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

Universal Health care is a better system the free market health care

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
TheMarketLibertarian 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: Select Winner
Started: 3/13/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,349 times Debate No: 100875
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




I'll be arguing that universal health care is a better system then free market healthcare. my opponent should argue that free market health care is a better system. A few definitions so there is no confusion.

-Universal health care is a system in which everybody in a given country is entitled to healthcare as a human right.

- Free market health care is a system in which the government is not involved in healthcare and people buy healthcare through private insurance companies.


Alright then, my opponent must prove tht having the State usurp the healthcare market is better than letting people get healthcare through voluntary exchange. He must lsoprove that healthcare is a 'human right,' which it isn't.
Debate Round No. 1


Ok lets get to this. It's worth noting that pretty much every other modern country in the world has one version or another of universal healthcare. So lets compare numbers.

Spending: I think my opponent would agree government spending less is good. So lets looking at spending. I'll have a link to a chart which shows spending on healthcare per capita in other modern countries versus america's. This chart lists the healthcare spending per capita of ten countries one of which is the us. Every other country on here has universal health care except america. They all spend much less then us on healthcare. They range from Italy's $3,207 per capita to Switzerland's $6,787 per capita with the OECD average being $3,620 per capita. America in comparison spends $9,024 per capita on healthcare. That means america spends $5,404 per capita more then the national average on healthcare. So other countries with universal health care spend far less then us. So if my opponent agrees the government spending less on healthcare is good then as I have clearly shown a universal healthcare system is the way to go.

Satisfaction: I think we can all agree people being happy about their healthcare system is very important. So lets look at that. According to Gallup 44% of Americans say they are very dissatisfied with their healthcare as opposed to only 25% in the UK and 17% in canada. So in places where they have universal healthcare they are more satisfied with their healthcare.

Bankruptcy: So this is about people going bankrupt due to medical bills. In countries with universal healthcare people don't pay anything for medical treatment so it's safe to say medical bankruptcy in other countries doesn't happen. In america about 1.7 Million people a year go bankrupt due to medical bills. I would ask my opponent if he supports 1.7 million people having their lives destroyed through no fault of their own just because they got sick.

Deaths: So what could be worse then going bankrupt. Dying due to lack of health insurance is up there. In other countries this number is once again zero. However according to a Harvard study 45,000 people die every year because they lack health insurance. This should be considered unacceptable that we let people die just because they can't afford care.

In review: So as we have seen universal health care system have many benefits. It costs less per capita then a free market system, people are more satisfied with it, and they don't go bankrupt or die because of a lack of coverage.

Questions for my opponent: So some questions i'd like my opponent to answer.
1. Do you want government to spend less on healthcare. If so then as I showed universal health care is simply cheaper.
2. Do you want people to be satisfied with there healthcare coverage? If so then as I showed a universal health care system is simply better.
3. The most important question do you think we as a society should let people who can't afford care die in the streets for the crime of just being to poor to afford care? This doesn't happen in other countries. If you get sick you get help. In america if you get sick and are poor then you are out of luck. Do you think it's ok for a society to let 45,000 people a year die when they could be helped?

Sources: (Healthcare spending chart) (Healthcare satisfation article) (Healthcare bankruptcy) (Harvard study on healthcare deaths)


I thought I had 3 days to do this debate- oh well, let's begin.

There's this weird fantasy that if the government controls something, it will become more efficient and will provide a better service than if t were owned proportionately to those involved. The exact opposite is true- whenever the government controls something it gets worse, more corrupt, and less efficient. This is why Police Brutality such an issue, whereas it is completely unheard of for Private Security Guards to run around shooting people.
We need not ask what a Government controlled healthcare system looks like- just take a look at our military hospitals- it looks like that, except for the whole nation. It is abundantly clear to me that having the Government usurp control over hospitals and over your healthcare is a terrible idea.

The healthcare system in the United States worked just fine in the 1950's, the reason it is so terrible now is because of Government control- and yet the sociists of America insist that if we only expand government intrusion, and if we only dump more money onto failed programs, things will get better. That all the problems we are facing are not due to a failre of Government but of private buisness.

Regarding our expenses towards healthcare, we can save far more money by, instead of replacing our current healthcare programs with a single payer program, replacing our current healthcare programs with nothing.

People cannoty afford insurance because of Government involvement- this is alsi the same reason why hospital bills are so high- government involvement. State Governments have instituted Protectionist Policies against their citizens to protect their native insurance companies from competition, thus suspending the price artificially high. The Feral Government has by liscencing laws allowed a board of doctors restrict the supply of doctors, thus driving up their cost, and thereby the cost of healthcare.
Debate Round No. 2


I feel like I shouldn't really need to respond to this but ok here we go. First you didn't respond to almost anything I said. You didn't refute any of my sources either. You said it's a "fantasy" that universal healthcare is cheaper but didn't refute by numbers and source that showed very clearly it is. Why didn't you refute my numbers on costs, Satisfaction, or deaths? Is it because you can't. I think so but you have another round to try. You also say our system was so much better in the 1950's but you don't provide any proof of it. No studies no number no nothing. You just claim it. That doesn't work.
Again you say healthcare costs are higher because of government involvement. But again you didn't refute my numbers that show the opposite so your argument has no credit ability.

Finally as for your Police point, that has exactly nothing to do with anything. Police are another debate but you can't just say i think the government is bad at this so it must also be bad at some completely different thing. That's like me saying I think we should do social security because of the FDA. Or me saying I don't think we should do capitalist healthcare because I think private prisons are bad. See how that doesn't work.

Also most importantly you didn't answer my question if you think 45,000 dying a year due to lack of health insurance is something we should allow. Do you want 45,000 people a year to die through no fault of their own when they could be help. Just because they couldn't afford large medical bills. Please answer this and to the voters if he dodges this question again then consider why he won't answer it.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by TheMarketLibertarian 3 years ago
Can I use a google doc
Posted by RC-9282 3 years ago
When you see con uses police brutality to justify that the government makes things less effective, but agree with his stance. Buddy, please use the Canadian healthcare problem as an example! The police are the least of our worries, as they are just doing their jobs.
Posted by SirHarrison0 3 years ago
I would debate you but i don't know enough about universal healthcare to actively argue with you.
Posted by Mariodude34500 3 years ago
I assume your talking about a Libertarian socialist model? I couldn't really debate that versus universal health care very well but assuming that is what you mean i'd like to have a conversation about that with you
Posted by Capitalistslave 3 years ago
But yeah, I wouldn't say free market healthcare has to involve insurance companies. It didn't always. Before world war 2, there wasn't really any insurance companies. What causes insurance companies was the fact that the government passed a law(or might have been a court ruling, I'm not sure) requiring doctors to charge the same amount to each customer. Due to that, that caused the poor to have their cost of healthcare go way up, because prior to that ruling or law, doctors would charge the poor hardly anything and would charge the rich a lot more for healthcare. This law, or ruling, I would have to look up specifically which it is, causes a need for insurance companies who would bring down the cost of healthcare for poor people, in theory.
Posted by Capitalistslave 3 years ago
Hmm, I don't agree with the definition of free market healthcare, but the definition I am thinking of would still exclude me. Would you be willing to debate someone who has a different view?

I would argue for, basically, what I would dub as cooperative healthcare. Essentially, the hospitals and clinics would be worker cooperatives. Additionally, there would be no insurance companies, and instead, hospitals and clinics would be allowed to charge what they saw fit for each customer.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
It's than, not then, or the.
This debate has 0 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.