Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

Debate Info

Debate Score:25
Total Votes:28
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 What are some of the problems of nationalized Health Care? (12)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(40134) pic

What are some of the problems of nationalized Health Care?

Mr. Obama and his advisers say they understand these concerns, but the administration's policy choices are the equivalent of steering the economy toward an iceberg. Perhaps the most vivid example of sending the wrong message to international capital markets are the health-care reform bills—one that passed the House earlier this month and another under consideration in the Senate. Whatever their good intentions, they have too many flaws to be defensible.

Add New Argument

I was at a very interesting seminar this past week on disparities in healthcare and if the current healthcare bill being proposed would deal with these issues. What stuck with me out of this entire seminar was one simple line.

While the actual act of passing the healthcare bill will be a grand victory, it will also end up being one of the greatest failures.

The point the lecturer made was that many of the programs being created or revamped have not been tested. Add this to the fact it was written in such a hurry and you've a cocktail of problems unforeseeable and foreseeable for the years to come.

2 points

Agreed! And I would also add:

If we are driving our vehicles down rough roads, do we redesign the wheel or do we fix the roads? (Is not the gov. responsible for the rough roads anyway, i.e. the extensive regulation of the healthcare industry?)

Or, if we are chewing our hands off, do we stop chewing or do we take more pain killers to stop the pain?

BLAH! Blah!

I could list dozens more examples, but what I find extraordinary is the fact our words are largely ignored.

Glad to see your presence at CD!!!!

Side: patients of the asylum guard the asylum
Mahollinder(900) Disputed
2 points

While the actual act of passing the healthcare bill will be a grand victory, it will also end up being one of the greatest failures.

The point the lecturer made was that many of the programs being created or revamped have not been tested. Add this to the fact it was written in such a hurry and you've a cocktail of problems unforeseeable and foreseeable for the years to come.

What programs were mentioned, and if they are untested, how can there be both unforseen and forseen problems, and what was the name of the seminar and who were the contributors? Please answer the entire question.

Side: patients of the asylum guard the asylum

I do not remember what they were. With the unforeseen I was speaking onto the programs that have never been put into place. Foreseen would be for those that are in place and have failed or are inevitably going to fail. As you know the entire bill is approximately 2,000 pages. I was making a general statement, this isn't my area of study. I may be studying Public Health, but I am no professional when it comes to the study of Health policy or policy in general.

The seminar was the following:


(Presented by the UIC IHRP’s Center for Health Services Research

and the UIC Center for Pharmoeconomic Research)

“Will Health Reform Actually Reduce

Disparities and Improve Public Health?”

Harold Pollack, PhD

The University of Chicago

Professor, School of Social Service Administration

Faculty Chair, Center for Health Administration Studies

Co-Director, The University of Chicago Crime Lab

Dr. Pollack’s current research, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, examines racial and ethnic disparities in substance use disorders and in access to treatment services among low-income women.

Side: patients of the asylum guard the asylum
3 points

Well, after reading the CBO report, I don't know why I should accept what the Washington Journal article has to say.

On the House bill, a CBO letter to congressman Paul Ryan states: CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that enacting H.R. 3962, by itself, would reduce federal budget deficits by $109 billion over the 2010–2019 period through its effects on direct spending and revenues. press/2007/pr20091119cboscore.pdf (letter from CBO to Paul Ryan)

On the Senate bill, the CBO letters to Reid: According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $130 billion over the 2010–2019 period... (And here's the kicker on the senate bill) The estimate includes a projected net cost of $599 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $848 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $149 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $100 billion in net savings from other sources. Over the 2010–2019 period, the net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $491 billion and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $238 billion. (report)

Who should I adhere to? Some opinion article in the Washington journal or the reports themselves? HMMMMMM, that one is reaaaaalllly hard. Come on Joe.

Side: patients of the asylum guard the asylum
lawnman(1106) Disputed
2 points


What new form of accounting is being used that enables a country which cannot afford the ever-rising expense of healthcare to add 40 million healthcare patients to the expense and thereby not only make healthcare less expensive but profitable for the federal government.

Or said this way: If 300 million people cannot afford their healthcare with health insurance and government assistance then how will the same 300 million pay for the added expense of 40 million more subsidized patients? And when 340 million people can’t afford healthcare why is it that they can afford to pay more in taxes. (Don't overlook the soundness of that example. For the fact remains that 40 million people are currently subsidized by their fellow americans.)

Healthcare reform that increases the coffers of the federal government is governmentcare. I mean goddamnit- Do we the people of the United States need another fucking insurance company that is beholden to a board of directors and investors who seek greater returns on their investments? (Oh, I forgot, politicians and bureaucrats are political, not accountable.)

Finally, do we need healthcare that indeed is healthcare that is affordable for low-wage workers, or do we want healthcare that requires a sugar-daddy?

Hell. I am only ranting. And why shouldn’t I, was it not the government who has regulated the entire healthcare industry of the US right up unto the day when the government declares that healthcare reform is now necessary. Talk about steering the ship over a waterfall and then using the same captain to direct the fall. We even go so far to say that we should listen to the captain and consent to his plan about how we should fall!

I’m not disputing your argument, I am taking an opportunity to speak plainly of what ought to be obvious to us all. What are your thoughts?

Side: patients of the asylum guard the asylum

First and foremost, neither bends the health-cost curve downward. The CBO found that the House bill fails to reduce the pace of health-care spending growth. An audit of the bill by Richard Foster, chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, found that the pace of national health-care spending will increase by 2.1% over 10 years, or by about $750 billion. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's bill grows just as fast as the House version. In this way, the bills betray the basic promise of health-care reform: providing quality care at lower cost.

Second, each bill sets up a new entitlement program that grows at 8% annually as far as the eye can see—faster than the economy will grow, faster than tax revenues will grow, and just as fast as the already-broken Medicare and Medicaid programs. They also create a second new entitlement program, a federally run, long-term-care insurance plan.

Finally, the bills are fiscally dishonest, using every budget gimmick and trick in the book: Leave out inconvenient spending, back-load spending to disguise the true scale, front-load tax revenues, let inflation push up tax revenues, promise spending cuts to doctors and hospitals that have no record of materializing, and so on.

Side: patients of the asylum guard the asylum

If there really are savings to be found in Medicare, those savings should be directed toward deficit reduction and preserving Medicare, not to financing huge new entitlement programs. Getting long-term budgets under control is hard enough today. The job will be nearly impossible with a slew of new entitlements in place.

In short, any combination of what is moving through Congress is economically dangerous and invites the rapid acceleration of a debt crisis. It is a dramatic statement to financial markets that the federal government does not understand that it must get its fiscal house in order.

What to do? The best option would be for the president to halt Congress's rush to fiscal suicide, and refocus on slowing the dangerous growth in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He should call on Congress to pass a comprehensive reform of our income and payroll tax systems that would generate revenue sufficient to fund its spending desires in a pro-growth and fair fashion.

Reducing entitlement spending and closing tax loopholes to create a fairer tax system with more balanced revenues is politically difficult and requires sacrifice. But we will avert a potentially devastating credit crisis, increase national savings, drive productivity and wage growth, and enhance our international competitiveness.

Side: patients of the asylum guard the asylum
2 points

How about the part if you decline you will be fined and or possibly imprisoned if you are not on a plan. It sounds like the old bait and switch sell it as something good, like who doesn't want health care but at what cost? At a lose of more liberties!

Side: patients of the asylum guard the asylum

In order predict how successful Nationalized Health Care will be, we should look at:

1. Medicare

2. Medicaid

3. Social Security

4. Post Office


6. Fannie Mae

7. Freddie Mac

well... you get the picture ;)

Side: patients of the asylum guard the asylum

True, we all have seen how bad government is managing anything, yet some continue to deny it.

Side: patients of the asylum guard the asylum

The problems of nationalized health care will only demonstrate and exacerbate the failure of government policy.

Therefore, ration care will only ensue.

Side: Ration Care