The Instigator
peacenow
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DarthVitiosus
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The United States should replace Obamacare with a universal Medicare for All 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 1 vote the winner is...
DarthVitiosus
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/5/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 926 times Debate No: 66428
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

peacenow

Pro

This bill is the one that I'm referencing: http://www.opencongress.org...

However, I am not specifically defending this proposal, but simply universal healthcare for the US (via single-payer or multi-payer). However, medicare for all is probably the most viable solution for the US today.

Con should begin their argument in round 1.
DarthVitiosus

Con

I am not going to provide any definitive arguments until the second round after my opponent clarifies his premise.

Challenged Premise: Everyone needs to be under one universal healthcare system.

Why does everyone need to be covered under a universal system, be it Medicare or single-payer?

Once, my opponent answers this, I will offer all of my arguments in Round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
peacenow

Pro

peacenow forfeited this round.
DarthVitiosus

Con

Again: Challenged Premise: Everyone needs to be under one universal healthcare system.

I will await my opponent to reply one more time before I go and post my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
peacenow

Pro

Position: The United States should replace Obamacare with a universal Medicare for All System

Argument 1: Countries with universal healthcare have the highest iHDI (inequality-adjusted human development index).

Obamacare is not a universal healthcare system. It is a system that discounts health insurance for people who get their health insurance through the exchanges.

According to the UN[1], the top 10 countries by iHDI are Norway, Australia, Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, and Ireland. All 10 of those countries have universal healthcare systems.[2]

Argument 2: Countries with universal healthcare spend less per capita on healthcare

According to the WHO and the OECD, the US spends more money per capita than any other country in the world on healthcare.
The US spends roughly $8,250 USD per capita on healthcare every year. The next highest OECD country is Norway, at roughly $5,700 USD per capita on healthcare every year. That's more than $2,500 less per capita than the US, and it's the next highest spender on healthcare. As a further example, France, Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, Ireland, Belgium, the UK, Finland, Iceland, Japan, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Taiwan, and many other countries all spend less than half per capita on healthcare than the US, and all have universal healthcare.[3][4]

Argument 3: Despite spending less per capita on healthcare, countries with universal healthcare have higher life expectancies

In a comparison between several OECD countries (including Australia, Norway, Japan, Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Italy, and the UK), the US came dead last in life expectancy, while spending the most per capita.[3] Here is a visualization of the data:

https://cdn.mediacru.sh...

Sources:

[1] http://hdr.undp.org...
[2] http://www.pacifichealthsummit.org...
[3] http://www.scribd.com...
[4] http://www.who.int...


DarthVitiosus

Con

I would have to apologize to my opponent but I don't think I will have the time post an argument for this round because I have been caught up in my exams. I don't want to post half an argument. I will, however, reply the next round.
Debate Round No. 3
peacenow

Pro

I extend my arguments from the previous round.

Also, seeing as we both forfeited one round, I think it would be fair for voters to ignore our forfeits and consider them as cancelling each other out.
DarthVitiosus

Con

Challenged Premise: Everyone needs to be under one universal healthcare system.

This is a United States specific debate as clearly stated in the resolution, "The United States should replace Obamacare with a universal Medicare for All System." Not one of my opponent's arguments relate to the United States. I asked specifically, why does everyone need to be under one universal healthcare system? My opponent never answered it. This is clear at this point my opponent has lost the debate. He has created solutions to something that has no problems.

My opponent is arguing for the sake of arguing. My opponent has not offered any statistics on how many people are uninsured in the United States since Obamacare has been implemented. Obamacare allows any person to get health insurance who needs it at a relatively low price. My opponent did not offer anything dispelling how Obamacare does not satisfy the needs of people who need healthcare. My opponent did not offer us any cost estimates of this universal healthcare overhaul either. In fact, my opponent has not offered any statistics related to the United States at all. I would state emphatically, my opponent has not offered any premise to stand on. My opponent did not show there was a need for a universal healthcare system at all. I have shown that Obamacare makes healthcare available to anyone willing to spend a little bit of money.

"Argument 1: Countries with universal healthcare have the highest iHDI (inequality-adjusted human development index).
Argument 2: Countries with universal healthcare spend less per capita on healthcare
Argument 3: Despite spending less per capita on healthcare, countries with universal healthcare have higher life expectancies"

This is an appeal to popularity, "just because other countries do it so should the United States[1]." It is fallacious to say the least.

[1]http://www.nizkor.org...;

Debunking Pro's Arguments:
#1 The United States is the most dominant country in the world, not Norway, not Germany, not Australia, not the Netherlands, not Sweden, not Denmark, not Canada, and certainly not Iceland.

Who controls the World Bank with the most shares[2]?
Who has the most votes in the IMF[3]?
Who leads the largest military agreement in the world, NATO[4]?
Where do most of the Fortune 500 companies come from[5]?
Who has the world's largest economy[6]?
Who spends the most on foreign aid[7]?

The answer to all of these questions is simple, the United States. The other countries my opponent refers to are inconsequential and hardly play a role in global affairs. Inequality is merely the result of being so great. If the United States was medicore and ranked high on that list, the United States wouldn't be leading a single one of the statistics I just offered. Those countries are medicore and are synonmous with being water carriers.

[2]http://www.worldbank.org...
[3]http://www.imf.org...
[4]http://www.history.com...
[5]http://fortune.com...
[6]http://www.wnd.com...
[7]http://www.theblaze.com...

#2 The United States does not control its' healthcare industry. The United States only subsidizes health insurance companies with Obamacare. Unlike countries with universal healthcare, private firms spend as much as they wish on healthcare.

#3 Correlation is not causation as those who deal in statistics will often state. None of the statistics my opponent offers prove that high life expenctacy is the result of universal healthcare. None of my opponent's data include lifestyle or diet. How do we know lifestyles and/or diets cause high life expenctacy? My opponent just tells us, high life expentacy is the result of universal healthcare. This is simply not true, this is just merely correlation. None of my opponent's data point to the exact cause of high life expentacy, we only see correlation. Correlation is not satisfactory. A universal healthcare system does not change American consumption levels. Universal healthcare also doesn't mean reduced stress. It would be far more authoritative for someone to state that Americans should eat and live like Canadians and Japanese or these European countries Pro mentioned. Why? Their diets and their consumption levels are significantly different than Americans[8][9][10]. Universal healthcare would not stop obesity.

[8]http://www.fredericpatenaude.com...
[9]http://www.livestrong.com...
[10]http://renegadehealth.com...;

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by peacenow 2 years ago
peacenow
Damn I missed the deadline.

You can either take the win or we can reschedule. Totally up to you.
Posted by DarthVitiosus 2 years ago
DarthVitiosus
Watch with amazement as i present my arguments in Round 2.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Why should people who are responsible about their lifestyles pay for those who are nopt? Why should we pay for someone's healthcare that does not care about their health.If a person eats $100.00 worth of twinkies a week will not be in good health. Freebies take away the responsibility for choices we make in life.That enables and even encourages bad behavior.

We are not entitled to good health. We are free to pursue good health. We are not entitled too make others p[ay if we don't.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheNamesFizzy 2 years ago
TheNamesFizzy
peacenowDarthVitiosus
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Fairly clear. Pro never proved his claims, automatic vote to Con.