Debate.org is closing and the website will be taken offline on May 30, 2022.
Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account. For more information, please refer to our FAQs page.
The Instigator
Athias
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Thoht
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Access to and the distribution of health related services ought to be handled by the free market.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2019 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,535 times Debate No: 120983
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (40)
Votes (0)

 

Athias

Pro

Round One: Acceptance and Stipulations.
Round Two: Opening Arguments.
Round Three: Rebuttals.
Round Four: Rejoinders.
Round Five: Closing Arguments.

Stipulations:

1. This debate will primarily focus--though it will not be restricted to--on Economics.
2. Moral arguments may be submitted since the proposition is normative.
3. Positive Rights are claims (moral or legal) which indicate entitlements; Negative Rights are claims (moral or legal) which indicate freedoms.

If my opponent accepts, We may begin.
Thoht

Con

Happy to think with you today.

1. My arguments will be primarily economic, Certainly. Government control of health insurance is far more practical with how the business of insurance works. A large pool of people sharing costs to protect themselves from tragedies is how insurance works. The larger the pool the better, Generally. There are many other points to show why single payer works best practically business-wise.

2. The moral arguments I use will not be about a "right" to healthcare. I don't believe in rights. I believe that society functions better when all of its members are taken care of. It is more efficient in many number of ways for me to live in a society where all members are cared for than one it is not. It is a selfish position. It is not an intuitive one perhaps, But it is best for me to give my money to care for others.

3. "Rights" and "Entitlements" aren't of interest to me. What is of interest to me is the efficiency of society. Moving towards utopia even if we may never get there. I don't believe anyone has a right to healthcare. I don't believe anyone has the right to life. I don't think these things exist. Things aren't rights if they are granted to you by others. My arguments for national healthcare (insurance) will be mostly based around the efficiency of the economics, The efficiency of society, How well society works for me (selfish altruism), With some moral points in favor of the system.

4. There is no Nirvana fallacy in my mind. There are several drawbacks to single payer in comparison to free markets. My point will be that the system has been proven to be more efficient for the most people, And therefore leads society itself to better outcomes for everyone, And that the cons of free market insurance are far worse when balanced.

5. Private insurance is still an option for people in the version of single payer I support. Doctors are still allowed to practice and not accept patients from the government if they'd like. If the free market actually leads to more efficient options it would win out. If doctors refuse to see government patients, They may not in the end have the business they need to exist. Many would likely end up accepting government insurance even had they not previously wanted to. Doctors aren't forced to however, No real 'freedom' is lost. In fact, Some freedom is gained. A safety net is established if you fail.

Keep these points in mind when making your arguments. We can expand on 'rights' and 'entitlements' if you'd like, But the efficiency is the real question for me. Morality is a side note, But an important one that free markets cannot win over single payer.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 1
Athias

Pro

Opening Argument

The basis on which I premise my argument is that health-related services as with any good is best handled by the free-market. Given that transactions are informed by a vast and complex set of subjective values, The free market using free flowing price systems allows buyers and sellers to meet in order to conduct said transactions to each one's benefit. Of course, Health related services as with most goods have a cost. The current political climate surrounding health related services, Particularly their access and distribution, Has become polarized. Some would even argue that access to health care is "a right. " This would implicate two things: (1) physicians and nurses have no authority over the services they provide, And must submit their labor (even by force) to those who claim "a right" to those services; or (2) by "right, " one means "free of costs" or "free at the point of use. " The latter makes little sense since health related services always bear a cost so long as those who provide said services charge for their labor. As for "free at the point of use, " this is merely a guise concealing debt deferment, a debt which is usually redeemed through taxation. So the question really is, If as a collection of individuals we're not going to train and enslave health service providers: who pays?

Among many popular political narratives, "tax the rich" is the frequently offered solution. It is by least a far stretch to propose that the one who consumes the services ought to be obligated to their payment (assuming it's not free. ) And moral implications of seizing one's property in order to finance the the consumption of another put aside, It's a rather simple logic: the rich have more; therefore, You can take more. Perhaps however there is a solution that doesn't involve debt deferment, Seizing property of another, Or enslaving physicians and nurses. I propose one solution is to reduce costs of health related services by freeing up the market. "Well Athias, Isn't the United States an exemplar of a free-market health services industry? " No. Don't get me wrong, It's not Canda, Britain, Or France, But the health services industry is heavily regulated and influenced by government intervention. Below I will list and substantiate the reasons these regulations and interventions have contributed to the inflated costs of health care:

1. The American Medical Association

The American Medical Association, Founded in 1847, Is a government sanctioned and subsidized cartel of physician labor. It is able to restrict the amount of physician labor through its monopoly on licensing and licensing standards. In 1910, The AMA lobbied the republican administration under William Taft to closure or merge most of Medical Schools. This artificially increases the price for physician by creating a shortage, In both the amount of available physicians and those who enter the industry. By removing the government preference, Sanction, And subsidization of the American Medical Association, And allowing other licensing boards to compete, Not only would the price for physician labor deflate, But the inflated costs of physician labor will not be extended to the finals products--the health goods and services themselves. (1. )

Furthermore, When the government under the democratic administration of Lyndon Banes Johnson offered public options like Medicare and Medicaid, This sharply increased the demand of health related services. However, The licensing standards of the American Medical Association didn't allow supply of physician labor to meet the demand for physician labor. In the years between 1965 and 1972, The amount of medical graduates increased from 7455 to 7815. (2. ) (I mention this to inform the shortage created by the American Medical Association in the face of the increased demand for health related services in the advent of the public option. ) (2. )

Drug Patents

In 1925, The United States under the the Coolidge administration allowed for government-licensed drug monopolies through the patent system. This allows select drug companies exclusivity in the industry. By removing the patent system, The entry of cheaper generics will enter the market. (3. ) The consequential reduction in the inflated prices will, Once again, Be extended to the final products: health goods and services.

The FDA

This is more of an extension of the previous arguments. Much like the American Medical Association, The FDA is very much an inhibitor to the availability of promising drugs (as opposed to physician labor with the former. ) The FDA determining which drugs are approved, Creates a shortage of available drugs. The costs of getting approval by the FDA is just south of $3 billion dollars (4. ) Now, The first thing that comes to mind is that we need the FDA in order to prevent the dissemination of toxic or death-inducing drugs. I'd first state that no drug is free from the prospect of toxicity or inducing death. There are several scenarios that would happen if we freed up the market and allowed more boards to over see the dissemination of drugs:

1. Drug companies produce drugs that are ineffective and have adverse side effects,

2. Drug companies produce drugs that are effective but have adverse side effects.

3. Drug companies produce drugs that are ineffective which lack adverse side effects.

4. Drug companies produce drugs that are effective which lack adverse side effects.

The solution to this is a rather simple one: and that is social media. With the expansion of social media, Information about adverse drugs would not only reach wider audiences, But information would be disseminated much quicker. Let's also not forget that FDA hasn't always lived up to an impeccable standard of "keeping us safe" when it had to recall 35 prescription drugs. (5. )

I argue that addressing these issues will see dramatic decreases in the prices of health related services, Where our focus can shift from meeting these exorbitant health care costs through the seizure of property (even by force, ) the deferment of debt, Or possibly the enslavement of physicians and nurses to making health related services cheaper and affordable.

Sources are numbered and listed in my comments section.
Thoht

Con

Before we get into a semantics game, Please realize that government controlled insurance does pertain to specifically the "access to" portion of this debate. Insurance specifically dictates what health services you have access to. Distribution isn't a "free market" decision in the slightest. Doctors decide what patients need in both systems. This argument isn't about optional health-related things like Lasik surgery. We can both agree that optional "health-related" services should be left to the free market. Government regulations should only then seek to protect citizens from con artists.

Ill be making claims here with no citation. I will link sources that cover much of this but linking tens of sources will prove tedious an uninteresting. If you need a specific source for a claim you can message me or put it in the comments here.

My Arguments:

1. The free market is not the ideal option for every market. From a business perspective, Monopolies make sense for several markets, But none more-so than health insurance. If monopolies are the most efficient option, They make more sense under government control than private control. Direct accountability from citizens and a tempering of the profit motive are key concerns. The government has a monopoly on many services currently that few argue about, Although presumably you would. To argue against those you have to deny that externalities exist. An econ 101 student may not understand what externalities are, But no serious economist would doubt that they do.

Think of how the business of insurance works. A large group of people pay a fixed yearly rate to cover the damages that everyone in the group sustains over the course of that time. This buys people peace of mind knowing that a catastrophic event won't put them out of business.

What people pay is determined by the yearly cost of insurance divided by the number of participants in the insurance. Only, That isn't all that goes into what people pay. Admin costs, The rental of buildings, Employee costs, Et cetera. All of these costs exist under government control, But are severely reduced. Governments wouldn't need to negotiate with every single healthcare provider for every service.

On top of that, Government control comes with reduced costs in other ways. The government does not need to pay for advertisements. Depending on the product this severely reduces the costs, Directly leading to savings by the consumers. The government doesn't seek to make a percentage profit for expansion. This cuts costs.

Pooling the largest group of people makes the most sense for insurance. Government control makes the most practical and efficient sense. No company had the scope the government does. The government doesn't underinsure people as well.

The large group of people covered gives the government the ability to negotiate prices from the strongest possible position for drugs and health services. This also reduces costs for the taxpayer.

Let's not even mention the time saved not having to shop around for insurance, Doctors, Meds, Not having to give your information to hospitals, Not having to figure out which doctors your insurance covers, Which pharmacies accept your insurance, Etc.

2. Single payer covering all medical services is cheaper than our current system and it covers everyone.

What this means is that you may pay 5000 for insurance yearly now. To cover everyone in the US your taxes would rise by lets say 4800 as a conservative number. This means that because of advertising costs, Profit motive, Admin and employee costs, Et cetera private insurance gives you access to a limited number of doctors and services and costs more. If you could pay 5000 to cover just yourself or you could pay 4800 to cover yourself and 2 other people, The choice is clear. This is the benefit we gain from single payer, And why the majority of the US, Even in the republican party, Wants single payer.

Thus, Claiming that taxes will be raised on the rich is a ridiculous point. All studies done on this even libertarian ones show that single payer costs less, Not more. While your taxes will be raised, You will have extra money in your pocket when the system changes at the end of the day, And a wider choice of doctors. Your insurance would even cover you in other countries as long as you are a US citizen. Arguments such as 'taxes will raise' or 'on the backs of the rich' are all entirely asinine when the numbers are entirely in the opposite direction when it comes to the money you have in your pocket at the end of the day.

3. Single payer is superior for doctors too.

There is no free market when it comes to doctor services right now. This is because no doctor or hospital can tell you how much a procedure costs. This is because insurances all negotiate prices separately for pricing. Have you ever gone to the doctor and known what you would be charged? A free market would include people not having insurance being able to shop around.

Most necessary healthcare is void of a free market because of necessity. If you have a stroke or heart attack you are not shopping around for ambulances or the best or cheapest doctor services.

There is no guarantee that your insurance will pay for it all either. Many services are not. When people by chance come down with a condition that is not covered they are liable for the full amount. We call this 'underinsured. ' This is what private healthcare gets us. Millions of people underinsured. Millions of people not insured at all. This is not what efficiency looks like.

Now, When you have underinsured people or people who aren't insured what happens is they're more likely to come down with serious problems due to no preventative care. Preventative care is quite efficient at reducing costs.

When underinsured or people without insurance have emergencies and are taken to the hospital, They are taken care of. When they can't pay the doctors suffer because they aren't being paid. The people go bankrupt and have their lives shattered, Or hospitals are forced to sell their debts to collections agencies at a massively reduced rate, Or the government pays for it anyway. Why not go for single payer to pay for the preventative care and not have doctors and hospitals wondering if or when they'll get paid while simultaneously reducing the number of serious illnesses and diseases in America? The immediacy of payment and not having people go bankrupt, Avoid payments, Et cetera is actually a big problem in America.

4. Nearly all metrics you can use to analyze the efficacy of a healthcare system show that single payer is superior to private healthcare, Ie our current system.

Outcomes?

Better in countries with national healthcare. No way to disagree.

Coverage?

Millions underinsured or lacking insurance, On top of some 45 thousand a year dying due to lack of insurance (a 9/11 event monthly) can all be cited in favor of single payer.

Wait times?

Worse in single payer, But why would you weigh this as more important than outcomes?

Approval/happiness with the system?

Single payer wins.

Freedom of companies?

Healthcare is still private. The only losers here are private insurers who have gouged our citizens long enough. No reason to weigh this more than outcomes.

Freedom of the people?

See whatever doctor you want. Live without worrying that your next hospital visit will see you homeless. For people with no insurance now, Live without the worry of immediate death. Live with doctors who can prevent many serious conditions. Live improved lives and be better workers with lower stress.

In the end I have to ask, Why are you limiting the freedom of hundreds of millions and costing the lives of hundreds of thousands to save the gouging inefficient business of tens of thousands of private health insurance providers?

The free market, If it were free, The majority of the citizens choose single payer. In every country that starts it, Its efficacy is proven.

What metric of analysis do you have to tip the scales in your favor? I submit there are none. Nothing you have can outweigh the pros.

5. Net Benefit of Healthcare for all citizens

What if everyone's serious communicable diseases could be treated? What if people could go to the doctor and understand their illnesses, Understand their risk of spreading diseases? What if everyone could have help from doctors when birthing their children?

Herd Immunity is important. If everyone in the herd is treated, Our entire society improves.

What if everyone with eye problems could see a doctor? Less accidents on the road. Improved learning. Improved ability to read warning signs. Improved life.

What if everyone with seizures could see doctors? Less accidents. Less problems at work. Etc.

There is a reason we all want to see doctors from time to time. Those same reasons work for everyone else. Why have stressed workers or workers working with severe problems when we could eliminate those problems? It is all well and good to hoard wealth for yourself, But why not save yourself a buck and make it less likely the person driving the car next to you hasn't slept in two days from insomnia and health related issues, Who then may drive directly into you?

In the end, It is in the interests of even the most selfish people in our society to be altruistic. It is an argument for selfish altruism.

What happened to America? Aren't we supposed to be a shining example for the rest of the world? The most powerful country? The best place to live? The envy of the world?

Is that why our citizens go to Canada and Mexico for drugs? Is that why people from other countries dread moving here and losing their healthcare if they aren't rich? Why are US citizens forced to envy all of the other countries with superior outcomes as we lie stressed and dying allowing our citizens to rot?

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 2
Athias

Pro

Rebuttal #1

"Before we get into a semantics game, Please realize that government controlled insurance does pertain to specifically the "access to" portion of this debate. Insurance specifically dictates what health services you have access to. "

No, Insurance does not dictate which services to which one has access. The market does. (Insurance is a finance scheme. Insurance, Depending on the coverage, Attempts to finance the price of health goods and services. Price is a market mechanism. ) We can dispense with this notion that insurance is the only mechanism in which to finance the aforementioned goods and services.

"Distribution isn't a "free market" decision in the slightest. Doctors decide what patients need in both systems. "<

To the contrary. While medical prescription is not necessarily subject to the free market, Though one could argue efficacy of medical treatment would be facilitated in a free market system where price functions as an accurate feedback mechanism, And not a political device, The distribution of which I speak is of labor and services. A physician's/nurse's labor ought to be a free market decision. A doctor/nurse ought to, Like any other profession, Sell their labor at a price which suits them; by that very same token, Prospective clients/patients ought to be able to look for said labor and purchase it at a price which suits them. When buyers and sellers meet, They can negotiate terms which serve each one's benefit. When these terms are willfully agreed upon, Transaction occurs. That is the function of the free market.

"This argument isn't about optional health-related things like Lasik surgery. We can both agree that optional "health-related" services should be left to the free market. Government regulations should only then seek to protect citizens from con artists. "

Why not? Why are you attempting to restrict the discussion of "access to" health related services to just non-elective procedures? Why would it be more "efficient" as you claim to cover for example, Chemotherapy, The side effects of which--sentiments aside--make one understandably "less productive, " as opposed to Lasik Surgery, Which can improve one's vision, And can make one "more productive"?

Rebuttal #2

"The free market is not the ideal option for every market. "

I would disagree. The logistics of every market is the same--based on the description I gave above. Why would it be ideal in one market and not the other?

"From a business perspective, Monopolies make sense for several markets, But none more-so than health insurance. "

How so?

"If monopolies are the most efficient option, They make more sense under government control than private control. "

This is a conditional proposition for which you have not substantiated the premise--i. E. Monopolies are more efficient. I would contend that monopolies are inefficient for the following reasons:

1. Price Fixing: especially in markets with relatively price-inelastic goods, A monopoly can charge a price far above its product's market value.

2. Inferior Goods: due to its price fixing, A monopoly has no incentive to improve upon its goods. Without a free-flowing price system, Which buyers and sellers use to gauge their subjective values, The feedback acquired will not be subjected to a consumer standard, But the monopoly's.

3. Barriers to entry: any prospective seller which would enter the market is barred from entering the market, Usually by stated sanctioned policy.

"Think of how the business of insurance works. A large group of people pay a fixed yearly rate to cover the damages that everyone in the group sustains over the course of that time. This buys people peace of mind knowing that a catastrophic event won't put them out of business.

What people pay is determined by the yearly cost of insurance divided by the number of participants in the insurance. Only, That isn't all that goes into what people pay. Admin costs, The rental of buildings, Employee costs, Et cetera. All of these costs exist under government control, But are severely reduced. Governments wouldn't need to negotiate with every single healthcare provider for every service.

Yes, And each individual coverage cost depends on their liability. High-risk covers are charged higher premiums, While low-risk covers are charged less. How are the costs you mentioned "severely reduced" by government control? And by which means does this government produce the severe reduction?

"On top of that, Government control comes with reduced costs in other ways. "

You haven't really explained the first ways in which government control comes with reduced costs.

"The government does not need to pay for advertisements. "

The how does the government advertise its product? Https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC6234351/

"Depending on the product this severely reduces the costs"

But you're relating the government's involvement to the alleged reduction of these costs. There should be no "depends, " in your statements. Offer substance to your claims.

"The government doesn't seek to make a percentage profit for expansion. This cuts costs. "

How? Don't just claim that it does. Explain how?

Rebuttal #3

"What this means is that you may pay 5000 for insurance yearly now. To cover everyone in the US your taxes would rise by lets say 4800 as a conservative number. This means that because of advertising costs, Profit motive, Admin and employee costs, Et cetera private insurance gives you access to a limited number of doctors and services and costs more. If you could pay 5000 to cover just yourself or you could pay 4800 to cover yourself and 2 other people, The choice is clear. This is the benefit we gain from single payer, And why the majority of the US, Even in the republican party, Wants single payer. "

Please provide a source for this statement since you're using actual numbers.

"Thus, Claiming that taxes will be raised on the rich is a ridiculous point. "

It is a ridiculous point. The "rich" are more mobile and spend more time lobbying tax policy. Hikes in taxes affect everyone else who aren't as mobile--i. E. Upper middle class, Middle class, Working poor, And poor. It's a bit counterintutive.

"All studies done on this even libertarian ones show that single payer costs less, Not more. While your taxes will be raised, You will have extra money in your pocket when the system changes at the end of the day, And a wider choice of doctors. "

Please provide sources which support this claim.

Rebuttal #4

"There is no free market when it comes to doctor services right now. "

I agree. But then, Who claimed that there was a currently a free market for physician services right now?

There is no free market when it comes to doctor services right now. This is because no doctor or hospital can tell you how much a procedure costs. This is because insurances all negotiate prices separately for pricing. Have you ever gone to the doctor and known what you would be charged? A free market would include people not having insurance being able to shop around.

"When underinsured or people without insurance have emergencies and are taken to the hospital, They are taken care of. When they can't pay the doctors suffer because they aren't being paid. The people go bankrupt and have their lives shattered, Or hospitals are forced to sell their debts to collections agencies at a massively reduced rate, Or the government pays for it anyway. Why not go for single payer to pay for the preventative care and not have doctors and hospitals wondering if or when they'll get paid while simultaneously reducing the number of serious illnesses and diseases in America? The immediacy of payment and not having people go bankrupt, Avoid payments, Et cetera is actually a big problem in America. "

Why not opt for a free-market system which allows physicians and nurses to provide labor at their discretion? Why not allow them to negotiate with patients directly payment plans? You've yet to provide substance to how "single payer" is "superior" as you claim for doctors.

Rebuttal #5

" Nearly all metrics you can use to analyze the efficacy of a healthcare system show that single payer is superior to private healthcare, Ie our current system.

Outcomes?

Better in countries with national healthcare. No way to disagree.

Coverage?

Millions underinsured or lacking insurance, On top of some 45 thousand a year dying due to lack of insurance (a 9/11 event monthly) can all be cited in favor of single payer.

Approval/happiness with the system?

Single payer wins.

Freedom of companies?

Healthcare is still private. The only losers here are private insurers who have gouged our citizens long enough. No reason to weigh this more than outcomes.

Freedom of the people?

See whatever doctor you want. Live without worrying that your next hospital visit will see you homeless. For people with no insurance now, Live without the worry of immediate death. Live with doctors who can prevent many serious conditions. Live improved lives and be better workers with lower stress.

In the end I have to ask, Why are you limiting the freedom of hundreds of millions and costing the lives of hundreds of thousands to save the gouging inefficient business of tens of thousands of private health insurance providers?

The free market, If it were free, The majority of the citizens choose single payer. In every country that starts it, Its efficacy is proven.

What metric of analysis do you have to tip the scales in your favor? I submit there are none. Nothing you have can outweigh the pros. "


Please provide sources for your metrics. Thus far, All these are just alleged claims.

"Wait times

Important to whom
Thoht

Con

Brief Comments

1. You link a sentence I type, Then ask "how? " as if it is any sort of contribution. How about you read the next few sentences and lay real criticism of the point? I present a subject and then support it. It's as if I'm describing several topics to you and as I read the title of the topic you pipe in "What? How? " every time before I even say anything else. You do this and worse incredibly often. It is extremely odd.

2. No one is advocating that physicians become enslaved. This is not how single payer works. Insurance agencies negotiate with doctors all the time. The government insurance agency would do the same thing. Please stop pretending this is somehow a point in your favor.

3. To the judges and my opponent, Please note how none of the metrics I used were challenged in the slightest, Nor did he present any metrics of his own by which private healthcare is superior to single payer. All he did was ask for sources. I will certainly supply them, But know that if he actually had any counterarguments he would have used them. None of what I said is even arguable. These are well understood statistics by anyone who puts a modicum of effort into researching. To cite sources for every point I made would take tens of sources I'm simply slightly too lazy to dig up. I will do as much as I can, But if there's really one he knows is wrong perhaps he'd have a source to prove it wrong and it'd be easy for me to address the points of contention.

4. One small point I hadn't brought up in my R2 that I should've but forgot is that currently businesses are setup to where they offer health insurance through their business. This enslaves people to their job. Switching jobs or quitting removes their insurance and many people would die from that. On top of that, Private businesses have to spend time and money to offer their employees health insurance, And most employees are financially forced into taking what their business offers. There is nothing free market about this, And it seems both of us should agree that it shouldn't exist. Single payer allows citizens the freedom to switch jobs as they'd like and as the market dictates without fear of their lives. It reduces what employers have to pay and time employers have to spend as well. It's beneficial for all parties.

5. When insurance is concerned "quality" means that everything necessary is covered. We have plenty of people who are underinsured now. These people have "bad" insurance. Single payer is 100% quality insurance. There is no better insurance. Insurance isn't a market where quality would decrease with government monopoly. Again, Government wouldn't control healthcare.

I'll address the rest in my R4. If my opponent stops copy pasting my entire argument needlessly perhaps he'll have more room to supply his own words.

My Rebuttal to Pro's R2:

1. No one is trying to force doctors to treat anyone. This is fallacious.

No one is saying healthcare is or will be free. This is fallacious.

Your entire first "opening argument" section is you shadow boxing. Fighting entities that don't exist.

2. The AMA

None of what you said supports your opinion that the AMA is limiting the number of graduates in America. The AMA may have had a hand in shutting down schools, But their reasoning was that they were pumping out substandard doctors.

On top of that, The AMA predicted a surplus of doctors some number of years ago, But in the past several decades have reversed their position and encouraged enrollment as much as possible.

On top of all that though, The lack of doctors is not due to any of this. Any number of people can graduate medical school. That isn't the issue. The issue is residencies. In order to practice on their own doctors have to go through residencies. If more of these are funded and permitted, There will be more doctors. The fault then is not with the AMA but the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

Far as I'm aware, There is no monopoly on licensing standards. The AMA's membership covers about 30% of the doctors in America, Give or take.

You seem to have no idea about what the AMA is, What its current position on students are, Or what is actually bottle-necking doctors. If only the AMA had a hand in this we'd agree that it should be changed, But it still wouldn't mean the AMA should be eliminated.

Either way, This isn't defense in your favor. Without the AMA we'd have more medical schools pumping out substandard doctors who would then result in the public not trusting doctors even more, More medical malpractice, Et cetera.

Your position seems to be that the market is somehow improved by us having no standards and giving anyone a medical license. This is not how colleges work. Why not give everyone an electrical engineering degree? Let's get rid of all standards for bridge building engineers. I'm sure we'd have a greater supply of engineers and thus cheaper bridges!

This argument doesn't even belong in a econ 101 classroom. Supply and Demand doesn't include quality in the graph.

To conclude this section, You seem to have no idea what the AMA is or does. Perhaps your information should include some from this century? Your chart doesn't prove the AMA has a direct hand in anything, Nor is it justification to abolish all standards set by them. (1, 2)

3. Drug patents

No investor or businessman will ever invest money into the production of new drugs if they are not allowed to recoup their losses. You can argue for capping profits at a percentage of the investment. Pretending new drugs will be invented out of the goodness of people's hearts is laughable, And entirely ignorant of how economics works. Capping profits is reasonable. On top of that, This is an argument for my position. With single payer, The government negotiates from the strongest possible position as far as drug prices. They can offer drug companies a fair price. Companies aren't forced to sell to them, But they are forced to give reasonable rates, And can expect reasonable returns for their investment. Otherwise, The country won't have their products. This has been shown in every country to adopt single payer. On top of that, There are even some suggestions that patents should be threatened if businessmen gouge too much. (3)

The only system that will work is allowing people who invent medicines reasonable profits, While opening up their medication to be produced by the free market and sold to the citizens of different governments via negotiations in price with their collective demand as a bargaining chip (single payer).

4. FDA

Let me get this straight, Your argument is that instead of a government agency held accountable by the people to extensively test medications that they have no expertise on to protect them, We should have the equivalent of amazon product reviews.

Great.

Psychology tells us that humans are subject to all sorts of biases. Some people think by having water thrown at them from an elderly man in a pretty dress cures their cancer. Some people drink warm water and think it cures their illnesses. Homeopathy is what you get when you subject medicine to the whims of untrained biased humans.

Not to mention that many product reviews are bought and paid for by the companies who sell the products. How many fake reviews do you think are on Yelp or Amazon? How many companies pay for good reviews?

You cite that the FDA failed in a few cases. Sure. Some medicines don't have an effect on the person, But they do have an effect on their child. This is something they can't really test for. Some have effects after long periods of time. You citing that they eventually pulled the products from the shelf is not proof that the FDA is not effective. It is proof that it is not perfect, And without them regulating even more by requiring pregnant women take them or requiring the medicine to be tested over decades in trials, They could not possibly stop some of this medication.

On top of that, Some number of those were only on the shelf for a year or two if not less. Some were approved nearly a century ago.

Your suggestion is that we replace this agency with Amazon reviews which can and are doctored and paid for.

Do you want to see what the effects of just ONE such product being sold by people with a profit motive?

I doubt you'll read even a portion of it, But here you go. (4)

You offer no sources to even suggest that amazon product reviews have an efficiency anywhere near the FDA.

If the cost of having knowledge of each product's effects from teams of doctors and test is several billion per product that is fine. The world will keep spinning for thousands of years more. These products aren't going anywhere. For each one we extensively test and that each other country extensively tests humans gain a better understanding of drugs and our interactions with them, Resulting in better drugs in the end.

Out of the 4 potential outcomes you link, 3 of them are terrible. On top of that, Any company that develops a product they think will sell will not be bothered by the FDA costs. The drugs will still be made regardless. Their money will be recouped. This is not an issue and we all benefit from it.

To conclude,

All you seem to have done is point out one or two things that could be improved in the system we currently have. Eliminating the FDA would be a great idea but supply and demand aren't all that matters. Quality matters. Your solution to this problem is laughable at best, And lacking in morality at least. The AMA isn't the limiter on doctors. Your point against them is invalid, And wouldn't even warrant its destruction if it were true. Your "solution" to drug prices is the most absurd economic position that would only work if we wanted no new drugs. With how antibiotic resistant bacteria are an increasing problem, This is a medically absurd position as well.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht

Sources in my Profile. Links are tedious to post in debates atm.
Debate Round No. 3
Athias

Pro

Rejoinder

"How about you read the next few sentences and lay real criticism of the point? I present a subject and then support it. It's as if I'm describing several topics to you and as I read the title of the topic you pipe in "What? How? " every time before I even say anything else. "

This criticism makes no sense. We are not debating in "real time. " Each participant has a chance to read the entire argument after it's been posted, So this statement "you pipe in. . . Every time before I even say anything else" is completely inaccurate because you have "said everything else" before I could respond. Furthermore, I ask "how? " after the essential point. Anything else I address is supplemental. Case in point:

"Monopolies make sense for several markets, But none more-so than health insurance. " (Your statement)

You then argue a conditional proposition, "If monopolies are the most efficient option, They make more sense under government control than private control. "

This explains nothing. It neither explains the reason monopolies make more sense in the health insurance market, Nor does it inform your inductive argument in the slightest. Your subsequent statements do no much better, I. E. Informing how the option, You allege is efficient, Makes more sense under government control rather than private. When you explain your points, I'll stop asking, "how? "

"No one is advocating that physicians become enslaved. This is not how single payer works. Insurance agencies negotiate with doctors all the time. The government insurance agency would do the same thing. Please stop pretending this is somehow a point in your favor. "

Non sequitur. I never stated that the enslavement of physicians and nurses would manifest from single payer. My statement is in plain view, So I'll quote it:

"Some would even argue that access to health care is 'a right. ' This would implicate two things: (1) physicians and nurses have no authority over the services they provide, And must submit their labor (even by force) to those who claim "a right" to those services; or (2) by 'right, ' one means 'free of costs' or 'free at the point of use. '"

Where do I mention "single payer"?

Even when I suggest a solution where I incorporated the terms "enslaving, " I do not mention single payer at all: "Perhaps however there is a solution that doesn't involve debt deferment, Seizing property of another, Or enslaving physicians and nurses. "

In this case, Single payer would align with debt-deferment.

"To the judges and my opponent, Please note how none of the metrics I used were challenged in the slightest, Nor did he present any metrics of his own by which private healthcare is superior to single payer. "

Once again, My statements are in plain view, So I'll quote myself again:

"Please provide sources for your metrics. Thus far, All these are just alleged claims. "

"But know that if he actually had any counterarguments he would have used them. None of what I said is even arguable. These are well understood statistics by anyone who puts a modicum of effort into researching. To cite sources for every point I made would take tens of sources I'm simply slightly too lazy to dig up. "

Abandon the sophistry, Thoht. It is not my burden to do your research, which as you claim, You're "too lazy to dig up. "It's your argument; it's your reference to metrics; you support them. I won't counterargue phantom arguments.

"One small point I hadn't brought up in my R2 that I should've but forgot is that currently businesses are setup to where they offer health insurance through their business. This enslaves people to their job. "

The metaphor while useful in advancing rhetoric doesn't advance any argument. I won't spend another character arguing how voluntary employment does not constitute "enslavement. "

Rejoinder #2

"No one is trying to force doctors to treat anyone. This is fallacious. "

No one argued that anyone was trying to force doctors to treat anyone. I extended the argument of "right to health care" to its logical conclusions.

"No one is saying healthcare is or will be free. This is fallacious. "

No one argued that anyone said that health care is or will be free. I extended the argument of "right to health care" to its logical conclusions.

"Your entire first "opening argument" section is you shadow boxing. Fighting entities that don't exist. "

And your statements have been, Thus far, Based on misrepresentations and non sequtiurs. Once again, My statements are in plain view. (I won't quote myself again. It's above so re-read it at your leisure. )

2. You don't vet your own sources. (One which I must point out comes from a stackexchange conversation with missing sources, Not of your own research. ) The LCME, The Liaison Committee on Medication Education, Which your source argues is responsible for the accreditation for allopathic medicine, Is sponsored by both the AMA and the AAMC, Two organizations which have been partnered for decades (1) 91% of the practicing physicians in the U. S. Possess an M. D. , 76% of which was acquired domestically (2) The ACGME which your source credits as responsible for allopathic residences was created in part by the efforts of the American Medical Association (3) As for the 30% membership, The American Medical Association's House of Delegates represents more than 185 outside physician groups (4) Furthermore, I've yet to discover any information to the effect of "membership" being an extension of "licensure. " If you have information to that effect, Then submit it, Otherwise the percent of membership is irrelevant. Last, I'm not interested in that which "seems. " "Seem" is not an argument. "Seem" is your impression.

Rejoinder #3

3. "No investor or businessman will ever invest money into the production of new drugs if they are not allowed to recoup their losses. "

Explain how the absence of drug patents would disallow investors from redeeming or gaining profit on their investment? You continue to make assertions, But you do not explain or substantiate them.

"With single payer, The government negotiates from the strongest possible position as far as drug prices. They can offer drug companies a fair price. "

Or they can cease the extension of privilege to drug companies to restrict the market (through the patent system) from new entrants, Especially to suppliers of cheaper generics, And allow competitive pricing strategies to bid down prices. All you've suggested is a moderate start to that which I've suggested. And your own source contradicts your assessment on the returns of investment. Here I'll quote it:

"A recent study found that federally funded research contributed to the science that underlies every one of the 210 new drugs approved between 2010 and 2016. Given that the U. S. Government, Funded by taxpayers, Already subsidizes so much research for pharmaceutical companies through the National Institutes of Health, It is a transparent lie for pharmaceutical companies to claim that they need to charge outrageous prices for the purposes of "innovation. "

Rejoinder #4

Your rebuttal to my arguments about the FDA have much to do about nothing. Your offer abstract psychological assessments that even if we were to entertain does not exclude government officials.

"Not to mention that many product reviews are bought and paid for by the companies who sell the products. How many fake reviews do you think are on Yelp or Amazon? How many companies pay for good reviews? "

Doesn't matter. I didn't mention "Amazon Reviews. "

"On top of that, Some number of those were only on the shelf for a year or two if not less. Some were approved nearly a century ago. "

One of them was on the shelf for 55 years which was petitioned for removal twice. It wasn't removed until 2010. You can attempt to misrepresent the information at your discretion. My source is properly cited and can be seen by anyone.

"Your suggestion is that we replace this agency with Amazon reviews which can and are doctored and paid for. "

Quote me.

"I doubt you'll read even a portion of it, But here you go. (4)"

How is this at all proper decorum in a debate? What informs your presumption on that which I would or wouldn't read? If it informs and substantiates your argument then submit it. If it doesn't, Why bother mentioning it? (After reading it, The Johnson & Johnson Risperdal case doesn't serve as an exemplar of a private drug market without the FDA because the FDA existed. If anything your source argues to the discredit of the FDA since the drug was approved by them to begin with)

"You offer no sources to even suggest that amazon product reviews have an efficiency anywhere near the FDA. "

I'm not beholden to an argument I did not make.

"All you seem to have done is point out one or two things that could be improved in the system we currently have. Eliminating the FDA would be a great idea but supply and demand aren't all that matters. Quality matters. Your solution to this problem is laughable at best, And lacking in morality at least. "

Once again, "seem" is not argument. And how is my solution lacking in "morality. " My solution is the only one which does not coerce or compel behavior under duress. Please expand on your claim of my solution "lacking" morality. (P. S. I'm not interested in that which you find laughable. )

As for your sources in RD2, Those aren't metrics. Please provide actual metrics.
Thoht

Con

So what I'll do is step back a moment and summarize your position and my position. You can clarify what you will in your closing.

1. You have said both that I have not supported metrics and that I have not provided "actual metrics. " Both of these things cannot simultaneously be true, But I digress. I'm going to define metric for you and as simply as I can explain my sources and your response.

A metric is a standard of measurement. Distance can be measured by inches, Feet, Et cetera. These are metrics.

When one's goal is to determine how 'good' a system is, You have to measure it by some standard. Is this system good if I spend the least amount of money on it? Is this system good if it lasts a long time (durability)? These are two metrics by which to measure the 'goodness' of a system.

When you say a service "ought" be provided by the free market, You are saying that, According to the metrics you are analyzing the service with, The free market is superior.

I have provided the following metrics:

1a. Outcomes. This means life expectancy, Health expectancy, Infant morality, Et cetera. My source was a graphic that took information from the WHO/CIA/CDC.

1b. Coverage.

This means the number of people covered regardless of the circumstance. The categories are Insured, Uninsured, And not insured. In the US millions of people are uninsured. Millions are underinsured. This is under a private healthcare system. Under single payer BY DEFINITION the whole of our society is covered in any circumstance. This is true by definition. I feel no need to link a source for you. This is not a matter of contention.

1c. Approval/Happiness with the system.

In countries with single payer or a form of NHC the people are happier with the system itself. I did not support this with anything, But I'll say it is fairly easy to prove. Any candidates running in Canada or other countries with single payer hardly ever get away with saying they want to dismantle it. People in countries with single payer often cite healthcare as their primary concern if they think of coming here. The majority of Americans want single payer healthcare and cite unhappiness with ours. Many die from our current system, This is hardly surprising.

1d. Freedom of companies.

I have said companies will pay less for their employees healthcare in single payer. Companies themselves also save money by not having to negotiate and maintain connections with insurance agencies to handle that. They won't have to deal with employees' concerns about it at all. The only companies that lose would be insurance companies. The rest would win. We deal with job loss due to advances in tech all the time. The losses are small compared to the gains. The same WHO/CIA/CDC information shows per capita costs of health insurance dramatically lower in countries with it compared to without while simultaneously covering tens of millions more. This is not controversial.

1e. Freedom of the people

Under private insurance you cannot see the doctor you want. You live in fear of developing a condition that is not covered. Some people are enslaved to their work because they will go bankrupt and possibly die if they lose insurance for a day, And other insurances may be able to disqualify them. This is de facto enslavement whether the initial job acceptance was voluntary or not. If you voluntarily accept a job but while you work there your employer holds a gun to your head and says 'keep working here or I'll murder you or your family' you, Perhaps, Would not call it voluntary any longer.

1f. Money

Single payer healthcare has proven to cost less per capita while covering the entire population. Private healthcare, While not covering everyone, Costs more per person. Significantly so. As stated before, CIA/WHO/CDC facts show Canada pays nearly half of what we do while covering everyone. This is due to the business inefficiencies of the free market/private healthcare systems and the for-profit nature of these companies. This is also due to doctors being paid for the services they provide. They are incentivized to run unnecessary tests. They are incentivized to prescribe needless medication.

This is like saying you can get a better quality computer at 50% off the price you paid for your current one and you can pick a friend to get it for free or split the cost with you, And saying that is not a good deal.

These six metrics are what I have supplied sources for or logical arguments for.

Your response to these metrics, Supported by the CIA, The WHO, And the CDC, Some of the world's greatest intelligence agencies and/or some of the world's greatest health authorities, Is to say "those aren't real sources. " And "those aren't real metrics. "

So we are left with logical arguments that have been well thought out and sources from three of the world's best authorities on the subject dismissed at Pro's whimsy.

You, The judges, And me, Con, Are supposed to accept Pro's dismissal of these metrics and these sources just like that. He, After all, Has 'made his position perfectly clear' and 'does not see why he should repeat himself. '

Not good enough for me. Is it for you? He says he is "not responsible for doing your research for you. " This is true. Perhaps though you should be responsible for debating me and critiquing my points and why my 'sources are not legit.

I submit that Pro has not explained with any substance why these metrics are not the ones that should be used to judge the healthcare system of countries. I submit that Pro has not submitted sufficient justification to dismiss the WHO/CIA/CDC's numbers. He has given no reasoning behind why these numbers may be off in his view. He has given no reasoning as to why these three agencies may have questionable motives on the matter.

If the sources are so bad, Pro, Here is a Koch-brothers right-leaning study for you to peruse at your leisure. Perhaps the Koch Brothers are secretly liberals or hold secret motivations while funding all of the Republican party. (1) I can find studies to support these metrics all day. I can't seem to be able to find any that don't. Strange.

I am left with nothing to debate. If Pro's argument here is sufficient for you, Then so be it. It is not for me. There is no logical argument you can make for why his position on my metrics and sources is acceptable.

2. My opponent's points

I have, Multiple times, Asked for a single metric that you can use to analyze the healthcare system you espouse.

You have said you've made it clear enough.

Again, If one's opponent asks for clarity and says he does not understand it is hardly good debate conduct to say "Nope. I've already said it" while pretending it is impossible for you to be misinterpreted or misunderstood.

I am giving you all the charity in the world when I say perhaps you had presented a metric I'm not seeing. This is as fair as anyone can ask me to be.

Here are your arguments. (Metrics? )

2a. The AMA decreases the supply of physicians.

I've shown this to be patently untrue. You further state that they license or assist in making the standards for a large percentage of doctors. The source you cite says the following about who makes licensing standards:

"The five groups that created the council: the American Association of Medical Colleges, The
American Board of Medical Specialties, The American Hospital Association, The American
Medical Association and the Council of Medical Specialty Societies. In addition, The Board
includes two members who are residents, Three representatives of the public, The chair of the
Council of Review Committees (see below), One to four at-large directors, And two non-voting
federal representatives appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services and the
Veteran"s Administration. "

At this point you are simply ranting about your feeling that you "don't like" the AMA with no real justification. This hardly has any bearing on the debate.

The AMA predicted a surplus of doctors and suggested to the government changes that should be made to perhaps avoid it. They have since reversed course when time did not hold their thoughts true. Being wrong is not grounds for the execution of an association that does much good work elsewhere, Who is not responsible for the lack of residency slots available today. Your critique is misplaced.

2b. Drug Patents

Opening up every newly developed medication to generics would annihilate the ability for businessmen to recoup their losses on developing said drugs. They would have to compete with companies that had not gone into the red developing it. Their losses would not likely be recouped for long periods of time. I have suggested a real alternative to your plan which you subsequently ignored.

If you unironically think businesses will develop drugs under these conditions your economic understanding is far worse than I initially thought. It is okay to be wrong. Just admit it and die on hills you actually have a chance on.

2c. The FDA.

You have taken my criticism of the J&J drug situation, Where they knowingly sold male kids meds that would make them grow breasts and said "Hey look, That's the FDA's fault. " Great.

Murderers violate the law. The government created the law that said don't murder people. The government must be at fault if someone violates that law. Logic.

Your position is ridiculous. The FDA's labels protect companies from being sued when the drugs are used for those labels. Pharma companies like that. It helps them reduce costs. If pharma companies break the law and lie to doctors about the uses of their drug off-label the fault does not lie with the FDA. This is when the company is sued and has to pay for damages.

I'm aware you dislike your suggested replacement of the FDA being called "amazon reviews. " My position on this, One that you might sympathize with, Is that I'm not concerned about your feelings.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 4
Athias

Pro

"You have said both that I have not supported metrics and that I have not provided "actual metrics. " Both of these things cannot simultaneously be true"

In Round 3, I asked that you provide sources for your metrics. In your comments section, You provided a site for a physician's group which supports single payer. They've made claims of cost reductions without properly citing sources or measures for these reductions. Case in point:

"No, Single payer will actually save money by slashing wasteful bureaucracy and adopting proven-effective cost controls like fee schedules, Global budgets for hospitals, And negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. The savings " over $500 billion per year on overhead alone. . . "

This statement isn't sourced at all. Nor is its measure provided.

Your source even goes as far to reference studies it doesn't specify: "A recent study found that 45, 000 Americans die every year because they don"t have health insurance. Many more skip treatments that their insurance company refuses to cover. "

This study is not cited at all. Your source provides references to metrics for the percent the government spends on private insurance for its public employees (given that a tax subsidy at best is an opportunity cost. The government doesn't "lose" money not taxing; it just doesn't acquire it as revenue. ) The other reference is to a metric of physician's income which cites a study one must pay to read. Rather than citing someone else's argument, You can make your own arguments and cite your sources directly.

"When one's goal is to determine how 'good' a system is, You have to measure it by some standard. "

Yes, But I'm not compelled to argue by your standard. Your standard is to measure the quality of public insurance using arbitrary premises (i. E. Outcomes, Coverage, Approval, Etc. ) But I informed you since the beginning that this won't be a debate between public and private insurance. I worded my proposition specifically to be inclusive. While you focused on the quality of insurance, I've focused on the quality of the market itself. The quality of this market is determined by how "free" it is, Using the premises I outlined in my opening.

"These six metrics are what I have supplied sources for or logical arguments for. "

You provided neither adequate sources nor logical arguments.

"Your response to these metrics, Supported by the CIA, The WHO, And the CDC, Some of the world's greatest intelligence agencies and/or some of the world's greatest health authorities, Is to say "those aren't real sources. " And "those aren't real metrics. "

Disingenuous. I stated that those weren't actual metrics. Any mention of "real sources, " is nothing more than projection. And you have yet to cite this CIA, WHO, Or CDC data.

"So we are left with logical arguments that have been well thought out and sources from three of the world's best authorities on the subject dismissed at Pro's whimsy. "

Sources you did not even bother to cite. And stop appealing to authority.

"Perhaps though you should be responsible for debating me and critiquing my points and why my 'sources are not legit. "

I've already pointed out the reason your sources weren't legit in our aside in the comments section. So, You're arguing a position from either oblivion, Deception, Or ignorance.

"I submit that Pro has not explained with any substance why these metrics are not the ones that should be used to judge the healthcare system of countries. "

And I submit that I outlined from the very beginning that the discussion would not only not focus on a debate between public and private insurance (comments section) but also that it would focus primarily on ECONOMICS (RD1. ) You saw fit to complain about my "ECO101 Arguments, " when I chose the free market as my premise. If one were to acquire a quality private insurance plan for example--fee not withstanding--it would meet most of the standards of your "metrics. " It's not that private insurance can't provide the same---making it a futile argument--it's, "who pays? " And that's where my arguments come in; rather than approach the costs of health related services in relative terms of public vs private insurance, Or U. S. Vs Canada, We can just reduce the costs altogether, And not rely on debt deferment, Making the generation which follow us liable for our expenditures.

"If the sources are so bad, Pro, Here is a Koch-brothers right-leaning study for you to peruse at your leisure. "

Its being "right-leaning" is irrelevant. Numbers aren't political. Furthermore, Which argument is this reference supposed to inform? And you continue to submit sources which contradict your arguments:

"Estimating a voluntary take-up rate during this transition period is inherently speculative, And even if that rate could be projected with precise accuracy, The projections would not fully reflect the eventual costs of a national single-payer system. Alternatively, If the single-payer system in the M4A bill were fully effective beginning in 2019, The net additional federal cost would be approximately $27. 7trillion (conservatively estimated) during the 10-year window shown in table 3 (page 22). " [Page 6 of Thoht's source. ]

"Increased Demand and UtilizationM4A would increase healthcare demand and utilization in at least three important ways. First, The plan would provide health insurance coverage to all Americans who are currently uninsured, Greatly increasing their utilization of healthcare services. Coverage of the currently uninsured is estimated to increase their health service costs by roughly 89 percent. "" [Page 8 of Thoht's Source. ]

"Current administrative cost rates for Medicare as a whole are cited as being roughly 4 percent, Though closer to 6 percent for Medicare Advantage. It is unlikely that the population now privately insured could be covered by M4A with administrative costs as low as 4 percent. Administrative cost rates are calculated as a percentage of total insurance costs, And these total costs per capita under private insurance are currently less than half of what they are in Medicare. " [Page 15 of Thoht's source. ]

Furthermore, Out of the 3. 65 Trillion dollars spent, Less than a third of those costs were assumed by the Federal Government. (1) (2)

"2a. The AMA decreases the supply of physicians.

I've shown this to be patently untrue.


No, you haven't done so in the slightest. You cited a Stack Exchange Conversation with missing sources, And poached arguments you did not concern yourself to check. I provided evidence that not only were the AMA and AAMC partnered, And jointly sponsored the LCME which your source claimed governs allopathic medical schools, But also that the AMA had a hand in the creation in the ACGME, Which your source claims governs residencies, A council where the AMA has four of the 29 seats on the Board of Directors.

Furthermore, I never stated that the AMA "decreases" the amount of physician labor. I stated that AMA "restricts" the amount of physician labor. There's a difference. Cite my words, Correctly, Thoht.


"At this point you are simply ranting about your feeling that you "don't like" the AMA with no real justification. This hardly has any bearing on the debate. "

Stop Appealing to Motive

"2b. Drug Patents

Opening up every newly developed medication to generics would annihilate the ability for businessmen to recoup their losses on developing said drugs. "


Your own source contradicts your argument. (Refer to round 4 for where I quoted the contradiction. ) So which is it: is it your argument or the source on which it's premised that's inaccurate?

"2c. The FDA. "

I do not blame the FDA for the misdeeds of drugs companies who aren't honest about the effects of their drugs. I am challenging its integrity and capacity in preventing this dishonest distribution, Especially when 1 in 3 drugs approved by the FDA have been found safety concerns after approval in a 16 year span (3)

"I'm aware you dislike your suggested replacement of the FDA being called "amazon reviews. "

So you weren't able to quote me? It's not that I "dislike" it; it's inaccurate

Closing Arguments

1. The solution to the increasing costs of health related services is not to attempt to meet the increased costs by shoring up a scheme to finance it. The solution is to address the costs head on, Requiring that we understand the nature of these costs. I've outlined a set of solution which don't require financing that are sure to reduce the costs of health related services. These solutions include freeing up the market of licensing boards and ending the subsidization of the AMA; Removing Drug Patents; and allowing the free market to resolve the standards in which foods and drugs are disseminated. And all of this comes without deferring debt, Forcefully seizing property, Or worst case scenario, Enslaving physicians and nurses.

2. My opponent has misrepresented this argument almost in its entirety. He's derailed the discussion several times; he doesn't explain his arguments; he asks for "clarification, " yet my metrics are clearly visible in my opening arguments and the sources which inform them. He has cited at least two sources which contradicts his own arguments. He has represented my argument using inaccurate information (and outright lies. ) Seldom has he made his own arguments, But instead poaches them from Stack Exchange and physician's groups. Last, He has provided sources which I've easily refuted or rebutted.

Vote well.
Thoht

Con

I've made my case. My opponent is ignoring my sources. He responded directly to the graph that cites WHO/CIA/CDC stats under it in fairly large white letters.

My opponent's arguments, Even if they were all true do little to prove his point. He denies externalities exist, He refuses to engage with a comparison of the free market system versus single payer healthcare.

He accuses me of lies which is patently untrue. He nitpicks slight re-wordings that are of no consequence. He states I do not explain or support my positions. This is a statement you can only make if you critically misunderstand the English language or are intellectually dishonest. He ignores the claims I have cited sources on, Or ignores the legitimacy of said sources in favor of attacking the few I haven't cited sources on. I'm unsure why I should cite a hundred sources to prove each and every sentence when my opponent is incapable of engaging with any of my metrics or sources or weighing them against his system. He even fails to cite fallacies appropriately. It is not an 'argument from authority' fallacy to cite authorities we both agree are authorities. If he thinks the WHO/CDC/CIA are not authorities then I submit that no one is. I did indeed question his motive. This however was not done to win the argument. I simply don't understand why you would spend time debating on the internet without caring about truth. He does naught but to distract from the reality that his position is lost.

This debate is an "ought" statement. This implies morality. I have shown that both morally and economically single payer is by far the best way to go.

Contrary to what my opponent says, He has cited no real metric. He has no way to measure the two systems against each other. All he claims is that his would save money. He arbitrarily says "the market is better" with no justification. He would leave drug information to a system of amazon reviews. We all know companies pay for good reviews. We all know companies give false reviews themselves. He suggests that it business owners will still create drugs in a market in which their research monies cannot be recouped and they are in an instant competition with all generic producers. My opponent initially blamed the AMA entirely for a doctor shortage it is not responsible of, And cites my source that shows the AMA controls 4 of 29 seats in a multi-institutional board.

My opponent is sadly mistaken on economics, And has not even an inch of room to stand on moral arguments. His position is ill informed at best, And disingenuous at worst.

I don't debate to "win" internet points. I debate to find the truth. I searched for points of my opponent's and gave suggestions to each of the problems he cites. There are solutions that can be implemented without taking a poorly thought out position that desires to burn it all to the ground in the name of naught but a ill informed conception that the free market is always what is 'best. ' All while failing to give a single metric by which to compare the two systems directly after being asked each and every round and multiple times in the comments.

If you find his position convincing that is fine. If you think his position is correct that is fine. I would be shocked to find anyone thinks he defended his side well here.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 5
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
@Thoht: "You've rejected any discussion at all on this topic. . . "

Then explain rounds three and five.

"And do little more than contradict yourself. "

One cannot contradict oneself Thoht. One can only contradict statements and arguments. And if you have an example of my arguments contradicting my other arguments, Then point out where I made this contradiction.

"I'll personally have to choose to reject your bait, Which is geared towards having me waste my time by trolling me. "

Seriously? I'm attempting to "troll" you? Trolling necessitates a concern on one's part for another's emotions. I've frequently stated that I don't concern myself with feelings. So why would I concern myself enough with your emotions to troll you? You're presumably an adult, Thoht. Take responsibliity for your own state of mind.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
You've rejected any discussion at all on this topic, And do little more than contradict yourself.

I'll personally have to choose to reject your bait, Which is geared towards having me waste my time by trolling me.

Hope you grow out of your unjustified axioms.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
correction: "I had no intention of focusing on insurance. "

"The only reason to not engage in an insurance discussion is because you know you will lose. "

Not really. I'm just not particularly inclined to argue on behalf of private insurance. The health services market doesn't comprise entirely of insurance transactions. There are many more facets on behalf of which I am inclined to argue. And let it be noted that I've rejected your bait.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
"So you're basically saying single payer is the opposite, Which is what I argue for, Again no SP I know doesn't have private options for insurance. "

It's not about that of which you know. Single Payer has its own description; so does public option. Feel free to verify or contend the descriptions I offered.

"But you're claiming I didn't defend my stance properly. "

Yes.

"To claim that they oft are is nonsense. "

Who claimed that purchases without insurance were oft?

"To claim that insurance isn't a perfectly acceptable way to discuss distribution//access to healthcare services is a nonsensical position. "

Never stated that it wasn't. I stated that the discussion would be restricted neither to insurance nor one between private and public insurance.

"But any necessary procedures that aren't covered by insurance are again part of my argument for being 'underinsured. '"

This is merely a presumption. "Under-insured" presumes that no one opts out. And that is patently false. (I would be an example since I don't have health insurance, And all my hospital visits have been paid out of pocket. )

"Your arguments on not making an insurance debate and trying to word your way out of it with the title are misplaced. "

I didn't "word my way out"; I "worded my way in. " The discussion didn't start until I created the proposition. So of what would I be trying to argue my way out?

"Really, Is the only reason you don't want to debate insurance because you know the optimal option in this regard is SP which goes against your axiom of 'free market is always best? "

No. I just understand the nature of markets. In fact, Had you argued on behalf of a public option you may have made the argument more difficult on my part. Single Payer is actually quite easy to argue against as demonstrated by your own sources contradicting your arguments on its behalf. But as I said, I had intention of focusing on insurance.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
So you're basically saying single payer is the opposite, Which is what I argue for, Again no SP I know doesn't have private options for insurance. But you're claiming I didn't defend my stance properly. I don't know how to respond to this.

To claim that services are possible to buy without insurance is true. To claim that they oft are is nonsense. Otherwise, Most people wouldn't have insurance. We all try to stay within what our insurance covers. Plenty of people may want elective procedures but can't afford them. To claim that insurance isn't a perfectly acceptable way to discuss distribution//access to healthcare services is a nonsensical position. You're free to bring up statistics on what percentage of people with insurance receive health services not covered by their insurance if you want, But any necessary procedures that aren't covered by insurance are again part of my argument for being 'underinsured. '

Your arguments on not making an insurance debate and trying to word your way out of it with the title are misplaced. Really, Is the only reason you don't want to debate insurance because you know the optimal option in this regard is SP which goes against your axiom of 'free market is always best? '

The only reason to not engage in an insurance discussion is because you know you will lose.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
In the beginning I informed you that there was a difference between public option and single payer. A public option describes the government competing as a supplier against private options. Single Payer describes government mandate and its assuming control of the entire industry. The public option isn't necessarily antithetical to my position. Single Payer however is necessarily antithetical to my position. That however does not mean that my position is informed by insurance, Since insurance is not the only means in which one can access or distribute health services. And the government doesn't necessarily have to provide insurance; it can impose price ceilings much in the same it does with rent (i. E. Rent control. ) So while acknowledge that as the contender you must argue to the contrary, Single payer wasn't the only antithesis which could've been submitted. Ultimately you assumed I'd argue on behalf of insurance.

Truth be told, I would never argue on behalf of any insurance scheme private or public.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
The antithesis of complete free market control is government control. I don't know what position you would expect me to defend if not for SP/PO.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
Every debate I've engaged has taught me something--even just a modicum. I learn something about my opponent's style of argument; I learn something about my own style of argument; my approaches and where refinement is necessary. With that said, There are standards, I sustain as timeless. That is, Lay out one's premises; submit arguments; support arguments with evidence and/or rationalization; substantiate conclusions. I've always followed, I do follow, And I will always follow those standards. And the guideline in Round 1 is mnemonic of said standards.

Now perhaps you did not understand the proposition. Perhaps you thought that we were going to argue the merits of a health services industry with private insurance in juxtaposition to one with public insurance. But I chose my words carefully. I worded the proposition as such to avoid sensationalizing the subject with demagoguery. Unfortunately, My efforts were in vain.

I'm not seeking your "apology"; I'm seeking intellectual honesty. But I suppose at this point, It's "crying over spilled milk, " so to speak. As for an appeal to motive, Your characterization does not substantiate the fallacy. An appeal to motive is one where the thesis of an argument is qualified using the "intentions" or "motives" of its proposer. Which thesis did I attempt to qualify using your motives? I identified your frequent appeals to the judges, Which you took no effort in hiding, And characterized it as an attempt to "win internet points, " an idea of your own conception by the way. This is entirely different from your characterizing my arguments against the AMA as a "rant" because you allege that I "dislike" the AMA, Despite my mention of no such sentiment.

Maybe another opportunity will arise where this subject can be debate properly, Where the subject is the actual focus, Not the image of debate. Until then, Godspeed in your future debates.
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
@Thoht

Another thought-provoking and deep debate by thoht. I understand you are a very humble person and don't try to win debates but try to seek the truth and truly I respect that. However, I still can't get over the powerful arguments and deep statements you make on some of your debates. You truly are awe-inspiring.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
I only hope that one day you come back and read this after some number of months or years and see how much you've grown from this point in time.

I'd be overjoyed if I was proven wrong. I'd love to come back in a year after some growth and see that you actually had points that I wasn't able to see as I am right now. I'll readily apologize to you if that time comes.

Until then, I won't apologize for any statements I've made. I only speak the truth as I see it.

Were you not the one to say don't appeal to motive? I've never asked anyone for a vote on a debate unless the debate had clearly been bombed. I win nothing from internet points.

I am only disappointed with myself that yet another person I've debated with thinks the free market is the best market for all things with no justification for that statement, But I can't force you to analyze your opinion deeply if you truly don't want to.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.