Universal Health Care

America is the greatest nation in the World. As I am disappointed by the why our "leaders" have handle this country the past 8 years, and even beyond that, I can still say I love my country.

That being said, why doesn't America provide free health care to all of it's citizens? My point here that will be debated is that Health Care is a human right, and America should not have profits leading our health system.

We are the only westeren civilized nation that uses profits as the main motivation for health. America should provide health care to all citizens without a bill attached. Health care is a human right, and it is time Americans shouldn't feel scared to go to the doctor because they might not be able to afford it. No more HMOs, because like I said before, it is not only immoral, but it is ineffective to have a money making institution running our health coverage.

Thank you, and good luck to my opponet.

While when examined immediately, it might seem like a very good idea to make health care free for all. It's a very important part of all of our lives, and it might seem immediately cruel to leave this for private enterprise. However, when carefully and logically examined there is no question that the only option is a free market solution.

I will save most of my main arguments for round 2 after my opponent has posted the bulk of his arguments. I will however, do some initial refutation of my opponents arguments.

Firstly, my opponent claims that health care is a human right. However, it is impossible for health care to be a human right, as human rights do not interfere with others. The right for you to speak harms nobody else. The right for you to live does not require anybody else to make you live, and the right to your property does not disadvantage anybody else. However, the right to 'free health' requires an infrastructure of people to support you. Meaning that some sector of the population, be it small or large must be slaves to the rest of society. Slavery is unjust, so health care being a 'right' in fact takes away, to some extent, the fundamental rights of Life, Liberty, and Property.

Secondly, my opponent claims that we are the only industrial nation that does not have a system of socialization. This argument is empirically wrong, as it is logically fallacious. This is based on the logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum.

I await my opponents main reply.

I will acknowledge my opponets deffinition for a Human right, but I will respectfully disagree. In my opinion, everyone should have access to medicine, and to a further degree, good health. I believe that everyone has the right to go to the doctors/hospital without fearing a bill.

And the U.S. does remain the only Westeren Industialized nation that does not have universal health care for all of its' citizens.

A couple of things that make this debate:
*Cost Concerns
*Socialism/Communism
*Stripping Freedom of Choice
*Wait Times for Medical Attention

Cost Concern:
My opponet breifly brought up the term free market solution. Remeber, this isn't a discussion about Price Chopper vs. Hanaford in the free market. This is not a free market issue. When someone in the middle to low ecconomic class gets hurt or ill, they are hesitant to go to the hospital because the "Free" market put a price on medical help. Now, how do we pay for Universal Health care, before I get carried away with the evils of HMOs.
The fact is Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits. The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada's.
Universal Health Coverage is achievable, espically with the war ending, we could ensure the entire country, and have cash left over.

HMOs are the current way of Health care in this country. These are corporations out to make and save money by dening people of medical care. This is the Free Market solution.

Yeah but isn't this the first step to Socialism? Well, I don't hear any complaining about our Police Departments, Fire Departments, Public Schools, and Libraies. All socialized fractions of our great and free society. So if public schools and police departments are ok, than I guess medicine should be too.

Stripping the freedom to choose what kind of plan you want. The...Free Market system, or a government run system. I think Obamas plan makes the most sense here. People can choose (under his health care plan) either to stick to their HMO or buy into the Governmentas universal coverage.

Wait Times for Medical Attention. Americans alrewady wait for emergancy service in America. The ERs are full!!

Sorry but I left this up for a little bit to go eat, and now I must get off the computer so I know this was short a sweet but...yeah. Thanks.

I was hoping my opponent would respond only because this is my closing statements. But since I'm not going to be mean, my opponent may respond to my arguments in round 2 to conclude the debate.
Thanks for reading.

Firstly, I must apologize for dropping a round in this debate. I've been having some time management issues lately, especially now that I'm at school and working again full time.

The first thing I must emphasis is that my opponent is still using the 'only western industrialized nation' argument. This argument is entirely irrelevant and invalid as per the rules of logic. Argument from popularity. This argument is inherently fallacious. A policy being more popular than others means absolutely nothing whatsoever.

The largest fallacy with your argument is that you consider our current system to be a "Free market" system. This is simply not true, the system we have right now is not at all free market, rather it's heavily regulated and controlled. Over the years, it has gone to the point where insurance companies are government propped up monopolies. These monopolies might not be much better, and in some cases they can be even worse than socialized systems. When I speak of a free market system I do not speak of a pseudo-free American system, I speak of a true free market. A truly free market would rely on insurance far less, and paying for the goods far more. Just as with food, and other essential things people might end up spending alot of money. My family spent about 100 dollars a week, at the least on food. This seems like quite a lot, that could be 5200 a year! Should the government step in and take control over the food industry? Well, you might think so if the food industry was run like the medical industry is run in America today. You would go into the grocery store with your "FOODCORP" card, buy hundreds of dollars worth of steak, eat in excess, your food would be far less quality and it would "cost" alot, especially if you didn't have an 'insurance' card. One solution might to be to radically socialize the food system, sure this would be incredibly inefficient as most socialized systems are, but it would be cheaper for the individual..... This would be problematic though, as simply moving to the free market, the system we resemeble now so far as food goes, would not only solve most problems regarding cost (for the vast majority of individuals) but it would also prevent all of the inefficiencies caused by socialism.

Freedom of choice exists only in a free market system, and that is what makes a free market system so much more productive than a socialized one. YOu may choose which hospital to go to, and how much money to spend. This competition naturally brings prices down, while socialism naturally makes prices sporadic, as bureaucrats are far less efficient at determining prices than the market. Americans do wait some time in ER's. Americans complaining about wait times should visit a hospital ran by the NHS, or other socialist systems. Often, people will have serious medical conditions and die waiting in the waiting rooms. Even for cancer care, the time it takes to actually even get in for an MRI is enough to kill the patient.

Socializing the system, even if it would be cost effective is unacceptable. Doing so, would require the slavery of everybody to somebody else. While you claim health service is a "Human right", to say that it must be a human right is to say that slavery is a "human right". The only true human right is one that which does not require the labor of others to achieve, otherwise one person is a slave to another. My opponent has not brought up any rebuttal to my earlier point on how this is slavery, so I must assume that he is at least, in part, in favor of slavery. Is slavery of one man to another really a human right? All people who pay for other peoples care are effectively slaves. Socialism is hardly ever acceptable, however at times it is a necessary evil. I would say that it is required to some extent, for the courts, fire, and police services. I would not say that education should be public. If we implemented this socialist policy, even if it saved us money, we would all lose out in the long run. We would lose out with our freedom, and with the efficiencies that capitalism provides.