The Instigator
San_9
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
20130416
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Should medicine be free?

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 1 vote the winner is...
20130416
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,993 times Debate No: 38731
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

San_9

Pro

To be the doctor it is very serious profession and not everyone can become a doctor. To be the doctor it means to be patient,kind and to have a huge desire to help people and love them. If man really loves his or her profession he or she will help people even without a salary.However doctors are people too and they need to feed their family,but should their treatment be free?I think medicine should be free,because health it is one of the main thing in our life.If government wants to improve peoples' life the medicine should be free because nowadays we have paid and free hospitals and good proffesionals go to the paid hospitals because there the can earn more money and not so good professionals stay at free hospitals.Not everyone can allow themselves to go to the paid hospitals and majority of people go to free hospitals. Is it honestly that minority of society get good treatment and majority get no so good treatment?
20130416

Con

Of course, health is the important thing in our life and people can do everything to be healthy and not to be ill. However, do you think that the quality of medical treatment will be good if it is going to be free? Free treatments mean free drugs and as it was written in the article that i read, they can lead to several problems. One of them was the bad quality of drugs and equipments. There were some situations, where people died because of incurable diseases, caused by the bad quality of drugs. The structure of such drugs was not profitable. So, should we take the risk of our health and trust on free drugs that can harm us?
Debate Round No. 1
San_9

Pro

According to your article free medicine it is a free drugs or medicine with bad quality. However, we consider this situation in present time, of course today you cannot buy a good medicine without money. I want to say that if government creates only free hospitals the producers of the tablets will decrease the price of their product because hospitals and people want to buy tablets by cheaper price and producers also interest on their income. All of this factors will lead to decreasing of drugs or bad quality tablets. Not so long time ago in Soviet Union was the free medicine and our country has experience on it. However,It is very hard to achieve this goal but we must try to do it because we cannot admit class inequality in medicine. Everyone have right for health.
20130416

Con

I see your point, free-health care is one of those things that sounds good, but in reality can not work. Everything is money, and for being healthy we should pay too. We should not think only about ourselves. I mean that, if we provide doctors high salaries, there will be positive impact on productivity of the workers. Medical profession one of the hardest professions in the world, it requires big responsibility, accuracy, much time for acquiring knowledge, moreover we trust them our lives and for these reasons they deserve to be paid well.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Juris 3 years ago
Juris
San_920130416Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's idea is beneficial to some extent but he failed to prove that how can it be feasible. Further, he assumed that free mediciine is the only way in which the government can help people. In round 2 also, pro widen the scope of debate ,which should not be, by proposing the possibility of free hospitals. Con failed to provide verifiable examples to support his argument in round 1. In round 2, he mentioned about increasing the salary of doctors which clearly not subject in this debate. Anyway, I will vote for con because pro failed to explain how his proposal is realistic.