The Instigator
lvisman96
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
MichaelJ
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

The health insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry is unfairly maligned.

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 11/13/2007 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,386 times Debate No: 71
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (11)

 

lvisman96

Pro

Where's the love for these industries? It is PEOPLE who take advantage of them, not the other way around.
MichaelJ

Con

I am happy to take you up on this debate, Ivisman. I've enjoyed reading through some of your older ones and think you have an excellent grasp on the art of argument.

In order to disprove your position all that is required is for me to prove that the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries are maligned in a reasonable way. I would like to first point out that this in no way means that I am advocating the scorn of those people working in these industries, but rather the industries themselves.

My main argument as to why it is fair to malign both of these industries is simply to say that they should not be capitalistic enterprises, and the moment that they become capitalistic, they invite hatred on themselves from anyone who might consider himself a humanist. These industries, and indeed any industry that is responsible for the general safety and welfare of the public, should necessarily be a public service.

Assume for a moment that firefighting were a capitalistic venture. Assume also that your house is burning down. If you do not have the money to pay the firefighters to save you from your burning house, are you not justified in your maligning of their industry? They had the tools and ability to save you, but they did not because you did not represent a profitable end for them.

My position will stand if it is accepted by anyone voting that a human life is more important than any arbitrary amount of money.

I will try to avoid talking about specific examples of insurance denied or prohibitively priced drugs that have ended in deaths, because I'm not here to cater to your emotions and force a knee-jerk reaction in the style of Michael Moore. If my opponent can offer evidence that either of these industries are necessarily profit-seeking (that overall care would suffer otherwise) then I will concede the point. Until then, I will malign to my heart's content.
Debate Round No. 1
lvisman96

Pro

Again, Michael, thanks for taking the time to debate this. You have a very nice opening and your firefighting example is a nice addition. However, it is flawed in that there ARE mechanisms in place to prevent not only DEATH, but also severe illness, disfigurement, etc. In every state, it is ILLEGAL to deny someone care based upon ability to pay. In addition, virtually ALL pharmaceutical companies have programs in place to assist those that cannot pay for the necessary medications, oftentimes giving them away for free. Throw in governmental help for those that are indigent (Medicaid), low-income plans in most states for children (a two-child family can make $35,000 a year !), other entities (insurance companies) who take the risk of your hospitalization for a small (by comparison) monthly fee, and the access to care is definitely out there. Whether the public-at-large decide to take advantage of those programs, is where the system is lacking. Throw in laws that allow guarantee-issue plans and state risk-pools for those that DIDN'T address the possibility of ill health (in my mind, being irresponsible), it is clear that someone who is responsible to have the forethought to purchase health insurance while they are HEALTHY instead of waiting until they have a condition and then desperately wanting someone else to pay for it, will be ahead, just like anything in life.

As far as having the industries being capitalistic instead of humanistic, I've shown that where appropriate, the industries ARE humanistic. But to answer your question, the REASON they are capitalistic is due to the fact that innovation, RISK vs. REWARD is what drives the pharmaceutical companies to research and test in the billions of dollars. Their RISK is that they can invest BILLIONS and not see any return. That is why any capitalistic society has the better pharmaceuticals...innovation requires capital, which in turn requires investors, who IN RETURN want a possibility of profit. You just don't have the innovation in other, non-capitalistic countries.

Because it is Thanksgiving, I will keep this relatively short. Bottom line is, someone has to pay for quality-care. The government can only do it with funding (i.e. taxes). Government health programs do what is MINIMALLY required to save a life. The only way to truly ADVANCE medicine is to attract investors who wish to make a profit on their money. Otherwise, there isn't the incentive to innovate, but rather just to treat with the current protocol.
MichaelJ

Con

Hey Ivisman,

Nice new icon.

Much like Fermat, I had a beautiful and elegant theorem to prove that your point was flawed, but I didn't have the time to write it down. (Traveling for Thanksgiving and other debates that required no research at all and so were much easier to address. But I do have my research, and I will laugh in a maniacle way when I reveal it!).

If you would do me the great favor of delaying your response for a day or two, I will be able to post a much more detailed refutation.

However, I see this as an opportunity- I don't feel as though you really had a very detailed opening statement (I'm not sure you thought anyone would take you up on the debate) and so if you'd like to take this round to throw out an opening, we'll both be roughly even in content by the time we get to our conclusions.
Debate Round No. 2
lvisman96

Pro

Hi Michael.

Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving. It's actually part of my strategy to be as brief as possible with the Opening Statement (which you probably guessed). As it stands now, I just need to show that the industries in question are 'unfairly' being scapegoated. I'll expand a little on the 'benefits' they bring to society and that society would be not as well off as if they did NOT exist in other rounds.

Hopefully this gives you some time to post your next argument.

Dan
MichaelJ

Con

MichaelJ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
lvisman96

Pro

lvisman96 forfeited this round.
MichaelJ

Con

MichaelJ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
lvisman96

Pro

lvisman96 forfeited this round.
MichaelJ

Con

MichaelJ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by lvisman96 9 years ago
lvisman96
:-D. Happy Thanksgiving to all.
Posted by MichaelJ 9 years ago
MichaelJ
Darn, I was hoping you wouldn't bring up...err...any of that.

I remain undeterred- I'll get you yet.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Posted by lvisman96 9 years ago
lvisman96
VERY nice opening, Michael. I see you are well-versed in logic and debating. I look forward to this.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
lvisman96MichaelJTied
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 msoshima54 9 years ago
msoshima54
lvisman96MichaelJTied
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 Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
lvisman96MichaelJTied
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 Rob 9 years ago
Rob
lvisman96MichaelJTied
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 SolaGratia 9 years ago
SolaGratia
lvisman96MichaelJTied
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 skahskahskah 9 years ago
skahskahskah
lvisman96MichaelJTied
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 JeremymLache 9 years ago
JeremymLache
lvisman96MichaelJTied
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 Maddy 9 years ago
Maddy
lvisman96MichaelJTied
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 jbruner 9 years ago
jbruner
lvisman96MichaelJTied
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 Jones1 9 years ago
Jones1
lvisman96MichaelJTied
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