The Instigator
TFranklin62
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
pcmbrown
Con (against)
Winning
47 Points

Obama's idea for "Universal Health Care" will only tear down America. This won't help America

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 10 votes the winner is...
pcmbrown
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,206 times Debate No: 7898
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (10)

 

TFranklin62

Pro

Obama's idea for universal health care will not help America. It will hurt the economy, the middle class, and anyone who pays taxes. Rich people know this. They make lots of money and don't want to loose another penny to another one of Obma's idiotic plans, such as heavily taxing anyone who makes over $150,000 a year (that number has been lowered three times since August).

Resolution: If this plan of the President's is put into action, America will only fall into a deeper recession.
pcmbrown

Con

Thus far, my opponent has failed to warrant his arguments; hopefully he will do this in the next round, as the burden of proof lies with him.

Single-payer healthcare eliminates price inflation. Health insurance providers are for-profit organizations. As a result, they provide healthcare at the highest cost possible while remaining competitive. A single-payer healthcare system would be non-profit, and thus reflect the actual cost of providing the healthcare in its premiums.

By providing healthcare to all, the cost is reduced. Single-payer healthcare will allow all persons to receive regular check-ups. This will lead to far fewer costly emergency procedures, which, in the circumstances of the impoverished, are currently paid for by the government. The lower cost of healthcare will lead to greater expendable income per capita, and hence more consumer-spending, which is an economic driving force.

Businesses will no longer be required to provide healthcare to their employees. Currently, healthcare is of great cost to businesses. If they were no longer required to provide it, they would be able to expand at a greater rate, thus hiring more employees, and lowering the unemployment rate. Also, they would be able to provide higher salaries, again leading to greater consumer spending.

"Rich people know this." Rich people do not benefit from this program. They already have adequate health care, and are taxed progressively. However, the wealthy compose a small proportion of our population. Single-payer healthcare will benefit the poor, and the middle-class, being the primary force behind consumer spending.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to debate this topic. I await your response.
Debate Round No. 1
TFranklin62

Pro

TFranklin62 forfeited this round.
pcmbrown

Con

Extend all my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
TFranklin62

Pro

No, not "single player health care" UNIVERSAL health care. This would provide health care to anyone currently in America, citizen or not.

"By providing healthcare to all, the cost is reduced. Single-payer healthcare will allow all persons to receive regular check-ups. This will lead to far fewer costly emergency procedures, which, in the circumstances of the impoverished, are currently paid for by the government."

On the contrary, the cost is not reduced, no one would pay for health care, so who would, someone must do it. So who does? the AMERICAN taxpayers. not the Latino who was at the time visiting family in America. So in the end, it DOES tear down America. For a brief moment it will be nice for family's to recieve no bill for their sons open heart surgery, but when tax time comes around, boy will they be hurting.

"By providing healthcare to all, the cost is reduced. Single-payer healthcare will allow all persons to receive regular check-ups. This will lead to far fewer costly emergency procedures, which, in the circumstances of the impoverished, are currently paid for by the government."

No, buisnesses will no longer have to provide healthcare for employes, but then comes the tax time of year when family's will be paying, one way or another. Regular check-ups yes. But who will be doing the checking? Doctors, doctors need to be paid, they spent thousands to hundreds of thousands to go to medical school. So when will they get paid if not at the time of the check-up? TAX TIME! And who will be paying taxes? American citizens! Not the Austrailian who was on vacation. So who WILL be paying the taxes? YOUR PARENTS! Yes you, your parents. So no money is left for Christmas, no money for your dance at your school, no money left for your skateboard! I can't stress this enough! Only American citizens will bve paying!

"Rich people do not benefit from this program." That is what I said, if you had read my argument. They will get taxed the most and will lost the most money. NOT PERCENTAGE wise, only in dollars, no the average American will loose the most lpercentage wise, so I ask you, DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENCE? come on! You are an American! Stand up for what needs to be done! Obama WILL destroy our country if something isn't done!!!!!!!!!

DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET?

I again apologise for my inability to post the 2nd round, if you would like we can debate in the comments bar.
VIEWERS PLEASE NOTE THIS!
pcmbrown

Con

"Universal health care" is available to citizens only. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Costs: I've shown that universal health care reduces costs via decreased emergency procedures. My opponent's dominant arguement against this is that these "visiting Latinos" would be treated at the cost of United States taxpayers. However, my definitions show that this is not the case. My opponent fails to warrant how universal healthcare will increase costs, I demonstrate the manner in which it will decrease them. The American citizen purchases their own healthcare either way. However, with universal health care, this becomes cheaper.

My opponent fails to provide the manner in which universal health care is more expensive than private. My opponent's foreigner arguement is refuted by the correct definition. Therefore, my economic benefits stand.

Yes, this impacts rich citizens the most. However, the middle-class, not the rich, generate the most consumer spending, and therefore, have the greatest economic impact.

For these reasons, I stand strongly in Contradiction of this resolution. Thanks for the debate, and thanks to everyone for reading.

If you would care to debate this topic again, please re-post.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
Grats, pcm.
Posted by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
No access to health care kills Americans.

In 2006, one of those statistics was my wife.
Posted by FemaleGamer 7 years ago
FemaleGamer
Yah, Canada is terrible for having Universal Healthcare. Pfft, idiots. Wait, what?
Posted by TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
the reason it will be bad and cost more is this: if some company's choose to accept Obama's offer on healthcare so they can pay their employees more money, great, but for the employees who work for company's who didn't accept the plan, they are paying for healthcare themselves. So when tax time rolls around, the person who pays for his own healthcare, because his company didn't take the government up on their offer, will end up paying for other peoples healthcare!
Posted by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
Corporatized health care has severely inflated the price of medical treatment, and it will be some time and may not even be possible to get health care costs on par with superior-rated health care systems used in the rest of the modern world. Just looking at the per-capita costs of health care here versus elsewhere is proof enough at how fallacious the claims are that corporations do a better job and are more efficient than government bureaus ... within the U.S., medicare and medicaid are vastly more efficient in terms of administrative costs than any corporate HMO.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
If Obama's health care plan will lower costs, why does he claim it will require hundreds of billions of dollars of extra spending forever? Shouldn't it be funded entirely from the savings?

For reference, I gave the reasons for increased costs in a previous debate, http://www.debate.org...
Posted by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
Whereas HMO CEOs get it right and perfect and never pull the money plug that causes the life saving procedures to get denied to people lucky enough to have both the option and the money to afford health insurance.

Yeah, a greedy CEO is much better to have standing between you and your doctor instead of the government helping both of you and not dictating what goes on between you and your doctor.
Posted by TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
yes, the process of getting the money TO the doctors, the dividing up of money from the tax money, it takes time, and there can EASILY be mistakes.
Posted by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
Can you warrant the greater cost?
Posted by TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
Yes, that is what i just said in the debate! the American people will be paying! and the process of getting the money to the doctors will only cost more!
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by slobodow 7 years ago
slobodow
TFranklin62pcmbrownTied
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 MewxVenus 7 years ago
MewxVenus
TFranklin62pcmbrownTied
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 RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
TFranklin62pcmbrownTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
TFranklin62pcmbrownTied
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 Loki 7 years ago
Loki
TFranklin62pcmbrownTied
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 alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
TFranklin62pcmbrownTied
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 Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
TFranklin62pcmbrownTied
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 TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
TFranklin62pcmbrownTied
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 rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
TFranklin62pcmbrownTied
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 pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
TFranklin62pcmbrownTied
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