The Instigator
Legitdebater
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
JonL
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The U.S. should have Universal health care

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
Legitdebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,507 times Debate No: 29360
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Legitdebater

Pro

Before we begin, I would like to define Universal Healthcare. Universal health care — sometimes referred to as universal health coverage, universal coverage, universal care or social health protection — usually refers to a health care system which provides health care and financial protection to all its citizens. It is organized around providing a specified package of benefits to all members of a society with the end goal of providing financial risk protection, improved access to health services, and improved health outcomes.[2] Universal health care is not a one-size-fits-all concept; nor does it imply coverage for all people for everything. Universal health care can be determined by three critical dimensions: who is covered, what services are covered, and how much of the cost is covered. The first round is acceptance and we are debating whether the U.S. should have Universal Healthcare.
JonL

Con

Accepted! Thanks for the opportunity!
Debate Round No. 1
Legitdebater

Pro

Universal Healthcare should be established in America for the following reasons. First of all, Universal healthcare provides basic, satisfactory healthcare to those who can least afford it. For example, if a homeless person got stabbed and needed urgent medical help, a country such as England or Canada would give emergency aid and it wouldn't cost a cent. In fact, in Canada, the only thing you have to pay for is perscribed drugs and medical casts. Also in 2001 study in the U.S., up to 46.2 percent of bankruptcies were because of Medical debt. This was when the economy was decent.Does the U.S. really need anymore debt than we're in right now? Medicare helps lower debt since you do not have to pay for the majority of medical expenses. Universal Healthcare works in a number of countries and would help the U.S. socially and economically. Not only that, but it is fair and equitable for everybody.It certainly would help the U.S and I don't see how America's current health care system would be any better than Universal Healthcare.

Sources:http://www.livestrong.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

JonL

Con

Finally making it to the computer today and seeing only a few minutes to post my arguments. Therefore, I concede this round to my opponent and will use the following rounds to present my side.
Debate Round No. 2
Legitdebater

Pro

No problem my fellow opponent, I realize that everyone has busy schedules, including myself. Nevertheless, I will continue to back up my previous arguments and also introduce new ideas. Universal Health Care ideally works to improve the overall health of a nation by covering everybody. As I mentioned before, Universal health care does not cover eveything such as prescripted drugs in countries such as Canada. In Canada, Universal Healthcare is funded through cash and tax transfers from the provinces and territories to help pay for health services. Therefore, Universal health care would improve the overall health of a nation such as the U.S. and would also help the U.S economically by decreasing medical debt. Universal health care is better than the current health system in the U.S in three fundamental aspects. It covers virtually everybody, covers more services, and covers one hundred percent of the cost for health services. Universal health care is successful in a number of countries, so there is ample evidence that it could work in the United State. Universal Healthcare works in a number of countries, so there is ample evidence that it would work in the U.S. The question I ask to my opponent is: " Why shouldn't the U.S. have Universal Healthcare?"

Sources:http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca...
http://www.livestrong.com...


JonL

Con

JonL forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Legitdebater

Pro

It is unfortunate that my opponent forfeited this round. My only question i this: "Why shouldn't the U.S. have a health care system covers every medical service except prescribed drugs for every man, woman and child, regardless of their financial circumstance or age. Therefore, I conclude that Universal Health Care is better that America's current health system and is even the best type of health care system in the world. I urge voters to vote pro for obvious reasons.
JonL

Con

JonL forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
16kadams, many definitions for Universal Health Care can be given, but if Pro chooses to argue the premise based on his view of Universal Health Care, then how is that wrong? That actually makes his burden more difficult as he is vouching for a specific set of circumstances, rather than the varied circumstances if a much more loose definition was used. Your concerns don't appear to have merit.
Posted by ax123man 4 years ago
ax123man
The US doesn't have Universal Health Care because it's scarce resource, a problem exacerbated by legislation.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Mangani, Pros definition is biassed. The issue itself is very debateable. Parts of the definition, such as the higher outcomes, gives a pro win.
Posted by ax123man 4 years ago
ax123man
Does anyone know the difference be "Health Care" and "Health Coverage"? Sometimes it doesn't seem like it. They're too distracted by the possibility of getting productive people to pay their way.
Posted by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
If this debate is simply pro for single payer health care, I would be eager to accept this debate.
Posted by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
16kadams, if that definition favors Pro so much you think the issue can't be debated, how do you explain the fact that the US doesn't have universal health care???
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
What a crappy definition. No one should accept a definition that favors pro that much.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ax123man 4 years ago
ax123man
LegitdebaterJonLTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit