The Instigator
lindsay
Pro (for)
Losing
49 Points
The Contender
Smashlove
Con (against)
Winning
63 Points

national health care

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: 12/8/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,925 times Debate No: 170
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (19)
Votes (36)

 

lindsay

Pro

I am curious why anybody would oppose national health care.

As a nursing student, I am in the hospital on a routine basis, and have a really difficult time knowing the financial debt that people have to deal with once they get discharged. What's worse is when people get turned away due to a lack of sufficient insurance. Why would any person oppose the idea of national health care, especially since we are the only industrialized nation that does not offer this to our citizens? All of the other countries who DO have socialized medicine have been successful with the implementation of the program. What is holding us back? 68% of people filing for bankruptcy due to medical expenses HAVE insurance. Even the middle-class Americans are having financial difficulty! Wake up, America, and support a candidate who WILL give us national health care!
Smashlove

Con

Why would anyone oppose national health care? It all comes down to taxation. The United States' current fiscal policy is broken up in a pie chart method. The major areas are: education, military, and social security, plus numerous other social reform programs. To really believe a current candidate can bring you a health care plan that will justly help all Americans is unattainable. We need to first look at, is health care a privilege or entitlement/ right? We have billion dollar health care insurance agencies who have themselves situated right in the government's pocket. Health care is a service. It is a marketable entity, and it not a right. What happens to other universal health systems globally? They experience a lack in medical equipment advances- we evolve because extensive monies fund new technology. New technology leads to new cures, and furthered human longevity. Canadians comes over the border just to get an MRI in a timely fashion. Universal health care= consumers being treated all equally. There is no triage. You wait. Who is going to pay for this? Other nations pay further taxes than we currently do. If America is taxed further, then the economy will not continue to grow. We will become stagnant. Health care is a privilege. Social Security needs to be on the forefront, more than any other issue. That system is on the verge of going bankrupt in a decade- and we need to protect our older generations.

Supplemental health care assistance makes more sense.We have too many illegals entering our country yearly, that our helping feed into the chaos. Something has to give before health care because a higher priority.
These are not easy issues.
Debate Round No. 1
lindsay

Pro

I appreciate the response, Smashlove. I do disagree, however, with health care being a privilege.

How can education be a right, and health care be a privilege? With "No Child Left Behind" George W. Bush made education a right for every American. But in the big scheme of things, which is more important-educational competency or staying alive and functioning without illness?

The obvious answer is that health care is far more important than even education. Now, I'm not arguing that education is not important. It is imperative to developing our nation. However, health care MUST be a top priority on the upcoming candidate's platform.

Also, it is not true that "Canadians come over the border to get an MRI in a timely fashion." I'm sure that some have. However, the FACTS (not "rumors") are that a higher percentage of people are satisfied with the health care they have received in OTHER countries (industrialized) than in THIS country.

Perhaps if we weren't in a major deficit right now, socialized health care would be attainable. Instead of keeping this nation's citizens alive, congress has approved spending of over $699 billion dollars for fighting this war on terror. Granted, that money is spent and gone, but if we get the troops home in a timely manner, and spend money on the citizens that are dying HERE on our soil, instead of paying money to kill other people on THEIR soil, health care is an attainable goal.

I think the only reason people oppose the notion is because they don't believe it. It's not too good to be true, it works in other nations, and it can work here. YES, taxes will go up. But why did we have a tax cut during war anyway?? That was the only time in US history that we got a tax CUT during a war. I am prepared and more than willing to pay more in taxes if it means a free doctor visit whenever I'm ill, and affordable medicine.

The insurance and pharmaceutical industries are both fraudulent, and don't deserve our money any longer. I would prefer LESS money go into the government and in the end, help me when I'm sick, than MORE of my money go to white-collared criminals who take advantage of our nation.

I know that sounds extreme, but it is true. Why should we pay up to $400 for certain precriptions that can be attained for $10 in other countries? Because that $390 difference goes into the elite pockets of the pharm. industries.

Quick example that many might be unaware of--

Rick Perry, Republican Governor of Texas, had his campaign funded for primarily by the pharmaceutical company Merck.

Shortly after being elected governor, Perry made the "Gardasil" vaccine mandatory for all 6th grade girls.

Gardasil is the HPV preventive vaccine that Merck created. It costs $200 per shot, and 3 shots are required to be immune to the virus. That is $600/girl.

So basically, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" philosophy applied. Merck paid to have Perry elected, then Perry makes their vaccine mandatory, and Merck brings in some serious money.

This was wrong on a lot of levels, but I do realize it wasn't my initial point. In conclusion, I am prepared to pay more taxes for better healthcare, because it shouldn't be a privilege, it really should be a right.

If you're willing to socialize education, why not medicine? Your taxes already go toward school....which is more important-reading a book, or living to see tomorrow?
Smashlove

Con

It is nice that you are willing to pay more taxes to receive free health care. I, on the other hand do not see the need for more taxation than there currently is. I am not even going to bother bringing the War into this matter. Freedom is not free. Our lives are dependent first, and foremost, by living in a free nation.
Health care is a large big business infrastructure. It isn't acceptable to make fleeting statements about pharmaceutical companies who do make a huge difference in the creation of vaccines and palliative care. We need the pharmaceutical companies too. They create jobs for Americans. They are doing the necessary research to come up with answers. Having health care in a free format is the only way to increase research, invention, and future endeavors.

Also, More taxation means that you will also be paying for those who do not contribute to our free market as well. For example, legal immigrants- there needs to be reforms for the health care system to receive what it needs. Many of the health conditions are out there due to Americans not taking care of their health. Obesity and many other gluttonous vices play a role in the overpopulated hospitals. We need to start looking more for preventative measures to lessen hospital needs. The elderly are the American's eating up our insurance dollars by constant checkups. We have supplements out there currently. Laws need to be created to urge companies to supplement health care insurance for their workers.

Attacking the homeland security measures is not the answer. Hillary Clinton is out there trying to set up a universal system, however she is not developing anything concrete that will make our economy transition nicely.

Smearing the pharmaceutical companies and government sectors will not lead to a solution. It is about starting with baby steps, rather than a outright revolution.

We had a tax cut that served the public in a beneficial way. We have not had inflationary periods, nor recession in quit in quite some time.
Debate Round No. 2
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by clsmooth 6 years ago
clsmooth
Lindsay asks, "How can education be a right but healthcare a privilege."

Good question.

Neither is a right. Both are services.

Rights cannot imply any responsibilities on others. Me speaking freely does not compel you to listen. Me receiving education as a "right" for "free" compels someone else to pay for it -- either through direct slave labor on the part of the educator or indirect slave labor through taxation.

People are against socialized healthcare because socialism is violence and it doesn't work. It has been proven time and time again. I wish the Left would look into the economists who supported "social democracy" and "mixed economies" during the formative years of their development -- they were all, without exception, vicious warmongers. Meanwhile, the economists who were for peace were free-market capitalist economists, who recognized that government abroad is force, and government domestically is force as well.

Although she did not make the argument that I would have, I have to give this one to smashlove. Mostly, for her contention that just because YOU (in this case, Lindsay) are willing to pay more taxes for healthcare, it doesn't mean EVERYONE else is. Taxes simply force people to do things they don't want to do. If you are for freedom, you are against taxation. If socialized healthcare is a good idea, the socialization can occur voluntarily, through private, non-government means. For example: Join an insurance cooperative that doesn't "discriminate" on the basis of pre-existing condition and scales premiums on ability to pay. These exist and they accurately reflect what socialized medicine would be like, minus the inherent violence of a government program.

Finally, I must point out that the government's current level of involvement in medicine distorts the market and pushes prices upward. That's why the drug companies LOVED the prescription-drug benefit. They love Medicare and Medicaid. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Posted by tbarber001 6 years ago
tbarber001
okay the person below me...its not about being nice...and willing to pay money....

if you are so nice...donate ur own money!
the govt shouldnt raise taxes for those who can't afford it.

okay maybe someone can answer this question....i know i dont pay taxes...and if i do its not a lot..i mean social secuirity and medicare is taken out of my check....and its amazing it will never be for me... :) dont the middle-class get taxed the most...right and poor taxed the least....maybe im not following
or the illegal hispanics will get this benefit as well...the free health care...i mean thats not right...even though they probably get it anyway....y should we spend our money on people who break the law entering this country.
you know...I know im not really old enough to have experienced this problem...but increasing taxes will put a burden on those who have to pay it....
why not have the hospitals allow donations for that sort of thing.
Posted by smile899 6 years ago
smile899
Actually, it's not that I think that I'm nice and you're not. It's that I think the majority of Americans aren't willing to pay for everyone else's healthcare. The rich would end up paying for those who couldn't manage the cost, and in the meantime would lose the excellent quality of healthcare they receive because of their wealth. I very much doubt that those people who are better off would be willing to settle for "average" levels of healthcare so that less fortunate people can have the same. In American society, people are generally taught that they must earn what they want. If you believe that the same principle applies to health care, you wouldn't be willing to help the others below you, who you feel didn't work to get their share. Whether or not that applies to you is not my concern; I don't even know you, and I'm not going to pretend like I do.
Posted by Phil 6 years ago
Phil
Actually, most of the Democrat's NHC plans would prohibit and/or punish people through fines for using private, non-government health care. That option will pretty much be taken away for most people except the very very wealthy. If you think the DMV line is long...just wait to NHC.

America is the most giving nation in the history of the world. When a child needs a kidney transplant, family, friends, and churches do everything possible to help the child.
Posted by mr_know_it_all 6 years ago
mr_know_it_all
Phil, you can still pay a ton of money to a fancy american, english, indian, or any other nationality of surgeon that the extra money that you have will afford. for the poor kid that needs a kidney transplant, NHC offers a surgeon that decided to render his services for a broader economic spectrum of people.
Posted by Phil 6 years ago
Phil
Well, maybe we shouldn't get into a debate about this topic. Neither of us will change our mind. If you're right, and NHC is coming, perhaps we should meet back here in 10-years, so one of us can concede whether or not we are better off with it. I believe our goals/intentions are the same...we want the best quality health care for the most people possible. We're just disagreeing on how to get there and who will pay for it. Time will tell.

My conservative principles tell me that health care is a service like any other, and I wouldn't dare ask my neighbor to pay for my medical bills, rich or poor. Good health, just like happiness, is not guaranteed by our Constitution. What gets under my skin are people who want socialism, but instead of moving to any of the dozens of socialist nations in the world, want to instead change our capitalistic nation.
Posted by lindsay 6 years ago
lindsay
Phil, I'm not going to debate with you if you're not even task-oriented enough to address what I brought to the table. I compared socialized medicine to socialized schooling.

And just because I'm nice, I'll respond to your question. NHC systems WORK in:

Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal,[3] Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom

That's just Europe...

Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Chile, Cuba, Uruguay, Brunei, India, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, South Korea, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, and Austrailia.

US Healthcare spending is the highest in the WORLD...we pay more than ANY of these countries do, only it's out of pocket.

Also, America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country BUT has worse ratings on such criteria as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, right care and wait times, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
Posted by Phil 6 years ago
Phil
Why didn't you address my concern that the quality of service declines dramatically for everyone when the government takes over health care? There's a reason Canadians (who have national health care) come to America when they need important surgery, because their NHC cannot provide it. If you take competition out of the picture, then we will no longer improve the system, it will become mediocre, if not worse. Show me a NHC system that actually works.
Posted by lindsay 6 years ago
lindsay
And Phil,
In response to your question,
"when's the last time the government did anything better than the private market?"
.....

I'm not arguing that public schools are BETTER, but at least public education is offered to every American. Sure, private schools have lower drop-out rates, higher student/faculty satsifaction, and the like...but at least the government was successful in implementing an educational system that would give everybody an equal opportunity to succeed. I don't understand why people who oppose NHC don't have a problem with public education....tax dollars go to public schools (EVEN ONES WITH ILLEGAL MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS, OH MY GOSH) and people aren't whining about that! But when it comes to saving lives, they have a bone to pick....it's because conservatives are afraid of change, even when it is going to be for the best.

AND I suggest all who oppose NHC get a change of opinion soon, because a Dem is going to be in office, and all of the forerunners support NHC. It's coming, get ready....you'll be grateful in the end.
Posted by lindsay 6 years ago
lindsay
vicious wit, it really saddens me that the reason you are against national healthcare would be because of overcrowding. follow me on this one-

if there are 5 people waiting to see a doctor right now, that means 5 people are sick and can afford to get better. that DOES NOT mean that only 5 people need medical attention.

if we have a national healthcare system, and there ends up being 20 people in the waiting room (hypothetically speaking of course), that just means that 15 MORE people now can get well because money is no longer a discriminatory factor as to who is deserving in receiving treatment.

Your "point" is saying that only the people who can afford to see a doctor (including yourself), deserve to see a doctor. The greed and selfishness is completely unattractive, and frankly, disgusting in my opinion.

Also, please don't ever tell me (or anyone!) that I "should" or "shouldn't" feel a certain way--it makes you appear arrogant, and I don't even know you.
36 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by lindsay 6 years ago
lindsay
lindsaySmashloveTied
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 
Vote Placed by erick1 6 years ago
erick1
lindsaySmashloveTied
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 jemual 6 years ago
jemual
lindsaySmashloveTied
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 thisearthlyride 6 years ago
thisearthlyride
lindsaySmashloveTied
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 sluggerjal 6 years ago
sluggerjal
lindsaySmashloveTied
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 clsmooth 6 years ago
clsmooth
lindsaySmashloveTied
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 rambling_philosopher 6 years ago
rambling_philosopher
lindsaySmashloveTied
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 OhioForHillary 6 years ago
OhioForHillary
lindsaySmashloveTied
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 kgarner 6 years ago
kgarner
lindsaySmashloveTied
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 kels1123 6 years ago
kels1123
lindsaySmashloveTied
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