Attention: Debate.org is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
squeakly54n6
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
isabella7008
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

National Healthcare in the US

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 3 votes the winner is...
squeakly54n6
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2019 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,086 times Debate No: 120885
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)

 

squeakly54n6

Pro

Greetings today I will be addressing and debunking some of the major arguments against national healthcare, To be clear and concise I will address affordability, Universality, And quality.

Affordability:

- One of the major arguments I hear against national healthcare is it would cost Trillions every year and would bankrupt America, While this is true it is a very one-sided argument and here's why. According to the Washington Post, Bernie's healthcare plan would cost 7. 35 trillion yearly, While private healthcare would cost 7. 7 Trillion yearly. It is very obvious that national healthcare would actually be cheaper than privatized healthcare. Therefore the affordability argument is debunked.

Universality:

- By the US implementing a national healthcare model, ALL Americans rich and poor alike would have access to healthcare. This would provide a number of benefits such as higher life expectancy, Better worker productivity, And an overall boost to happiness in America. This would also reduce the number of people going bankrupt in the US, According to the commonwealth fund, " 41 percent of working-age Americans"or 72 million people"have medical bill problems or are paying off medical debt, Up from 34 percent in 2005. " Very clearly many Americans are struggling with paying off health care debt, And by the US instituting national healthcare, This would alleviate that stress.

Quality:

- By far the most common argument I've heard against national healthcare is the wait times and the overall downturn in quality it brings. This is quite simply a baseless accusation that is not backed up by statistics at all. The US according to unnaturalcauses. Org, Wasn't even in the top 10 in life expectancy compared to it's higher counterparts with universal healthcare such as Japan, Switzerland, And Australia.

- Another common argument against the quality of national healthcare is the wait times in these countries. This is true for countries such as Canada, However, This is mostly for specialists and surgeries which of course are going to have longer wait times. The only reason the US doesn't have these long wait times is simply that less and fewer people have access to healthcare in the first place. However, Two countries with mixed systems do perform just as well as the United States does, So this seems to indicate that a private healthcare system is not necessary for short specialist wait times. Ask yourself what is more important, Wait times? Or the thousands of people who die due to not affording healthcare and the millions going bankrupt due to healthcare?
isabella7008

Con

Hi, Today I will be talking about the reasons why national healthcare in the US is bad.

First of all, Let me clarify what national healthcare is. Medicaid and Medicare isn't part of national healthcare. The US currently does not have national healthcare. National Healthcare is for everyone, Which means that everyone would have access to healthcare.

1) Many people think that if there's no national healthcare in the US, Poor people would not have access to healthcare.
The truth is right now in the US, There is a program called Medicaid which provides cheaper healthcare for those who have a low income. The rich can pay for themselves, While the poor have the government paying for them. There is no reason why we should change this perfect scenario.
According to medicaid. Gov "To participate in Medicaid, Federal law requires states to cover certain groups of individuals. Low-income families qualified pregnant women and children"
This website is up to date because it is run by the official Medicaid itself.

2) Raised Taxes for the poor
In my first argument, I already stated how Medicaid already covers healthcare for the poor, Which means that if we had national healthcare in the US only the rich would benefit from it. When there's national healthcare, The government would raise taxes, Then the poor would have to pay more. That's very unfair because then the gap between the rich and the poor would become bigger and bigger because the poor would have to pay more and more while the rich will just pay less and less.

3) The government already can't afford medicare now.
The government's spendings for Medicare and Medicaid is already over the budget. If National Healthcare is added, Money that could be used for other things will get wasted.
According to Forbes. Com in 2018 "The United States can barely afford its existing healthcare obligations. In 2017, The federal government spent more than $700 billion on Medicare -- a 65% increase over just 10 years"

4) We can't predict that there won't be wait times.
Think about it. Since the government isn't willing to spend a lot of money for National Healthcare, The doctors won't get paid a lot. When doctors don't get paid well, They go to private healthcare companies. There will be fewer doctors for national healthcare, Which means that the wait times will go up.
My opponent talks about how wait times are better than thousands of people not having healthcare and millions going bankrupt due to healthcare. Now, Answering to that, The wait times will be so long so that patients will already die or have a weak body by then. It's the same thing as not having healthcare, Except the poor, They will have to pay more money from taxes. Next, No one would get bankrupt from health care. As I said, Right now the government is proving healthcare for those who have a low income.

5) My opponent's evidence is out of date
My opponent uses lots of sources, But the date was never stated. If we don't know the date that the source was created, Then that means that the source could be very outdated. For example, If the source was from 2005, That would be very outdated because things change now.

Thank you so much.
Debate Round No. 1
squeakly54n6

Pro

Greetings thank you for debating me on this subject.

", There is a program called Medicaid which provides cheaper healthcare for those who have a low income. The rich can pay for themselves, While the poor have the government paying for them. There is no reason why we should change this perfect scenario. "

- On paper, I admit this sounds like a good idea. The reality, However, Is that the life expectancy is going down, 45, 000 Americans die yearly due to lack of health care, And healthcare is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US. This is mostly because of the middle class whom aren"t rich enough to afford the healthcare but also aren"t poor enough to apply for Medicaid and Medicare.

" When there's national healthcare, The government would raise taxes, Then the poor would have to pay more. That's very unfair because then the gap between the rich and the poor would become bigger and bigger because the poor would have to pay more and more while the rich will just pay less and less. "

This is incorrect and here"s why statistically private healthcare would cost a few trillion more than national health care would cost. Therefore the government wouldn"t have to raise taxes at all and it would, In fact, Save the US tons of money in return. Besides US citizens already pay the highest cost for healthcare anyways while countries with national healthcare such as Norway and Japan statistically pay less.

" The government already can't afford medicare now.
The government's spendings for Medicare and Medicaid is already over the budget. If National Healthcare is added, Money that could be used for other things will get wasted.
According to Forbes. Com in 2018 "The United States can barely afford its existing healthcare obligations. In 2017, The federal government spent more than $700 billion on Medicare -- a 65% increase over just 10 years""

Again statistically this is inaccurate as the US would save a few trillion dollars yearly if it adopted a national healthcare model. This just proves my point even further as this proves that the American people are paying more money yearly for a worse healthcare system.

" The wait times will be so long so that patients will already die or have a weak body by then. It's the same thing as not having healthcare, Except the poor, "

As i"ve already pointed out, Countries such as Switzerland, UK, And Germany all of which have a form of national healthcare, Have around the same wait times as the US. This is also mostly for specialists as well which take long amounts of time in any country the US included.

" Next, No one would get bankrupt from health care. As I said, Right now the government is proving healthcare for those who have a low income. "

This is grossly incorrect and false on all accounts. According to Harvard in 2007, 60 % of ALL bankruptcies are related to medical bills. Plus according to CNBC, Healthcare is the leading cause of bankruptcy. Very obviously people are going bankrupt each and every day due to our horrible healthcare system.

" My opponent's evidence is out of date "

Admittedly I should have cited my sources, However even if they were outdated ( Which I can assure you they were not as I check the dates before I even read my sources ), The information is still relevant as we have pretty much had the same healthcare system for the past decade.

- Because Debate. Org is a horrible website and hasn't been updated in years, I am unable to post my sources so I will try to do so in the comments if I can.
isabella7008

Con

Greetings.

You answered my raise taxes argument by saying "This is incorrect and here"s why statistically private healthcare would cost a few trillion more than national health care would cost. Therefore the government wouldn't have to raise taxes at all and it would, In fact, Save the US tons of money in return. Besides US citizens already pay the highest cost for healthcare anyways while countries with national healthcare such as Norway and Japan statistically pay less. "
My response: It costs a few trillion more, But that's talking about the total money spent by anyone. It's not only the government paying money, But citizens also pay money from taxes. That few trillion includes taxes.

Your argument: "45, 000 Americans die yearly due to lack of health care, And healthcare is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US. This is mostly because of the middle class whom aren't rich enough to afford the healthcare but also aren't poor enough to apply for Medicaid and Medicare. "
My response to that: 45, 000 Americans isn't a lot to the whole population. Even if you don't buy that, I have a second response. If we ever have National Healthcare, Taxes will go higher, Then they get bankrupt. When they get bankrupt, They can't afford a good home or good food, Which will obviously cause them to die.

Your argument: "Again statistically this is inaccurate as the US would save a few trillion dollars yearly if it adopted a national healthcare model. This just proves my point even further as this proves that the American people are paying more money yearly for a worse healthcare system. "
My response: Again it's not really "save", Because the citizens would end up paying more taxes. Also, When my opponent talk about the US, Who's that? My opponent didn't clarify its argument. Next, My opponent talks about how its a "worse healthcare system", But the quality of private healthcare is actually better because the good doctors who like getting paid more go to the private healthcare companies. Also, It doesn't "save" money because private healthcare companies will still be there.

Your argument: "As I've already pointed out, Countries such as Switzerland, UK, And Germany all of which have a form of national healthcare, Have around the same wait times as the US. This is also mostly for specialists as well which take long amounts of time in any country the US included. "
My response: Ok, So that doesn't really prove anything. This just means that Switzerland, UK, And Germany are very fast, And the US is very slow. National Healthcare will always be slower than it's country's private healthcare, Which proves that if the US had National Healthcare, Wait times would go up. Also, Every president and country is different. You can't predict anything by comparing to countries that are very different. The US is more similar to Canda, Which has a very long wait time.

Your argument: "According to Harvard in 2007, 60 % of ALL bankruptcies are related to medical bills. Plus according to CNBC, Healthcare is the leading cause of bankruptcy. Very obviously people are going bankrupt each and every day due to our horrible healthcare system. "
My response: First of all, It's already 2019. Things have changed, And Medicaid has improved. That piece of evidence is just too out of date. Even if you don't buy that, I have a second response. As I said, Things would get even more expensive for citizens with national insurance. Think about it. National healthcare doesn't mean that healthcare would be free to all citizens. They would still have to pay money. In fact, For those who have Medicaid and Medicare right now would have to pay even more for the healthcare + taxes. Less money would be spent from the government, But more money would have to be paid from the citizens which is not worth it. Even more bankruptcies would happen.

Thank you so much for responding to me :)
Debate Round No. 2
squeakly54n6

Pro

" It costs a few trillion more, But that's talking about the total money spent by anyone. It's not only the government paying money, But citizens also pay money from taxes. That few trillion includes taxes. "

- My statistic to my knowledge included taxes into the equation. The average citizen in the US would spend less money on national healthcare than private healthcare, Even so, The US government would also save money on their healthcare budget as well and there are many statistics to prove so. Again I would LOVE to link them but since debate. Org is broken, I can not sorry.

" 45, 000 Americans isn't a lot to the whole population. "

- 45, 000 yearly is still 45, 000 yearly, That is grossly too many people dying than there should be, Especially when the solution is rather simple.

" If we ever have National Healthcare, Taxes will go higher, Then they get bankrupt "

- Again the average American and the government as a whole would save more money by adopting this model than it would on a privatized model. If so many people would go bankrupt by this model, Then how come statistically people pay less in national healthcare and mixed countries such as Norway, Canada, And Germany?

" Also, When my opponent talk about the US, Who's that? "

- When I say the US, I mean by the United States/America.

" But the quality of private healthcare is actually better because the good doctors who like getting paid more go to the private healthcare companies. "

- If that was the case then how come statistically our life expectancy is going down or that other national healthcare countries have higher life expectancies?

" This just means that Switzerland, UK, And Germany are very fast, "

- What this proves is that whether or not the country has a national healthcare or not is irrelevant when countries like Germany and Switzerland which are either mixed or national, Have around the same wait times if not less.

" The US is more similar to Canda, Which has a very long wait time. "

- The US statistically has a higher GDP, Higher GDP per capita, Different ethnic groups, Different population sizes, Different climates, And different military. So Canada isn't exactly similar to the US. A more accurate country to use in a comparison would be Germany as, Germany has a big; economic and cultural powerhouse of its continent; relatively young country conglomerated out of a bunch of little separate states with common backgrounds; strange mix of socially progressive and conservative values and legislation (though in many ways the opposite mix from the US); workaholic culture (relative to its neighbors? ), Less urbanized and maybe more provincial in places than most of Western Europe (from my understanding, Rural Germany can be isolated and conservative in much the same way as the rural US); had to learn a lot by coming to terms with its shitty history; but profoundly prosperous and industrious from a global viewpoint despite everything. And guess what, Germany has a form of national healthcare and it still has around the same wait times as the US does.

To summarize, National healthcare is cheaper than our current healthcare stystem, Is of better quality, And is universal which would insure everyone has access to good affordable healthcare.
isabella7008

Con

Your argument: "My statistic to my knowledge included taxes into the equation. The average citizen in the US would spend less money on national healthcare than private healthcare, Even so, The US government would also save money on their healthcare budget as well and there are many statistics to prove so. Again I would LOVE to link them but since debate. Org is broken, I can not sorry. "
My response: That may be true, But without a source, No one can be sure if you are telling the truth. I'm sure you could just copy and paste the website. It's possible. In round 1 you said, "According to the Washington Post". You could give a source, But this time you didn't. Because of that, Your statistics are not reliable.

Your argument: "45, 000 yearly is still 45, 000 yearly, That is grossly too many people dying than there should be, Especially when the solution is rather simple. "
My response: Again, As I explained in round two, Even more citizens would die with National Healthcare. With National Healthcare, It would be more expensive for the poor, Since the poor would have Medicaid without National Healthcare. When things are expensive for the poor, They can't afford shelter or basic food to help them survive.
According to ourfuture. Org, "A new report concludes 600, 000 children have died in the United States for no reason over a 50-year period. An entire city of children has been lost. This is really because of taxes. " While 45, 000 die because of lack of health care, 600, 000 children die because of taxes. Even more people would die if we have National Healthcare because National healthcare would increase taxes. Instead of dealing with healthcare and trying to save 45, 000 people, We should deal with taxes which would save 600, 000 people.

Your argument: "Again the average American and the government as a whole would save more money by adopting this model than it would on a privatized model. If so many people would go bankrupt by this model, Then how come statistically people pay less in national healthcare and mixed countries such as Norway, Canada, And Germany? "
My response: Impossible. Someone has to be paying the money. It's impossible for everyone to save money. For example, In life, It wouldn't be like "everyone gets more money, Yay". Someone has to be paying more. Boom, It's raised taxes for citizens. Next, Where do your statistics come from? What is your source? Again, Every country is different. Also, When you said they "pay less", Taxes were not included. Even if you don't buy that, Norway and Canada have super long wait-times for their healthcare system, Which means that if you think the US would be like Norway and Canada, Then you think the US would have super long wait times with national healthcare. Also, Germany healthcare would not suit the US. The healthcare workers in Germany doesn't get paid well. There is already a doctor shortage in the US, And if we pay doctors less then most doctors would be gone and the wait-times would be even worse than Canada. Because of that, Norway, Canada, And Germany don't suit the US very well, Which means that things won't be that cheap for the US.

When I asked you who's the US, You said the United States of America. That's not really what I mean. Like what person is the US? The United States of America is just a piece of land. That piece of land can't really do anything.

Your argument: "If that was the case then how come statistically our life expectancy is going down or that other national healthcare countries have higher life expectancies? "
My response: The countries you compared to doesn't suit the US as I said earlier, In my answer to your "Canada, Norway, And Germany" argument.

Your argument: "What this proves is that whether or not the country has national healthcare or not is irrelevant when countries like Germany and Switzerland which are either mixed or national, Have around the same wait times if not less. "
My response: You didn't really answer directly to my argument. I was just saying that the US would be even slower than Switzerland, UK, And Germany.

Your argument: "The US statistically has a higher GDP, Higher GDP per capita, Different ethnic groups, Different population sizes, Different climates, And different military. So Canada isn't exactly similar to the US. A more accurate country to use in a comparison would be Germany as, Germany has a big; economic and cultural powerhouse of its continent; relatively young country conglomerated out of a bunch of little separate states with common backgrounds; strange mix of socially progressive and conservative values and legislation (though in many ways the opposite mix from the US); workaholic culture (relative to its neighbors? ), Less urbanized and maybe more provincial in places than most of Western Europe (from my understanding, Rural Germany can be isolated and conservative in much the same way as the rural US); had to learn a lot by coming to terms with its shitty history; but profoundly prosperous and industrious from a global viewpoint despite everything. And guess what, Germany has a form of national healthcare and it still has around the same wait times as the US does. "
My response: Sure. If you want to compare to Germany, I can still prove why things would not be good. According to Fundforeducationabroad. Org, "Germany. Healthcare workers make much less money. " As I said, There is already a doctor shortage in the US, And if we pay the doctors even less, There would be even fewer doctors which increases the wait time. Thus, If National Healthcare in the US would be like Germany, There would be a horrible wait-time.

Your argument: "National healthcare is cheaper than our current healthcare system, Is of better quality, And is universal which would ensure everyone has access to good affordable healthcare. "
My response: National Healthcare is only cheaper for the rich but more expensive for the poor. That would spread the gap between the rich and the poor. You never gave any reasons why National Healthcare would have better quality. In fact, Private healthcare gives more quality because all the good doctors will want to get paid more, Which is at the private healthcare. Next, It's not a "Good affordable healthcare. " As I said, It would be even more expensive for the poor with the taxes. The poor get cheap healthcare right now, While the rich get expensive healthcare right now. If we had national healthcare, Things would switch around.

To summarize my main arguments, I would like to say that
1. National Healthcare would save 45, 000 people but kill 600, 000 people
2. With national healthcare, The poor would have to pay more because Medicaid would be gone
3. National Healthcare would have bad quality healthcare (according to reliasmedia. Com)
4. My argument about "The government already can't afford medicare now" Was dropped by my opponent which means that I win on that
5. My opponent's statistics are wrong since my opponent doesn't have any source

Thank you so much, It was pleasure debating you :)
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@dsjpk5

Don't you do the same problem?
Your a hypocrite if you don't have a problem when you do it.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@dsjpk5

Where?
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
Omar, It countering poor votes, In effect, Deletes them.
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
@omar2345

hmmm fair point
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@squeakly54n6

No wait. Con did not win. Con was trash. Thoht mentions a bogus statement that Con made like 600k killed. Con calls you out for not being capable of providing links but Con does the same thing.
This is what it says on Con's profile "I'm looking for debaters that actually know how to debate"
Don't cut yourself short when Con does not even understand how bad Con is at debating and expects others to be good even though Con is not even good at debating. You beat Con in this debate. No question if you had sources it would be a murder.
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
@Thoht

I appreciate the vote but do you feel as though there is anything I could have improved on? I plan on doing this debate again and would like to know how I can strengthen my argument. Thank you.
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
@omar2345

Well, I pointed it out in the comments just in case you were wondering what one of my counter-arguments would be. I really should have extended it an extra round because a lot of cons points in the last argument were false and easily debunkable. Although looking at the debate it does look like con did win in the end.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@squeakly54n6

"This debunks this whole argument that private healthcare = better doctors"
Did you point that out in the debate or did Con require evidence?
Do this instead for evidence.
Trump is a liar - Politifact.
The first part is the heading of the URL and the second part is the corporation behind it.

"So the issue of good or bad doctors is not backed up by statistics at all. "
I did point out the debate sorely lacked evidence.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@dsjpk5

How is countering votes "good" voting?
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
@Omar2345
"Con could have had a point here "But the quality of private healthcare is actually better because the good doctors who like getting paid more go to the private healthcare companies. " but not enough time was spent on it. "

- My counter-argument would be that other countries such as Switzerland and Germany have arguably as good if not better doctors than the united states have. And since those countries have a mixed healthcare system, This debunks this whole argument that private healthcare = better doctors. Also again even if the US had better doctors, This is irrelevant when you look at statistics because statistically, Countries such as Germany, Switzerland, Japan, And Canada all have higher life spans than the united states does. So the issue of good or bad doctors is not backed up by statistics at all.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
squeakly54n6isabella7008Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: My vote will be countering Debaticus' poor vote in part, and in part giving points to the clear winner here. Con says Pro's sources are outdated and proceeds to make claims while giving no sources. Makes claims that are entirely false "national healthcare will kill 600,000", and continuously says that tax increases would lead to this. The problem with the ludicrous claim is that if I pay 1,000 more in taxes but don't have to spend 1,200 on healthcare I've net saved $200. This math is easy. Protests to national healthcare on financial grounds are absurd and baseless.
Vote Placed by Debaticus 3 years ago
Debaticus
squeakly54n6isabella7008Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: This is hard to decide but...
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
squeakly54n6isabella7008Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides could have done better but Pro does make the better points with this "45, 000 Americans die yearly due to lack of health care, And healthcare is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US. This is mostly because of the middle class whom aren't rich enough to afford the healthcare but also aren't poor enough to apply for Medicaid and Medicare." Con's lack of care "My response to that: 45, 000 Americans isn't a lot to the whole population." Don't know how to explain it response by Con "If we ever have National Healthcare, Taxes will go higher, Then they get bankrupt." Would have liked Pro to give a better response to this. Con could have had a point here "But the quality of private healthcare is actually better because the good doctors who like getting paid more go to the private healthcare companies." but not enough time was spent on it. This debate was sorely missing out on sources.

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