The Instigator
bmascolo
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Maven
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Universal Health Care

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Maven
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,375 times Debate No: 15007
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

bmascolo

Con

1. Even in the constitution key words give away that the idea is for Americans to earn their right to happiness by effort.
2.If health care becomes free, that does not make the medicine and treatment for the sick free or cheap for that matter. Expenses will still be the same regardless if health care is free or not. We want to better the economy right? What would be the point of people in the health field to lose their jobs to provide free health care to citizens.
3. Quality of our doctors would decrease leading to likely mistakes throughout medical procedures. There are only so many doctors, and if more people seek care due to free services, doctors would become overwhelmed and quality of work would downgrade.
4. Every individual is responsible for themselves. It is our responsibility to pursue health care to keep healthy and happy, not the governments. The government has a lot more issues to deal with. We are responsible to find jobs, we pay our taxes, so we should be responsible for paying for health care. Health care isn't a right, its not guaranteed and it never has been, so why now?
Maven

Pro

The Free health is enforced by the amendments, and it is not free.
Theres no such thing as free health care:because we all pay it, the million of dollars that the usa get by their taxes is all our money ready to be expended. The last years it had been used for soldiers and wars, reaching in its highest point nearly a third of the tax incomes. Using that same amount all america is cover.
And it is enforced by the laws: the 14th amendment, the state cant deny anyone the liberty, property and the life. The people who cant afford a health care shouldn't be exclude from having one, they are still USA citizens, and if they are unhealthy it is worse; the state is loosing one potential employee.
About the quality of doctors, isn't likely is going to decrease, only sick people goes to the doctor,if the health care covers more of course the will have to treat more. But a cold o a rash are easy to handle. Less than 5% of the workers would have something could risk their life.
Debate Round No. 1
bmascolo

Con

With your reference to free health care being in the amendments only guarentees that they cannot deny a person but we arent denying anyone of health care its just more expensive to get care without insurance. and with your assumption that we will lose workers is a fallacy because if someone cant pay health care then they most likley dont have a stable job and like i said we arent denying anyone of care but taxpayers face high taxes and so should everyone else. doctors would be higher in demand which leads to being paid less. free health care is not guarenteed and should not be. nothing is guarenteed in life except our freedom we work for all else.
Maven

Pro

In the past 4 years the unemployment rate has increased more than 4%*, that means more than 25 million people lost their jobs, it wasn't their fault, that current government made decisions that were "supposed" to improve economy,but it result in the opposite: the economy fall. Now even some people who have stable jobs cant afford a medical treatment, cholesterol prescribed drugs average is about 80** dollars a month, the government has to respond for all those people. It shouldn't be guaranteed for people with high incomes, but its a necessity for the all the unemployed people.
The doctors is an essential issue in the free health care. The Hippocratic oath*** is an oath they take,swearing to practice medicine ethically; in that concept ethically means with no distinction of class,sex or race. That doesn't mean they have to it freely or obligated. Theirs jobs are not going to be paid less, a economic principle is that the higher demand of the service, the higher it should be payed.
Debate Round No. 2
bmascolo

Con

Taxpaying americans and their families should not be paying for health care if unemployed people are not. People that are unemployed do get help from our government by the opportunity to collect unemployment. So if we give money for unemployment and free health care, what is anyone working for? the people that do not have jobs would not have motivation to seek a job because everything is being handed to them. Our government already does help americans have health care by jobs giving health benefits, individuals that go to college and children that are under their parent/guardians health care insurance until they are of age, which is then in their hands to choose what they wish to do. And the "Hippocratic Oath" you speak of is irrelevant because 1) once again we are not discriminating on any of the three. 2) We are not denying anyone of health care, if you don't have insurance its just more money. SIMPLE, nobody is being left to die. its just in the individuals hands to be responsible.
Maven

Pro

The Hippocratic Oath is very relevant. The doctor are in the moral obligation to treat anyone. Not only those who can afford it. A person who owns a humble job and just earn enough to live cant afford 17.000$ on medical bills -which is the main cause of bankruptcy in america by the way*-, now, not earning more than 70.000 a year is a reasonable reason to not get access to medical care? 25 million people had lost their jobs due to the economic recession, with no job they cant afford it, is that a reason to not get medical care? And if someone think they like to be unemployed. Who likes to be unemployed? There are people outside looking for job, company's cant hired them due to slow economic. If is only in the individual hands to be responsible; what could a man do to make more money without a job and no one who hire him? The answer is: assaulting, stealing,thieving. Is not a coincidence that the poorest neighborhoods are the most dangerous.
It would be just moving backwards.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Maven 5 years ago
Maven
Again here are the resources for round number 3:
*http://www.businessweek.com....
Posted by Maven 5 years ago
Maven
I havent space to enough to post resources so here they are.
*http://www.tradingeconomics.com...
**http://www.consumerreports.org...
***http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by bmascolo 5 years ago
bmascolo
well then they should probably get health care if they are makin that much money
Posted by Jallen289 5 years ago
Jallen289
census.gov*
Posted by Jallen289 5 years ago
Jallen289
Over 9 million people in 2009 didn't have health insurance yet made $50,000-$75,000 per year.
Over 10 million uninsured people in America made over $75,000 per year. This is an ample amount of money to pay for health insurance.

cencus.gov will confirm all of these facts.
Posted by bmascolo 5 years ago
bmascolo
if youre not gonna debate it then dont comment with an arrogant response
Posted by Shtookah 5 years ago
Shtookah
facepalm
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
bmascoloMavenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy win for pro
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
bmascoloMavenTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments were of similar strength, Con did not fulfil the BoP necessary to support the instigation (1/3).
Vote Placed by boredinclass 5 years ago
boredinclass
bmascoloMavenTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a lot of logically fallacious arguments, and pro actually had sources