Should Medicare For All Be a Choice? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is a leading online debate website and is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Should Medicare For All Be a Choice?
in Politics

Which system would be superior, a system where people choose between government or private insurance or a system where everyone is under the same system? To be honest I lean more towards a strict M4A system with no choice because it seems to be the most efficient and it still allows you to choose between doctors since each doctor would be under a single payer system but I want to hear other takes.
We_are_accountableliberalwithmorals



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
44%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    Medical care should be a universal right government should provide it at little or no cost to the citizen depending on circumstances 
    liberalwithmorals
  • @Dee "provide it at little or no cost to the citizen"...anything funded by the government is a cost to the citizens, its funded by them.

    @JustAnAllMightFan "To be honest I lean more towards a strict M4A system with no choice because it seems to be the most efficient and it still allows you to choose between doctors since each doctor "

    Shouldnt you let people make the decision for themselves whether they think it works for them.  Why are you limiting freedom?
    liberalwithmorals
  • @MichaelElpers
    I limit freedom when freedom infringes on the well-being of others. Having a choice system basically results in only the poor with high cost conditions joining the government healthcare while the rich join private insurance. After a while so many poor people with high costing conditions will join the government system that eventually the government system will go broke limiting us to only the private system which many will not afford hence resulting in thousands dying or suffering long term damage. The reason why prices would be so high in a mixed healthcare system is because privately owned pharmacies would rack up the price of medical goods and services which will result in the government paying more. We can eliminate this by having just a single payer health system in which everyone will get the same quality of care. Thus, me choosing single payer over a mixed market isn't me denying other's freedoms, it's protecting a large mass if not majority of people from economic and/or medical collapse.
    liberalwithmorals
  • @MichaelElpers
    Also I believe the point Dee was trying to make is that single payer would be cheaper then the system we have in place.
    liberalwithmorals
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 385 Pts
    edited July 26
    @MichaelElpers. Your are not only taking away freedom which is wrong your also infringing on the well being of others.  If they decide that private insurance is in their best well being you are hurting their well being.

    Not being forced into single payer isnt infringing on the well being of others, i am not responsible for your well being just as you arent responsible for mine.

    You choosing to be under a single payer is not infringing on others is correct, forcing them to do the same is.
  • edited July 26
    @MichaelElpers
    Your or my responsibility still doesn't change the fact that the mass death and economic collapse scenario (which will result in higher rates of crime due to this leading to a higher rate of poverty and more people dependant on the welfare state that we will have to pay for) I mentioned would happen if we were to implement a mixed healthcare system. Therefore having a mixed system is still indirectly harming other people leaving the argument of freedom invalid. While in a mixed system we would be robbing others of economic stability and life itself in a single payer system we aren't robbing anyone of anything besides the illusion of choice because in reality, under a single payer system they would still get high quality care. The consequences of having a mixed system far outweigh the consequence of a single payer system.
    It's funny the nations that do have single payer have higher rated heath systems, a higher life expectancy, a lower rate of child mortality, and no medical bankruptcies. Yet very little seem to complain about losing freedom.
    Are you willing to sacrifice the potential of us achieving those things that other first world nations have for the sake of "freedom"?
    I am not trying to be crude when asking that question I am trying to thoroughly examine your position so I best know how to attack it.
  • @JustAnAllMightFan
    Are you willing to sacrifice the potential of us achieving those things that other first world nations have for the sake of "freedom"?

    Yes.  Also under the single payer system the government gets to decide who and how much healthcare you can receive.  If someone is can pay for medicine/procedure, who are you, the government, or anyone else to deny them that.


    The U.S. has the best quality of healthcare anywhere in the world.  Its why people in Europe and Canada are will come to the U.S. to get treatment and not the other way around.  The U.S. also currently supplies much more medical innovation.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • edited July 26
    @MichaelElpers
    According to the WHO, the most globally accredited and ethical health organization the US ranks 37. Even if we were to go by other sites the US is rarely in the top 15 or 20 let alone the greatest. 
    Also, I found no evidence that more Canadians/Europeans leave their nations to go to the US for healthcare rather then vice versa Logic dictates that those who have the passport and the location to go to Canada for healthcare do go since prescriptions and procedures and cheaper and the nation overall has less medical bankruptcies. America may have some of the world's greatest hospitals but it means very little since only a fraction of the population can afford them. And even then, a majority of our hospital aren't world renowned in quality it's only maybe 5% that are. The small fraction of europeans who come here are those who are incredibly wealthy which means that they do not represent their population as a whole. The middle lower and poverty class of Europeans would not even fathom coming here because their healthcare systems are better overall and they would not put themselves in economic jeopardy for something that they can get for better at a lower cost that is closer to them. You cannot make the claim that we have the best or even one of the best overall health systems when we are the only 1st world nation to have medical bankruptcies and people dying because they could not afford healthcare as a normal occurrence. Consistency is key, if the majority of the population is having the sacrifice some if not all of their serious medical needs due to economic factors then there is no reasoning that dictates that we have a great system let alone the best.
    In addition in a single payer system we would see no medical bankruptcies which would mean a lower rate of poverty which would lead to a lower rate of crime, unrest, and money spent on the welfare state. These people who would have been broke in a mixed system would now be able to use that money to invest back into the economy which would result in more and better public services such as parks, recreation and public transport that we could all enjoy. In the system you are arguing for we would see none of these things and more social unrest combined with a higher economic inequality Which means you would have to spend more money on funding prisons, welfare, heavier policing etc, which ironically would limit your freedom. The irony of it all is that in your system you would actually have way less freedom than in mine.
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    @MichaelElpers

    anything funded by the government is a cost to the citizens, its funded by them.

    I said at little or no cost which would depend on circumstances 
    liberalwithmorals
  • DeeDee 2362 Pts
    edited July 26
    @MichaelElpers

     Its why people in Europe and Canada are will come to the U.S. to get treatment and not the other way around.  

    Absolute BS, you honestly believe Europeans are flocking to the US to pay  $3,949 per day and each hospital stay cost an average of $15,734.

    Those are alarming figures, especially for families with limited budgets or no insurance. It is not surprising that 60% of all bankruptcies are related to medical expenses.

    Plaffelvohfenliberalwithmorals
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 385 Pts
    edited July 26
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    "It's funny the nations that do have single payer have higher rated heath systems, a higher life expectancy, a lower rate of child mortality"
    Id like to address this because the standards of measurements used are disingenuous. 

    Infant mortality rate: The way countries measure this is very different.  In the U.S. where we have high standards, basically any baby that takes a breath outside of the womb is counted in infant mortality statistics.  However in other countries, infant mortality isnt included unless the baby lives for at least a week.  Also premature babies, babies with certain complications are often not counted in infant mortality rates.  It is very inconsistent and the U.S. standard is the highest.

    Life expectancy: Many of these countries have much smaller populations and more importantly have a much more gomogebeous gene pool.  It is much easier to provide healthcare for people that are very similar than the U.S. where there is extreme diversity.The U.S. also has a very high rate of obesity and diabetes, lowering life expectancy.  That is more of a cultural choice that leads to Americans dying early, but doesnt reflect a low quality of care.

    Overall quality: The mortality rate of cancers in these single payer countries are much higher (often double) the rates of the U.S.

    The U.K. is ranked #1, but hospital patients are 4 times more likely to die than in the U.S.

    Many nonlife-threatening procedures and care are considered "elective" and single payer countries only allow for a certain amount.  It is very hard her procedures done for these types of services.  Instead of market controlling supply and demand, the government just makes a guess, and often many people end up being denied (especially the elderly). 

    In Canada, the median wait time for arthroplastic surgery (hip, knee, ankle, shoulder) ranges from 20 weeks to 52 weeks.Wait times are much longer for ER services and other items like MRI, and other scans/preventive care.  By the time they get you in often it can be too late.

    The U.S. is the #1 country when it comes to medical innovation.  We are currently essentially subisidizing other countries with our medical innovation, which would severly decline in single payer.

    I think some of the proposals in this citation would work. better.

    https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/rccm.200906-0882ED

    @Dee. These long wait times, limits on electice procedures and surgeries, objectively better rates on cancers is why people come to the U.S. knowing they will have to pay more.
  • edited July 26
    @MichaelElpers
    And people who have these conditions such as diabetes and obesity can't get their prescriptions because the cost of medication is several times higher.
    https://www.t1international.com/access-survey16/
    In the US the cost of insulin is above 300 dollars while it other nations it rarely gets above 50. The cost for drugs that help HIV patients, heart disease patients, and basically any patient is several times several times higher here than elsewhere. Wait times may be higher in other nations, but there is no bouncing around the issue. economics do play a role in our high mortality rate. 
    As for Obesity let's look at nations with similar rates as the US that are 1st world.
    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/obesity-rates-by-country
    USA: 36%
    Mexico: 28%
    NZ: 30%
    Canada: 29%
    Kuwait: 38%
    UAE: 31%
    Saudia Arabia: 35%
    Canada, SA, and UAE rank higher on the WHO while still having similar rates of obesity and the ones that don't still have a lower death rate than the US.  The US death rate is about 8.5 (per 100,000).
    For comparison the UAE has a death rate of about 1.45, Kuwait 2.6, mexico 5.9, SA 3.4, Canada 7.5, and NZ of 7.6, all lower than the US.
    Also the US does not seem to have any drastically shorter wait times than any other 1st world nation. Some nations with universal systems actually out preform them in wait times
    https://www.carevoyance.com/blog/healthcare-wait-times-by-country
    The UK may be an outlier but according to the report below the US isn't much better. A survey taken by the Atlantic stated that only 48% of US citizens were able to get a same or next day appointment making it the next to last country listed on that survey.
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/281614/
    The thing about wait times is that at least you know that eventually you will get treatment, while when it comes to our system, if you don't have the money then you don't know if you will ever get treatment. If the wait times were really so egregious in 1st world nations with Universal health systems then surely they would be ranked below the US on virtually every health organization site, especially the WHO. Furthermore the wait times other countries see doesn't cause as much collateral damage as the US system as the UK, the nation you stated where wait times risk being fatal, still manages to have a drastically lower preventable death rate than us at 119 per 100000 citizens compared to our 175
    In comparison canada has a preventable death rate of 117. Even though most of the wait times argument is a myth, nations that do or would have these higher wait times still have lower death rates in both preventable and overall than the US. Why? Perhaps because waiting is a better than not being able to afford it at all.
    https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/3b4fdbf2-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/3b4fdbf2-en
    Most if not all of the other first world nations all have preventable death rates lower, with some drastically lower than ours. If people in these nations weren't getting the care they need because of insurance being elective then their preventive death rate would be higher than ours. Might I add that the UK's death rates are decreasing and will eventually be lower than that of the US. 
    The US might have the best medical innovation but as I said before it means nothing if a majority of the population can't access it. I can make the best pizza but if I withhold it from you all it will result in you all being hungry. The fact that we have the best facilities but only a select few can access them is ironically an even larger slap to the face than not having these places at all. Also most of that innovation comes from public funding through public universities. Students, athletics etc.  pay universities to research on innovating new medications, technology, machinery etc. but private companies buy the rights to those things and proceed to sell them back to the public at outlandishly high prices. We can still achieve this innovation if we were to cut off the private corporations buying the rights and sell it to the government. We have some of the highest tuition rates globally and the college sports industry is a multi billion dollar affair. The argument that being paid drives innovation is still an on going one but even then I am sure that universities that conduct this research won't be economically limited without private companies buying the rights.This way the public would still be able to have access to them at a lower price.
    In addition the scenario you mentioned above with the government deciding what is and what isn't needed in terms of medical procedures is EXACTLY what private insurance already does to us. Due to private corporations racking the prices so high, private and public insurance are both selective in what procedures their clients can get done. Private insurance companies are often more selective because they have a larger incentive to make profit. To stop this occurrence all we need to do is to stop the over pricing off treatment which would mean severely limiting if not destroying entirely the private sector in healthcare. Hospitals wouldn't have to increase prices because there would only be one buyer on the market.
    The ineffectiveness in our system has especially been exposed recently during the covid crisis as we have yet to recover as thoroughly as other nations due to our population not being able to afford all the care or any care at all.
    It is neither your or my responsibility to medically care for the masses, it is the government. People work and pay taxes and in return the government provides infrastructure, education, and protection for the people. Having universal health care is protection from death itself. Thus by people chosing to have a large private sector, we are infringing on the government's ability to provide protection to others. In this case, one's freedom is infringing upon the well being of others.
    liberalwithmorals
  • @MichaelElpers
    I read the report, I like some of the proposals.
  • @JustAnAllMightFan

    We need to look no further than Scialist nations to see how one payer systems create huge waiting lists of patients needing surgery. Canadians come to America when they need life saving procedures in a timely manner.

    If you want to wait for heart or Cancer surgery, then by all means have socialized medicine.
    Plaffelvohfenliberalwithmorals
  • @We_are_accountable
    But Canada has a lower overall death rate, higher rated health system on all accredited sites, a lower preventive death rate, and no medical bankruptcies. The US can also have pretty egregious wait times too. And even then as I said before, waiting for something is better then not having it.
    More americans go to canada for medical needs then vice versa because overall Canadian healthcare is way more accessible. The Canadians that do come here are the ones that are already extremely wealthy so they can afford our outrageous prices. For any other Canadian that is in the bottom 90% to come here for medical needs would be an economic and medical death sentence.
    A majority of the US population makes below 60 grand annually. Heart disease is a very common thing globally that often requires surgery. The average heart surgery will range anywhere for 250 to 400 grand. Let's say your insurance chooses to help. In reality they would only cover so much and leave the rest to you.  The most ideal private american insurance plans cover up to 80% of surgery, so being generous in this situation your insurance covers that percentage for your heart surgery. Key word, surgery; you will still have to cover the remaining prescriptions,  follow-up visits, following procedures that your insurance will label "elective" as well as the remaining 20% which can easily put you at owing around 200 grand. Sadly the rate at which your pay will increase won't match the rate at interests for your bills so in reality you will be chained for the rest of your life paying medical expenses prohibiting you for getting any additional medical care. Hence actually the years that you will be chained paying off medical bills and rationing your health needs is significantly longer than the weeks to months you'd wait for a procedure in a single payer system. 
    This is being generous because in our system where profit is the bottom line, a private insurance company can choose to stop covering your treatment if they deem it too costly basically leaving you to die; or leaving you in so much pain that you're no longer able to work anymore so you get laid off consequently leading to you living off of often abysmal disability checks, relying on pain medication to help mitigate the suffering, (but not actually solving the problem) leaving you to sink deep into economic collapse, depression, pill addiction, all while on the road to a slow and painful death.
    Any way you look at it, our system is inferior to that of the rest of the first world.
    I do appreciate you not automatically calling me names though. 
    PlaffelvohfenWe_are_accountableliberalwithmorals
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    Social programs offer attractive benefits to those scheduled to receive them but the cost of those programs is usually underreported and more painful to those providing the money to pay for them than the potential recipients realize.
    We_are_accountable
  • @marke
    The reason why the cost is high is because the private market drives them up so high. For example the cost of insulin in the US vs every other nation in the 1st world and some even in the 2nd world. Under a single payer system, medical centers would only have to answer to one customer, the government. Hence prices would be lower and the program wouldn't grow broke. The increase we'd have to pay in taxes still would save us all money when you take into consideration the premiums and copays we have to pay our insurance along with the prescriptions, treatments and visits that our insurance doesn't cover. This would in turn, ensure that Americans have a larger amount of disposable income which then they can use to put back into the economy.
    We_are_accountable
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @marke
    The reason why the cost is high is because the private market drives them up so high. For example the cost of insulin in the US vs every other nation in the 1st world and some even in the 2nd world. Under a single payer system, medical centers would only have to answer to one customer, the government. Hence prices would be lower and the program wouldn't grow broke. The increase we'd have to pay in taxes still would save us all money when you take into consideration the premiums and copays we have to pay our insurance along with the prescriptions, treatments and visits that our insurance doesn't cover. This would in turn, ensure that Americans have a larger amount of disposable income which then they can use to put back into the economy.
    If the US government could provide cheaper healthcare than could be provided by the private sector then democrats would never hsve introduced ther new Obamacare tax hike plan to cover government losses from Medicare.
    We_are_accountable
  • edited July 27
    @marke
    The US will always been reluctant to move to a single payer health system because private pharmacy and insurance companies are so ingrained into our politics that there is too much corruption.
    Also, I stated (or I meant to state) that healthcare prices are high because the private sector is too powerful. To an extent it doesn't matter if we have medicare and Medicaid, it's the private sector that controls the prices. Thus the government has no control over this and has to pay the incredibly high prices set by the private market, which in turn damages the program. If we extremely limit or totally get rid of the private sector in healthcare then the prices will go down. It's virtually impossible to get affordable healthcare even with government programs in place since the private market dictates the prices.
    We_are_accountable
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    Other nations have sacrificed freedom, wealth and quality of healthcare service in exchange for universal government healthcare coverage.  I don't like what socialism offers in exchange for old-fashioned American small-government freedom.
    PlaffelvohfenWe_are_accountable
  • @marke
    I beg to differ. We have a higher total death rate, higher death rate of preventable disease, higher single motherhood rate, higher rate of untreated mental illness,  and often ironically higher wait times than all other countries in the 1st and some in the 2nd world. If we are to go by the most credible source of health academia which is the WHO we are depsite having the highest GDP ranked 37th in healthcare. Ironically due to our system which often puts profit over wellbeing we have taken away others' freedoms by chaining them to medical debt, forcing people to ration prescriptions they need, forcing people to shy away from procedures they need because they cannot afford them which leads to people becoming dependant on pain killers leading to mass addiction and overdose. Our health care system which supposedly promotes "freedom" has restricted that freedom from most of our citizens.
    Technically speaking if we are to go by the results, our quality of care is lower than that off all of the 1st world when we are supposedly supposed to be the global superpower.
    Our healthcare system does not promote freedom, it promotes further inequality.
    independentlyWe_are_accountable
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    The greedy of the world focus on what they call income inequality or unfair distribution of wealth.  Marxism promises to eliminate these supposed evils but it never does.  It just makes the powerless even poorer, the powerful richer and more despotic, and does nothing to improve the overall quality of life for societies given over to the communist foolishness.
    independentlyWe_are_accountable
  • edited July 27
    @marke
    Cool.
    I'm not a marxist I believe in Social democracy not socialism. In other words, I'm a capitalist but I believe that the free market doesn't belong in a select few aspects because in the end it breeds corruption.  So with due respect, save the tirade for another debate.
    Nevertheless to get back to the core of our discussion, it has been proven that our healthcare system ironically promotes the same inequalities that you claim marxism promotes. Time after time it's clear that our system breeds economic and personal collapse along with a great degree of inefficiency. 
  • I personally think more freedom comes from cheaper costs since you wouldn't have to fork over a month of your income for a basic procedure even with insurance. I find this freedom much more important.

    Our healthcare system is ran off of money, and lots of it. It is not a surprise that the pharmaceutical industry has spent the most out of any industry on lobbying. Over 4.45 billion in the past 22 years. Insurance comes second at 2.9 billion. Think about that.

    If anything, our system definitely needs to be looked into. We spend way more for the same care in some cases. That's not right. It is way out of balance. I am still not entirely convinced on M4A but at least its trying to change our weird system.

  • @independently
    I think I would be in favor of a private sector but just not one as strong as it is in our country. Our healthcare system is in a lot of ways dystopian. I have some reservations with M4A as well but I would choose that over our current system in place
    Plaffelvohfenindependently
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    I cannot see how capitalism molded by socialism could possibly improve the freedom and prosperity of a whole nation's economy over free market capitalism unhindered by socialism.
  • @marke
    I can. Everything from the billions to trillions we blow on the military industrial complex, to the failures in our healthcare system that are completely avoidable, from the failure of our prisons to rehabilitate, to the millions who have died in the drug war has showed that a free market simply cannot take control over a select few things. The philosophy of combining government interference with a market based economy isn't a new one and based on the results compared to ours seems to be preforming better.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
     @JustAnAllMightFan

    I haver not found any historicl evidence that Marxism or communism has been an improvement for any nation, but I have found that communism and Marxism are more closely linked in philosophy than most people realize.  I d not like the current socialist/communist tendencies we are already seeing ion our government:

    1.  Obama told the nuns they did not have a choice.  Under his healthcare plan they wpould pay for abortions and contraceptives whether they liked it or not.

    2.  Michele's school food police took a little girl's home lunch of turkey sandwich and fruit away from her and forced her to eat chicken nuggets and sent the mother a bill.  That girl lived in Raeford, NC, the turkey capital of the US.

    3.  Bloomberg banned super swize soft drinks.

    4.  Democrats lied and cheated their way into forcing Obamacare on all Americans whether they liked it or not, with no republican support and without putting themselves under the tax hike they were forcing on all Americans.

    5.  Leftist mobs of gangsters are ripping the nation to shreds while democrats go to court to stop republican efforts to stop the violence.

    No, I do not like what modern democrat socialists are doing to America.
  • @marke
    Marxism and social democracy are two entirely different things I am in favor of the latter not the former. 
    I've seen evidence that basic social democracy does have benefits on society. Countries that have these policies, have lower abortion rates (something you seem to concerned about) lower single motherhood, lowe preventable deaths, lower wealth gap, lowe divorce rate (due to couples being allowed contraceptives), lower medical bankrupcies, lower crime, lower homicide, lower prison population ratio, less gang violence, a higher ranked education system, higher standard of living, and much much more.
    You're strawmaning my position by assuming that I am marxist/communist when in reality I just want America to reach the same level of the first world.
    Technically speaking if those Nuns want less abortions, paying for contraceptives is in their best interest. Also doing so would help maintain the sanctity of marriage (a large aspect of Christianity) since it allows citizens to get married when they are emotionally and economically stable instead of having to care for unplanned children which often leads to infighting and eventually divorce between couples.
    Republicans are the reason why gang violence is so prevalent in the first place. They pushed the war on drugs which purposely allowed heavy policing in black neighborhoods to arrests non violent drug offenders and send them to prisons where those prisons would amass huge profit. Coincidentally these same prisons would send donations and super packs to these same politicians and they would in turn push for higher drug legalisation. Perhaps there is a degree of corruption there? While virtually ever other 1st world nation has solved their gang violence problem by focusing on rehab, restorative justice and reform, we still insist on growing the drug black market. If anything the left is trying to end gang violence by legalizing the substances and offering rehabilitation which will in turn end the economic source that gangs fight for control over leading to a drop in homicide and violence. We've actually tried this approach before.
    Remember prohibition and how that did lead to a mass increase in homicide? During the 20's and 30's where the alcohol was in place white gangs where killing each other in mass numbers. Why? Because they were competing for control over the black market giving them mass Monetary power to reinvest into their neighborhoods? Every year the white on white homicide increased until finally in 1934 where the ban was reversed. 3 years later the homicide rate was the lowest it had been in decades. Time and time again, it has been proven that legalization and rehab does less collateral damage than banning the substance, yet republicans and democrats still implement the exact opposite. Tell me why the black crime and single motherhood rate conveniently exploded after these harsh drug policies came into place? Nixon's advisor admitted that the war on drugs was purposely created to take out leaders in the black community to gain the vote of southern democrats.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman#:~:text=Drug war quote,-In 2016, a&text=You understand what I'm,we could disrupt those communities.
    Might I add that Obamacare as a whole was the result of the GOP constantly vetoing the bill for no other reason then to spite the democrats. Romneycare was essentially the same as Obamacare yet the house constantly voted against. Thus the obama administration had to constantly water down the bill until it could gain compromise and approval. Our government healthcare is essentially a watered down version of healthcare systems of the rest of the 1st and parts of the 2nd world. Yet even then it still stopped millions of potential bankruptcies and deaths. Ironically it wasn't even that long ago that the GOP supported a single payer system. Republican Dwight Eisenhower actually carried out most of the new deal, pushed for the Interstate program, the largest public government spending program in history and pushed to expanded our health system. During that time America was undergoing perhaps it's last and greatest economic boom of the working class. The fact that Dwight, a Republican would be considered far left in our current political landscape should tell us something.
    As for Bloomberg, to be honest I don't care. I was never particularly a fan of his. At the core of it all, supervised drinks is a very trivial issue that doesn't really matter yet people want to claim that such a small act somehow equates to the downfall of freedom in America. Even if we are to ignore the fact that American fast food portions are considerably larger than that of other countries (our large is other's supersized) if you really want your thousands of grands of abnormal blood pressure, heart disease, a vast array of medical bills, and sugar then just swing by a store and buy multiple soft drinks. 
    Nowhere in Obama's healthy,hunger-free kid's act did it enforce the removal of at home lunches. You're taking one cherry-picked story that fits your narrative and somehow using it to justify the inequality in the system, a common fallacy.
    Might I add that the abortion issue goes both ways. Under our current system a company can deny birth control to its employees due to religious beliefs, which is not only incredibly inefficient but as you made the argument in your original post, unfair. That worker provides his or her labor in return for money. By that logic, if a vegan were to run a business, he should be able to deny his worker's the right to buy meat with their capital. But that would make no sense. Why? Because what workers choose to do with their money and insurance shouldn't be in the control of the business. When the business wants to dictate what the worker's do with the capital that they earned then that is a serious infraction of freedom, something that you seem to be passionate about.
    Perhaps the most appalling aspect of your argument is your insistence to somehow, connect our very basic social policies with "communism". It's ironically both very saddening and hilarious to me that we have gone so far right as a nation that positions even slightly left to that of the norm are automatically lumped in with socialism/ communism even though the two are as close to each other as Vancouver is to Texas. The fact our most prominent "leftist" elected official, Bernie Sanders is actually near the center on the global scale yet still met with fallacies of socialism is a shinning example of the hyperbolic nature of American political discourse.
    We would rather stick to the narrative of anything left of our far right political system is automatically the spawn of satin rather then have our world view challenged. It's quite a sad sight to see.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    Marxism, communism, socialism and atheism are all very bad ideologies.  They do not improve the freedom and prosperity of nations, they destroy it.
  • @marke
    Yeah I agree with you. I don't agree with any of those ideologies (besides atheism because people deserve the right to religious freedom). The point I am trying to make is that having a combination of social reform and the free market is better than just having solely one or the other. Just because my views are to the left of yours doesn't make them socialist. If you believe so then it will be hard to debate you because you will just fabricate in your mind what my position is without ever analyzing my actual arguments. You calling me a marxist communist just because I am to the left of you would be like me automatically labeling you a racist, sexist, theocratic, authoritarian just because you are to the right of me. Dog whistles and hostility get very tiring in the long term. Can we agree to drop these tactics and focus on productive discourse?
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    Obamacare proved government healthcare is not free.  Thousands of Americans saw their healthcare premiums skyrocket under the new democrat tax plan.
  • edited July 29
    @marke
    Yeah because even with government assistance programs the private market still controls a majority of the market so they set the prices. If we were to set up a system where only one payer pays for everyone, medical companies wouldn't have to set the prices so high due to no competition
    Obama care is essentially a government program trying to work within a market dominated by the private sector. Calling the program expensive without ignoring that the reason why it's such is because private corporations set the medication, procedures, and visits to be incredibly unaffordable does not do your argument justice.
    Severely limiting if not destroying completely the private sector would take out premiums and copays and instead pay it solely through tax which in turn would save everyone money.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    Whatever the reason, Americans by the tens of thousands were hit with a huge sticker shock when they realized their democrat government officials had saddled them with a mandatory Obamacare tax hike that was way more than the democrats had led them to believe it would be.
  • @marke
    Maybe because people are both having to pay an increase of taxes along with private premiums and copays is inefficient. Perhaps if we just got rid of private insurance expenditures and just paid for healthcare through tax the people as a whole would be under lead financial insecurity?
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    Democrats always seem to struggle with inconvenient facts.  Warren was probably the closest of any democrat in history in nailing down what free government healthcare is likely going to cost the American taxpayers at first, before increases are added later.  But even Warren still clings to the nonsense that the rich are going to pay for it which is not only a lie, but brazenly .

    Elizabeth Warren Proposes $20.5 Trillion Health Care Plan

    Ms. Warren would impose huge tax increases on businesses and billionaires to pay for “Medicare for all,” but she said she would not raise taxes on the middle class.
  • @marke
    Wouldn't not raising taxes on the middle class be a good thing since that economic bracket has been nearing extinction?
    Logically speaking if our universal health plan was so economically inefficient then surely the rest of the 1st world would join on board with us. And even then that multi trillion plan is still less than the healthcare plan we have in place
     According to the WHO under our health plan which greatly favors private insurance we spend by far the most per person than any other nation and that is because our prices are extremely inflated to ensure that the private market stomps control from government insurance. As I said before the taxes we'd pay would still in total be lower than the multiple copays, premiums and out-of-pocket expenditures that we are forced to pay now. No matter if you are looking at the economic or practical aspect of it, our system is incredibly inefficient.
    If you would like I can send you the links to several thorough economic studies explaining why single payer in the end would cost us less.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    There simply is not enough money to be taxed from the rich to even begin to pay the costs of free healthcare.  The US government cannot even scrape up enough money to pay a billion dollars toward paying down the US debt, so how is it going to come up with 20 trillion to buy new government healthcare for all?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch