The Instigator
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jh1234l
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

let it be resolved that universal health care is a bad 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
jh1234l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 951 times Debate No: 30066
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Pro

Universal health care is a bad idea. The best results will be achieved through a market. Instead of having the government pay for everyone's health care people should buy their own insurance for catastrophic care and pay straight up for routine visits.

A market in health care would keep costs down because doctors would compete with each other for who can treat effectively for a lower price. Instead of having gigantic and waste there would be incentives in place for competing health care organizations to stream line and be more efficient. Because they are bill patients and not the government doctors will be less likely to price gouge. Doctors who were trained in other countries would be able to practice because we would eliminate licensure and take away the special privileges of the doctor's cartels. After abolishing licensure pharmacists could also compete with doctors. Instead of rationing health care - as all nations which practice socialized medicine do - we would not ration health care. Instead of it being impossible to find a family doctor - as it is in Canada - everyone who wants one will have one (basic supply and demand, there are no shortages on the free market if demand is high and supply is low price goes up but the service is always available).
jh1234l

Con

Universal health care is a bad idea. The best results will be achieved through a market. Instead of having the government pay for everyone's health care people should buy their own insurance for catastrophic care and pay straight up for routine visits.

The government does not pay for universal health care. The citizens of the nation pays taxes, which pays for the health care.

A market in health care would keep costs down because doctors would compete with each other for who can treat effectively for a lower price.

However, universal health care actually would keep costs down. The taxes pay for them, and because everyone pays taxes but not everyone gets sick, your health care costs will be partly paid by someone else.

Instead of having gigantic and waste there would be incentives in place for competing health care organizations to stream line and be more efficient.

It is not waste. You pay for them using taxes. There will be some tax money spare because not everyone gets sick. The spare tax money can go to elsewhere, like eduation.

Instead of it being impossible to find a family doctor - as it is in Canada - everyone who wants one will have one (basic supply and demand, there are no shortages on the free market if demand is high and supply is low price goes up but the service is always available).

In Canada, we CAN find family doctors. My family doctor is just blocks away from me. Just because there is universal health care does not mean that alternatives are banned.

My arguments are:

The universal health care is more affordable. People pay for it with taxes. Due to how taxes work, the rich pays more. With the extra money that the riches pay, we can subsidize those who cannot afford health care.

Universal health care also reduces waste, because it us tax money in the right place.

Health care on the market is a bad idea, because the poor will not be able to afford it, compared to how the riches subsidize them using taxes in universal health care. Everyone has the right to life. [1] If patients with life threatening diseases were unable to pay and there is no universal heath care, it is effectively violating their right to life by preventing them from accessing the cure.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Pro

Having a market in health care doesn't mean that the poor wouldn't get care. We have a market in housing and a market in food, yet the poor don't starve or go homeless. Of course there are SOME people who are homeless but this isn't due to the market but due to government intervention in the market. Low cost housing is forbidden due to regulations ensuring all housing must be of a certain quality. The sort of housing a homeless person could afford is expressly illegal. And there are interventions in the labour market making it illegal to hire these people (the minimum wage). But I digree. Having a market in health care doesn't mean the poor would go without health care. Doctors are compassionate people. No doctor is going to see a sick person come to their hospital and say "nah, you're not rich enough, go die on the street". That's not how the world works. On the market, people would pay what they could afford, and if they couldn't afford it the doctor / hospital would donate their time and equipment.

Government is the illusion that we can all live at the expense of someone else. Unfortunately there comes a time in every persons life that they realize they are the somebody else. That the pocket they are picking is their own. There's nothing free in this world. Everyone charges the government the max - as they should. But this greatly inflates the costs involved with health care. If doctors had to charge patients directly for most stuff, then they would charge the minimum and seek to find ways to reduce waste and lower costs. Government is always tremendously inefficient because no one spends someone else's money as carefully as they spend their own. Further what you have with socialized medicine is a government monospony. All health care services - with a few exceptions - are bought by the government. This means that no doctor needs to compete with lower costs. The end user isn't going to decide where to go based on how much it costs the government and so there is absolutely no incentive for the doctors to charge less than the absolute maximum. But eventually all of this needs to be paid for by taxpayers.

You know what politicians in Canada do when they get sick? They hop on the first plane to the states because their wealth, stolen from the Canadian public, enables them to get the first class medical treatment they have made it illegal to provide here. Illegal. Yes, Canada is one of the only countries, along with Cuba and North Korea, that has made it a criminal for a doctor to sell their services to the consumer. That's right - we live in a country where a prostitute can legally sell his / her body, but a doctor is criminally liable if they sell their medical services. It's a messed up world we live in. Privatize everything!
jh1234l

Con

1. Having a market in health care doesn't mean that the poor wouldn't get care. We have a market in housing and a market in food, yet the poor don't starve or go homeless. Of course there are SOME people who are homeless but this isn't due to the market but due to government intervention in the market. Low cost housing is forbidden due to regulations ensuring all housing must be of a certain quality.

In a market, the government will try to ensure all health care is a certain quality as well, making it more expensive. However, universal health care still has the same quality, but will be cheaper as the taxes pay for it and subsidize for it.

2. "Doctors will seek cheaper charges, the government won't."

Your opinion is not the government's opinion. Your opinion is ot the doctor's opinion. You cannot know what they would do unless you have a psychic power or it is obvious, which isn't true in this case.

3.Further what you have with socialized medicine is a government monospony. All health care services - with a few exceptions - are bought by the government. This means that no doctor needs to compete with lower costs. The end user isn't going to decide where to go based on how much it costs the government and so there is absolutely no incentive for the doctors to charge less than the absolute maximum. But eventually all of this needs to be paid for by taxpayers.

Again, you do not know what they will do, you are not them.

4. You know what politicians in Canada do when they get sick? They hop on the first plane to the states because their wealth, stolen from the Canadian public, enables them to get the first class medical treatment they have made it illegal to provide here. Illegal. Yes, Canada is one of the only countries, along with Cuba and North Korea, that has made it a criminal for a doctor to sell their services to the consumer. That's right - we live in a country where a prostitute can legally sell his / her body, but a doctor is criminally liable if they sell their medical services. It's a messed up world we live in. Privatize everything!

Private market health care is allowed in Canada. In fact, they have private health care companies that have their own web pages![1] Again, you are basing your arguments on false assumptions.

Here is an argument based on the same fallacies as the ones you made:

"You know what those private health care people do? They rip you off with high prices and then if you not buy their products they shoot you in your head and then they would send a biological weapon into the city so that people get sick and they get money. If you don't buy their health care they will force you to buy it so that they get money! Public health care is not allowed in Minecraftia and they have those big companies charging too much emeralds everywhere! Make health care public!"

See how your argument fails because you do not put sources to confdirm their validity?


[1]http://novartis.ca...
Debate Round No. 2
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Pro

Your link is to a pharmaceutical company. I didn't say drug manufacturers were banned, it is the private practice of medicine that is banned. A doctor charging a patient for their services. In the last provincial election Deb Matthews MPP an influential member of the McGuinty government set up a snitch line where consumers could call in and snitch on doctors who were charging for their services and the government would ensure they gave a full refund to the consumer. The private practice of medicine is illegal in Ontario.

http://news.nationalpost.com...

here's an excerpt :

"Ontario has taken the unprecedented step of setting up a toll-free snitch line for people to report cases of illegal private health care " and says it has triggered 35 investigations in barely a month."
jh1234l

Con

Pro has conceded all his points. The practice of private medicine use is only banned because they charge 100 dollars for a glass of post operative orange juice.

http://news.nationalpost.com...

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by ZakYoungTheLibertarian 4 years ago
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
so you don't have to worry about me burdening your precious socialist health care system again, because i'm never talking to another doctor so long as i live
Posted by ZakYoungTheLibertarian 4 years ago
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
but hey, nice to know the system is working for you. lots of us aren't so lucky, which is kind of the point. last time i had a serious health problem (kept stopping breathing) i was not only refused treatment, I was actually declared mentally insane and placed under arrest and almost the victim of forced medication (bunch of security guards were going to hold me down while i was sedated).
Posted by ZakYoungTheLibertarian 4 years ago
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
well the state ran media has a piece on it, for one :

http://www.cbc.ca...
Posted by muzebreak 4 years ago
muzebreak
Proud Canadian here. I had one doctor from the age of 6 to 11 that also treated all my family, then we moved and I got a new doctor. He was our family doctor till he retired 5 years later. Then we moved to Ireland. Where did you get this idea that its hard to find a family doctor, because everyone I knew had one.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
ZakYoungTheLibertarianjh1234lTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had some misunderstandings of what universal health care was. In round 3 Pro ignored most of Con. Pro also made many unsourced claims, this gives sources to Con.
Vote Placed by Legitdebater 4 years ago
Legitdebater
ZakYoungTheLibertarianjh1234lTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made irrational, hypothetical remarks without factual sources. Pro's conduct was mediocre with weak arguments. Unfortunately, pro and con don't make SOURCES. Guys use sources, they can be the difference between winning and losing a debate.