The Instigator
Revolution
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kkdub
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Resolved: the public option would control costs effectively

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/22/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 787 times Debate No: 9795
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Revolution

Pro

During This debate, I will be arguing that the public insurance option would control the cost of health insurance effectively.

My argument is that the public option would control costs because the insurance companies would have to match the prices offered by the government. The insurance companies would not be run out of business because the public option would have to be spontaneous. No funding would be received from the government, and the organization would have to make a profit to stay in business. Thus, all actions made by the public option could be duplicated by any for-profit organization.
kkdub

Con

It is true that private companies would have to try and meet the prices of the prices offered by government, but this would be very hard for them to do because the government does not have to run a profit.

Pro says insurance companies would not run out of business because the public option would be spontaneous. I am not sure what he means by this so I ask that he clarifies this in the next round.

He says that no funding would be received from the government but that is not true because this public option would be run by the government. Pro agrees to this when he says "prices offered by the government."

Pro says that the public option would have to turn a profit but that is not true. All a government organization would have to do is be in the black but even then they may not be concerned with that because our government seems to not be concerned with putting ourselves in debt.

Something that could control costs effectively is allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines creating fair competition and driving down costs while improving the service received.
Debate Round No. 1
Revolution

Pro

As I said, the public option would have to make a profit to stay in business. The public option would be run by the government, however, the public option as proposed would be required to run a profit.

By spontaneous I mean that it would have to run a profit as I said earlier.

Just because the public option is run by the government doesn't mean it would receive funding.

This is voided by earlier statements.

This debate is about whether the public option is effective. Whether other ideas are is irrelevant

I would also like to add the medicare and medicaid are both run by the government, and neither has driven an insurance company out of business.
kkdub

Con

Pro once again starts off in saying that the public option would have to make a profit. But he gives no reason or proof of this. Why would they be forced to make a profit? As I already stated, and Pro did not respond to, our government is not concerned with debt because it grows by the day, so why would they have to make a profit.

In addition to that, on average insurance companies only make a 6% profit margin. In a list of 53 industries, health insurers were at 35 as far as how much profit they make. So they are not even making an obscene amount of profit. If they are forced to cut down even more on profit they will be run out of business which means that the public option is not effective in anything other than handing the health care industry to the government.
http://news.yahoo.com...

Next Pro says that just because it is government run doesn't mean it will receive government funding. This is simply not true the idea of a public option is to be government funded. "Senate Democratic leaders are considering a government-funded public health insurance option..." "Another controversial but cost-saving provision that Democrats in the House were planning to employ was the government funded public insurance option." These are just a couple of quotes discussing the *government funded* public option.
http://airamerica.com...
http://tothecenter.com...

However, while it being government may be relevant to the debate on the public option itself, it is irrelevant to the resolution.

Pro also says that Medicare and Medicaid have not driven insurance companies out of business. Yes that is true that is because Medicare and Medicaid do not impact insurance companies in anyway. They are only for those with low incomes and these programs are entirely funded by the government. So they are not taking any business away from health insurance companies so naturally they do not run them out of business.

This brings me to my next point, which is that a public option will take business away from health insurance companies. Former customers of insurance companies may switch to the public option. So these insurance companies would be losing business and at the same time be forced to cut back on their already small profit margin because of the public option. This would clearly run them out of business which means the public option would not be effective thus the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
Revolution

Pro

Revolution forfeited this round.
kkdub

Con

Unfortunately Pro has forfeited, so extend all my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Revolution

Pro

Revolution forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Revolution 7 years ago
Revolution
I completely blanked out on this one.
No votes have been placed for this debate.