The Instigator
FREEDO
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
jimtimmy
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Universal Health Care

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
FREEDO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,163 times Debate No: 18632
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

FREEDO

Pro

RESOLUTION

That a universal health care system, on balance, is beneficial.

DEFINITIONS

Universal health care:
noun
A health care system organized by government and built around the principle of universal coverage to all citizens.

Beneficial:
adjective
In this debate, beneficial will refer to an increase in the general standard of living. Further examination of the meaning does not need to be brought up in this debate.

INTRODUCTION

I'm am happy to be starting this debate which I have been planning to do with jimtimmy. I have been waiting tell I had more time to devote to debating. Hopefully there will be no forfeits here.
May no one vote without reading and may they be honest in doing so.

I will lay out a few short points that I may add to or expand on later. Con may simply rebut or may include his own points but there will be no new points by him in the last round.

ARGUMENTS

1. Universal health care will decrease spending on health care

According to OECD Health Data[1], the United States spends much more on healthcare per capita, US$ PPP than the U.K., Switzerland, Japan, Germany, France, Canada or Australia.
And what is the difference between the countries and the United States? They all have universal health care and it doesn't.
But how could this be so? There are a multitude of reasons but the most pronounced is preventive medicine. In countries without universal health care, namely the United States, the majority of individuals with ailments, whether they know of them or not, have a strong incentive to stay away from check-ups because it will cost them money that they are already struggling to hold onto.

2. Universal health care will save lives.

The American Journal of Public Health confirms that around 45,000 people die each year in the United States due to lack of health insurance [2].

Arguments can be made concerning how much health care could cost. Even though, as I would see the evidence suggests, universal health is good for the economy, it doesn't even matter. For if it was bad for the economy, it is still putting a price on human life to say that we would be better without it. Not only human life but human health. While many die from lack of insurance there are still many more who will live in agony.

Universal health care is the humane thing to do.

3. Universal Health care will help the economy

According to the US Department of Labor, the average American spends about 3,175 dollars a year on health insurance [3].

Universal health care puts that money back into the hands of the people who need it. Based on the simple mathematics of shared cost, health care would cost the average person less in tax than it would in price. Even better when the cost is fronted by the rich who could barely bat an eye at losing 3,175 dollars that most Americans are desperate to keep.

Securing basic needs will blunt the blade of any recession.
This is why the International Monetary Fund urges that the most important thing nations can do in an economic downturn is to strengthen their social safety nets [4].

SOURCES
1. http://upload.wikimedia.org...
2. http://news.harvard.edu...
3. http://www.bls.gov...
4. http://www.imf.org...
jimtimmy

Con

Introduction


I thank my opponent for proposing this debate. I accept the terms and look forward to the arguments.



Arguments


1.) Universal Health Care Will Not Reduce Spending on Health Care



My opponent argues that Universal Health Care will reduce spending on Health Care. The main reason, my opponent argues, is that Universal Health Care Systems put more focus on Preventative Medicine. My opponent does not explain why Universal Health Care systems would necessarily have more Preventative Medicine.

Instead, my opponent bases his argument on the fact that countries with Universal Health Care, like the UK, Switzerland, Japan, Germany, France, Canada, and Australia, spend less on Health Care, per Capita, than the United States, which does not have Universal Health Care.

First, my opponent uses an incorrect measure of Health Care Cost. The correct measure is Health Care Spending as a Percentage of GDP, not Health Care Spending per Capita. However, even when using the correct measure, we still see the US spending a much higher percentage of GDP on Health Care than other Countries, although it is less dramatic [1].

The reason for this is not Preventative Medicine; it is rationing. Before I get into that, though, I feel it is necessary to explain why Health Care costs so much in the United States. The United States Health Care system is deeply distorted by government programs, regulations, and odd tax laws. These government factors, not private Health Care, are too blame for the high cost of Health Care in the United States.

The main thing driving the high prices of Health Care in the US is government distortions [2]. Basically, the US tax code allows a full exemption for employer provided Health Care, but not individually bought Health Care. This incentivizes many employers to offer Health Care as an employee benefit. What this means is that employees are NOT paying directly for their own Health Insurance, and, more importantly, this has caused Health Insurance to function as much more than insurance.

In a private market, free of this tax distortion, individuals would mostly buy Health Insurance Plans that offer only catastrophic type coverage. This would mean that they would pay individually for Health Care, unless an extreme expense came by. This is how it should work. With this system, patients would not overuse things like Dentists, Pediatricians, and other non-emergency type doctors.

However, with the domination of Employer-Provided Insurance, patients are removed from their costs. Employers frequently add things like dental and low deductibles to Health Care plans. This means that the Health Insurance Company is basically paying for everything. This is known as a third party payer system. And, the problem with this is that patients overuse Medical Services because individuals have no incentive to control their own costs. This is known as the tragedy of the commons, where individuals overuse resources because they are removed from the cost.

Now, in the US, the system is dominated by government programs and private insurance companies. The overuse of medical services is typically met with very high prices. Because, even though the US system is deeply distorted, the price system is still basically allowed to operate.

In Universal Health Care Systems, the same tragedy of the commons problem occurs, except it is the government instead of private insurers that is insuring people. The difference, however, is that in most Universal Health Care systems, the response to overuse of medical services is shortages and rationing, instead of higher costs.

Shortages seen in the long waiting times in most Universal Health Care Systems. Canada, for example, has extremely long waiting times for most serious types of medical services [3].

In a normal market, the price of a good or service is determined by supply and demand. This is actually how it works in the US, demand is just artificially high because of government distortions. Most of the time, higher demand, without a corresponding increase in supply, means higher prices. Therefore, prices are the typical means of rationing things. However, in most Universal Health Care Systems, prices are kept articially low by price controls. However, there is no increase in supply to meet this increase in demand. This means that the state, not the price system, is responsible for rationing care.

Of course, whatever board makes the decisions on rationing does not have the information necessary to plan an entire medical system used by millions of people. This means that rationing decisions made by the state in a universal Health Care System are inherently innefficient.



2.) Universal Health Care Will Not Save Lives


As I will discuss later, Universal Health Care systems hold back medical innovation and keep patients from having access to the most up to date life saving drugs and technologies.



3.) Universal Health Care Will Hurt the Economy


My opponent claims that Universal Health Care will help the economy by "putting money back into the hands of people who need it". This is untrue. Universal Health Care will actually hurt the economy.

The main reason is that Universal Health Care requires higher taxes to pay for it. Higher taxes actually hurt economic growth by reducing the incentive to work, save, invest, and report income. There is a well known growth dampening effect of high taxation, that has been confirmed by numerous academic studies [4].

Second, implementing a Universal Health Care system in tough economic times is the worst thing the government could do. The implementation of such a system requires much higher taxes and many new regulations. Worse, this creates a large sense of uncertainty among businesses, who are relied upon to expand and hire new workers in a bad economy.



4.) Universal Health Care Suppresses Innovation


Universal Health Care systems actually lead to less lives being saved because it suppresses life saving technology and drugs. Although the US system is far from a free market, it is not Universal and a large private sector does exist. Not surprisingly, the US has many more MRI's and CT Scans per capita than countries with Universal Health Care like Canada and the United Kingdom [5].

Furthermore, a lions share of the world's medical innovations are coming from the US. 7 of the top 12 Pharmaceutical Companies, as ranked by Forbes Magazine, are located in the United States and 74 of the top 100 Biotech Companies are located in the United States [6] and [7]. The fact is that Universal Health Care systems simply are not producing nearly as much innovation as the non-Universal US system. If the US had a true free market in Health Care, there is no telling how far Medical Innovation would be.


Conclusion

Let me conclude by saying that I look forward to my opponent's response. I will also say that I have tried my best to source my arguments adequatley, but I do hope my opponent does not use incorrect or inadequate sourcing as a "cop-out" on some of my arguments.

Thank You Very Much for Challenging Me to this Debate.


Sources:

[1] http://www.nationmaster.com...

[2] http://www.cato.org...

[3] http://www.usnews.com...

[4] http://pirate.shu.edu...

[5] http://oregoncatalyst.com...

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
FREEDO

Pro

REBUTTAL

1. Universal Health Care Will Reduce Spending on Health Care

Con claims that:
I. High health care prices in the United States are due to government distortions.
II. Low health care costs in countries with universal health care is due to rationing.
III. Countries with universal health care have long waiting lines.

My reply:

I. So called "government distortions" are what have made health care more accessible to many Americans. Medicaid, Medicare, TRICARE, and The Children's Health Insurance Program. These government interventions have brought health care to poor, elderly, veterans and children who otherwise would not have been able to afford it.

II. Con has not provided any example of health care being rationed by governments with universal healthcare. And even if these supposed rations exist, he is forgetting about the rations that are inherent in private health care providers as well. Americans are often not able to get the care they want due to the price. Some complain that the government will supposedly start coming between them and their doctor, while they are completely oblivious to the insurance companies coming between them and their doctor right now.

III. Waiting lines are a manufactured issue. A Health Affairs survey reports that 27% of Canadians and 5% of Americans reported waiting four months or more for elective surgery. But the same study says 24% of Americans reported that they did not get medical care because of cost. Together, that's 29%. The only reason Americans aren't waiting in line is because they can't afford to get in the line. And lets not forget that lines only apply to non-emergency treatment. You are not going to be turned down if your life hangs in the balance. [1]


2. Universal Health Care Will Save Lives

Con claims that:
I. Universal health care does not saves lives due to less medical innovation.

My reply:
I. It is a fact that universal health care systems result in a healthier population. The top 20 countries for life expectancy all have universal healthcare. The United States comes in at number 36, behind Cuba. None of the bottom 10 have universal health care. [2]
The top 20 countries for lowest infant mortality rate all have universal healthcare. The United States comes in at number 34, behind Cuba again. [3]
The top 10 healthiest countries in the world, according to Forbes, all have universal health care. [4]
A healthier country obviously means more lives saved.

3. Universal Health Care Will Help the Economy

Con claims that:
I. Universal health care will hurt the economy by raising taxes.

My reply:
I. I reaffirm the evidence I posted last round. The International Monetary Fund urges that the most important thing nations can do in an economic downturn is to strengthen their social safety nets. They say this while well aware that it means raising taxes because they know that it's worth it. A social safety net creates a cushion in people's lives from hitting rock-bottom. With universal health care, everyone knows that, no matter their financial situation, they can count on having care if they become ill. The stronger any nation's social safety net is, the less hard any recession is going to hit.

4. Universal Health Care Will NOT Suppress Innovation

Con claims that:
I: Universal health care will suppress innovation because the private sector is better at innovating.

My reply:
I: Whether this is true or not is irrelevant to your point. Universal health care will not ban private health insurance. If what you say is true, that public sector health care would not provide the necessary treatments to some people, they are still fully capable of buying those treatments from a private provider.

ARGUMENTS

1. Americans Will Be Happier With a Universal Health Care System

There are several reasons that a universal health care system would increase the average American's satisfaction with it. It means that no one will need to worry about whether they will be able to afford health care, they know it is taken care of. They will be healthier and a healthier population is a happier population. Doctors will be free to take care of their patients as they want, their available treatments will not be limited by an insurance company and they will not have to deal with the moral disgrace of turning anyone down because they couldn't afford it. Lastly, Americans will be more satisfied because the majority of Americans endorse a universal health care system. [5]


SOURCES
1. http://www.latimes.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://www.forbes.com...
5. http://www.cbsnews.com...
jimtimmy

Con

Rebuttal



Government Distoritions in US Health Care System



My opponent claims that government interventions have greatly expanded Health Coverage in the US. My opponent, however, is making the mistake of looking at intentions and not the actual effects of the programs. First, my opponent claims that Governmet Programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and TRI-CARE, have been key in expanding coverage to disadvantaged groups. This certainly was the INTENT of these groups, but the effects have been quite different.

The people who are on these programs actually receive very poor Health care Coverage. Internists are 8.5 times more likely to reject Medicaid patients than Private Insurance Patients [1]. Plus, 2/3 of Children on Public Insurance were found to be rejected for Doctors appointments, vs only 11% on Private Insurance [2]. Lastly, a Surgical Outcomes Study from UVA found that people on Medicaid were 13% MORE likely to die in surgery than people WITHOUT Health Insurance at all, and people on Medicaid were 97% more likely to die than people with Private Insurance [3]. These studies show that, despite spending hundreds of Billions of dollars on Public Health Programs, it is not even clear that these patients get better coverage than those without any Health Insurance.


Furthermore, my opponent did not even answer my main point that high Health Care costs were the result of various Government Interventions, which they are. This is a key point, as it shows that the private market is not responsible for high Health Care costs.



Rationing and Waiting Times


Governments ration Health Care by limiting individual's use of it. This is basically done through waiting lines. As I showed in my last post, Universal Health Care Systems have high waiting times and low supply of medical technologies. This is classic economics. People demand a good or service (Health Care in this case). When there is high demand for a service, the price goes up. However, if that price is artificially held down, then shortages arise. As prices just reflect the supply and demand of a good or service, shortages arise when there is high demand and low supply for a good or service, but the price is held down.

My opponent does not answer this economic issue. Instead, he claims that American shave it worse than those in Universal Health Care systems because, even though Americans have lower waiting times, they have high costs. However, as I explained earlier, these prices are the result of Government distortions and artificial restrictions on Medical Supply.


Universal Health Care and Medical Innovation


In my last post, I offered evidence that Universal Health Care reduced medical innovation and, therefore, did not save lives. My opponent claims that Universal Health Care does save lives because countries with Universal Health Care have higher life expectencies than the United States, which does not have Universal Health Care.

However, this does not show what my opponent thinks it shows. The United States is the ONLY first world country without Universal Health Care, and the United States also happens to have many more fatal injuries than other countries, which have nothing to do with Health Care. Furthermore, once fatal injuries are taken into account, the US actually has HIGHER life expectancy than other developed countries [4].


Universal Health Care and the Economy


My opponent does not really answer my response from last round. My opponent claimed that Universal Health Care would improve the economy by "putting money in people's pockets". I pointed out that Universal Health Care is funded by taxation, which offsets this effect.

Plus, taxation has additional disincentive effects ("supply-side effects"), like reducing investment and hours worked, that hurt economic growth. And, as I showed in my last post, there is a well known growth reducing effect of larger government and higher taxation.



Universal Health Care and Medical Innovation

My opponent says that Universal Health Care will not reduce Medical Innovation because Private Insurance will still exist. This is not true, as the Public Sector WILL crowd out the Private Sector because the Public Sector is subsidized by the government and not forced to make a profit. This means that people are already paying for Public Insurance through their taxes, so buying Private Insurance would be the equivalent of paying for insurance twice.

Private Insurance would be much like private schools. A privelege that only the wealthy could attain, because it is too expensive for regular people to pay for Insurance through their taxes and then again for Private Insurance.


Universal Health Care in America

Universal Health Care would hurt America. It would fail to control costs, it would reduce medical innovation, and it would lead to long waiting lines for Americans. Furthermore, a Universal Health Care system would violently force people to participate in a system that they may not even support. Even if they get Private Insurance, they are forced to pay for the Universal Health Care System through taxation. The solution to the United States's Health Care crisis is to allow individuals to make their own Health Care decisions, free of Government distortions. A command and control, centrally planned Health Care system is not the answer.






Sources:

[1] http://www.forbes.com...

[2] http://www.forbes.com...


[3] http://www.nationalreview.com...-


[4] http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com...
Debate Round No. 2
FREEDO

Pro

REBUTTAL

1. Government Distortions

So I found myself about to go on about why programs like medicare have vastly expanded the access to healthcare. But then I remembered what we are actually debating here.

This part of the debate came about after I demonstrated that the US spends far more on health care than any nation with universal health care. Con responded by saying that the spending is high because prices have been artificially expanded by the government.

Lets assume for a moment that he's right. So what? Does that refute what I demonstrated in the first place, that universal health care will reduce spending? No, it does not. Neither did Con refute the effect of preventative medicine in nations with universal health care.



Universal health care: Everyone is covered.
Not universal health care: Not everyone is covered.
Universal health care: Less spent on health care.
Not universal health care: More spend on health care.
Conclusion? Universal health means a more efficient economy.

2. Waiting Times

I showed that the waiting time scenario is a confusion. Americans have shorter waiting times because they are much less likely to use the health care system due to high costs. Again, Con brings up why he believes costs are high. And again, this is irrelevant and does not disprove my point.

3. Saving lives

Con presents a very interesting fact. Americans do indeed die from many more injuries than other countries. However, I made other points regarding why countries with universal health care save lives. Countries with universal health care have lower infant mortality and were ranked as being healthier than the United States. This is not to mention the fact that, as I showed before, universal health care brings care to tens of thousands of people who otherwise wouldn't have it.

The World Health Organization agrees with me. According to them, the United States ranks 37th in best health care systems. All of the top 20 have universal health care. The vast majority of countries below the Unites States on the list do not have universal health care. [1]

As for medical innovation, it's really a relative issue. It all comes down to how much we are willing to spend. More spending on research and such would mean more innovations. And, as I demonstrated, universal health care is more efficient with it's spending than private health care. And if the public sector doesn't take care of it properly, the private sector is still allowed to do it. When I mentioned this before, Con replied that they would not be able to because they would be pushed out of the market. Now, he needs to think harder about this one. Whether that is true or not is beneficial to my case. If it is true this means that universal health care's success can be measured by the fact that those who use it, by a large enough margin to make private insurers disappear, are content with the quality of their healthcare and medical innovation is not a problem. If it is false, it means my point about medical innovation being backed up by the private sector is still well founded.

4. The Economy

Con points out taxation again. He says taxation would offset the effect of people saving money on buying insurance. This not so. As I have already pointed out, universal health care saves spending. This means less is being paid in taxation than would be in prices. Secondly, even if it did cost the same, it isn't being paid in the same way. A universal health care system would most likely be funded through the income tax, which is progressive. The rich would pay more because they're more able to pay and the price of health care means a lot less to them than it does a homeless man. Thirdly, even if we are all paying in the same, there is still another inherent success in social safety nets. Any time a human need is made an economic right, it diverts spending from things which are non-necessity, making the market better economized.

CONCLUSION

Every other industrialized nation besides the United States has adopted universal health care and there's a reason why. The majority of American's support universal health care and there's a reason why. The best economic and medical associations endorse universal health care and there's a reason.

Because it works. Because it works a lot better than what we have now.

NOT letting sick people die or live in suffering is a moral and practical thing for society, for the economy, for our daily lives. Universal health care is created to do that and it accomplishes it. It accomplishes it well. Universal health care will improve everyone's lives by making sure those who need treatment get it, by spending less on health care, making the economy smarter and more efficient, letting doctors do their jobs without insurance companies getting in the way, improving the social safety net as the experts urge us to do and so, so much more that hasn't even been covered here.

Con's theories have not stood up to the facts in this debate and they will not stand the test of time either.



Lol, I'm just taking advantage of my new ability to post images.

I thank Con, it's been a wonderful debate.

SOURCES

1. http://www.who.int...
jimtimmy

Con

Rebuttal


Universal Health Care and Spending


My opponent claims that the point about United States government interventions increasing the cost of Health Care is irrelevant and that I failed to refute his argument about preventative medicine:

"This part of the debate came about after I demonstrated that the US spends far more on health care than any nation with universal health care. Con responded by saying that the spending is high because prices have been artificially expanded by the government.

Lets assume for a moment that he's right. So what? Does that refute what I demonstrated in the first place, that universal health care will reduce spending? No, it does not. Neither did Con refute the effect of preventative medicine in nations with universal health care."


However, my opponent is incorrect in both of his assertions here. First, it is totally relevant that government distortions have caused US Health Care prices to be so high. My opponent argued that Universal Health Care reduced prices. His entire basis for arguing this is that the United States, without Universal Health Care, has higher prices than countries with Universal Health Care.

Therefore, if I can show that Government Distortions, not a lack of Universal Health Care, have caused the US to have such high Health Care prices, I have successfully disproven a major part of my opponent's argument. In my Round 1 and Round 2 posts, I offer substantial evidence showing that Government Distortions have indeed lead to high Health Care prices in the US.

This reality effectively rebuts my opponent's entire argument about prices. As I mentioned earlier, my opponent's entire argument about prices was based on the fact that the US has high Health Care prices. So, my opponent is basically arguing that high Health Care prices in the US are caused by a lack of Universal Health Care. However, I have shown that these prices are caused by government distortions and not a lack of Universal Health Care.

My opponent's other point is that I did not rebut his point on preventative evidence. This is not true. My opponent never gave any evidence that Universal Health Care systems have more preventative medicine or that preventative medicine reduces prices. I cannot rebut either of these claims because they were never supported in the first place.

My opponent did offer a theoretical reason why Universal Health Care might increase prevention. Basically, he said that Universal Health Care systems encourage use of preventative check-ups because Health Care is free at the point of delivery. However, my opponent ignores that Universal Health Care systems do have to deal with much longer waiting times than non Universal Health Care systems. This means that accessing preventative check ups would be challenging in Universal Health Care systems, just like it would be in non Universal Health Care systems. The only difference is that price is the problem in non Universal Health Care systems and waiting times are the problem in Universal Health Care systems. I have shown that excessive waiting times do exist in Universal Health Care systems in previous rounds.

Another problem with my opponent's argument is that he ignores the fact that high Health Care prices in the US are the result of government distortions not a lack of Universal Health Care. This is relevant, as it shows that high prices are not a necessary barrier to preventative medicine in the absence of Universal Health Care. In other words, a country can have both low waiting times and low prices without Universal Health Care.


Universal Health Care and Waiting Times


My opponent responds to my waiting times point by pointing out that US Health Care costs are high. I have shown above and in previous rounds that US prices are the result of government distortions and that this is relevant to this debate.



Universal Health Care and Health


In my last round, I showed that US life expectancy is only lower than other countries because fatal accidents are more common in America, and that this has nothing to do with Health Care. My opponent acknowledges this and responds by pointing out that the infant mortality rate is higher in America than it is in other countries.

However, this is a deeply flawed argument. Just like Life Expectancy, infant mortality is almost entirely determined by factors that don't relate to Health Care, and, to make matters worse, infant mortality is measured differently accross countries [1]. This means that infant mortality rates say very little to nothing about the quality of Health Care systems.


My opponent's next point is that a WHO study found the US to have only the 37th best Health Care system in the world. I am familiar with this study, as it has been cited favorably by nearly every advocate of Universal Health Care I have encountered. The problem is that this study is deeply flawed.


One problem with this study is that it is very old. It was released in 2000 and is based on data from the 1990s. Furthermore, this study is based on some very obscure measures. For example, 25% of the ranking is based on "Financial Fairness". This does not seem like a very good or objective measure to judge Health Care systems on [2].

My opponent makes his next point about what it means that Public Health Insurance would crowd Private Health Insurance out of the market:

"When I mentioned this before, Con replied that they would not be able to because they would be pushed out of the market. Now, he needs to think harder about this one. Whether that is true or not is beneficial to my case. If it is true this means that universal health care's success can be measured by the fact that those who use it, by a large enough margin to make private insurers disappear"

To respond to this point, let me offer a quick hypothetical story. Let's say that government forces everyone, by gun, to pay a banana tax so everyone could get free bananas at the grocery store. Now, when everyone goes to the grocery store, there are other private bananas available for people to pay for there, but everyone chooses to take the bananas they were forced to pay for in advance.

Because of this, the private banana companies all went out of business, and everyone started taking the "free" government bananas (they were paid by through forced taxation).

Does this prove how good the government bananas are?

Or, does it simply show that people will take what they are forced to pay for?


I think the answer is fairly simple, and this is why my opponent's argument is wrongheaded. The fact that people will enroll free public insurance that they are forced to pay for through mandatory taxation does not prove that this Public Health Insurance is superior to Private Health Insurance in any way.


On another note, I have in previous rounds that Universal Health Care systems do impede medical innovation and that Universal Health Care systems are not very efficient.



Universal Health Care and the Economy



My opponent claims that Universal Health Care will help the economy. Although, he never actually explained how it would help the economy. Instead, he simply pointed out that it would be more equitable.


In previous rounds, I explained how Universal Health Care does not reduce costs and, more importantly to this point, must be funded by new taxation. Higher taxation hurts the economy by reducing incentives for productive behavior. I have also shown this to be true in previous rounds. Universal Health Care, through the higher taxation necessary to fund it, will actually harm the economy.



Conclusion


I have successfully disproven the notion that a Universal Health Care system is beneficial to the population. I have shown that there is no reason to believe that Universal Health Care will reduce prices, and I have shown that Universal Health Care will lead to long waiting times. Finally, I have shown that Universal Health Care does not save lives and does keep lives from being saved by impeding medical innovation.



VOTE CON!



Sources:

[1] http://www.nationalcenter.org...


[2] http://www.cato.org...
























Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
Great debate, both of you. I don't know which way to vote, but you did a great job.
Posted by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
Ran out of room in RFD.

continued from sources... Since the europe ages were lowered when there is no logical way for the removal of pre-mature deaths to do that, the data could not be trusted.

For Arguments - Con made several assumptions without sourcing or justifying (Pro did too for that matter, but to less of an extent). One case is the "The reason for this is not Preventative Medicine; it is rationing. Before I get into that, though, I feel it is necessary to explain why Health Care costs so much in the United States. The United States Health Care system is deeply distorted by government programs, regulations, and odd tax laws. These government factors, not private Health Care, are too blame for the high cost of Health Care in the United States." This was not sourced, and just assumed accurate. I do hold against Pro that he should have attacked this more, as there are plenty of studies that show that preventative care is more cost effective than major medical. Since that wasn't done, and no evidence that it is government regulations, rather than the health industry was given, I had to dismiss it, rather than award a refutation to Pro or Con.
Posted by jimtimmy 3 years ago
jimtimmy
Lol, I hope we get some Votes on this Debate... I put too much time in this for it to get no votes... haha
Posted by Jon1 3 years ago
Jon1
"Lol, I'm just taking advantage of my new ability to post images." It is a cool ability :)
Posted by Kinesis 3 years ago
Kinesis
Great debate so far.
Posted by FREEDO 3 years ago
FREEDO
A rain storm just came in. Hope my internet doesn't go out. I'll have to type from my phone again.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
FREEDOjimtimmyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: About 80 of heath is lifestyle, not the health care system. The US has the least healthy lifestyle in the world. Failing to discuss that means Pro did not meet the burden of proof. UHC uses rationing to limit costs, as Con argued.
Vote Placed by drafterman 3 years ago
drafterman
FREEDOjimtimmyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm undecided on this issue (still). I think the deciding factors for me on this debate were the fact that Universal Healthcare doesn't require eliminating Private Healthcare (allowing people to use it if it is so much better) and the fact that the Waiting Lines issue is skewed by people who don't even get in line for Private Health Care due to costs.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
FREEDOjimtimmyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets the conduct for the "oh snap" even though I realize that it was just to test the coding, that could have been done with graphs or something. Source - Pro, one of con's sources went to a website no longer around (or at least a page no longer around), and others went to blogs that themselves linked to pages no longer around. In regards to the link of average life span, removing the pre-mature deaths (considering them outliers) can only raise the average age, but it lowered it in Europe.