The Instigator
Laprlev
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
KamranF
Con (against)
Losing
0 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 4 votes the winner is...
Laprlev
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 505 times Debate No: 57067
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Laprlev

Pro

1st Round - Acceptance. 2nd Round - Arguments. 3rd Round - Rebuttals/Arguments. (Pro = For, Con = Against.)
KamranF

Con

I accept to debate on the subject of universal health care. I will be debating the Con (against) side.
Debate Round No. 1
Laprlev

Pro

Welcome, Con! Thank you for accepting this debate. I look forward to a constructive experience.

First off, let me start by saying I am truly surprised that people still do not support universal healthcare in America.

The United States stands entirely alone among developed nations that lack universal healthcare.

The United States spends almost $8,508 per capita for healthcare. This is an astounding number when, most of the developed world, namely Europe, spends half of that per capita (about $4,250.) For a visual, take a look at the first graph on this link: [http://m.dailykos.com...]

How can the richest country in the world spend $8,500 per capita for healthcare and we still do not have universal healthcare? Unlike the rest of the developed world. The answer? Simply put, America has the worst healthcare system in the developed world. The Commonwealth Fund says this: "The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world, but this report and prior editions consistently show the U.S. underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. Among the 11 nations studied in this report"Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States"the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2010, 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity."

The Commonwealth Fund is a private foundation that has been conducting healthcare policy research for generations so, this is not from one report or one person, but yet, a whole organization through years of research.

Supporting what a terrible healthcare system we have, look at the Exhibit ES-1. Overall Ranking graph on the above link. As the author of this article wrote: "Spoiler Alert: We're last."

It is pretty obvious that with the amount of money that we are spending on healthcare in correlation to the graphs and how we rank, (last in access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives) we have the most unaffordable system.

Clearly, from this article, America must do something to enact Universal Healthcare. With all the problems of access for low-income families, equity, and efficiency, we are far, far behind the rest of the developed world.

Below is the rest of the article:

"Then there's efficiency, where we're a clear last:
On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.
Administrative costs are so high because we have so many payers"hospitals and doctors have multiple insurance companies to deal with, most of which are not paying the same rate for the same procedures. There's a tremendous amount of paperwork not just for doctors and hospitals, but for patients as well.
What all of this adds up to relates to the graph that opened this discussion: For all we're spending in the U.S. in the healthcare system, we're not healthy.

The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives"mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.
We rank last on infant mortality"meaning we have the most of it"on preventable deaths, and on life expectancy. The reasons for this are still sort of mysterious, because the lower life expectancies and relatively poor health outcomes are a feature across demographic groups in the U.S.:
We rank poorly if you look at survival until age 50, looking just at deaths among younger adults. And we rank poorly if you look at survival after age 50. We rank poorly if you restrict the analysis to non-Hispanic whites (who, statistically, tend to be in the best health overall). Even if you only look at well-off Americans who aren't obese and don't smoke, they generally experience poorer health compared to their counterparts in other countries.
We've got very good health care for those who can afford it and have access to it, and in fact, we rank third in providing effective care. That includes high marks for proactive doctors who remind patients about their regular preventive care, and America doctors lead in talking to patients about exercise and living healthy lifestyles. But we're still dying younger"even those who have this great health care.
The Commonwealth Fund does see some hope for the U.S. now that Obamacare is implemented:

Disparities in access to services signal the need to expand insurance to cover the uninsured and to ensure that all Americans have an accessible medical home. Under the Affordable Care Act, low- to moderate-income families are now eligible for financial assistance in obtaining coverage. Meanwhile, the U.S. has significantly accelerated the adoption of health information technology following the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and is beginning to close the gap with other countries that have led on adoption of health information technology. Significant incentives now encourage U.S. providers to utilize integrated medical records and information systems that are accessible to providers and patients. Those efforts will likely help clinicians deliver more effective and efficient care.
The key common denominator that all the nations leading the U.S. have is universal coverage. Even were all the states to implement the Medicaid expansion under the law"which would help significantly"we're still going to have millions of people without insurance, some non-citizens but the majority of them "white, low-income, working-age adults, many of them employed." In other words, the population that consistently falls through holes in the safety net.
If there is a key takeaway from the Commonwealth Fund report, it is this:

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes.
For a nation that is spending nearly $3,000 per person more than its nearest competitor, that has some of the finest physicians and facilities in the world, we could be doing a hell of a lot better and we should be looking to the rest of the industrialized world about how to do that. It doesn't necessarily have to be a socialized, single-payer system. The Swiss have achieved high marks and high satisfaction with an Obamacare-like system. But it is going to require more government intervention, namely in what the Swiss are doing very effectively"regulating drug prices and fees for medical tests. The insurance companies aren't the only greedy bastards jacking up the cost of health care in the U.S. and those interests have to be taken on if this system is going to be fixed.
And it still needs to be fixed. We do have a good start in Obamacare. It has significantly reduced the number of uninsured. It is starting to separate insurance from employment. It has helped control costs in Medicare to a surprising degree. And, maybe most significantly for further reform, it's shown all the stakeholders that healthcare reform can be accomplished in this country. But we're far from finished."

[http://m.dailykos.com...]

One of the reasons I started this debate was because I watched the documentary, "Sicko" from Michael Moore.

I found it absolutely saddening. Did you know that in the U.K., they not only have universal healthcare so, no one pays for a doctors visit, but any prescription pills, no matter how many pills you need or whether or not the pills are name-brand or generic, the cost regardless is around $10 USD. Also, it's worth noting that if the person is 65 years or older or if the person is a minor, they do not pay anything for prescriptions. And, get this, in the U.K., they reimburse you for travel expenses to the hospital.

I could go on and on referencing information that I got from that documentary, but there is just not enough room. (Keep in mind that that's ONLY the U.K. It's amazing what France does.)

Granted, having universal healthcare would raise taxes, but what's really at stake here? I have noticed that people care more about their money than helping sick, helpless people.

A common theme in Michael Moore's documentary was that anyone interviewed from an international country said, "We don't mind paying the little extra for taxes to help those in need." Maybe, just maybe, America must rethink its priorities and quit worrying about the monetary aspect of the situation.

Keep in mind also that many hospitals in the U.S. will drive and "dump" off patients somewhere else unable to pay their healthcare. Not telling them where they are being taken to or anything. Is this our country? Do we not extend our hand out to people that need help anymore? Or, is that an outdated morality? I think not.

I look forward to Con's arguments.
KamranF

Con

I"m also looking forward to a great debate.

Why should I pay for other people"s medical bill? I work hard for my money and I should have the right to spend on the things I want. If you need to go to the hospital, you pay for it. If you know that you wouldn"t be able to pay your bills upfront. Get insurance. If you can afford that IPhone, you can afford health insurance. You are not entitled to anything. And the funny thing is the people call you selfish because you want to keep the money you work hard for" Make sense? No it doesn"t.
Having a public funded health care system is very inefficiency, because of many reasons. Firstly, there is no incentive to be efficient. (Ex:) If a public hospital goes into debt, it doesn"t matter because they will just take more money from the tax payers. If the hospital was privately owned, there will be a lot of incentive to be efficient because they need to be. Many "Anti-Privatization" people would say that "now the private hospital will treat the injured cheaply to make more money. There is some truth to that. Profit is important but if the "costumer" doesn"t come back, there wouldn"t be any profit. In a free market, there will be competition in every market. (Ex:) Let"s say, there two private hospital in a town. I broke my leg. So I chose to go the hospital (a). The doctors fixed my leg and I pay the bill. But I didn"t like the service because it was too slow and the staffs weren"t nice. Therefore, for my check in appointment, I chose to go to hospital (b). After my appointment, I liked the service, so I decided to only go to hospital (b) and I"ll tell all my friends about it. It"s very simple economics.

The biggest misconception is that people call it Free Health Care. It is not free. Also, the only thing that Universal Health Care is only going is push the government deeper in debt.

To conclude, universal health care is a bad idea. Because, I should be able to keep my money and pay for only the things I use. Also, public hospital does not have the incentive to be efficient.
Debate Round No. 2
Laprlev

Pro

Thank you Con for a prompt response.

This always seems to bring in some sort of political argument. As far as healthcare goes, what comes to your mind when you think of that word? I know that I think of good medical care at a trusted hospital. Sometimes, that medical care is necessary for survival.

Let me pull at your heartstrings a little bit...One of the people interviewed for Michael Moore's documentary, "Sicko," a documentary all about healthcare and how far we are behind, had gotten two of his fingers cut off; his pinky and ring finger on one hand. He had gotten to the hospital in time to sew them back on, but when the doctors contacted his insurance provider, since he was under the influence of drugs, the insurance company decided to only attach his pinky finger. Why? It was the cheaper choice. The pinky finger was $14,000, the ring finger, $26,000. The insurance provider made it about money.

Also, there was a woman interviewed. Her husband had some form of cancer (I do not remember which form.) She worked as an intensive care nurse in the hospital that her husband was treated at. Needless to say, her husband was dying and quickly. The hospital informed the wife that there was an experimental procedure that if done, had about a 95 percent chance of survival for the husband. This procedure had been studied extensively and had been performed numerous times, yet not quite enough to get out of that "experimental" zone. When the couple filed a claim with their health insurance company to have the procedure done, the insurance company denied the claim, saying that the procedure was, "not necessary for medical care, nor is the procedure a requirement given his current treatment status." A few months after that claim was made, her husband died.

The filmmakers of the documentary were able to interview the specific person who denied the claim who has since left the health insurance business due to their really, inhumane practices. She had stated that she truly wanted to approve the claim, but knew that she couldn't because of a pre-existing condition the man had. She broke down on camera and as I said, left the company.

It was also not only her that left a health insurance company due to their practices. There were numerous interviewees that had left due to the same type of situation.

In fact, whoever within a health insurance company has the most denials of claims, they get a sizeable bonus. Why? They save the company money.

This is not a political issue, nor a lawful issue. This is an issue of just being a decent human being towards other human beings. Within our current system, and without universal healthcare, insurance companies will continue to behave like this. A matter that truly is, life or death.

So, as for Con's argument, "If you know that you wouldn't be able to pay your bills upfront. Get insurance." Is this really the type of system we want? Plus, many people just cannot simply afford health insurance.

Also, for Con's argument, "And the funny thing is, the people call you selfish because you want to keep the money you work hard for." Honestly, I may get a little heated here, but all I can say is: Capitalism at its finest. Once again, America is so enthralled by the aspect of money; to make more, to retain more, that we completely become corrupted and can't even act decent to another human being. There is a reason why other countries are healthier. There is a reason why America is far behind the rest of the developed world. It is because we lack universal healthcare.

"But in the course of a few dozen lengthy interviews, not once did I encounter an interview subject who wanted to trade places with an American."

[http://www.boston.com...]

Never once did this journalist meet someone who wanted to trade place with an American. Other people do not mind paying a little higher taxes to provide universal healthcare. What is the trend here? Money. It is absolutely ridiculous to me to that Americans, even any person from anywhere, could care more about money than human lives.

And Con, it's not "very simple economics." Hospitals are not like your favorite restaurant or store. As I stated before, many, many people simply cannot afford insurance. And, even if they get insurance, what did we learn above?

Also, take a look at this article: [http://articles.mercola.com...]

In conclusion, America's healthcare system must be reformed even more to the point of universal healthcare because: A) People are dying from multiple things (Claim denials, affordability of health insurance, etc.), B) Fewer and fewer people are seeking medical care simply because they cannot afford it, and C) as I stated before, this may sound heated, but this is not a political or lawful or monetary issue, this is an issue of being a decent human being, not caring as much about how much money you have, this is life and death.

(Nice little tip, France offers universal healthcare, and a completely free education, even college. They pay a bit more in taxes and such, but they are constantly ranked as a very, very happy nation. One of the happiest.)
KamranF

Con

Thanks for your rebuttal.

As I can see you"re your argument is just based on morality. You have different morals then other people. You have the right to think that your morals are better than other peoples. But, when you"re going to debate someone only using your morals as arguments. That isn"t really strong. I notice that you talked a lot about Michael Moore"s documentary. Mr. Moore is a hard-core socialist. His films and books are completely biased. He isn"t going to put things in he"s documentary that is going to help the "capitalist" side.

A common theme in Michael Moore's documentary was that anyone interviewed from an international country said, "We don't mind paying the little extra for taxes to help those in need."

Do you really think that Mr. Moore would actually put in an interview clip of someone saying otherwise? Also a funny thing is that Mr. Moore became rich from capitalism. Hypocrite...

[http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...]

Back to health care" When you sign a health insurance agreement/contract, you agree to the term and conditions of that agreement/contract. Therefore, for the guy who got his finger cut off, he was pretty sure in breach of his contract because he was under the influence of a drug. That"s life. If you break an agreement, you lose your privileges. And if you don"t agree with the terms, then find a different health insurance company.

The reason people can"t afford health insurance is because of taxes. The government steals up to or even more than half of your income. That"s what I call robbery.

[Watch this short video if you don"t agree that taxation is theft: ]

Nobody is entitled to free health care. These doctors go to school for 10+ years and you want them to work for free? The health industry is like any other. You pay for the service you want. And, I"m sure that you do not know/understand capitalism. The definition that you referred to was made but socialist that wants to give a bad name to it. You are thinking of Corporatism and Cronyism. Also, you said that in France, they offer completely free education. Once again, nothing is free. You and your parents paid for that thought taxes. The government cannot give free things to anyone!.

In conclusion, universal health care isn"t the best way to go. I agree that we need to reform it but to reform it to make it more like a free market. My idea of health care and any other industry, when you need it, you pay for it. Very simple, I want to be able to choose what to do with my money. If want to donate to charity, cool but to not force me to do it. Call it selfish, but remember. I worked hard for my money. Why should I give it to people that sit on their couches all day.

Thanks for the debate. It was great experience for me (It was my first).
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
I am upset that he closed his account down. I hope it wasn't due to these debates.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
BTW, I took the time to report all the other votes. They're all terrible.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
This debate was a wreck for both sides. Starting with pro's arguments, he keeps making contentions on the per capita GDP, which is the WORST thing you could reference for strategic data on healthcare. It's not looking at a macro economics scale. He goes on to contend that administrative costs are higher under non-universal systems. He fails here, since he didn't factor in the money that corporations lose with universal health care payed for, which means the government isn't growing at all, and either is the economy. The rest of his argument related to obamacare, which isn't universal healthcare in the slightest. It is a system that adjusts premiums based on income. Con's round after this is a huge appeal to emotion, which is why it was disregarded. Pro's next round was an appeal to emotion as well, which is why I didn't accept it. Con raps it up by calling morality subjective, which is true, but drops pro's already weak contentions. Although I disagree with it, from what was said, I believe the BOP that net good will be a result of this proposal. There will be flaws for every affirmative action, but given the context of political debates, it is up to the voters to decide if the resolution causes net harm or net good. If con didn't drop some minor points, he would of won this debate with no contest at all. I also don't give out source points, but I'll make an exception for this debate. Even though pro used a bias source (dailykos) for his arguments, they contained legitimate facts, information, and analysis. Good job to both debaters, and I hope you guy's will learn to improve off of these mistakes.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
I will read and vote on this, although I will consider economic and socio-political arguments as holding the most weight. Considering this is a political debate. Morality arguments do hold weight.
Posted by Laprlev 2 years ago
Laprlev
My arguments did contain moral issues, but as you'll see in my arguments, there are sources detailing how far we are behind countries that have universal healthcare. Also, it isn't that Moore only put in those people, (of course he is, that's how anyone sells documentaries.) It's that there were numerous people from different positions highlighting that the corruption isn't just in one department, it's everywhere. When you get so many people saying something, it takes hold. Just thought I'd bring that up.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
LaprlevKamranFTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: pro had better and stronger points than con
Vote Placed by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
LaprlevKamranFTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 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: Interesting debate, both sides made good points but Pro addressed the issue more prudently and employed better grammar. Con's arguments about inefficiency weren't substantiated well, and Pro made convincing arguments about countries with universal healthcare having better systems which are more efficient than US. Good debate.
Vote Placed by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
LaprlevKamranFTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. Went a little over the character limit. To sum it up, there were dropped points which would of been easy to refute, but since they went uncontested, the resolution currently stands as causing net good.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
LaprlevKamranFTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: con's choice arg is nonunique, while Pro's effficiency arg is. tax = theft? ive had enough nozick tyvm