"Resolved: That the United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system."
As you may or may not know, that is the resolution for public forum debate for November. I will be debating this weekend and I have no cases! I need to write a con case.
So can you guys help me out? Why should the united states not implement a healthcare system modeled after the french.
Research the French System, research the Swedish System, research why Stockholm is proof that the market does a better job than government bureaucrats, and finally research what caused health care prices in America to rise (Hint: LBJ's great society). Also research Mussolini's Health Care plan. After all of that the cons should start rolling out. You'll be hard pressed to find a pro other than the fact that it's cheap (until you look at the Stockholm experiment teehee).
Look at most of the McCain campaign sledging about Obama being a "socialist" and that will give you an effective, though rather unreasonable, argument.
I would think you can win this argument by making it about (stereotypical) "American ideals", where everyone who works hard gets ample health-care through their employers and those that "don't work hard" get no health care. You quickly go from comparing the health-care system to comparing pure capitalism and pure socialism (probably implying that we don't have any socialism in our society, which is false), and thereby start talking about how the United States's ideals are superior to those of the Soviet Union. IMO its a pretty weak argument without any further evidence but if you can get to the last point and put the first few out of everyone's minds it can be effective. Though you might be kicked out by the moderators LOL.
McCain, he (Barack Obama) said, will soon "be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten."
Barotix wrote:Research the French System, research the Swedish System, research why Stockholm is proof that the market does a better job than government bureaucrats, and finally research what caused health care prices in America to rise (Hint: LBJ's great society). Also research Mussolini's Health Care plan. After all of that the cons should start rolling out. You'll be hard pressed to find a pro other than the fact that it's cheap (until you look at the Stockholm experiment teehee).
It's only cheaper for the individual if he can afford it in the first place. And healthcare of any quality is better than no healthcare at all. Giving everyone the right to healthcare (and those willing to pay, better healthcare) is just.
Barotix wrote:Research the French System, research the Swedish System, research why Stockholm is proof that the market does a better job than government bureaucrats, and finally research what caused health care prices in America to rise (Hint: LBJ's great society). Also research Mussolini's Health Care plan. After all of that the cons should start rolling out. You'll be hard pressed to find a pro other than the fact that it's cheap (until you look at the Stockholm experiment teehee).
It's only cheaper for the individual if he can afford it in the first place. And healthcare of any quality is better than no healthcare at all. Giving everyone the right to healthcare (and those willing to pay, better healthcare) is just.
I guess the con can argue that we may be getting some healthcare rather than none, but yet since almost 43 million Americans are uninsured they will all go swarm to take advantage of this new "free" healthcare causing lines and delays and other problems along with unnecessary deaths. but that will be debating outside of the resolution at a margin.
so dom what you're saying that if we can provide that there are other better universal healthcare systems out there better than the french's then we should seek them instead of the french's. or are you saying that they all suck. havent taken time to research them : P
Barotix wrote:Research the French System, research the Swedish System, research why Stockholm is proof that the market does a better job than government bureaucrats, and finally research what caused health care prices in America to rise (Hint: LBJ's great society). Also research Mussolini's Health Care plan. After all of that the cons should start rolling out. You'll be hard pressed to find a pro other than the fact that it's cheap (until you look at the Stockholm experiment teehee).
It's only cheaper for the individual if he can afford it in the first place. And healthcare of any quality is better than no healthcare at all. Giving everyone the right to healthcare (and those willing to pay, better healthcare) is just.
I guess the con can argue that we may be getting some healthcare rather than none, but yet since almost 43 million Americans are uninsured they will all go swarm to take advantage of this new "free" healthcare causing lines and delays and other problems along with unnecessary deaths. but that will be debating outside of the resolution at a margin.
so dom what you're saying that if we can provide that there are other better universal healthcare systems out there better than the french's then we should seek them instead of the french's. or are you saying that they all suck. havent taken time to research them : P
I'm saying the right to life is a fundamental right that is acknowledged in almost all countries of the World. For arguably the most advanced nation in the World to not even be able to provide for its citizens is a joke.
For arguably the most advanced nation in the World to not even be able to provide for its citizens is a joke.
I didn't realize it was the role of the state to provide for it's citizens. We did just fine before LBJ, and we'll do just fine when LBJ's programs fail. Private practitioners just want to help people. Doctors, before LBJ, worked things out with their patients (customers). If someone couldn't afford a check-up then the doctor did it for free or took a large sum off. Yes, this really happened. Hell, there were even some hospitals that worked off of donations alone. There still are, but these hospitals are quickly faltering. Once the state wishes to provide something to everyone shortages occur and free market practitioners along with patients get the shaft.
How about everyone gets the same Health Care and those that can afford paying pay. Those that can't will get all kinds of discounts.
See New Zealand's healthcare system.
will do.
Last edited by Barotix on Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dom wrote: It's only cheaper for the individual if he can afford it in the first place. And healthcare of any quality is better than no healthcare at all. Giving everyone the right to healthcare (and those willing to pay, better healthcare) is just.
I guess the con can argue that we may be getting some healthcare rather than none, but yet since almost 43 million Americans are uninsured they will all go swarm to take advantage of this new "free" healthcare causing lines and delays and other problems along with unnecessary deaths. but that will be debating outside of the resolution at a margin.
so dom what you're saying that if we can provide that there are other better universal healthcare systems out there better than the french's then we should seek them instead of the french's. or are you saying that they all suck. havent taken time to research them : P
I'm saying the right to life is a fundamental right that is acknowledged in almost all countries of the World. For arguably the most advanced nation in the World to not even be able to provide for its citizens is a joke.
See New Zealand's healthcare system.
NZ copied AUS Damn sheep shaggers. Usually we take their ideas/inventions and claim them as out own (Pavlova, Phar Lap etc), this time they copied us I swear
Why should the united states not implement a healthcare system modeled after the french.
Damn sheep shaggers. Usually we take their ideas/inventions and claim them as out own (Pavlova, Phar Lap etc), this time they copied us I swear 
