azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

I have to start by saying I'm slightly biased. In Europe we all enjoy a universal right of access to health care. Offering free health care (among other things) to the impoverished may help them in the short term when they are ill, but it hurts them in the long run by keeping them down- it does this both by removing an important motivator for successI don't see not providing health care as significant motivator. I presume you recognise it is not significant in itself either when you added 'among other things'.I find it extremely hard to imagine that someone would be more likely to choose not to work in a society that offers free health care than those that do not. "Oh I should really get a job to in case I get cancer this year - nah fuck it its alright I'll just rely on the public health system". Then again I tend to believe than when people don't work it isn't entirely down to their choice either. Very few people are truly happy not working.siphoning off resources that could be used to create more career opportunities, mass transit infrastructure, and educational subsidieThe USA (its citizens) spends far more on health care per year than any other country. (University is also extremely expensive compared to anywhere else).There is no reason to suggest the country would be worse off as a whole if there was public health cover. If you set the prices that hospitals could charge for treatments based on its costs, cut out insurance companies, there would be a lot less money drained from the pockets of the citizens either through tax or through their own spending.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

The USA (its citizens) spends far more on health care per year than any other country. (University is also extremely expensive compared to anywhere else).This is false. You guys pay through taxes, but don't count it toward your overall bill.There is no reason to suggest the country would be worse off as a whole if there was public health coverThis is coming from the guy who says that everything America does is fucked. You think healthcare will magically be done right if done the way you suggest?
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

This is false. You guys pay through taxes, but don't count it toward your overall billThe hospital charges the government in the UK. In the USA, the hospital charges an individual or private company. Comparing those two figures, hospitals charge more in the USA.I was talking about spend per individual.This is coming from the guy who says that everything America does is fucked. You think healthcare will magically be done right if done the way you suggest?That's true.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

The hospital charges the government in the UK. In the USA, the hospital charges an individual or private company. Comparing those two figures, hospitals charge more in the USA.I was talking about spend per individual.And you pay a percentage of your income every year to cover the costs the hospital charges. You pay more. Paying every year covers a lot more money.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

The money spent on average per person per year is much higher.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

In the UK because it is a portion of your pay every year.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

No. Look. Imagine in both countries you take 5 people at random. There is more or less the same rate of disease. 2 of these people need to go to hospital. These two people pay 10k for treatment each in the USA and the state pays 1k each for the same treatment in the UK. The other 3 people in the USA pay nothing and the other 3 people in the UK pay 1k. Therefore in that year the average spend per year is 5k per person in the USA and 1k per person the in the UK. This is the figure I'm talking about about. The USA has a spend per year per person higher than any other country.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

First, your math is bad 20K for 5 people is 4K on average. Second, there is no reason to think those numbers are accurate. I could use the same problem and change your random numbers to make it work in my favor. Every time numbers are discussed the amount paid in taxes is left out.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

In which case the cost per person would be close to 0 for many european countries. The statistics take into account the cost to the state of the hospital and consequently the taxes. More is spent (by the people) on health care in the USA than anywhere else in the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listofcountriesbytotalhealthexpenditure(PPP)per_capitaper_capita)
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

I have to start by saying I'm slightly biased. In Europe we all enjoy a universal right of access to health care.Health care is not free even in a country with access to free health care. By allocating a percentage of the tax into providing a health care, they are losing funding on another area. There is always an opportunity lost to any decision.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

I think that you are with who lost this right !!! but it still should be free
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

Well said. I agree, Dr. Atrag. .
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

YUP .
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

It is his point of view ... !!! .
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

May not be the best but I can assure you the NHS ent doing to bad hunny. However it does depend on what this person means, does he mean that the whole lot should be free or the medication/surgery/services should be offered for free.In England (my apologies if your from England you probably already know this) we pay our NI which covers the basics of health care for the British public. We don't need to pay every time that we are taking somewhere in an ambulance and a basic surgery doesn't cost a fortune.They still need to do some work on getting more funds to the NHS but it does work!
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

I'm from the US, though I enjoyed my visit to the UK a few years back thoroughly.It's a working model, though a brief bit of research does seem to indicate that the program is a net loss at least on some years. (I know, wikipedia- I'll try to read up more on your system when I have a chance, I'm not as well versed on it as I should be.)The problem with implementing a similar system in the US is scaling it up to cover our entire population across our entire nation. If all else were equal, the logistical costs in the US would still exceed those in Britain by a generous margin. All else is not equal, however- and its our own fault. The cost of health care has been cranked up to ridiculous levels due to our choice to make it a part of the 'free market' (to an extent at least). As such, the government covering the entirety of the cost via subsidies would represent a massive burden on our government compared to that of the UK. Compared to that ~£90 billion (around ~$110 billion at the then exchange rate) that the UK spent on 2012, the US spent ~$2.7 trillion. If you compare our GDP from 2012, We have Britain at roughly $2.4 trillion, and the US at roughly $15.7 trillion. If you work that out to percentages, in 2012 Britain spent just under 5% of their GDP on medicine, whereas the US spent just over 17% of our GDP in the same year. That is a HUGE amount to subsidize, and simply not practical without massive regulation of pricing within the health industry before any kind of national health care could be implemented. And herein lies the problem; Pharmaceuticals, Insurance, Hospitals, etc represent large lobbies within our political system that would more or less preclude our ability to enforce such regulations.At least in 2012, the income the UK received from NI still wasn't quite enough to cover your actual health spending- I don't have data on other years at this time unfortunately- and the US would need to charge more than triple the percentage of our GDP- this is compounded further by our current and standing unemployment rate, as well as all of the legal loopholes exploited by the affluent to avoid paying their share.The mess is entirely our fault, and is such that a simple solution to this is all but impossible at this stage.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

Yes , of course they still need it !! .
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

Not everyone can have a higher education. We can't all be doctors and laywers. We need people who will do the lower class work - like cleaning and that sort of work, and also middle class work like teaching and stuff.Don't they deserve a proper medical care, since they are needed in our society?
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

Not everyone can have a higher education. We can't all be doctors and laywers.Prove it.Who says that not everyone can have a higher education? Higher education is not limited to doctors and lawyers. Just about every field either flatout requires or stands to benefit significantly from higher education.We need people who will do the lower class work - like cleaning and that sort of work, and also middle class work like teaching and stuff.No, we don't need people who will do the lower class work. Name a single job that 1) Neither requires nor is benefited by higher education and 2) Cannot be performed by machines and computers.Middle class work, such as teaching 'and stuff' does, in fact, require higher education even now. Higher education also isn't limited to college/university. Technical schools are higher education. Apprenticeship programs are higher education. Becoming a Master Plumber or Electrician, for example, require a mixture of education and experience that many university degree programs don't even come close to.Don't they deserve a proper medical care, since they are needed in our society?Nobody is entitled to anything simply by virtue of existing, and I don't believe we have an actual need for unskilled labor. If we're going to talk about what people deserve, then doesn't every taxpayer deserve a sizeable piece of land, a nice house, and a wide selection of foods that are both healthy and delicious, simply by virture of their contribution to society?Your skepticism also assumes that everybody who is offered higher education will be able to take full advantage of it- this is not the case; even amongst those who qualify, there are numerous individuals who drop or fail out of university. Limiting the accessibility of higher education to the affluent does a disservice to our entire society, as there are intelligent individuals who lack the affluence to seek higher education, as well as a rash of individuals taking higher education for granted and drinking/smoking their way through college until they drop out.You also have ignored my suggestion that we improve our infrastructure, including mass transit- these in and of themselves both create new career opportunities and make existing career opportunities accessible to individuals who otherwise would not have a way to make the commute.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

Prove it.If everyone has a higher education, who is going to sit by the cashier? How are you gonna buy your stuff? Who is going to clean the hospitals, schools, shops and other public places? No one would ever get a higher education, and use it to clean.Without the low class jobs, high class people would be pretty annoyed pretty soon.1) Neither requires nor is benefited by higher education and 2) Cannot be performed by machines and computers.Cleaning hospitals - hospitals need to be carefully sterilized. You need to get into every corner and clean, and I'm pretty sure they use people to ensure this happens.Cab drivers, waitressing, and up in the north you need people to shovel the snow off the roads. Maybe the cashier could be replaced by a robot, but I don't really know how that would work. How could they ensure people just don't run off with their stuff? Dustmen, delivery and mailmen.In a shop you often need people to guide their costumers - if I am in a shop that sells beauty products, I might have a couple of questions in what to buy. You don't need any education to be in a beauty shop, and a robot won't ask me which color fits me the best.Also people who work on sea - you need people who are willing to clean and serve food. Here where I come from, you don't need to have any higher education to get a job as a dekchand, for example - deckhands are in every ship, and they can't be replaced by machines.Middle class work, such as teaching 'and stuff' does, in fact, require higher education even now.No - it can, but you can easily become a teacher without a degree in teaching.For example you don't need to have a degree in order to be an art teacher in elementary schools.. If we're going to talk about what people deserve, then doesn't every taxpayer deserve a sizeable piece of land, a nice house, and a wide selection of foods that are both healthy and delicious, simply by virture of their contribution to society?Yes, and that is how it works where I come from - It is illegal to be homeless.You also have ignored my suggestion that we improve our infrastructure, including mass transit- these in and of themselves both create new career opportunities and make existing career opportunities accessible to individuals who otherwise would not have a way to make the commuteI don't have a comment on that, simply because I don't really understand what you're suggesting. You are welcome to explain with words I can understand, if that is even possible.body is entitled to anything simply by virtue of existingI don't think it's a question about whether we're entitled to anything, but .. rather how we can imporve our circumstances. I don't see why a hard working cleaning lady at wallmart is less entitled to health care than a lawyer who sits on his ass everyday - just because the cleaning lady's work is less valued in money, doesn't mean it doesn't have value at all. I bet we would miss them if every single one of them got a higher education.By the way - what do you think is wrong with a system like the one we use in Denmark?
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

Self checkouts, or completely automated checkouts.Shops aren't just checkouts - who would put the products on the shelves?Furthermore, not everyone who is given the opportunity for higher education will pursue it. Not everyone who pursues it will succeed.So what's your point? We should spend 20 years of our life in school, not get a job and no money for health care?Personal annoyance among the higher class does not constitute a reason to oppress the lower class financially. They should and would get over it.Yeah, I'm sure you're gonna love it when the shelves in your grocery store are empty, because the staff got higher class jobs.There are, even now, self-driving cars.They are invented, but they are illegal in most places.Also who would bring you the pizza when you want it delivered? Sure the car can drive itself, but can it drive to the door, ring the bell and take the money?this type of thing could become a real careerNo it couldn't. Telling me which mayonaise I should buy could not become a higher education career.So, what? If you don't have a home, you get locked up, deported?No, you get a home. I am suggesting that a lawyer is no more entitled to health care than the cleaning lady is- that is, neither is entitled to it at all.Well, as you said in your orignal argument - health care costs money, which the lady at walmart doesn't get - at least not in the same amounts, which is stupid. You can't say someone is equally entitled to something, but then say they need to have money to get it.Hard to say- I'm not particularly familiar with Denmarks system, but I am interested. Could you point me at some good resources for it?http://medicolink.dk/welfare-system-in-denmark http://medicolink.dk/welfare-system-in-denmark You said in your original argument, that health care is not free, the government will pay, and the government is dependent on taxes from citizens.But with a welfare system you pay about half (give or take, depending on how rich you are, and where in Scandinavia you live) in taxes, but thus get everything else free. You will of course have less money - but imagine the hospital bills, braces for your kids, college and all that is going to cost you? If you add everything you would get free in Denmark, but wouldn't in America, for instanse, it would in the end be cheaper for the average paid person - the one's who will pay more are of course the one's who got more money to pay, and then there are people who make a really really low salary, they will of course not pay nearly the price they would without welfare.With the welfare system, we've made a law, that says you are done working when you turn 67. You can work if you want to, but only a certain amount of time (certain amount of paid time) If you get paid over the limit, then you lose your pension.I think that is a really good law, because people who would like to stop working when they're old should have the oppurtunity to do so, without going banktrupt.In my opinion, the bill will be sent to the citizen no matter what you do - but with a welfare system, the bill will be low if you are poor, and high if you are rich.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

More machines. In fact, stores themselves could be redesigned and likely condensed in size if they weren't designed under the premise that humans would have to be involved in every single part of the chain.I doubt all these machines are cheaper than people.My point is to make education accessible to everyone,What's the point if everyone's dead of cancer before they even afford medicine?Current legality is not a factor hereOh okay? I really don't see why that ain't a factor.suppose instead the store kept a couple nutritionists and graduates of culinary school on hand? Better, more thorough advice.I can read that myself on the product, I wanna know what tastes better. A machine can't taste.Why is either of them entitled to expensive medical treatments without covering the bill for said treatments?By putting a price on it you are automatically saying someone is less entitled, because they have less of what you are asking in return.Health care benefits people while they are sick- but education benefits people whether they're healthy or sick,What if they're health makes them unable to get an education? Mental disability, or some kind of physical maybe?
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: No

I doubt all these machines are cheaper than people.You'd be wrong. It's $15k + taxes to employ someone at minimum wage, full-time, for one year. That's just wages, not taking other costs into account. I doubt there are many jobs that a person can do that can't be replaced by a machine that pays for itself in 1, 2 years tops.What's the point if everyone's dead of cancer before they even afford medicine?How many people are being cured of cancer in the current system? How many of those are fit for work during their treatment? Just how high do you think the cancer rate is?Oh okay? I really don't see why that ain't a factor.Because something being illegal now is not, in and of itself, a reason for it to continue being illegal in the future. Were that the case, slavery would still be common practice throughout most of the developed world, and womans sufferage would still be all but unheard of- not just in the US, but again, throught most of the develped world.Driverless cars are currently illegal due to a number of laws that involve the driver/operator specifically, a lack of support infrastructure, and the fact that the technology is still new. Any new car, regardless of whether it involves a driver or not, is not street legal in the US until it meets specific legal conditions- an individual can build his or her own car from scratch, but will not be allowed to drive it without some laborious inspections. If we're to treat current law as being sacrosanct, this entire line of discussion is a waste of both of our time, as free health care itself is not yet the law in the US.I can read that myself on the product, I wanna know what tastes better. A machine can't taste.Did you miss where I said a nutritonist and a graduate of culinary school? Said graduate could advise you not only on the taste, but also make recommendations as to what types of meat, cheese, etc pair well with it. It's exactly what you're asking for.By putting a price on it you are automatically saying someone is less entitled, because they have less of what you are asking in return.No. By putting a price on it we are acknowledging that a given treatment requires resources that are in limited supply and also the investment of a significant amount of a medical professionals personal time, both in actually performing the procedure and in attaining the education needed to know how to perform the procedure.By making healthcare free, you are saying that the value of the resources and effort involved is zero.What if they're health makes them unable to get an education? Mental disability, or some kind of physical maybe?I'd of course advocate benefits for those who are actually disabled. I never said I didn't. What I'm opposed to is universal free health care.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

You'd be wrong. It's $15k + taxes to employ someone at minimum wage, full-time, for one year. That's just wages, not taking other costs into account. I doubt there are many jobs that a person can do that can't be replaced by a machine that pays for itself in 1, 2 years tops.Can you support this with some sources of what a machine like one to put stuff on a shelf would cost?How many people are being cured of cancer in the current system? A lotAnd cancer isn't the only disease out there. There are tuns of diseases that will kill you without medical care - like pneumonia.Because something being illegal now is not, in and of itself, a reason for it to continue being illegal in the future. Okay, so we should also think about killing people, because the fact that it is illegal now is irrelevant?By putting a price on it we are acknowledging that a given treatment requires resources that are in limited supply and also the investment of a significant amount of a medical professionals personal time,And those supplies are apparently more entitled to rich than to poor.By making healthcare free, you are saying that the value of the resources and effort involved is zero.We're not making it free - we're splitting the bill between every citizen in the society, not equally, but a fair amount of your payment.What I'm opposed to is universal free health care.Why?
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free ?
Side: Yes

Okay, let's forget everything for a second, and let me ask you this; What are you going to do with 7 billion higher educated people? Where would they work? What would they do?By replacing everything with robots you are killing billions of jobs. With your system you are going to end up with 9 billion starving, sick and probably a lot of dead people. But hey, at least they have a higher education, right?I would also like to comment on this;How is a fair amount of payment not equal? If I've put the time and effort in to increase my earnings, why then should I have to pay more? If I've not bothered to do so, why then should I get to pay less?Fair is never equal. You are giving money more value than they actually have. With your argument, you are basically saying those who can't afford medical help shouldn't get it - which will lead to a severe loss of population. What you are doing is giving money more value than human life, and that in itself is stupid.People who earn more pay more so the one's who can't don't have to pay as much - that is fair to me, maybe not to you. It is not like these people ''don't bother'' to earn more. Some people can't.a flat tax is something I would support, but isn't realistically going to be passed with the current culture in the US.We tried the flat tax, and the only thing that would result is the everyone getting less. The rich wouldn't get what they get now, and the poor wouldn't either. Everyone was unhappy with that system.