Had a debate on facebook

[NGardner]

Universal heathcare vs private healthcare. The guy arguing for universal cites modern america as an example of a private system. LoL no more facebook debates for me

[NGardner]

Started with this: A fully private system would allow for greater incentive to not only stay healthy but also would lead to cost reductions. When people are going to be personally responsible for long term health conditions brought on by lifestyle choices, which are by far the largest costs to any healthcare system. When people are directly presented with a bill in response to a personal choice they would be more apt to change habits rather than relying on others to cover the costs of their lifestyle choices.

 

Rebuttal: Incentive for better personal health is a concept that works in theory but not in practice. The truth is that human beings are going to experience health problems / addiction / unexpected complications and nothing will ever change that. The current health care system in the US is a perfect example of how privatization does not drive cost down for the simple fact that privatization=monetization. Public health care with a single buyer coupled with a private industry provides a basic human right to health and life, and also drives general cost down, and If you want to talk incentive, higher quality care that comes with higher premiums will cause incentive to achieve better health care with money earned. Not better personal health, hoping you won't end up in the hospital without insurance with a 6 digit hospital bill.

 

Correction: In the current health care system in US the government covers 45% of american healthcare expenses not a valid example of a private system

• Ok. Let's say 5 years ago. Better example.

   

   we would need to go back almost 60 years before medicare and then we are talking about a different time in medicine and then would need to compare to socialist systems of the time

   

  Closed with this: I f we take what is hailed as the best healthcare system in the world currently based on WHO rankings, the French system. We take a look at the financials of Frances healthcare system costs which are soaring. France's healthcare has been operating on deficit spending since 1989. Currently they run a 14 billion a year deficit in spending on the healthcare system. You claim that a private system would only push people to get profits and I agree somewhat people will profit as much as possible, competition drives down costs. This is different than current US policies where drug, medical technology and associations of doctors receive special protections and subsidies that allow them to change outrageous prices due to being funded by the government and not having to meet customer demands. The system which is running a huge deficit only has a few outcomes. France can either collect more taxes (less value for healthcare) or reduce healthcare spending (less value for healthcare). The socialist systems of healthcare cannot mathematically continue to exist into the next 100 years. The system that makes evil profits will continue and thereby treat more people, therefore being the most beneficial system.

   

  There were other weak arguements about right to healthcare without proving it is a right, profits are evil etc

[J. D. Stembal]

I want to be better informed as to the details so that I'm able to argue the benefits of fully privatized healthcare.

 

A fully free-market health care system would be based on prevention, not treatment. As it stands, our system, for lack of a better word, disincentivizes prevention.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

<p> Rebuttal: Incentive for better personal health is a concept that works in theory but not in practice.

This is false.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IBFoC1gkExI

[J. D. Stembal]

Does one exist? I have heard that old Chinese medicine worked this way. You pay the dr a stipend to keep you well, and when you're sick, you stop paying until you get better again. But I have no idea the accuracy or source for that, and it was of course ancient chinese medicine, not modern.

 

I've heard that too, but I can't remember where. Perhaps FDR.

 

Allow people to form voluntary heath organizations with the goal of promoting nutrition and fitness. They exist in the free market already, but are stymied in their effectiveness by socialized health care. We should be going to doctors to fix broken legs, not the late term consequences of catastrophic metabolic disorders. By the time you have cancer, type 2 diabetes or heart disease, it's nearly too late to save you, and you are throwing a lot of money after your survival. It is plainly clear how inefficient this kind of health care is.

 

In this paradigm, the cost of health care and insurance would be greatly reduced (by up to 85%). Instead, we have ACA, which doubled and will soon triple premiums. People are getting sicker, not healthier, and we all are going to have to take a bite of the socialized shit sandwich. Thank you, Boomers!

[Slavik]

In most of my debates, It gets very tiring to argue statistics.  As Im sure you are aware, the arguing for statistics can also turn into arguing about sources of given statistics, being either dismissed of hand by opposing party, or you might be given statistics that end up being skewed on purpose.  As an example the feminist (women get 77c on the dollar for the same work.)  

 

When I debate people, I ask questions, and try to bring it to the moral questions.  For me, it is not important to try and prove to the other party that consequentially my idea works better statistically, all that is important to me is whether the system proposed is moral.  Proposing a system (universal healthcare) means that all people will be forced with the threat of violence, to fork over their earnings into that given system.  Threatening people with violence is immoral, thus no such system should be proposed.  

 

I cut to the heart of it really fast now a days, I really do not want to debate "would the system of slavery be beneficial statistically, or will it not."  

 

As mentioned in podcasts before, we all want to be, and think that what we are proposing is moral.  I want to show people that what they might be proposing is absolutely immoral.     

[NotDarkYet]

Strike the root:  There are 1,000 striking at the branches of evil to one who striking at the root.

 

Get DEEEP.   

 

If people can't be trusted to trade....how can they be trusted with violence, money printing, education, war, HEALTH CARE....etc.

[WasatchMan]

Strike the root:  There are 1,000 striking at the branches of evil to one who striking at the root.

 

Get DEEEP.   

 

If people can't be trusted to trade....how can they be trusted with violence, money printing, education, war, HEALTH CARE....etc.

 

I agree with this. If you are going to discuss these issue, talk about principles.  Debating the pragmatic details around what stat people can pull up to justify something is irrelevant. 

 

Do you think people would accept for slavery if you could show people were 200% better under that system?  Well don't let them argue for theft because they can pull out a stat showing single payer works better than freedom.  It doesn't, but even if it did, I would argue for freedom.