The Instigator
Conservative
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
Rousseau
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points

The United States should design a universal health care system.

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/30/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,227 times Debate No: 2315
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (15)

 

Conservative

Con

Hello Everyone,

I want to start out by saying universal health care is not the solution to health care problems. First off, if you a believer that 45 million Americans are uninsured, stop smoking. Mark Steyln, a expert at Harvard University says that in that 45 million, 9 million aren't American, 9 million of them are actually insured, and 18 million of them are young and health and have no need for health insurance. The other millions left show to be wealthier than the average American. It shows that 37% of those without health insurance, that's 17 million, come from households that earn more than $50,000 a year. 19% or 8.7 billion of the uninsured come from households earning more than $75,000. So, for all of you crazy liberals that pull numbers out of nowhere, stop crying. Alright, I don't even know where to start with the problems behind it. First of all, it destroys our privacy. It will make everyone's problems our own. For example, if someone is eating unhealthy all the time, now we have to pay for them when they go to the doctor. Or if someone smokes 2 packs of cigarettes a day, now it will be our problem when they get sent to the hospital. The quality of universal health care would be horrible. The doctors would no longer have an incentive to provide quality care. Drug companies will not be making as much money and will have to cut down on research for new medication. I'm going to give you a perfect example why government ran health care is not the answer. My uncle who is an Army veteran is able to go to the VA which is a hospital that provides free health care to veterans. Two months ago when he had an extreme pain in his arm, he went to the hospital to see what was going on. The doctor he had couldn't figure out what the problem was, imagine that, so he referred him to a specialized doctor. That's great, but the wait for the specialized doctor was 37 days. So, here is my uncle having to wait 37 days for an appointment, while having a pain in his arm. Another great example of why government sponsored health care doesn't work, is Medicare. Under Medicare, the government forces doctors to perform duties at a certain price. For example, there is a set rate they must do surgery at and such. To bypass this, many doctors won't even accept Medicare patients because they don't want to be doing work for less money than it is worth. Now, before you start saying that doctors are too greedy and don't need all the money realize that they must go to school for 8 years and then have 5-8 years of an internship and residency. That leaves doctors no younger than 31 before they can even start to make money. I would like to see how you would react when you have that many student loans to pay off.

We are definitely not the first country to think of this universal health care idea. There are many that are using it right now. For example, the great country of Canada. The one or two great stories you hear in the media does not mean it is working well for them. For example, a woman of Toronto had to give birth to quadruplets. The four girls ended up being born at a U.S. hospital because there was no space available at a Canadian neonatal intensive care unit. Is that what you would want to have to do when you're giving birth? Where would you run to, to give birth, can't go to Canada, can't stay here, is Mexico where you would want your kids being born? I sure hope not. On March 19th, 2005 Beth Duff-Brown reported in The Associated Press that a letter from a Canadian hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said that the appointment would be in three months, it also added "If there person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept out sincere apologies." Well, at least they give their sincere apologies hey? Oh wait, another example of why universal health care sucks. A 59-year old Ontario women on disability for a heart-related problem was complaining of age of discrimination after her local doctor rejected her. This was written on CTV.CA on March 17th, 2006.

So, Great Britain is another country with great health care…right? Wrong, John Carvel wrong in the Guardian Unlimited on June 8th, 2007 saying, "One in eight Britain hospital patients still have to wait more than a year for treatments, the government acknowledged yesterday in its first attempt to tell the truth about health services." Another writer wrong in the BBC news on May 9th, 2007 saying that a third of stroke patients in Great Britain are stuck for over 3 months just to hear when they will be given their treatment. I don't know about you, but I don't think I want to be leaving my health care up to the government like that.

Overall, you have to be crazy or communist to think universal health care is the key to the U.S. health care problems. There are many options that we can take to fix the problem instead of dealing with universal health care. The main thing we need to do is eliminate mandates. Mandates are things that the state and federal government require insurance policies to include. For example, there might be a mandate to have chiropractic service on your insurance policy. If we eliminate mandates, people buying health insurance can pick the things that they actually need and it will be much cheaper because they won't be paying for stuff that is useless. Another way to fix this problem is to control law suits against doctors. In this sue happy world we are in right now, baby doctors get sued all of the time if anything goes wrong in the labor. This leaves doctors needing more money which they get from the tax payers. I hope you all understand how serious universal health care is and realize it is not something you want to get the United States into.
Rousseau

Pro

Thanks for the debate, and good luck.

Note: I'm a bit pressed for time, but this is the only chance I'll get for awhile. My arguments may seem a bit rushed, and I apologize if I am unclear.

Your Points:

1. Number of people without Health Care is overstated
2. Destroys Privacy
3. Make everyone's problems our own
4. Doctor's have no incentive to provide adequate care
5. Companies cut down research on drugs
6. Examples:
- Uncle
- Canada
- Britain

My Responses:

1. I'm going to disregard this claim. I'm sure it is correct, and my argument lies more in the generalized amount of people, not the specific amount. First off, the number of uninsured Americans is worse then it has ever been before (http://www.cbpp.org...) and is growing worse. This indicates that our efforts either: A. Aren't working OR B. Never did. Either one isn't too good.

2. There was no reasoning behind this point. A simple claim means nothing unless you back it up. Please clarify how this happens.

3. If you mean that the tax payers would have to pay for this, well then that's true. However, studies show that, overall, universal health care could actually be beneficial in terms of the amount of money spent on it.
http://www.citizen.org...

4. Well, assuming all doctor's are profit driven and have no qualms over effectually killing innocents by not providing care, then yes... you're right. However, most doctor's get into the practice because they want to help people, not because they want money. You gave an example that the doctors need money to pay off loans, but can you give one example of a practicing doctor that isn't well off? The fact is, doctor's will always be relatively wealthy, even with pay-cuts.

5. I fail to see the logic behind this. Please clarify. However, just assuming that there is logic behind it, here is a link that responds:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com...
To sum it up: It argues that a universal system would give incentives for investment in health-care (i.e. drugs).

6. Uncle: Personal cites really aren't too useful in this debate. I'm not saying you're lieing, but there really isn't a way to tell if you actually have such an uncle. I could just as easily have an uncle in England whose live was saved by universal health care.

Canada and England: First, let me point out that these are individual examples. If these were widely reciprocated, then that would be great (actually, it'd be bad, but whatever), but fortunately, they aren't.

Additionally, each of these countries has a better health care system then ours: http://www.photius.com...

My Points:

1. Democracy

In a democracy, people choose. America is a democracy. America wants universal health care:
http://www.motherjones.com...
http://www.cbsnews.com...
http://thehill.com...

Thanks for your time, have fun.
Debate Round No. 1
Conservative

Con

Thanks for the accepting this debate.

I just want to start off by saying, there is a problem with U.S. health care SYSTEM. I just don't believe that Universal is the cure.

My Points:

1. Number of people without Health Care is overstated
2. Destroys Privacy
3. Make everyone's problems our own
4. Doctor's have no incentive to provide adequate care
5. Companies cut down research on drugs
6. Examples

Your Responses:

1. "First off, the number of uninsured Americans is worse then it has ever been before (http://www.cbpp.org......) and is growing worse. This indicates that our efforts either: A. Aren't working OR B. Never did. Either one isn't too good."

- I want you to understand ust because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care. There are many nonprofits agency's and and government-run hospitals (like the VA) that provide services to those who don't have insurance. I also want you to understand that it is illegal to deny health care to anyone just because they do not have insurance. Uninsured Americans are a problem to our current system costs, but don't tell me that they are stuck with no health care if something happens to them.

2. "There was no reasoning behind this point. A simple claim means nothing unless you back it up. Please clarify how this happens."

- What do you mean, no reasoning? Do you not understand what I'm saying? Do you understand what universal health care means? Well, in case you don't, I will tell you. It means that health care costs will be spread to all Americans, whether you are 20 and healthier than ever (don't need health care) or 88 and depend solely on health care. I think that this is very unfair. I'm a strong believer that you decide a lot of what your health is like. You can prevent some major illnesses earlier in your life if you have the right lifestyle. People who never exercise, sit on the couch all day, drink 8 beers a night, and smoke a pack a day are much more likely than someone who does the opposite. Why should the opposite person be responsible for the lazy ones? To tell you the truth, although I have health insurance, I don't need it and would be fine without it. I have it because my business pays for it. When it becomes universal, should I be forced to pay for health care when I don't even need it?

3. "If you mean that the tax payers would have to pay for this, well then that's true. However, studies show that, overall, universal health care could actually be beneficial in terms of the amount of money spent on it."

- Yes, I do mean that the tax payers would have to pay for this. The expenses for universal health care would have to be paid for somehow so of course it would come from the tax payers. This means that we pay ridicously high taxes, we have have cuts in different areas of our government. For example, less education spending, less medical research spending or less military spending. So, as much people think that universal health care is "free", it really isn't because our taxes will be higher and/or we loose spending in our key ares. Is it really worth it if we have to cut these important things?

4. "Well, assuming all doctor's are profit driven and have no qualms over effectually killing innocents by not providing care, then yes... you're right. However, most doctor's get into the practice because they want to help people, not because they want money. You gave an example that the doctors need money to pay off loans, but can you give one example of a practicing doctor that isn't well off? The fact is, doctor's will always be relatively wealthy, even with pay-cuts."

- I wouldn't go as extreme as killing innocent patients by not providing care. Come on, we all know that there are good doctors and bad doctors. With universal health care, all doctors would have government jobs. As being a government job, they would have statute-mandated salaries. With government jobs, there is not much flexibility for better performing workers or harder working workers. They will basically all be getting paid about the same no matter what the performance. I believe that many doctors go into the profession to make the big bucks AND care for people. If doctors wouldn't be getting paid as much, do you really think that many students would want to really go through the long torture of medical school?

5. "I fail to see the logic behind this. Please clarify. However, just assuming that there is logic behind it, here is a link that responds:"

- How can you not see the logic around it? Cut in drug research spending = less research being done = less cures for diseases, etc.

6. "Uncle: Personal cites really aren't too useful in this debate. I'm not saying you're lieing, but there really isn't a way to tell if you actually have such an uncle. I could just as easily have an uncle in England whose live was saved by universal health care.

Canada and England: First, let me point out that these are individual examples. If these were widely reciprocated, then that would be great (actually, it'd be bad, but whatever), but fortunately, they aren't.

Additionally, each of these countries has a better health care system then ours: http://www.photius.com...;

- As far as my Uncle goes, take it for what it's worth. I don't believe that it is issue with him. I think the overall service from a government ran hospital sucks. I am not going to sit here and lie to you, this is a debate and the point isn't to lie and win. I'm not worried about wins/losses, I'm hoping to help America understand. Can you give an example of a country that has a large amount of people that has a very good universal health care system? As far as those countries having a better health care system, that means nothing to me. I realize our health care system is bad, you don't have to tell me that. I can tell you that the U.S. has some of the most top notch health care as far as the care goes. We have more technology than most countries. I really have no care for how our health care system ranks right now, because something needs to be done. Being the best health care system doesn't mean there health care is good. It means that they have a decent system. Does it mean they have the most technology and are helping there patients out better than U.S. hospitals? NO

Your Points:

1. "Democracy

In a democracy, people choose. America is a democracy. America wants universal health care."

I want to first start out by saying the "liberal media" wants universal health care. That was very brave of you to sum up from 3 articles that "America wants universal health care." Your right, everyone has a right to health care. And everyone does. If you are uninsured, you have the right to health care. Thanks for bringing this up, I think it helped me out. The individual and not the government or doctors should get the choice to determine what amount of health care coverage, if any, is appropriate for my needs.

My New Points :

- Look at other government ran agencies out there. Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is a great example of another government ran agency. I can tell you what, I don't hear much, if any good about those places. Workers are always crabby, you wait forever, and the service sucks. If your experiences are different, let me know where you live. When you have the government run agencies, it brings politics into the whole issue and that messes things up overall.

- Government health care would decrease patient flexibilities. Before you start saying it would be more flexible, tell me if the government paid for everything under one plan, would you be able to get free eye surgery, breast implants, facial surgery, etc? Your probably saying, no because these things aren't needed. Well, what if you got in an accident and your face was damaged. Who decides what is needed and what is not? Sounds like a big headache to me!

Since I really have no characters left. Good Luck!
Rousseau

Pro

I'll jump to it.

1. I realize that they still can get health care, but the problem is that it is more expensive to them, should they need it. Health care is generally considered to be a basic right, and people should have it.

2. This point was on privacy, not that the burden would be spread to everyone. I simply do not get how privacy is invaded by Universal Health Care.

3. You argued that taxes would be higher, but there is a trade-off. The government as a whole would save some 286 billion dollars annually from a Universal Health Care system from saved paperwork alone. This in turn translates to less required money from the people.

4. <<>>

Well I believe that they get into the profession to care for people, and the benefits are just an after-thought and a positive. Barring some evidence into the matter, we are at an impasse.

5. Well, I understand that IF less research is done, there will be less cures. However, I fail to understand how Universal Health Care would cause less research. If anything, it would cause more (See link from round 1 argument).

6. <<>>

Actually, the report measured several things: Overall Level of Health, Distribution of Health in the Populations, Responsiveness, and Distribution of Financing. The report actually does report on whether the health care is good, thus negating your response.

7. (Democracy) You basically argue that these are biased polls. I'll admit, the CBS poll may be biased. However the Hill poll is a poll of Republicans, not the liberal left. The Third link I provided actually is a poll from the Washington Times, and therefore, if anything, would be biased in your favor. Looks to me like America wants Universal Health Care.

8. (DMV Example) Again, one example that could be isolated doesn't guarentee anything.

9. (Flexibility) I'm sure that the people who want these things (the superfluous things) could pay for the surgeries on they're own. Any extra paper-work wouldn't offset the billions of dollars we would save in a switch.

My New Point: Policy Time!

So basically, you argue that there is a problem with our health care system, yet the solution is not Universal Health Care. So you concede that a policy option is needed, and it isn't our current system doesn't suffice. So far the only other policy being presented to voters IS Universal Health Care. Therefore, unless you present an alternative option, voter's really have no choice but to vote for the only option presented today (Universal Health Care).
Debate Round No. 2
Conservative

Con

I'll get right to it also. Thank you for such a challenge.

1. I don't know if you understand this, but telling me that the uninsured can't afford health insurance means nothing to me. I realize that and I know we need to change things so they can get health insurance. Examples would be withdrawing mandates for individual insurance policies, fostering Health Savings Accounts for day-to-day medical expenses, making health insurance true indemnity insurance and not health maintenance.

2. Why are you avoiding "he burden would be spread to everyone." I think that is part of privacy. Now your health problems are mine and mine are yours. Whether it is part of privacy or not, why did you avoid the argument I was making in my second round?

3. Do you have any kind of evidence for the mentioning of saving $286 Billion on paper work? What kind of paper work does that consist of? Do you realize how many law suits are going on right now because of health care. I stated it in my opening argument. If we have universal health care, people will be going to the doctors that much more because it is free. They don't have to worry about deductibles or anything to that such. Therefore with more people being at the doctor, there is more chances of the doctors being sued which is a huge cost to doctors and the government.

4. As far as doctors go. I found an article that did an actual survey on a certain amount of doctors. It is located here:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com...

It basically says that many doctors admit to turning there head to medical errors that are done. They are suppose to report every serious medical error, and in the survey done, some doctors admitted that they don't do that. If the doctors were basically only concerned about the care of patients (like you said) then why would this be happening in hospitals?

5. You fail to understand? Is that because you just don't want to understand or you actually failed? If you are actually a failure at understanding, I don't get it. It makes perfect sense. You can't tell me that they are going to raise our taxes to 40 % of income, because that would make people go crazy. So, to account for this, they are going to have to raise the taxes somewhat and then cut on other spending so taxes don't get to ridiculous. Therefore, they are going to have to cut spending on something. Whether it is medical research, defense, education, whatever, there are going to have to be some cuts in something.

6. Whether that is true or not, that study was from 2000. I'm not sure if it has changed or not, but that is 8 years ago now. And it came out in 2000 so that means that research had to of been done before 2000 and that had to take awhile. None the less, you don't have to tell me twice that our health care system is bad. You wouldn't even have to tell me once, because I realize that. Now, are you able to tell me that ALL those countries ahead of us have universal health care? Probably not therefore leading to my point that universal health care is not need to be said to have the best health care accord to "WHO".

7. Yes, I did argue that they are somewhat biased. I never voted in any of those polls, so that's leaving out at least me. Maybe everyone else in the U.S. voted on those polls but not me. I don't find that realistic. Saying the U.S. wants universal health care because of an internet poll or what some reporter says, really does nothing to me. I can go out and talk out of my butt and probably get some people to believe me. But I am not going to do that, instead I am going to sit here and talk the truth and try to educate people. The democracy and everyone has a right to health care point that you were trying to make, makes sense to me. But realize, everyone DOES have a right to health care right now. Some may have to pay more than others, some not. Everyone has the right to insurance, somewhere. You can bring up the movie Sicko that says some people were denied insurance, but overall that is not true. I work in the insurance field and I deal with things like this all the time. Some companies may deny them, but there are always companies that will take people in.

8. As far as this goes, look at other countries with universal health care, they are put on lists just to get looked at. Come on, why should we be doing this to ourselves? I look at the DMV and VA and realize that those are 2 government ran agencies near me and people HATE going to both of them. I don't want to hate going to the doctor.

9. Please explain to me what paperwork are we loosing when we have universal health care. Does that still cover all of the paper work for the patients, the health care cards that need to be printed for everyone, the more law suits that will be happening, and all of these expenses? I think you should think about that number a little more. Is the GOVERNMENT really spending that much money on paperwork right now? I think more like the insurance companies might be spending a lot of money on paperwork, but I don't see how the government can be responsible for all THAT much paperwork that will now be gone.

Your New Point

- As far as that goes, there are many options that we can go about using to fix our health care. Some that I said above. For you to say that you know of no other options, that sounds like a very liberal remark and maybe you should stick your head out of the liberal media box and get welcomed into the real world. Do you listen to our great President George W. Bush talk? Maybe you should because he has mentioned many new ideas. Do you listen to the presidential debates for the republican side? Maybe you should because the talk about many options available to us.

I would like to say that I have talked a lot to your very little, you were just saying how I am wrong with the things I brought up and nothing really to say other than "Your Wrong, Next". I appreciate you taking part in this debate and hope I maybe helped you swing to the other side a little bit and opened it up a little more for you. Good luck and thanks!
Rousseau

Pro

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for a good debate. It helps when opponents post :D

1. Alright, this kind of goes into my the new point I brought up in Round 2 (Competitive Policy Options). This has turned into (in purpose, rather than name) a policy debate. This kind of debate is basically arguing about which is the best policy to go with. The Pro has already stated several things:

A. The current system is not working.
B. We need a new one.

He listed several alternatives to Universal Health Care, but there are two problems here. First off, he brought them up in his last post. Kind of ridiculous to expect me to cover them all if he never brought them up before. Secondly, he just stated them. He never gave any guarentee they could work. This is important, because without presenting each of them as a policy, it leaves Universal Health Care as the only POLICY to have been presented. Taking into account that even my opponent says we need a new system, the voters should vote for Universal Health Care, as it is the only policy with a chance of solving that was presented.

2. Well the argument about "the burden would be spread to everyone" was a later point, so why negate the same point twice? You haven't presented any logic to back up how this would destroy privacy, and therefore I simply asked you to. You never really did, and thus I should win this point.

3. As for the link, I believe I cited it before but here it is: http://www.citizen.org...

The link, if you read it, specifically says we could save $286 billion if we switched to a Universal Health Care policy. So therefore, your point is moot. Universal Health Care is beneficial to the tax payers. Additionally, taxation isn't the only way to fund Universal Health Care: http://en.wikipedia.org...

4. Well, that is a good link, but the problem is... it sort of helps me. If you read one of the first paragraphs, it is stated: "Over all, the survey shows that most doctors adhere to strict standards of professionalism regarding medical mistakes, patient privacy and appropriate patient relationships."

Anyway, this link doesn't really answer the question. It just says that IF mistakes are made, some doctors won't report it. It never says that mistakes would happen in a Universal Health Care system because doctor's would have no benefits. I should win this, because it is a moot point. His link: Doesn't answer the question, Doesn't 100% advocate his stance.

5. Alright, finally your reasoning comes out. Basically, you operate on the assumption that the only research comes out of the government. Simply not true. A lot of research comes out of private companies and investors, i.e. ones with which the government has no real control over. Also, you never responded to this link: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com......
It argues that a universal system would give incentives for investment in health-care (i.e. drugs). Therefore turning this argument into an advantage.

6. Just saying "it's old" doesn't negate it unless you bring up evidence from a closer period. As the Pro, you have the burden of proof, and I have the burden of rejoinder. I have refuted your argument with that link, and you haven't prooved that I'm wrong. Just stated that my evidence isn't current.

Additionally, you asked whether those contries ahead of us had Universal Health Care. Actually, a great majority of them two. The top two (France and Italy) "have publicly sponsored and regulated health care" which is Universal Health Care, for lack of a better term. Other countries ahead of us that do: San Marino, Singapore, Spain, Austria, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, The UK, Ireland, Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Canada, Finland, Australia, and Costa Rica. 26 of the 36 countries that have better health care than us have Univeral Heath Care. This in itself proves that Universal Health Care is successful.

7. My point was not: "The democracy and everyone has a right to health care", but rather: This is a democracy and majority chooses. If the majority of America wants Universal Health Care, then they should have it. As for it not representing all of America, that may be true. However, it's the best indicator of what America wants, and therefore, I have preferential evidence.

8. Ah, but 26 out of 36 countries that have better Health Care than us HAVE Universal Health Care. If you argue that America can't solve uniquely, it doesn't matter, because Universal Health Care doesn't uniquely affect the problem (it wouldn't increase America's implied ineptness). Anyway, I don't think America's government is inept at handling things. Two examples doesn't mean anything.

9. Honestly? I have no idea what paperwork we would save on, should we switch. And my ignornce doesn't matter at all. The link talks about how we could save money, and I'm guessing you haven't read it. Basic ignorance on either side shouldn't be a factor either way for a vote. Rather you should look at my evidence that backs up my statements. Sound logic is only needed behind analytical arguments.

10. I responded to this in point 1.

I would like to say that "talking very little" and "talking a lot" means nothing. It's the arguments themselves, not the length. I should win on preferential evidence alone, but also because I won on all points. Even if you disagree with me there, the job of the Con is to disprove one contention of the Pro. I have, at the very least, done that. Thank you for your time, thanks for educating me on this subject more, and good luck in future debates. I look forward to seeing future debates!
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by nebosleeper 6 years ago
nebosleeper
Conservative.....I dont know why you think just because people are not leavning comments to boost your ego should have any impact on whether they should be able to vote not. Could it just be that America wants universal health care? Hmmmmmm.
Posted by Conservative 6 years ago
Conservative
Could people that are voting please explain themselves? It seems very fish when no one has said anything, but votes are just tallying up. Hmmmm
Posted by Conservative 6 years ago
Conservative
As far as the $286 Billion goes, I feel that for a university to just throw numbers out like that is really not useful information. They gave no evidence on where those numbers were coming from besides "research". Why didn't they break down the $286 Billion a little more? Because they don't know where they got it from. Any University can do an experiment and throw some numbers out there, but how truthful is that? I guess we'll see what happens. If America wants Universal Health Care, why are people even voting for the Republicans?
Posted by nebosleeper 6 years ago
nebosleeper
One thing that I think should be addresses is this:

Conservative, you said something along the lines of being young and healthy, and not needing insurance. This is simply wrong...I have a friend, who was "young and healthy" until he was told he has cancer at the age of 22. He has since beaten it, and is in med school, which takes me to another point...his motavation has nothing to do with money, its about helping people. COnclusion: What would have he done if he didn't have insurance? He was lucky, unlike most young people out of college if something happens to them. Universal health care is a great idea, we are the only industrialized nation left without it. Here is an idea, stop spending trillions of american tax payers dollars on a worthless war in iraq, and take care of our people here at home. However, I like to see a good debate like this, you both did well, and kept it professional for the most part.
Posted by Rousseau 6 years ago
Rousseau
It's a bit late now, so I'll formulate a real response in tad later. Thanks for hosting the debate!
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 5 years ago
pcmbrown
ConservativeRousseauTied
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 
Vote Placed by batman 6 years ago
batman
ConservativeRousseauTied
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 smith76 6 years ago
smith76
ConservativeRousseauTied
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 griffinisright 6 years ago
griffinisright
ConservativeRousseauTied
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 SexyLatina 6 years ago
SexyLatina
ConservativeRousseauTied
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 oboeman 6 years ago
oboeman
ConservativeRousseauTied
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 mrmazoo 6 years ago
mrmazoo
ConservativeRousseauTied
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 padfo0t 6 years ago
padfo0t
ConservativeRousseauTied
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 Conservative 6 years ago
Conservative
ConservativeRousseauTied
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 liberalconservative 6 years ago
liberalconservative
ConservativeRousseauTied
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