Universal Health Care
Debate Rounds (3)
FIRST - I want to make it clear that in this round I am going to support single-payer health care rather than the health care mandate that Obamacare is.
Contention 1: Health care should be a right
the problem with companies providing health care is that it is, in a way, an inelastic demand. What is an inelastic demand? well it is a service that if the price was raised people could just stop buying it. A lot of people say "Well, You can stop buying health insurance," and this is a troubled way of thinking. Think about a man who is so poor that he can barely pay for the clothes on his back, he finds it hard to make it to every next meal; this man gets a cut on his hand, he wraps it up and moves on. 2 days later his hand hurts where he was cut; he has the obvious choice of going to the doctor and getting it looked at, or being able to pay for his next few meals. He chooses to eat, because you cant live without food, 3 days later the man is dead from staph infection.... This man had to choose between dying from starvation or dying from staph infection...... AND the government is the only thing suitable for providing rights to people because of the fact that there isn't that competition there.
Contention 2: saves money
You feel a pain in your side and ignore it, a few days later your appendix explodes and you're in the hospital getting an expensive surgery, if you had caught it at the pain and gone to the doctor then it would have cost a couple bucks of antibiotics, but the surgery cost thousands of dollars..... You can't pay it because you don't have insurance, you file bankruptcy and the cost of that surgery is added to the premiums of other people with insurance...... catching things early is key to saving money and we can't do that when we're so reluctant to go to the doctors, in Japan people go to the doctors 6 times a year on average.
On Capitalism194's points
(his point) 'Major insurance companies will fail because people flock to the govt.' -------- first off this isn't true for the fact that I think all universal health care systems except Taiwan have it set up like this.... the government pays for the insurance................. that means that they pay the insurance companies.... All I have to do is point at Health insurance companies in the UK which are doing perfectly fine.
(his point) 'competition is non-existent' -------- All insurance is, is paying for health care, the actual care received comes from hospitals not the govt... and the fact that the insurance companies are still there means that this point fails to gain traction..... SIDENOTE----- nearly all of our serious developments in medication happen due to publicly funded universities and hospitals
An issue with government run health care is the bargaining side of things. What do I mean by this? I mean that when a single entity controls what the price for health care is, who is to say what the actual quality will be? In this case, the hospitals. However, when hospitals are being paid off by the government, the quality begins to diminish. After all, what's the point in having good service, when you have no reason to get better? No matter what, the government will continue to subsidize the faulty hospitals anyway. Remember that the people who own these hospitals are out to make money. They are businessmen and business women. Helping people is secondary.
Of course, my argument may be biased because I cannot stand subsidization. This is exactly what government run health care is, a subsidization of hospitals. You have to remember that humans are always out to gain, which isn't always a bad thing. But in the scenario of universal health care... it becomes disastrous. As previously stated, it's all about the money. Who cares about helping people when you're rolling in Benjamins?
I would also like to address your counter argument of my point, "major insurance companies fail because people flock to the government". It is quite apparent that throughout history, when a government provides a service this big to people, people most definitely do flock to the government. All you have to do is look at the ancient roman program, 'bread and circuses', whereby the government would provide certain types of food and basic entertainment to the public, in exchange for some salary. This system, introduced by Emperor Augustus, eventually collapsed, and threw the entire economy into disarray.
Thank you for reading. I shall now accept new arguments and counter-arguments from my opponent.
(Off the topic of the debate) there is no set format in these debates, but it helps to have some indicator of new arguments to make them easier to address and defend
A) point 1
B) point 2
C) point 3
But to the debate:
Your entire argument seems to be predicated on the 'fact' that the government is providing the care itself, so naturally I will answer your last point first. When you point to the roman program "bread and circuses" you are making a fatal analogy flaw..... the government isn't giving the people food and entertainment in exchange for salary..... the government is taking the little bit of salary and paying the businesses to give the people the food and entertainment which means that in essence the govt is just acting as a middle man between the people and the insurance companies.
Next I will attack your subsidization point, the simple fact is that this isn't subsidization.... you see subsidization happens when a business that the society relies on cannot survive, the perfect example is farms which get many subsidies.... if they received no subsidies then they would have to raise prices of the products, if they did that then less people would be able to afford it.... so the govt tells the farmers to keep their prices down and in return helps them break even, because without this then the farmer industry would be destroyed and everyone would be in trouble. This is not what universal health care is.. put it simply a subsidy is the government negotiating prices with a company for the better of the company, universal health care is the government negotiating prices with insurance companies for the better of the people..... Because let's face it, YOU ARE RIGHT in the fact that these are businessmen and businesswomen, they don't give a rats behind about the people, they just care about the money, and that is exactly why we need the government to be able to put a leash on them.... they need to be able to negotiate... which is another one of your arguments that that quality decreases when the government negotiates.... the 37 best health care systems according to the WHO are as follows: #1 France (universal), #2 Italy (universal), #3 San Marino (universal), #4 Andorra (universal), #5 Malta (uni), #6 Singapore (uni), #7 Spain (uni), #8 Oman (uni), Austria (uni), Japan (uni), Norway (uni), Portugal (uni), Monaco (uni), Greece (uni), Iceland (uni) Luxembourg (uni), #17-36 are all universal and better than number 37 --- the United States........ Saudi Arabia beats us when it comes to health care, I don't believe I need to articulate how wrong it is what you said that universal health care diminishes the quality, it does 2 things, it increase quality and it decreases the cost.....
I'd like to pull through my arguments from before about how health care being a right:
(Contention 1: Health care should be a right
the problem with companies providing health care is that it is, in a way, an inelastic demand. What is an inelastic demand? well it is a service that if the price was raised people could just stop buying it. A lot of people say "Well, You can stop buying health insurance," and this is a troubled way of thinking. Think about a man who is so poor that he can barely pay for the clothes on his back, he finds it hard to make it to every next meal; this man gets a cut on his hand, he wraps it up and moves on. 2 days later his hand hurts where he was cut; he has the obvious choice of going to the doctor and getting it looked at, or being able to pay for his next few meals. He chooses to eat, because you cant live without food, 3 days later the man is dead from staph infection.... This man had to choose between dying from starvation or dying from staph infection...... AND the government is the only thing suitable for providing rights to people because of the fact that there isn't that competition there.)
And the argument that it saves Money
(Contention 2: saves money
You feel a pain in your side and ignore it, a few days later your appendix explodes and you're in the hospital getting an expensive surgery, if you had caught it at the pain and gone to the doctor then it would have cost a couple bucks of antibiotics, but the surgery cost thousands of dollars..... You can't pay it because you don't have insurance, you file bankruptcy and the cost of that surgery is added to the premiums of other people with insurance...... catching things early is key to saving money and we can't do that when we're so reluctant to go to the doctors, in Japan people go to the doctors 6 times a year on average.)
I look forward to the next round.
First off, you attacked my bread and circuses point. You say 'the government is essentially acting as a middle man between insurance and the people". Really now? You do realize that paying insurance companies to give absolutely no real care is ridiculous? Case in point. Recently, the NHS waiting list for care in Britain has reached 2.9 million people! And I'd guess that a few of these people are waiting for, oh I don't know, life saving surgery? This is all because there is no real competition among hospitals OR insurance companies, so this is excruciating to people who need quick surgery.
You repeatedly argue that a poor man can't afford insurance, usually. Absolutely correct. But again, if there was less regulation and less government interference, private insurance companies could compete more. With more competition, companies would be forced to have prices lowered, eventually reaching a point where the poor man could afford it. Now, this is circumstantial, but still better than a system where the man is forced to pay insanely high taxes for 'free' health care.I say insanely high because, let's be honest, to have a 'free' health care system, taxes would have to be completely abolished, and we would all have to live in some utopian, lollipops and rainbows state (i.e Obamanation).
Also, the Who is extremely politically biased. Fox could say all non-universal health care systems are best. Thing is, they're just as biased, so just as wrong.
I look forward to your final arguments, and to the voting!
On your second point you say that if there was less interference then private companies would compete more...... if this was true then we would've had the best health care system in the world for the last 40 years..... however we see through US history that this isn't the case as the World Health Organization has ranked us as 37th..... Your other point about free health care not actually being free is correct in the that instance however when you say that the average man would have to pay insanely high taxes , this isn't true... Let us remember that when you have the govt involved as the middle man they are able to negotiate the prices lower so it is more affordable...... ALSO you have not attacked my point when I was talking about Health care being an inelastic demand, this means that companies can raise their prices and people still need the insurance just as much and so they are forced to buy it anyways.
the WHO ranking is based on first off the quality of our care, which we ranked 15, and secondly how much it cost which we came in 1st place, as in our health care costs the absolute most.... this gave us an overall ranking of 37..... if you want to call it biased then that's your choice but these are the 2 issues here, that I have stated over and over, it costs too much, and it lacks quality.
You have stated that if we left the companies alone then we would see better quality and lower prices... this hasn't been the case when we did leave them alone so we know that that isn't true...
There has still been no argument against mine that universal HC should be a right
There has been no argument against mine that universal HC saves money.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Kreakin 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very interesting debate, Thank you both. I felt that Cons perspective was fuelled from a view point of a political stance in that a lot of anti retoric was employed but not reasonably supported with sound argument. Pro appeared to approach the issue from a more pragmatic position and ultimatley for me won the debate with the use of reasonable rebutals and counters.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.