $150 per month for health insurance. The young are the least expensive to insure, yet you say they are the ones who have it worst. It's amazing how the Hispanic bus boys in my area ride a bike to the restaurant while all the white waiters and bartenders drive a car. In order to give up your car, which I'm sure you would agree is less important than your health, you would need to arrange to live closer to work and school, or leave the house earlier. There is certainly a chance of accomplishing that. Others take on more roommates to reduce their rent. After all, health care is certainly more important that roomy living quarters. There's another chance to save. Many students simply live at home while attending school. There's another chance to save on both food and rent. Finally, health insurance is definitely more important than you finishing school a year earlier, so working more hours and taking fewer units is also an option. There's another chance to save. We're only talking around a $100 per month here. I spent more than that in beer each week in college, but I still paid my $50 per month for health insurance (about half what it is today).

When you say "there is no chance" you are really saying there is no chance you are going to behave as though health care is the priority you say it is. Instead you will sit and hope (or vote) that the government will come to your rescue. If you want to see a man's priorities, look where he spends his money and his time. There is little difference between the two (money and time) since they are each interchangeable for one another. Your behavior and spending habits suggest health insurance is NOT a priority for you. If health care were really your next priority behind food, clothing, and shelter (all of which are also expensive and not provided universally by some government plan) your behavior would indicate it.

NOW LETS TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR CURRENT BUDGET AND SEE HOW WE CAN TWEAK IT SO YOUR EXPENSES WILL BE CONGRUENT WITH THE PRIORITIES YOU CLAIM TO HAVE:

"I made 1200 dollars this month.
I need food for the month - $250
I need to pay my rent - $550
I need to buy gas for the month - $180
I need to pay for my phone and internet - $100 (I need internet. Im going to school and already dont have cable)
I need to pay my car insurance - $120
Total: $1200
Point: Where am I gunna get the extra $200 for my insurance?"

TRY THIS:

$1400 per month income (extra shifts at work and fewer units at school-- or find the time elsewhere).
$300 rent (take on another roommate)
$250 food (assuming your appetite doesn't increase with all the exercise you will be getting)
$00 car payment (get rid of the car and get a bike)
$00 car insurance (no more car to insure)
$80 bus fare and air for your bike tires
$100 internet/cable (I guess it's a necessity these days)
$250 the most luxurious health care plan you can find (all the bells and whistles with no co-pays or deductibles)
Total: $980

When your lifestyle and spending plan are congruent with your values you will actually be able to SAVE $420 PER MONTH! You can use that money on booze, women and other fun stuff, or buy a few of your roommates health insurance. But if you take a look at THEIR spending habits you'll probably find they don't need your (or the tax payers') help either. Now you know why true conservatives often think of liberals as unresourceful whiners. It's insulting when you ask the tax payers to give up their time and money for services you SAY are critical, while at the same time you are unwilling to sacrifice your own time, money or lifestyle to obtain such services for yourself.
JTSmith

Con

JTSmith forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
JT,
Here's a detailed comparison between JFK and Obama. I would eveb take JFK over McCain because of his fiscally conservative principles. Who knows if he would have become a socialist over the last 50 years, as his brother has. He died before party loyalty (on both sides) began to trump common-sense fiscal responsibility.

http://www.ocregister.com...
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
JT Smith "Its a sound fact"

Sorry my friend but it is certainly not getting close to facts. I think you may want to research Obama's raising the capital gains tax to 25%

Since I'm sure you are unaware of what this tax is let me explain.

A capital gains tax is when someone puts their money in a savings account, stock, bond, mutual fund, etc. for more than 2 years they receive a special tax rate called a capital gains tax. Their interest was taxed by the Bush administration at 15% Obama wants to raise it to 25%. So think about this.

Bob is a middle class worker and is taxed roughly 25%. Before, Bob was making 5,000 in interest in his bank account that included his life savings. Before he was being taxed 15% (750$) Under Obama's new plan Bob will lose (1250) from his interest.

Raising the capital gains tax not only discourages middle class people from saving for more than two years, but it also discourages the middle class from long-term investing.

Now for the next example.

John is upper class and is very wealthy. He has a majority of his assets making interest for him in the stock market. John is wise and makes a lot of money from interest.

John routinely makes 750,000 a year. 250,000 from his CEO position and another 500,000 from the 2,000,000 he has in high performing mutual funds.

Normally John's income is taxed 40% However since most of his income is from interest (500000) this is taxed at 25% (Bob's tax rate) Additionally since John makes so much money from interest, he invests half of his salary (125,000) in a mixture of 401k, IRA, and 529 savings for his kid. Thusly that 125,000 is tax free.

So although John still pays more in taxes (because he makes more) you can see that his tax rate is very similar to Bob's.

So tell me JT, who is being hurt the most by the capital gains hike?
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
Obama is only planning to further gouge those who already hand over an unfairly high percentage of their income to the rest of us. Believe me. It sounds nice to have millionaires paying my bills too, but it's just wrong. In a democracy, poplularity trumps morals.
Posted by JTSmith 8 years ago
JTSmith
Correction!!
both would prefer Obama OVER McCain
Posted by JTSmith 8 years ago
JTSmith
Although I agree with Handsoff that JFK does seem to quite a rightside lean in the clip, JFK is laying at the exact same plane Sen. Obama is!
Several recent groups have run the numbers of both presidential candidates tax plans and the results were all the same.
Anyone making 120,000 dollars a year or less (most americans) will be paying hundreds less in taxes under the Obama plan then the McCain plan.

Despite what McCain says about "Obama raising taxes", most Americans will pay much less in taxes then if Sen. McCain were elected! Not opinion. Its a solid fact!

In that respect JFK sounds exactly like one Senator Barack Obama.

As to what JFK and FDR would think about Obama...
JFK I imagine would have already given Obama his endorsement were he still alive. How could anyone argue that?
FDR would have been a bit concerned with Obama's lack of credentials (may have preferred Hillary) but he too would align with his party on this one and support Sen. Obama.
Granted this is just speculation, I think most would agree. We are talking about party politics. FDR, JFK, and Obama are all Democrats and would support each other out of party loyalty if nothing else.
I do tend to think however, that both JFK and FDR would prefer Obama of McCain.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
Ooolon,
Which candidate does JFK sound like in this clip? I would say significantly to the right of McCain, and way right of Obama. What say you?
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
Thanks for noticing. Take a minute and give us your oh-so-objective viewpoint. What do you think JFK and FDR would have thought of Obama?
Posted by Oolon_Colluphid 8 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
I love it when I see hard-line democrats calling Obama a republic, Republicans calling him a socialist, extremist libertarians calling him a Marxist, and Socialists calling him a libertarian in disguise. It's pure rhetoric.

Handsoff you should write for libertarian newsletters you have a great technique or preaching to the choir. Not so much for convincing anyone else, but the converted will love it.
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
Yeah obviously no one read the debate who voted they just voted because they saw barrack obama's name.

You should check out my debate on abortion
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
I like your style scissorhands.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by cmrnprk07 8 years ago
cmrnprk07
HandsOffJTSmithTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Araku 8 years ago
Araku
HandsOffJTSmithTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
HandsOffJTSmithTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by advidiun 8 years ago
advidiun
HandsOffJTSmithTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
HandsOffJTSmithTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by ANSmith 8 years ago
ANSmith
HandsOffJTSmithTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JTSmith 8 years ago
JTSmith
HandsOffJTSmithTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07