The Instigator
KeithKroeger91
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
ben444422
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points

Nationalizing Health care

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 4 votes the winner is...
KeithKroeger91
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,668 times Debate No: 8405
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

KeithKroeger91

Con

Nationalizing Healthcare is bad for our society, health and our country. I will let my opponent begin this debate. Good luck
ben444422

Pro

Just to make it fair so I do not have an extra speech, I will just use this speech for clarification. What is the exact resolution? Is it just Nationalizing health care? Also, the Pro side, I assume will be trying to prove that the US should nationalize health care, if I'm correct.
Debate Round No. 1
KeithKroeger91

Con

The U.S.A should NOT Nationalize healthcare, meaning we should not give the health of our nation in the hands of our government. I am arguing government control of health care. Yes, Pro side needs to argue governmental control of health care is a good thing.
ben444422

Pro

My case will be split into

1)Resolutional Analysis
2)Harms in Status Quo
3)How Nationalized Health care will bring a net-benefit to status quo
4)Closing

1. {-Resolutional Analysis-}

[Definitions]

National Health Care- Health care for the citizens, administered by the government
The US includes all American citizens, exclusive of illegal aliens

[Burden]

The con must prove that the current status quo is better than any form of nationalized health care to win this debate. Thus you should weigh this debate on a net-beneficial scale.

2. {-Harms in Status Quo-}

In the current status quo, there are many problems with the US health care system. They include:

1)47 million Americans lack health insurance. This means that people are forgoing health treatment to avoid the high costs. This puts both an economic and social strain on the US. Economically, it is more expensive as those without health insurance do not go to the doctor as frequently where they could potentially spot the symptoms of a disease before it becomes malignant. Yet without health insurance, a previously easy to cure disease becomes much more expensive to cure later on. Socially, people are less healthy thus decreasing productivity (Rovner in 2008)

2)The US spends the most on health care and has about the same health as Cuba who spends very little on its health care (San Gabriel Valley Tribune in 2008)

3)Employer forced health care is putting a strain on firms. In the current economic status, this is detrimental. (Swartz in 2007)

3. {- How Nationalized Health care will bring a net-benefit to status quo-}

Nationalized Health care is inclusive of universal health care as both are run by the government, thus the affirmation side would like to propose a universal health care system on the US.

[C. 1]

A universal health care system will benefit firms. By making it so firms are not forced to pay health care for the employees, there will be increased capital for the firms to invest. More importantly is the fact that, in the current economic times, putting less strain on the firms is essential for the US to rise out of the recession.

[C. 2]

A universal health care will increase the overall health of America. Because there is health care for everyone, people are more likely to go to the doctor. Thus increasing the health.

[C. 3]

A universal health care system will decrease operational costs. The problem in the current system is that doctors have to negotiate with health care firms to get their payment. When the government controls, it makes it much more efficient, thus less operational costs.

[C. 4]

A universal health care system will help the economy of the US. For one, as I have already stated, it will help firms. Also, because it reduces operational costs, it also benefits doctors financially. But most importantly is the fact that because everyone is covered, the families do not have to dish out thousands of dollars per year to pay for health insurance. While my opponent may argue that the costs will come in the form of increased taxes, the tax increase is actually less than the original costs in paying for insurance. The reason is that insurance companies force an incredibly large sum of money for health insurance, yet the government is focused more on benefiting the people as opposed to benefiting the treasury, thus the tax increases are going to be enough to cover potential medical costs and no more. Thus on a net, there will be an economic benefit.

[C. 5]- Empirical Assessment

Japan, Canada, and France all have universal health care systems. Statistically, all these countries have a lower per capita health cost and the people are healthier than the US. Thus empirically a nationalized health care system is better than the current US health care system.

4. {-Closing-}

I have warranted why a nationalized health care system is better than the current US system. I have empirically shown you three examples where nationalized health care is much better than the US system. And holistically, I have shown you why a nationalized health care system is net-beneficially better than the current status quo. Thus vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
KeithKroeger91

Con

I will start off telling you about the current status quo of our healthcare. The healthcare system has been shot through with GOVERNMENT interventions already. For example, the HMO act of 1973, our brilliant minds in congress decided that we should force employers to offer Health insurance to all citizens working for them, well what happened next? The costs for medicine sky rocketed, and i will proceed to inform you why the costs of medicine skyrocketed. In the years before the HMO act of 1973 Medical firms competed like any other free market firm to set their prices very low so they could make money, naturally people shop for the lowest prices possible. But... with the introduction of the HMO act of 1973 people no longer had incentive to shop around and look for the best deals now that their insurance companies dealt with it. Now lets think about this for a moment... with no incentive of the buyer what do you think the Medical firms did in response? Instead of charging the MINIMUM of sold medical goods they reversed and charged the MAXIMUM to put more money in their pockets. So, what you our actually looking at is a government shot healthcare system. Now let me ask you this question.. with government intervention failing as awefully as it did would you now support the government taking healthcare completely over?

My opponent-"The US spends the most on health care and has about the same health as Cuba who spends very little on its health care."

I personally think cuba is a very bad comparrision to make with the very low living standards of the average cuban who finds themselves trying to flee to the U.S.. Despite what you may think the average Cuban unhealthier than the average American. http://www.canf.org...

My opponent- "Employer forced health care is putting a strain on firms. In the current economic status, this is detrimental."

I agree with you if it wasn't for that darn government and their interventionists policies.

My opponent- "A universal health care system will benefit firms. By making it so firms are not forced to pay health care for the employees, there will be increased capital for the firms to invest. More importantly is the fact that, in the current economic times, putting less strain on the firms is essential for the US to rise out of the recession."

This may be partially true it will take the burden off of business and redirect it to the tax payer but why increase taxes on our already suffering economy so needlessly? Why not abolish insurance companies basically invented by the government through HMO act and directly replace it with the old system of competetion of healthcare firms? It is a win win situation.

My opponent- " universal health care will increase the overall health of America. Because there is health care for everyone, people are more likely to go to the doctor. Thus increasing the health."

People will most likely see doctors? The government will force you to go to the doctor. This can already be seen in the foster system the government forces kids to see the doctor, most of the time for something that isn't serious. I don't know about you but maybe I don't want to go to forced check ups. There is a great deal of us who don't like going to the doctors. The overall health of our citizens will not increase infact they will get worse if you want to see the facts about our future healthcare just look at our veterans treatment. Curently there is just a few millions of veterans on the government control plan and it is not a pretty picture first off often times our veterans dont receive the proper medicine they need when they need it, the government is often late with the hospitals payments thus a shortage of medicine occurs, their are reports of people claiming of the bad conditions in which these veterans must deal with in these hospitals such as lack of proper attention and other reports of veterans being put on broken beds. Is this the Healthcare you want for our country?

My opponent- "A universal health care system will help the economy of the US. For one, as I have already stated, it will help firms. Also, because it reduces operational costs, it also benefits doctors financially."

Since when does raising taxes help the economy? No, firms will not benefit since their will be less money in the hands of consumers. Also, the average American doctor is paid much higher then the Average Canadian Doctor. So the idea of a government ran program will increase dcotors payment simply doesn't work.

My opponent-"Japan, Canada, and France all have universal health care systems. Statistically, all these countries have a lower per capita health cost and the people are healthier than the US."

Firstly you would be surprised by how france runs their universal healthcare the french not only tax the hell out of their citizens but even that is not enough. 92% of France's citizens still require Health insurance requiring them to dish out thousands of Euros to not only their government but also its insurance. Is that the way to go?
Japan on the other hand has been going through a recession since the 90s until now is the cost of the healthcare not there? I dont think so. The health of the Japanese is high but that is due to their healthy eating habits and to their culture. The Japanese feel it is shameful to be sick and many japanese have very healthy eating habits to prevent them from becoming sick. The health of the japanese has actually gone down over the years despite their "great health plan"
Canada? Their docotrs are constantly running across borders to seek better salaries. The waiting list can last an entire 9 months just to get checked out in a country of 30 million. Is that our future?

Recently the obama administration has cut the VA (Veterans Administration) so the government can fork out less money to our sick veterans. What makes you think they wont cut ours?
ben444422

Pro

My opponent begins by talking about how the HMO act of 1973 did not work and relates that because this government intervention failed, then nationalized health care will also fail. However this is wrong for 3 reasons

1)The HMO act of 1973 was NOT nationalized health care. If we refer to the definition, nationalized health care is when the government administers and regulates the health care in the US. The HMO act of 1973 gave grants to HMO's, to make it easier for these insurance groups to expand and function. Thus the act gave power to the insurance groups in administering health care not the government. Thus, the HMO act of 1973 was not nationalized health care.

2)Government intervention does NOT mean nationalized health care. Again the definition of it is that it is when the government regulates and administers the health care.

3)Because the HMO act of 1973 was not nationalized health care, it is also a problem with the status quo, where the insurance companies have so much power. Nationalized health care will solve this as it takes power away from the HMO's

Then he says that Cuba is unhealthier and that people are fleeing form Cuba to the US.

1)The average Cuban most likely wants to flee to the US due to the limited economic opportunities in the country, not due to health care considerations.

2)You do not give any evidence that Cuba is unhealthier than the average American, you only base it off the assumption that because the living conditions in Cuba isn't as good, then they must be unhealthier, that is not true. For example if you watched Sicko, a health care documentary, the Cubans are about the same if not better health than Americans. Living standards also are not proportional to health. For example, the oldest women (age 125) lives in a rural tribe in Brazil.

3)The warrant for why Cubans are just as healthy is that the medicine there is a fraction of the cost than in the US. Nationalized health care will allow the government to efficiently distribute medicine, thus the price for medicine in the US will similarly drop.

"I agree with you if it wasn't for that darn government and their interventionists policies."

1)Government intervention does not mean nationalized health care.

2)The government intervention you are talking about is the HMO act of 1973. It gave power to HMO's (insurance companies), the opposite of nationalized health care.

"This may be partially true it will take the burden off of business and redirect it to the tax payer but why increase taxes on our already suffering economy so needlessly? Why not abolish insurance companies basically invented by the government through HMO act and directly replace it with the old system of competition of healthcare firms?"

1)I'm saying there will be an economic benefit. I agree taxes will increase but because health insurance costs are gone, there is a net- economic benefit. For example, let's say a household pays 4000 a year for health insurance. With nationalized health care, they do not need to pay this 4000 a year and instead have a 3000 increase in taxes. Thus, they are saving money. My warrant is in my first speech.
2)The HMO act was not nationalized health care, thus because the HMO act was so detrimental and is part of the status quo, then switching to a nationalized health care system is beneficial.

"The government will force you to go to the doctor"

1)No, a nationalized health care system does not mean the government forces you to go to check ups (as seen through voluntary check ups in France for example) What I am saying is that because the health care is essentially cheaper and paid for, people are more inclined to go to the doctor.

"There is a great deal of us who don't like going to the doctors."

1)That is only when someone goes in excess. I am saying that there will be a general increase in the amount of people going to the doctor VOLUNTARILY.

"The overall health of our citizens will not increase infact they will get worse Currently there is just a few millions of veterans on the government control plan and it is not a pretty picture first off often times our veterans dont receive the proper medicine they need when they need it, […]Is this the Healthcare you want for our country?"

1)That is the status quo and that is what nationalized health care will fix.
2)That is not nationalized health care because that is the government putting the health care of the veterans in the hands of these companies, not the government. Exactly the opposite of nationalized health care.
3)The veterans treatment is detrimental because of the inefficiencies in the status quo, which the nationalized health care will fix.

"Since when does raising taxes help the economy? No, firms will not benefit since their will be less money in the hands of consumers. Also, the average American doctor is paid much higher then the Average Canadian Doctor.."

1)I agree taxes will increase but because health insurance costs are gone, there is a net- economic benefit. For example, let's say a household pays 4000 a year for health insurance. With nationalized health care, they do not need to pay this 4000 a year and instead have a 3000 increase in taxes. Thus, they are saving money. My warrant is in my first speech. Thus there will be MORE money in consumers' hands not less.
2)Paul V Dutton at the North Arizona University states "America's doctors
might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement." The quote means that money is really not a problem because the salary difference is not large at all. What the American doctors are frustrated with is the negotiations with insurance companies and actually getting the salary in the first place. Thus as the quote concludes, American doctors are more than willing to switch to a universal health care system.

"Firstly you would be surprised by how france runs their universal healthcare the french not only tax the hell out of their citizens but even that is not enough. 92% of France's citizens still require Health insurance requiring them to dish out thousands of Euros to not only their government but also its insurance."

1)The French in total, tax increases, extra payments, all added together is actually less than what Americans are paying for now. Thus if we switch, we will be saving money. Also, the French system is a quasi public quasi private system. However I am proposing a system that is only private to the government. There is essentially no difference only that the payments go to different people but a only private payment system to the government makes it more efficient.

"Their [Canadian] doctors are constantly running across borders to seek better salaries. The waiting list can last an entire 9 months just to get checked out in a country of 30 million. Is that our future?"

1)Evidence for doctors running across borders please?
2)The waiting list in the US is actually a lot longer than Canada's. Thus relatively, Canada's system is better.
3)Americans are actually going to Canada because of its better health care. It's common for people to go to Canada and buy drugs due to its extremely low price. Also, medical checkups are also relatively cheaper.
4)"Can last an entire 9 months" so you are saying that because there was maybe a couple of extreme cases where it lasted out that long that this will happen everytime? Again, the average waitlist time in the US is longer than that in Canada.

My opponent for one has not fulfilled his burden, rather mine. He has told me that the HMO act of 1973 and Obama cutting of VA, that means that the current status quo is bad and that is why we need a switch. He has not shown why we should stick with the current system.

Thus you should vote for the Affirmative because of the above and:

1-
Debate Round No. 3
KeithKroeger91

Con

My opponent states: "The HMO act of 1973 was NOT nationalized health care."

Sure it is not Nationalized healthcare but the point of my entire argument is that almost everything the government touches fails, education is a perfect example of that. The fact is, is that the very same brilliant minds who came up with the HMO act to help the "Poor Americans" who can't afford the medicine are the same exact people who are telling us now that we need a universal healthcare to help the poor Americans.

Let me ask you this one question and please answer it honestly would you want your government to take over college education? To help those poor Americans who can't afford higher education?

My opponent-"Government intervention does NOT mean nationalized health care."

It is Government intervention, if the Government intervenes in our lives or the free market it is indeed Government intervention is it not?

My opponent-"Because the HMO act of 1973 was not nationalized health care, it is also a problem with the status quo, where the insurance companies have so much power."

I think you are misunderstanding my argument, I do NOT support the current status quo i support a healthcare other than a healthcare ran by buerocrats.

Here is another question i will ask you. Do you believe that somehow the medicine is magically going to cost less if Government takes over? It will cost government just as much as it costs insurance companies do you believe that the government is going to magically make it costs less? The government has to buy the same products from the same people will they not? So, then doesn't mean it will cost just as much or more to fund the government ran program?

Living in California I have come to the realization that government promises to fund something using your tax payers is just a big joke. They promise you something and then what do they do? They use your tax money and spend it on something else other than the thing you wanted them to fund. What you must understand in that the Government is made up of people too.

My opponent-"The average Cuban most likely wants to flee to the US due to the limited economic opportunities in the country, not due to health care considerations."

Here is a quote from a Cuban Human Rights Activist:

"These films(sicko) that try to portray the health care system as superior to that of the U.S. are lacking in truth," Carro said. He asserts that most hospitals for Cuban citizens are dilapidated, that conditions are filthy and that patients are so neglected that some are starving."

How about another? This quote comes from George Utset who runs an Anti Castro website.

George Utset-"Moore's group didn't go to the hospital for regular Cubans. They go to the hospital for the elite and it's a very different condition."

Another, this one is from Darsi Ferrer a human rights activist in Cuba.

Darsi Ferrer- "ordinary Cubans are "crazy with desperation" over the horrendous state of their health care."

More and more and more quotes enjoy now is time to see the truth of Cuban healthcare.

Julio Alfonso-"We personally used to do 70 to 80 abortions a day."

Yanet Sanchez(Cuban exile)-"was simply told to submit to an abortion. They told me I should end the pregnancy. It was my very first pregnancy. I wanted to have the child."

Other Cuban doctors say that if the infant dies the first few hours of living, they do NOT count it as ever been living. This is to make their healthcare seem like it is better when it isn't.
http://abcnews.go.com...

Cuba's Health care is great isn't it? Read all about it its quite interesting.

My opponent- "oldest women (age 125) lives in a rural tribe in Brazil."

I find this curious I have not heard anything about these super old people in Brazil, so I tried to look it up on the internet and didn't find anything about the issue. So I am curious of where you got this information.

My opponent-"government to efficiently distribute medicine, thus the price for medicine in the US will similarly drop."

How will evenly distributing medicine bring medicine costs down?

My opponent-"I'm saying there will be an economic benefit. I agree taxes will increase but because health insurance costs are gone"

What I am saying is that the Government isn't going to magically bring Medicine costs down they will still costs Americans the same amount some of us more. For exp: The richest of us will more than likely pay in taxes 10 times higher(or more) than insurance companies would have them pay. The Middle class would pay slightly more than they would paying for insurance the only people this universal healthcare would help is the poor (The least productive of society) So in other words government evenly distributes medicine but doesn't evenly distribute the amount of money the taxpayer pays.

My opponent-"No, a nationalized health care system does not mean the government forces you to go to check ups"

The Obama Health plan is differant from the French the French still use Insurance companies like I stated in my last argument. The Obama plan will most resemble Canadian universal healthcare which does enforce annual mandatory check ups. http://www.cmaj.ca...

According to the Canadian Medical Association the Canadians are forced for regular check ups.

My opponent-"That is not nationalized health care because that is the government putting the health care of the veterans in the hands of these companies, not the government. Exactly the opposite of nationalized health care.
3)The veterans treatment is detrimental because of the inefficiencies in the status quo, which the nationalized health care will fix."

No, you are wrong government does not place the hands of our veterans to the insurance companies. The VA is directly funded by the government that is indeed what universal healthcare. A big government agency funded by government.

My opponent-"The quote means that money is really not a problem because the salary difference is not large at all. What the American doctors are frustrated with is the negotiations with insurance companies and actually getting the salary in the first place. Thus as the quote concludes, American doctors are more than willing to switch to a universal health care system."

In 1995 a study showed that the average American Doctor gets paid twice as much as the average Canadian Doctor and more facts about the issue, many Canadian Phsycists cross the border to do the same work to pursue higher pay.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent- ")Evidence for doctors running across borders please?
2)The waiting list in the US is actually a lot longer than Canada's. Thus relatively, Canada's system is better.
3)Americans are actually going to Canada because of its better health care. It's common for people to go to Canada and buy drugs due to its extremely low price. Also, medical checkups are also relatively cheaper.
4)"Can last an entire 9 months" so you are saying that because there was maybe a couple of extreme cases where it lasted out that long that this will happen everytime? Again, the average waitlist time in the US is longer than that in Canada"

1) Evidence above
2)No, the fact is and I mean FACT is that the waiting list(In Canada) generally is much longer than the waiting list in America to get basic medical needs. http://www.econedlink.org...
3) You mean illegal immigrants and the poorest of the poor americans are going to Canada for care. Not for the care itself but for the cheaper costs.
4)Do you admit there is cases of Canadians waiting 9 months for an appointments? (Thats what it sounds like to me =D.

Vote Con =D
ben444422

Pro

"Sure it is not Nationalized healthcare but the point of my entire argument is that almost everything the government touches fails, education is a perfect example of that."

1)It is wrong to say the Government is so detrimental. The quality of life in the US would be a lot worse had the government not enacted legislative and economic reform for example. The government's endorsement of a green economy has led to thousands of new jobs being created with a bright environmental future for the US. In education, the government has set rigid requirements on public schools, without the government, the education in the US would be a lot worse.
2)What is different with NHC is that the HMO act was thought up by the government, while NHC is a concept that has already been created, and tested by others, thus due to it's fiat properties and the fact that it has been proven better, NHC will be much better than HMO act due to the fact that the HMO act was enacted with out any empirical assesment.
3)The HMO act is not counter evidence to the fact that a NHC system is beneficial. It just means that the ideas the government comes up with is not necessarily always beneficial. But because NHC is already a proven and empirically used concept, it differs in the HMO act in that it has proven to work. (I will extend this later in speech) Also remember HMO is NOT and example of NHC.

"It is Government intervention, if the Government intervenes in our lives or the free market it is indeed Government intervention is it not?"

1)Yes I agree government intervention is government intervention, I said government intervention does not necessarily mean National health care.

"I think you are misunderstanding my argument, I do NOT support the current status quo i support a healthcare other than a healthcare ran by buerocrats."

1)Shifty advocacy reduces grounds for the affirmative. It reduces ground as I do not even know what you are proposing, thus I cannot even refute. Thus I assume you reject my burden and advocate a counterplan? Due to the unequal educational grounds, this should be a voter.

"Do you believe that somehow the medicine is magically going to cost less if Government takes over? "

1)In my case I have already addressed this but because the government is more efficient at distributing medical care, for example, efficiency allows the costs of medical care to decrease, while medicine will decrease just the same with increased efficiency. Also, the medicine companies will change its prices for the NHC system because in this system the government is the only market for the companies, thus if they do not sell to the government, they go out of business. Therefore due to efficiency and a government market, prices will decrease.

"They use your tax money and spend it on something else other than the thing you wanted them to fund."

1)No, they use it on the NHC system. The government is not run by idiots. Also, the examples you may refer to are examples where treasury reallotment was necessary and only happens in the most extreme cases.

Now you address the issue of Cuba and its health care state, yet it is not only Cuba, it is a multitude of other countries. Jocelyne Zablit remarks "The US health care system ranks last among other major rich countries for quality, access and efficiency, according to two studies released Tuesday by a health care think tank." http://www.commondreams.org...

The common wealth fund remarks "The U.S. fell to last place among 19 industrialized nations on mortality amenable to health care—deaths that might have been prevented with timely and effective care. Although the U.S. rate improved by 4 percent between 1997–1998 and 2002–2003 (from 115 to 110 deaths per 100,000), rates improved by 16 percent on average in other nations, leaving the U.S. further behind."

Thus even if I drop the point about Cuba, there is no denying that the US is lagging way behind in health care administration. The top nations with nationalized health care systems all rank higher that the US in terms of costs, efficiency and mortality rate.

‘‘The Obama Health plan is differant from the French the French still use Insurance companies like I stated in my last argument. The Obama plan will most resemble Canadian universal healthcare which does enforce annual mandatory check ups. http://www.cmaj.ca...;

1)I did not propose an Obama health plan, I proposed a system that resembles close to a French health system but different in the way payments are transferred. Thus there will be no mandatory check ups.
2)Now even of we assume that there are mandatory checkups, the government is doing it in the interest of the people. The government wants to benefit the health of the people. People are not kids where they complain about going to the doctor. Health is in the best interest of the people and government.

"No, you are wrong government does not place the hands of our veterans to the insurance companies. The VA is directly funded by the government that is indeed what universal healthcare. A big government agency funded by government."

1) Yes funded by the government yet care is given out by the insurance companies where the VA gives money to HMOs. NHC will change the fact that money is going to be directly controlled in that medical care is efficiently given to the patient instead of allotting some for unnecessary expenses and inefficiencies like in the current system.

"In 1995 a study showed that the average American Doctor gets paid twice as much as the average Canadian Doctor"

1) Doctors value the fact that they will actually be getting the salary in the first place rather than the decreased salary (refer to previous speech)
2) In the current system, mal practice insurance premiums are high, thus actually decreasing substantially what you may believe is a high salary. It is actually driving doctors out of business. (http://www.foxnews.com...),(http://atlanta.bizjournals.com...)
The NHC fixes this as it essentially takes away the concept of a malpractice suit as the companies who charge are taken away in the system.

"No, the fact is and I mean FACT is that the waiting list(In Canada) generally is much longer than the waiting list in America to get basic medical needs. http://www.econedlink.org...;

1) It is not only Canada, since I am basing this off of France, in France there is no wait list for surgeries and virtually none for other procedures. And while in the US "In 2007, nearly 6,000 people died while on the waiting list" (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...), thus a NHC system is proven to be better than the US system.

"Do you admit there is cases of Canadians waiting 9 months for an appointments?"

1) Yes, but the fact is that it is really rare. For example maybe they forgot to actually write down profile information of the patient, thus lengthening the time. You cannot say that just because this happens in maybe a couple cases, that it will happen every time. In the US, there are some who do not even get necessary surgeries at all.

{-The Big Picture-}

On this issue, we cannot look at small specific problems, that my opponent does, and instead look at the big picture. I agree maybe some surgeries are more expensive or for some surgeries the wait list is longer. But holistically NHC systems are still better(taking these into account). The French system pays less per capita, has higher health, better mortality rates etc. It is rated the best health system by the World Health Organization, whereas the US places 23rd. Because NHC is better than the current US system, the US must switch.

Furthermore, my opponent reduces affirmative ground by not even saying what he proposes. And I guess he rejects my burden even though he did not say it.

=
C3 flows through
C1,C2,C4 inadequate refutation
Dro
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by KeithKroeger91 5 years ago
KeithKroeger91
Germany's healthcare system has a 45% approval rating. Just because a system doesn't work good does not necessarily mean the people will change it.
Posted by gothmog 5 years ago
gothmog
every single one of those countries that has socialized medicine that they want tochange is a DEMOCRACY. if it was so great a burden on the citizens as we all hear. it would have changed long ago. a party would have ran against it and since the people hated,get elected, and remove it. NONE has done it. hence the people must prefer that. yes it has drawbacks and problems. but its better than ,the best healthcare money can buy. ie if you dont have money you out of luck now. for those emergency rooms , why don't we get rid of all insurance and everyone go to the emergency rooms for healthcare,and watch the hospitals go bankrupt.
Posted by KeithKroeger91 5 years ago
KeithKroeger91
Thanks, for the debate ben it was good.
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
Interesting debate, well-researched and argued on both sides. I notice, however, that the arguments tended to revolve around economics rather than morals.

IMAO one cannot value everything in terms of "pounds, shillings and pence" and a country cannot call itself truly civilised until it has a national health care service that is available to all citizens, free at the point of use and provided according to need rather than ability to pay.

That may mean higher taxes, but then there is no need to purchase health insurance - it all evens itself out in the end.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 5 years ago
rougeagent21
KeithKroeger91ben444422Tied
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 Jim92 5 years ago
Jim92
KeithKroeger91ben444422Tied
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:61 
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 5 years ago
KeithKroeger91
KeithKroeger91ben444422Tied
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:51 
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 5 years ago
GeoLaureate8
KeithKroeger91ben444422Tied
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:03