The Instigator
Ron-Paul
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
OpinionatedMan
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Privatization of Government Policies

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Ron-Paul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,555 times Debate No: 20596
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Ron-Paul

Pro

We are debating the whether or not Government policies like Medicaid & Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, and other policies like TANF and SANP should be either privatized, severally cut, or completely cut. I will be debating these things should be privatized or cut, and you will be debating these things should not be privatized nor cut. Thank you in advance to the debaters who accepts this. The first round is for acceptance.
OpinionatedMan

Con

I accept, but I am accepting as long as we debate on the premises the 'cut' means severely cut. So I dont' have to get into petty arguments about alleviating a little of the money (meaning $500 or below) on healthcare or social security I am merely debating that there should be no big cuts nor any privatisation of such services.

Thank you for making this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Ron-Paul

Pro

Since there are over 100 different Government Policies, I will just debate 4.

The 4:

Medicare & Medicaid & National Helathcare (Obamacare)
Social Security
Welfare
Unemployment Benefits

The Opening Arguments:

Point 1 (Medicare & Medicaid): Why does the Government need to provide free healthcare to people? Are they obligated to do it? All it does is raise the National Debt. And plus, this kind of Government Healthcare raises doctor prices and a lot of doctors' offices don't accept Government Healthcare. And with Obamacare, why does every citizen have to have it? Isn't it their choice? And it's unconstitutional. And plus, it lowers doctors standards when profit is not a motive. These things should be completely eliminated. "Throat Cancer: Medicaid patients and those lacking health insurance were both 50% more likely to die when compared with privately insured patients.": http://healthystate.org.... "Medicaid may have a robust coverage policy, but because of its hassles and inadequate payments, Medicaid patients have the least access to health care. Because it is a shared state-federal program, it is much harder to change and monitor.": http://www.ama-assn.org.... "Given its concern over rising costs, it's extremely odd that Medicare has never attempted to educate doctors on how to order lab tests in cost-effective ways. Instead, in its accelerated anti-fraud mode, HCFA is now instructing labs to "voluntarily" set up their own programs to spy on physicians and to report "suspicious" test-ordering patterns. Labs that cooperate with this spying are told they can expect the HCFA to go easier on them when it is their turn to be audited. A Russian friend told me this reminds him of the Soviet Union.": http://www.hoover.org.... "All this is simply a misallocation of resources. When a state spends $1 on Medicaid, it gets more than $1 in what seems like free money–but that money comes from federal taxpayers (basically the same people as state taxpayers), and to them the money is not free at all.": http://www.nationalreview.com.... "The attempt to ‘socialize' and ‘equalize' health care "providers" so that the lines of distinction between physicians, nurses, and ancillary personnel are blurred. Why? Are the hundreds of years of tradition and time-honored values embodied in the M.D. (medical degree) of no significance? Does the President not see consequences of his actions to elevate non-physicians to practice beyond the safe boundaries of their scope of training?": http://americasmedicalsociety.com.... "The Constitution draws lines by enumerating certain powers for the feds while reserving other authority to the states or the people. Obamacare's mandate doesn't lie within those enumerated powers.": http://www.washingtontimes.com....

Point 2 (Social Security): Social Security is a big Ponzi scheme where the people on top get most of the money and the people below get little. Why is it the Government's job to force people to save? Why doesn't the individual person either save or sink? Why does the Government force us to use Social Security? It should be privatized. "It's nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. We're paying into it now, with the expectation that there will be a return on our "investment" when we hit the golden years. The truth of the matter is, the population is living longer now than ever before, which is putting a drain on the available SS funds. Then the problem is compounded by elected officials who want to "borrow" money from the funds, like it's their own little bank account. Mark my words, when you and I are ready to draw from what we've put in, the coffers will be empty.": http://answers.yahoo.com.... "the nation's first Baby Boomer applied for Social Security benefits, an event which will be repeated by roughly 70 million more Boomers over the next two decades -- that's nearly 10,000 people every day. This massive demographic shift will trigger an explosion in the cost of federal health and retirement programs, which by 2034 will absorb 20 percent of GDP, equal to the entire federal budget today.": http://usgovinfo.about.com.... "Finally, Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor.": http://www.cato.org....

Point 3 (Welfare): When people start getting welfare, something I like to call "The Welfare Effect" ensues. In other words, when people start getting welfare, they get addicted to the "get money for nothing" policy. And they stay on it most of their life. And plus, it is not the Government's place to give people money under almost all circumstances. This should be completely cut. "Besides wrecking the economy, public welfare is just wrong. It is morally wrong for the government to take money from people and redistribute it to those who they say are in need (i.e. more likely to vote for them). Having said that I want to emphasize that I am not against charity. Just the opposite, I believe it is the duty of every man to help out his fellow man as he is able but I am very much opposed to public welfare.""In the U.S., the government is supposed to derive its powers from the people. At least, that was the way it was originally set up. How does this work? Let's consider the right to self defense. Most people would consider it reasonable for a man to defend his life and property. It's something we almost all need to do and so it's reasonable that we hand out that responsibility to the police and military. The important thing is that we have that right as an individual and we grant it to the government. The government is not doing anything we're not allowed to do individually. If we are poor and in need, do we have the right to rob our neighbour? Then the government shouldn't do it on our behalf.": http://mcmullans.org.... "Welfare is bad because many people abuse it. While the majority are just trying to get back on their feet, some people rely on welfare for years, living off taxpayer money rather than making an attempt to earn their own.": http://answers.bloglines.com....

Point 4 (Unemployment Benefits): This again follows "The Welfare Effect". Only this time, it raises the unemployment rate. When people can get unemployment benefits for a long period of time, they lose interest in working and instead become lazy and the "money for nothing" policy comes again. It raises the unemployment rate because people will stop looking for jobs. It is factored into the real unemployment rate (which is at about 15-16%). "As an employer, if I am looking at two resumes, and I see a person who was downsized, but within a few weeks took an entry level job, I am going to think highly of that person. On the other hand, if I see a person who was downsized, and then took an entry level job after two years, rightfully or wrongfully, I am going to think to myself that this person made no effort while they were getting unemployment compensation. You can guess who I'd hire. Who would you hire?": http://theiowarepublican.com.... "Adding another 4% to the estimated 2012 deficit, the President's requested extension would cost around $45 billion. And what about the human cost? Is it right to delay so many workers' reemployment? Is it right to artificially inflate unemployment? As with so many government programs, good intentions too often lead to bad results. In this case, those results can be measured in fewer jobs and in less personal dignity.
OpinionatedMan

Con

Privatisation will always result in an emphasis on efficiency and profit. The vulnerable and the poorest in society will always suffer from such a scenario. The question of prioritising health care and rationing will always favour the rich, since targeting vulnerable groups will be an inefficient use of resources.

It is simply impossible to have a free market in, for example, national defence or street lighting. Furthermore, the best choices for funding Health care and education in the long term are made by disinterested governments rather than egoistic consumers. If a government-owned company providing an essential service (such as the water supply) to all citizens is privatised, its new owner(s) could lead to the abandoning of the social obligation to those who are less able to pay, or to regions where this service is unprofitable.

As many areas which the government could provide are essentially profitless, the only way private companies could, to any degree, operate them would be through contracts or block payments. In these cases, the private firm's performance in a particular project would be removed from their performance, and embezzlement and dangerous cost cutting measures might be taken to maximize profits.

Industries with extremely high barriers to entry, specifically those which require large levels of infrastructure such as Land Line Telecoms, Water, Gas, Electricity should only be privatised if genuine competition can be introduced. Otherwise the incentive to increase profits can be too easily met through price rises, as consumers have no alternative. This means there is no incentive to invest in efficiency or service as a means to improve profit, as this requires avoidable risk taking.

Debate Round No. 2
Ron-Paul

Pro

Privatization resulting in profit is a good think because it reduces federal spending and raises GDP. Privatization of Government Policies will save this country trillions in just a few years. Everyone from the poorest to the richest employee will get these "privatized" policies because it would be profitable for them to do so. Profit being the motivation has some great qualities that benefit everyone.

First of all, I covered neither national defense or street lighting. National Defense is one of the few things that should be somewhat kept in the hands of the Government. And street lighting would be more efficient privatized because people don't pay for it. When in the hands of the Government, you pay for it through taxes. The privatization would weed out the people that can not pay. That is another thing wrong with Government Policies. They hand them out to people who don't pay the Government back because they don't pay any taxes. All should pay their fair share when getting materials, and if they don't have the resources to buy the products, they should get a job.

Again, having these privatized policies would help individual companies because there would be more willing and productive jobs. And again, the Government is taking a massive blow in it's federal debt due to it's policies because the people do not pay them back.

The Government is the one who passed the monpoly for resources like cable and electricity. If multiple companies were allowed to compete, prices would go down, quality would go way up, and costumers would be a lot more satisfied. So by privatizing industries, prices would go down, and the poor especially would live a lot better lives.

FOR THE NEXT ROUND: Now can you attack my arguments from the previous round because that was the groundwork and rules for the debate I established. When you post your next round, please include your attack on my previous round argument and please include your attack on my arguments from this round. Thank you.
OpinionatedMan

Con

OpinionatedMan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Ron-Paul

Pro

My arguments from Round 3 are extended into this round. If my opponent responds, I hope he will debate the points in my Round 2 argument instead of making up his own. He can briefly respond to my rebuttals, but I hope the vast majority of his arguments are about my Round 2 argument.
OpinionatedMan

Con

OpinionatedMan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Ron-Paul

Pro

Vote Pro.
OpinionatedMan

Con

OpinionatedMan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
For Logician: Well that depends on the policy in question. Like unemployment benefits should not be completely cut, but they do need to be significantly cut. Social Security is good, but not in the hands of the Government, so that should be privatized, and Medicaid & Medicare should be completely cut.
Posted by Logician 5 years ago
Logician
So, Ron-Paul, would you be arguing that the services should be privatised, or that they should be cut? It could well be an entirely different set of arguments for CON side depending on that...
Posted by debateme 5 years ago
debateme
what wmpeebles said
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Which ones?
Posted by wmpeebles 5 years ago
wmpeebles
You're missing a not: "I will be debating these things should be privatized or cut, and you will be debating these things should privatized or cut."
Posted by Logician 5 years ago
Logician
No space, then, for CON to say that government-run healthcare is an awesome idea? :(
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
For the Accepting Debater: The first round is for acceptance.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
Ron-PaulOpinionatedManTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits Better arguments made it so that pro won
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
Ron-PaulOpinionatedManTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Due to forfeits