The Instigator
NeoLiberal
Pro (for)
Winning
40 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Losing
9 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,062 times Debate No: 4595
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (13)

 

NeoLiberal

Pro

I saw another person attempt to start this debate but didn't have the time. I've lived in Europe, Asia, Canada, and the US and have some experience with health alternatives so I'll take up the PRO.

I would like to argue a position in favor of universal health care for the US. Such an issue cannot be proven in absolute terms, but I believe there is enough evidence to make a persuasive case to reform toward such a goal.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

Universal health care never has, never will, and never can exist. There are countries which steal exorbitant sums of money to provide universal health insurance- But this is not synonymous with care, because, since the government is the only party paying for health insurance, and they are not receiving the benefits (or rather, they receive different, special benefits, for being government), they are motivated to limit costs. Since it is a state run enterprise, limiting costs by promoting efficiency or innovating is out of the question. The only way to do it is to make it law that the doctors charge less. Since this means the doctors are slaves (along with many other laws that attend state interference in health care, such as the laws requiring doctors to care for every comer, and of course taxes, which mean everyone is a slave,) fewer people want to be doctors. This limits supply. Which means you get put on waiting lists, on which some people happen to die. Not universal then is it?

Now of course, it wouldn't matter if it really was universal health care. Either way, it's still universal taxation, universal slavery. A slave is anyone treated as though they exist for the sake of another person, rather than being treated as though they exist for their own sake. Theft is not compatible with the target of the theft existing for their own sake. Voluntary trade of value for value is, but state health care does not achieve that, namely the "voluntary" part, and by monopolizing health care, it reduces the quality and thus on net does not achieve the "Value for value" part either. Of course, this is difficult to observe, because, this will come as a shock to you, but every country, whether they claim to have "universal health care" or not, including the US, has state run health care. The insurance companies are "private" in name only, so long as congressional law rather than the law of individual rights decides who they are allowed to ensure, for what eventualities, at what price, and to whose benefit (taxes). The only thing that remains private about it is, occasionally, the development of new medicines. A "universal health care" program in the US, would cause the same factors to affect our development of medicines as the factors in the countries that currently have such programs- development would slow to a trickle, because the payer (Congress) would be motivated to keep new drugs off the market as much as politically possible to keep it's budget down. They put price controls on private drugs, killing development of those, and then take over development and turn it into a circus act. The science of health care would essentially be frozen in stasis.

"I've lived in Europe, Asia, Canada, and the US and have some experience with health alternatives"

No, you have experience with the system of explicit state control of health care. and the US system of implicit state control of health care. You have not experienced free-market health care.

"Such an issue cannot be proven in absolute terms"
Reality is absolute, why can't a political program be?

For those who do not understand the extent to which American health care has already been slowed by the state, I invite you to read this article... bit of a long one :D

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com...
Debate Round No. 1
NeoLiberal

Pro

I don't think most objective readers would agree taxes are "slavery" and use that to justify any position. If democratic institutions can provide a superior service, then I'm willing use them. I enjoy living in society and I recognize taxes are the price of using those benefits.

To remain objective, I will also stick with non-political sources (NGOs, Government reports, medical journals, mainstream publications).

I have to admit I am probably taking the easy side of this debate, as every other industrialized country has already debated this issue and settled on universal healthcare. Only the poorest countries have no such systems.

Your ideology says universal systems will cause fewer people to become doctors. The facts show the US produces FEWER doctors and nurses than most universal systems. MORE people become doctors in universal systems because the government usually subsidizes their education.

http://www.oecd.org...

You say there will be less research, but the facts show the countries that spend largest share of their economy on medical research are the Nordics, France, UK, and Japan. The Nordics have the largest public share of healthcare and still perform much better in all areas of research.

http://www.oecd.org...

Even in the US, most of the discoveries are made by government funding - not the private sector. The NBER and Congressional JEC Commission found 75% of the most significant US pharmaceutical drugs came directly from GOVERNMENT R&D. They also found a 700% rise in private research was mainly to alter existing drugs for new patents, without offering any new advantage or discoveries. R&D is only 1-2% of US medical spending - I think we have a lot of room to cut without impacting research.

http://www.pnas.org...

I see no reason to believe there will be fewer doctors or less research when many universal systems already do better in both these measures, and the US' primary discoveries are already made by public spending, not private.

So, here are my arguments for public health insurance for all:

1) Universal systems cost less because they are more efficient. The US spends about twice as much per person (18% GDP compared to 9% or $7000 vs $3000), but remains the only country unable to insure 20% of its population. The largest cost difference is overhead and administrative waste, which accounts for 31% of the private sector costs and 1/3 of healthcare jobs. If the US could only increase efficiency to Canadian levels (one of the least efficient systems, at 15%), we could extend insurance to all Americans without spending an extra dime.

The US medicare and medicaid programs are much more efficient, covering older and poorer people for much less than the private sector. High private sector overhead costs are due to marketing, inability to share information across competitors, the research to identify & deny high risk individuals, profit, lower economies of scale, etc. Universal systems scale well and medical records are often digitized, available to all medical providers. They do not face the waste you see with thousands of different providers trying to negotiate with countless insurers in the US.

http://www.pnhp.org...
http://content.healthaffairs.org...

2) Universal systems create a healthier society. When individuals are sick or develop conditions, they are treated earlier in universal systems before they become life-threatening or have to use more expensive emergency services. "U.S. patients are more likely to report experiencing medical errors, to go without care because of costs, and to say that the health care system needs to be rebuilt completely. U.S. patients are also the least likely to be able to get a same-day appointment with their physicians when sick and the most likely to seek care in emergency rooms as an alternative."

http://www.commonwealthfund.org...

3) A universal insurance system allows Americans to be more mobile, take greater risks, and hire workers. Unexpected health conditions are the largest cause of bankruptcies in the US and most of these people had homes, health insurance, and good jobs. People can start businesses without risking their health and they can be more competitive as they can add employees without incurring additional insurance costs.

http://www.bloomberg.com...

4) Public services are regulated by democratic participation. People care a lot about their health and every program is measured by agencies and watched closely by the public. A well-funtioning society balances both democratic institutions and market-mechanisms and doesn't rely on one exclusively.

5) We know universal systems cost less and generally have better results than the current US system because we have other examples to look to. It would be prudent to pick the best from each system and adapt it in an American way.

SOME countries have wait times, but many do not. As market-friendly Businessweek pointed out, "In reality, data shows the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems". And Economist Paul Krugman noted, "America ranks near the bottom among advanced countries in terms of how hard it is to get medical attention on short notice... [and] is the worst place if you need care after hours or on a weekend."

Wait times are almost exclusively found for non-emergency procedures, especially for the elderly (cataract surgery, hip surgery) in countries like Canada. Although the US does not typically have wait-times for such procedures, they are currently funded by the US GOVERNMENT already through medicare. This advantage is not provided by a superior private system, but a better funded PUBLIC system.

http://www.businessweek.com...
http://economistsview.typepad.com...

Canada is the closest system to the US. They have state-run universal insurance, but doctors and hospitals are private. They are one of the least efficient models, but nowhere near as expensive or poor-performing as the US. Joint US-Canada government studies show Canadians were more likely to receive care than Americans (despite wait lines for the elderly). Canada's problems are isolated to a sharp cutback in health spending in the 90s, when it was determined there were TOO MANY doctors. Physicians felt their wages were suffering from too much competition.

http://www.cdc.gov...
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

:"
I don't think most objective readers would agree taxes are "slavery" and use that to justify any position. If democratic institutions can provide a superior service, then I'm willing use them."

Taxes are theft. When you treat theft as the right thing, you treat the victim as a slave, i.e. someone who exists for the sake of the perpetrator. This is objective.

And democratic institutions do not provide a superior service to the free market, indeed, they do not provide a service so much as they provide oppression.

"I enjoy living in society and I recognize taxes are the price of using those benefits."
You can't imagine a society in which thievery is not the primary method of funding the government? It is nevertheless possible, so taxes are not in fact the price.

"
To remain objective, I will also stick with non-political sources (NGOs, Government reports, medical journals, mainstream publications).
"
Not one of those is "non-political." There is no such thing as a "non-political" source, ESPECIALLY government reports, which are political by definition, and the least objective of all observers in this.

"Your ideology says universal systems will cause fewer people to become doctors. The facts show the US produces FEWER doctors and nurses than most universal systems. MORE people become doctors in universal systems because the government usually subsidizes their education."
Your source did not demonstrate that. And the subsidies obviously show there is something to make up for. I am speaking of "natural" production. Spending endlessly increasing amounts of government cash to find more doctors and cover up the problem obviously creates problems somewhere else the cash is needed. Note that the quality of the doctors in question is also at issue.

":You say there will be less research, but the facts show the countries that spend largest share of their economy on medical research are the Nordics, France, UK, and Japan. The Nordics have the largest public share of healthcare and still perform much better in all areas of research.
."

Excuse me, I do not see the term "research" in that source. And note the corruption of the comparison- the US is already 44% socialized, and that's just the DIRECT public funding. No free market has been given as a comparison.

"
Even in the US, most of the discoveries are made by government funding - not the private sector. The NBER and Congressional JEC Commission found 75% of the most significant US pharmaceutical drugs came directly from GOVERNMENT R&D. They also found a 700% rise in private research was mainly to alter existing drugs for new patents, without offering any new advantage or discoveries. R&D is only 1-2% of US medical spending - I think we have a lot of room to cut without impacting research."

The source given does not contain the number 75... and note, of course, that the private companies are essentially crippled in what they can bring to the market in our present system. The choice is not between our current system and socialized medicine, the free market is also an option, and that implies the removal of regulatory barriers to testing new drugs on consenting parties.

"
1) Universal systems cost less because they are more efficient. The US spends about twice as much per person (18% GDP compared to 9% or $7000 vs $3000), but remains the only country unable to insure 20% of its population."
The US is already most of the way to being a universal system. It is not a valid indicator of the free market, the alternative I am advocating (note that the costs, as explained in the article I linked, are the results of such insurance rules as mandatory acceptance, mandatory coverage of various ailments not in the contract- in essence, precisely those moves that are already in the direction of universal health care. Note also you are only measuring direct spending- you aren't measuring the overall economic destruction caused by the high rates of taxation in many such countries (even the small amounts of private industry left in the US cause it to have nearly 10,000 dollars more per capita GDP than Canada, the most geographically and culturally similar of socialized countries.) When faced with that stark difference, percentages of GDP clearly only tell part of the story.

"The largest cost difference is overhead and administrative waste, which accounts for 31% of the private sector costs and 1/3 of healthcare jobs."
Note that it's never mentioned what constitutes this supposed "administrative waste," and also that most of that in government bureaucracy could be very easily classified as a "non-health care" expense even when it results from the health care system, creating illusory benefits. I wouldn't put it past the average government accountant. After all, it's easy to classify time filling out forms that make sure the right medicines go to the right patients as "waste," as long as you use dry language so no one looks into it.

"High private sector overhead costs are due to marketing,"

I.e. providing information to consumers about the product. Hmm, wonder how much information should be cut out in a universal system.

"inability to share information across competitors,"
Inability? What information?

"the research to identify & deny high risk individuals,"
Which SAVES money. Hmm.

"profit,"
i.e. the mechanism for making sure that only the services people actually want are invested in.

"lower economies of scale,"
Only because anytime a company tries to fix that, by expanding, they are the victim of antitrust laws. In essence the government hold's a gangster-style monopoly on economies of scale in such situations. That does not apply in the free market situation I am advocating.

"
2) Universal systems create a healthier society. When individuals are sick or develop conditions, they are treated earlier in universal systems before they become life-threatening or have to use more expensive emergency services"
Then what's with all the reports of people going on waiting lists? Even this source, probably against me: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:YC_ag9J6Oc8J:www.amsa.org/studytours/WaitingTimes_primer.pdf+canadian+versus+US+wait+times&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

admits that the US has much shorter wait times for those who deserve (pay for) a procedure, and that universal health care would increase the wait time.

Indeed, many of the differences in health between the United States and other industrialized countries have to do with obesity , which universal health care does nothing to help.

""U.S. patients are more likely to report experiencing medical errors, to go without care because of costs, and to say that the health care system needs to be rebuilt completely. U.S. patients are also the least likely to be able to get a same-day appointment with their physicians when sick and the most likely to seek care in emergency rooms as an alternative."
US consumers are notorious for complaining more about everything to everyone. That is a problem with this data.

"
3) A universal insurance system allows Americans to be more mobile, take greater risks, and hire workers."
At the cost of the seizure of any gains they happen to make. And the experience of the generally worse economies of countries with universal health care contradicts you.

"
4) Public services are regulated by democratic participation. "
Mob rule is not helpful to your case.
Debate Round No. 2
NeoLiberal

Pro

I am showing universal healthcare in the rest of the world is considerably cheaper and performance is generally better than the US. Such statistics and data are not "bunk" - if the system is better, then the US would be better to use it. My proposals are based on objective facts we can measure, rather than a hypothetical dream that has never existed.

It makes no sense to say the US system is worse than the rest of the countries because of the government. These other countries have the same government regulations as the US PLUS considerably more. The most successful nations have government providing up to 90% of healthcare costs, and have excellent research and economies as well.

To clarify my sources, I use journals, NGOs and government agencies because these are the standards used in academia. As published for peer-review, they are most reliable sources.

As the OECD data "R&D as a percentage of GDP" showed, nations with the highest R&D spending were universal systems, not the US. You cannot say R&D will SLOW to a "trickle" from government, when these countries already have HIGHER R&D rates and much more government. Drug R&D was the ONE THING you said remains private about the US.

http://titania.sourceoecd.org...

Yes, my source did say Americans produce fewer doctors and nurses than universal systems...

"Despite the relatively high level of health expenditure in the United States, there are fewer physicians per capita than in most other OECD countries. In 2002, the United States had 2.3 practising physicians per 1 000 population, below the OECD average of 2.9. There were 7.9 nurses per 1 000 population in the United States in 2002, which is lower than the average of 8.2 across OECD countries."

http://www.oecd.org...

Although 75% was not used by the report's authors, their data clearly stated the pharmaceutical drugs discovered ALL relied on some government funding, but the government research provided the primary discovery in 73% of the first group and 83% in the second. This was after 2/3 of the drugs were set aside because they had been discovered by foreign countries.

http://www.pnas.org...

You also seem to be arguing there exists a global conspiracy to make private-system overhead costs look much higher than the rest of the world, including US publicly funded systems. The article from the New England Journal of Medicine makes its definitions quite clear and it is consistent with every other major journal publication on the matter.

Increased marketing waste is a standard "Prisoner's Dilemma" economic scenario where markets can be less efficient than government. When a company starts to compete by increased marketing, competitors have to do the same. Eventually, everyone pays more with no increase in service. Other countries rely on physicians to make medical decisions on published research, not drug companies paying doctors to promote their drug or marketing directly to consumers with no medical training, as in the US.

Research to deny potentially unhealthy people does NOT save money. It saves the insurer money, but passes the full cost on to someone else. The cost to the entire economy is actually much higher as a result.

Healthcare will never be an efficient market-system because nobody will "shop around" when they need care and providers will always maximize their profit. A person will normally pay everything to live, so you need an organized consumer agency to collectively negotiate prices, as every universal system does.

If you don't believe the NEJM, perhaps I can show how overhead waste exists in the US private system. In Canada or the UK, I simply show my health card and any doctor's office or hospital has my information available. They know my history, concerns, and can rush me in right away. In the US, each insurer has their own "network" of hospitals or doctors I must use. Before I can even be seen, I must fill out paperwork and guarantee I have an insurer within the "network". Finally, the doctor must call my insurer and negotiate any procedures, which they have a profit-incentive to deny (physicians are trained to negotiate differently for each major insurer). This is very wasteful.

"[Source] admits that the US has much shorter wait times for those who deserve (pay for) a procedure, and that universal health care would increase the wait time."

Actually, it says the US has shorter waits for ELECTIVE NON-EMERGENCY treatment than CANADA. It also says the Americans were more likely to go without such care, which seems like a much worse trade off. The previous sources pointed out waiting for EMERGENCY care was longer in the US than anywhere else. Americans wait more for emergency care, are more likely to go without elective care, but shorter wait times for those who get it is a better system?

Although better than the US, Canada has unique problems which aren't common in most universal systems and wouldn't exist in the US. Physicians can be trained by Canadian taxpayers and move away to the US where most physicians have high debt and must demand higher wages. Canada cut back on spending in the 90s, when a surplus of physicians was a greater problem. Canada is the best healthcare system to attack because it is the most similar system to the US.

Universal healthcare is not "mob rule" because it is UNIVERSAL. All taxpayers get it, and they all get the same basic level of insurance. Your article even criticized the admirable fact that Sweden's Prime Minister could not "cut in line" ahead of the poor.

Actually, EU and US obesity rates are quite similar. In many EU countries, obesity is even higher. Smoking (a more serious killer) is also higher in Europe. They also have higher rates of immigration, especially in nations like Sweden, Denmark, or Germany.
http://www.guardian.co.uk...

As for the economy, Europe is doing just fine. The IMF's richest 10 nations includes all of the Scandinavian and welfare states, with the highest tax rates and largest government health spending in the world. Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Qatar. The US has slipped out of the top 10.
http://tinyurl.com...

Many people forget to adjust for population growth and fail to realize Europe has actually grown faster than the US over the last decade once we account for this (US growth is mostly due to faster population growth). US deficits, low savings, falling dollar and rising inflation suggest America isn't likely to catch up soon.

http://tinyurl.com...
http://www.sciam.com...
http://www.policyalternatives.ca...
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
I am showing universal healthcare in the rest of the world is considerably cheaper and performance is generally better than the US."
With a faulty measure of costs.

"
It makes no sense to say the US system is worse than the rest of the countries because of the government. These other countries have the same government regulations as the US PLUS considerably more."
We also aren't subsidized like they are by having a superpower take all the security problems of the world onto their backs. Because we are that superpower. The US bureaucracy has considerably more considerations to deal with, as such, we aren't as good at postponing the negative impacts of universal health care (yes postponing, economics is a long term game, so long term that most of the consequences of universal health care are in the future for the countries that already have it, because they haven't had it for all that long).

"
As the OECD data "R&D as a percentage of GDP" showed, nations with the highest R&D spending were universal systems, not the US. You cannot say R&D will SLOW to a "trickle" from government, when these countries already have HIGHER R&D rates and much more government.Drug R&D was the ONE THING you said remains private about the US."

I made a mistake. We already have socialized R&D. Yet the government is clearly operating at capacity at the moment. Which would mean it would likely not mitigate the essential disappearance of the 25% of the market that is semi-private.

"
You also seem to be arguing there exists a global conspiracy to make private-system overhead costs look much higher than the rest of the world, including US publicly funded systems."
It doesn't take a conspiracy to cover up such simple things, just whatever care for their own hides the bureaucrats have :D.

"

Increased marketing waste is a standard "Prisoner's Dilemma" economic scenario where markets can be less efficient than government. When a company starts to compete by increased marketing, competitors have to do the same. Eventually, everyone pays more with no increase in service."

Information about what is available is an increase in service.

"Research to deny potentially unhealthy people does NOT save money. It saves the insurer money, but passes the full cost on to someone else."
Only if that someone else is forced to pay it.

"
Healthcare will never be an efficient market-system because nobody will "shop around" when they need care"

Not all care is emergency care you know.

"and providers will always maximize their profit."
Don't you think maybe, the providers who provide cheaper care would be able to ADVERTISE that fact, and so negate this? Especially considering how health care was much cheaper before the employer-tied health insurance laws caused a lack of economizing on that front.

"A person will normally pay everything to live, so you need an organized consumer agency to collectively negotiate prices, as every universal system does."
Again, not every day is an emergency. And mandating prices by law does not count as negotiation.

"In the US, each insurer has their own "network" of hospitals or doctors I must use."
No, SOME insurers do. Others allow you to choose. And this is a consequence of the state-mandated extension of insurance. Health insurance was originally intended only to cover expensive emergencies, the rest to be paid out of pocket, and the rest was much cheaper as a result. The rise in expense results from the laws that state patients who cannot pay MUST be treated... meaning, we already HAVE a de facto universal system. Everyone gets health care, as long as they steal it openly by marching to the emergency room.

"Finally, the doctor must call my insurer and negotiate any procedures, which they have a profit-incentive to deny"

They only have a profit-incentive to deny it because they are legally forbidden to make a list of specific ailments they will cover and no more. If they did make such a list, the risk of such an easily losable lawsuit for violation of contract would reverse the profit incentive.

"
Actually, it says the US has shorter waits for ELECTIVE NON-EMERGENCY treatment than CANADA. "
I.e. encouraging such problems to be left untreated in Canada, and thus encouraging it to become an emergency issue.

"t also says the Americans were more likely to go without such care"
Care they didn't pay for. And unfortunately they still manage to get it if they know where to go :D

"The previous sources pointed out waiting for EMERGENCY care was longer in the US than anywhere else"

Because the emergency room is where our current universal health care system is handled.

"Americans wait more for emergency care, are more likely to go without elective care, but shorter wait times for those who get it is a better system?"
The only relevant factor in judging a system is the experience of those who have earned it's services. The experience of the thieves is not relevant.

"
Universal healthcare is not "mob rule" because it is UNIVERSAL."
Any system in which people can be stolen from, the only justification being the preponderance of numbers against them, is mob rule.

"
As for the economy, Europe is doing just fine. The IMF's richest 10 nations includes all of the Scandinavian and welfare states, with the highest tax rates and largest government health spending in the world. Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Qatar. The US has slipped out of the top 10."
These are all much smaller countries. Their sample size is much smaller, thus, they are dealing with a different sort of country. Canada is a much more comparable country to deal with. Canada is the only "universal health care" country with a similar sample size, culture, etc. to the US. It is the only reasonable grounds for comparison.
And hmm, highest tax rates... That means the least amount of what you earn remaining with you. That won't last. Economics is longer term than that.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
typo: I meant to say independent.
Posted by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
I meant for my statement regarding compassion to be dependent of my support for Ragnar Rahl's argument. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was merely speaking against the socialistic principle of universal health care in general.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
*Fantastic comment* Brian Eggleston.
Perhaps the most incisive I've ever seen on the site :-)
Posted by NeoLiberal 8 years ago
NeoLiberal
Yes, good debate, Ragnar_Rahl. Perhaps we can one day debate about different economic systems as this is probably more interesting to you. I haven't decided yet though if I'll stick around here.

Jamce... Ragnar_Rahl is right. Neither of us argued what system was more compassionate. We just argued which system would be more efficient and productive, and neither of us seemed to believe the current US system was perticularly good.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"a more conservative-minded person who regards taxes spent helping the less fortunate in society as a form of theft.
"
Conservative? That's not conservative! Conservative means you support the status quo! Does the complete elimination of taxes sound like the status quo to you?

Note that I didn't make any claims about compassion Jamcke...

*extends a hand to Neoliberal*

Good debate. I'm sure we'll be at war in the future of course :D
Posted by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
I agree with Ragnar Rahl. Universal health care is NOT the most compassionate system. If the government didn't suck our wallets dry, we could afford to pay for basic necessities. By the time you pay income tax, SS, local/state taxes, medicare, etc out of your pay check, you then have to pay sales tax and a drastically inflated price hike on goods and services due to out of control inflation. Cut the IRS and the Federal Reserve out of the equation and we can afford to take care of ourselves.
Posted by NeoLiberal 8 years ago
NeoLiberal
Yes, it was a good debate. This was my first debate so I'm not sure what works best here. Ragnar_Rahl looks to be a well respected debater, so I was lucky to be matched up with him.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Very interesting debate which polarised the differences betweem a liberal-mided person who clearly believes that a decent, universal healthcare system is one of the hallmarks of a civilised nation and a more conservative-minded person who regards taxes spent helping the less fortunate in society as a form of theft.

We could do with more debates like this on this site.
Posted by NeoLiberal 8 years ago
NeoLiberal
Businessweek is citing the Commonwealth study, as published in the medical journal Health Affairs.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org...

http://content.healthaffairs.org...
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
To conclude the round, all of this empirical data is bunk, because none of it is related to actual free markets, which are the alternative to universal health care I am advocating.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by FemaleGamer 7 years ago
FemaleGamer
NeoLiberalRagnar_RahlTied
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 Osiris 7 years ago
Osiris
NeoLiberalRagnar_RahlTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
NeoLiberalRagnar_RahlTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by regperez 8 years ago
regperez
NeoLiberalRagnar_RahlTied
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 appletreez 8 years ago
appletreez
NeoLiberalRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by NeoLiberal 8 years ago
NeoLiberal
NeoLiberalRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
NeoLiberalRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
NeoLiberalRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
NeoLiberalRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JakeRoss 8 years ago
JakeRoss
NeoLiberalRagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30