ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

If we grant T-12's premise of 25% waste in government enterprise, we must weigh that against the 10% return on investment expected of corporate enterprise. That money goes to the shareholders, not to the public, so it's still money down the toilet as far as the patient is concerned. Add to that the exorbitant salaries drawn by CEOs in the private sector and you have a fairly comparable "waste" component in the administrative costs. Now consider that the uninsured avoid seeking treatment for all but the most serious illnesses. The lack of preventive care very often results in healthcare costs that are many times what they would be if a more holistic (health-based, rather than illness-based) approach were taken (which is impossible for the uninsured). The result is that uninsured patients get expensive emergency treatment, the cost of which gets passed along by the hospitals to all the other patience. This ends up being a taxpayer-funded approach whether we like it or not. Since the government is already involved, it's worth noting that the only thing more corrupt, wasteful, and inefficient than a government agency is a private enterprise with a government contract. If you compare the current cost per person of "taxes plus private healthcare" to what we would pay in taxes under a single-payer system, there's no doubt in my mind that the single-payer system will save us money. Even if it didn't, I feel it's worth paying more to cover everybody instead of only those who can afford it.

ulysses | 09/14/08

Youngdem, I enjoy the fact that you have once again started to debates frequently on this site. I believe T-12's argument is flawed, he is assuming that we have a corrupt government, and if so, the spendings should be reformed, not simply ignored.

strongleader | 09/15/08

T-12's argumentation is not flawed. Although I have the utmost respect for this nation corruption still exists. The United States is one of the least corrupt governments in the world according most watch dog groups world-wide. But corruption still exists and to deny its existence and on a wider scale human tendencies is to pull the wool over your own eyes. T-12 cites most especially in his arguments what a universal healthcare system would entail empirically: higher taxation, inefficiency, superfluous exspenditures and deficit adding gouges. Every single nation that has ever espoused a universal healthcare system has encountered these problems and most importantly, has yet to assuage their disasterous effects. The universal healthcare system espoused above also does not reform federal expenditures at any level and f anything would exacerbate problems that exist in the status quo. Furthermore, when T-12 argues against your esteemed associate theyoungdem he does not in fact arge in support of inaction, merely against the proposed aforementioned plan. To be in negation of an action it should not be assumed that negative speaker is in defiance of any and all affirmative action, to do so is to incredibly ignorant and in defiance of the very ideals of which this great nation was founded.

Brutus42 | 09/15/08

A quick side note, YoungDem has copied and pasted parts of his arguments from various websites. I also find a big difference between the private sector having stocks to the government merely taking the taxpayers money. The main difference is that because healthcare companies are privatized, the citizens are able to get into the shareholding and see a return. Whereas with government, there is no chance of this happening. (unless we are talking bonds, in which case it is more of an IOU, something that wouldn't be feasible when talking about Universal Healthcare.) The single payer system isn't more efficent or cheaper by any means unless you fall well below the poverty line. This is because there are numerous types of insurance that cost very little (catastrophic health insurance comes to mind.) Finally, a morality question, do you want your money to be going to help those who willingly broke the law, and used drugs that have harmed themselves and possibly others in the case of driving while under the influence of aforementioned drugs.

TMinus12 | 09/15/08

A big problem with universial health care is the waits that come with it. England has Universal health care. Their wait time for transplants and surgery are much longer because everyone else needs the same thing and everyone else has the same health care. Universal health care is important. But we need to find a way to run it with out cause these kinds of problems

AppleFritter | 09/15/08

Welcome to elephant-donkey, TMinus, you simply noticed one of many characteristics of the members of the notorious trio of youngdem, donkeydude, and usa pitbull

weareallequal | 09/15/08

This is one of the first debates I read on this site, I'm a big universal health care supporter. I hope youngdem expands on that last sentence of his second rebuttal, because it is the actual crucial reason why universal health care is needed.

thinkagainplease | 09/15/08

Take away brutus's multifarious vocabulary, and you obtain a futile attempt to sound intellectual in the field of universal health care, lol. Taxation would not increase if other things were done and got rid of, other social programs being disbanded in order to make room for health care. Live in a third world country, and our government will seem perfect.

strongleader | 09/15/08

The concept of Universal Healthcare sounds great but the truth is that our current system supports millions of businesses, countless jobs and advances medicine at an incredible rate. Where does one think the money will come from to support such a thing? Obama seems to think we can all be taxed enough to cover it but what are we going to do for all the jobs lost, companies collapsed? Honestly I wish the focus was on fixing Social Security and Medicare where desperate help is needed right now.

eman | 09/15/08

Universal Healthcare is a necesitty. Do you know where the capital of autmaking is in North America? Ottawa, Canada. Why? GM moved huge manufacturing opperations there because the cost of healthcare per employee was $16,000 and in Canada it was $600. The arguement that there would be a flood of people into the system is cold and inhumane and un-American. We don't want to give Universal Care because too many people would use it? That is the stupidest arguement I have ever heard. Hospital emergency rooms have turned into these people primary care physicians. The cost to these hospitals have caused most of them to become unprofitable. The Hospital in my home town has been taken over 3 times in ten years. Electronic Medical files, Synergies in one operation by Federalizing your healthcare, the bargainging power of a single carrier that represents the entire population would keep drug cost low, medical bills that were guarenteed to be paid would make hospital more profitable, employers freeing up funds paid toward medical bills of employees increase their profitability and the attractivness of the american worker, increase producivity, federal malpractice insurance for doctors would increase the numbers of doctors in the US since they wouldn't be spending a majority of what they earn on insurance,...........shall I go on with the benefits. European Models don't fully work. Neither does Candian. We are the most innovative country in the history of the world, are you telling me we can't make it work?

Paparune | 09/15/08

Socialized health care is wrong. I've debated this ad nauseum, so I'll let y'all hash it out. I'm more interested in weareallequal's comment about "the notorious trio of youngdem, donkeydude, and usa pit bull." Old wounds heal hard, eh, WAAE? It's funny how POST, err WAAE, err P&L--is still upset that (s)he got caught. Keep up the good work! :)

USA Pit Bull 63 | 09/15/08

Socialized health care is NOT wrong. Not only have so many other nations been able to do it (duh......), but we already have a socialized school, police, hospital, and fire-fighter system (if not perfect or anything, but still government run). Why can't we add one more thing? And besides, isn't health care a major necessity? If you get some disease that destroys your body little by little and its curable, why let money get in the way (and why let someone go along in pain for so long while eventually forcing him/her to lose his/her job and job productivity)? There is nothing more sad than realizing that you will never again be able to do something you once loved to do. This cannot continue. And about the high taxes: Denmark has very high taxes (personal income tax is like 48%) and yet is the happiest nation on earth, according to a recent poll. Now isn't that something? (HINT HINT PUNCH PUNCH KICK KICK!!!)

Your God(ess) | 09/15/08

Did someone actually just try to support socialized health care by comparing it to the fire-fighting system? (When was the last time people were on the waiting list for fire assistance?) Did someone actually just ask, "Why can't we add one more thing...why let money get in the way"? Did someone actually just throw in, out of nowhere, this line: "There is nothing more sad than realizing that you will never again be able to do something you once loved to do. This cannot continue"? And last, did someone actually just say high taxes won't be an issue because, "according to a recent [nameless] poll," Denmark has a 48% tax rate and is "the happiest nation on earth"? Wow.

USA Pit Bull 63 | 09/15/08

Pit Bull what a pleasant surprise. I would have thought you would flee. I might have stopped debating, but I never stopped reading debates. You, youngdem, and donkeydude were pretty harsh to POST. youngdem will lose this debate, just you wait

weareallequal | 09/16/08

My word...it seems as youngdem has a new fan...strongleader

weareallequal | 09/16/08

Ha, so you're already guaranteeing that you'll fix this vote tally, too? ;)

USA Pit Bull 63 | 09/16/08

Please don't I was on a good winning streak.

theyoungdem | 09/16/08

Just a little note that most countries do NOT pay 50% income tax, infact this is the income tax bracket for Canadians who have very good socialized healthcare. 15% on the first $37,885 of taxable income, + 22% on the next $37,884 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $37,885 and $75,769), + 26% on the next $47,415 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $75,769 and $123,184), + 29% of taxable income over $123,184. Denying healthcare to Americans yet pummeling hundreds of millions of dollars of aide to other countries is illogical and inhumane. Taking care of our country's people is what seperates us from a 3rd world country.

LouDobbs4Prez | 09/16/08

I had no health insurance for 4 years and now I am 8k in debt. Its not my fault I cannot afford insurance and my crappy employer does not provide it. You conservatives, dont know what it is like to struggle. You dont know what real problems are. There are other things that need to be nationalized with the same amount of urgency as the health care system. We need a national power grid that runs on wind and solar. We need a revolution is mass transportation. We could develop all of these things with the money we have already spent on killing women and children in Iraq.

ReVoluTionNow! | 09/16/08

You shouldn't have settled for that "crappy employer." Hey, at least you can afford a computer and Internet. Perhaps you don't know what it's like to fight hard and not settle for less than what you deserve.

USA Pit Bull 63 | 09/16/08