The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Socializing some industries will/can/do improve the economy and society.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,134 times Debate No: 19326
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I will allow my opponent to either present his/her arguments first or to accept the challenge and allow me to present my arguments first.


I accept the challenge offered by the instigator and urge him/her to commence with their argument.
Debate Round No. 1


Private prison run by private companies are more expensive and costly than socialized prisons and result in lower wages for prison workers. This is because private prisons are more concerned with producing profits then providing worker benefits.
In America there are a lot of privately run prisons, which are more expensive then socialized ones, in fact if all of Americans prisons were socialized it would save the country 20 billion dollars of 10 years while increasing workers' wages by 5%.

In Arizona private prisons can cost as much as 1,600 more per inmate per year. This is despite private prisons having more riots, human right abuses and poorer working conditions.

Socializing insurance companies would result in lower costs and better benefits because the government wouldn't have a need to have profits and has consistently shown that it can run insurance programs with lower administrative fees/costs.
For example the administrative cost for government unemployment insurance is less than 5%, and government flood insurance has administrative costs at 7%.

Private insurance administrative +profit costs make up to around 40% of total insurance spending. Meaning that socializing all insurance companies would result in near 30% lower costs with the same benefits. Basing this loosely on how much Americans pay for insurance this means that socialization could save the country upwards to 300 billion dollars every single year.

3)Private colleges compared to public universities.
Government controlled universities provide a better education at a lower cost than private colleges because government universities are in the business to education rather than to make a profit and get rich off of students. The evidence supporting this is as such:
Senior students and private colleges are 3 times more likely to have debt over 40,000 compared to similar students with similar degrees. This is because private colleges are more expensive.

Also private colleges have a graduate rate of 22% instead of 55% for state colleges. Private colleges also account for 26% of federal student loans yet 43% of student defaults; this is because private colleges are less likely to make sure their students have good job prospects and less likely to provide degrees that will result in prosperity for their students.


Firstly, I would like to thank my opponent for presenting his/her case. To clarify, I will be opposing the above bill.

At the beginning of my speech, I will refute my oppositions arguments, then I will present my thesis and associated arguments and finally, I will close the argument and exaplin as to why socializing the aforementioned industries is the not the favourable choice.

Socialism, according to Marxists theory represents the stage following capitalism in a state transforming to communism. My opponent has mentioned three industries in his/her argument and how they should be socialized in order to improve the economy and maintain a society. However, socializing industries has far more cons that directly affect the citizens of a country than pros.

My opponents first argument alludes to the privitized prison system and how socializing them would decrease expenses. However, during 1993, the cost of crime was estimated to be over six billion dollars a year in construction, just to keep up with the inmate population growth. This figure did not include the cost of employing fifty thousand guards, nor the additional tens of thousands of administrators, health, education and food service providers. By allowing private firms to take over, cost associated to these expenses would not be taken directly from tax payers pocket, allowing governments to better use their revenue to better service other public areas in need of assistance such as health care and community services. Studies from Wackenhut and CCA institutions have noted savings of twenty percent off construction, and five to fifteen percent off management costs. Interviews with prisoners and staff alike - who were in the position to compare both facilities - stated they were more comfortable in the privatised prisons.

The purpose of a prison is to rehabilitate prisoners so they don't relapse into to wrongdoings; in other words, decrease the recidivism rate. By reducing this rate, privatised prisons are in effect reducing their supply of profit producing customers. Private companies do not necessarily have to be in prospects of profit. Non-profit and independent organisations such as faith based foundations devoted to rehabilitation of criminals and such are included in the list of private organisations involved in the prison industry.

Private industries allow greater management flexibility, which in turn is meant to create better response times regarding issues of innovation, expansion, staff promotions and terminations. Public prisons have been unable to keep up with technological changes or changing needs of the individual staff and inmates within the walls. These changes are useful in handling incidences of outbreaks and riots, and have proven to reduce such incidences.

In the second part of my oppositions speech, he/she mentions the pros of socializing insurance companies. I am going to specifically analyse the health insurance industry. Many countries such as Canada and the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) do enforce the socializing of health insurance (public health care). Nonetheless, they still are dependent on the privatized system of healthcare. For example, Canada spent an estimated $142 billion on health care in 2005, which is $4,411 per person. Of this, $98.8 billion was spent by governments delivering public health care. About $43.2 billion was spent on private health care. In England, nearly 544,000 people waiting to be admitted to NHS hospitals in August 2008, with an average wait of 4.5 weeks. This proves the ineffieciency of the social system and how it is inadequate to provide citizens with health care when they need it. In addition to this, a private system ensures the following:

-No queues:no need for waiting in long lines for treatment if your condition is serious.
-Choice: you can choose your consultant and where you want to be treated, with the proviso that some policies restrict treatment to set lists of hospitals.
-Private room: you don't have to worry about being on a mixed-gender ward. Depending on your policy, you may have an ensuite bathroom.
-Unrestricted visiting hours.
-Personal care: a retinue of medical students won't accompany your appointment with the consultant, you won't be kept waiting for hours to see them and you will have more time to discuss your symptoms.
-Continuity of care: you are likely to be seen by the same consultant throughout your treatment.
-Specialist claim team: your insurer may have a team that deals specifically with a certain type of condition, such as cancer, who can help advise you.
The public health care system has many flaws that fall short when helping individuals who are in dire need of treatment asap.

Finally, to refute to the last point side opposition alluded to: private universities versus public education.

Harvard, Yale, Brown and Princeton. these are all Ivy-league private universities that produce students that pursue incredible post graduate careers carrying out influentional roles as active participants of society. By socializing the whole educational industry (or just post secondary education, as my opponent refers mostly too), we will be diminishing the number of specialist in different fields of study. Harvard has the highest rate of graduation among four years of college at 97%. The following link shows the graduation rates of different private universities :

Therefore, my opponents statistics on the matter of percentage of graduates is misinformed. Other pros for a private education (grade school and secondary education) are as follows:
-Like privatized junior high and high schools, private universities generally have smaller class sizes, and more prestige than does a public university.
-Students generally build stronger, more personal relationships with their professors and instructors, as there are special programs designed to increase communication and dialogue between the two. It is not uncommon for a university to arrange for professors to dine, correspond, and interact with students on a personal, friendly level.
-Private universities also have a significantly higher amount of extra-curricular activities and programs for students to participate in, which can develop a stronger sense of community.

So it is evident that socializing an economy based on these industries would upset the standards of living for people that can afford to access these needs. They also contribute positively to the society and help the economy. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


1)A) Note: In my first post I provide sources comparing private vs. public prisons; they showed that not only were public prisons less costly, but they had higher wages for workers and better working conditions. Another note my sources are from independent studies, not studies done by CCA (which is a private prison firm).

B) My opponent is making a claim that he has not supported with any evidence or even an explanation for that matter. This claim is, "Private industries allow greater management flexibility". My opponent has to at least explain why private prisons cause greater flexibility, and better yet if he has a source that shows this is true it would be helpful to post it. Also it would be a good idea for my opponent to show that this flexibility actually makes private prisons better than public ones.

C) My opponent either has to refute/contradict my sources that show public prisons are more efficient; or show in some other way how the more expensive private prisons provide more benefits then the less expensive public prisons.

2)A) My opponent is making an incorrect conclusion. He concludes that because there is private health insurance, public health insurance is inefficient. Using that same logic we could conclude that because there is public health insurance, private health insurance is inefficient. The reason there is private health care in countries with socialized health systems is because they have socialized health care for care that is deemed necessary; they make it so that if you want health services such as boob jobs you have to get it through private insurance.

B) My opponent listed a bunch of things he believes results in private insurance being better than public I will address each one in this section.
-No queues: He is simply lying in this part. Private insurance dose in fact has wait times and when you include the fact that private insurance leaves out 15% of the population you find that private insurance has longer lines.
A better measure would be to measure how many people forgo health care for one reason or another that is related to the system. In America 37% of people forgo care while in Canada (has socialized health insurance) only 5% forego care.
-Choice: Again my opponent is lying. With socialized insurance you can chose your own doctors etc.
.-Private room: So according to my opponent maybe being treated next to someone of the opposite sex in a room filled with health professionals is somehow a bad thing. I ask him if it worth the extra 20-40% that private insurance costs?
Unrestricted visiting hoursAgain my opponent is just making stuff up.
Personal care:So according to my opponent training more doctors and medical professionals is a bad thing. He also makes more stuff up under a socialized system you'll have no different amount of time with your doctor then if the system was private.
The rest of my opponents list on this is just more made up stuff that have no basis in reality.

C) In my first post I posted several examples of public insurance that provides the same quality of benefits as private insurance only at a cost 20-40% less than the private insurance. My opponent cannot really address this given that the fact is that private insurance is more expensive with no extra benefits

3)A) My opponent is cherry picking. You can't pick out the data that you like and ignore the rest of the data. The data I posted compared ALL private for profit colleges against public universities, and that data shows that public universities are less expensive even though they provide a better education and better job prospects. All the evidence shows that public universities are far more efficient and better then the for profit college industry.



Let me define what I'm going against: I am debating against NOT socializing industries. That doesn't mean I'm debating about completely privatizing an industry or industries.
First of all, my opponent has to define his/her bill. Does he/she believe that the prison industry, the insurance industry and the education industry must be completely socialized- eradicating every privatized company that exist in each industry he/she mentions? What terms are you associating with this bill? Would you be willing to support a semi-privatized system? Be specific.

1.a/b/c) Firstly, let me define what I mean by flexibility. One major developments have forced policy makers to reconsider the option of private prisons management. Prison Crowding. From 1980-1994, the increase of inmates was "200 percent to nearly 1.7 million" (Pratt et al.). The reliance on incarceration has resulted in a demand for prison space and the public sector cannot match in supply. The public sector depends on the private sector in almost every state in the US to some extent in correctional services. Also, the competitive marketplace motivates the private prisons to perform efficiently, the said concept hosted by the Public Choice Theory.

2.a) The contender makes a point stating the role of privatized health insurance, being that of, and I quote, "[for]health services such as boob jobs" but he/she fails to acknowledge that "boob jobs" aren't the only concern when it comes to specialized medical problems. I'm pretty sure chiropractic or psychological treatments are deemed necessary. Limiting private health cares role to cosmetic surgery is silly. There are many other problems out there that aren't covered by health care. Doctors that co-exist in a socialist system aren't paid as much (limited hours of work) which is shown in their lack of willingness to work with patients in regards to their availability and this fact adds to the long list of waiting patients.
b) the length of line ups is significantly less than the length of line ups in public health.
-Private Room: The preferences of a patient need to be taken into consideration. If the patient can pay for the private health care, why not? Again, I need you to specify to what level you wish to socialize and industry. If all services include current private services, were to be socialized, then taxes would be paid for things like "boob" jobs for other people.
c) My opponent is wrong when he/she says that there are no benefits in private health care when in reality, people with jobs do get benefits from their workplace.
3.a) In my opponents refutation, he/she claims that, and I quote "...that data shows that public universities are less expensive even though they provide a better education and better job prospects." No where in his/her sources did I see anything that would back up this statement. It is a choice someone has to practice their post secondary education in a for-profit school. Socializing the educational industry isn't going to please the very many applicants that wish to get into private schools, especially that are world renowned. As for expenses go, the choice to go to a private school was that of the student and therefore he/she must face the monetary challenges that come with this. If my opponent can prove with statistics that public provides far better education, as he/she claims, then the above quote can be legitimized but seeing as how my opponent fails to do so, this claim is baseless.

Other: I live in Canada and therefore live in a socialized system where a lot is covered other than dental, optical, homeopathic, physical rehabilitation, psychological and mental care etc. I am actually supportive for socialization but for debate purposes, I am going against it in all terms. Although, the waiting lines here in Canada are very long, especially for organ donation (transplants) which is covered by the government.

Oh by the way, I'm a girl so I'd prefer it if you would refer to me accordingly. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3


Questions from Con: "Does he/she believe that the prison industry, the insurance industry and the education industry must be completely socialized- eradicating every privatized company that exist in each industry he/she mentions? "
Yes for the prison/insurance industry and partly yes for the college industry (only for profit colleges)

Would you be willing to support a semi-privatized system? Be specific. What I am willing to accept is irrelevant to the debate. The debate is on if socializing some industries can improve the economy/society.

1)My opponent isn't making an argument. Increases in the prison population have nothing to do with how efficient private or public prisons are. The facts are undisputed. Private prisons are 5% more expensive even though they have 5% lower wages and worse working conditions.

2)A/B) My opponent's link doesn't even support the things she says all the link does is show the wages of certain medical professionals. My opponent then goes on to make a few unsupported claims that are actually completely false. These claims include long waiting lists, and poor doctor patient's relationships for socialized programs. These two claims are false given that:

===People who've had private and Medicare health insurance find Medicare to be better.

==37% of Americans don't get care, compared to 5% of people in Canada. American number is also deflated because sometimes you have to have Care to know you need more.

America has less medical professionals than countries with socialized health care systems
==America has 26% less doctors, and 4% less nurses

C) My opponent is again ignoring my argument. The fact is that government insurance provides the same benefits as private insurance only at a much lower cost. The fact that people get benefits from their work is irrelevant.

3)A) Now my opponent is lying. This is the data. I already proved that public universities are better than for profit private universities; if my opponent were to read my posts she would know this already.
Senior students and private colleges are 3 times more likely to have debt over 40,000 compared to similar students with similar degrees. This is because private colleges are more expensive.
Also private colleges have a graduate rate of 22% instead of 55% for state colleges. Private colleges also account for 26% of federal student loans yet 43% of student defaults; this is because private colleges are less likely to make sure their students have good job prospects and less likely to provide degrees that will result in prosperity for their students


riyavr forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 6 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit