The Instigator
flaming.liberal
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
asta
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Universal Health Care 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 1 vote the winner is...
asta
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/15/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 403 times Debate No: 115575
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

flaming.liberal

Pro

If you are interested in going against me, please present your case first and I will respond to it.
asta

Con

While I think people should be encouraged to have health insurance, I don't believe that it should be mandatory to the extent of having Universal Healthcare(UH).

To me, it's not about how much it costs but how the money is raised. Advocates of UH claim that the government should pay for UH. I simply think that there are other more moral ways for the money to be raised for those that can't afford it.

I think that if someone is poor enough to not be able to afford health insurance, they can depend on church donations to get some money for UH. If they are Jewish, they can depend on a synigoge and so on. This way, they can get enough money for insurance with consensual means, since churches are funded by donations.

I await Pro's response.
Debate Round No. 1
flaming.liberal

Pro

Okay, but not everyone has access to these religious places as you have stated. In my area, there aren't any churches because my cities and the ones around it aren't religious. I am ultimately really confused by what are you trying to say. Because you say, "people should be encouraged to have health care (what does that mean? What if they can't afford it?)." Then you say, "I simply think that there are other more moral ways for the money to be raised for those that can't afford it." Can you give some examples? And then you talk about the churches, but as I have already stated, that isn't the most reliable way to help poor people.
asta

Con

"In my area, there aren't any churches because my cities and the ones around it aren't religious." I thought every city had at least 1 place of worship(POW) for people. The city I live in has 12. Nonetheless, if there was someone who couldn't afford health insurance and there were no POWs around, they could move to a city where there was a POW so they can collect health insurance money.

If moving sounds very crazy, it is a very common thing to do for young people, my parents moved 2x each. https://fivethirtyeight.com... that it's much more common. https://www.census.gov... that 1/9 Americans move per year. If this is compounded over 20 years, it's easy to see how common it is.

When I said people should be encouraged to get healthcare, it means that getting healthcare would be a good idea. However, it also ment that the government shouldn't force you to get it, even if you could afford it. The site also says that poor people are disproportionally more likely to move.

The more moral ways I believed that people could raise the money for their healthcare is by:

-The POWs. If your in a rare enough situation to not have a church around, then you can move out of your town to a place where there is a POW. If your an atheist, you can still get money from churches since churches are willing to help out anyone since they want to do the Christain thing and love their neighbor as themselves, even if that neighbor is non religious.

-They can depend on donations from their family and friends to help pay fot it. Families and friends tend to be generous towards one another.

-They could pay for it if they can afford to. If they can't, they can use either or both of the bullet points above.
Debate Round No. 2
flaming.liberal

Pro

Okay. So I'm just gonna go back to something you said in your first response. "there are more moral ways to do pay for it." How is it that if the government pays for it, that is "immoral." It is the government's job to take care of its citizens, and that is exactly what UHC does. You are providing a red herring instead of actual reasoning by saying that it isn't morally correct, because it is. And instead, you say that it becomes the churches job to supply millions of people with "donations?" It makes absolutely no sense.

This whole "church thing" is so weird to me. I'm confused on what you think the churches would be doing for you. You say, "donations," but the churches simply can't pay for it.

Lets do some math!

1/3 of the US population has no healthcare/inadequate healthcare (so by your logic, they should get church donations).
How much is 1/3 of the population?: 82 MILLION.

Now, how much is average healthcare for an individual annually?: $4,358

Lets multiply 82,000,000 x $4,358
=
$357,356,000,000=about $357 BILLION

So you expect that amount of money to come from CHURCHES, which as you've said, get money from donations, so their income isn't that much. And on top of that, they have to pay for expenses to host events, pay rent, etc.

Your entire plan revolves around POW, but as I have proven, it is extremely unfeasible, and even if it was possible, it would be harmful to POWs all over the country.

Thanks
asta

Con

"How is it that if the government pays for it, that is "immoral." It is the government's job to take care of its citizens, and that is exactly what UHC does. " It's immoral because the government requires very high taxes to pay for UHC, and it's kindof like legal stealing since not all people involved consent to it. If 2 people decide to steal money from a 3rd person, this wouldn't be moral since it infringes on the rights of the 3rd person.

"You are providing a red herring instead of actual reasoning by saying that it isn't morally correct, because it is." This was an accident if it happened at all. I don't even think I went off topic, I was merely stating how the church would be better then the government, since it usses consensual funds whereas the government uses funds collected by force.

I'm assuming you believe that donations would not be able to fund this, but many people to the church tithe so they alone contribute more then a $5 donation.

Lets see if the church can pay for it. Given that churches and other POWs claim to be religious and non materialistic, they shouldn't care how poor they become.

"1/3 of the US population has no healthcare/inadequate healthcare" No. It's closer to 10%(https://www.cdc.gov...). 1/10 of the US population is about 32 million people(https://www.census.gov...)(http://www.worldometers.info...). Although grudingly I say this, the average cost of health insurance was higher then your number ($18,764 on average)(http://www.ncsl.org...). Since these are poor people that we're talking about, their insurance won't be super great. Lets assume that theirs is $10,000 per year.

$10000*32 million= About $320 billion, slightly less then your estimate.

http://www.tithing.com... that collectively Christain causes alone got about $370 billion from Christains. While these funded other causes, like giving food to the poor, this money could be used to fund their health insurance.
Debate Round No. 3
flaming.liberal

Pro

I'm going to address what you said in the first thing, about how it is immoral for the government to pay for it: "It's immoral because the government requires very high taxes to pay for UHC, and it's kindof like legal stealing since not all people involved consent to it." Okay, but if the government didn't take our money, we wouldn't have anything. We wouldn't have public school, social security, agricultural programs, welfare, legitimately every government program ever done. So it is the governments job to take money from us when it is necessary, and in the case of UHC, it is necessary as well.

"About 44 million people in this country have no health insurance, and another 38 million have inadequate health insurance. This means that nearly one-third of Americans face each day without the security of knowing that, if and when they need it, medical care is available to them and their families." (http://www.pbs.org...).

So that proves how it actually costs a lot more, so that shows that it is unfeasible. But you gave a statistic saying, "it would cost much less, so then the churches would be able to pay for it," so I'm going to prove that even if it was possible for the churches top pay for it, it still won't work.

Every single thing in this debate that you have brought up relates to the POWs and the churches, so I'm going to address it now.

I don't mean to be rude at all, because this isn't personal, but to me, it is insane to force churches to pay for something that should be the job of the government.

Why it wouldn't work:

Reason #1: Unfeasibility and Cost: As I said, I'm going to use the cost that you gave for the cost of UHC if POWs payed for it. You said it would cost $320 billion (which isn't that different from my estimate). There are 350,000 places of worship in the US in total.

More Math!

Lets divide $320 billion by 350,000
=
$914,284. Yes, that is how much each POW would have to pay for the people with inadequate healthcare. Saying that it is feasible for churches to pay for it is insane. ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR!!! That is the burden that you are putting on the churches and POWs. Using your OWN NUMBERS, you can tell that this is impossible. This is something that the government can pay for. We are spending around 7.2 TRILLION dollars on things that we don't need(DailySignal.com). We have the money to pay for it without taxing people that much.

Reason #2: Accessibility and Willingness: Okay, so, as I have said, not everybody has access to a POW. And even if they do, there are lots of people that don't want to go to a CHURCH for help, whether they are atheists, or just don't want to take money away from their religious causes. Then, more importantly, the churches won't do it. You say, "they are willing to help everyone." But I doubt that they will actually want to pay that $914,284 bill. Churches need money to plan events, pay rent, pay for goods and services, pay their workers, etc. They will probably not be willing to pay for that huge bill because, it should be obvious why.

These reasons shut down your church argument (basically your only argument), using your own reasoning and numbers.

Thus, vote proposition.

Thanks, excited to hear your response!
asta

Con

"Okay, but if the government didn't take our money, we wouldn't have anything. We wouldn't have public school, social security, agricultural programs, welfare, legitimately every government program ever done." It is nessesary for the government to fund some programs, but taxes are already high for people and UHC would make taxes more expensive to taxpayers.

"nearly one-third of Americans face each day without the security of knowing that, if and when they need it, medical care is available to them and their families." 82 million people out of 320 million is not 1/3 people, but 1/4. My site says it's closer to 10%. I think the Centers for disease control is more reliable then PBS because the CDC is a .gov site whereas PBS is a .org site.

You said that a church would have to pay almost $1 million a year for healthcare costs from our similar fiscal estimates. But is this actually feisible?

80% of people are religious to some level. Of them, https://en.wikipedia.org...;(a little reliable and very convienent) states that about 50% of Christains attend religious worship services, this is probably more common for religious minorities, since they tend to be more religious. 20% of Christains tithe, but if all other donations get added up, and since some tithers pay more then a tithe, lets assume the church gets paid by about half of their attendence tithing since it's about equivilant.

.8*.5*.5=.2 or 20% of the US population tithing to the Church.

The US GDP per capita (their annual salary) is about $57,000 (https://data.worldbank.org...)(), $18 trillion when including the whole nation(https://data.worldbank.org...).
18 trillion*.2*.1(a tithe)=$360 billion a year going to churches.

$360 billion/350,000=$1,028,517 per year

There are matinence costs, but these are nominal by comparision. If the church raises $1,028,517 and has to pay $914,284 in the name of their religion, since Jesus says, "Sell all you have and give to the poor", then the church could donate their money to paying for poor people's health insurance, with enough cash to sustain the church worker's lives.

Jesus sais to help the poor, so if the church donates money to people to pay for their healthcare bill, then this is a religious cause for the church. If your an atheist, this doesn't stop you from going into churches and asking them for health insurance money. I'm an atheist an I plan on going to church. Since Churches can afford it, a truly Christain Church would pay for it. Given that they have about $110,000 left over, this can pay for their annual expenses.

Vote Con.

Thanks, I await your big boy response.
Debate Round No. 4
flaming.liberal

Pro

"It is nessesary for the government to fund some programs, but taxes are already high for people and UHC would make taxes more expensive to taxpayers." So instead we make churches pay for this?

Let me tell you why the bulk of your argument: donations, fails. This point is about how churches will get donations from patrons, but it isn't as straight forward as you make it seem. According to Meet the Need.com--> http://meettheneed.org... (a reliable source, and a non-profit, check the "about us" page if you don't believe me):Why Do Churches Turn Away Families At the Door?

"Fewer people in need approach churches for help today because they don;t think churches are willing to help. However, studies show that people generally believe churches should be among the first to help. That dichotomy creates the prevailing poor perception of churches and Christians by society. Every family in need that churches turn away at the door drives home the idea that they're more about judgment than compassion then deeper and deeper into the American psyche. Every time a pastor speaks out on cultural, social, or moral issue when that church hasn't demonstrated a commensurate degree of mercy to the needy - the ditch widens."

Simplified: Fewer people go to churches for help because they are afraid that churches will turn them away.

Timothy Delaney February 24, 2016 at 12:28 pm (review of their church in South Carolina): My family and I moved to South Carolina a couple of years ago, began attending a mega church that is located in the city, and even began paying tithes and offerings. Things have been not so great lately, I have been out of work for sometime and we are on the verge of being evicted. We gave a sacrificial offering and attached a note explaining some of the things that were going on, and expressed how we have no one here. That was over a month ago and not one person from that church has reached out to us. Thousands of members, hundreds of staff, ministry on television weekly and not one phone call.

This proves that above anything, it is unfeasible because it people won't go for help, and people are already unsatisfied with their church. What makes you think that they will go to a POW for help? The great thing about UHC is that it allows all people to have support, even if they don't have the ability to get it from a church.

Because you will probably come with some response about how people will come for UHC from POW, I'm gonna give some more examples.

Soapboxie: https://soapboxie.com... --> (This article is written from a former homeless/poor person)--> People won't get help for themselves because, "By the time a person is on the street, his or her life is usually already careening out of control."

In short: lots of poor people that can't afford health care, don't want to get it for themselves because if they do, they feel like a religious POW will be supporting them when they may not support that religion. It becomes lack of control to have churches pay for the UHC b/c people will be losing control.

Now we need to move onto this disastrous money situation because it makes very little sense. You did some math about churches as a whole, but I'm going to focus on each church individually. (https://www.cheatsheet.com...)

How much does each person from a church donate per year?
Christians: $817
Muslims: $1,300
Jews: $1,440

"Jesus said help the poor." That is what they're doing, but it certainly isn't enough to pay for this huge amount of money.

As you can see if you have working eyes and a brain that exceeds 5th grade math, this would total more than $914,000(again, this is from YOUR estimate). So ultimately, it is impossible for these churches to pay for it because your entire case revolves around donations, and yet they aren't enough to pay for the $1M price tag PER YEAR, PER CHURCH.

And then I am ultimately really confused about why the US GDP is coming into the picture. You are overcomplicating this debate. So lets simplify this to just one church. Cut out everything else. So lets say that this church has 75 members. They are a christian church, so they all donate $817 to their church. This totals: $61,275. How does this cover the cost of the price tag?

Answer: it doesn't.

And then you brought up a tithe. And I don't know what definition you are using. Do you mean like a tax like what they did in the past, where 10% of your paycheck would go to the church or clergy(if that is your definition, they you are contradicting yourself because you said that involuntary tax was bad and which was also your reasoning for the governments, "immoral taxing.") If this isn't what you mean, and you mean to pay the church upfront, and it isn't required, in which case people wouldn't donate that much and we would be back where we started.

Nothing you have said makes sense and thus there is no reason that you should win this debate.

I await your response! (I'm not going to be rude like you because I am at least respectful when debating)

It will be fun to see the outcome of this debate!

Bye
asta

Con

Churches should pay for this because it's in their religion, so unless they pay for it (assuming they can) then they would be hypocritical since they accept Jesus by his words and reject them by his lifestyle which is against the bible. Churches are funded consensually whereas taxes are not.


Stereotypical and typical donations on their own fail. However, on a massive scale I have proven they are not failures. http://meettheneed.org...... states that the reason why churches fail to give to the poor is because they are more about judgment than compassion. However, if the government tells poor people to depend on the churches, than poor people would hear this on the news, there would be talk about it, the word would get out, and then churches, even if they are evangelical churches, would be pressured to help out the poor like when a hurricane destroyed parts of Houston, Texas whether or not they are actually religious. So if you are very religious, and especially if you donate, you can use other poor people to pressure the churches into acting Christian.


“What makes you think that they will go to a POW for help?” If the government tells people to go to a church for help, even atheists would crawl out of their shell and go into a place where they don’t believe in the G-d that is there. I’m not Jewish, yet I’ve been in synagogues. I’m not Buddhist, but I’ve been in Buddhist temples. If I can crawl out of my skin, so can atheists. I say this as an atheist.


"By the time a person is on the street, his or her life is usually already careening out of control." If they go to a church to get their health insurance bill paid for, then there life won’t be “careening out of control” as easily.


“they feel like a religious POW will be supporting them when they may not support that religion.” It’s very rare first off, most poor Christians would depend on Churches, most Jews would depend on Synagogues, etc. Atheists don’t care, they respect Christians (most of them) and if they need the money, they can make the church more poor. They don’t like it when the Church gets richer from tithes. They would feel good if they legally make the church more poor, or they can at least have an illusion that they are bankrupting the church.


“It becomes lack of control to have churches pay for the UHC b/c people will be losing control.” If anything, it gives the church more power over the lives of their dependents, but it’s ultimately up to the dependents on whether or not to accept this advice.


"(https://www.cheatsheet.com......) "How much does each person from a church donate per year?

Christians: $817

Muslims: $1,300

Jews: $1,440"


These are numbers. It does not correlate into how much money the entire church gets from every christian and other religious person. You aren’t providing enough data in your argument. I also don’t know how reliable a .com is. They only polled 1000 Religious people, not even 1000 Christians, but 1000 religious people. Assuming they broke it 3 ways, that means that they polled less than 340 Christians. The site says, ““We polled 1,000 religiously affiliated Americans who indicated that they did contribute financially to their respective religions to determine the financial impact of their religious affiliations,”” This doesn’t seem very reliable. They might have done the survey in a poor section of the US, screwing up the numbers much more than what they would have done if they surveyed from every US county.


""Jesus said help the poor." That is what they're doing, but it certainly isn't enough to pay for this huge amount of money." Jesus said to sell all you have and give to the poor. While he probably made exceptions for necessities, it shows that churches should be sacrificing almost all of their excess income to paying for the poor and serving their lord, Jesus Christ. Otherwise, they are false Christians, which should be okay for individuals because of freedom of religion, but not okay for Churches who claim to be a religious place yet have leaders who don’t live religiously.


"As you can see if you have working eyes and a brain that exceeds 5th grade math, this would total more than $914,000 (again, this is from YOUR estimate). So ultimately, it is impossible for these churches to pay for it because your entire case revolves around donations, and yet they aren't enough to pay for the $1M price tag PER YEAR, PER CHURCH." Although it sounds crazy, I actually managed to prove how churches could pay for all this since many people tithe and donate in general and you have yet to disprove it, you merely only believe that is infeasible despite the evidence stating the opposite.


”And then I am ultimately really confused about why the US GDP is coming into the picture.” I did this to figure out how much the average tithe would be since a tithe is 10% of a salary and the GDP per capita measures the average annual salary. This helped find out the average tithe amount.


“So let's simplify this to just one church. Cut out everything else. So let's say that this church has 75 members.” Most towns have multiple churches so it’s not just one church paying for the health costs of the poor people of the town, but all the churches working together to achieve this goal. And most churches have more than 75 members Assuming there are 14 churches of a bigger size (150 members), then they are a christian church, so they all donate $817 to their church, then the average church under this situation would raise about $980,400, using a combination of both our numbers. I estimate the reason why this was less than the previous estimate was because the survey surveyed poor regions of the US.



“Do you mean like a tax like what they did in the past, where 10% of your paycheck would go to the church or clergy(if that is your definition, they you are contradicting yourself because you said that involuntary tax was bad and which was also your reasoning for the governments, "immoral taxing.")” I mean a tithe that is consensually paid (excluding religious threats).


"Nothing you have said makes sense and thus there is no reason that you should win this debate." It does make sense and it's backed by many mainstream prominent people. While churches paying nearly $1 Million a year seems unreasonable at first, I confirmed that this as possible.


"(I'm not going to be rude like you because I am at least respectful when debating)" I have a feeling that I am being about as polte to you as vice versa. I can find some times when you were arrogant and rude. An example, you said, "These reasons shut down your church argument (basically your only argument), using your own reasoning and numbers.". Although I have a tough skin, so I can withstand this, this is indeed rude and it could cost you conduct points.


It will be fun to see the outcome of this debate!

Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by asta 8 months ago
asta
@RMTheSupreme

Who said most of Africa was fiscally right wing? I would need a source.

Also, Scandinavia, the democratic socialist model had their economy drop by about 10% on average. So much for, "progress".

https://docs.google.com...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RMTheSupreme 9 months ago
RMTheSupreme
flaming.liberalastaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins but I really didn't like their logic one bit. I am a heavily left-leaning individual and was shocked at how poorly Pro explained the need for taxation and forced taking of money from the rich rather than relying on the 'kindness of the rich' (which has been proven by all African nations, South American nations and Middle Eastern Nations as well as South Asian nations to be non-existent when they are given the option to not pay up). In short, Pro had the correct side and I firmly support publicly funded healthcare or at least subsidising the insurance for the poor (Bernie's model of healthcare) but Con wins the debate because Pro never ever explains why it's wrong to rely on the rich to be