The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Obamacare, Good (pro), Bad (con)

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,613 times Debate No: 48132
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I don't have Obamacare, but if we would get kicked off of our insurance and if we got Obamacare it would be affordable and my mom could get coverage on many things that we could not get before. Including coverage on a pre-existing condition.

There are also many false stories that a certain news organization makes up nightly, no offense to Fox News but they are really bad at making this stuff up, I watch them to try to stay bipartisan, but I change the channel because of the false talking points they just pull from where the sun doesn't shine.

I know that a lot of people don't like the president's health care plan because
1. They didn't read what it does.
2. They were told by CNN and Fox
3. They dismissed it because they don't like president Obama.

I want those to know that there is many good things in there and we should keep it because our old Health Care system is really bad, we need to keep this, if we want to we can change and amend it.

I just don't want it to go back to the old system.


Thank you for permitting me to debate you on this topic. For my first round I will show why people don't want Obamacare, and show how your first arguments are invalid.

Ronald Reagan once said, "Remember that every government service... is paid for in the loss of personal freedom," and that is exactly what is happening now. Since my partner has shown that their plan does not solve the problems with our system, I am going to state the disadvantages of the National Health Care plan.

Disadvantage 1
Creates a socialistic government
Vladimir Lenin states and I quote "Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism." If the United States Government provides free healthcare to all of its citizens, a socialistic government will result. Socialism is defined as:

"A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done." [1]

Disadvantage 2
Increases cost
The national heath care system increases the cost to treat patients. Richard F. Davies states and I quote:

"Rather than being part of the solution to the health care funding crisis, waiting lists contribute to it by making the delivery of care inefficient... Only 51% of the bypass surgeries were elective. Most of the remainder were done on patients deemed to be at too much risk to be discharged from hospital. Their average waiting time was 20 days. Since the average hospital stay after elective bypass surgery is only 5 to 6 days, this represents a 3- to 4-fold increase in total length of stay. Many of these patients would likely have been able to wait at home if the waiting times had been reasonable. Those who were truly too sick to go home under any circumstances could have been operated on sooner if the system had not been "jammed" with patients. Long waiting lists waste health care resources. We cannot afford this, particularly when hospital beds are closing."

Instead of solving the financial problem, we are worsening it.

Disadvantage 3
Discourages doctors
Specifically, physicians will be subject to more government regulation and oversight, and will be increasingly dependent on unreliable government reimbursement for medical services. Doctors, already under tremendous pressure, will only see their jobs become more difficult. Not only are doctors affected, but also the students who want to be in the medical profession. Dr. Martha Boone who has been practicing medicine for 25 years, states and I quote:

"I'm very worried about the country. If a person who has 350, 000 dollars worth of education and seventeen diplomas, and can't afford a fifteen hundred square office, what does that tell the young people in our country about education? I mean, when I was growing up, we believed that if you really worked hard and got a great education, that you would have a really good life in America. And I believe that what I'm experiencing personally is happening all over America. And I really worry for my young step daughters, because I don"t know if I"ll be able to tell them work hard and get a great education. This is America and your going to be prosperous." [2]

Under Obamacare, we are discouraging the younger generation from becoming doctors. This will result in a doctor shortage.

Disadvantage 4
Increased delay because of hypochondriacs
Since the national health care plan will make a trip to the doctors completely free, hypochondriacs will visit the doctor more often. They most likely do not have an illness, and they would just waste the doctors time and make the wait time longer for those that really need medical assistance. According to CBS News, Canada is ranking low as far as how quickly patients see their doctors as a result of hypochondriacs.

My wife is a [registered nurse] and has worked in several [doctor] offices. Her view is that many Calgarians are hypochondriacs, taking up the doctor's time with minor problems. Add in the neurotic mothers who are convinced their child has allergies or ADHD and the doctor is kept pretty busy," writes TheBrit. [3]

"How many people run to emergency for non-emergency issues, or to their family [doctor] for the same?" writes Heidi Jon-Paolo Carfa on CBC's Facebook page. "It's a snowball -- constant slowing down and draining the system. People need common sense. My parents didn't run us to the ER for every cough and flu. It's insane!"[3]

"People need to stop going to the ER or family doctor for every little sniffle and cough. I'm a nurse who has worked in a walk-in/family practice office and have seen the total waste of health care dollars on people who come in with a cough, runny nose or because they think they are constipated," writes Sue Moore on Facebook. "Our system cannot sustain this misuse."[3]

Hypochondriacs will be increased if we accept Obamacare.

Disadvantage 5
Increases deaths
Now with the national health care plan, everybody has health insurance, but that doesn't mean that America's heath will improve. In fact, it goes downward. Under Obamacare, waiting times for treatment increases greatly. Richard F. Davies states and I quote:

"In the Ontario example, 171 patients died while waiting for bypass surgery, 121 were removed from the list permanently because they had become medically unfit for surgery, 211 were taken off the list temporarily, 259 were removed from the list for unspecified reasons, and 44 left the province and underwent surgery elsewhere."[6]

Another piece of evidence which I have from BBC News states and I quote:

"Up to 500 heart patients die each year while they wait for potentially life-saving surgery, a report has said. An editorial in the British Medical Association journal Heart said that the only way to prevent these deaths would be to perform the operations as soon as the heart condition was diagnosed. This is what happens in the private sector, it said, but NHS patients are often put on a waiting list because of other pressures to health service resources." [4]

The national health care system is killing a multitude of people because of the very lengthy waits they have. If we adopt this system we are likely to have the same results.

Disadvantage 6
Kills the elderly
The patients who died as a result of the waiting list may have been killed unintentionally. But there are cases which euthanasia seem to be the problem. Stephen John Doughty, a British Labour Party politician states and I quote:

"NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterday. Professor Patrick Pullicino said doctors had turned the use of a controversial "death pathway" into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly... There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent " 130,000 " are of patients who were on the LCP." [5]

The UK is killing their elderly, and if we adopt national health care it is going to be the US who is killing their elderly.

Now I am going to refute your three arguments

Argument 1
(They didn't read what it does.)

I researched about Obamacare and that is why I was able to give these disadvantages.

Argument 2
(They were told by CNN and Fox.)

I never once cited CNN or Fox News and I still was able to give these disadvantages.

Argument 3
(They dismissed it because they don't like president Obama.)

Just because you dislike Obamacare, that doesn't mean that you only dislike Obama. Most people don't care for Obamacare because of all the negative affects that it will have on them and this country.

[ Creates a socialistic government]

[Increases cost]

[ Discourages doctors]

[Increased delay because of hypochondriacs]

[Increases deaths]

[Kills the elderly]

Debate Round No. 1


What people automatically think when you mention socialism is they think socialism is bad. But there are things in America that are extremely good because of socialism.
1. Welfare.
2. Food Stamps.
3. Social Security.
4. Medicare/Medicaid.
5. The US Postal Service.
6. and Community libraries and police and fire departments.
7. Unemployment.

I have a source that explains why we need Obama care or something like it.

Canada is one country that has a national healthcare system, it is one of the best in the world, why don't we give it a try. And from this source it shows that it is cheaper than what we had during the Bush administration, for families. The premiums are much, much better than ours were.And I will post a source at the bottom proving that socialism isn't as bad as people think it is, and what they also don't realize is that they love socialism if they like any of the seven items I listed.

I would like to dispute the quote from Richard F. Davies with doctor and professor Richard Davis, again I will post my source from the dessert news at the bottom of this debate round. And also to dispute the financial part of this I will post a link to Wikipedia on it, which yes can be edited be edited by people is either approved or disapproved by a committee of professors and other scientists, if they are factual or not.

I would like to say also that if giving and getting millions of Americans healthcare at an affordable rate then I don't really care about what doctors have to say, I'm sorry but my friend can't get into the doctor now with her plan because the doctor won't accept it, the doctors are greedy people who right know won't accept people if they don't get more money in their paycheck from blue cross, or keystone, so really just want people to get care and I am truly done with doctors, because of how they treat people, they only treat money. And children of America will still be doctors because I want to be either a chef or a politician, so I know that it doesn't matter how much we make as long as we do what we love to do, I could get payed minimum wage.

I also would like to say because of a few bad apples, or a few bad hypochondriacs, shouldn't ruin the rest. I know that there are always people there to milk the system. This doesn't mean that we stop healthcare. For the 46 million that are uninsured, they need this, so I would not want to be the one to tell them, because of a few bad apples you cannot have access to health insurance.

To what you said about an increase in deaths, I would like to contest that with saying that 26,000 Americans died in 2010 because they weren't even on the list to wait on, they didn't have insurance. And I would like to contest your disagreement (6) with the same article from the Huffington Post.

And I thank you for your debate today, I have been debating with a lot of good debtors recently.


All right, Lets get started.

Argument 1

Socialism is actually a very bad system. The seven arguments you gave have no positive affect on our country. Here is a reason why socialism is bad.

"An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.. The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed. "[1]

In a socialistic government no one will try to advance society.

Argument 2
You claim that Canada has the greatest health care system in the world but If national health care is such a good thing, why did the Premier for Newfoundland, one of Canada's eastern provinces, abandon his health care system when he had heart surgery? Bob Barr, a former member of the United States House of Representatives states.

"The fact that a high-ranking Canadian government leader would forgo receiving medical treatment in his own country and travel instead to the United States to be treated in a health care system that is not yet controlled by the government, has created somewhat of a PR embarrassment for advocates of Canada's government-controlled system. It really shouldn't be an embarrassment; and it certainly shouldn't surprise anyone."[2]

Another Canadian primer, Jean-Robert Bourassa, also came to America to have his skin cancer treated. If these high ranking officials can't even trust their own system, why should we adopt it?

Also addressing the fact that they have cheaper healthcare is true, but this is bogus? The following evidence shows why.

"Pierre Lemieux, an economist at The University of Quebec, wrote in the April 23, 2004 issue of the Wall Street Journal, "The Canadian system is built around a compulsory public insurance regime that provides most medical and hospital services free." Lemieux adds that the system is not, of course, free for the Canadian taxpayer. Twenty-two percent of all taxes raised in Canada are spent on its health care system.[3]

Last August, the New England Journal of Medicine reported health care spending absorbs only 10 percent of the Canadian gross domestic product, compared to 14 percent of U.S. GDP. The Journal credited Canada with being more efficient in the application of administrative costs--but the real difference is explained by the fact that U.S. citizens are permitted to pay privately for health care services, while such spending does not take place in Canada. In Canada, it is illegal to seek or convey private medical assistance."[3]

Argument 2

The problem with doctors being discouraged and the younger generation is also discouraged is the following question. Where are all the doctors going to come from if no one wants to be one. Also if you look at the evidence I provide you for doctors you can see that Dr. Martha Boone loves to treat people, but she can't do a good job because of Obamacare.

Argument 3

You say that a few bad apples won't ruin the rest of the people. But according to my evidence it states that hypochondriacs are increasing the waiting time for others who need the treatment. (I'll address the 46 million uninsured argument later.)

Argument 4

There are three things wrong with this argument. First, You are supposed to give a portion of evidence and explain it, you aren't supposed to only give a site for evidence. Second, even if this was acceptable, there are no sources which you clam to have cited. Even if you had evidence to site you can't out number the amount of patients that die as a result of national health care.

"There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent " 130,000 " are of patients who were on the LCP."[4]

Because of national health care 450,000 people are dying.

Argument 5

The so called 46 million uninsured people is an exorbitant number. Michael D. Tanner from the Cato Institute states

"A second study, by Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania and Kate Bundorf of Stanford, concluded that nearly three-quarters of the uninsured could afford coverage but chose not to purchase it. And most of the uninsured are young and in good health. According to the CBO, roughly 60 percent are under the age of 35, and fully 86 percent report that they are in good or excellent health." [5]

So those who are uninsured are not necessarily people who need insurance and cant get it.

Debate Round No. 2


Wait are you saying that Welfare, Food Stamps, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, The US Postal Service, Police and Fire departments, and community libraries, and unemployment all are bad then I think you need to reevaluate your argument. Welfare is a system that helps 12.8 million Americans. Food Stamps services 46.7 million Americans, the majority of them are military families and single moms providing for their children, also you cannot make the argument that people use food stamps for drugs, that's not possible, they are cards with no way to get money for drugs from them. Social Security helps elderly men and women who need that extra money, that they paid all their lives, they need that for retirement. If you took away medicare/medicaid, or said it isn't productive than that means 20% of all Americans will lose their support they need. If you think that the US postal service doesn't contribute to society, then that means 1. There will be 65 billion dollars lost every year, and 2. and about 350 million men and women will have to use the more expensive companies who ship items like FedEx and UPS. I would really encourage you to read the USPS source at the bottom of my argument. Also if you got rid of community libraries then 1.57 billion Americans will not be able to get books from libraries, not everyone has the money to get a kindle or iPad or smartphone, to read books. Also if you got rid of police departments crime would rise and unemployment would rise. And with fire departments, who will put out the fires? And Unemployment is a very useful tool for those who cannot find work, sure there are people who abuse it but if they can make more on unemployment than working, why work. This is why these systems are helpful.

I don't think that the professor was correct in what he said because Communists are the ones who want to get rid of the class system, not Socialists. And I don't really know how to answer that because I didn't really study up on the premier of Newfoundland. But what I do know is Canada has one of the best health care systems as I had said before. France also has the best in the world, period. They have a national health insurance, just like Canada and the USA, and the top countries have a national health care system. Bob Barr is a republican and like most democrats and republicans they will say and do anything to follow and pursue their parties views. And Jean-Robert Bourassa is dead, he died in 1996, so I don't think that this is truly relevant to the debate. I also find your argument about Pierre Lemieux irrelevant. We could bring up economists all day and their opinions will defer, every time. You never gave me a source for the Martha Boone case so I can only go off of your word for it, I don't really know you that well.

Hypochondriacs just happen, they will always be there, you can't fix that. People are all sinful, you can't change sin, or if you aren't religious, you can't fix wrong, you can try but you just fail, fail, fail.

I don't think that there are any sources to show, you brought up Hypochondriacs, we both know that are people who need health care. So because of Hypochondriacs we don't give millions of Americans health care? That is my question. I wanted to know exactly what a waiting list was exactly. Hypochondriacs use their own health insurance, because the people who don't have insurance cannot go into the hospital or doctor's office, I would dispute that National Healthcare increases the number of deaths in the system. Also in the old system without Obama care, in the Bush years, there was medicare part D. I have found a source that proves it was much more expensive than Obama care. And men and women who can afford other health care plans, can't get the same coverage as they can with Obama care. And also maybe since they were young and in 'good health' they could have thought they could save money on other things by not taking health insurance.

It has been fun debating you, Also please vote for my side everyone, unless you disagree with me, then vote however you want.


Voice_Of_The_People forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con lost conduct for the forfeit.

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