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

health insurance should be mandatory

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 388 times Debate No: 82563
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




we all are affected by bad health and almost all of us will need medical care. it's like everyone needs firemen and police. what insurance should not be, is you just die if you aren't covered. it's easy to say you didn't get insurance therefore you can die, but this doesn't and woudln't happen in practice. why is it okay for one person to not be insured and pass the cost on to everyone else?


Which country are you talking about or are you talking about worldwide?

Freedom is a valued in many countries. Liberty is an important value in the USA just for starters. Mandatory health insurance would limit people's freedom.

Furthermore, there is some question if the current medical practices are effective. Chemotherapy, vaccines, cancer and heart surgeries. Con rejects the resolution, health insurance should be mandatory. Instead, health insurance should be optional.
Debate Round No. 1


what would you do if someone gets hit by a bus and needs medical care, or has a heart attack and needs a bypass, but they have no health insurance and no way to pay for it? just examples.


The emergency room is effective. Contemporary medicine fails against chronic disease. If somebody I knew needed bypass surgery I would advise him or her to eat healthy, exercise, drink plenty of fluids, sunshine, positive thinking, deep breathing, and get plenty of rest.

"Low active-high sedentary boys were more likely to be overweight than high active-low sedentary boys " [1].

Debate Round No. 2


for someone who values freedom, how is it free to mandate that the ER look at patients who have no money or insurance? that's worse than socialism. plus the costs are still there and being spread around to everyone else who has insurance or money when someone goes to the ER.
con would advise someone who needs a bypass to think positive? what a joke. do you also advise the doctors to forcibably be required to operate on that person as you do with the ER stuff in general?


"for someone who values freedom, how is it free to mandate that the ER look at patients who have no money or insurance? " Pro

Somebody pays the costs no matter what. If the patients make a run for it and don't pay, somebody get stuck with the bill. More importantly if those patients have no money, how are they going to afford health insurance?

"con would advise someone who needs a bypass to think positive? what a joke." Pro

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Ben Franklin. [2].

A chronic disease like heart disease is best prevented as opposed to a cure like bypass surgery. Positive thinking helps with stress. " Over time, continued strain on your body from routine stress may lead to serious health problems, such as heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, depression, anxiety disorder, and other illnesses." [3].

Vote Con, modern western doctors focus too much on cure and not enough on prevention. Mandatory health insure would give this inefficient healthcare system even more power.

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Hunts// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Pro just started throwing around groundless accusations and in supported claims. Pro fails to capitalize any words and that's why pro won the spelling. Con made much more convincing arguments simply because I can't take pro seriously with her random claims and she never rebutted anything con said. Con was the only one who used sources- a easy win for con.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct. (2) Source points are insufficiently explained " one side using more sources is not enough reason to afford these points. (3) Arguments points are insufficiently explained. The voter has to say what Con was winning on, and not simply explain the problems with Pro's arguments. (4) S&G is insufficiently explained. A lack of capitalized words doesn't make Pro's argument incredibly difficult to read, and thus isn't enough to award this point.
No votes have been placed for this debate.