The Instigator
righty10294
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
govchapman
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

National Health Care

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/19/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 988 times Debate No: 1993
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

righty10294

Con

Hello

I think that having a national heath care system would be terrible. It would make our doctors offices/hospitals. There are many reasons why we shouldn't have it-

1)You wouldn't be able to choose your own doctor.
This is very important. When people go to a doctor, they should feel comfortable going there and asking him personal questions. NOw, you meet a new doctor every time you get sick. You will never feel comfortable with that doctor, because you will see him for the first time, then he'll never see you again.

2)It would create higher taxes
In a time that we mite be going into recession, the last thing we would need is higher taxes. Buy adding higher taxes there is less money for US citizens to have for them selves or their family. So, we;re now back to block 0 and still in recession.

3)Doctors visits won't be effective and in less time.
Now that going to the doctors is free, people will go more often. This will call for an increase in patients, and a decrease in visit times. We don't have enough doctors or nurses as it is now, and in Britan, doctors see 50% patients than doctors do here. There, the is barley enough time to get your temp. recorded and the right prescription fill out.

There are many more reasons, but I don't have enough time to explain.
govchapman

Pro

I believe that we should have a National health care system for a number of reasons, but first I am going to put to rest some of the first few arguments, because they are popular myths about universal heath care.

1) You claim that you will not be able to choose your doctor. This is not true at all. In countries where they have a national health care system, people are free to visit any doctor they want to. In fact with the current system now people are not able to choose their doctor. I myself used to go to a doctor that I wanted to, but a few years ago, my insurance company sent me to a new doctor, without me having any say in it. With universal health care it is about treating patients, not making money, therefore the choice of doctor is actually better in a Universal health care than it is in the current privatized heath care system.

2) You are correct, it would raise taxes. What many don't see about taxes, they are simply an investment. Even though a national health care system would raise taxes, it would eliminate the cost of health care. This would save a majority of people a lot of money. All this is doing is squeezing out the middleman (insurance companies), and shifting the burden of health care costs to people who can better afford it. You talk about a recession, what better to fix it than to make sure everyone is getting the proper health coverage, and to kick start the economy by eliminating health care costs on people, and on business. Just imagine how many more jobs there would be (at higher pay might I add) if businesses didn't have to cover their employees health care costs.

3) Doctors visits would NOT take more time at all. In fact it would take less, yes there would be a whole hell of a lot more patients, however in the current system there is so much paperwork and forms. Right now doctors spend more time filling out forms for the insurance companies, than actually treating their patients. A universal health care system would simply make it more efficient, and allow doctor to do what they are trained to do, not filling out paperwork.

I am looking forward to seeing what arguments you "didn't have time for" so I can put to rest some more myths about universal health care.

-Thank you
Debate Round No. 1
righty10294

Con

Hello

Sorry for the delay, I've been busy and then in my 3 debates all my opponents submitted their argument in 1 day.

"with the current system now people are not able to choose their doctor"

That statement was a bad generalization. On my family's health care plan, we can choose our own doctor. There are some plans who allow you to choose your own doctor, and then there are the ones that don't.

For the taxes: There are 150,000,000 (million) payers in the country (not exactly sure, this was a number told to be in another debate). Those people each pay $2,500 in medical fees every year. NOw multiply the $2,500 to 3,000,000,000 people. That comes out to $7,500,000,000,000 in medical fees. Divide that by the 150,000,000 people who have to pay for it, and it's $50,000 a year extra. That is more than some people make in 1 year. I will make it $1,000 per person and see what we got- $2,000 in medical fees. That is double than what they should actually be paying. So, the cost exceeds the benefit.

"Doctors visits would NOT take more time at all. In fact it would take less, yes there would be a whole hell of a lot more patients"

Sure there will be less paperwork, but there would be way more patients. People will be coming in with the littlest things, like a jammed finger or headache, because it doesn't cost anything. What about at the ER. Someone jams their finger bad, they decide to go to the ER, because it could be jammed and who cares it doesn't cost anything. Now there is someone there that has something that is life threatening, and they come. There is wait because of the people there for the littlest things, like the guy I explained. She dies while waiting. If it was like it is now, people would toughen things out and if after a week they didn't get better, they'll do something. This would leave room for the more serious injuries.

Here are more of my arguments-
1)We have free clinics, community hospitals, and charities to pay for the people who aren't insured.

2)The government will limit the amount of money you can spend, then you have to pay for it. Here is a story about a women in the UK. She had a serious eye condition under her eye and unless treated she would go blind. The NHS told her that she was going to pay for it, because it cost too much money. She ended up getting and the NHS paid for it only because the York Times and Royal Institution for the Blind put so much publicity on it. Check this article with many stories like this one- http://freestudents.blogspot.com...
I no it says blogspot, but pay more attention to the links given in that article.

3)what would you do with all the Health Insurance people. They put so much money as a 19-20 year old to have this job. It is the only thing they are trained to do, now they are out of a job, because of the government. That sounds like a communist state to me.
govchapman

Pro

First off, I would like to say that you just proved my point with the choice of doctor argument. Some people are able to in this country, others are not. In countries with universal health care you are aloud to choose your doctor.

Secondly, I want to congratulate my opponent on his superb math skills. There is only one problem with that, hmmm I know... IT MIGHT JUST BE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE 301,139,947 U.S. CITIZENS, https://www.cia.gov... NOT 3,000,000,000, (nice one genius). Next time you want to put out a mathematical equation for an argument, you probably shouldn't try to slip an extra zero in there. Another point about taxes is that we pay higher taxes than many countries who have universal health care do. This is for two main reasons, the first is that they don't end up paying for what happens down the line if a patient needs to be treated and is not. The other reason is that our priorities as a nation are totally out of wack, yeah I'm talking about Iraq, with the cost of that war we could have universal health care over for many years (we should try to help people, not kill them).

What makes you think that doctors would just jump to people to help them if they didn't have a legitimate injury. If someone is in serious need of help they will be treated immediately. People who have a "jammed finger" will have to wait for help until after people who have more serious problems. This will ensure that people seek help only when they need it.

Here are the rebuttals to the rest of your so called arguments;
1) This country does not have many free clinics at all. The free clinics we do have do not give any sort of extensive treatment whatsoever. They will do nothing for people who have serious conditions like cancer. Let me tell you a little story, there is this doctor I know who was going door to door campaigning for his run at public office. He stopped at this house and once the man inside found out he was a doctor he brought out his friend, who had an absolutely immense tumor on his face. There was nothing anyone could do for him at that point, he died not long after. My point is this, this guy along with many others needed immediate care, free clinics just doesn't cut it, stuff like this happens way to often in this country. 18,000 people die every year in the U.S. simply because they have no health insurance.

2)So much money in the American health care system goes straight into the pockets of the CEOs of health insurance companies. You can't possibly tell me that people pay have to pay more fees extra in other systems. Insurance companies will drop coverage to people all the time and they have to pay BIG. This doesn't include the 47 million of us who do not even have heath care, they have to pay the most!

3)And don't worry about our dear friends at the insurance companies. They will be able to get skilled work as a doctor or a nurse. This will be much better than the semi-skilled job of denying health insurance to people. Oh... and one more thing, there is a lot of thing provided by the government. So if universal heath care is "Communist" than roads, schools, prisons, police stations, fire stations, libraries, and the military are all Communist. Damn, i'm scared there are dirty commies everywhere.
Debate Round No. 2
righty10294

Con

Hello

Thank you for this debate, and voters please vote on who did better, rather than who you agree with.

"THE FACT THAT THERE ARE 301,139,947 U.S. CITIZENS,"

I knew that the number was higher than 300,000,000 but it was easier numbers to do the math with.

I can not see how you are trying to bring Iraq into the equation. Iraq has nothing to do with national health care. THe money we spent in Iraq was to protect us from WMD's and end the cruelty that Saddam Hussein was performing to the citizens of that country. Also, there will be higher taxes, it is common sense, if it's the government's plan, who's going to pay for it. The government will pay for it, and we will pay the government. What I'm proving is the cost exceeds the benefit's. You have yet to prove this statement wrong, but you have just said we pay higher taxes than any other country.

"18,000 people die every year in the U.S. simply because they have no health insurance"

Okay, where is your proof. Even with the proof, is there any real statistics, like who had untreatable cancer or stuff like that. Or is this just the number of people who died without health insurance.

Now to your story about your "doctor friend". How do I know that this is true? You could be making that whole argument up, just because it would make your argument sounds better.

"This doesn't include the 47 million of us who do not even have heath care."

Once again, I don't know if this argument is true, because there are no facts or proof. How many of these people have jobs, but don't have insurance? I bet you that a majority of these people could find a job with a health care plan included. Also, how many of these are rich people who don't need health insurance?

"if universal heath care is "Communist"

I never called universal health care communist, nor could I see how you got that inference. I said that if the government puts in a national health care, it would be a communist-like to just take away their jobs like that. Another thing is what if the insurance workers lived in a area where no doctors or nurses were needed. Now do they move? Leave a town they have lived and loved since they were a kid. I can't see it happening.
govchapman

Pro

It is completely alright to round a little bit, but what you did was add an extra zero which caused the projected cost to skyrocket. You claimed originally there were 3 billion U.S. citizens, there are 300 million.

Now that this is settled I will move on to why I brought Iraq into the equation. My point is that we are wasting our money to kill people, when we can easily use it to help them instead. Responding to your comments I would like to add that there were never any WMDs in Iraq, nor was Saddam ever a threat to the U.S.

The cost does not outweigh the benefits at all. This will allow everyone in the U.S. to have health insurance, saving 18,000 lives per year http://www.iom.edu... (here's your proof you were looking for). There is more to it than that. Universal health care would drive down the cost of the actual care by eliminating the middleman. It would also allow people to move freely from job to job without fear of losing their heath insurance. Another important aspect is that small businesses could proper because they wouldn't have to cover the cost of health care for themselves or their employees. Oh and the 47 million people without health insurance statistic is right here; http://www.pbs.org... I can assure you that all of these people want heath care, and none of them are rich.

As for the doctor I know, you don't have to believe me if you don't want to, but you cannot sit there and tell me that that kind of stuff doesn't happen in a nation with no universal heath care.

Ha, I would be extremely surprised if I found an individual that grew up wanting to work for a health insurance company. Jobs are created and destroyed all the time. I guess if someone was really evil and wanted to listen to people cry and plead to them while they deny them health coverage, but I don't mind taking their job away.

-Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by righty10294 8 years ago
righty10294
underminingchaos- There is a diffrence between North Americans and Americans Candians Mexicans Panamanis (it sounds good). They are all diffrent countries, so you can't just say that we are the same.

" take a bit out of the Military fund or something"
I'm repauled! What has your military done to help us defend freedom? One thing we should never do is take money out of defense. We should be putting more into defense. HEre's an idea- all left over money from campaigns should go to the government to help lower taxes (does it? I'm not sure)
Posted by Undermining-Chaos 8 years ago
Undermining-Chaos
That's very true.
We're all North Americans, however.
Why is it that the idea of spending a few extra dollars to help the economically-struggling family next door bothers you? Maybe take a bit out of the Military fund or something.
All I'm saying is that there isn't THAT big of a difference.
A person is a person is a person.

People have inevitably become accustomed to change and new ideas. I look forward to reading the following rounds and finding out why you think this is such a bad idea.
Posted by righty10294 8 years ago
righty10294
undermining chaos- Canada is Canada not the US. Candians are diffrent than americans
Posted by Undermining-Chaos 8 years ago
Undermining-Chaos
As a Canadian citizen, I see the good points and bad points of a national health care.

Con, do more research.

We have things called family doctors, with whom we make appointments for things when we wish to speak with one we trust.
The emergency room is for emergencies.

Our taxes aren't that high at all. Again, do more research. Our extra money into our health care system goes to save people. You'll probably paying a lot of tax dollars into your military, off killing people.

In our emergency rooms, we do a little thing called PRIORITIZING.
If we have an infant with a fever, or bleeding from the head, they're going to be going in way before the guy that stubbed his toe.

Here in Canada we are one step closer to having a country where all people are equal, where the United States health care is simply dividing. You still have the three class system found in the days of european monarchies.
Slightly reversing progress, are we not?

Tell me, compared the Canada, what are your mortality rates?
Your disease rates?
How does your lower class take care of their families?

Pro, I hope my comment helps you a little with your next posts.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
righty10294govchapmanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: cons arugmetns were logicla fallacies
Vote Placed by griffinisright 8 years ago
griffinisright
righty10294govchapmanTied
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 Aagon 8 years ago
Aagon
righty10294govchapmanTied
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 blond_guy 8 years ago
blond_guy
righty10294govchapmanTied
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 redinbluestate 8 years ago
redinbluestate
righty10294govchapmanTied
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 righty10294 8 years ago
righty10294
righty10294govchapmanTied
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 govchapman 8 years ago
govchapman
righty10294govchapmanTied
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