The Instigator
griffinisright
Pro (for)
Winning
73 Points
The Contender
TeaandScarves
Con (against)
Losing
58 Points

Socialized Medicine is bad for America!

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,125 times Debate No: 487
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (38)
Votes (41)

 

griffinisright

Pro

I believe National Health Care is a terrible Idea for America. It will destroy capitalism, take away from personal responsibility, hurt the middle class of America and eliminate consequences for people who do stupid things such as punch holes in their nipples and penis to hangs things out of. Very few people will benefit from such a program because taxes will go through the roof! The people at the poverty level will have less money. The middle class will hardly be able to afford to live and will in turn become the lower class and the rich will simply be taxed more giving them less money to donate to Charity, invest into the stock market Or if they own their own business they will have less money to pay for their employees benefits such as bonuses, holiday and vacation pay and all of the other goodies the middle and lower class benefits from. The truth of the matter is socialized medicine will hurt more people than it helps. The only people it will actually help is the unemployed people on welfare because if they don't make any money they will not be taxed any money. In other words free bee. But as Abraham Lincoln once said "You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves." And its true. Our welfare system is corrupt. It is not meant to be a prominent thing. It is supposed to be for the people who are 100% disabled and unable to work. And to help people get back on their feet after they loose their job, until they find a new job. However too many people of welfare today can work, but they choose not to. Too many people on welfare milk the system for all its worth. Health care is the only motivation for some of them to work. So they can make the money to pay the bills. However if you give them the only things they need to service (food, medicine and a place to hang their hat) they will never have any motivation to get off of welfare. They will eke their way through life at the bare minimum if it means they don't have to work. There for America becomes lazy and eventually as socialism turns into communism we loose our character and strength and become a weaker nation from it. That is why I believe National Health Care or socialized medicine is a terrible Idea for America. It will destroy us from the inside out! Mark my words.
TeaandScarves

Con

First of all, I would like to point out that there is an important distinction between Welfare and National Health Care. Welfare goes to individuals with little or no money. Welfare gives things such as food stamps and creates programs that help the uneducated poor learn to do certain jobs so that they ultimately earn money independently. Welfare does not focus on the health status of a person. The medicaid and medicare programs, or government funded health care programs, concern a different group of people. This includes the people that insurance companies will not cover.
I feel that the insurance companies are one of the main faults here so far. These companies reject people for various reasons, many unjustified. Even if a person is accepted by a health insurance company, the price is very high, a price that definately no single working mother or a retired widow could afford. While you say it will only help these people, according to the census bureau, about 40 million people live below the poverty line. This census does not take into account those who are barely making it. It also does not include those who do not have health care, but who would be below the poverty line if they did. Even then 40 million is approximately 1 in every 6 or 7 people in America. So is it really bad to help "just" them?
The next worry you had was about the rich paying for health insurance for others. If there was a national system for health care, they too would be insured by this health care so some of the cost would be for their own. Plus, according to the Pysicians for National Health Care, the U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, about $8,000 per capita, and many of those countries have national health care. Considering the general income of a "rich" person, let's say it's at least $100,000 a year, does less than $8,000 really seem like too much?
As for some other trivial concerns you have, such as bosses not being able to afford perks for their middle class employees or the health care going to people who have gotten piercings, I mainly feel as though these issues are irrelevant. But since you bring it up, the perks, first of all, are paid for by the company and not by any individual, and no health care program that I have heard of would tax companies for individual health care. If they do please let me know and I'll check it out. Secondly, many of the countries that have national health care such as Canada or France have more perks for all of their citizens than we do now, plus they have the national health care program. Third, assuming that the cost of the national health care would cost less than $8,000 as cited above, these perks would not be lost.
I contest the fact that overall, socialized medicine would be good for America. Many more people would be insured, it would cost less, and America, considered to be one of the greatest lands in the world, would have more to offer than it already does.
Debate Round No. 1
griffinisright

Pro

I do understand that there is a colossal difference between Welfare & National Health Care.The point I am merely trying to make is not so much to compare the two.But more so to explain that a large percentage of the people who will benefit from such a program as National Health Care would be people on Welfare.Welfare goes to individuals who make little to know money.There fore if they make little to no money they will be taxed little to none, however they will still reap all of the benefits of a National Health Care.Like you truthfully pointed out people on welfare already receive things such as food stamps i.e.money for food.The idea I am trying to convey is that the only reason for someone on welfare twould try to get off of it is so they can make money to pay for their medical treatments.But if the government provides that need for them then they don't need to find work, thus giving them no motivation to obtain a job.You are right when you say "Welfare is meant to create programs that help the uneducated poor learn to do certain jobs so that they ultimately earn money independently."?However as I pointed out in my opening debate, a large proportion of the 40 million people who live below the poverty line on welfare are so because they are too lazy to work despite the fact that they are completely capable of working.Welfare is made for the single working mother or a retired widow.If there was less people milking the current system there would be more money to adequately help the people who are truly in need of this form of government help.

Take some of these figures into consideration as well:The majority of the 40 million uninsured in America either do not feel like its worth the money to invest in, or they choose not to work & therefore cannot afford it.There are also some who are temporarily between jobs and haven't had their benefits kick in yet & they are counted as uninsured.Yes, there are some who work & want to afford it but can't, this number is somewhere in the realm of 9million.Yes 9million out of our 300million people are uninsured, that's about 3% of the population. Don't let the numbers fool you into thinking that a huge percentage of the population is unable to get health care, it simply isn't true.Therefore, the other 97% should not be forced into changing our ways for 3% of the population, especially when it means more money out of pocket and worse medical care for the majority of us.

I also noticed you brought up the medicaid and medicare programs, they are also fine examples of the failure for government to pull through, in helping out.As Ronald Reagan once said, "The worst nine words in the English language are, I am from the government, & here to help."And it is true, the medicaid and medicare programs are a failure.My grand parents are on it as most old people and all I hear at Thanksgiving and Christmas is how terrible the system is.Reagan also went on to say,"Government is not the solution to our problems, government IS the problem!"Reagan was one of the greatest presidents we have ever had & it is because he knew what he was talking about.He knew when ever government tried to step in they always screwed things up.

You made a very interesting point when you mentioned that "the insurance companies are one of the main faults here so far.These companies reject people for various reasons, many unjustified."I can not necessarily disagree with you.I do believe there are many flaws to our current system of health care.I believe we need to go back to the old day's ware you didn't pay your insurance company you paid your doctor directly & there was no middle man sucking money out of your check on a weekly basis.However even with all the flaws of our current system it is still better than socialized medicine.You and I am already taxed around 25% of my pay check every week.That too much as it is.With a socialized health care program taxes will have to be raised another 25% just to fund a good system.Now as a kid moving out and getting married in a few months, I am well aware of the cost of living.Rent is not cheap, cars are not cheap, college loans are not cheap.I also know that I can not afford to pay for all of these things on top of all the other unexpected expenses that come along with life living off of half of my pay check! Most people cant!

I am not so much worried about the rich as I am the middle class.Obviously, the rich are financially stable regardless of how unfairly they are over taxed.Although the rich persons company does not get taxed entrepreneur or owner of the company will.Therefore if the owner has less money even a small sum of money like $8,000 can cripple him enough to not be able to afford some of the perks that we the middle class workers enjoy.But that is relatively unimportant in the long haul compared to other problems with socialized medicine.Like I mentioned it will destroy Capitalism.Socialism was invented by Karl Marx as a stepping stone into communism.The big idea is raise taxes every couple of years and provide another government free bee.But ware do you draw the line?Sure everyone needs medical treatment, but don't they also need a car to get to & from the hospital?Don't they also need a job to provide income?How about food, doesn't everyone need to eat?These are a few examples of what a socialized nation will introduce to its people all in the name of raising taxes.Before you know it you are living in communist China.If that is the nation you and or anyone else is looking for hop on a boat or jump on a plane & you can fly on over there.I am sure their Nanny Nation will take real good care of you.As for me I choose to live in a country of Greatness and as long as I can vote I will choose to keep it that way.The very thought that someone might even think about getting their foot in the door to turn America into a communist country disgusts me, & it should sicken you too!

Nationalized health care has been proven to be very flaw full in all of the countries who have used it.The problem in there lies is that if you pour sugar on the counter ants will come out of every nook & crane for their free bee.I mean if your favorite restraint gave out a free bottle of wine and a free hot meal everyday everyone would come from near and far to get their piece of the pie.This logically will create long lines at the hospitals creating longer waiting periods.Don't believe me?Take for instance this short story published in "the Washington Post" of how great Canada's health care is:a few years back a Canadian man had a brain tumor and he desperately needed an MRI.He was told by his Dr. his wait would be at least 8 months!No one can afford wait 8 months for an MRI!I am sorry but that is insanity!So instead of waiting he went to a local vet & registered under the name Fido, and paid cash so he couldn't be tracked.That is MADDNESS!No one in any country should have to do something as crazy as that!Now as far as health care in the US goes.Not one single case has been reported ware someone without health insurance was denied medical attention even if they don't have the cash.They all find a way to pay for it.I had a neighbor who lived in a trailer & their son(4-5 year old)had a rare stomach censor.They lived on if not below the poverty level.They lived in a trailer and their car was a rusted piece of crap;food stamps and the whole bit.The dr. told them the might as well start planning his funeral because he would never live regardless of how much money they did or didn't have.That was about 11 years ago and he is still alive today they had no health insurance but they managed to pay it off and he got all of his chemo treatments on time.If you break your leg & a hospital kicks you out because you don't have the cash they should be arrested!As I have said before and will continue to believe until I have seen hard evidence proving me false, nationalized healthcare is a bad idea of America!
TeaandScarves

Con

"the only reason for someone on welfare would try to get off of it is so they can make money to pay for their medical treatments."
This statement can only be based on the assumption that people want to be on welfare. Do you think that people on welfare live the same lifestyle as you and I? that they live in comfortable homes with working cars and a hot meal each night and the only thing they are lacking is decent health care? In reality, most of these families still barely make it buy. They find it humiliating to depend on others money to live. They would give anything to not be on welfare. Health care is just a part of it. A majority of those on welfare also happen to be children. Do you really expect children to go out and work to pay for their own food, house, and health care?

"The majority of the 40 million uninsured in America either do not feel like its worth the money to invest in, or they choose not to work & therefore cannot afford it."
http://www.bls.gov...
As this site shows, teens and minorities are affected most by unemployment rates. Why is this so? You are probably correct that these people are able bodied people. So what don't these people have that other people do? Could it be an education? Unemployed teenagers are probably drop outs, so perhaps we should be talking about our education system instead and keeping more kids in school to get a good education so that they could work. What about the minorities? They could easily have been part of the teen statistic when they were that age, but perhaps there is another issue. Maybe the falling of Affirmative Action? Sure these people are able bodied, maybe some of them are lazy, but the majorities here might not be getting jobs for being the minorities.

"Therefore, the other 97% should not be forced into changing our ways for 3% of the population"
1.When workers are unemployed, they, their families and the country as a whole lose. Workers and their families lose wages, and the country loses the goods or services which could have been produced.
2."Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work."
3.Those who have no job and are not looking for one--are counted as "not in the labor force." The "lazy people" are not even in the numbers that you cited before. Maybe you should check your sources?
4.All of the following can be cited at: http://www.bls.gov...

"My grand parents are on it as most old people and all I hear at Thanksgiving and Christmas is how terrible the system is."
1.Please cite more sources. While I don't doubt their credibility, I do wonder whether they are a majority or a minority in opinion.
2.If they hate it so much, why are they still on it? Probably because they don't have another option. Isn't it a good thing for them then that they do have the option of receiving money and care from the government? Please remind them of this for me this coming Christmas when they begin to complain.

"I believe we need to go back to the old day's ware you didn't pay your insurance company you paid your doctor directly"
There has to be some sort of system in between, otherwise who would regulate the doctors to give fair charges? The doctors could charge as much as they want and people would be forced to obliged or not get the treatment because they can't afford the doctor's demands. If you really think they would charge a fair price, look at our gas prices. They are private companies competing against each other and they have made prices go through the roof. Those prices cannot be just because of the oil demand its supply and demand seen here: http://www.howstuffworks.com...

"Take for instance this short story published in "the Washington Post""
1. Please cite. I can't find it anywhere.
2. The better idea would be to look at the Canadian news and the trend of their voting to see how their health care system works instead of looking to our reporters. Why would we know? We don't have National Health Care. They do.

"That's too much as it is. With a socialized health care program taxes will have to be raised another 25% just to fund"
1. again, please cite your source
2. Please take these into consideration:
"Canadians spend about 55% of what Americans spend on health care and have longer life expectancy, and lower infant mortality rates." - Robert S. Bell, M.D., President and CEO of University Health Network, Toronto
"Canadians pay 9% of GDP to insure 100% of citizens, compared with 14% of GDP to insure 85% of Americans."
3. Pros and Cons: we seem to agree that cost and the quality of health care are the most important things that should be covered by the health care system. It seems as though Canada has us beat on that.
4. this is FROM Canada and a Canadian businessman. This affects him directly as you can see, through the amount of money he makes, and through his own health care.

"company does not get taxed entrepreneur or owner of the company will. Therefore if the owner has less money even a small sum of money like $8,000 can cripple him enough to not be able to afford some of the perks that we the middle class workers enjoy."
1. Again, the owner of the company does not pay for perks out of his pocket but rather the company does, so his being taxed would not matter.
2. In 2002, automotive companies claimed universal health care system in Canada saved labour costs. Or "In addition to reinforcing the quality and accessibility of health care for all Canadians, these measures would also help to ensure the long-run success of the Canadian auto industry." This was sent by OUR automotive companies. So much for not being able to give perks… So much for National Health Care ruining Capitalism…
http://www.house.gov...
3. It saddens me that we are actually debating whether or not companies would be able to give out perks when we are overall discussing the ability to give all of our citizens health care. Regardless of what "perks" we may get in the long run, isn't the most important thing fulfilling the American dream by helping those around us to live the best life they can?

"hospitals [have] longer waiting periods."
I will agree that the Canadians concede the fact that there are longer waiting periods. But I have not seen instances where the Canadians wish to change their system because of the wait. Overall the cost and the quality are more important to them, as it is to us as well. They seem to be getting plenty of that. I quote, "the Conservative Party of Canada considered increasing the role of the private sector in the Canadian health care system. Public backlash caused these plans to be abandoned, and the current minority Conservative government has re-affirmed its commitment to universal public medicine." This leads me to believe that the Canadians like their health care, despite waits.

"It will destroy Capitalism."
You have not yet told me HOW it will.

"If you break your leg & a hospital kicks you out because you don't have the cash they should be arrested!"
This seems to contradicts your entire argument. Insurance companies and individual hospitals, in fact, do this all the time. With National Health Care, they would not be allowed to, nor would they have to because they could afford to pay to have their leg fixed. This statement also implies that you and I agree that health care is a right and not a privilege and that all American citizens should be helped.

"I choose to live in a country of Greatness"
How great can this country be great if we only keep to ourselves and let the smaller guy go down? Sounds selfish.
In conclusion, while you provide a lot of "facts" I see no citations. A question to you: is keeping your own hard earned money ultimately the better thing to do for America than to help Americans receive health care they deserve?
Debate Round No. 2
griffinisright

Pro

Yes not EVERYONE on welfare wants to be there. This is true, but the people who CHOOSE not to work, CHOOSE to be on welfare. In answer to your question, No I do not expect children (all persons under 18) to have to work. After all it is not their fault if their parents CHOOSE to be losers in the game of life. Nor should a child whose parents are disabled be forced to work. I never said I do not support help for kids. But the government should not take on the entire obligation either. That is what charities are primarily for. That is also why I choose to donate 10% of my income to organizations who help people who are truly in need.

Many people choose NOT to have medical insurance, because it is an option (as of now) and many people think "I am healthy why would I pay for something I don't necessarily need?" Prime example I do not have dental care because (knock on wood) I rarely have dental problems. I am not going to pay weekly on something my body scarcely requires. Nor should someone who does not want to pay for health care on a weekly basis be required to.

Affirmative action is politically correct B.S. I believe in the best man for the job. People should not get a job based on color, creed or ethnicity. That has nothing to do with health care why you brought it up I will never know.

I stand by the fact that we do not need insurance companies. Back in the 40's and 50's they did not have insurance companies and medical prices were not through the roof. In fact they were dirt cheap. I will not cite that fact. You can figure that one out on your own. Just ask your grandparents or anyone over 65 years of age they will tell you the same thing. You can not compare apples to oranges. Don't try to make a connection to oil out of all of this. That is way off topic. Oil is expensive because we get most of it from the Middle East and many of the places like "CITGO" are run by terrorists who hate America and will jump at any chance to rip us off. Trust me if we drilled Alaska gas would be a heck of a lot cheaper.

I also noticed you still do not see ware I was going with this whole perks thing, you said, "Again, the owners of the company does not pay for perks out of his pocket but rather the company does..." This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard! I am not talking about wal-mart if I was I wouldn't have used the word entrepreneurs. I am talking about companies like the car ford dealership I work for. Believe me Ford does not pay for my vacation. The owner does out of the goodness in his heart. If he didn't who do you think will? The government sure as heck isn't going to front the cash.

One of the biggest problems with socialized medicine is that only the people working legitimate jobs will be taxed. But all those working under the counter do not get taxed but still receive the same treatment even though they did not pay a dime for it. Yes this means even the drug dealers, prostitutes and illegal immigrants get to stand in line in front of you and I (the hard working tax payers) maybe that doesn't seem too bad to have to stand behind Se´┐Żor. Not when you realize there are between 15 and 20 million illegal aliens living in the United States to date.

I am still waiting on an answer from you on ware do you think the government will draw the line for things we need? Don't we also need food? Don't we need a car and a job etc? is the government going to supply these things too? If Karl Marx has any say in it they will. Taxes will be raised there is no question about it when I said 25% that was a rough conservative guess. It very well could cost more as you pointed out, medical treatment is expensive' right? Now I realize you wouldn't know this yet. At age 17, you probably live at home with your parents or under someone else's care. You don't have to pay the bills and you don't have to work over 40 hours a week. I work between 50 and 60 hours a week If I earned $668.81 then after taxes I will take home $471.22. If I earn $565.00 I take home $399.64. That's $1-$200 a week. I as most people cant afford to live off much if any less money than that especially when you are supporting two people and paying off college bills, rent, car insurance etc. I know for fact, I can not survive off of taxes that Hillary will be proposing which will raise taxes nearly 25% and now your are looking at $3-$400 a week. Which will take me out of the middle class and propel me into the poverty level. Don't try to tell me any differently I know what my personal financial situation is. You do not!

I did cite the story of Fido and the MRI it came from "the Washington Post" Unlike you I do not pull all of my information off of the Internet, ware anyone can post anything free of charge. I first read the story in a book. Later I did the non Internet research and found the article (hard copy) for myself. (Personal advice to you… read a book once in a while, it is good for you.) Yes that's book (noun) or (bŏŏk) as in a written or printed work of fiction or non fiction, usually on sheets of paper fastened or bound together within covers.

I am not going to explain this again. Socialism will destroy capitalism. Socialism leads to communism, and communism takes away from the personal liberties we have and our ability to pick our own private way of life. The food we choose to buy and eat, the car we pay for and drive, medical treatment we choose to purchase and all of the other things that we have the liberty to use our capital dollar to buy. That is what capitalism is all about. And communism wants to take that all away from us. Communism will tell you what you are going to eat, what car you will drive, what dr. you will go to. WEATHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!

I have not met a single person who has ever been denied medical treatment in their life due to a shortage on cash. If you know someone personally I would like to meet them. Not a link to someone else's web site ware thy are going to try to propagandise me. I want to meet them for myself. If a homeless man ran into a hospital today with his leg hacked off bleeding every ware, You can not tell me the hospital wouldn't treat him. If you tell me they would I would tell you you are lying. Yes everyone does have the right to medical treatment, but that doesn't mean the government or anyone else for that matter should have to pay for it. After all my misfortune should not be your responsibility. If it was or if you want it to be the next time I get into a car accident or get a speeding ticket I will give you a call and you will come bail me out right?

We need lass government interaction in our personal life. Right now you have the personal freedom to go to any Dr. you want. If we lived in a communist or socialist nation right now George W. Bush would pick your Dr. If that's what you want then go ahead and vote in favor of communism in 08. I choose to vote for freedom so my kids can grow up in a nation of greatness as I did. if you don't like our system move to China, Canada or the UK I guarantee you will be back in a very short manor of time. Once you realise it all comes down to personal responsibility. Go to college, if you don't want to get a job and work your butt off and save every penny you can because thousands on welfare depend on you. But more importantly you and your kids depend on you. Believe me you will do just fine and that goes for all Americans. Someone once told me it is good to end an article or debate with a quote because someone else has already said it best so there is no point in trying to top them so I leave you with these words from Ronald Reagan, "I believe the best welfare system is a job."
TeaandScarves

Con

"This is true, but the people who CHOOSE not to work, CHOOSE to be on welfare."
You give way to the idea that people immediately see cause and effect. While they perhaps should, I am not so sure that people see this in the same way. But as I mentioned before, the people who choose not to work are not counted in unemployment rates and therefore are not part of the original 3% you cited in your second argument that cannot receive health care. The number is probably much more, though I cannot say I have read this to be certain.

"Why would I pay for something I don't necessarily need?"
The system pays for very basic health care, only that which is necessary should a person ever need it (which at one point in their lives they probably will) and does not cover things such as "dental services, optometrists, and prescription medications." So people would only get that which they should be entitled to under their right to life in our constitution and so one who does not want or need the other things will not have to pay for them, but they certainly can if they want to.

"Affirmative action is politically correct B.S. I believe in the best man for the job. People should not get a job based on color, creed or ethnicity. That has nothing to do with health care"
I brought it up as a possible explanation for some of the unemployed in America that can't afford health care from themselves to show that for many their source of income can be out of their control at times.

"Back in the 40's and 50's they did not have insurance companies and medical prices were not through the roof."
I could not find anything that supported this statement but I did find an excerpt from a book on American health care that says that health insurance boomed at this same time in history, partly because they didn't want to spend their money after taxes on health care. If health care was part of our taxes, that wouldn't be a problem.

"Don't try to make a connection to oil out of all of this. That is way off topic."
While yes the industries are very different, the comparison can be made to any private company in a capitalist system. I was merely trying to provide a parallel for this idea: if you have private companies (or individuals as you support) competing for prices, they can make the prices whatever they want. With examples of this everywhere, SUCH AS in the gas industry. It seems very feasible that doctors would do the same.

"I am not talking about Wal-mart if I was I wouldn't have used the word entrepreneurs. I am talking about companies like the car ford dealership I work for."
1. I still worry about those who care more about their perks than the well-being of their fellow Americans.
2. It is the general status quo that benefit packages come from how well a private company did that year. It explains why one Ford dealership may give some benefits to their employees and other dealerships may not give those.

"One of the biggest problems with socialized medicine is that only the people working legitimate jobs will be taxed."
This is really the point. National health care is intended to give all citizens in a country access to good health and they are taxed according to their ability to pay, so their ability to pay would be based off of a person's income. It would be like giving to charity in a more obvious way if you want to look at it that way. And I am curious to know what you mean by "legitimate" jobs.

"Where do you think the government will draw the line for things we need?"
Our government is based on the voters: we vote for what our government does or does not give us. I believe in our ability to know the difference between what Americans need and what would be useful to have, which we have already done in most cases. People need food, they can get food stamps. People need money, they can go on welfare until they find a substantial job. People do not need cars, they are merely useful

"I did cite the story of Fido and the MRI it came from "the Washington Post" Unlike you I do not pull all of my information off of the Internet"
1. I apologize. You are correct. You did cite this. I should have said that I would like to have seen that as opposed to asking you to cite it. I greatly appreciate that you found an Internet source for me to read and I found it very interesting.
2. This is still the only information that you cited. I would also like to say that I used internet sources mainly so you could see them and because they were quicker information to retrieve than finding a book in a library.

"Personal advice to you… read a book once in a while"
I find that this comment, along with several others you have made, attacks my character and intelligence and presents information that you do not know and I suggest you would not use in future debates.

"I know what my personal financial situation is. You do not!"
Again, I wish you would not make this debate so personal for your sake, mine, and our viewer's sakes. While we may sympathize for your situation, it does not serve for the issue you are debating on the whole but instead your experience for this topic. Personal viewpoints also do not serve why topics such as this one should or should not be imposed on society as a whole but instead on why they should not be imposed on you.

"Socialism leads to communism"
1.This seems to be a sweeping fallacy and could be compared to the idea that the implement of a Libertarian-like program would lead to anarchy.
2.I would also like to note that your concern that a Socialist ideal would create a Communist society is backwards in historical context. Most societies go from communism to socialism to somewhere between that and democracy where most of the leading countries in the world are now. A good example of this is Russia's government.

"I have not met a single person who has ever been denied medical treatment in their life due to a shortage on cash."
As much as I would like to believe your personal experience (and it is mine too), I cannot know that our experience is completely true. I would like it to be. I cannot say though until I see evidence one way or another.

"If we lived in a communist or socialist nation right now George W. Bush would pick your Dr"
I have not found any information that would prove this to be true for a socialized health care. Since we do not live in a communist or socialist nation, nor would we with nationalized health care, there seems to be no reason why this would be true.

"our government did a horrible job handling Hurricane Katrina what makes people think they will do better with health care?"
I agree that they did a terrible job with Hurricane Katrina. I would like to note, though, that this was a spontaneous event that had to be reacted to quickly while the health care system would have time to be thought out and planned as it already has been. I would also like to note that the people who did such a terrible job with Katrina are not the people who would be running national health care.

I would like to thank you for this debate. It has been informative and interesting and I hope to have the pleasure again.

Sources:
http://www.canadian-healthcare.org...
Delivering Health Care in America: A Systems Approach By Leiyu Shi, Douglas A. Singh (Can be read on Google books)
Debate Round No. 3
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TeaandScarves 6 years ago
TeaandScarves
I respect the fac that Karl Marx may have intended or thought that a Socialist economy would progress into communism and I could certainly see how this would be the thought. My point merely was that this is not what history has shown us. Plus this doesn't relate communism to a democracy like our government, which Marx might not have considered or intended either.
Posted by griffinisright 6 years ago
griffinisright
By the way:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"The modern socialist movement largely originated in the late-19th century working class movement. In this period, the term socialism was first used in connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises after the proletarian revolution, in which the means of production are owned collectively. This society would then progress into communism."
Posted by griffinisright 6 years ago
griffinisright
It was a pleasure debating you too TeaandScarve. Sorry my intention was not to insult your intelligence but to more so to use some comical satire in order to make a finer point. Good luck in your future debates!
Posted by AREA 6 years ago
AREA
Yes, the government does spend out taxes on R&D for new anti-depressants and whatever... We pay and the private companies profit.
But the private sector does pay for part of the bill, and the bill is very large.
They use this as an excuse to not allow generic medicine.
"it takes us so long to get our money back on our investments".

If the US just paid for all the funding, then allowed generic medicine, things would be better off. Of course, we still need the programs to incentivize R & D into real cures and vaccines instead of pills meant to manage problems after they occur.

Is this surprising? How many nation states were formed via revolution or a battle against Imperialism? History is no stranger to violence, and the National Anthems we make to represent our nations are rooted in our histories. I Believe Vietnam has one like that too.
Posted by FrontLineConservative 6 years ago
FrontLineConservative
sethgecko13-
I want you to provide one instance where socialized medicine is the answer. Look at Great Britain and Canada. Have you heard the horror stories?

Oh, and your comment about the "greatest generation" working 40 hours a week a wal-mart is bogus. If they had managed their money, might I add like my grandfather did, they would be able to enjoy retirement. If you don't take care of your finances when you're young it will come back to haunt you when you are older. It's not some government conspiracy. You jack around when you're young, you get screwed when you're old.
Posted by sethgecko13 6 years ago
sethgecko13
cjet79 -

I'd LOVE for you to provide anything resembling a source for your claim that welfare is 80% overhead.

Medicare/Medicaid has far lower overhead costs than private, for-profit health providers. Not only that, but Medicare/Medicaid has an incentive to keep costs low (through preventative medicine) whereas the private sector only has incentive to keep costs high because it results in higher profits for them.
Posted by tex 6 years ago
tex
those bastards! this has to be 25 characterssssss iinnnnn lengthhh.
Posted by sethgecko13 6 years ago
sethgecko13
Nice to hear that kids shouldn't have to work, but let us not forget the elderly. Are they Choosing to be on welfare when they are simply too old to work?"

:-] Yeah! Damn that lazy "greatest generation" - how dare they defeat the Nazis and then just sit on their laurels! They should be out there working 40-hour weeks for minimum wage as Wal-Mart greeters!
Posted by cjet79 6 years ago
cjet79
If by clockwork you mean 80% is spent in bureaucracy then yes your are correct seth.
Posted by sethgecko13 6 years ago
sethgecko13
AREA -

Not only that - but virtually all of the drugs on the market were funded largely with taxpayer money, either from FDA/NIH grants or through innovations that were produced at taxpayer-funded public universities. That's why the pharmaceutical industry has the highest profit margin of any industry in the US (and has for over a decade); we do all of the heavy lifting, then thanks to shoddy legislation like the Bayh-Dole act, they get to take the ball we've run with the last five yards and reap the profits from it.

That and they've got scumbags like Billy Tauzin lobbying for them on behalf of horrid programs like the medicare prescription drug benefit plan (which, in anti-capitalist irony, prohibited the US government from using its size to negotiate bulk discounts on drugs).
41 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 2 years ago
Mr.Infidel
griffinisrightTeaandScarvesTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter
Vote Placed by Willoweed 2 years ago
Willoweed
griffinisrightTeaandScarvesTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: nope
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 6 years ago
Pluto2493
griffinisrightTeaandScarvesTied
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 
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 6 years ago
bigbass3000
griffinisrightTeaandScarvesTied
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 
Vote Placed by solo 6 years ago
solo
griffinisrightTeaandScarvesTied
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 
Vote Placed by righty10294 6 years ago
righty10294
griffinisrightTeaandScarvesTied
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 
Vote Placed by benames75 6 years ago
benames75
griffinisrightTeaandScarvesTied
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 
Vote Placed by jessica.spangler 6 years ago
jessica.spangler
griffinisrightTeaandScarvesTied
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 
Vote Placed by nsvohes 6 years ago
nsvohes
griffinisrightTeaandScarvesTied
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 
Vote Placed by Greendonut 6 years ago
Greendonut
griffinisrightTeaandScarvesTied
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