[meh]

FIRST OFF

rules:

1. All board rules still apply, this may seem obvious, but for clarity I am not able to, nor would I care to; rewrite any of the forum rules for these topics alone.

2. Respect - this IS listed in the forum rules, but is worth a mention on its own in a situation like this. NO personal slights, or libelous behaviour in these topics please.

3. Accuracy:
i) First of all, please double check any facts, or figures before posting, to make sure they are correct.
ii) any content which you post should be referenced if it is not your own, and it should be made clear which part of your post is quoted, and WHERE IT IS QUOTED FROM. To quote a scource please use the forum tags

[quote name="scource"]content[/quote]

iii) Try to make sure to the best of your ability that your scources are reliable, please note that, as helpful as it can be, wikipedia is NOT a reliable scource of information, and it WILL be obvious if you only take information from one scource.

4. Opinions:
i) Please make sure to distinguish between your opinions and the facts of a matter.
ii) A lot of the topics will be about opinions. If at any point the debate boils right down to a select few's personal opinions on a matter, the debate is moot and it would be appreciated if you could stop, and wait for the next topic.


Tips

- Number one. RESEARCH!!!! Do NOT just absent mindedly start jotting down your opinions on a topic when you see the new thread! It will be apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about, and you will only make a fool of yourself. In fact, I would hope not to see any responses to the topics for at least a good hour or so after they have been made, this will give you time to look up any information you need. Unless of course you have studied a topic in depth in the past.

- Try to form your own opinions, remember that any scources you use, wether it be online, in a book, or as a piece of visual-audio media, WILL be subject to the authors own personal bias.
Some good places to look for reliable content are news organisations.

- If you are seriously offended by something that another person has said on a subject, try to refrain from a public response, if you could politely ask them to remove their comment (and state why) or PM a staff member, it would be greatly appreciated. But let's try to avoid those comments in the first place eh?

- Bear in mind that you are NOT always right, if a person does disagree with you, try not to head out and find the nearest piece of evidece that contradicts what they have said. Instead take into consideration what they are telling you, and keep an open mind about others points of view.

- Opinionated debaters are good debaters, I realise during the rules section I may have made it sound as if opinions are a bad thing. They are not, if you feel a certain way, let people know, just make sure you have the facts to back your statements.


TOPIC ONE


Okay, so to kick off my new debating idea, I'm starting with a topic which is current affairs, big in the news, but also one that shouldn't be a cause for concern when it comes to offense.

'Should the U.S. government provide health care to its citizens? Would a just government neglect it's poor?'

a few pointers to start off the debate:
- Do the current U.S. Health services actively try to avoid giving the best possible health care to maximise profits?
- Would the quality of life for medical employees be lowered under a nationalised health service?
- How much would a nationalised health service impact upon taxes?


Yes there are two questions, no they are not separate. Please only answer the scond question in relation to the first. Apart from that, happy debating!

[OuttRages]

Ok, heres my penny.

In the UK, we already have this, its called the NHS (Nation Health Service), and recently its getting a lot of stick about big debts... but lets face it, an organization set up to provide free health care to 70,000,000 aprox people, well, its never going to be a money spinner.

We pay more taxes in the UK, but then we get more i guess. The NHS is a big part of low income families, my eldest sister suffers from Systenosis, a hereditary disease that causes imbalances in the bodies chemicals, and also an inability for the body to produce its own potasium. The body is also unable to remove Cystine from the blood. Sid effects are poor muscle growth, weak joints, your hair can change colour etc.

as a result she takes 11 tablets, and 2 syringes of medicine 3 times a day, daily. Without this she would die in a few months. The cost of these medicines would be hundreds that my family couldn't afford. Theres predidicted to be only 2,000 people in the world with this condition, so the drugs are EXPENSIVE.

http://rarediseases.about.com/od/rarediseasesc/a/cystinosis.htm said:

There are only around 2,000 known individuals with cystinosis in the world.

This is a big boon for everyone in the UK regardless of the money it costs, its priceless, you cannot put a value on the price of a single human, yet alone an entire nation of people. If the US gov is really truly 100% interested in the welfare of its people it would of had this years ago.

Theres no doubt it would increases taxes, but its an extra few C at the petrol pump worth knowing you and your loved ones are safe? Id also say, in general, i find that nationalised services tend to offer a better services, as they arnt all wrapped up in profits, as money isn't an issue, or shouldn't be. A Human life is priceless!

[jaguar838]

Do the current U.S. Health services actively try to avoid giving the best possible health care to maximise profits?
Well, first off, many doctors from other countries do try and land a job in the US because it pays much more.
[img]http://graphics8.nyt.../crsdoctors.jpg[/img

As you can see from the chart above (The New York Times, 15 July 2009, How Much Do Doctors in Other Countries make?), doctors in the US make an average of $230000/year, which is significantly above the average of the rest of the countries combined. This shows that profiting is involved.

As for trying to avoid giving the best possible health care, let's go back to the story of Medicare. There was a bill introduced to pay for the care of people 65 and older. However, " groups of doctors in several parts of the country signed petitions saying they "refused to participate in the care of patients under the provision" of the bill" (Health Care Scare, Doctors refusing to treat patients, Health Mad, 23 August, 2009). This was because Uncle Sam assumes people don;t have the brain or ambition to plan for their old age...


Would the quality of life for medical employees be lowered under a nationalised health service?
I don't really see how it would be lowered. In fact, wouldn't it be raised? Isn't seeing a happy, healty patient wo benefited from your medical skills supposed to make you smile and be glad you were a doctor? What happened to humanitarianism?

In Canada, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under Section 7, there is the "right to life, liberty, and security of person." This means that this right to life and liberty is guaranteed to an extent that is "justifiable in a free and democratic society" (Section 1). In plain English, this can be translated to free health care.

How much would a nationalised health service impact upon taxes?
There would be much heavier taxes. In Canada, depending on how much you make, one can expect to lose a minimum of 45% of their entire earnings up to a maximum of 60%. Out of the entire GDP, Canada spends approximately 10% on healthcare, which is 76% less than the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Government_involvement). However, the various levels of government (3 levels) pay for a total of 70% of all Canadian's health care, while the public sector pays the rest. When my dad needed major surgery, he didn't have to pay a cent for the 2 week stay in the hospital, the drugs, the surgery itself, the consult with the specialist, or the semi private room because it was all covered by his employee insurance at the company he works (Gamma-Dynacare) and the government. To be able to know that, when you grow older there will never be a need to worry about your health is worth paying the extra taxes.

The Mayo clinic is going to stop treating Medicare patients because "U.S. government pays too little". I understand that the Mayo Clinic is a non-profit organization and that they have limited funds to draw from. If there was a national health system, this would not happen.

*Italics = edited in at 2/1/10 at 9:30pm.

Sources used
http://healthmad.com...treat-patients/
http://economix.blog...countries-make/
http://en.wikipedia....ent_involvement
http://en.wikipedia....anadian_Charter
http://www.godlikepr...ssage955869/pg1
http://www.bloomberg...id=aHoYSI84VdL0

This post has been edited by jaguar838: 01 February 2010 - 09:30 PM

[Lord_Lee2]

Should the US government provide health care to its citizens? Yes. will it in the foreseeable future? Probably, but not as countries with an NHS type system see it.

The American psyche is perhaps one of (what we Eurofreaks call) paradox and oxymoron. "I have money. I care about life. I want the world to be a better place. Am I willing to give up 30% of my income to help other, perhaps less fortunate people, have a better life, and make a healthier America? HELLZ NO!!!! GOVERNMENT IS SOCIALIST. HITLER DID WHAT OBAMA IS DOING! OMG OMG OMG TEA PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ SAVE ME SARAH PALIN!"

A typical conservative viewpoint i have seen over and over in forums. Now, any evidence I use will immediately be discarded as "liberal trash" hence the admirable previous posters arguments are immediately irrelevant in attempting to make a healthier America. Of course, any attempt to pass any form of comprehensive healthcare act like Britain's system will be wrought with compromise and stallation while Republicans stay back blocking everything and heaving the blame on Obama until they get the "health care act for the American people, and the Business sector". It failed with the almighty Bill, it can easily as fail with the hope-filled Obama.

Now to answer the second question in relation to the first we need to look at history.
History tells us of humble origins of the NHS in the post-war period. "A home fit for heroes" was the phrase captured by the Prime Minister Attlee after the devastation of the Second World War. In the short version I will now tell:
People had come through the laissez-faire Victorian period, if you didn't have a job it was your own darn fault and if you were poor that was your own fault. The only form of Governmnt "aid" was the dreaded workhouses, actually created in the 1840's-60's to DISCOURAGE people from "inactivity" and "failed workers". I could mention that this was the period where Marx first had his ideas, seeing the plight of people around him and wishing for a fairer world (i say not that he had the RIGHT IDEA, HE CLEARLY JUST WANTED A BETTER SYSTEM WHICH HAD NOT EVEN BEEN THOUGHT OF BEFORE THAT), but that would mean this entire thread pointless and my argument inherently "bais","socialist" and "Russian" just by the mere mention of a feared name (which in my opinion many American's have been spoon fed to fear from birth, so much for liberty and free thought). I digress.

People realised in the early 20th century that poverty was in-fact, more to do with your life circumstances rather than any fault of your own. Illness was a common occurrence, preventing the average working man (the breadwinner) from earning a wage which would support his family dropping that family into the pit of poverty. Old-age also prevented people from working, effectively making workhouses also the first "old-age retirement homes", a cruel way to end your days i hope you agree, especially if they had worked all their life supporting their family as, say, a dock worker. earning minimum wage and supporting their family until too old to do so....highly admirable.
It was the early Liberal Party (OMG LIBERAL ANOTHER CUSS WORD), or old Whigs as they were called back then, under no obligation to help the poor (They were actually voted in for their foreign policy) issued the first "health care" bill. A system whereby employer,government and employee pay a small fee as the insurance fund.
This gradually evolved to the Labour NHS policy we Brits have enjoyed to this day and improved the lives of thousands of people over the decades.

There was SEVERE OPPOSITION to the NHS policy when it was first announced, 90% of doctors (i kid you not) signed a petition urging the government to abandon their plans and swore not to work for the new scheme. Attlee, pouring out the cash, said "Doctors, take what you want". They were effectively bought over and opposition faded, with hindsight many see this as shortsighted as it is a doctors moral obligation to help people. A moral like so others, perhaps, lined with silver.
Now, that was the British way of doing things. No mass rallies, no lazy,fat radio eccentrics to emotionalise issues, clearly. This was the working classes way (with their new found voting power) creating a better Britian for themselves rather than the middle-classes. This NHS was there not only to save lives, but to keep the working-classes working to full health, saving time and money for the average hard worker.

Now, the American system presents lots of problems with this. First of all, they are not Europeans. Leftist ideas and culture had not developed in America as it did in Europe. People were still primarily working the land (30% of Americans in the 1920's-40's worked in the agricultural works), education was minimal. There was not a culture of radicalism. Liberty is everything, especially liberty with money. People are not willing to spend money helping their fellow man because it is not their duty to, they rant on about "Grandma and the death camp - oh, and money" when really it has nothing to do with anything. "Obama's healthcare is what Hitler did" hell, if America became the new Naziism. perhaps its not Iran Isreal has to worry about, it could be, with Obama's new plan, AMERICA ITSELF! Oh the irony, it befills me.

Clearly, America is still in the neo-Victorian age. It just needs to grow, rationalise and educate before things start to happen on a grander scale. They will look back and say "How the hell could have we been so silly? Clearly this benefits not only us but the working economy as a whole".
Obama is far too ahead of his time, maybe he was wise to leave it to everyone else to sort it out so at least another footstep can be achieved before a nation wide scale is formed.
It took Britain 2 World Wars to get its NHS. All Americans need to sacrifice is a small part of their income, is that too much to ask?

This post has been edited by Lord_Lee2: 08 February 2010 - 06:28 PM