Instigator / Pro
2
1614
rating
17
debates
85.29%
won
Topic
#1101
Will more socialization benefit society?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
0
2
After 2 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...
Wylted
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1387
rating
34
debates
22.06%
won
Description
Pro: Benefit
Con: Harmful
Due to the nature of this topic, I do not have to prove why anything is moral, You have to prove to me why it is immoral. I will be providing a few reasons why more socialization would be moral however the BoP rests mostly on pro. However, before we begin I would like to define Socialism and the Redistribution of wealth.
Socialism: A state at which they redistribute wealth which is used for the collective good.
Redistribution of Wealth: Redistribution of income and redistribution of wealth are respectively the transfer of income and of wealth (including physical property) from some individuals to others by means of a social mechanism.
Tiwaz is banned from participating in this debate due to him continually pulling red herrings, dodging questions and points, and attempting to character assassinate several people.
If he accepts he completely forfeits the debate.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Alright finally got an opponent!
- Looks at their profile -
Great a troll who's lost 14 debates, doesn't take debates seriously and believes the world is flat...
Well, whatever I'll do my best and I hope my opponent doesn't troll this debate.
Then again me saying that will probably make him want to do it more but whatever, let's begin!
QUESTIONS:
Before we begin I understand my opponent is a libertarian however I want specifics.
- What's your position on the minimum wage?
- What's your position on mass immigration and illegal immigration?
- What's your opinion on the redistribution of wealth?
- Are you a conservative or anarcho libertarian?
These questions will be important for the next round.
Let's begin with too socialistic policies that would benefit the USA.
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE
Affordability:
- One of the major arguments I hear against national healthcare is it would cost Trillions every year and would bankrupt America, While this is true it is a very one-sided argument and here's why. According to the Washington Post, Bernie's healthcare plan would cost 7. 35 trillion yearly, While private healthcare would cost 7. 7 Trillion yearly. It is very obvious that national healthcare would actually be cheaper than privatized healthcare. Therefore the affordability argument is debunked.
Universality:
- By the US implementing a national healthcare model, ALL Americans rich and poor alike would have access to healthcare. This would provide a number of benefits such as higher life expectancy, Better worker productivity, And an overall boost to happiness in America. This would also reduce the number of people going bankrupt in the US, According to the commonwealth fund, " 41 percent of working-age Americans" or 72 million people "have medical bill problems or are paying off medical debt, Up from 34 percent in 2005. " Very clearly many Americans are struggling with paying off health care debt, And by the US instituting national healthcare, This would alleviate that stress.
Quality:
- By far the most common argument I've heard against national healthcare is the wait times and the overall downturn in quality it brings. This is quite simply a baseless accusation that is not backed up by statistics at all. The US according to healthsystemtracker.org and Business insider, Wasn't even in the top 10 in life expectancy compared to it's higher counterparts with universal healthcare such as Japan, Switzerland, And Australia.
- Statistically, 45,000 people die from our privatized healthcare model, this is equivalent to a monthly 9/11.
- An argument I heard in the last debate was that the US has the best doctors in the world, therefore private healthcare is bad. Statistically, this is sorta true as according to countrydetail.com in 2016, the US only ranked #1 right behind Germany which has a mixed healthcare system. Besides other countries with national healthcare still rank high on the list, Norway, Canada, and Japan all have great doctors according to this list.
- Another common argument against the quality of national healthcare is the wait times in these countries. This is true for countries such as Canada, However, This is mostly for specialists and surgeries which of course are going to have longer wait times. The only reason the US doesn't have these long wait times is simply that less and fewer people have access to healthcare in the first place. However, Two countries with mixed systems do perform just as well as the United States does, So this seems to indicate that a private healthcare system is not necessary for short specialist wait times. Ask yourself what is more important, Wait times? Or the thousands of people who die due to not affording healthcare and the millions going bankrupt due to healthcare? Plus statistically according too, countries with mixed healthcare such as Germany and Switzerland have around the same wait times as the US does, what this means is that privatized healthcare doesn't automatically equal too faster wait times.
This is just one example of what a more socialistic economy would benefit society.
Once my opponent answers the questions I will bring up other examples such as education, collective bargaining, and heavier redistribution however I simply want to see what my opponent's stances are so that I don't waste time.
Anyways here are my sources for the universal healthcare portion,
Con
#2
Framework
Pro has a hard time making clear resolutions. Wish to remedy that. The 200 comments to the debate has made what Pro wants to debate very clear. He offered a simple descriptive definition of socialism. The definition can apply to a lot of things that nobody would consider socialism, so here is another definition that does not seek to replace pro’s but to merely elaborate upon it.
Socialism- any of the various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Pro asked me a series of questions that are irrelevant. I decided not to answer them. My personal opinions are not relevant to the debate only the position I am taking in the debate, but for anyone curious answers are in the comments.
I will be using the following structure to make this debate flow easier.
R1- Main Arguments
R2- Rebuttals
R3- Counter Rebuttals
R4- Closing
Arguments
The reason for the logical syllogisms is because it helps opponents who have a hard time systematically organizing their thoughts. When I do rebuttals, I will also try to help judges organize my opponents sporadic thoughts by organizing them into simple syllogisms.
Premise 1- economic freedom causes a higher standard of living.
Premise 2- Socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom
Contention 1- socialist policies are responsible for a lower standard of living.
P1 Economic Freedom Causes a Higher Standard of Living
Countries more economically free on the economic freedom index (A measure of how free a country is economically) such as Australia, New Zealand and the Swedes, are places we would all like to visit. Even without going into the numbers, we know intuitively these are awesome places that we would love to experience. The bottom of the economic freedom index consists of countries that are a nightmare to live in such as Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea. https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Even without any of the following details, it should be obvious to us countries with more economic freedom are better to live in. Some may argue that this is merely a coincidence the best countries have more economic freedom than the worst ones. Perhaps my opponent will argue that Economic freedom is a response to the standard of living and not the cause of it. Perhaps Venezuela's socialist policies are a response to poverty and not the cause of it. Perhaps Australia only adopted policies allowing their people to have this sort of freedom as a response to their higher standard of living.
However the statistical data does not agree. Let’s examine some data that shows that not only does economic freedom directly correlate to the prosperity of a country, but some stats that also show it most likely causes more prosperity than would be achieved through decreasing economic freedom through things such as becoming more socialist. The following chart shows how much opportunity people have for entrepreneurism in more economically free countries. An activity that improves society by incentivizing cures for diseases or even by solving more mundane problems by giving us such things as cat litter, toilet paper and the personal computer.
https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-1.png
When you look at the numbers for how much the average person can spend on essential items such as food to feed their family and look at how economically free a country is we can see that more economic freedom equals more ability to feed your family. See chart below.
https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-2.png
Repressed economies (lower on the index. Less capitalistic and more socialist) have an average purchasing power of $7000 while capitalistic/free countries have a purchasing power of over $60,000.
Some people may argue that, sure economic freedom is good for the country it is applied to, because it exploits 3rd world countries. If this is true than increased economic freedom should have a negative overall impact on the world, however the data doesn’t agree with that assertion. The chart below shows a drop in poverty and increase in the world’s GDP that coincides with you guessed it,more economic freedom. This increase in GDP occurs before not after an increase in economic freedom.
https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-3.png
Here is what an article posted by The Heritage Foundation has to say about the statistics they collected;
Unquestionably, the free-market system that is rooted in the principles of economic freedom—empowerment of the individual, nondiscrimination, and open competition—has fueled unprecedented economic growth. As Chart 3 illustrates, over the life of the Index, as the global economy has moved toward greater economic freedom, the world economy has doubled in size. This progress has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, and the global poverty rate has declined by two-thirds.
Opening the gates of prosperity to ever more people around the world, economic freedom has made our globe a profoundly better place. More people are living better lives than ever before. Clearly, this monumental reduction in global poverty is an achievement that should inspire celebration of the free-market system, deeper understanding of its dynamics, and greater commitment to its promotion.
https://www.heritage.org/index/book/chapter-4
The less economically free countries seem to be more repressed politically, more likely to be under a dictator and less politically free. It is as if when somebody has more money from the wealth created from shunning socialism and embracing a free economy they also have more power to influence the system in a more fair way as can be shown in the following chart. https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-8.png
It turns out that when a country embraces economic freedom, we can see that redistribution of wealth becomes unnecessary as it creates both more upward mobility as well as a more even distribution of wealth. https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-9.png
Many Marxists were originally concerned that if communist and socialist forces seized the means of power, that they would be reluctant to distribute the wealth equitably and instead horde it for themselves and their allies, which seems to be the case when any attempt to install socialism is applied. In summary= more socialist policies equals a less even distribution of resources. From a pragmatic point of view my opponent’s policies would actually backfire and do the opposite of what he intends. It’s nice he has good intentions, but he should research this stuff before assuming his good intentions will have good results and work on supporting policies that actually work at achieving his aims.
P2- Socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom
The economic freedom index, measures 12 criteria to determine a country's economic freedom. The following criteria are what is relevant to the debate. government spending, tax burden, business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom, business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom. The Economic Freedom Index considers every part of the criteria important, and since the higher the score, the more likely you are to be a country with a positive present and future. Less poverty, better government, lower crime and a higher standard of living in just about every way possible. Let’s go down this list one by one.https://www.heritage.org/index/about
Government Spending
I don’t think this is debatable the more the government takes over the means of production in each sector the more it spends, since the government is not in the business of making profits, but of providing services. My opponent admits a socialist healthcare plan would cost the government over 7 trillion a year. This would put America even closer to the bottom of the Economic freedom index and closer to being just like Venezuela or North Korea. More government spending as a result of socialist policies is not even debatable.
Taxes
Obviously the government has to get the money they spend from somewhere, so tax rates will increase proportional to how much money is needed to fund socialist programs.
Business/Labor Freedom
Socialist programs such as universal healthcare require all kinds of new regulations that hamper the freedom of businesses and employees. This is obvious for healthcare, but can be seen in other industries as well such as the police force which has very strict rules for how police behave which limits employee/labor freedom and in some areas even unionized labor is banned from government jobs restricting employee labor even more. OSHA a socialist program to ensure employee safety does a lot to get in the way of business freedom with tons of regulations, The FDA another socialist program causes the process of getting a drug to market so expensive that only a handful of billion dollar companies can compete.
Monetary Freedom
Monetary freedom has to do with the stability of money. When a socialist country has to raise funds for new programs they will raise taxes, but they also use another strategy which is to simply print money. This is especially true in Democratic countries where citizens are typically opposed to having smaller paychecks.
C1 Socialist Policies Lower Standard of Living
The conclusion is derived from the fact that the economic freedom index is a good predictor for how high the standard of living is for citizens of a country. Socialist policies cause a country to become lower in the economic freedom index. The effects of which were proven in the P1 arguments. I look forward to offering rebuttals for my opponent’s arguments in Round 2.
R2- Rebuttals
R3- Counter Rebuttals
R4- Closing
Opening the gates of prosperity to ever more people around the world, economic freedom has made our globe a profoundly better place. More people are living better lives than ever before. Clearly, this monumental reduction in global poverty is an achievement that should inspire celebration of the free-market system, deeper understanding of its dynamics, and greater commitment to its promotion.
https://www.heritage.org/index/book/chapter-4
Round 2
Pro
#3
“ Socialism- any of the various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism “
- Firstly I agree with most of this definition, however, an integral part of socialism is the redistribution of wealth and resources which isn’t present in this definition but is present in other definitions.
- I’d also like to add how dishonest it’s to change definitions during the debate and not in the comment section or via PM. I’d ask for voters to please consider this in the conduct category.
If my opponent has further disagreements regarding the definitions I ask he/she messaged me via PM or in the comment section rather than in the middle of the debate, anyways moving right along.
“ Pro asked me a series of questions that are irrelevant. I decided not to answer them. My personal opinions are not relevant to the debate only the position I am taking in the debate, but for anyone, curious answers are in the comments.”
- For anyone reading this, Con’s personal beliefs are very much relevant to this debate as we’ll see later on in my argument.
“Countries more economically free on the economic freedom index (A measure of how free a country is economical) such as Australia, New Zealand, and the Swedes, are places we would all like to visit. Even without going into the numbers, we know intuitively these are awesome places that we would love to experience. The bottom of the economic freedom index consists of countries that are a nightmare to live in such as Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking”
- I don’t see a point in this statement, we aren’t trying to destroy economic freedom as found in dictatorships, we’re trying to create a fair distribution and have stricter business regulations.
- We aren’t trying to restrict freedom of trade unreasonably as my opponent is trying to make out.
- Also, the countries that ironically my opponent sites are actually countries with higher levels of socialization which disproves my opponent's point since if truly more socialistic policies decreased economic freedom than why are these countries ranked so highly?
The next section my opponent sites statistics to back this poor hypothesis up which don’t need to be debunked since I already proved the hypothesis to be wrong. Therefore we’re going to ignore the statistics.
Also another point I’d like to add, my opponent does little to elaborate as to how these countries are socialistic.
If we actually delve into these countries it appears they aren’t.
Firstly, here's the definition of fascism for the next segment.
“ In fascism, the people are looked at as a bundle — one body that must be controlled by the government with absolute force. There’s no option to vote, no chance to impeach a leader, and no freedom to stand up against the governing body.”
- Which ideology between socialism and fascism argues for the dictatorship policies Cuba and North Korea exert? Fascism.
- Which ideology is anti-democratic? Fascism.
Also, this point is irrelevant since I am arguing for democratic socialism, not a dictatorship. Under these definitions, the countries my opponent has cited are more closely related to fascism than socialism and are irrelevant since I am arguing for social democracy and not a dictatorship.
While these countries do label themselves as socialist, well north Korea states they’re a democratic republic so this logic fails. People label themselves as something all the time but that doesn’t make it true.
Nextly,
“ P2- Socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom “
- Very obviously not the case since if this was the case then more socialized countries in Europe and Australia wouldn’t be rated high.
- If my opponent is than going to argue,
“ Well that means these countries aren’t socialist “
Well, these countries have high minimum wages either through collective bargaining or governmental, high government spending, high tax rates, and socialized medicine and education.
“ My opponent admits a socialist healthcare plan would cost the government over 7 trillion a year. This would put America even closer to the bottom of the Economic freedom index and closer to being just like Venezuela or North Korea. More government spending as a result of socialist policies is not even debatable.”
- My opponent has either intentionally or unintentionally missed the point I was making.
To give the benefit of the doubt I’ll explain it again source in the previous argument.
Nationalized healthcare costs 7 trillion, private costs 7.7 trillion, therefore, the private option is more expensive.
This is a simple concept, I spend 1,500 dollars on private healthcare. Now that’s nationalized I have to pay 1,000 dollars.
However now since I don’t have to pay for private I save 500 dollars.
If my opponent ignores this again, he/she is intentionally misrepresenting the point and he/she should be docked a conduct point.
“ Socialist programs such as universal healthcare require all kinds of new regulations that hamper the freedom of businesses and employees.”
- Ok how please elaborate.
Do you not believe businesses are helped when there are more workers due to fewer workers dying, more healthy workers, and an increasement of productivity?
Statistics to these are found in my previous argument.
“ OSHA a socialist program to ensure employee safety does a lot to get in the way of business freedom with tons of regulations, The FDA another socialist program causes the process of getting a drug to market so expensive that only a handful of billion dollar companies can compete.”
- Ok please elaborate on how these regulations are specifically hurting businesses.
Explain how employee safety isn’t a priority? Same with regulations on the drug market which keep corporations in check from charging 4,000 dollars for a life-saving drug which only costs 40 dollars to make?
SOURCES:
NOTE, sources for healthcare are found in the previous argument thank you.
ALSO, if I've accidentally left out sources for my claims please inform me and I'll gladly provide sources.
Con
#4
Pro argued for socialized healthcare this round to support to more socialism. This round will focus on that. My R3 will be for addressing most of R2, but it is necessary to address a few things from it.
Definitions
Here is what pro says;
“I’d also like to add how dishonest it’s to change definitions during the debate and not in the comment section or via PM. I’d ask for voters to please consider this in the conduct category.”
“here is another definition that does not seek to replace pro’s but to merely elaborate upon it”
“This would provide a number of benefits such as higher life expectancy”
My opponent’s sources lacks evidence for some statistics showing Americans have a lower life expectancy than some countries with socialized medicine. We actually have a pretty good healthcare system in America and the problems it does have can be fixed by deregulation of it and other industries that affect it. Other explanations for the lifespan of Americans is the fact that 37% of Americans are fat. Universal healthcare isn’t going to fix how shitty the American diet is or the lifestyle decisions that result in poor health. Obesity is linked to higher Cancer, diabetes, and heart disease rates as well as a lot of other problems. I'm not sure why my opponent thinks that lack of socialized medicine is what is causing lower lifespans. https://obesity.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006032
Americans also seem to be more likely to be the victims of violent crimes that end in death, though being safer from violent crime in general. https://www.criminaljusticedegreehub.com/violent-crime-us-abroad/
I don’t see a link between life expectancy and socialized medicine, that can’t be better explained from other things such as the fat Americans are fat, are more likely to murder and be murdered than what happens in other wealthy nations and are also more likely to die from diseases that are a direct result of being fat.
Pro's assertions that Americans would be more productive (many of us are already hurting our mental and physical health by embracing the cult of productivity) is simply unproven and as it stands is a bare assertion. Bare assertions should not be taken as fact, and are in fact are a logical fallacy. http://www.toolkitforthinking.com/critical-thinking/anatomy-of-an-argument/deductive-logic-arguments/bare-assertion-fallacy
He makes the same fallacy by claiming socialized medicine will somehow make people happier. Bare assertions should be easily dismissed.
Deaths from uninsured
Pro makes the says;
“45,000 people die from privatized healthcare model, this is equivalent to .... 9/11.”
“A study by the Fraser Institute titled The Effect of Wait Times on Mortality in Canada estimated that “increases in wait times for medically necessary care in Canada between 1993 and 2009 may have resulted in between 25,456 and 63,090 (with a middle value of 44,273) additional deaths among females.” Adjusting for the difference in populations (the US has about 9 times as many people), that middle value inflates to an estimated 400,000 additional deaths among females over a 16 year period. This translates to an estimated 25,000 additional female deaths each year if the American system were to suffer from increased mortality similar to that experienced in Canada due to increases in wait times. “
“the US has significantly lower rates of 30-day stroke-induced mortality than every other OECD country, aside from Japan and Korea. OECD data suggest that the age- and sex-adjusted mortality rates within Europe would translate to tens of thousands of additional deaths in the US.
If America had the 30-day stroke-mortality rate of the UK, for example, we could expect about an additional 38,000 deaths a year. For Canada, that number would be around 43,500. And this only accounts for mortality within a month of having a stroke, which in turn accounts for only 10% of stroke-related deaths.”
For every 1,000 strokes in America 170 people die. The number is 280 in similar countries who have socialized medicine.
The United States has very high cancer survival rates, much higher than countries with socialized medicine. If we use the UK survival rates this would be an additional 80,000 deaths a year with other 1st world countries using socialized medicine the additional deaths would be about 20,000 a year.
If the deaths caused by privatized medicine are 9/11 numbers, the deaths caused by socialized medicine would be more comparable to the Holocaust
Affordability
If healthcare is unaffordable it is because of more “socialization”. If we look at the root causes of why healthcare is unaffordable we can remove those root causes and make it affordable again. Whether the costs are 7.75 trillion or my opponents solution to the problem which has healthcare cost 7.36 trillion it is too high.
Those costs even at 7.36 trillion would be the highest costs in the world. https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/03/13/us-health-costs-high-jha
What started this whole mess of health care costs began back when FDR was president. He enacted socialist wage controls and taxed businesses up to 80% but did give tax breaks to them based on the benefits provided. Many employers as a way to attract talent since wages were controlled offered health insurance and with the tax break it did not really cost them much more money to do it. https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-obamacare-health-care-employers-20170224-story.html
Once everyone had employer paid health insurance they no longer knew what they were actually paying for a stay in the hospital. Whether the hospital charged $2000 or $200 for the stay in it still only cost the individual their same copay of maybe $50. Same problem with medicine. No matter whether the company charges $40 or $400 for a pill, your copay might be $5.
Shane Snow explains it this way;
“ If you have health insurance through your job, you’re two layers away from the actual cost of your health care whenever you go to the doctor, hospital, or pharmacy. Between you and the price tag is 1) an insurance company; and 2) your employer.(who pays for some of your insurance)”
A better plan would be getting rid of health insurance and taking perhaps half the money we use on subsidizing insurance companies directly or indirectly and diverting that to things that can actually help the healthcare in America like preventing bad diet and promoting healthy living to the masses, reducing the actual contributors to bad health such as obesity which in turn will prevent a lot of diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
Even without chopping that amount of socialization in half with the program I recommend, just the steps to discourage buying health insurance would make Americans more aware of the real prices they are paying for healthcare forcing companies to become competitive with their prices. You might see a doctor that costs $100 an hour as opposed to one costing $250 an hour if you have no insurance and are not so far removed from knowing the prices of services.
Conclusion
I have proven that Healthcare costs can be better controlled through less socialization as opposed to more. I have proven that private healthcare kills less people than socialized medicine, and I have proven that even if socialized medicine improves the portion it is meant to improve it is still a net detriment to society as a whole. Vote Con
Round 3
Pro
#5
“ The conduct point petition is ridiculous. My opponent insulted me by calling me a troll and mocked my debate record, which was mostly a result of my long torturous bout with depression. If anyone deserves a conduct point. It’s me.”
Moving on,
“ My opponent’s sources lack evidence for some statistics showing Americans have a lower life expectancy than some countries with socialized medicine. We actually have a pretty good healthcare system in America and the problems it does have can be fixed by deregulation of it and other industries that affect it.”
“ Other explanations for the lifespan of Americans is the fact that 37% of Americans are fat. Universal healthcare isn’t going to fix how shitty the American diet is or the lifestyle decisions that result in poor health.”
I mean do you seriously not believe healthcare eases obesity rates down and helps with lifestyle choices? I could imagine doctors appointments and speak with nutritionists more would ease this issue down.
“ I'm not sure why my opponent thinks that lack of socialized medicine is what is causing lower lifespans.”
By your insane logic with more deregulation equaling better healthcare, the US should have the best and highest life spans in the world since it’s the most privatized.
“ Pro's assertions that Americans would be more productive (many of us are already hurting our mental and physical health by embracing the cult of productivity) is simply unproven and as it stands is a bare assertion.”
“ For every 1,000 strokes in America, 170 people die. The number is 280 in similar countries who have socialized medicine.”
“ Whether the costs are 7.75 trillion or my opponent's solution to the problem which has a healthcare cost 7.36 trillion it is too high.
Those costs even at 7.36 trillion would be the highest costs in the world. https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/03/13/us-health-costs-high-jha”
I find it troubling that literally, every single country in the world with socialized medicine has statistically WAY lower healthcare costs than the US does. As evidenced by this 2014 statistic from zerohedge a 2018 study by healthcaresystemtracker.org. The US is pretty much ALL statistics is the outlier and has significantly higher healthcare costs per capita than every single country in the world.
Therefore my opponent just lost the affordability argument, arguments made against a national healthcare system are absurd and baseless.
Also, my opponent's healthcare plan isn’t a very good plan and has never worked before.
You may call this a fallacy however why would we change our system to a system which has been proven to work to a system which may work?
I’ve been teasing this argument since round 1 and in the comment section so I’ll bring it up here since I accidentally forgot it last round.
Firstly before we begin I’d like to post what my opponent's answers to my questions are as it will be important to this argument.
“ I won't answer the questions in the debate, but since you are curious I will answer them here.
- What's your position on the minimum wage?
That it should be abolished, but I think wages are close to the market rate now so not that important but it could be in the future.
- What's your position on mass immigration and illegal immigration?
I am mostly opposed to them. I have no problem with legal immigration, as far as mass immigration it is usually harmful to the society and particularly women left behind mass migration so it should be avoided.
- What's your opinion on the redistribution of wealth?
Other than a basic minimum income, it should be avoided.
- Are you a conservative or anarcho libertarian?
Closer to libertarian, and libertarians are usually pro-government not anarchist.”
These questions clearly illustrate that my opponent is being logically inconsistent and sort of hypocritical and here’s why.
If you’re a libertarian/huge capitalist but are also an economic nationalist concerned with mass immigration and illegal immigration you’re a shill.
The capitalists AREN’T conservative since it’s in their economic self-interest to abolish the minimum wage ( which you’re advocating for ) and to support illegal and mass immigration since they believe it’ll shrink the native wages thus hurting the native working class you’re so concerned with.
A better solution would be more socialization to help native workers since if you instituted a minimum wage you wouldn’t be getting such mass immigration and your native wages wouldn’t shrink.
Not to mention that libertarianism calls for the free market, so if you’re a huge capitalist why are you trying to restrict the flow of labor when you believe in the free market?
Also, libertarianism isn’t pro-government as all, libertarianism is actually more pro anarchist since it’s against the redistribution of wealth/taxes and calls for laissez-faire capitalism which is against the government regulation of the economy.
Very clearly my opponent's economic nationalist ideals wouldn’t be served under a capitalist system but more under a more socialized system which institutes a high minimum wage and immigration reform which would aid the native working class. Thus more socialization in your economic nationalist view would benefit society than a pure capitalist system which you’re advocating for.
SOURCES:
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/how-do-healthcare-prices-and-use-in-the-u-s-compare-to-other-countries/
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-22/us-healthcare-snapshot-most-expensive-yet-worst-developed-world
- Well listen I didn’t mean to mock your win ratio, I merely used it to illustrate that it’s very possible you may be a troll. Oh, and I am sincerely sorry you had to deal with depression, one of my family members suffers from it too.
- Obviously looking at your arguments, it doesn’t seem that way.
- Also regarding the definitions, ok that makes sense.
- Firstly my opponent mentions no studies or statistics on how deregulation would fix the healthcare system since by my statistics the US which has the lowest regulation and is the most privatized is the WORST out of the developed world. Compared to more socialized countries such as Switzerland, Japan, and Australia, the US’s is pathetic.
- Secondly, the sources for this point were in the previous round. If I did happen to make a mistake I apologize and I’ll post my sources again in this round, sorry for the confusion.
- This is a very common argument made and is a very horrible one to make.
- Firstly, other countries such as Germany for example ( which is a country that’s very similar to the US in culture ) and has similar obesity rates. This is a country that its VERY close to the US culturally and has similar obesity rates and yet since it has socialized medicine.
- Because EVERY single country in the developed world has socialized medicine with higher life spans.
- I would also state you’ve committed a bare assertion fallacy since you’re the one assuming deregulation would lead to better healthcare outcomes ( which isn’t backed up by statistical data or common sense at all ).
- Admittedly I didn’t cite my source so I’ll do it here, according to this CDC study healthcare is linked to a boost in productivity. ( link down below however I’ll summarize a few bullet points here )
- Healthier employees are less likely to call in sick or use vacation time due to illness
- Companies that support workplace health have a greater percentage of employees at work every day
- Because employee health frequently carries over into better health behavior that impacts both the employee and their family (such as nutritious meals cooked at home or increased physical activity with the family), employees may miss less work caring for ill family members as well
- Similarly, workplace health programs can reduce presenteeism — the measurable extent to which health symptoms, conditions, and diseases adversely affect the work productivity of individuals who choose to remain at work
- Firstly I cited the source in the PAST argument.
- Secondly, this study is working on ASSUMED numbers, not actual numbers like my study are.
- Thirdly this is only a comparison of Canada which isn’t representative of socialized medicine since it’s arguably the worst example. Compare a better system like the United Kindoms or Australias and you’ll find there aren’t as many deaths.
- Fourthly you’re only taking into account yearly deaths when we also should be concerned with life expectancies and overall health outcomes.
- Statistically by my previous statistics, socialized countries with socialized medicine have higher life expectancies, better health outcomes, and cheaper and more affordable healthcare. ( We’ll get into the affordability argument shortly ).
Those costs even at 7.36 trillion would be the highest costs in the world. https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/03/13/us-health-costs-high-jha”
- Socialized medicine in the US would be the most expensive in the world, however, my opponent is still missing the overall point that I'd be CHEAPER than our current healthcare system. Therefore you just lost the affordability argument.
- What's your position on the minimum wage?
That it should be abolished, but I think wages are close to the market rate now so not that important but it could be in the future.
- What's your position on mass immigration and illegal immigration?
I am mostly opposed to them. I have no problem with legal immigration, as far as mass immigration it is usually harmful to the society and particularly women left behind mass migration so it should be avoided.
- What's your opinion on the redistribution of wealth?
Other than a basic minimum income, it should be avoided.
- Are you a conservative or anarcho libertarian?
Closer to libertarian, and libertarians are usually pro-government not anarchist.”
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/how-do-healthcare-prices-and-use-in-the-u-s-compare-to-other-countries/
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-22/us-healthcare-snapshot-most-expensive-yet-worst-developed-world
Con
#6
Syllogism
Pro does not attack the syllogism. If my premises are correct than I win.
I argued that countries who have less freedom on the economic freedom scale, have worse standards of living. pro drops this point, so my premise stands.
pro focuses on the fact that some low ranked countries are fascist, which is irrelevant, my premise is that countries who do good on the economic freedom index, have a higher standard of living.
Premise 2 is that socialist policies harm economic freedom as measured by the index. I used 5 standards on the index to show how socialist policies harm economic freedom through taxes, business/labor freedom and monetary freedom.
Pro has accepted premise 1 and that the conclusion is accurate if the premises are accurate. Pro asked why regulations hurt businesses, I guess that is supposed to be a rebuttal, but I already explained to him that it lowers your score on the economic freedom index. He dropped my argument that a higher index score means a higher standard of living.
Pro says many of the countries on the top of the index have some socialist policies, but that is irrelevant. This is about whether more socialization will have more benefits than harms, and I already have shown how socialist policies give you lower scores on those 5 factors mentioned earlier.
Questions
Pro needs to prove more socialization is good. Proving my beliefs are inconsistent, contradictory, stupid or wrong does nothing to move this debate along because it is irrelevant.
Life expectancy
My facts better explain shorter lives than pro's do. 1 was, Americans are more likely to die from violence than in other similar countries. Explanation 2 is how fat Americans are.
pro mentions that Germany has the same obesity rate as America. He drops my violent crime argument.
His study doesn’t do justice to how fat Americans are. We have the same obesity rates as Germany but our fat people are fatter. The German male weighs 180 lbs. The average American 200 lbs. The German female 150 lbs. The average American 170 lbs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_weight#By_country
Less of a fatness is linked to lower mortality rate in diabetes patients, heart patients cancer victims etc, and when we look at the actuary charts we see that somebody 20 lbs too fat is less likely to die than somebody 40 lbs too fat. So 20 pounds matter. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2714501
Pro asks;
pro's sources only support his argument that Americans have shorter lifespans, not why.
“I mean do you seriously not believe healthcare eases obesity rates down and helps with lifestyle choices?"
“Don’t you think it’s a pretty big coincidence that the US which is the ONLY country in the developed world without socialized medicine is also coincidentally the one with the lowest life spans? “
Round 4
Pro
#7
Economic freedom:
Pro focuses on the fact that some low ranked countries are fascist, which is irrelevant, my premise is that countries who do good on the economic freedom index, have a higher standard of living.
- And Con seems to be missing my previous counter argument being,
Also, the countries that ironically my opponent sites are actually countries with higher levels of socialization which disproves my opponent's point since if truly more socialistic policies decreased economic freedom than why are these countries ranked so highly?
- To clarify, I agree economic freedom and efficiency are important however clearly more socialization in countries such as Australia and the UK aren’t being held back in terms of freedom since they rank higher or around the same level as the US in the statistical my opponent cited.
Premise 2 is that socialist policies harm economic freedom... I used 5 standards.. to show how socialist policies harm economic freedom
- This point is easily debunked since similar to the first premise, more socialist countries rank as high if not higher than the US.
Pro says many of the countries on the top of the index have some socialist policies, but that is irrelevant...socialist policies give you lower scores
It actually is relevant, if the countries at the top of the index have more heavy socialization than the US and have more economic freedom which thereby increases the quality of living, this defeats this entire premise that more socialist countries restrict freedom more thus debunking this entire argument.
pro's sources only support his argument that Americans have shorter lifespans, not why.
- Americans have shorter lifespans due to private healthcare industries high costs as evidenced by the statistic I cited previously which puts the US’s healthcare plan the highest in terms of costs in the world. If the healthcare is so expensive as it is, you’re going to have people not going to check-ups or stalling on surgeries due to the high medical costs and you’re going to have millions of underinsured Americans as evidenced by the statistics I previously cited.
1 was, Americans are more likely to die from violence than in other similar countries. Explanation 2 is how fat Americans are.
Obesity:
Very clearly obesity rates aren’t determinant in life expectancy rates and a more likely and realistic explanation is that healthcare is what mainly is determinant of life expectancy. From my previous statistics I’ve sited millions go underinsured, thousands die, and our life expectancies are dropping and are pathetically low in our private system.
Con’s assertions that they’re almost determinant regardless of healthcare plan is a misrepresentation at best and dishonest at worst.
When a bad country such as Cuba which is very horrible is only slightly behind us, that should give an indicator that our healthcare system needs massive reform.
Murder rates:
1 was, Americans are more likely to die from violence than in other similar countries.
The murder rate has been steadily dropping so by my opponents logic our life expectancy should be increasing, which simply isn’t backed up by statistics at all.
In fact, according to various sources, I've linked. the US’s life expectancy has been steadily declining over the past few years even with the murder and violence rates dropping.
You could bring up an argument about mental health, however countries with national healthcare such as Germany for instance cover mental health, unlike the expensive US system in which mental health is covered by private healthcare providers.
And as we all know mental health greatly impacts suicide rates.
If mental health services were universal like in countries such as Norway and Germany, the suicide rates would generally drop. This is also ignoring a country such as Finland with similar suicide rates and yet a high life expectancy.
Nutrition advice:
Note how I clarified by stating nutritionists which are covered by a national healthcare plan and even provided in services such as Medicaid.
- A country such as Russia with low obesity rates has lower life expectancy or equal than the US, same with Cuba and Chile.
- What about New Zealand which is a country with a close obesity rate with the US and yet has a significantly higher life expectancy?
People typically ignore diet advice medical professionals give them.
There is not a single example of socialized medicine increasing visits to a nutritionist. These countries typically have rationing boards and are just as frugal as insurance companies.
- These countries have more people visiting the doctors due to it being universal.
- Economic prosperity doesn’t equal obesity rates necessarily, countries in my previous source such as Egypt, Samoa, and Qatar all aren’t in the best economic positions and yet have obesity rates even higher than the US's.
I didn’t commit a bare assertion. I gave examples of extra regulations in one sector having bad results
- Giving a couple of examples isn’t comparable to entire countries with higher regulations than the US's and is performing better.
This is an example of socialization driving costs of healthcare in the US.
- This isn’t the case since the US's costs are significantly higher than any other country, including countries with higher levels of socialized medicine.
Pro has dropped my argument that 44,000 additional deaths happen in Canada due to increased waiting.
Pro asserts that I am working with assumed stats..we are debating how something will work in theory so we are both making assumptions
My opponent claims that Canada has a worse system than other socialist countries but failed to explain why America would socialize healthcare any better.
- Canada has a significantly lower GDP per capita and has lower tax revenue and thus has a significantly worse off economy than the US's.
Source Link:
Con
#8
4 Point Voting
This is not a select winner debate. My opponent chose the 4 point system because he wants more than just arguments to be judged. I agreed to a debate with a 4 point system because I want all the points judged as well. Neither of us argued for any grammar points so you can ignore that, though my grammar is better overall, even if you spot a few mistakes. Regardless of the judges actual opinions on the matter, all 4 points should be judged and a winner decided on each one.
Conduct
Pro asked my permission to post the link to sources since he could not seem to get his argument down to below 10,000 characters any other way. So please do not deduct a conduct point from him on that basis. If you want to deduct one for the reasons I mentioned earlier than by all means do. If you want to reward me one for being gracious enough to allow him to mildly break the structure of the debate, that is fine as well.
I’m not going to touch on much in my opponent’s final round. New arguments don’t count in the final round, so all the new arguments he made should be disregarded. So when pro makes an argument like the following;
“Let’s say we have 10 people under a privatized healthcare plan and only 5 get nutritional advice.
Let’s say only 20 % so only 2 people take it. “
It should be ignored just as if I respond by pointing out there is absolutely no evidence that people would receive more or better dietary advice under a socialist healthcare system, it should be ignored. The fact he has tried to add new arguments is debatably worthy of a conduct point, and if judging the debate in a Tabula Rasa style, the judges should certainly weigh are arguments on conduct points without inserting their own judgement to see if either one of us deserve one.
Sources
I do think with how the sources have been used in this debate, I deserve source points. Not only did/959iu he not cite all of the “facts” he brought up, but when he did cite facts he intentionally misinterpreted what the citations said. For example when he stated he had sources claiming that Americans had a shorter life expectancy due to a lack of socialized medicine, but I read through his sources and they merely claimed Americans had a lower life expectancy, without attributing a cause. He seemed to concede that people were dying because of their eating choices, but claimed socialized medicine will somehow force me to stop drinking beer and eating pizza. (I know, I am on a tangent)
His sources are being cited for things they don’t say, he misses sources for facts such as the 7.7 trillion dollar figure. The other problem is it is hard to track what each source is even for which fact, because they are just haphazardly lumped together at the bottom of the page, making it hard for me to even check just one, if I buy most of his facts but merely doubt just one for example.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Even the points pro brings up that I can address from his final round, I will not be responding to. He cannot respond to what I post in the final round, so out of a sense of fairness, I will show him the same respect. Neither one of us should have it held against us, that we are unable to respond to each other’s final round.
My Case
My argument I laid out in round one. Let’s examine it to see if it still stands at the end of this debate.
P 1- economic freedom causes a higher standard of living.
P 2- Socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom
C 1- socialist policies are responsible for a lower standard of living.
The conclusion is naturally derived from the premises. If my premises stand, than my argument stands and pro loses the debate.
During the course of the debate, I argued that economic freedom as defined by the economic freedom index creates a higher standard of living. This premise is never objected to, and the judges should accept it as true.
My 2nd premise is that socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom. My opponent claims that since some of the top countries have socialist policies, that these policies are not antithetical to economic freedom. However it only proves that every country has room for improvement in the economic freedom index. It does not prove that more socialist policies would not drive these countries even lower in the economic freedom index or total score the country is assigned.
I supported my premises by stating that the following 5 areas scored on the index are harmed by all socialist policies to some degree.
“government spending, tax burden, business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom,”
For each of those points I gave one or more premises for how socialism causes a country to lose points. My opponent, barely challenged me on this, if he challenged me at all. Remember he never challenged the economic freedom index as a good measure for what we are measuring in this debate. He also never challenged this second premise that socialist countries have a negative impact on these scores.
Since my first premise and second premise go unchallenged and the conclusion naturally derives from the premises (this statement has went unchallenged as well), than I should automatically win on argument points.
Pro’s Arguments
I summed up pro’s arguments as follows;
P1- universal healthcare has more positives than negatives
P2- universal healthcare would require/be an increase in “socialization”
C1- More socialization would overall be beneficial to society
Pro seems to agree with my analysis and summary of his arguments. I never challenged pro on premise 2. I think I could show how it could actually decrease socialization in total, but it wasn’t worth my time to explain that. So his 2nd premise should stand.
Premise number one is what I took issue with. If we look at the impacts, we can see that despite privatized medicine being responsible for some deaths, socialized medicine if applied and assuming we would apply it as well as the UK or Canada, would result in a massively more people dying from socialized medicine that would die if America just kept medicine private.
I showed that socialism has had the unintended side effects of causing prices in medicine to soar because of a disconnect between consumers and the actual cost of care. This goes unchallenged. He argued that socialism would drop prices a tiny bit on medical care, but not removing the socialist policies that caused the prices to soar (and pro does not dispute that assertion), is also a decision for more socialism and I showed that a decision for less socialism in medicine by removing the cause of the current problem would result in lower drug costs.
I also argued that even if socialist healthcare had some positive impacts on health (even though I proved it didn’t), that it does not prove an overall positive impact to society and I pointed to the scoring of the economic freedom index to prove this. My opponent amazingly does not contest this argument.
Conclusion
I want to thank Pink Freud for this debate. It was fun. I wish him good luck in future debates.
If we look at how I framed the debate, my frame was never challenged, my premises were never challenged, only some individual points in the premises. My opponent has dropped tons of my affirmative arguments.
My opponent only argued for one benefit to socialization, I think I defeated his first premise, but even if I did not, I certainly showed that the conclusion does not necessarily flow from the premises. Anyway, thanks for getting this far in reading the debate, hopefully it was enjoyable. Please vote.
Introduction
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101?open_tab=comments&comments_page=2&comment_number=373
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
See comments: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15335
Gist:
Con misrepresents pro’s case by acting like it’s an all or nothing deal, and we intuitively know what pro meant, but pro does not sufficiently refute this (he argues that absolute socialism isn’t the socialism he’s arguing in favor of, but that misses that an increase in socialism is taking steps toward absolute socialism... It’s a slippery slope fallacy, but an incredibly well executed one). I’m quite surprised to not see any mention of the bell curve for gains and losses. Con also makes very good use of syllogism to prove that socialism hurts more than it gains.
Note:
I can see how arguments could go either way, I can see how sources could be tied, but there's no case for conduct not favoring con if the debate has been read.
no.
NON ONONONONONONONONNO NOOOOOOO YOU ARE THE POOP NOSE YOU STUPID HEAD! I DID NOTHING TO YOU AND NOW YOU ARE BEING MEAN FOR NO REASON!! >:( JUST BECAUSE I CAN HAVE MY TOY TRUC KIN THE BATHTUB DOES NOT NOT NOT MEAN THAT YOU CAN JUST BEING A BIG JURK TO EVRYONE!!! YOU APALOGISE TO ME AND @bmdrocks21 RIGHT NOW! D:<
ur a poop nose ha ha xd
" I believe in a flat tax. People don't have more or less claim to their income based on how wealthy they become by providing goods and services that benefit us."
- Completely ignoring my claims and happily casting them side.
Just for fun, I'll re-explain them
society isn't PERFECT, people start off in DIFFERENT positions.
Corporations aren't SAINTS, they have very greedy policies such as throwing away food which could otherwise feed the homeless, let people die due to medical costs, and refuse to educate bright individuals due to costs.
" Ok, you concede Cuba has a lower life expectancy. We are one of the worst first world countries in healthcare, but not even close to the worst country. Government intervention caused increased prices in healthcare."
" Notice how healthcare prices began to rise above normal CPI at the same time medicare and medicaid were implemented"
- You've brought up ONE example of nationalized healthcare causing rising costs and are ignoring literally every single country with socialized healthcare which has LOWER costs.
Never said the US is the worst country, still in top 5 due to its military and economic power. However not the highest due to its weak education system and laughable healthcare system.
" I thought I brought up that schools would reach shortages. They will, but that doesn't necessarily mean people will choose trade schools. They should be encouraged."
- How would cheaper trade schools and " more populated " colleges NOT provide an incentive to choose trade schools? This is yet another point you so happily cast aside.
" Again, I don't think imperialism is based on an economic concept. There have been plenty of both socialistic and capitalistic countries that have tried to expand their territory."
- I am comparing ideology. Ideologically wise, imperialism which advocates for radical self-interest and natural selection same as capitalism.
Socialistic countries have enacted imperialistic policies.
The problem is that you are acting as though countries have to be 100 % a certain ideology which isn't the case.
Communist countries such as the soviet union did have some capitalist ideas such as imperialism.
" kay, a terminally ill person with cancer could cost $1 million. It can get pretty high paying for people with chronic conditions, too."
- No citation nor evidence to back up this absurd claim up.
Cancer costs are very expensive, but not that expensive.
According to this source, cancer costs ONLY cost 40,000, not the 1 million you are overexaggerating.
https://www.asbestos.com/treatment/expenses/
" . A good economy matters, and if I have to prove that to you, I don't see any point in moving forward."
- A good economy can only prosper if everyone is fed, is healthy, and is educated.
The Scandinavian model is proof of this.
" How do you quantify humanitarian loss? Also, I said it is an investment. We wouldn't suffer economic loss if we didn't save people because we would save those who could pay it back in taxes. Kinda my whole point...risk calculation...."
- So basically natural selection which is a form of imperialism.
You'd rather see people die than see the system be taken advantage of.
What about mentally deficient people, the elderly, or the disabled?
" For instance, someone with a Master's degree but little to no work experience wouldn't get hired because they are over qualified. They would cost too much with little hands on experience."
- Considering that the majority of society in this scenario would be college educated, this negates why they cost more in the first place since people with masters degrees only cost more since they're in higher demand.
This negates your point, the fact is that in this scenario we'd have more qualified workers.
" We spend a load more on medical research by percentage of GDP than the rest of these socialized countries. We are #1 in biomedical research "
- And yet even through all of this research, we still have a horrible lifespan compared to other countries.
Think about it this way, all of the money going towards these private companies can be funded into the NIH or other government programs.
This way we get great medical research AND proper distribution.
" Don't know where you learned about capitalism, but a core tenant of it is competition. Monopolies prevent competition. Monopolies are usually bad unless it is inefficient to have competition (ie public utilities, mail)"
- But again this is ignoring the survival of the fittest and radical self-interest side of capitalism that I previously brought up that you also happily cast aside.
" NIH doesn't lead spending any more. Not since 2013, I must repeat."
Keyword SPENDING.
Spending does not equal innovation.
Especially when according to my source the NIH was leading in innovation in 2017.
-
I bet that your toy truck can't go in the bathtub! HAHA!!!!!!1!!!!!
" we have a serious fast food consumption problem, unlike "culturally similar" countries. I don't think you need to go to a checkup to know that exercise and lettuce is a better option than fast food and watching TV."
- Anecodotal claim. Other countries hell even Russia has fast food as well. And again you are once again ignoring other countries such as Germany which have similar cultures and other poorer countries such as Spain and Cuba.
" You have to name one good thing about an entire ideology to win. Very cheap..."
- Considering there are people exactly like you who are taking an almost completely 100 % capitalist approach and other Republicans similarly, it sadly isn't uncommon to find people who are against mixed markets and are anarcho-capitalists.
" Are you saying they are throwing out perfectly good food for no reason and refusing to give it to the poor? I find that hard to believe. Capitalists want to make money and throwing out edible food would lower profits."
- This is a very common business practice, I provided to you a study done on the subject which you so happily cast aside. In fact, it would actually cost more money to ship food to starving countries or areas than it would be to simply throw the food away.
" We aren't a capitalist utopia, don't be foolish. Ever heard of Medicare and Medicaid?????????????"
- Not calling the US a capitalist utopia, I'm simply stating it is the closest to your view of a utopia.
Even if they weren't similar, what about countries in the industrial revolution? This would be seen as you as a utopia as it has very little regulation and little taxes.
By your standards, this is your perfect society.
Notice how healthcare prices began to rise above normal CPI at the same time medicare and medicaid were implemented
https://mises.org/wire/how-government-regulations-made-healthcare-so-expensive
You sure like to throw the word "free" around a lot. Nothing is free, I'm sorry to break it to you. That money is taken from somewhere else and has unseen consequences.
I thought I brought up that schools would reach shortages. They will, but that doesn't necessarily mean people will choose trade schools. They should be encouraged.
Again, I don't think imperialism is based on an economic concept. There have been plenty of both socialistic and capitalistic countries that have tried to expand their territory.
I believe in a flat tax. People don't have more or less claim to their income based on how wealthy they become by providing goods and services that benefit us.
I think taxes are somewhat redistribution. It is a necessary evil that should be avoided whenever possible.
Ok, you concede Cuba has a lower life expectancy. We are one of the worst first world countries in healthcare, but not even close to the worst country. Government intervention caused increased prices in healthcare.
I guess I have to explain what "overqualified" for a job means lol. It doesn't mean the workers are bored. It means that no one will hire them because they would have to pay them more than they are worth. For instance, someone with a Master's degree but little to no work experience wouldn't get hired because they are over qualified. They would cost too much with little hands on experience.
You want McDonald's workers with college degrees..... great idea, my good sir.
How do you quantify humanitarian loss? Also, I said it is an investment. We wouldn't suffer economic loss if we didn't save people because we would save those who could pay it back in taxes. Kinda my whole point...risk calculation....
Okay, a terminally ill person with cancer could cost $1 million. It can get pretty high paying for people with chronic conditions, too.
I don't think you understand how an economy works. When it does better, more people have jobs. They make more money, then they can afford healthcare, my dude. An improving economy isn't some random concept than I am putting over people. A good economy HELPS people. That is why people can probably afford better healthcare when we aren't in a recession. A good economy matters, and if I have to prove that to you, I don't see any point in moving forward.
McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's, Arby's, we have a serious fast food consumption problem, unlike "culturally simliar" countries. I don't think you need to go to a checkup to know that exercise and lettuce is a better option than fast food and watching TV.
You ignored most of my criticism of this as a "trap debate". You have to name one good thing about an entire ideology to win. Very cheap...
I don't know why you doubt the food is rotten. Are you saying they are throwing out perfectly good food for no reason and refusing to give it to the poor? I find that hard to believe. Capitalists want to make money and throwing out edible food would lower profits.
We aren't a capitalist utopia, don't be foolish. Ever heard of medicare and medicaid?????????????
Lol, pretends to have brought up points and then states I am alt right. Cool beans.
Tell you what, tomorrow, I will provide statistics on private militaries.
Don't know where you learned about capitalism, but a core tenant of it is competition. Monopolies prevent competition. Monopolies are usually bad, unless it is inefficient to have competition (ie public utilities, mail)
NIH doesn't lead spending any more. Not since 2013, I must repeat. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50
Private investment has always been a large portion of the spending too.
We spend a load more on medical research by percentage of GDP than the rest of these socialized countries. We are #1 in biomedical research https://www.futurity.org/america-china-biomed-science-1461002/
" It probably shouldn't be this close, but your claim was false."
- The fact that Cuba's life expectancy is that close considering how horrible of a country Cuba is and how in your point of view how successful privatized healthcare is, this point still stands.
How is it that even though the USA arguably has the strongest economy and military and superpower, is falling behind on healthcare so much to the point where one of the worst countries in the world is only slightly behind it.
This is also ignoring other ( arguably ) bad countries or less developed such as Spain, Iceland, and Israel.
" I believe in a flat tax because I don't think people should be punished for working harder and therefore gaining more money."
- Once again ignoring the fact that we don't live in a perfect society where everyone starts off in the same circumstance.
". I don't know how that makes me pro-redistribution. I'm not trying to equalize wealth by putting essentially caps on earning."
- You are arguing for TAXES which is a form of REDISTRIBUTION.
Redistribution is still redistribution
Really your problem doesn't seem rooted in redistribution, your issue is how fair the redistribution is.
" Also, completely ignore our shortage of plumbers, electricians, etc. by comparing it to vocational schools. An actual job is a lot different than a religious vocation. I'm sure you would agree with that."
- Again vocational schools in this scenario would still exist and would also be free.
I am sure with the abundance of college-educated students that many would flock to vocational schools to fill the demand.
The difference is that now that vocational school is free, they can handle the drop in wages.
So if anything, free education would actually stop this shortage.
" I agree, accept people into schools based on grades. Not color, gender, sexual orientation, etc."
- Ok great so then you concede the point on how the schools would be overflowed.
I only believe in affirmative action in tiebreakers, and in the cases where one student started from a worse position.
" I criticize the Soviet Union for 99% of what it did, maybe 100%. Not just imperialism."
- Like what, you criticized it for its imperialistic nature and blamed this on socialism when imperialism is more rooted in capitalism than imperialism.
It would be pitiful if our life expectancy was lower than a communistic dictatorship. Luckily it isn't
2017: 80 years US
78.8 Cuba
It probably shouldn't be this close, but your claim was false.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
" You keep trying to throw in comments trying to get me to miss them."
- Not true, this is nothing short than a baseless accusation.
I am simply responding to what you're stating as quickly as possible, earlier you were doing the exact same thing.
" Ever heard of being "overqualified" for a job?????? "
- I'd personally rather see workers be overqualified and bored than to see workers who are underqualified and struggling which overall hurts the economy.
" Also, does $1 million in cancer treatment mean that we will get more than $1 million in returns?"
- One person isn't going to cause a million dollars in cancer treatment.
How much economic and even humanitarian loss do you believe we lose with let's state 50 people dying from cancer?
Let alone experienced workers which would be more achievable in a nationalized education system.
" No. We should only pay for something for which we will get a larger return. "
- Interesting that the economy matters so much to you that you'd be willing to let tons of people die than to see the economy stagnate, this is even assuming it would which I'm convinced it wouldn't.
" Notice that Scandinavian countries (who do price fix) have nearly no innovation."
- This is a poorly constructed hypothesis that isn't backed up by statistics at all.
According to the world economic forum, overall the Scandinavian countries and more socialized countries are leading in overall innovation such as Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, and Denmark are leading.
Not to mention other nonnordic countries such as Singapore, Japan, and France which have higher levels of socialization than the US.
" Monopolies are anti-capitalist and anti-competition. "
- Monopolies are seen as actually being virtues in capitalisms point of view as it believes in radical self-interest and survival of the fittest.
In capitalisms view, the monopolies were simply the strongest and followed their self-interest.
" I think it is incredibly naive to claim that the NIH is the reason for our vast innovation. "
- Considering they are leading in medical innovation, it's likely that with proper funding nationalized systems perform as good if not better than privatized systems.
" I don't accept the debate because it is an easy trap debate. "
- And yet you openly express your critiques of my argument in the comment section.
Very obviously, at least in your view my argument is flawed and isn't an easy win.
" They throw out food because it is rotten. Do you want to give spoiled food to poor people?"
- Interesting you believe the billions of food they throw away is " rotten ".
Even if it was " rotten " I am sure serving people rotten food would be better than allowing them to starve to death.
Either way, a good portion of food insecure families or the homeless would eat this " rotten " food anyways.
This is even assuming this food is " rotten " which isn't very accurate.
" . My position is that the private market will compete and lower prices/raise the quality of products as it always has. The government just needs to get out of the way. "
- I have cited several countries which perform better than the US due to socialization.
You've provided me no other country to prove your capitalistic utopia to be better to society.
The only close country that resembles this is the United States which are currently falling behind on a lot of key aspects such as education and healthcare.
" They are all over priced and could be done better by private companies. (I support paying for the military through taxes but private contractors are superior and cheaper)."
- No citation to back itself up nor any examples of this system actually working.
I have actually provided examples and statistics to back up my claims, you have not quite simple and have instead relied on unrealistic and unlogical alt right talking points.
" Europeans have a much lower obesity rate. They eat better foods."
- This is once again ignoring similar cultures such as Germany which are very similar to the US on almost all levels.
Even if you want to argue these countries are just " naturally " healthier, how do you explain the fact that even poorer countries such as Cuba and Spain have better life spans than the US.
This is just downright pathetic that Cuba which is a communist dictatorship and is in poverty is performing higher than the US.
Culture does play some role into it, however, you are acting as though this is the ONLY reason why the US is falling behind and are ignoring the fact that millions are uninsured and many die due to the privatized healthcare system.
" Number one cause of death in US: heart disease "
- Again, do you really not think more check-ups among patients would benefit heart disease at all?
Also, completely ignore our shortage of plumbers, electricians, etc. by comparing it to vocational schools. An actual job is a lot different than a religious vocation. I'm sure you would agree to that.
I agree, accept people into schools based on grades. Not color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
I criticize the Soviet Union for 99% of what it did, maybe 100%. Not just imperialism.
Socialism isn't altruism because "you can't be generous with other peoples' stuff".
I believe in a flat tax because I don't think people should be punished for working harder and therefore gaining more money. They should pay the same amount percentage wise. I don't know how that makes me pro redistribution. I'm not trying to equalize wealth by putting essentially caps on earning.
You assume a lot. You keep trying to throw in comments trying to get me to miss them. You say that it is a fact that the rich benefit from educated and healthy workers. Ok, sure. I'm arguing that it is true to a lesser extent. More education isn't always good. Ever heard of being "overqualified" for a job?????? Also, does $1 million in cancer treatment mean that we will get more than $1 million in returns? No. We should only pay for something for which we will get a larger return. That is a case in which we wouldn't. My definition of getting more out is paying more in taxes than we invested in you. I'm okay with paying $10,000 in taxes to fund someone's education if they grow up, get a job, and pay more than that much back in their lifetime. That takes tax burden off others and helps them. I don't believe in money pits.
Also, the government has funded less than 50% of medical research since 2013. Private companies who want to make money invest a lot of money trying to create products that will make them money. I think it is incredible naive to claim that the NIH is the reason for our vast innovation. Sure, it may help. The fact that we don't price fix (limit potential revenues) incentivizes investment. Notice that Scandanavian countries (who do price fix) have nearly no innovation.
There are also plenty of countries with socialized healthcare that are poor. Cuba, for instance. They are also largely poorer than the US, and we have a more privitized plan.
I don't accept the debate because it is an easy trap debate. You injected absolutes making it nearly impossible to win as pro. All you have to do is prove there is one good thing about socialism and you win the whole debate. A more fair debate would be "taxation is theft" or "capitalism is more moral than socialism". You could win this debate with literally any political ideology, even Nazism. If they promoted one thing you liked such as national public schooling, you would have to vote for me because it isn't "completely evil".
They throw out food because it is rotten. Do you want to give spoiled food to poor people?
You didn't cite any statistics...I don't think you understand my position. My position is that the private market will compete and lower prices/raise quality of products as it always has. The government just needs to get out of the way. I don't want people starving or not having clean water. Socialistic policies in the past have had a tendency of lowering quality and raising costs: look at our public water systems, public school, even our military. They are all over priced and could be done better by private companies. (I support paying for military through taxes but private contractors are superior and cheaper).
There were plenty of problems during the Industrial Revolution. I support anti-trust regulations. Monopolies are anti-capitalist and anti-competition. They are almost always bad. There were lots of monopolies back then and caused collusion that hurt everyone except the business owners. That doesn't mean you should take money from these people, just allow competition to enter the market and have it create goods and services.
US Obesity rate: 36.2%
Sweden: 20.6%
Denmark:19.7%
Germany: 22.3%
United Kingdom: 27.8%
France:21.6%
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/most-obese-countries/
Europeans have a much lower obesity rate. They eat better foods.
Number one cause of death in US: heart disease
https://www.healthline.com/health/leading-causes-of-death#heart-disease
This makes up almost a quarter of our deaths. Our diet is a huge reason we have lower life expectancy.
" Individualistic societies lead the world in innovation. Not to mention, the US has infinitely more medical innovation than its "universal healthcare" neighbors."
- This is actually because of a government-run agency that specialized in research called the NIH which contributes the most to medical research in the world.
" What company throws out food that could easily be given to poor people? Usually, donations like that can be tax-deductible."
- Already explained this earlier, currently, we have enough food to feed 10 billion people. Yet only 7.7 billion people are still going hungry.
Very obviously this is because companies are throwing out food. Especially according to this study done on the subject.
https://www.dumpsters.com/blog/grocery-store-food-waste-statistics
" gain, you are assuming that without your socialistic policies, the "majority" of people will suffer/not meet basic needs."
45,000 die yearly due to privatized healthcare
Healthcare costs account for the majority of bankruptcies in the US
Billions go hungry each and every night
Millions suffer from student loan debt
Millions lack clean water
Very obviously Billions are suffering to have basic needs.
More socialized programs would combat this through redistributing resources.
" You are making the unbased claim that their economy wouldn't be better with private healthcare."
- This isn't " unanbased "
Look at almost any country with socialized healthcare such as the Scandinavian countries and more likely than not they have very robust economies.
" r. I don't see how that is "anarcho-capitalistic"."
- You have constantly argued against the redistribution of wealth as an argument against socialized medicine on the basis of it being unfair.
Therefore you must want to abolish taxes which is a form of redistribution. Which is known as anarchism.
I mean at this point, why don't you just accept the debate than? You very obviously have disagreements and quite frankly it'd be a lot easier doing it in that format.
" My opinion is that private healthcare would be the best case scenario, but that anything is better than what we have now."
- The US has the most privatized healthcare system in the world, so by your point of view, it is the closest to your dream utopia.
Do you actually have any examples of more privatized healthcare systems performing better than socialized healthcare modules?
Again, more socialized countries with socialized medicine almost all have better life spans.
Including Cuba.
". Not because of their healthcare, but because we in America are unhealthy af. We eat way too much junk food."
- Really so every single country with socialized medicine automatically just is naturally healthier?
Including countries such as Germany which is very close in culture to the US?
Unless you have any evidence of Americans eating unhealthier as the cause for why our lifespan is so low I will ignore this hypothesis.
We fail to be this 100% capitalist paradise. We have fairly free markets, especially relative to most of the world, but we could be better.
Again, you are assuming that without your socialistic policies, the "majority" of people will suffer/not meet basic needs.
I didn't straw man. I said socialist AND/OR collectivist societies. There was an OR there. Individualistic societies lead the world in innovation. Not to mention, the US has infinitely more medical innovation than its "universal healthcare" neighbors.
" People who pay taxes benefit from the military protecting them. They are paying for a service for themselves."
- Once again ignoring the fact that rich people benefit from their workers being more educated and healthy.
" One (to an extent) benefits the nation. The other does not. You can't just say there will be less sick days and that it will help everyone as the military does."
- Healthcare stops sick days, prevents people from dying, and increases worker productivity.
Very obviously this does benefit the social good.
I mean at this point, why don't you just accept the debate than? You very obviously have disagreements and quite frankly it'd be a lot easier doing it in that format.
" We also have shortages of people going to trade schools. We should encourage that a lot more"
- This would also include vocational schools so this point is irrelevant.
" There would be shortages of college spots."
- This would ensure the smartest and hardworking students get into college and not just the richest.
I'd personally rather see college acceptance be measured solely on grades and work ethic than by wealth quite frankly.
" So, even though the Soviet Union had government-run institutions, it was capitalistic because they wanted influence in the world.... Yeah, ok.... Capitalism and communism are economic concepts. Imperialism is not."
- Not saying it was mostly capitalistic, however, you are criticizing it for its imperialistic policies which is closely linked to capitalism than it is to socialism or communism.
" You like to make up the definition of socialism. It is government owning the means of production. Not imperialism, not altruism, none of that. It might be based on a perverted idea of altruism, but it is purely an economic set of ideals."
- You do understand when I throw around words like altruism I am using it to explain the ideology of socialism right?
Socialism is an ideology similar to altruism in the sense that they value the social good above all else.
The capitalist in ideology is similar to imperialism in the sense that both promote self-interest above the needs of the collective good.
" The rich man pays more than the poor. A flat tax means that the tax rate is the same regardless of income."
Ok, so that really you are almost in favor of the redistribution of wealth and are against this 100 % individualistic and capitalistic attitude you are exerting.
To lighten things up, I think I should say we should agree on something: that socialized healthcare would probably be better than what we have now. What we currently have is one of the worst mixes of government and private sector work. My opinion is that private healthcare would be the best case scenario, but that anything is better than what we have now.
A huge reason that socialized healthcare costs are cheaper though is that people in those countries are healthier. Not because of their healthcare, but because we in America are unhealthy af. We eat way too much junk food.
I believe in police as well because they also protect our rights....
You make a huge leap, and an unsubstantiated one at that. You say that because scandanavian countries have decent economies and socialized healthcare, the socialized healthcare doesn't hurt their economy at all. You are making the unbased claim that their economy wouldn't be better with private healthcare.
I have argued that the government should pay for school, the military, and the police so far. I don't see how that is "anarcho-capitalistic".
What company throws out food that could easily be given to poor people? Usually donations like that can be tax-deductible.
So, I am supposed to believe that 60k+ in college education per student would be good because we would have college-educated fast food workers? I refuse to believe that. We also have shortages of people going to trade schools. We should encourage that a lot more. You also neglect that more people going to college because of "FrEe" education would raise tuition prices. There would be shortages of college spots.
So, even though the Soviet Union had government-run institutions, it was capitalistic because they wanted influence in the world.... Yeah, ok.... Capitalism and communism are economic concepts. Imperialism is not. So, stop comparing apples to oranges. Even if attitudes were the same, that doesn't change the reality of their economic programs.
You like to make up the definition of socialism. It is government owning the means of production. Not imperialism, not altruism, none of that. It might be based on a perverted idea of altruism, but it is purely an economic set of ideals.
A flat tax also makes the rich pay more. Let's say we have a 10% flat tax. Person A makes $100,000/year and person B makes $1,000,000. Person A pays $10,000 in taxes. Person B pays $100,000 in taxes. The rich man pays more than the poor. A flat tax means that the tax rate is the same regardless of income.
People who pay taxes benefit from the military protecting them. They are paying for a service for themselves. They may not have a choice in it, but it ultimately protects their freedoms by fighting invaders. They need money to run the military. Taxing is the easiest way to accomplish this. I can't be any more clear.
You really like to clump education and healthcare together. One (to an extent) benefits the nation. The other does not. You can't just say there will be less sick days and that it will help everyone like the military does.
" Socialism is built on the idea that you are alive, therefore you deserve to have stuff handed to you no matter what. Even if you don't want to work. "
- And what is wrong with that?
Do you not want to see everyone with the basic needs to succeed?
Would you really rather see the majority of those in poverty suffer than see a selective few take advantage of the system?
" Name some inventions that have come out of socialistic and/or collectivist societies. "
- Another strawman, I'm not arguing for a 100 % socialist state, simply for a more socialized state which puts the common good above all else.
Capitalism is good for production, not distribution.
Socialism is good for distribution, not so much for production.
Therefore how about we combine the systems and take the pros of both systems instead of keeping America as this 100 % capitalist utopia that it tries to be?
" You don't convince anyone by just saying that people will have less sick days and that that justifies Trillions of dollars in extra expenditures. "
- Statistically, this is inaccurate, as of right now the United States spends the most money per capita on healthcare and yet compared to the other developed countries with socialized medicine, we have the worst outcomes.
Bernie's healthcare plan would actually save money than our current model contrary to the rights belief.
" You assume that all corporations are these evil entities. I don't know why. All of these evil greedy corporations have created medicine that cures diseases, phones that help us connect with others, and cars that reduce the time needed to get groceries and go to work."
- I call most of these corporations evil since they constantly throw away tons of food which could actually stop world hunger, bury students in debt, and let people die to save money.
The companies have done some great things, however ignoring the underlying evils that they have done is disgusting.
" Just curious, what is 70% socialism and 30% capitalism?"
A mixed market which is what I'm advocating for.
We take a lot of socialist policies and some capitalist policies.
Similar to Scandinavian countries.
" I don't know why you're trying to make me take a 100% capitalist stance. "
- Because that's the stance you are taking.
You have been arguing pretty much against every single socialist policy I've proposed to you and have been arguing for an absurd anarcho-capitalist utopia which is unrealistic.
" If healthcare would help out businesses so much, I repeat: why wouldn't a business provide a healthcare plan?????"
- Sorry I didn't see that previous point so I'll gladly address it here,
The reason this is the case is actually because of the high insurance rates in the united states.
More socialized countries in Europe such as Norway have cheaper healthcare as a result of it being more socialized.
It has nothing to do with the government discouraging this at all. It actually has more to do with greedy corporations which charge 400 $ for a life-saving drug which only costs 40 dollars to make.
" Why should I be required to pay for healthcare for people who refuse to be healthy? "
- Ok, why should I be required to pay taxes for the police force for weaker people and people who refuse to obey the social order?
And really, you'd rather see many innocents die than to see a selective few take advantage of the system?
Scandinavian and almost literally any other country with socialized medicine don't have to drop life spans like the US currently does and still have robust economies.
So very obviously this hasn't hurt the countries what so ever.
I don't know why you're trying to make me take a 100% capitalist stance. I think that taxes should only ever be used if it is an investment, meaning it helps everyone. An educated populace helps everyone far more than we put in. It prepares them for jobs. You don't convince anyone by just saying that people will have less sick days and that that justifies Trillions of dollars in extra expenditures. You assume that all corporations are these evil entities. I don't know why. All of these evil greedy corporations have created medicine that cures diseases, phones that help us connect with others, and cars that reduce time needed to get groceries and go to work. These companies have improved our lives and you want to demonize them because they want to make a profit. They should be allowed to get a profit. Profits are huge incentives, which cause people to create goods that make our lives better. Therefore allowing them to make good money is working towards the public good. Name some inventions that have come out of socialistic and/or collectivist societies. It is hard naming things more useful than those from free countries like America.
Socialism is built on the idea that you are alive, therefore you deserve to have stuff handed to you no matter what. Even if you don't want to work. Even if you make terrible choices, everyone else should carry the burden for those who make worse decisions. The Communist Manifesto also says you shouldn't trade because it creates material wants that didn't exist before, so I would question the validity of Marx's economic plans. They nationalized a bunch of industries and ran a welfare state. Kinda socialistic.
" A college degree guarantee is super excessive and unnecessary to make a living."
- No citation to back itself up, very obviously in the world, it is almost a necessity to be college educated in order to hold a good job.
According to George town university, a good chunk of jobs is only accessible via college degrees.
Even if it wasn't, do you really not believe that society would in general benefit if even McDonalds workers were college educated?
" Imperialism has literally nothing to do with capitalism. Let us just live in a world without self-interest"
- Imperialism argues for radical self-interest and natural selection similar to capitalism in the sense that imperialism and capitalism call for the survival of fittest essentially.
Secondly, this is an absolute strawman.
I am not advocating for a world without self-interest, I want a world where everyone regardless of the economic bracket has basic needs and services.
" I think it is a rather foolish claim to say the Soviet Union was more capitalistic than socialistic."
- You are arguing against communism on the basis of the soviet union being imperialistic.
When imperialism is rooted more in capitalism than it is in the ideas of socialism or communism.
" I'm against a progressive tax. Rich make more, so they would pay more under a flat tax as well."
- A flat tax is where everyone pays the same amount in taxes, what you are describing is what as known as a progressive tax.
" You need "redistribution" in terms of the military because it is impossible to run a military any other way."
- Ok so then you are actually in favor of the redistribution of wealth since that is necessary to protect the nation.
Same with socialized healthcare and education as it benefits the collective good of the nation.
" The Nazis were socialists.... just very racist socialists. I read the communist manifesto and I don't remember ever seeing the word "altrusim". Socialism is selfishness, pure and simple. Once you get facades out of the way, you see that capitalism is a much more moral system that socialism."
- Once again haven't elaborated on how they were socialists.
- Haven't elaborated on how socialism is selfishness
- The communist manifesto spreads the ideas of altruism/collective good messages.
" You are trying to argue that healthcare is an investment. It can be, and I would support it in cases that it is. However, you are assuming two things: that that person will work and that their work will outweigh the cost. In order to ensure they become a functioning member of society, you would have to force them to work, even if they didn't want to"
- How is this slavery? You are once again ignoring my previous point and are going in a circle.
Believe it or not, not everyone wants to live off of the government forever, we'd only be providing the basics after all.
People are already essentially forced to work anyways, do you not think people are already forced to work or else they'll starve to death at the hands of corporations?
One of these is held accountable by the public and the other in the hands of greedy corporations.
Which do you think is better for the social good?