The Instigator
nicktaylor03
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
mpatter
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Universal Health Care

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 1 vote the winner is...
nicktaylor03
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 129 times Debate No: 117048
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

nicktaylor03

Pro

Universal health care is a system that provides quality medical services to all citizens. Health costs are rising and people have health care bills larger than their mortgage. In countries such as Australia and Canada, The government pays for health care provided by private companies. Why shouldn"t the government help its people out by providing health care to all who are citizens of the country or nation?
mpatter

Con

Taking something without consent is theft. Taking it by threat of force is robbery. Taking money from citizens with the threat of prison or confiscation of property fits the definition of theft and robbery. One could argue that some services benefit everyone, And therefore should be a shared expense, Like national defense, Security, And possibly infrastructure, But that really is all that could be argued for.

When you tax someone, You are taking, What someone worked hard for by threat of force, And in the case of redistribution of wealth, Giving it to others who may have not worked as hard, Or as smart, At the expense of the person that did.

By this logic, I could argue that it is alright to rob you at gunpoint as long as I am giving some the money to those that may have worked less than you did to earn the money. I would of coarse keep a descent portion of the funds for myself because I need to cover my overhead you know, Guns and prison are not free, And I need to make a living collecting your money anyway, So I do deserve a cut for this days labor.

Theft through taxation and redistribution to those I think deserve it is no different than If I stole from you and gave it to my overweight, Unemployed nephew that lives at his parent's house, Someone expects them to financially support him, Including providing housing, Medical care, And food while he plays video games all night.

Theft is theft, And perceiving that you may be helping others does not change that fact.
Debate Round No. 1
nicktaylor03

Pro

Taxes is how the economy works, We may not like taxes, But it is an obligation to pay our taxes and respond accordingly. If there was a income-based health care tax, We would be able to use universal health care, Which was the ultimate goal of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). I can argue through this logic that if we can enact a health care tax so people without coverage, Can afford coverage without emptying their pockets. Every American deserves not to have health care bills that are astronomically high.
mpatter

Con

Whether taxes are how the "economy works" does not make it any less of a theft to take someone else's possessions, And redistribute it to someone else. Taxes are a forced "obligation" without the consent of the property owner.

I believe you are correct that people should have access to healthcare, But this should not entail the theft of property by force. Most career jobs offer benefits, And currently people can be on their parent's insurance until 27 years old, So we cannot really argue that they do not have insurance because they are too young to have a job with benefits.

When I was younger, Everyone thought of fast food and retail jobs as a student job, Not as a career. Now I see some people working in the same fast food company for decades. How is this now a career, And why have they not applied for a job with benefits? A lifelong lack of responsibility and poor planning should not justify taking from another to provide a service that someone does not earn.
Debate Round No. 2
nicktaylor03

Pro

People who are working low-wage jobs did not choose to do such. Some people who work low-wage jobs have college degrees and a family, But can not put that degree to use due to the lack of jobs available in a certain area. Yes, Fast-food low wage jobs were seen as student jobs, But students now are not working these jobs anymore. This in turn, Makes adults have to fill these empty jobs and can not find another place to work because of a certain background, Etc. However, These fast food CEO"s make more money than you and I will ever see in life, Why don"t they provide benfits?

The lack of available benefits for a wide range of jobs cause this healthcare breakdown. If it was required to provide benefits to your workers, Then we would not have this "universal health care. " I highly dissagree that someone must "earn" healthcare like you are implying. Everyone should have access to affordable health care. Period.
mpatter

Con

I think you hit the nail on the head when you asked why overpaid CEOs do not offer their employees benefits. This is a great question as it is not the government's responsibility to provide health benefits, But the employers. The employer should be doing this, But this does not absolve the employee from personal responsibility for attaining healthcare. By the time someone is 28, They should be able to care for them sufficiently to find a job with benefits.

My mother has worked at Walmart for over 30 years, And my younger brother for probably 20. Both have healthcare benefits. Not everyone there gets benefits as most are part time and/or temporary, But if you are full time, You can receive benefits. Most people work within driving distance of a Walmart. Costco, Lowe's, REI (best outdoor store), Target, Trader Joe's, Staples and Whole Foods all offer health insurance, Including to part time workers (but by 28 you do not have an excuse to not be working full time).

For fast food, In-N-Out (best burger chain ever), And Starbucks, Offer benefits. I believe you would be hard pressed to find anywhere in the USA that did not have a Walmart or Starbucks within a reasonable commuting distance, Then you throw in all the other shops, And one is left without excuse. If the burger joint, Or retail store you are working at does not offer benefits, Take responsibility for yourself and find one that does. Better yet, Move outside of fast food and get a career. Move if you need to. Citizens should not be forced to cover the cost of health care due to others their lack of accountability on finding health care.

Regardless of this, Fast food and retail is not a career. Yes my mother has worked at Walmart for a long time, And I guess for her it has become a career, But she does it in order for the family to have benefits, While my father works (actually retired) at a higher paying job. If you have a two income family, At least one person can get benefits for the both of you at a minimum at somewhere like Walmart.

The question to me is not only about taking funds by force and redistributing it, But also how the cost will be covered. In 2015 our government spent 3. 8 trillion dollars. Universal healthcare is estimated to cost 32 trillion dollars over the course of ten year. This would not double our taxes, But pretty close. Our country already spends more money than it brings in with taxes, Can we really afford to double our spending?
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ThoughtsandThoughts 1 week ago
ThoughtsandThoughts
nicktaylor03mpatterTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument about taxes is interesting, but it was a red herring to the debate. The debate was about universal healthcare, not if taxes for healthcare are justified. Furthermore, there are already taxes for healthcare. Pro did have good arguments about why taxes are necessary, although this was not relevant to the debate. As for the actual debate, pro did make a very good point, saying "I highly dissagree that someone must "earn" healthcare..." and con didn't really refute this. Con finally then discusses cost of universal healthcare, but I take issue with the fact that (1) the claim is not backed up with evidence. Okay, $32 trillion says who? (2) Con's previous arguments about taxes were a red herring, and this argument was only presented after pro could not form a rebuttal