The Instigator
coldsnypa
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
B-Money
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

US Health Care is Worthless

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 8 votes the winner is...
B-Money
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,364 times Debate No: 8752
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (8)

 

coldsnypa

Pro

I would like to clarify the debate: I'm arguing that the US health care is a disgrace and is worthless; My opponent must argue otherwise. Good luck to my opponent!
B-Money

Con

My opponent is arguing that the US health care system is (1) a disgrace and (2) worthless. S/he must prove both (1) and (2) for his/her argument to be true.

I concede (1) that it is a disgrace. It is not, however, (2) worthless. For something to be "worthless," it has to be worth nothing, zero, zilch.

The US health care system does treat some people -- maybe not enough, but some -- and there is value to that. The people who can afford doctors get to see doctors. Even some people who can't afford doctors get to see doctors under Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP.

Are these programs perfect? No. Are they even decent? Doesn't matter. At least a few people are treated and that's worth something. Also, even if there are superior alternatives to the US system, it doesn't make the US system worthless. This is just like how the SuperSoaker 150 was still worth something (though not much) after the SuperSoaker 2000 came out.

Your move, Bond.
Debate Round No. 1
coldsnypa

Pro

First of all, I want to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

As for (1), since my opponent agreed to the health care system being a disgrace I do not have to prove anything on that behalf; furthermore, (2) needs to be addressed.

Contention1: US Health Care is worthless
My opponent states that "worthless" means to be worth nothing, zero, zilch; My opponent also believes that the US health care system is not fully worthless; however, the US health care system costs too much to run since it is not operated correctly. Evidence for this: "In 2008, the U.S. spent more than $2 trillion on health care"nearly 17 percent of our economy. Meanwhile, 46 million people are uninsured." (http://www.rwjf.org...) This has obviously contributed to the economic downfall that we are currently in. The US Health Care is worse than just being "worthless". Instead of just being worth "nothing, zero, zilch", it is actually in the negative.

Contention 2: Medicare is neither perfect, nor decent
Well obviously the programs are not perfect, nothing is perfect. Evidence includes:
1.) The Medicare Part D plan will hand over $800 billion of our tax dollars to the drug and health insurance industry.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, for the ten-year period, 2006 through 2016, the projected spending is $848 billion. "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2008 to 2017," Congressional Budget Office, January 2007. http://www.cbo.gov...

2.) The elderly could end up paying more for their prescription drugs than they did before under Part D - and a majority of senior citizens could still pay over $2000 a year.
"For all patients, Medicare covers 75 percent of the first $2,250 worth of drugs. But after that, coverage drops to zero - and doesn't resume until the patient hits $5,100 in expenses. Then Medicare kicks in again, paying 95 percent of costs. But it's this gap - of almost $3,000 - that many sick and disabled seniors call unaffordable." Medicare's 'Donut Hole,' CBS News, July 26, 2006.
http://www.cbsnews.com...
"Nearly 7 million seniors and individuals with disabilities who purchased stand-alone prescription drug coverage are now at risk of falling into the 'doughnut hole.' According to a report released today by Senior Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee� nearly 88 percent of new drug plan enrollees, roughly 7 million individuals, are at risk of losing coverage for their medications while they continue to pay monthly premiums to their insurers. The report further details how few individuals have enrolled in plans without doughnut holes, presumably because of the prohibitive cost of such plans." "88% Of New Medicare Drug Program Enrollees At Risk Of Falling Into The 'Doughnut Hole,'" Joint News Release From Representative Charles B. Rangel, Ranking Democrat, Committee On Ways And Means, Representative Pete Stark, Ranking Democrat, Subcommittee On Health, Committee On Ways And Means, Representative Sander M. Levin, Ranking Democrat, Subcommittee On Social Security, Committee On Ways And Means, September 21, 2006.
http://www.house.gov...
_of_new_medicare_drug_program_enrollees_at_risk_of_falling
_into_the_doughnut_hole.html
"Over the past year, Part D drug prices have increased several times faster than the rate of inflation. Families USA analyzed the prices for 15 of the drugs most frequently prescribed to seniors. We examined prices for each of the plans offered by the largest Part D insurers, which together cover about two-thirds of all Part D beneficiaries. We then compared the lowest available Part D price for each drug in April 2006 with the lowest available price for the same drug in April 2007. The lowest price for every one of the top 15 drugs prescribed to seniors increased, and the median increase was 9.2 percent." Medicare Part D Prices Are Climbing Quickly, FamiliesUSA, April 2007.
http://www.familiesusa.org...

And this is only for the Medicare Part D....pretty soon everything becomes too expensive, such as medicines and doctor care, which will result in no health care for anyone, since no one will be able to afford it.

Contention 3: Other countries have better Health Care
We need to be like England, where drugs are only $10! (For much of 2006, the standard charge for a prescription was �6.65. "The cost of an NHS prescription in England is to rise by 15p to �6.65 from the start of April." "Prescription charge to rise 15p," BBC News, March 13 2006.)

In the U.S., health care costs run nearly $7,000 per person. But in Cuba, they spend around $251 per person.

Like Canadians and Brits, the French live longer than we do.
The 2006 United Nations Human Development Report's human development index states the life expectancy in the United States is 77.5, the United Kingdom is 78.5, France is 79.6, and Canada is 80.2. Human Development Report 2006, United Nations Development Programme, 2006 at 283.
http://hdr.undp.org....

Overall the US Health Care is a disgrace and is worse than worthless. Thanks for the argument and thanks to the people voting! Good Luck!
B-Money

Con

While I appreciate the time my opponent has put into his/her research, s/he is not responding to my basic argument -- that the US healthcare system, although terrible, is not "worthless," because it does serve at least a few people. The argument's simplicity is its genius.

Contention 1 is the only argument that responds to my opening statement. S/he accepts my definition of worthless as "worth nothing." Then s/he says that we spend a lot of money on it ($2 trillion/year) and that it is in the negative. Two responses: (1) it is nonsensical to talk about the US healthcare system as "in the negative" since the system is a mix of government programs, public/private hospitals and doctors, and insurance companies. More importantly, even if something is "in the negative," it can still be worth something. Look at the US auto companies -- negative earnings, but they still got bought up, even if it was on the cheap. So, not worthless.

Contention 2 argues Medicare is not perfect or even decent. Granted. But it does serve some of the elderly. Paying 75% of the first $2,250 in drugs is not enough, I agree, but it is better than nothing and definitely not "worthless."

Contention 3 argues other countries have better healthcare. I already pre-empted this. Just because my neighbor has a SuperSoaker 2000, it doesn't make my SuperSoaker 150 "worthless," just not as good.

*** If you read nothing else -- I personally here and now will pay $5 USD for the entire US healthcare system. Since we have a bidder, the product is not "worthless."
Debate Round No. 2
coldsnypa

Pro

My opponent believes that, even though it doesnt serve a lot of people, it still has a positive effect on a "few" people. Well that is obvious, but do we want a system that does not help at least half the people of the US? We obviously need a better system, and my opponent can not deny that.

Contention 1: I must clarify the real meaning to what I said about being "in the negative": I meant that it is LIKE that, not that it IS in the negative, so it is not "nonsensical" to consider the US healthcare system as being like in the negative. But what does seem odd is that my opponent believes that something that is worthless(opponents meaning of worthless: zero, zilch, worth nothing)can still be worth something. How is this possible? Doesn't it seem that my opponent contradicts himself? If we look at a scale from, lets say 0-10, everything less than 0 is in the negative, so how is it that the negative is still worth something?

Contention 2: My opponent agrees with me on Medicare's flaws , but he still believes that even though it only helps a few people, it is still worth something good. If it is bad for so many people then it mine as well be considered useless and worthless because sooner or later those few people are not going to have healthcare because they wont be able to afford it with the sky-rocketing prices. Basically, this whole system should be considered worthless, or will eventually become fully worthless.

Contention 3: My opponent states that his neighbor has a better water gun than him, and that it is not worthless; however, since they made a new and improved water gun, it will most likely last longer, whilst your supersoaker 150 could break more easily or will eventually stop working.

Thanks again to my opponent and to the voters! Good Luck!
B-Money

Con

"We obviously need a better system, and my opponent can not deny that."

Yes, but the current system is not worthless.

1 - I don't believe that something that is worthless has worth. But I didn't call it worthless, you did. It's only a contradiction when you put words in my mouth. My argument, which hasn't been responded to, is that even a business or system that is hemoraging money can be worth something - maybe only pennies on the dollar - but worth something. People buy bankrupt companies all the time.

2 - "Basically, this system should be considered worthless, or will eventually become fully worthless."

If it will eventually BECOME fully worthless, then it is not CURRENTLY fully worthless. Slam dunk.

3 - S/he is debating the example, not the point. Just because other countries have better healthcare, it doesn't make ours "worthless." Maybe "outdated" or "terrible," but not "worthless."

*** My offer to buy the healthcare system of the US for $5 still stands. With this offer on the table, the system's worth cannot be less than that $5.
Debate Round No. 3
coldsnypa

Pro

1-"For something to be "worthless," it has to be worth nothing, zero, zilch."
"More importantly, even if something is "in the negative," it can still be worth something."

I don't understand, you did say this, I did not put this in your mouth, you said this yourself. As for people buying bankrupt companies, I agree that people buy them; however, if they are bankrupt, they are basically worth nothing UNTIL someone buys them. But think about the time that it is not bought...it is worth nothing.

2-I only said that to please you...since you do not believe that it is fully worthless. But as I said, it should be considered worthless.

3- As I am debating the example, I am also debating the point. If you have a water gun that eventually stops working because its not made as good as the new and improved version, doesn't it become worthless because you cant use it?

***Your offer to buy the healthcare system with $5 is absurd! Just because you think your offer is on the table, it doesn't mean that its worth anything because it is still not bought.
B-Money

Con

1 - Nope, look at what happens when companies go bankrupt. They still have assets, they just have to sell them on the cheap.

2 - Meh.

3 - But some people can use the current system so it's not worthless.

*** It's worth at least five dollars because the offer is on the table. Anything with bidders has worth and the worth cannot be lower than the lowest bid. Think about a jug of milk. If someone will pay a dollar for it, it's worth a dollar. If it's great milk and someone else offers two dollars, it's worth two dollars. If it's rotten and no one wants to buy it, it's worthless. I would love to have the whole system at the price of $5, so it's worth at least $5.
Debate Round No. 4
coldsnypa

Pro

1- But think about stocks-they are not worth anything until someone buys the stock.

2- Since the answer is "meh", and he has no rebuttal, I only assume that he agrees with me and he has no further comment.

3- Well isn't the current system at a state where no one can seem to use it? Since prices seem to go higher, how is it possible that people could use it, especially with the current economic crisis.

***As I have said before, a stock is not worth anything UNTIL people start buying it, NOT when there are offers. Just because someone offers one million dollars for a stock, it doesn't mean that it is worth a million dollars.
B-Money

Con

The healthcare system is not like a stock. A stock is a share of a company and manifests itself in a piece of paper. A healthcare system is a little more substantial than a piece of paper. It includes hospitals, personnel, etc. If we liquidated it, it'd be worth more than $5, but I'm still offering $5 just to low-ball.

And if the HC system actually were worthless, then Obama would've taken my offer by now. He reads these, doesn't he?

The only thing worthless in this debate is going five rounds when it was settled in the first.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by CrossXKING 8 years ago
CrossXKING
I believe that the pro has put more effort and resources in his work. The con barely posted anything other than the repetitive comments he posted earlier. I also believe that the con did contradict himself, because he did not stick with his original definition of "worthless". The pro at least used resources to back up his claims, whilst the con used a supersoaker water gun to help him win the debate. The con seemed to not care towards the end, showing the act of surrendering. "Just because someone offers one million dollars for a stock, it doesn't mean that it is worth a million dollars."- Brilliant!
Posted by Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
RFD: CON
(1) I agreed with Pro before the debate.
(2) I agreed with Con after the debate because he won it, though with semantics.
(3) Tie on conduct.
(4) Tie on spelling/grammar
(5) Con made the more convincing argument relative to the resolution.
(6) Pro had better resources.
Posted by coldsnypa 8 years ago
coldsnypa
Im arguing that our healthcare is worthless...not that we shouldnt have any.
Posted by Lt.Zubin 8 years ago
Lt.Zubin
Just a clarification: are you arguing that the U.S. health care system is worthless, or that we shouldn't have ANY health care?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by welldonesteak 8 years ago
welldonesteak
coldsnypaB-MoneyTied
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 CrossXKING 8 years ago
CrossXKING
coldsnypaB-MoneyTied
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 coldsnypa 8 years ago
coldsnypa
coldsnypaB-MoneyTied
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 Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
coldsnypaB-MoneyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 8 years ago
KeithKroeger91
coldsnypaB-MoneyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Zephyr 8 years ago
Zephyr
coldsnypaB-MoneyTied
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 evilpanda 8 years ago
evilpanda
coldsnypaB-MoneyTied
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 B-Money 8 years ago
B-Money
coldsnypaB-MoneyTied
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