The Instigator
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
will2543
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

The United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/5/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,968 times Debate No: 5893
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating

Pro

Personally, I think Universal Health Care would be an expensive unnecessary venture.
First I would like to start with a Definition: HMO: Health maintenance organization

It, like most socialist views, look amazing on paper; however, in most European nations the level of health care you get still seems related to the class structure. Of course it isn't the typical class structure, but the more rich nations that don't have a lot of people such as Switzerland have amazing coverage. Remember this is compared to other nations that have socialistic health care, but they all have about the same statistics as American coverage surprisingly. Which brings me back to my point, there is more of an opportunity for everyone to get coverage and yes it is "free" (after a huge tax is implemented of course), but it isn't so much better then the current American system that all the sudden the United States will actually have free good coverage.

Usually what you find with universal health care is that in the more rural towns it is very successful and easy to manage. Everyone gets coverage and the doctors are paid relatively well (not as well as in the United States). Like in Canada, I have only read that in cities like Toronto and Montreal have a hard time keeping up with the sick. However, Vancouver (B.C.) has a very good system that is much better then the general American statistics. So, it is safe to say that in some instances universal health care is better then private health care.

A more humanitarian person would argue that not enough poor people get coverage in America. This is not true entirely because coverage is usually relative to where someone lives. Poor people in less populated cities/states get less coverage while people in huge metropolitan cities and states with a lot of money usually get at least more coverage than the average poor person.

Then, there is of course your Michael Moore argument that is "if other countries are doing it, then we should because the lowest health care coverage (a HMO) is horrible. This is because HMOs are the big bad companies deciding who lives and who dies." Well that argument is all fine and dandy until you realize that after HMOs get disestablished the same exact argument will be made against government. Big bad government will be deciding who lives and who dies. Therefore, the movie "Sicko" provides inadequate sourcing for any sort of reason as to why someone would want universal health care.

So, inevitably if we switch to a universal method of health care taxes will be large, the statistics for survival rate won't change much (perhaps a tiny leap will observed in baby mortality- as statistics show), and it would most likely cause a relapse in jobs (which of course would be mostly in insurance). In my mind the cons outweigh the pros.
will2543

Con

Hello!

I love this topic, and I am happy that you have brought it up. So thank you, and I hope we have a great debate.

Just for clarification, although you technically are representing the Pro side, you are making a Con argument. So, from here on out, I will be defending Universal Health Care, and you will be opposing it.

Definitions:

Universal Health Care modeled after the French system-compulsory healthcare funded by the taxpayers

Based on the topic, I am assuming that the parameters of the debate are that we are deciding whether the American model of healthcare service or the French model of healthcare service is better.

Given these parameters, I will respond to your arguments.

We must make a distinction between the French system and the Swiss system. Switzerland does not have Universal Health Care. The government, on average, pays about 25 percent of the hospital bill. Also, the Swiss system does not cover certain medicines, like the American model. Also, in Switzerland, everyone pays the same premiums, regardless of income, which is quite regressive.

You state that British Columbia has good health care because it is a predominantly rural area. I say that all of Canada gets better health care because it is covered by a national health service. In some parts of Canada, it is true that there are a scarcity of things such as trauma centers or MRIs. However, I would argue that since Canada does a better job of giving preventative care, that trauma centers every 20 miles aren't really that necessary since you would only use them for things such as car accidents, sporting injuries, or accidents in the home. None of things occurs frequently enough to warrant the building of instant care centers all over Canada. Also, Vancouver is a major metropolitan city in Canada, and, under your argument, they should be experiencing the same sorts of problems that are being experienced in Toronto and Montreal. The fact that you admit that they aren't shows that Universal Health Care doesn't just work in rural areas, but also in urban areas too, which undermines your argument.

With Universal Health Care, you eliminate the problem of the poor not getting good health care in certain regions of the country, because they would get better health care everywhere, as well as the same coverage everywhere. Also, if you just said that rural areas have better Universal Health Care systems, then why would poor people get better health care in cities? Even if you remove Universal Health Care, the sparse population of rural communities, by that same logic, should dictate that rural health services could dispense better services to fewer people.

You say that government would become the new HMO. However, in the nations that were referenced in Sicko (with the exception of Cuba, maybe; I am not familiar with their system), they are not having that problem. The levels of persons that are covered for various sorts of state treatment are higher than they are here, and the life expectancy of the nations discussed in the movie are higher than they are here. While you say that Michael Moore does not cite sourcing as to why someone would want Universal Health Care, I would need you to give sourcing that these governments are turning people away at the door.

The French model of Universal Health Care works because it stops short of nationalizing all health care into one NHS, like they have in Britain. But the government does subsidize all of the health care costs for every citizen through general coverage, agricultural coverage for farmers and their families, as well as insurance for self-employed people. The World Health Organization in 1997 and 2000 ranked the French system as the best in the world for a reason. Better insurance, ubiquitous coverage, and better efficiency when it comes to overhead.

I look forward to the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating

Pro

Although I do not understand why my opponent chose to forgo his first round, by not stating a positive resolution, I plan to demonstrate why the US should adopt the French System of Universal Health Care (FSUHC).

FSUHC defined -
1.All legal residents of France are covered by public health insurance, as part of their Social Security System's program.
2.Funded by employer and employee contributions, as well as income tax. Income tax has a heavier burden in paying for it, to compensate for relative decrease in wage income, to limit price gouging on the labor markets, and to more fairly distribute system financing among citizens.
3.Virtually all the doctors participate in the system. The French can choose their doctors, and physicians are free to prescribe any care they deem necessary. 4.
4.There are no deductibles in the national system, just modest co-payments. What's more, the sicker the patient, the lower the fees — cancer patients are treated free of charge. 5.
5.The system also successfully mixes public and private financing — most French buy supplemental insurance. 6.
6.Access to health care appears to have produced a healthier nation: France's infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with seven per 1,000 in the U.S.. The country has more hospital beds and doctors per capita than the U.S., and a markedly lower rate of mortality from respiratory disease. And France spends less (10.7% of gross domestic product) on health care than the U.S. (16% of GDP).

As you can see above, this system is markedly superior to ours. But the most distressing point in why we should use France's example - Business week studied costs of both systems, and although the French system is in a deficit, and up to 20% of individual income is appropriated to health care, slightly more than half of sick Americans surveyed for their study don't visit a doctor, get a needed test or fill a prescription because of cost.

In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that 47 million Americans are without basic health insurance.

In the US, health is a business – In France it is a universal right. According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and others, the U.S. is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have universal health care, and our health care system is rated as the highest in expenditure, first in responsiveness, but 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).

the French system is much more generous to its entire population than the U.S. is to its seniors. It's time that the USA took the health of it's citizens as seriously as it does terrorism.

Thank you. I look forward to my opponents response, and apologize for the lateness in my posting.
will2543

Con

will2543 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating

Pro

Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating forfeited this round.
will2543

Con

will2543 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating

Pro

Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating forfeited this round.
will2543

Con

will2543 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating

Pro

Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating forfeited this round.
will2543

Con

will2543 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
It's possible for PRO to edit the debate. People should refrain from accepting this challenge until he does.
Posted by Glitchy 8 years ago
Glitchy
As stated before, it seems you got your sides mixed up. Sad, considering I would have liked to join you in this one.
Posted by Grand_Moff 8 years ago
Grand_Moff
May I just say how adorable the picture of your avatar is!
Posted by Grand_Moff 8 years ago
Grand_Moff
You mistakenly took the position of "Pro" when in fact you are against it.
Posted by funnybrad333 8 years ago
funnybrad333
I am fairly sure that you posted your con case as pro...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Rickymadeja 8 years ago
Rickymadeja
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debatingwill2543Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating 8 years ago
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating
Da_Baby_Mami_of_debatingwill2543Tied
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:70