The Instigator
mindjob
Pro (for)
Tied
25 Points
The Contender
Jokerdude
Con (against)
Tied
25 Points

We need a universal health care system. Here's one idea.

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  
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: 1/23/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,512 times Debate No: 2107
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (14)

 

mindjob

Pro

I have yet to see anyone adequately defend a universal health care system. I propose that we NEED not just a system where everyone is covered, but a single-payer system where the government provides basic coverage for everyone while keeping private ownership of hospitals and doctors' offices. Such a system would weed out administrative overhead, as well as provide adequate leverage to keep drug and device costs down. The private, for-profit system is a perfect example of a market failure which requires government intervention, and is unsustainable in its current form.

Therefore, I propose this:

We adopt a single-payer national health insurance plan that covers all tax-paying adults up to $20,000 per year. This coverage would be contingent on filing a tax return and would cover all but elective, cosmetic surgery.

People could combine their $20,000 coverage when they get married, providing $40,000 of coverage for their family.

As of last year, 97% of everyone who sought health care spent just over $21,000 or less, so the $20,000 would cover about 96% of everyone's needs, leaving room for private catastrophic plans. This would function much like life insurance. You don't know when you'll need it, but you most likely will and will be very thankful when you do need it. Medicare and Medicaid will provide catastrophic coverage for the old and poor, and businesses will provide group catastrophic coverage.

Since Medicare and Medicaid would have to provide a much smaller set of benefits, resources would be taken from these programs to help fund the national health insurance plan. After that, a plan similar to California's would be used where hospitals and doctors would be taxed to provide further funds for the program. In addition, a sales tax on the advertising, administration and lobbying expenditures of drug and device manufacturers would also be used to fund the program. Should any money be needed beyond that, a tax will be imposed starting at the top tax bracket and working down should more funds be needed.

This seems like a good start. I look forward to anyone taking up this debate.
Jokerdude

Con

So basically for this debate im going to go with an overview of a universal health care and why it would not work in our current system of government.

1. There isn't a single government agency that is up to the task of implementing a universal program effectively.

2. If anyone hasn't noticed the economy in the US government is in the largest recession it has ever been in. To ask people to pay there way through this is absurd especially through taxes.

3. Profit motives and competition have lead to better programs offered right now as a way to lure people to work for them especially qualified personal.

4. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.

5. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. This has been proven in countries with a universal health care like India.

6. Healthy people who are hardly ever in the hospital will end up paying for people who smoke or do other harmful things to their body. Which if that is the case why should they have to.

7. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs and business closures, people who are already in work now

8. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Because face it as it is now people are opting to become doctors because of the fame and money.

9. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a right by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove it once costs get out of control.

10. As it is now many people come from all over the world to be treated because in the status quo we have the most effective and clean medical industry especially in fields of specialization.

As a final note I think its safe to say everyone wants a universal health care, heck ill admit I would but the fact of the matter it is just not possible to do and maintain all the things we take for granted in our current society.
Debate Round No. 1
mindjob

Pro

First, I'd like to thank Jokerdude for taking this debate. I was expecting someone who vehemently and fundamentally opposes the idea of universal coverage, so I have to admit I was thrown a bit when I read your argument. But I've recouped myself, so here we go...

1. The Department of Health and Human Services has operated Medicare since its inception. In 2006, there were 38 million people on Medicare. In addition, some estimates show that 30,000 people a month for the next 10 years will start using Medicare as they become eligible. Medicare recipients also represent a much larger share of health care customers then their share of the total population. It seems to me at least that DHHS has the experience running programs instrumental to health care in this country that would be capable of running a single-payer universal system. If we could just get a president that appoints capable, knowledgeable, worthy people to important positions instead of a president that appoints personal and professional friends who know nothing of the agencies they run, most of government has the ability to function as well as any private corporation. See "Case for Bureaucracy" by Charles Goodsell.

2. I don't know if we are in the biggest recession we've ever been in. To start, you'd have to technically separate "recessions" from "depressions". If not, the Great Depression would be FAR greater. Even if you do separate them, then the recession in the mid to late 1970s when unemployment hit around 10-15% would still have to be worse then this. Even so, your point is taken about the economy. Here's the thing though, benefits from preventative care would be noticed just as quickly as the taxes would be, especially since those taxes would be laid on hospitals, doctors, drug and device manufacturers, as well as taking already taxed resources from Medicaid and Medicare, would all happen before any individuals would be taxed. Economic productivity would grow as workers got healthier and felt more secure about their financial and medical futures. In addition, since everyone would be paying much less for their health care, that's extra money they'd have to get out of debt and/or spend. The economy would benefit greatly from universal coverage.

3. I'm not sure what you're talking about in this point. If you're talking about private hospitals and doctors, you're right. That's why both would remain private. They would compete based on patient outcomes and satisfaction. Medicare is mandating that hospitals report their outcomes starting this year. They plan on extending it to doctors in a couple years as well. They intend to pay hospitals/doctors in the top 10% an extra 10% in their reimbursements, after risk adjusting for regional differences of outcomes for certain diagnoses. This would be continued and relied upon in the plan I mentioned. Competition would still be an integral component of this plan. Besides, private companies screw up just as much, if not more, than government agencies. We just don't know how much because oversight is so much more difficult once a government function has been privatized. The contractors of the Big Dig in Boston will have to pay $456 million in fines due to faulty designs and shotty workmanship. I'll also mention Halliburton and Blackwater. You get my point.

4. It is illegal for hospitals to turn people away for not having coverage, but all they have to do is stabilize people in their ER and then send them on their way or to a public hospital. They still have to eat the costs associated with time, labor and equipment. Meanwhile, public hospitals are so overwhelmed from every private hospital sending them uninsured patients that care starts to suffer. But public hospitals still need reimbursement as well if they hope to make any kind of profit. But because they can't get any from uninsured people, the rest of us pay more in taxes to support these public hospitals. This is one of the many examples of how we all already pay for uninsured peoples' health care, so we might as well do it in a smart and effective way.

5. There would be no need to "mandate" some procedures since just about everything would be covered. Only cosmetic procedures and elective procedures that do not dramatically enhance quality of life would not be covered in the universal plan. Doctors would find much more flexibility in having just about every procedure or service they provide compensated, as well as (and primarily) not having to fight with HMOs to get paid. Doctors spend so much time doing this that it takes away from taking care of patients. With such a simple system, they would be free to spend more time performing procedures and meeting with patients, thus earning more money.

6. As I mentioned above, we already pay for a lot of peoples' health care. Their costs get transferred to us through higher taxes to support public hospitals that aren't getting compensated for their services, decreased tax revenue to the government since hospitals and doctors have to write off so many services as charity, as well as higher premiums and costs with insurers, hospitals and doctors. Our economy also takes a hit because these people take more from the system then they put in because they can't get insurance, yet continue to rack up bills, pushing them towards bankruptcy. Over 51% of all bankruptcies are medically related, which makes the rest of us pay more in credit card interest. I'm watching the news right now and they have a story on talking about how diabetes is already costing the country $174 billion through various means. We're already paying the price for diseases like these, and this is with a private system. A single-payer system would be able to negotiate for lower prices which would bring this number down.

7. Private insurers would have to cut back, but there would be gains in other areas. First, the government would be hiring, and I don't think that is a bad thing if it means that the already trained personnel are making the new system run more efficiently. Also, as it is, over 300,000 beds lay unused because private insurers make their money off of keeping people out of the hospital. Meanwhile, 25% of hospitals are operating in the red. As people who need health care can finally get it, and hospitals can count on getting paid more frequently, they will hire more nurses and doctors.

8. As it is, doctors are in it more for the fame than the money. Like I said before, doctors spend much of their time fighting with private insurers just to get paid. There wouldn't be reduced private practice options. No offices would be socialized. The fact that doctors would be paid much more frequently and the system would be more efficient, I think more people would become doctors.

9. I feel that health care is a right already, and I'm not on any kind of government coverage. If it works as well as I think it will, or as well as similar versions in other countries, why would you want it to go away?

10. People with money do come here to get their health care, because we do have the best system in the world if you can pay for it. Very poor people also come here to get care and don't plan on paying for it. This system keep the quality that we've become accustomed to since hospitals and doctors would still be competing based on the quality of the care they provide. The only thing that would be socialized is the payment of their services, at least for basic care. Private insurers would still be utilized to pay for catastrophic care.

I don't think all people want universal care. In fact, I've debated with a few people on this site already that flatly don't. The fact of the matter is that the private system of multiple insurers is broken and cannot be adequately fixed while keeping the same structure. It is the structure itself that has led to the problems we have. Therefore, we need a totally different structure based on a single-payer for basic care.
Jokerdude

Con

1. The first arguement that id like to take up on this point is that yes medicare does help alot of people, lower income etc this just further fuels my point on point 4 so thank you. The second part is that while yes it does work it is not a universal program it only focuses on a section of the people not everyone. Also as a side note one person cant keep an entire system working and by saying you have a good president still wont solve the problem of having a working program, its just to big of a job.

2. The first point on this flow id like to say feeling good because its one less thing to worry about wont protect the people from the absurd taxing like you proposed in the plan. Also they wont be paying less because as it is now the companies help pay and fund the different insurances. In all a unviersal health care would completely collapse our already fraying economy.

3. So this whole argument contradicts the point of a universal health care, to keep hospitals and doctors still private would not reach the perspective of a universal health care since not everyone is entitled to the same thing. Bringing us back to the heart of capitalism, competition which will be lacking if the plan is implemented.

4. Your still missing the point there are systems like Medicare like you mention that cover people who are in need of it. The reason why I mentioned this is because you could argue that if people wouldn't get attention which i was proving incorrect but since you agree theres no need to argue this any more.

5. Really the points you make here are just not true, when funded by the government like every other program ran by the government the doctors will be told what to do and how to do it. I mentioned India because they have a universal health care system and it is one of the poorest in the world this being the leading reason, doctors don't care as much anymore.

6. No it wouldn't lower because in this new system everyone basically pays the same amount, for people like me I go in once a year for a physical other than that I'm relatively healthy so why should i pay that much more, when other people who choose a unhealthy lifestyle and cost more a year eventually raising prices for me to help take care of the unhealthy person thats why a universal health care system would be bad.

7. While that may be true eventually its the transition that will kill the economy before the cavalry comes. Also look to point 8 on the flow and this ties in with this point in the fact that less doctors would want to do the job so they wouldn't be in such large demand.

8. Again look to point 3 and how this contradicts the point of a universal health care if everything is still privatized. To deny the fact that doctors become doctors because of the fame and status is just ignorant, sure some may not fit the type but the vast majority do.

9. So basically your conceding to the fact that since our health coverage is working why change it so thank you. As another side note any country with a universal health coverage none of them have a good system, just a bare system. Also its not a right its a privilege that you should work hard for not be given to you on a silver spoon.

10. The point to this argument here is that health care in other nations like India, see point 5, because they are so poor and ours is so great changing that would hurt everything in our medical infrastructure and see my other points as to how universal cant be socialized or privatized.

It may not be everyone which yeah i suppose i can attest to that but in the status quo nothing is broken when you compare us to every other country, just try and name one with a better health system.
Debate Round No. 2
mindjob

Pro

Let me begin by saying that, after reading your last round, it seems as though you didn't internalize what I said before making your points. Its like you were pretending I said something else and responded to your imagination. I'll try to get you back on track.

1. Let me just check and make sure you know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare cares for the elderly. Whether they are poor or not, old people qualify for Medicare coverage. Medicaid, on the other hand, covers poor people. For most people, you qualify to receive Medicare benefits once you turn 65. Unlike Medicare, Medicaid is needs-based and is administered by each state, so qualifications vary. Based on your previous round, you seem to have the two mixed up. And the fact that there is Medicaid and Medicare does not negate the fact that 47 million people in this country don't have health coverage. You have to stop thinking that people simply don't want coverage. No one wants to spend their lives hoping they don't get sick for fear of the bills they would face. Everyone wants insurance, they just can't afford it, even with Medicaid and Medicare. Even the American Medical Association, traditionally a very conservative organization of physicians that has opposed every attempt at national health coverage, is now running ads deploring the fact that 1 in 7 people are not covered. I would hope that that serves as some kind of perspective for you in just how bad the problem is right now.

Under your logic, no program is capable of being run. Why do we have a Secretary of Defense or State? Why do we have a Secretary of Homeland Security? Why do we even have a president if no one person can run a large program? It seems like you're reaching for straws as for why the single-payer plan wouldn't work in this point.

2. What's so absurd about the tax plan I mentioned to cover it? Doctors, hospitals, pharmaceuticals and device manufacturers would all be taxed before any individual. In addition, resources would be taken from Medicare and Medicaid to cover it since their role in providing services would be diminished. After those bases have been touched, then only the wealthiest people would be taxed first. Please explain to me what about this plan is absurd? As it is, employer-based coverage makes employees pay a certain percentage of the premiums. As medical costs have risen, the share that employers have been making employees pay as risen as well, or employers have stopped offering coverage altogether. Between this, copays and deductibles, individuals pay ridiculous amounts for usually crappy coverage.

That's another thing. You mention "the different insurances". You're right. The fractious nature of the system means that every insurer has a smaller risk pool than would be the case in a single-payer system. This means that they have to keep their rates higher since they are pulling in money from fewer people. Its basic economies of scale.

3. Explain to me how hospitals and doctors remaining private keeps people from being entitled to the same thing? Universal health care is universal in COVERAGE, meaning that everyone is entitled to the same care since everyone has access to it. Under the current system, people get denied to the care they need all the time because they don't have the right coverage or no coverage at all. The private insurance market is the #1 problem. Let me explain to you how HMOs have totally screwed up the system. As it is, most insurers only pay a percentage of what Medicare pays. This is the example that the executive director of heart and vascular services at the hospital I worked at gave me:

Say a certain procedure costs the hospital $8,000 to perform and Medicare pays the hospital $10,000 to do it. That means that the hospital makes $2,000 profit from it. HMOs, however, sometimes only pay 30% of what Medicare pays, which in this example would only be $3,000. That means that the hospital loses $5,000 every time they perform it. So, in order to simply pay its bills, the hospital has to inflate their prices 300%, turning that $3,000 into $9,000. The hospital's costs stayed the same at $8,000, but now they can make $1,000 profit on it. THIS IS WHERE THE MAJORITY OF MEDICAL INFLATION COMES FROM. These costs get passed onto to everyone else who needs that procedure, including Medicare. A single-payer system would completely erase the built up inflation in the system, as well as keep it from happening again.

4. I'm not even sure what you're talking about in this point. You made the mistake of confusing Medicare and Medicaid again, but aside from that, you aren't really saying anything else. Public hospitals are suffering, and raising local taxes just to cover themselves from so many people they see lacking coverage. The single-payer system I mentioned, or any universal system, would enable public and non-profit hospitals, who have much lower overhead than for profit hospitals, would be able to provide much better services and lower local taxes.

5. My points just aren't true? After working with doctors and hospital administration for nearly 10 years, I can tell you it is very much true. Here, go to Physicians for a National Health Program and see what they say about the time wasted dealing with HMOs. It's enlightening. And why India? How about France and Italy? Or how about Great Britain or Canada? All of them have universal systems and all of them have better health systems then we do, according to the World Health Organization.
http://www.pnhp.org...

6. Who would be paying the same amount? I already pointed out to you who would be paying the taxes on this. And of course you're relatively healthy. You're only 16. I'm only 24, but I'm already having a few minor problems, but still problems nonetheless. My gf is also 24, but she's needed three reconstructive jaw surgeries. Dealing with her "premium" insurance provider has been a nightmare. I couldn't imagine if she had an HMO. That was only for her surgeries though. She doesn't have insurance anymore because she couldn't afford it. That doesn't mean her complications have stopped though. Count yourself lucky for being healthy. That won't always be the case. And when that time comes, you'll be angry if you have to spend 25% of your income of health care, which many people with insurance are having to do. If you did have to pay into the system, other people would be paying into it for you when you needed it. Trust me, you will need it at some point.

7. First of all, as I mentioned before, most insurers are wanting to move to only covering catastrophic coverage anyway. This system would only aid them in achieving what they want anyway. You clearly have no idea how much hospitals and doctors hate dealing with HMOs. I was talking with a nurse practitioner just today who was telling me she spent almost 34% of her income on clerical staff just to deal with billing. Doctors would love the new system if for no other reason then HMOs would be a thing of the past.

8. I didn't deny it. In fact, I backed it up. Read what I said again. It isn't the money they are in it for. They are in medicine because they love helping people and love the respect they get in their communities. Beyond that, I have no idea what you're talking about.

9. What? Are you even reading what I'm saying? I said I'm not on government coverage because I'm a full-time grad student and still covered by my mom's insurance. We're ranked between Costa Rica and Slovenia because of the lack of accessibility to our system. What the hell about my point made you think I thought the system was working as it is?

10. I don't know why you choose India for your examples. Here, check out the World Health Organization's rankings. At least 15 of the top 20 have universal or single-payer systems.
http://www.photius.com...
Jokerdude

Con

O.k I concede i accidentally screwed up the names but my points still stand that there isn't an agency that could do a universal health program. Its really regardless.

1. All my opponent has done is say that as of now there are people without coverage and even Medicare and Medicaid cant solve it all. For this point to really have merit please try and present a organization that is up to the task. And as to what you were saying about the secretaries. All they are is advisor's and the president doesn't completely run the country thats why it is so great. There are three main branches and each branch is split up into smaller sections. But still no organization that could run the program offered by my opponent.

2. So on this part of the flow my opponent says when charges go up we take it from programs, when it goes up again we tax the affluent, when it goes up again...... It might seem to be a long run or short term fix but it isn't at all. There still isn't an answer id like to point out to my answer about the recession and how the transition would impact it. Oh and if you haven't been watching the news rates have been severely dropping and its up to the employer most the time as to which insurance you can get so rarely do people end up with a terrible one once employed.

3. Thats what im saying im saying you cant have private practices and a universal health system together it completely contradicts each other because if its universal it cant be private. While you say that inflation wont happen in the new system you give no reasons why, it still will because due to the loss the hospitals lose they will overcharge to compensate.

4. Again look to above sorry for mixing them up but it wont lower taxes it will raise those looking to some of my original arguments. And if the hospitals got less money they would be as poor as other countries. As Ill get to a bit lower.

5. Ill get to most this arguement about comparing countries a little later but it cant be too enlighting but if you want to compare sources
http://www.news.harvard.edu...

6. Well for one the affluent in the country eventually trickling down to the middle class like I pointed out above. Also you think 25% is out of control once the universal health care program is implemented it will spiral out even more only now you cant do anything about it. Keeping the status quo is still the best system to keep. I'm sorry for your girlfriend i am, but if we were under your program any extra costs above the single pay would cost me or the government a lot of excess money for something not involving me in any way.

7. So Doctors would enjoy having worse condition and lower wages. Using some of my arguments from above. Why would a nurse use that much of her wage on such a trivial matter. That is a useless waste of money and Im sure there is alternative reasoning behind her problem.

8. I can concede that yes thats a small role in why people become doctors but people do become doctors for other factors like the fame and money, there would be a decrease in doctors no where near an increase.

9. I did mis read this a bit but in all it isn't a "right", it is something that you work for and pay for its not something to be handed to you. Hell i could consider welfare a right even though i don't need it. But id take it any way because its my "right"

10. Before you consider this argument you put up look at the actual source link on that page and read it all. It ranks the US in the issues that matter, timing of service and quality of service. The rankings were placed as they were based on how cheap each operation is. If you did go to a place like Canada the wait for an operation takes months if not years to actually get to the top of the list. This is because of how poor the actual system is and once they are in it it's impossible to change back. Thats why we must keep up the working program we have now.
Debate Round No. 3
mindjob

Pro

1. I've already pointed out to you how the Department of Health and Human Services could take it on if they are given competent leadership and adequate resources. They already run Social Security and Medicare, in addition to many other programs. Why wouldn't they be able to handle a restructuring of their priorities and administrate a new program? You give absolutely no reason explaining why my points in the previous round are not sufficient enough. Yes, you're right. There are three branches of government. They do have divisions within them, such as committees in Congress or individual agencies in the Executive branch. What does any of this have to do with proving a cabinet-level department can't run large programs when I've already given you plenty of examples to the contrary? There isn't much I can do if I give you examples proving my point, but you dismiss them out of hand based simply on your opinion without any evidence to back it up.

2. That isn't what I said at all. It's like you aren't even paying attention to my points and instead respond to what you wish I said. These taxes would be imposed on all of the payers from the outset. The parties that pay into the taxes for the program, the less they are for any one party. I haven't done a detailed analysis of how much would be needed down to the dollar, but based on the site I listed at the bottom of my last round, the country would save $350 billion on administrative costs alone. This is just one area where we would save lots of money with the single-payer system I mentioned, so I doubt if any taxes would be needed beyond what I mentioned before.
The current recession is being lead by the housing market and the problems with credit associated with it. Banks around the world got caught up in our mortgage mess, and now they are all paying the price as well. A single-payer system would have nothing to do with this at all. It might cost some jobs in some areas, but create a lot of jobs in other areas, so that would either be neutral or be a positive.

What rates are dropping? Insurance rates? Where did you get that from? I think you're confusing insurance rates with interest rates. The Fed cut interest rates. They have nothing to do cutting rates for health care at all. I wanted to debate universal health care, not educate you on the current state of the economy. Your lack of understanding the basics of our economy and the current state of it is dragging this debate down.

3. Why? Why can't you have universal coverage and private practices? You give absolutely no reasons to back up your claims. It's universal coverage, not universal provision. A single-payer system would be paid for by the government, but the payments would be made to private providers, just like how Medicare does it now. Again, your lack of understanding of the system is dragging this debate down.

Some of medical inflation is due to the development of new medical devices and machinery. That is natural. Inflation due to the example I listed above wouldn't happen because HMOs would no longer be able to cut hospitals and doctors off at the knees. Also, the sales tax on the advertising and lobbying expenditures of pharmaceuticals and drug manufacturers would also provide them with an incentive to cut their costs, thus cutting prices. Device manufacturers current spend billions of dollars on lobbying doctors to use their devices, regardless of whether they are the best devices or not. Drug companies only spend 13% of revenues on R&D while they take 17% in profits and over 30% on advertising. THIS IS WHY DRUGS ARE SO EXPENSIVE. Not only would the tax either drive these prices down or help the government pay for their price, but the government's enormous negotiating power would also force these companies to drive down their prices, as well as get hospitals to strip out the inflation they have added to the system. These reasons are why inflation would be cut and reversed under the system I advocate.
What hospitals would be lost? Where did that come from?

4. Hospitals will be as poor as other countries? What? I already illustrated how hospitals would be paid much more regularly and at a fair rate. They wouldn't be undercut by greedy HMOs that only pay 30% of the bill presented to them. None of the arguments you've mentioned, at least the ones where I can figure out what it is you're trying to say, have addressed this. If public hospitals get reimbursed more, regardless from where it's coming from, they don't have to tax localities as much to keep themselves running. That's just common sense. Beyond that, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

5. That's a nice article, but it doesn't explain much of anything. it only looks at our system. If our system is so efficient, then we would have the same numbers of life expectancy and infant mortality (among others) as other countries at the top of the WHO's list. Western Europeans, on average, live longer, have more children live through birth and infancy, have lower rates of disease and live healthier, all while spending FAR less than we do.
Here, check this out:
http://www.kff.org...
We spend over $2 trillion on health care, but we get beat in just about every health category that matters. In just 7 years, that number is expected to double. And you're trying to tell me that our system is efficient and effective, especially after the numbers and examples I've given you about how inefficient our system is?

6. No, you didn't mention anything about trickle down economics above. Besides, what does that have to do with anything in this debate? Given the point in your life you're in, 25% doesn't mean anything to you. But once you're paying rent or a mortgage, paying for a car, utilities, food, credit card bills, etc., you'll understand what taking 25% of your income to pay for medical bills. Often times, its a lot worse than that. Sometimes it eats up everything they make, and thats when they have to file for bankruptcy. When this happens, everyone loses out: the hospital, the doctor, and everyone that person owed money to. When that happens, we all end up paying more to make up for what their creditors lost out on. We already pay for everyone else's inability to pay for medical care. I don't know how else to explain it to you if you're just going to keep dismissing that fact without any reason to back up your rationale. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

7. I have already explained repeatedly how doctors would be working in much better conditions than they do now. Yet, you continue to say it would be worse but don't give any reasons that I haven't already addressed as to why I'm wrong. Their wages would be the same, and they would get to keep much more of what they make since they wouldn't have to fight HMOs for every dollar they make. And no, getting paid for their services is not a trivial matter. You assuming there are other reasons for my NP friend paying for so many clerical staff does not mean there were.

8. Once again, you're ignoring what I said and continue to insist on your opinion without giving any evidence to back it up.

9. So you think that a rich person's life is more important to save just because they can pay for adequate care? Ok.

10. Did you even read the criteria? This is ho they judged the countries:
"WHO's assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)." I'll address why you're wrong about Canada in my next round.
Jokerdude

Con

Thank you all who are voting and actually have read this far, almost there

1. As I pointed out above, while yes those programs can solve for a small portion of the health problems but they cant complete it even with more funding. Its just not possible, its too large of a spectrum. And the problem with a system directly run by a cabinet member is the same reasons I listed above with the size of the issue.

2. You can say you have the figures down pat but the problem is your system is flawed. Things always cost more than people expect its the problem with inflation. The part you are missing in my arguments is the fact that in 10 years we wont have an affordable system because prices will rise from the reasons listed above.

3. The reason why I say we cant have private practices with the universal system is because there is no competition or reason to choose one over the other which will destroy the health care system.

4. This ties in to the above argument, and to add on because peoples will choose one place over the other because there is no differences in service. That would cause the overpopulation in one area to buy more and this would cause the inflation.

5. http://www.huppi.com... Check out this site then for comparative stats.
But on top of that your stats are flawed because no where does it say what they are comparing unless you click the links in which case they tell you what they voted on, but the US has the best in several categories. And to your source, yeah i couldn't pull it up on my computer..sorry.

6. Yes but the reasons stated in my first few arguments and even this one that still go ignored is the rates you impose will rise. And eventually will overwhelm the 25 percent now. That is the inevitable part to the all.

7. All you keep saying is that under my plan...under my plan that.... this wouldn't last, this is the argument ive been trying to get across. It may be a quick fix plan but the problems i keep talking about arise. Places like India and Canada do have universal health care and the problem is it is not efficient, if you need surgery it will take forever to happen.

8. Yeah i didn't concede anything i just tied it into the argument above, just one of the side effects.

9. Thats a growing problem in this world it isnt a right, calling everything a right is collapsing our economy. Considering unions a right even to having a tv a right is absurd. Free health care is not a right, the right to life is they are not the same thing.

10. Yeah I already mentioned this but at face value its basically worthless, but click the links and it actually goes in my favor.

Vote Negative for the reasons above and if you actually read through these flows you should vote for the negative impacts i kept bringing up throughout the round and pretty much were never answered

Thank you for the round Mindjob
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
We do tax tobacco companies for health care costs. It works because, as of now, they provide services and often times never get paid. This system would be much the same as California's system. Doctors and hospitals are helping to ensure their own income. But because the taxes for it would be spread among a number of different payers, the burden on any one party is a lot smaller than the benefit they receive, at least for hospitals, doctors and individuals.

And it is beyond me how anyone could be voting for con. His entire arguments consisted of ignoring mine while reiterating his points that I had already debunked. It was like listening to Bush sticking to his talking points after reporters start proving him wrong. Sigh, this site is disappointing.
Posted by HempforVictory 9 years ago
HempforVictory
"benefits from preventative care would be noticed just as quickly as the taxes would be, especially since those taxes would be laid on hospitals, doctors, drug and device manufacturers"

I'm confused, if the government is paying hospitals, doctors, and drug companies to provide services to people, but than taxing them at the same time to cover it, how is that going to work? It doesn't seem like it would add up...taxing hospitals etc. more would force them to raise the price that they need to charge, which would force the government to raise the tax, etc. etc.

I would advocate taxing fast food restaurants, all foods that contain hydrogenated oils and/or high fructose corn syrup, as well as tobacco industries and perhaps some other producers of products that adversely affect the quality of people's health, to pay for, or at least lower the cost of health care.
Posted by Jokerdude 9 years ago
Jokerdude
Ya know i totally just wanted to get done with this round its so dam long
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
I have a bad habit of diarrhea of the fingers when it comes to some things. I'm sorry. I'll try to keep them shorter.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
I never said anything about mandating coverage. That's what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts and now people who can't afford health insurance are having to pay fines on top of it. That's wrong. California's plan works great because by taxing doctors and hospitals to cover uninsured people, doctors and hospitals get paid much more frequently and at higher rates. They are guaranteeing themselves much needed income. What's wrong with that? As for the rich, wealth disparities in this country are higher than they ever been, meaning the wealthy are wealthier than ever. Forgive me if I don't give a damn about the rich man's burden when it comes to providing a basic right to everyone that he, who actually claims more than everyone else because he can pay for the co-pays and deductibles as well as premiums, takes for granted.

And you need to have everyone covered because then you avoid problems with adverse selection that makes insurance more expensive for everyone else. People want insurance, they just can't afford quality coverage. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Be sure to read the debate. :)
Posted by wingnut2280 9 years ago
wingnut2280
So, we make people buy health insurance, then, if the government can't come up with the money to cover them, we tax the people who are treating them, then the rich who won't claim as much? What happens to people who don't want to buy health care? Do we make them? Why should the servicers pay taxes on patients claims? Why should the very rich pay all of the subsequent taxes when they will claim far less, just because they can afford it?

In a nutshell, we mandate coverage to everyone, no matter what. Then, we make people who shouldn't pay, pay taxes to cover your overspending? Seems fair.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
mindjobJokerdudeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: COUNTER
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
mindjobJokerdudeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a sold case
Vote Placed by Aewl1963 9 years ago
Aewl1963
mindjobJokerdudeTied
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 mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
mindjobJokerdudeTied
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 Aagon 9 years ago
Aagon
mindjobJokerdudeTied
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 watchman 9 years ago
watchman
mindjobJokerdudeTied
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 mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
mindjobJokerdudeTied
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 redinbluestate 9 years ago
redinbluestate
mindjobJokerdudeTied
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 Idontcare 9 years ago
Idontcare
mindjobJokerdudeTied
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 tarsjake 9 years ago
tarsjake
mindjobJokerdudeTied
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