The Instigator
wjmelements
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points
The Contender
Im_always_right
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points

National Heatlhcare is good.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,284 times Debate No: 5712
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

wjmelements

Con

National Healthcare is a system in which the government pays for all healthcare treatment within its borders.
For National Healthcare to be considerred good, it must give more benefit to society than damage.

I do believe that this is an ineffective system.

As con, I will wiat for my opponent to respond before further debating the topic.
Im_always_right

Pro

I thank my opponent for this challenging debate. I have never debated a topic like this before, so I hope I do good.

I will rebut my opponet's points:

"For National Healthcare to be considerred good, it must give more benefit to society than damage."

Of course it does it gives people who otherwise couldn't afford to LIVE to keep their life. Think, if you were too poor to have health insurence, and your work did not offer it, and you had to go into surgery or something, then you would not be able to afford it. You can't go into surgery and you die because of it, I am pretty sure that would help.

Not very much of the US is insured, so this scenario could happen to any one of those people, and thus making it benificial to society.

Now I make my own points:
============================================================================
I believe National Health Care is good, because it benefits society. It allows our people to be healthier, and thus happier.
Many people die only because they do not have insurence. Besides every other devoloped nation has public health care. Thus they limit the profit drug companies can make. Thus medication costs the most in the US. It is true they drug companies need the money, but the US shouldn't pay it ALL.
============================================================================

I now await my opponent's responce.
Debate Round No. 1
wjmelements

Con

"I will rebut my opponet's points:
For National Healthcare to be considerred good, it must give more benefit to society than damage."

That was not my point. It was my definition of good for the point of clarification.

Before I put out my points, I will negate my opponent's case.

My definition of National Healthcare obviously stood, so we will use it.
National Healthcare does not make sure anyone gets treatment or not; it only pays for their treatment. The current situation in the U.S. is that people are worried about having to pay their hospitol fees. Whether people can pay or not, they recieve treatment. Those who can't pay end up paying eventually.
So, negate my opponent's claim, "Of course it does it gives people who otherwise couldn't afford to LIVE to keep their life."

Also, my opponet's statistic, "Not very much of the US is insured, so this scenario could happen to any one of those people, and thus making it benificial to society.", is incorrect. Less than 50 million americans are without health insurance. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...
My opponent's claim that not very much of the U.S. is insured is illegitimate because there are more than 250,000,000 americans with health insurance, and that is over 5/6 of the country, which qualifies as "much of the US".
The person still lives, and that scenario does not happen to any one of those people. I will further explain the many ways that National Healthcare will hurt society in my points.

"I believe National Health Care is good, because it benefits society. It allows our people to be healthier, and thus happier.
Many people die only because they do not have insurence. Besides every other devoloped nation has public health care. Thus they limit the profit drug companies can make. Thus medication costs the most in the US. It is true they drug companies need the money, but the US shouldn't pay it ALL."

People being able to pay for their medications after they get them does not make them healthier.
Just because every other nation has socialized medicine does not mean that we need it, too.
National Healthcare would not limit the amount of money that drug companies make. This is because under the system, the govenment acts as a big insurance company, and pays the companies the same as what the people would be paying.

Now to my points.

1. National Healthcare stunts medicine development.
2. National Healthcare kills people.
3. National Healthcare kills jobs.
4. National Healthcare will add a large tax burden to america.

1. Countries without N. H. produce far more medicine than countries with it. The more countries with N.H., the slower medicines are developed. This is because when new things are developed, the people creating them get a patent and sell their product for profit. They can then use that profit to work to create new jobs which work to create even more technologies to make even more money. However, when the government has an intensive say in what happens in this process, with more regualtion, etc., the process is slowed.
Reffering to the pharmeceutical companies companies, which my opponent claimed should not make these profits, they need these profits to produce newer technologies, such as cures to replace treatments, and newer, cheaper equipment to replace older and more expensive equipment. New technology requires profits in these pharmeceutical companies. These companies also know how much to charge for their products more than any government program.

2. National Healthcare would obviously require higher government oversight, otherwise anyone who decided that they should go get a free X-Ray or free breast implant could go get it without any immediate cost to themselves, and as a result, many unneccesary treatments would be given, all paid for by the government. So, this would require bureaucracratic oversight. This bureaucracy would decide who is approved for treatment and who isn't approved for treatment. There would be many waiting to be approved before treatment, and they would most likely die before getting this approval.
Canada's Healthcare system is notorious for this.
"Of the almost 37,000 people who died in hospital, just over a quarter received some form of palliative care, and the majority of these were terminally ill patients." - http://secure.cihi.ca...

3. National Healthcare as a government company would kill millions of health and insurance related jobs. N. H. would drive all the insurence companies out of business. As a monopoly, it would not have to market itself, and would not have to contribute much to society in order to get business.
Few people do realize that insurance is an industry. It competes with itself and rates increase. If a company is notorious for denying claims, then fewer people would invest in that company's insurance. If a company has cheaper insurance, than people will be more likely to invest in it. Therefore, competition is good in the insurance industry because it keeps prices lower, increases the number of claims accepted, and keeps many jobs in circulation.

4. Because N. H. is a monopoly, it will not do those things. People will be forced to buy health insurance through a government with thier taxes. This takes money out of the capitalist system. So, people are indirectly paying their high medical fees as well as everyone else's. And the government has not payment plan for those who can't afford to pay their taxes. This money would come out of the paychecks of every american, and less would be availible to those americans that are barely holding on and can hardly even feed themselves with their two jobs.

Taking away jobs, lives and money is bad for the America, and it does not cause more benefit to society than harm. In additon, postponing the cures to AIDS, all the many types of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, heart attack, and stroke will not help the American people either. Therefore, National Healthcare is not good and in fact harms society.
Im_always_right

Pro

National health care should be given to the part of the country that cannot get insurance. This is because everyone needs to be able to be treated.

If you really believe nobody dies from not having insurance please look at the following link:

http://www.wsws.org...

Even if only 1/17 people died from not having insurance, that is too many people. I understand my opponent's point about people loosing jobs, but that is not necessary, only those that don't have insurance would receive the benefits. Of course you could still buy it and some jobs may offer different insurance, you could have options, but for those that don't have insurance they could get it. That is why NH is a good thing.
Debate Round No. 2
wjmelements

Con

Let's start by analyzing what my opponent has conceded.

1. National Healthcare stunts medicine development.
By not aguing against it, my opponent has agreed with it.
2. National Healthcare kills people.
Same here.
4. National Healthcare will add a large tax burden to america.
Same here.

Now to my opponent's claims:
"National health care should be given to the part of the country that cannot get insurance. This is because everyone needs to be able to be treated.

If you really believe nobody dies from not having insurance please look at the following link:

http://www.wsws.org...;

My opponent has conceded that National Healthcare kills people, too. People die either way. However, more people will die under a National Healthcare system than in the current system.
According to my opponent's source, more than 18,000 Americans lose their lives evey year because of a lack of health insurance. However, according to my statistic, "Of the almost 37,000 people who died in hospital, just over a quarter received some form of palliative care, and the majority of these were terminally ill patients." - http://secure.cihi.ca... , (see last argument), 3 quarters of Canadians who died in a hospitol did not even recieve palliative care. To be generous to my opponent, this is 27,000 patients that arent treated under the Canadian Healthcare system. THis may seem abot the same until we project it onto a U.S. population.
Canada's poputlation is about 38 million. http://www.sustreport.org...
The United States' population is about 300 million. http://www.census.gov...
And so, projected onto the U. S. population, the National Healthcare related deaths would total over a quarter of a million.
Therefore, the notion that National Healthcare will increase treatment, as I have already argued, is false.

Another claim was:
"Of course you could still buy it and some jobs may offer different insurance, you could have options, but for those that don't have insurance they could get it. "

Why would anyone want to buy something they're already paying for? After many people drop out of their healthcare insurance, the companies will crash and they will cease to exist. Why would a job offer health insurance to someone who can get it "free" from the government? No business has enough of a surpluss to give this to each of their employers. Those 'options' are gone.

In addition to costing more lives, my opponent has agreed that it will also cost jobs and increase taxes from every-day americans. This increase on taxes will take from the people who barely make it by without losing their house and going hungry. These are the people without health insurance. To give it to them would cost them and they obviously don' have the money.

Also, my opponent has agreed that National Healthcare slows down the development of new medicine. The lack of this medicine will cost even more lives indirectly than the current projection of a quarter million deaths per year.

And, that is why National Healthcare is a bad thing.
Im_always_right

Pro

Im_always_right forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
wjmelements

Con

My opponent has forfeited.

Extend my points through this round.
You should vote CON because my National Healthcare:
1. ...will kill more people than the current system.
2. ...will kill jobs.
3. ...will increase taxes.
4. ...will slow medical innovation.

Thank you.
Im_always_right

Pro

Im_always_right forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
It's okay. I understand.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
I really am sorry that I didn't show up. I have been caught up in school for the past little while. I have a 3 day weekend, but I need to write my science research paper, and my History 9 weeks paper. I'll try to do a debate in this break though.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Two good RFD votes.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Kleptin- Voting as a Cleaner

INITIAL NOTE: PRO FORFEITED TWO ROUNDS

Conduct- Points go to Con. Pro was very unprofessional in forfeiting two rounds. Con was impressive in presenting his points and dealing with those forfeits.

Spelling and Grammar- Points go to Con. Pro's points were poorly organized grammatically, and not quite as appealing to the eye, even though they were shorter.

Convincing Arguments- Points go to Con. Setting aside the fact that Pro forfeited two rounds, Pro barely made any counterpoints, and showed a far weaker understanding of the topic than Con. Con presented his points very well, they were organized, and presented nicely. He also offered effective counterpoints.

Citation of Sources- Points go to Con, as his sources were more connected to his argument whereas Pro's sources were simply an appeal to sympathy.
Posted by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
*Four rounds.
Posted by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
Agree with before: PRO

Agree with After: Still PRO

Spelling and Grammar: TIE, both sides had a few errors.

Conduct: CON - PRO although thanked the opponent, ended up conceding two rounds.

Convincing Arguments: CON for the same reason as Conduct.

Reliable Sources: CON - Both sides used sources but CON used sources more effectively and more often.

So therefore, CON wins the debate in my opinion. However, it should be noted that the outcome of this debate might of been quite different if PRO had debated all five rounds.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
I am alive?

YAY!

Somehow I thought you would like my av.

MAny people think I hate anime just because I don't like Inuyasha's storyline. But I do love the art.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
I accidentally typed 'my' for the last round in front of National Healthcare.
Posted by knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
NO National Health Care is NOT GOOD!!!
Booooo!!!
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
oh hai IAR is still alive.

AND WITH A LOLI AVATAR.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
wjmelementsIm_always_rightTied
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 Xera 8 years ago
Xera
wjmelementsIm_always_rightTied
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 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 jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
wjmelementsIm_always_rightTied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
wjmelementsIm_always_rightTied
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 Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
wjmelementsIm_always_rightTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
wjmelementsIm_always_rightTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by mrbullfrog11 8 years ago
mrbullfrog11
wjmelementsIm_always_rightTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21