The Instigator
notpolicydebategod
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Geekis_Khan
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Libertarians have it right on health care-not Barack, Hillary or Johnny.

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 4/19/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 791 times Debate No: 3700
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (10)

 

notpolicydebategod

Pro

Libertarians are considered heartless people who would let the poor suffer but this is untrue. We have a heath care plan that is simply the bee's knees.

- Libertarians know that the only health care reforms that will make a real difference are those that draw on the strength of the free market. We propose to establish medical savings accounts to allow tax-free contributions in a medical savings program or 100% tax deductibility for all health care costs.

- We propose to deregulate the health care industry by repealing all government policies that increase health costs and decrease the availability of health services.

- We propose to remove the barriers to safe, affordable medications by replacing the harmful FDA with a more agile free-market alternative. This last measure alone could save hundreds of thousands of lives each year by providing medications without a 10-year testing delay imposed by the FDA.

- In Sweden and Canda, people wait for years for surgeries that will save their lives and they die because they were in the waiting line. If you force or even encourage people to choose a limited number of health care plans, then those people will wait in line and potentialy die in that line like in Canada and Sweden.
Geekis_Khan

Con

Well, I accept this debate and thank my opponent for starting it. But I'd really like to stop seeing all of these debates about how one ideology is better than another. I don't care if you're liberal, conservative, libertarian, or populist. Quit being so close-minded.

Anyways, I still want to do this debate, so I'm going to look at your argument piece by piece.

"Libertarians know that the only health care reforms that will make a real difference are those that draw on the strength of the free market. We propose to establish medical savings accounts to allow tax-free contributions in a medical savings program or 100% tax deductibility for all health care costs."

Unless I'm missing something that's still leaving out the poor. How can they put anything into an account? They don't have the money to. I'd love some elaboration. And please make it easy to understand. I don't want anything to get distorted in this debate.

"We propose to deregulate the health care industry by repealing all government policies that increase health costs and decrease the availability of health services."

Examples of those regulations and policies?

"We propose to remove the barriers to safe, affordable medications by replacing the harmful FDA with a more agile free-market alternative. This last measure alone could save hundreds of thousands of lives each year by providing medications without a 10-year testing delay imposed by the FDA."

So wait, it's bad that we have an organization that keeps harmful products out of our foods an drugs? It's bad that we have an organization that makes sure the medicine on the market won't kill anyone? It's bad that we have an organization that makes sure the food we buy is healthy? Have you ever read "The Jungle"?

I'll admit that a 10-year testing period might seem bad, but even more lives would be lost if a harmful medicine were to make it's way onto the market.

"In Sweden and Canda, people wait for years for surgeries that will save their lives and they die because they were in the waiting line. If you force or even encourage people to choose a limited number of health care plans, then those people will wait in line and potentialy die in that line like in Canada and Sweden."

First of all, we are not talking about any other health care plans but the Libertarian health care plan. Even if it was relevant, it works against you because the fact of the matter is that Sweden and Canada have higher life-expectancy rates than the US. Here's a map:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

France also has universal health care, and you'll notice that they have a higher life-expectancy, as well.

And I know that map was from Wikipedia. Here's the raw numbers straight from the CIA:

https://www.cia.gov...

Here's the main thing: you propose to leave everything to the free market. But, this simply doesn't work. Historically, it doesn't work. Why? Because the needs and demands of workers/consumers have not proven to be sufficient in keeping corporations in check, which is why e need some regulation. Ultimately, the only type of economy that works is not a free market or socialism: it is a mixed economy.

And, of course, please vote for the better debater, not for the side that you personally agree with.
Debate Round No. 1
notpolicydebategod

Pro

I prescribe to Libertarianism: smaller government and more personal freedom. This makes me have a belief. It does not mean that I'm close minded.

- The poor's health care
+ The poor is alredy given health care. They dont need it. The middle class needs health care. But dont just give them health care. Give them options. If they want to support a particular company, allow them. This creates competition. Look at our private schools. They compete with free schools and better schools. They have to remain good or else they will have parents pull their kids out. If the health care industry had no or little competition, prices would be ridiculous and so would service. In France, Sweden and Canada they have poor equipment, bad service and long waits because they dont have to not. They compete with no one. No one has a choice to leave. And the price the government pays is remendous and the taxes are significantly higher there. We pay 43% of our income. Imagine paying a cent more. They pay way more for taxes and have poor service.

- Regulations
+ The state's rules are unjust, imposing on many who wish to be let alone. The state's rules are inefficient because they are one size fits all, forcing expenditures where none or less may be desired. The state's rules damage the incentives for private provision of safety and for the private development and transmission of safety rules and information. They hold secure positions no matter how poorly they regulate and behave. They are not directly accountable to us. They do not report to us what they are doing. We, in any event, do not monitor them. They have no incentive to improve over time or economize on costs. Indeed their incentive is to provide the worst possible service at the highest possible price because they are government monopolists. They impose costs on us whether we like it or not. They are insensitive to our changing wants. They are subject to political forces and the influence of groups they regulate. They are subject to corruption. In Chicago, the government regulated the malpractice insurance too much and the doctors went on strike for a day, doctors were threating to quit medical school and close practices because they would loose too much profits.

- FDA
+ The FDA is a good concept but it is too slow, corrupt, and underfunded. My suggestion was a free market alternative. Ther are plenty of companies that will check our food for money and companies would gladly pay the cost instead of sending their goods through the FDA and paying their steep fines. If we used private companies to regulate drugs, nobody would stand for a life saving cure taking 10 years to regulate.

- The free market historically doesnt work.
+ Ive never seen this. A free market economy without monopolies works perfectly. Maybe I'm wrong but Ive never seen this not work. And the FDA doesnt work now and monopolies never work. A monopoly for health care would be disasterous. The FDA monopoly is disasterous. If the government paid for people's health care and letting them choose their plan, there would be competition and people would have health care.

+ Sweden is one example of a nation that has the health care youre talking about. Doctors are allowed to have private practices but 80% decide to work in government hospitals, destroying competition. Their taxes are ridiculously high. Significantly higher than here in the states. And waiting lists that are ridiculous. The party that promised that nobody would have to wait more than 3 months for surgery, "The Social Democrats", is shamed now because more than half of people wait over 6 months without surgery. These people are enduring excrutiating pain for 6 months or more because of the Swedish system. And many die. While Sweden is a first world country, its health care system - at least in regards to access - is closer to the third world. Because the health care system is heavily-funded and operated by the government, the system is plagued with waiting lists for surgery. Those waiting lists increase patients' anxiety, pain and risk of death. Why settle for this when the Libertarians have found a working alternative?

Look at this:
Monopolies NEVER work, so much so, theyre illegal. They cause no competition, higher prices, poor service and poor performance. Why make our health this way? Same with the FDA?

Waiting lists cause people to die and have excrutiating pain.

Taxes and spending is dranatically higher.

A 100% tax deduction solves everybody's problems. Its free health care. And its competition. Why have it any other way?

Thank you for reading this debate in its entirety and agreeing to vote.
Geekis_Khan

Con

First of all, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to call you close-minded. I'm just really tired of everyone posting debates about how their ideology is so much better than everyone else's. And it really came off as arrogant when I saw all of these debates posted by you about how much libertarians are better than everyone else.

Anyway.

-Poor's health care
I like the school analogy. It's very good at explaining your position. however, it works for my side better. Why? Because we have both public schools and private schools. You're proposing that we only have private health care, and you're assuming that I'm proposing that we only have public health care. Not the case. I'm arguing froma pure mixed economy standpoint. If we have the government provide free health care ut allow private industry to continue (like the school system), then we get the best of both worlds. The public health care system will allow those who can't afford health care to attain it, and the private health care system will keep standards up.

-Regulations
Once again, you haven't given me an example of these regulations. You simply say that they're doing all of this bad stuff without actually saying what they are. I can't refute this argument until you give solid examples of regulations. Furthermore, how is the state not accountable to the people? In case you didn't realize, we're the ones who determine who stays in office. You say there's no incentive, but re-election is oe oif the biggest incentive there is. So, if they do something tat the majority of th popualtion doesn't like, it won't last long. politics are governed by synonymous rules as economics. Combining the two keeps each in check, and gives us the best of both worlds.

-FDA
But you're still resting on the assumption that this free market alternative will actually do it's job. Historically, when a company is unregulated, it serves it's own interests, not the interests of the consumer. The main point here is that I'm not willing to let free market forces determine hat is safe and waht isn't. I don't trust it. Having a mixed economy with government regulation works much better. however, if you're arguing that we should have both, I might be sayed on that one point. However, that's still leaving up the safety of certain products to the free market.

-The free market historically doesn't work.
You've never seen this? Industrial revolution, anyone? The worker and consumer became so abused by corporations during this perio because everyon was so dead set on laissez-faire economics. It wasn't a matter of monopolies,e ven. It was a matter of a de-regulated economy. Once again, have you ever read "The Jungle"?

And we're not necessarily talking about the Swedish system>. I simply put it in there because you're claiming that it's tougher there to stay alive, yet they have a longer life expectancy (a point you haven't refuted). What I'm disagreeing with you is that your free market system is leaving too much up to chance. A mixed eonomy is always the best option: it allwos economic and politics to check each other.

And I'd like to make clear that I'm not supporting a monopoly of the government. Sorry, but if you're trying to argue against that, you should've made your topic more specific.

And I'd like to refute one of your points. You talk about people dying waiting in line. But who's to say that these lines won't exist under your system? We still have a scarcity of resources. We still have a scarcity of funds. We still have a scarcity of time. UNDER BOTH SYSTEMS. The problem of not being able to serve everyone on time exists under both sides. You cannot count it for either the PRO or the CON.

And now you're simply saying that deducing taxes solves everything. What? That does nothing to provide anyone with health care.

Please vote CON
Debate Round No. 2
notpolicydebategod

Pro

-Poor's health care
I'm saying that private schools have to compete and do better than public schools, generally. If health care remained private while giving tax breaks to all, and continuing health care for the poorest Americans, then it would great. Health care should be private. Piblic things do not work. Our public school system is failing. A public health system will fail like in Switzerland, Canada, and France. A private system will work and will be better when it is paid for you. In Switzerland, there are huge waiting lists that delay surgery for often more than 6 months, putting people through excrutiating pain for months and often kills people. The taxes are also way higher and they increase exponentially just to keep up with adequate health care costs and they still dont have as good equipment as we do here in the states. Why would you reduce American health care to this?

-Regulations
They force doctors to pay high malpractice insurance rates in Chicago. The doctors there walked out for a whole day. Less people go to medical school there now or they move out of Chicago. And doctors have less quality equipment because of the high price. Legislators dont understand the medical profession and arent effected by how they effect it. This is your example!

-FDA + The Historic Free Market
- Historically, when a company is unregulated, it serves it's own interests, not the interests of the consumer.
+ This is not true. Look at private schools, fast food, cars. Imagine if one gas company decided to charge $7 a gallon right now. They'd be out of business the next morning. With all the companies at $4 they have to keep competitive rates. The FDA currently takes on average 8 years to test a drug while patients die and go through excruciating pain. If the free market did it, there would be lower rates and theyd do a better and quicker job, saving lives. And yes. I've heard of "The Jungle."

- Sweden
Sweden has huge waiting lists that let people die and go in excruciating pain for months. And they have huge taxes. A 100% tax break for health care solves this problem. And I don't know why Sweden has higher life expectancy. But are you willing to allow people to die on waiting lists? Suffer with pain on waiting lists? And have WAY HIGHER taxes?

-And I'd like to refute one of your points. You talk about people dying waiting in line. But who's to say that these lines won't exist under your system?
+ The reason they have waiting lists is because there are fewer doctors because there are fewer available. There are fewer health care systems, therefore there are fewer doctors. When there are tax breaks, there are an infinite number if health care systems and therefore doctors and other resources. Under your system there are fewer doctors because there are fewer companies so the only solution is waiting lists, which the rich and famous can jump in front of. And that allow people to die and go into excruciating pain. My plan does not include evil waiting lists or a lack of resources.

Ok. Now, that I've responded to all of your points, I will restate my own:
Your plan allows all Americans to have health care but causes waiting lists, a lack of resources, less doctors, higher taxes, and more deaths from the inefficient FDA.
My plan will give every American health care, will allow us to keep 100% of our resources and possibly encourage more doctors and resources, taxes will be lowered, never highered for health care, and the FDA will cease to exist as an inefficient group but free market alternatives will do a better job on testing drugs, like our private schools do best.

There is absolutely NO REASON to let the government raise your taxes for health care when they canbe lowered for the same thing. And there are so many reasons not to have government in health care with higher taxes. Why not vote PRO?

Thank you. Please vote with logical side: PRO.
Geekis_Khan

Con

I'll try to hit each issue.

-Poor's health Care.
You've still given no evidence how your system provides health care for those who need it but can't afford it. You simply just keep repeating "tax breaks for all". that doesn't mean people will be able to afford health care. Once again, a system of public and private health care works best: people who can't afford it can get health care, and people with money can get higher standards. It's the best of both worlds. And as far as the whole "waiting list" thing goes, how is this problem unique to public health care? because of a lack of resources, time, and doctors, and an abundance of patients, wait lists are inevitable under any system. it's just life.

-Regulations
1.) High price of equipment is the fault of the market, not regulations. Good quality equipment costs money> I thought that someone who supported the free market would understand that.
2.) High insurance rates have to do with the market, as well. It costs a lot to cover someone in a case of malpractice. It is completely logical that malpractice insurance is high.

You've given no actual evidence of how this is the legislator's fault. All you've given are two examples where prices are high.

-Historic Free Market/FDA
First of all, Private schools ARE subject to regulation:
http://www.ed.gov...

You keep referring to competition as the save all, but all that can really do is keep prices down. History has proven (look at the 19th century and early 20th century) that companies will take advantage wherever they can. They'll do whatever it takes to cut costs, often at the expense of the consumer and worker.

And I don't trust you on the FDA point anymore because you started out arguing that it was ten years, and now it's eight. Also, the phrase "average of eight years" makes me think that they're trying to get these tested as quickly as possible, and that it's not required that they delay it for that long. I'M GLAD THAT THEY'RE BEING THOROUGH.

And you've also given no example of how the free market can actually do this. what company is going to pay some competitor to test their products. You see, without the regulation requiring them to got through the FDA, they don't have to do all that. It's cheaper not to. and it's not like consumers can just boycott those companies; you're not going to stop eating and you're not going to stop taking medication. we need the FDA's regulation. I know I've pounded this throughout the debate, but "The Jungle" really illustrates the need for the FDA. In fact, the FDA was created after "The Jungle" exposed the horrible conditions.

-Sweden
Once again, waiting lists are not a problem that is unique to any health care system. With complete privatization, you're still going to be managing a lack of resources, time, and doctors while counterbalancing with an abundance of patients. It doesn't matter what system you use, waiting lists will always exist because we can't possibly provide for everyone perfectly.

-Fewer doctors
This point is a nonsequitur. There are not going to be an infinite number of doctors and resources. A CAPITALIST SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SCARCITY OF RESOURCES. Look at the current health care system in the US. Is it privatized? For the most part, yes. We have some programs and regulations, but there are still companies doing their jobs. Are there still waiting lists? YES. Furthermore, even if everything is under the government (which I repeat, is not my suggestion; my opponent is attempting to straw man my case), then you're not going to have a sudden lack of doctors. There is no actual evidence for this. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary:

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu...

That's a map representing physicians per capita by country. the darker blue it is, the more doctors they have. as you can see, we're equal with Canada and Sweden and France. we're not going to have less doctors with any universal health care system. My opponent's point about this is unfounded. Waiting lists are a problem for any health care system.

I've refuted all of my opponent's points. He has offered no evidence through this entire debate, while I have pointed you to valid sources several times. In fact, his entire argument, when looking at his summary, seems to be that he just doesn't want to pay taxes.

Clearly, the CON has won this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
NOTE: Third or fourth place because we got to Semis and dropped, so that's all we actually know about our ranking right now. In case that wasn't clear. :)
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
I did Lincoln-Douglas, but I switched to Public Forum this year, and I actually got third or fourth place last night in State Competition.

But anyway, I'll post my rebuttal when my computer is running faster.
Posted by notpolicydebategod 9 years ago
notpolicydebategod
i love it. u do summin else?
Posted by Geekis_Khan 9 years ago
Geekis_Khan
By the way, you do/did policy? That's the most evil debate format there is!
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
notpolicydebategodGeekis_KhanTied
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 numa 9 years ago
numa
notpolicydebategodGeekis_KhanTied
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 Ramper0987 9 years ago
Ramper0987
notpolicydebategodGeekis_KhanTied
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 Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
notpolicydebategodGeekis_KhanTied
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 attrition 9 years ago
attrition
notpolicydebategodGeekis_KhanTied
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 Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
notpolicydebategodGeekis_KhanTied
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 stropheum 9 years ago
stropheum
notpolicydebategodGeekis_KhanTied
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 Spiral 9 years ago
Spiral
notpolicydebategodGeekis_KhanTied
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 ss0987 9 years ago
ss0987
notpolicydebategodGeekis_KhanTied
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 dave23456 9 years ago
dave23456
notpolicydebategodGeekis_KhanTied
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