The Instigator
Csavage472
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Kasemei
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

What is The RIGHT Solution to Fix the U.S. Healthcare Crisis???

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/16/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,296 times Debate No: 1850
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (9)

 

Csavage472

Con

Just to CLARIFY, the "standard" position by the leading Democratic contenders for the White House is essentially based on Michael Moore's compelling documentary, "SICKO!"

The Democrats' proposal is as follows:

"Health insurance should be provided for EVERYONE by the Federal Government just like Social Security is provided to everyone when they get to be a senior citizen--[i.e. a "Medicaid Card" for ALL]. In places like switzerland, health insurance is provided for everyone regardless of income. In addition, there should be ONE centralized health care company managed by the Federal Government so as there wouldn't be too much CONFUSION with the various private health insurance companies!!!"

In a nutshell, this was the proposal originally submitted by then-President Bill Clinton in which then-First Lady, Hillary Clinton, "spearheaded" the campaign and it was dubbed "HillaryCARE!!!"

My position is that while UNIVERSAL Healthcare is a critical goal for the American People, this strategy is DOOMED to FAILURE for a number of rational reasons!!!

Thank you very much for accepting by debate challenge and take care.
Kasemei

Pro

You say that there are rational reasons on why Universal healthcare is doomed to fail, yet none of them are listed in your opening speech. I'd like to see why universal healthcare would be such a bad thing.

Imagine the following scenario. You're living on minimal income, your wife is pregnant, about to give birth to a child. You have no health insurance. What are you going to do? Just have your wife pop the baby out on the cold floor of your unheated house because you missed a few of the heating bills due to lack of your paycheck? Imagine the many numbers of people who live on the streets of major cities, unable to afford much more then basic living necessities. Can we deny them this, when so much unjustified spending is in the air?

Right now, the United States spends an absurd amount of money in Iraq, and for what purpose? Not much. Why spend so much money in a country not in our own when we have major problems to fix right here at home?

Right now, senators add their own spending into bills, filling it with pork to gain better popularity in their states, but is that as important as helping some of the people who need health care get it? No. Millions of dollars get wasted in pork barrel spending every year, and that is one thing that could HONESTLY be used to fund something such as the universal health care.

Can it really be justified to NOT spend money on our own people for healthcare that SHOULD be there? The answer is no. Steps should be taken for Universal health care.

Oh, by the way, if you didn't want universal health care, you should have taken con.
Debate Round No. 1
Csavage472

Con

Thanks, Kasemei, for your feedback. I appreciate it greatly. First and foremost, forgive me for not clarifying but I do (in a way) STRONGLY support the idea of "universal healthcare" and/or the concept that it is a RIGHT and not a "privilege."

However, I was trying to DIRECT the debate in the sense that I am ADAMANTLY opposed to the DEMOCRATS' current plan for so-called "universal healthcare": that is, that the GOVERNMENT should NATIONALIZE healthcare via the proverbial "Medicaid for ALL" that Bill & Hillary Clinton originally proposed in the early 1990s.

On the contray, I support a "Universal Healthcare Plan" that combines the ideas of the Republican Presidential Candidate, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), and then-Democratic Minority Leader, Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MS):

(1) First and foremost, the Federal Government abolishes the INFAMOUS Taft-Hartly Act of 1947 so that working men and women can organize and COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN with their employer in the Free Market to successfully negotiate for a JUST wage and the workers' OWN type of PRIVATE Health Insurance for their families. [Ron Paul's Position]

(2) Next, I will implement Rep. Dick Gephardt's plan that he advocated in the 2004 Democratic Primary. That is that once the Employer and the Union negotiate on their OWN type of PRIVATE Health Insurance via contract, the employer can then qualify for an 85% Tax DEDUCTION and/or "write-off" for the cost that they pay for the PRIVATE health insurance.

(3) Finally, I will implement LEGAL reforms such as Medical Liability Tort Reform that has a cap on PUNITIVE damages of "emotional pain n' suffering" at $250,000 as well as a COMPREHENSIVE Patient's BILL of RIGHTS!!!

Thanks again for accepting my challenge and take care. What are your thoughts?
Kasemei

Pro

I'm glad to see you post back so soon, and I'm glad to be debating this topic. Unfortunately, the way you describe the topic now is a little to specific for me. However, I personally see no reason as to why not to go with the Democrats plan. I believe that it would be much more simple then the plan that you're proposing right now. Again, I fail to see any benefit in it.

By that I mean why should we do your idea? What would be gained by going your route, which would have more steps then Bill and Hilary Clinton's idea?

If we have an idea that's working, let's stick to it. I think that's better then going into something blind. Look at the War in Iraq. We virtually went in blind, and now we're stuck in a gigantic mess. However, this problem cannot be messed up to that extent, or we'll all be in trouble.

Honestly, staying with the Democrats would be easier and a lot less confusing for the companies.

Glad to be debating you!
Debate Round No. 2
Csavage472

Con

Thanks, Kamesi, for your feedback. I appreciate it greatly. Well, when you say "Hillary's plan is much more simplier," I assume you mean that it is "simple" b/c there would be ONE major healthcare company (owned by the Government) and thus there won't be any "confusion": that is Single-Payer Universal Health Care where the Gov't acts as the SOLE insurance provider (basically, in a nutshell, a Medicaid card to EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN). Is this assumption correct?

Anyway, though I applaud Michael Moore for raising the issue to help POOR people, it is lacking one essentially element: the TRUTH. Let me explain:

(1) (a) 44-47 Million Americans (out of 280-300 Million) do not have health insurance. That is a HORRIFIC scenario, I mind you, but realistically it is ONLY 17% of the U.S. Population. Therefore, the Clintons' and Moore's plan would incur approximately a whopping $5 TRILLION price-tag & debt on the Nation on top of our ~$10 Trillion National Debt in begin with, thus leading to exorbitantly HIGH taxes on Poor, Working, and Middle-Class families to give "FREE" [individual] health Insurance to EVERY single American including BILL GATES & DONALD TRUMP when 233 Million people don't NEED it.

(b) Do you think your poor n' Working Class Parents [and you eventually when you enter the workforce (haha)] should shoulder such a tax burden to give relatively FREE healthcare to the RICHEST Men in the World???

(2) (a) You alluded to the fact that you believe that there should be ONE insurance provider [the Gov't] to prevent the "confusion of the many" already in the private system, right? Well, this would be DISASTOUS like adding alcohol to a bleeding open cut (i.e. you're losing blood profusely, but rubbing alcohol increases blood circulation thus causing you to lose MORE blood).

(b) In other words, the Gov't would have a virtual MONOPOLY over the entire healthcare system thus causing HIGH COSTS & POOR QUALITY. Michael Moore and co. likes to parade the argument that "the U.S. is the ONLY Industrialized nation w/o universal health insurance etc." However, what he doesn't mention is that the U.S. has the BEST (in terms of QUALITY and competant Doctors) Healthcare system, as the phrase goes, "Second to NONE" in the world.

(c) National Gov't Run health (as it is in Switzerland and other EU countries) would lead to RATIONING of medical services and POOR quality healthcare as the "[Economic] Laws of Supply & Demand" indicate. Instead, we should be doing the direct OPPOSITE: creating MANY plans so that people can have different CHOICES.

(3) (a) Now, let's be more practical. Bill Clinton tried to get this plan passed--as you probably know(haha)--and it failed miserably. Why? Well, first and foremost, the Private Health insurance companies were against it b/c if the Gov't becomes the single *de facto* insurance provider offering "free" healthcare, what do you think those 233 Million Americans who are ALREADY paying $500 and more premiums going to do??? That's right: they will drop their private plan and enroll in the Government's plan thus putting ALL of the Private Insurance companies out of business.

(b) Now, let's be even more practical. Natually, of course, these
C.E.O.(s) already getting paid $30 Million salaries will just leave the bankrupt company with a $200 Million severance package and retire in the Florida Keys somewhere. So, in essence, it won't really hurt them personally if the companies go out of business.

(c) However, who WILL be hurt is the millions upon millions of poor, working, and middle class families that are EMPLOYED by the companies b/c they would get laid off.

(d) In fact, this is a bit personal to me b/c my sister who is a Pro-Bill Clinton Democrat from the BLUE-State of Maryland works for Kaiser-Parmente--which is one of the largest Private health insurance companies in the country. If Hillary's health plan is passed, that means that she and the millions of her co-workers will be on the WELFARE LINE looking for work. If people are unemployed, they cannot spend in the economy and more people will be unemployed leading to a Depression that would make the "Great Depression of 1929" look like a "day in the park."

(4) In addition to my plan that I outlined abovehand, I propose an additional proposal:

(a) First and foremost, the Federal Gov't should automatically eliminate the State barriers that prohibit Americans from CHOOSING his/her own PRIVATE Health Insurance plan from across State lines and therefore be able to purchase them from the countless around the country in the same way that members of Congress can choose like Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Fidelis Care, etc.

(b) Individual Choice means competition and COMPETITION is the ONLY way to get the PRICE of healthcare DOWN while at the same time INCREASING the QUALITY of healthcare. Think of it like this: imagine if McDonalds was the ONLY Restaurant chain in your city. What do you think would happen??? That's right: they can charge ANY price they want (e.g. $10 for a single patty) and the food service would be of POOR quality with Roaches and what have you cooked in the meat. However, when you have McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's all on the same block, they will compete for your money thus giving you BETTER tasting hamburgers at the CHEAPEST price.

(5) In conclusion, you know, it's kind of funny when you think about it: Hillary and Obama and Michael Moore all criticize the Bush 3% Tax cut as "a giveaway to the rich" yet they believe BILL GATES & DONALD TRUMP should get a FREE Medicaid Card at your and my expense???

Man, if I were they (Bill n' Donald), I'll say: "Screw the 3% Bush Tax cut; give me the free Healthcare!!!"(haha);

Thanks again and take care.
Kasemei

Pro

1. Alright, onto this argument. Yes, I agree that there is a significant number of people that do not have health insurance. However, you fail to provide an adaquate source on your 5 trillion price tag. I have no idea where you got that number, and I don't think that could be true. Either way, the complexity of your plan, I believe, would not get through to Congress. If something like that were to happen, it would have already.

2. We'll be paying for the same healthcare, and everyone will be getting the exact standards. Why not.

3. You say that healthcare will become of lesser quality by implementing Clinton's plan, but how does that cause anything? I couldn't see any way that doctors would decrease how they work. Will doctors after the Clinton bill gets passed, just start thinking, oh, let's do our job wrong? No. To believe that is illogical.

4. You just said that the barriars should be lifted. If they aren't lifted now, then the plan of Hilary Clinton's is extrodinarily better, because it is free, so even if they can't pick their own, they get free health care.

Thanks. ^^ Take care too!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Csavage472 9 years ago
Csavage472
Thanks, Kamesi, for this debate. It was very enlightening.

However,what do you mean that my plan was "complex"?

On the contrary, it was 100x SIMPLIER than Hillary's plan b/c I say that if workers are allowed to ORGANIZE (into Unions), they can COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN with their employer for their own PRIVATE health insurance across State Lines.

Next, the Government allows the Employer to DEDUCT up to 85% of the cost of the health insurance plan off of their income taxes.

(2) (a) You keep insisting that Government-run healthcare is "free," but in reality NOTHING is "free." Even if Single-payer Government-run Health Insurance is "NON-profit," the fact of the matter is that the Government is going to have a MONOPOLY over Health Insurance.

(b) The "$5 Trillion" price tag was actually an UNDER-statement b/c that was the price-tag that was estimated to cost the taxpayers under Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)'s plan of a "300% increase in Medicaid!!!" Universal Health Insurance will be even HIGHER like at ~$10 Trillion (if not more).

(c) While it might APPEAR to be free if the Government is giving out a "Medicaid Card" to every American (including BILL GATES & DONALD TRUMP) like Santa Claus, the fact of the matter is that the American People are going to have to SHOULDER that burden via HIGHER taxes and/or reduced spending on other critical government services.

Thanks again.
Posted by danicalifornia 9 years ago
danicalifornia
"Anyway, though I applaud Michael Moore for raising the issue to help POOR people, it is lacking one essentially element: the TRUTH. Let me explain:

(1) (a) 44-47 Million Americans (out of 280-300 Million) do not have health insurance."

I would like to point out that Michael Moore's movie is about people who DO have health insurance and the horrors that happen within our current system. It barely touches on what happens to the people without health insurance.

Secondly, the government would not be making profit off of the national health system. The whole point is taking profit out of health care. That's where the problem lies.

Honestly, everyone who is against a national health care system is scared, and I don't see why! #1 Having insurance is better than not (if you currently don't have it). and #2 You would literally pay nothing out of your pocket considering what you have to pay out of pocket now. #3 Under our current system, you already don't get to choose out of ALL the doctors and hospitals. You get to choose from a list of a selected few from your insurance company. Well guess what, under the national health care system, you would be covered anywhere and you could choose any doctor and be covered.

I don't understand the problem. Maybe some don't find it ideal, but it's a hell of a lot better than our current corrupted system.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Csavage472 9 years ago
Csavage472
Csavage472KasemeiTied
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 rocker935 9 years ago
rocker935
Csavage472KasemeiTied
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 nebosleeper 9 years ago
nebosleeper
Csavage472KasemeiTied
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 karlynjane 9 years ago
karlynjane
Csavage472KasemeiTied
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 jwebb893 9 years ago
jwebb893
Csavage472KasemeiTied
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 Bunkka84 9 years ago
Bunkka84
Csavage472KasemeiTied
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 adamh 9 years ago
adamh
Csavage472KasemeiTied
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 danicalifornia 9 years ago
danicalifornia
Csavage472KasemeiTied
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 Kasemei 9 years ago
Kasemei
Csavage472KasemeiTied
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