The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Healthcare for all in the US

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Wyattcodered has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2018 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,428 times Debate No: 118259
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




Please use the first argument to accept, Thank you.
Happy debating!


I agree to this debate, Thank you for letting me debate you.
Debate Round No. 1


The pleasure is all mine. Good luck!

The first thing I need to make completely clear is that although I do not support Healthcare for all, I also do not support the system we have right now because the facts largely show that our system does a poor job of supplying people with affordable healthcare. I contribute this to the mass regulation in the U. S. Healthcare industry.

There are three main attributes that characterize a given healthcare system:
1. Affordability
2. Universal Availability
3. Quality

The fundamental problem in this debate is that no system can effectively meet all three of these attributes. It has never been done nor even theorized. What makes the United States healthcare system so bad is that it only encompasses one of these three, Quality, And what makes Universal Health care slightly better but not the best is that it encompasses the two that nearly coincide with each other, Affordability and Universal Availability.

Evidence largely suggests the U. S. Healthcare System is a much higher caliber of quality of other Universal Healthcare options. For instance, In countries such as Canada, Citizens die on the wait list because of long wait lines [Source 1]. It also takes roughly 10. 8 weeks to get an MRI scan [Source 2]. For those who are unaware, MRIs play essential roles such as pinpointing injuries, Scanning the brain, And scanning the spinal cord, And recently, I actually dislocated my kneecap, Tore a ligament, And sustained a fracture (I do not recommend doing this. . . ). I was able to get an MRI WITHIN a week. As far as treatment, The U. S. Not only does the best job at treating cancers [Source 3], But also has an overall higher quality and opportunity for treatment. The United States also has the most innovations in medicine [Source 5] and by far the most health publications in all areas [Source 6]. Whereas in other countries you are limited in your treatment by the capacities of your government, Which are always lower than necessary, In the United States, You are limited by your paycheck because treatment options are truly the best and most abundant in the world.

Now it's time for the problems with the present U. S. Healthcare System. As I already stated, It is far too regulated. Did you know that it is impossible to get a concrete cost on something as simple as an X-Ray [Source 4]? If you ask a doctor, They can't tell you because they have to negotiate with insurance to come up with a cost. Because of this, It makes it impossible for competition to drive down the prices and make healthcare more affordable. Let's look at Epipens which are essentially shots of adrenaline in the case of a severe food allergy. I use Epipens because I have a tree nut allergy (also do not recommend); the problem is that since there was only one company because of a government controlled monopoly which caused a 400% increase in cost [Source 7]. Epipens costed $30 to make [Source 8], Yet they were $300 to buy. With competition, This number would probably be around $50.

There is a widely accepted notion that just because every other nation has Universal Healthcare, And that the U. S. System is far from great, That it is the right solution, And that is false. Quality is indisputably the most critical attribute for a healthcare system, And the U. S. Has it, Now we need to fix prices, Not by literally fixing them by more regulation, But by actually allowing for competition in the healthcare system which would make it much more affordable and, Therefore, Available to everyone.

When it comes down to it, To repeat, The debate comes down to which of the three attributes previously stated, And if the U. S. System were not so regulated, We would have excellent quality and affordability which would in turn make it much more available. The only thing it fails to offer is free healthcare for absolutely everyone, Although the decreasing of prices may make it affordable to everyone.

To sum up each based on their principals, My proposed solution is entirely based on the idea of the equality of opportunity where the possibilities are endless and people should have the best odds of surviving with the best medical care in the world while Universal Healthcare mandates equality of outcome, Making everyone's outcome equally worse.

I would like to control my fate, Would you like to control yours?

Source 1:
https://www. Factcheck. Org. . .
Source 2:
https://www. Fraserinstitute. Org. . .
Source 3:
https://www. Forbes. Com. . .
Source 4:
https://health. Costhelper. Com. . .
Source 5:
https://www. Cato. Org. . .
Source 6:
https://www. Scimagojr. Com. . .
Source 7:
https://www. Dailywire. Com. . .
Source 8:
http://time. Com. . .


I'm going to start off with something short and to the point. No healthcare system is perfect and some models are defiantly better than others. The US healthcare system is far from perfect. I agree with your three main attributes because these are the three things everybody wants in a health care system. The system now in the US as you said has its focus on Quality of care. This Quality has allowed the US to lead research into medicine. Where the debate takes place is U. S healthcare system now vs Universal health care system.

As to your first point with Canda, Many people point to them as a model of universal health care. This is simply not the best case of the health care system in action. The wait times are notciuorly long and people have even died in the process if waiting for something urgent. There have even been cases of people having to wait two years. While in the US if you need an MRI as your example you just walk in and get it. The only difference between the two is to pay, How much will this MRI cost you in the US. This is where the chart comes in handy Below is the cost of an MRI in these states.

Orlando, FLMRI$2, 229
Dallas, TX - MRI Testing Facility AMRI$3, 624
Dallas, TX - MRI Testing Facility BMRI$2, 172
San Diego, CAMRI$2, 826
Salt Lake City, UTMRI$1, 694
Detroit, MIMRI$3, 461
New York, NY - MRI Testing Facility AMRI$1, 785
New York, NY - MRI Testing Facility BMRI$2, 199
Raleigh, NCMRI$3, 001
Omaha, NEMRI$2, 502

Now take in account the 11. 2% of the US population that doesn't have any health care plan and that full price is a succinct amount of money to pay (source two) In Canada it comes down to are you willing to wait or pay? Now, This can be a huge problem of both cases. Neither is very good, It is a debate over the best of the two evils the price of healthcare in the US is crazy while the wait in Canada is crazy.

In short, What is the best evil?
http://www. Comparemricost. Com. . .
https://www. Cnbc. Com. . .
Return to the Debate
Debate Round No. 2


In my first line of content, I explicitly made sure to say that our healthcare system needs fixing and I have a fix, So the question is not "What is the best evil? ", It is: what can we do to maximize the potentials of the healthcare industry? Our country needs a healthcare industry that is based on the free market system, Not the regulated mess that is the healthcare industry today.

You are incorrect about the MRI costs. Those are not the costs of the actual MRIs; those are the AVERAGE costs of MRIs. Imagine you went to a store to buy a TV. It's pretty easy to search around, Find what you need, And compare products to get the lowest possible price. This is far from the case with MRIs. You can't get a concrete price on an MRI from a doctor until after it is done, And there is so much regulation that competition can't even take place. Because of this, The costs literally range from $500 to $12, 000 [http://time. Com. . . ]. If a TV salesman told you that he did not know how much the TV would cost, That he would let you know about a week after purchasing it, And that there would be no refunds, I think it's pretty safe to say you would NOT buy the TV. The healthcare industry today is this TV paradigm, Except in a world where you need TVs to LIVE. If you were that TV salesman, You would want to sell it at a higher price because people would still buy your product at the same rate, For they wouldn't know they are getting scammed, And you would earn more money. Sounds like a win-win situation for the vendor. This is why MRI prices are so unaffordable. This is why x-rays are more expensive depending on which part of the body the x-ray is taken (when the cost of doing the x-ray is the exact same). There is no incentive to make prices reasonable because business owners can capitalize off of this at the expense of the consumer with no repercussions. If people knew the prices of these medical procedures before they paid, The businesses that deliberately exploit these regulations would either have to lower prices massively or go out of business, And there would be much more incentive to produce a less expensive form of MRI that would undercut all the competition.

Let's look at Lasik eye surgery. Since insurance largely does not cover it, You can ask a price, Compare them, And choose the least expensive one. Because of this, The price dropped $1, 000 (88% of its value) over the course of 20 years [https://www. Forbes. Com. . . ]. The free market does wonders because it gives the people the power while the regulations in place now give businesses the power.

I agree that Canada is one of the worst examples, So let's look at Great Britain because they are the poster-child of healthcare for all. Did you know that you are 48% more likely to die in a UK emergency room [https://www. Dailymail. Co. Uk. . . ]? Did you know that the most seriously ill National Health Service (UK federal hospital) patients were seven times more likely to die than their American counterparts? Did you know that NHS death rates are four times higher than the U. S. In general [https://www. Theguardian. Com. . . ]? Did you know that more than 70% of UK hospitals now have doctor shortages [https://www. Theguardian. Com. . . ]?

In addition to this, By giving the government the reigns on healthcare, People have less power and life means less. This is exactly the case in the story of Charlie Gard from last year. He was a baby that was born with a rare and terminal illness called MMDS, A mitochondrial disorder that breaks down muscle and brain tissue. The UK doctors told the parents to let him die, But the parents wanted to give him a chance by going to the United States to undergo experimental treatment. They were prepared to pay for the treatment and transportation on their own, But the doctors would not let them help try to save their child. This eventually went to court and was ruled in favor of the doctors because 'they know better than the parents' [https://www. Npr. Org. . . ]. The expansion of the government in this capacity only leads to situations like this where the government is in control of your health and, Therefore, In control of you.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Jsgraz 3 years ago
The main issue with public schools is that schools mostly get paid per student rather than for success in education which provides little to no incentive to teach at a superior level, And alongside this, In a lot of areas public schools oppose school of choice measures which let parents choose where to send their kid. With school of choice, Competition opens up in the schooling industry which does provide incentive for schools to teach at a higher level. You would most likely have to pay for private school, Although organizations may give grants making it free, But if there was no public education at all, Taxes would be lowered, Giving families more money to spend on schooling in the first place.

Schools don't rely on the government, Less taxes, More quality schooling. It could even be less expensive, As communities commonly give money to schools to improve education.

Free market!
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
I agree with con and am a firm believer in competition. Free health care is a socialist idea, I mostly disagree with socialist ideas but can't find too many arguments against public schools. If anyone has any, Please share.

Posted by genxgirl 3 years ago
Rooting for Con. I'm IN the health care field. Universal Healthcare would be disastrous for the US. Looking forward to a spirited debate nonetheless.
Posted by Jsgraz 3 years ago
Thank you for keeping an open mind; It is people like you that truly make the world a better place!
Posted by Wyattcodered 3 years ago
Hope you will be a fair judge god knows we need more of those people in this world
Posted by AIRhino 3 years ago
I agree with the Con side of this debate, But I wish luck to both sides and I will be watching this debate closely. Good luck! :D
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.