The Instigator
JorgeLucas
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
ConformistDave
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Universal Healthcare

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
JorgeLucas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,271 times Debate No: 26267
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

JorgeLucas

Con

I will argue against universal healthcare, my opponent will argue for universal healthcare. Both sides must provide their own arguments for their respective claims, as well as rebuttals. I will allow my opponent to begin argumentation since I am Con.
ConformistDave

Pro

Sounds good.

Rules
1. No trolling.
2. No semantics.
3. For the love of god, no trolling semantics.
Debate Round No. 1
JorgeLucas

Con

Thank you to ConformistDave for accepting this debate.

Contentions:

1. Healthcare is not a right
Rights are things such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One is entitled to them at birth, no matter where or when they live. Rights protect against coercion. Healthcare is a privilege. It must be given by somebody else, and certainly has not existed for all of human history. Cavemen were obviously not entitled to healthcare because it didn't exist for them. If healthcare was not universal, it would be a voluntary transaction, but under universal healthcare the doctor or insurance company is not allowed to say 'no' to somebody. Not only is healthcare not a right,

2. Many insurance workers will lose their jobs
Since government healthcare is funded by taxes, people are paying money into it. If they seek private healthcare instead, they end up paying for two insurances, when they only need one. This would of course be illogical, so private insurance companies would slowly go out of business. This would cause many insurance workers to lose their jobs. This is clearly not beneficial to society.

I would like to remind my opponent to put forth his own claims as well as rebutting mine. I look forward to what he has to say.
ConformistDave

Pro

1. Healthcare is not a right- Many of the rights you had mentioned were negative rights, and thus you have completely overlooked the situation at hand. Rights do in fact protect against coercion, but also in fact have to be just, to serve the populace. Many folks would agree that the right to counsel, and the military would be legitimate concerns for society to serve. Healthcare does have to be given by someone else, but so does food if you are not a farmer. We all like food. Cavemen were not entitled to banks and crediting institutions either. The caveman is not a model to base our society over. If healthcare was not universal, then you are right it would be a voluntary transaction. And the bottom line is, if you can't meet the exuberant costs of nearly 8,000 dollars per person, and not to mention the fact that insurance policies rise exponentially each year, then you are out of luck. If universal healthcare were to pass, not only would health care costs decrease, but also that $25,000 bill wouldn't only be put on poor grandma.

2. Many insurance workers would lose their jobs- Okay maybe in that particular setting, but you are looking at this claim very narrowly. Just the recently passed health care reform itself is going to create many jobs. About 6 million worth of jobs. The industrial revolution made people lose jobs sure, but looking back we can say we were glad that it had taken place. If some people seek private insurance that is up to them. But don't expect the rest of us to put our goals on hold, for someone that would still want to go through hoops for health insurance. Be my guest.

Claims

1- The United States is one of the few countries that doesn't have a national or universal healthcare. If you look around the world you will see that while we actually have the lowest health among developed countries, countries that spend much less on healthcare are much happier and have more money in their pocket.

2- We have to look out for our own people- Many organizations can cut off the middle man of insurance companies, and still deliver good results. it is estimated that 20-30 million Americans can have quality care, and on regular healthcare that they would not be able to get any other way but with community help. Federal Grants simply work. And this is the sad part, many organizations that would want federal aid simply cannot get it, because people like my opponent simply fear a universal healthcare blindly.
Debate Round No. 2
JorgeLucas

Con

Defense:

1. Healthcare is not a right
Negative rights are the only rights. Positive rights infringe on the negative rights of others, and thus are not rights. My opponent mentions other positive 'rights' but fails to understand that they too are privileges, not rights. As for cavemen, my opponent strawmans my argument. I did not say we should base our society on caveman society. I said that we have the same inalienable rights as cavemen. As for the 'poor grandma' argument, this is precisely the reason why we have insurance. But insurance must be voluntary, just like any other ethical transaction. Under universal healthcare, the only elderly that are helped are those that lived their lives irresponsibly. Those that lived responsibly end up wealthy, and those grandmas are the ones paying the bill. Universal healthcare encourages irresponsibility, and that is not the basis for a functioning society.

2. Many insurance workers would lose their jobs
How exactly would Obamacare create jobs? I would like a source and an explanation. As for the industrial revolution, jobs were created. That's what happens when there is innovation. And yes, some people did lose their jobs, but that will always happen. What shouldn't happen is the government intervening and choosing a side. People that lose jobs in a free market can get new ones, but if they were forced out of their job by the government, this will be a lot harder. As for everyone having to put off goals because somebody else had the audacity to make their own decision in life, this makes no sense. The government will have to increase taxes to pay for healthcare. That impedes people's goals.

Rebuttal:

1. Happiness is abstract. It cannot be quantified. That aside, drugs make people happy as well. That does not make them healthy. 'Free' healthcare creates a false sense of happiness. As for countries with universal healthcare having more money, Greece has universal healthcare. The country is broke and many cannot afford healthcare anyway (1).

2. The claim that we have to look out for the poor is moral hypocrisy. My opponent does not believe this claim, because if he did, he would simply donate to charities. Instead, he and many others instead try to force other people to pay taxes to somebody else (the government), who then forces somebody else (doctors, insurance companies) to give up their rights to support the privileges of the poor. Donating ethical and simple, government intervention is unethical and complicated. As for fearing universal healthcare blindly, I think the fact that I am debating this means that I have reasons that are far from blind.

Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
ConformistDave

Pro

1. Healthcare is not a right- My opponent and I, simply have a different view on what is and what is not a right. He seems to think that the "poor grandma" argument is something to mock. It is reported that 15% of the baby boomer generation was uninsured in 2009. With a whole generation about to retire, his "ethical" voluntarism would simply be disastrous. it surprises me that my friend here seems to think that those that live ethically are those that become wealthy. LOL. Whether or not the elderly generation lived responsibly or not, we have the burden to take care of them. Universal healthcare does not encourage people to be irresponsible. That is absolutely absurd. It encourages us to act as a nation, and to pool our resources in the most effective manner. He claims to have cited wikipedia as a source. Greece is a completely different scenario than the United States, and comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges.

2. Many insurance workers would lose their jobs- Obamacare is reported to created approximately 6 million jobs by the end of the decade. This is because through reform and salary bonus, the best and the brightest will be looking to enter the medical field. This is wonderful news considering the string of unfortunate events that led us to the Great Recession. The source I will provide is an in-depth pdf file from Georgetown Public Policy Institute, explaining the much needed healthcare reform. And also, in the industrial revolution jobs were created, and also some jobs were lost. The industrial revolution had much economic growth due to public-private ownership, and granted rights from the state. Taxation does not necessarily impede peoples goals. And as of moral concerns, charities are questionable. Many charities are involved in morally questionable shenanigans.

P.S. Drugs don't necessarily make people happy.

Source: http://www9.georgetown.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
JorgeLucas

Con

1. Our different views on rights are the keys to our argument. What my opponent doesn't understand is that if a 'right' violates a true right, then the 'right' cannot be considered a right. As for "poor grandma", there is a difference between mocking and refutation. What I did was the latter. The 15% of baby boomers who have no insurance made a decision, and it is not the business of the rest of us to change it. Also, that number is unsourced. I'm not sure what my opponent finds so amusing about ethics and wealth. While there is corruption and theft, wealth comes from responsibility, and responsibility is ethical. Corruption and theft are irresponsible, and do not truly create wealth because the money belongs to somebody else. Universal healthcare, like all welfare programs, teach people to be irresponsible. There is no way around that. If any risk to one's actions are taken away, people will do extremely risky things, knowing there will be no consequences. As for wikipedia being a source, my opponent's reaction is very strange. He makes many unsourced claims, but when I provide a source he attacks it. Anyways, my opponent said that countries with universal healthcare are wealthier than the United States. I provided an example of a country with universal healthcare that is suffering right now, and he claims that it is a completely different scenario. By that logic, any countries he was thinking of when he made his initial claim must also be irrelevant.

2. If universal healthcare tries to artificially lower medical costs, doctors will be payed less. The best and the brightest will not want to go into such a field. The growth in the industrial revolution was not due to anything involving the government. It was due to innovations, leading to new industries, new companies, and new jobs. Taxation may not impede goals that much, but that is like justifying robbing somebody by saying that it wasn't that much money. As for the morally questionable shenanigans of charities, the government is no better. The government has a long history of morally reprehensible behaviors. And government's money is not voluntary, but coercive. That in itself is wrong, but even more so if taxes are increased. If the government didn't try to monopolize welfare, wouldn't charities have more incentive to behave better?

P.S. Healthcare doesn't necessarily make people happy either.

Thank you to ConformistDave for this debate. Vote Con.
ConformistDave

Pro

ConformistDave forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ConformistDave 4 years ago
ConformistDave
sorry for forfeiting last round. been really busy lately.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
JorgeLucasConformistDaveTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Con urged for a vote for him, which automatically lost him the conduct point. His grammar was better, however, not containing 'text-speech.' Otherwise, the debate didn't go very much of anywhere.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
JorgeLucasConformistDaveTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
JorgeLucasConformistDaveTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Oh oh oh