The Instigator
vongsa
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
masterzanzibar
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

that the united states should implement universal health care modeled after the french system

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 11/12/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,510 times Debate No: 5954
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

vongsa

Pro

To start of this debate we just want to say that we are going to prove on how the United States health care is worse then the French health care system. We will prove this by the different cost, and how our economy would benefit from this.

My first contention is that by implementing this universal health then it would make things cheaper. In the united state we pay around 6,100 dollars per person where as in France they pay 3,500 dollars which is half of what we pay. So if we were to implement universal health care modeled after the French system then it would obviously cost less. Also it would be cheaper for the United States because we are running a 2.3 trillion dollar debt due to health care. Also NCHC has stated that in 2016 we will be running a 7 trillion dollar debt to our health care. Where as in France they are running a 2.3 billion dollar deficit, So If we were to implement this plan then we would be slowing down the process of debt that we are leading to. So what I'm trying to prove here in my first contention is that both are health care system has high prices we are not ignoring that but what we are saying is that are prices and debt is much larger then France. So if we were to implement the French health care system then we would be slowing down our increasing debt. Because either way both plans would give us more debt but we are showing you that with the French health care system it would not raise so much as if we did not have the French health care system.

My second contention is that it would benefit to our economy. How it would benefit to our economy is that by implementing this universal health care it would make it cheaper for our economy in price and it would slow down our increasing debt as I have shown you in my first contention. By taking in the universal health care it would mean that there would be less people paying out of there pocket. Also by implementing this universal health care it would give our citizens more money to buy consumer goods which stimulate our economy. This would also benefit to helping our currency. In the United States there are an estimated 45 million people who do not have health insurance. The other benefits of having this universal health care are that it would cover all our people in the United States with health insurance. Also by implementing this universal health care we would be inspiring more people to become doctors because in the French plan it gives free tuition.

My third contention is that the United States health care is remarkably ineffective. The United States has, according to business week, the United States has forty seven million citizens who are uninsured, which is about fifteen percent of our country who is forced to use free health insurance care clinics or emergency rooms. The world health organization ranked us thirty-seventh on it's ranking of health care system. We spend about sixteen percent of our GDP annually on health care, averaging out six thousand and one hundred dollars an individual. The London school of hygiene reported this year that the United States had an average of one hundred thousand people annually, equating to one hundred and one thousand deaths a year that could have been avoided with timely and effective health care. The United States health care system is not working: too few people have access to health care, it's too expensive, and treatment is not being administrated in a proper manner.
sources.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...
http://www.bmj.com...
masterzanzibar

Con

I Negate the resolved.
sorry i missed last round.
Framework:
Okay lets get this straight, for the framework, the pro has to show two things
1. french is best in the world,
2. french can be adapted in the united states
this is significant because logically, the united states should adapt after the best health care system, of which they can adapt to (national markets and economies make this a difficult thing to do.)
if they dont show this, euthanize their case like a stray dog. (I love dogs dont vote me down if your a member of peta or something).

First over the PRO
he states that an adoption of the french health care system will make things cheaper in the united states. However, if we want to make things cheaper in the united states, why not switch over to a single payer system instead?France is only 75 percent nationalized, and they have the third most expensive health care system in the world. in a single payer system the government has complete control over the prices, and everything is capped to eliminate waste and spending. in this point the Pro Completly neglects the thought of qualitative health care in a health care system, so if we are going to try and eliminate the national debt, why not use a single payer system like frances or canada's?

TO ATTACK NUMBER 2
The con again neglects to show us why we should adopt a french health care system that is inevitably failing economically, and is not as qualitatively sound as the united states system. according to the wall street journal in 08, when it comes to life expectancies for disease , the united states ranks remarkably higher than any other country in the world. so sacrifice our qualitative system for a system that sucks economically and qualitativly? at least going through a single payer system would allow the united states complete control over health care appropriations. at the end of this contention, the con states :
Also by implementing this universal health care we would be inspiring more people to become doctors because in the French plan it gives free tuition.
tell this to the doctors in france that have gone on strike for the past 7 years because of abysmal pay and conditions.

TO ATTACK NUMBER THREE
"My third contention is that the United States health care is remarkably ineffective. The United States has, according to business week, the United States has forty seven million citizens who are uninsured, which is about fifteen percent of our country who is forced to use free health insurance care clinics or emergency rooms. "
RESPONSE
ill give him the uninsured part, that truly is bad, however, it can be fixed more effectively through U.S. based or single payer means. if we were to regulate insurance companies, reform the tax code so it isn't pentalizing the lower half of the income scale, and use health tax incentives, this would allow those americans to purchase health care that is much better than france's.
additionally in this contention, while the con asserts that U.S. health care is ineffective, he in no way affirms that the french system is the system to look to for means of reform. so dont look to the cons arguments in this debate.

MY CASE
contention 1
french system puts around 87 percent of private insurance companies out of buisiness.
according to the health care economist in 08. only 13 percent of insurance in france is subsidized through private health insurance. consequentially, 87 percent of health care in france is subsidized by the government in france. if we were to adopt this system in the united states, where the private industry is a 1.02 trillion dollar industry employing 2.3 million people per year (u.s. labor stats in 08) we would put a huge strain on our economy that already sucks. while laying off the majority of 2.3 million people to put an even worse strain on our economy that sucks even worse.

contention 2 ruin us quality
us has best quality in the world look to WSJ evidence that i provided earlier

a. doctors hate it
according to bbc news in 08 french doctors have gone on strike for the past 7 consecutive years because of abysmal pay and conditions. if we were to adapt this system into the united states, doctors that are already getting 3 times the pay of french doctors, would either retire, get a new job, or take their business to another country where they can get the most money.

b. medical technology companies go out of business
according to the health care economist in 08, the french government does not subsidize new medical technologies.
addtionally, france doctors don't pay for new medical technology because of the salary cap. according to shafin 08 a graduate from the wharton school of business, he states that the top 20 medical technology companies in 07 took in around 118 billion, and employed around a half a million people. this would put a huge strain on our economy, and would ruin health care, for medical technology is the fundamental reason for our sucessfully qualitative health care in the United States.

GO BYU COUGARS!
Debate Round No. 1
vongsa

Pro

it's fine it's no big deal.

but to start this debate about how my opponent has stated that we can make this cheaper by having a single payer system. well by adopting universal health care we would be insuring 47 million people with health care so they could get treat meant and not paying so much where as without health care you would be paying out of your pocket. also that with are citizens having more money due to not paying out of there pocket this would lead to us having more money to buy consumer goods which would stimulate are economy and benefit to our currency. also my opponent is talking about we could have are debt decrease if we have a single payer system but this resolution is just talking about if we should implement universal health care and by modeling after the French so what he is talking about single payer system is totally irrelevant to this debate. we are not trying to get rid of the debt because it would be impossible to do so. what I'm trying to prove is that by implementing universal health care we would be saving more money and that the national debt would not increase so fast where as we spend about 2.3 trillion dollars due to health care last year and estimated to be around 7 trillion in 2016. as in France there deficit is only 9 billion dollars last year, so you can already see the difference between the two. but to say that either way both health insurance would be putting us in debt regardless but what I'm saying is that by taking in universal health care we would be slowing down our increasing debt.

economically and qualitatively is what my opponent is saying about the French system and how it would not work in the united states.

well to start off the physicians in the united states are ranked in the top three so we already have some of the best physicians and that if we implement universal health care which is better then our health care system. so this means with better health care and better physicians then this logically means better quality.

this is what my opponent has stated in his third contention.
according to shafin 08 a graduate from the wharton school of business, he states that the top 20 medical technology companies in 07 took in around 118 billion, and employed around a half a million people. this would put a huge strain on our economy

in my oppents I believe first contention he stated according to bbc news in 08 French doctors have gone on strike for the past 7 consecutive years because of abysmal pay and conditions. well how is that possible when doctors were forced to work which is allowed in France. but also doctors were back at work but were wearing strike signs. so I believe that you were mistaken but I am not saying you were wrong. doctors just protested they were on strike but under French law they still were forced to work. also why would you quit being a doctor after many years of school for this major, just to find another job. where as if you only have a degree in education how could you possibly find a job that makes more then what doctors already get.
MY RESPONSE TO THIS
I do not understand that giving half a million people jobs would hurt our economy, I believe it would only help because you would be giving more people jobs,
and in his third contention he stated it would put medical technology companies go out of business. if this were true how come he has not shown us what business have gone out due to this universal health care.

so i erge you to vote pro in this debate for all the reasons i have stated
masterzanzibar

Con

My opponent completely drops my framework argument which was
1. pro must prove french system is the best in the world
2. pro must prove that the french system can be adapted in the united states
since my opponent does not provide a framework, and concedes mine, look to this as the framework for this debate round.

"My first contention is that by implementing this universal health then it would make things cheaper. In the united state we pay around 6,100 dollars per person where as in France they pay 3,500 dollars which is half of what we pay. So if we were to implement universal health care modeled after the French system then it would obviously cost less."
MY RESPONSE:
why opponent has misconstrued my attacks against his first contention. I am not attacking this point by saying that u.s. system is better than the french system. I am merely saying that the french system is the third most expensive in the world. if your going to model after a system just because it "covers" someone (reguardless of qualitative aspects) why not model after a system like canda's or great britain where they cawhere they have much cheaper system's than the current French national health insurance. The reason why this is more effective than the french system is because the government has 100 percent control over prices, whereas the french government only has 75 percent. Through a single payer system we could be alot more cost effective than a french multipayer system because the government has full control of the prices, and can completely rid administrative costs which are 30% of health care.

"also my opponent is talking about we could have are debt decrease if we have a single payer system but this resolution is just talking about if we should implement universal health care and by modeling after the French so what he is talking about single payer system is totally irrelevant to this debate."

My RESPONSE:
a single payer system is very much pertainent to this debate, for I am negating this resolution by stating that we shouldn't adopt the french system because there are more effective alternatives to look to.

"what I'm trying to prove is that by implementing universal health care we would be saving more money and that the national debt would not increase so fast where as we spend about 2.3 trillion dollars due to health care last year and estimated to be around 7 trillion in 2016. as in France there deficit is only 9 billion dollars last year, so you can already see the difference between the two. but to say that either way both health insurance would be putting us in debt regardless but what I'm saying is that by taking in universal health care we would be slowing down our increasing debt."

My Response: My opponent again has again fallaciously asserted that we look to the French health care system to resolve our fiscal debt. however, why should we look to reform our system through a system that is clearly going bankrupt itself? health care costs in French payroll taxes have increase from 13 percent to around 50 percent in the last year, and my opponent himself states that the fiscal situation in France is bad.

" physicians in the united states are ranked in the top three so we already have some of the best physicians and that if we implement universal health care which is better then our health care system. so this means with better health care and better physicians then this logically means better quality."

My RESPONSE:
Look to my contention 2 sub point a to answer the assertion made by my opponent. French doctors are familiar to working in bad conditions with horrible pay. however, if we implement the same system in the united states, we ship our qualitative doctors overseas.

MY RESPONSE TO THE REST OF HIS ARGS
you take your business overseas because their is an obvious incentive to work for 200,000 dollars in Russia than there is in the united states for 50,000. Not all doctors are going to change professions, but the ones who are actually qualitative will be going overseas to make more money.
my opponent misconstrued my putting insurance companies out of business arguments, this wouldn't be giving more people jobs, an adoptiion of this system would be laying of MILLIONS.

medical technology companies don't go out of buisiness in france because there is no serious industry. whereas in the united states, these companies pull in 108 billion in profits per year. if we were to implement this system in the united states, we cut off work to millions of employees while simultaneously putting a huge strain on our economy.

KOBE BRYANT FOR PRESIDENT.
Debate Round No. 2
vongsa

Pro

to wrap up this debate what I'm trying to prove is that we should adopt universal health care modeled after the French because as I have stated earlier that we have a 2.3 trillion debt due to health care and France has a 9 billion dollar deficit do you can clearly see the difference between the two and I do agree with my opponent that we would go bankrupt with this universal health care but what I'm also trying to say is that even if we don't take in the universal health care we still would be going bankrupt. but by taking in universal health care we wouldn't go into bankrupt so quickly.

my second point is that it could be possible to work universal health care in the united states, in Kentucky they had done a similar thing like universal health care but they stated it did not work due to the low number of citizens. so if we were to take in universal health care which would include every one then we could possibly work universal health care into our system this are my two main points on why I should win this debate

thank you masterzanzibar for such a great debate no one has ever bring up this kind of information and you should tell me what framework has to do with this debate
masterzanzibar

Con

masterzanzibar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by djexcelsior 8 years ago
djexcelsior
framework tells the judge what either side of the argument has to do to win the debate. So, in a way, by making a framework you are making the rules to the debate. By conceding the framework, you conceded that you should have to prove that france has the best health care system in the world, and that the french health care system can be adapted to the united states.
Posted by vongsa 8 years ago
vongsa
can you please explain to me what framework has to do with this debate I'm not trying to b rude just curious
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by masterzanzibar 8 years ago
masterzanzibar
vongsamasterzanzibarTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by kelseybear16 8 years ago
kelseybear16
vongsamasterzanzibarTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by djexcelsior 8 years ago
djexcelsior
vongsamasterzanzibarTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by kels1123 8 years ago
kels1123
vongsamasterzanzibarTied
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:07