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

Should the government require you to buy health insurance?

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
Group2T has forfeited round #2.
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: 3/16/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 468 times Debate No: 101066
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Young and healthy bodies are not going to stay that way. People get sick, accidents happen, and aging alone brings on a myriad of medical complications. It could be argued that because of this, none of us are inactive in the market. Virtually everyone will need health insurance eventually. When it comes to the government requiring us to purchase a private service, the violation of individual liberty is acknowledged, however "it is no more so than a command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race" (Silberman). In the end, it is there for the main reason that it will protect more people than it harms. It does this by spreading the cost. If insurance companies are required to accept people with preexisting conditions, but there is no mandate, most people will wait until they are very ill before they get insurance. "If only sick people bought insurance, the system would collapse because plans would be forced to pay out more than they took in" (Geigar). The more people are paying for insurance, the more diluted the pool is and the less everyone will have to pay as a whole. This can be significant for chronically ill and disabled people, as treatments could be too expensive to get otherwise. Simply not buying an iPhone isn"t going to help; an iPhone costs about $700, which is what just one of my medications for one month without insurance would cost. Chronically ill people don"t choose to become ill, and shouldn"t be forced to choose between treatment and other basic amenities. In the end, a mandate would benefit everybody, and should be looked at less like you're being forced to purchase a service and more like you're chipping in to help the overall well being of your country.

Works Cited
Geigar, Kim. "Why require people to buy health insurance?" Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 21 Dec. 2009. Web. 14 March 2017.
Silberman, Laurence. "Mandatory Health Insurance: The Case For, And Against." BloombergPolitics. Bloomberg, 22 March 2012. Web. 13 March 2017.


no we dont have money
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by logicjagger 3 years ago
It is no more an infirngement than if the government demanded we spend our money on anything else, or demanded we do anything else. Once the government can force you to do something (rather than restrict you from doing something), then freedom does not exist.

So yes, it does logically follow that if the government can force a private restaurant to serve a person regardless of race, it can also force a person to buy health insurance, but what also follows is any other demand the politicians see fit.

Clearly the solution to discrimination that saves freedom was not to outlaw discrimination by private companies / individuals, but to ensure that the public domain does not discriminate. Your question has only made it more obvious that the government should not be able to demand we do anything (besides pay taxes).
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.