Should governments worldwide pay for health care for adults who are dealing with poor lifestyles cho
Debate Rounds (3)
I argue that every government in the world should pay for the healthcare for their citizens, regardless of their lifestyles (that, of course, includes the poor ones), with three reasons, it is up to my opponent to refute each and every one of them.
Reason 1 - Economically:
Universal healthcare is, I argue, the most cost-efficient way to cover the healthcare cost of our population. If any individuals, regardless of their lifestyles, ever become ill or injury, either directly caused by their lifestyle or not, and should that person be unable to pay for the required medical treatment or at least unable to fulfill the cost in a timely manner, the healthcare provider will have to choose between (1) leaving him/her untreated or (2) treating the person for free.
Choose (1): Should the provider choose to not treat the person, he/she will then have to suffer the consequence of not receiving proper medical treatment. Just because an individual have a poor lifestyle does not equate the inability to contribute to the society. Someone who drink, smoke, and obese may very well become a doctor, scientist, or engineer who can tackle many of our world's problem. By denying someone healthcare, you are also denying that person economic opportunity, And if this problem persist systematically, we then create a portion of the population that do not have equal opportunity, who many among them will then turn to criminal activities. Finally, the society as a whole will have to pay more for the policing and imprisoning of these individuals. The cost of maintaining an unnecessarily enlarged law-enforcement system to control and facilitate unproductive criminals and prisoners is much higher and less rewarding than investing in a healthcare system that can maintain able-bodies to become productive citizens who can contribute to our society.
Choose (2): Should the provider choose the former, the ensured cost-gap will then have to be made good by the contributions from the rest of the society, be it either in the form of (a) private donation, (b) increase in the charges on other patients, or (c) public assistance; either way, the rest of the population will have to pay up to cover him/her.
(a) Private donations may not be available on time for patients requiring emergency care, and there is a possibility of not having enough donations for the increased medical cost.
(b) An increase in the healthcare cost of other patients is basically a form of taxation on the rest of society, except it is done by a healthcare provider that do not necessarily posses the administrative capacity or accounting capability in assess a fair amount from each patient; in addition, this practice allows healthcare providers to charge patients unfairly due to the lack of price-negotiation between the individual with poor lifestyle and the provider. Finally, the cost is unfairly distributed across patients who has the ability to pay for their medical treatments while those without gets to free-ride the healthcare system.
(c) That leaves public assistance the only logical option; which is a single-payer system, giving the government the responsible to tax and pay for the purpose of healthcare.
Reason 2 - Pragmatically:
The term "poor lifestyle" has a loose definition and can then be unevenly apply to patients base on the bias of healthcare providers, opening the way for racism, sexism, or simply a way for providers to avoid offering expensive medical treatments for free.
Reason 3 - Ethically:
Most, if not all functioning governments has a single-payer/universal military defense system, but should we allow a person who is physically weak and/or living at a location that is difficult to defend to be left fencing for himself/herself?
They also have a universal police force, but should we allow someone who lives in a crime-infested area or perhaps, someone who deals with criminal to be deprived of police protection?
They also have a universal education system, but should we go ahead and decide not to educate any of the mentally impaired, blind, or deaf children? Or may be those with learning disability?
They also have a universal firefighter service, but should firetrucks stop servicing houses near the woods or in dry climate?
Healthcare, just like military defense, law enforcement, firefighter services, and education, are essential to any human beings in a modern society, so I conclude that economically, pragmatically, and ethically, the society, thus the government as a whole, has the responsibility to provide healthcare service to all.
truelove8551 forfeited this round.
truelove8551 forfeited this round.
khkan forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro missed less rounds.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.