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

I understand why some American publications criticize the Canadian health-care system, but as a Canadian, I have a first hand account of the system, and I must say I love it and am proud of it. The wait times are slightly longer than if you are a millionaire in the US, but I would rather wait another 30 minutes than be hit with a 50 000 dollar medical bill. Without rights, people have nothing, and the right to good, affordable medical care is indispensable in the 21st century. Also, only about 10% of our GDP is invested in Medicare, and this creates many good paying long term jobs for our citizens.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

SOMEONE pays that bill. Medical care must be provided by, and/or paid for by someone.Something that must be provided by someone else, cannot be a right, unless the service of others is considered a right. Is the service of others a right?If so, by what rationale? To what extent?How do you resolve this conflict with property rights, specifically, the right to own oneself, and the product of one's labor?
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

Yes, Medicare does cost money, but the fact is, people WANT Medicare. Canada is a democracy and the minute any elected official starts talking about privatizing Medicare, their popularity ratings plummet and they usually loose the next election. The same story is usually repeated in other countries with Universal Health-care.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

So, instead of paying for their own care, people vote for others to pay for it. :)
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

In a way yes, but you must realize paying taxes is a lot better than getting a 50 000 dollar medical bill. These taxes also go to other things like infrastructure, education, etc. :D
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

only for the guy who would get the bill. For all the people paying his bill, it kinda sucks. :)
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

Everyone, without exception, needs medical attention at a certain point in their lives, this is why we do not mind paying marginally more tax. Plus this tax is higher for a number of reasons besides Medicare.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

If you want REAL reform, there are several better ways to go about it. We could remove the AMA monopoly on the licensing of doctors. The monopoly is implemented at the state level, and so must be repealed there. This would increase the number of doctors and medical schools available, reducing the cost of both care, and the education for getting a medical degree..100 Years of Medical Robbery " In the days of its founding AMA was much more open--at its conferences and in its publications--about its real goal: building a government-enforced monopoly for the purpose of dramatically increasing physician incomes. It eventually succeeded, becoming the most formidable labor union on the face of the earth."source: http://mises.org/daily/1547We could encourage state legislatures to remove the protections on local insurance markets, by allowing competition across state lines. This allows more competition in the insurance market, lowering insurance costs.We could require the prices of procedures to be posted in health care venues, so that consumers could shop around for the best prices.We could allow everyone to deduct all the income spent on health insurance from taxes, remove the tax exemption from employer health plans and reduce the payroll tax. This encourages the employer to pay more and for the employee to buy their own insurance, independent of their job.We could make it easier to open tax-free health savings accounts, increase the limits to save and allow all money spent on medical care to be deducted from taxes.These are just a few suggestions, any of which would go further to actually reducing costs, than the ACA will.I'm sure I'll think of three more, right after I hit "submit" :P
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

I will admit, universal health-care will only work if there is an effective and efficient programme in place. However, privatization will not work and here's why. Like it or not, businesses care about one thing, the bottom line, and if it takes laxing back care, or taking un-safe shortcuts to increase the bottom line, they will do this. Yes, some companies ''take care'' of their customers, but this is just business, and if throwing those same customers in a ditch would increase the bottom line, those companies would do that as well. Also, what you out-line is a good idea, but it is not a permanent solution, eventually nepotism and money-mongering will take over and the whole system will turn into a private bureaucracy. You must remember examples of countries with successful universal health-care systems, and I realize that in the US Obama care is turning into a disaster, that is because of poor leadership and an un-believable national mess.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

What is the marginal tax rate in Canada, including VATs, etc.?Enforcing the contracts prevents companies from mistreating those customers who actually read the contract before signing. Those who don't read the contract, deserve what they get. eventually nepotism and money-mongering will take over and the whole system will turn into a private bureaucracy.Not if they want to stay in business. If you mistreat customers, you competitor will gladly take them from you, in a free market.I realize that in the US Obama care is turning into a disaster, that is because of poor leadership and an un-believable national mess.Yup, Obamacare is just the latest of the messes, starting with the federal reserve act, all with the goal of protecting the public, or helping the needy, but all having the opposite effect.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

In Canada, we pay a 13% sales tax on everything, and then we pay an income tax depending on income level, and then there is a property tax which is determined by the municipal government. Not too many people complain about tax here, it's usually because it goes to things like Medicare, education etc. Yes, I do think we pay a bit more tax then our American counter-parts, but most of us realize that we have a population of only about 34 million, so we don't mind paying slightly more. And on the competitors in privatized health-care, I would say you are correct for the first few decades of operation, but after those decades are up, one or two of the corporations would become so powerful, that a bionopoly or monopoly would form.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

I prefer Stefan Molyneux's demonstration, but i can't find it in a pinch. Here is a good one by Rand, that explains the difficulties of forming monopolies. Clip is cut, but the relevant information is there.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE9NGOgdrIo
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

This demonstration has valid points, but if we take an historic look to this, we can see clearly that monopolies exist/ existed in free market societies. http://www.ehow.com/about_5522004_history-illegal-monopolies.html Also, binopolies are much more prevalent. A binopoly is when two corporations control everything in their market demographics and tend to match each other in many ways, i.e. Bell and Rogers, or in the US, Northrup Grumman and Lockheed Martin
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

In Canada, we have Bell and Rogers. They are a binopoly. Yes, there are other smaller telecommunications companies, but they rely on Bell and Rogers for the telecommunications infrastructure; these companies are also routinely attacked by these companies in the form of attempted hostile takeovers. Also, most of these Monopolies were during the 20th century. Now there is widespread corruption, so a monopoly is possible.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

In Canada, we have Bell and Rogers. They are a binopoly. Yes, there are other smaller telecommunications companies, but they rely on Bell and Rogers for the telecommunications infrastructure; these companies are also routinely attacked by these companies in the form of attempted hostile takeovers. Who prevents them from putting in their own infrastructure?Government protected monopoly."Given Canada’s relatively small market, it’s often asserted that Canada’s telecommunications industry falls under Mises’ category of a natural monopoly created by geographical constraints. But this ignores the fact that foreign ownership is restricted by the Telecommunications Act. Remove these limits and we wouldn’t have to worry about the price gouging of big telecommunications companies. For what we have right now, to use Mises’ words, is monopoly interventionism. "source: http://mises.ca/posts/blog/stay-out-of-internet-pricing/ Also, most of these Monopolies were during the 20th century. Now there is widespread corruption, so a monopoly is possible.Corruption by lobbying government for favors? That is not part of a free market.Corruption as in fraud?That is theft, and is properly punished by government as a violation of property rights.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

So you're arguing that monopolies happen in Canada because we are ''a small market''. Bu this logic, a health-care monopoly would be possible in Canada. this is why we need Medicare.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

No, I'm arguing that the binopoly you cited, presumably as evidence that monopolies tend to form in a free market, is actually enabled by the protectionist policy of the government of Canada. This also supports my assertion that coercive monopolies require the intervention of government to be maintained for any length of time.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

The fact that services cost resources is not an opinion. It is a fact. As to It being cheaper in the long run, Economics says different. If you reduce the opportunity for profit in a good or service (G/S) then you have fewer individuals willing to supply that G/S. If you lower the supply, you increase the cost. Whether that cost is in actual money, through taxes, or in quality or time, as a nationalized HC system does ( http://mises.org/daily/4719 ).As to the morality, It is not the function of government to dictate morality. Government is, by definition, a political entity. Morality is, by definition, a social construct. To have government dictate morality, is to have government control society (people) and not the other way around. This is a very dangerous road to travel and , historically, has NEVER ended well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust)
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Godwins_Law  You broke Goodwin's law. You now forfeit the right to win this argument. This happens when people mention Hitler or Nazis in an argument that has nothing to do with Hitler or Nazis.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

Point is valid. it is an example of a negative outcome of government dictating morality. I stand by the reference.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

62.1% of all U.S. bankruptcies in 2007 were related to medical expenses. That is not helpful to the economy. You do not need an economics degree to see that.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

And the high cost of medical care is due, in large part, to government interference into the market for care. Nationally, this is in the form of Medicare and state Medicaid subsidies, and on the state level in the form of the legally enforced monopoly on medical licensing granted to the AMA.Medical insurance being connected to one's job, is also a result of government capping wages, and removing taxes on benefits, incentivizing employers to supply Health insurance in lieu of wages; government interference.The rest of the high cost is due to the "third party' payment system of the insurance companies, and the way that drugs are approved. People don't see, and thus care little, what their routine care costs.Government interference is the problem, It cannot, also be the solution.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

your health care isnt free my friend. Just because they bundle in health care costs in your tax bill doesnt make it free. US citizens who are fairly healthy pay a MUCH lower rate than you do. Canadians pay on average close to 4000 per person per year thru taxes for health coverage that doesnt include prescription drugs or dental; both of which has to be paid for thru a private insurer. My health care is about 1800 a year thru my employer. Plus, I dont have to wait weeks to see a specialist like Canadians do. The wait time is awful. Canadians are brainwashed into thinking they get free health care. Unless of course they dont plan on working their entire life.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

You're brainwashed into thinking that free-markets are the solution to everything. You cannot tell me that I am wrong about what goes on in my country because I live there and you do not. Canadians choose not to accept 50 000 dollar medical bills, so we pay a bit more tax to our very efficient Medicare system. Please note: this tax is not higher just because of Medicare, we also have a small population, so we need to pay more per person. Also, the wait time in Canada is not as bad as you depict it to be. At least we do not have to die because we cannot afford to get our illnesses checked.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

It is here :)It's cruel to have essential things for those who can afford it only.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDbigrTb8bI Watch this video, and go to the website.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

Free health-care is necessary, so everyone in society can have equal opportunities.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

It does work, it's a matter of priorities in the system we currently have. Tax money could and should pay for everyone's hospital bills. There are things of lesser importance that gets much more government grants.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

What a contortion of liberty, to say that ones life depending on the arbitrary will of others is freedom.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

What a contortion of liberty, to say that ones life depending on the arbitrary will of others is freedom.That characterization is a contortion of the argument. Your argument implies that the inaction of one unjustly deprives another of his life. This implies that NOT providing another with property which is rightly yours, is the equivalent of taking that property from another. This is not the case.Freedom, and liberty is not "access to the resources of others", it is "using one's own means to effect one's own ends, without actively interfering with another's right to do the same". Not acting to help another is not the same as actively harming another.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

I think health care should be free, as the old quote goes (I cant remember who first said it) the mark of a civilized society is how well it treats it's weakest members, one of the weakest members being the sick and infirm
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

Everything should be free.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

Only things free are those that are abundant and require no human action to obtain them such as air or sun light. Everything else has value because it is a scarce resource; thus, since all human demands are potentially infinite, this must give these scarce resources value; therefore, supply and demand determine value.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

A crooked way of looking at it.Take the medium of exchange out of the equation and think logically for fuck's sake.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

Not crooked at all. Trade is impossible without an medium of exchange. How would anything be traded if nothing had value? Trade is exchange for value for value, and money is just the most effective method to trade. Trade is dependent on the exchange of scarce resources. Thus is why nobody trades air or sunlight, because it is free and no need for human action.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

Trade is unnecessary.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

Actually, trade is essential to prosperity and progress.--------
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

Actually, it is not.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

Name one case where society has prospered, where trade was absent.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

THIS WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE THIS EXAMPLE. Even the Soviet Union traded.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

And they also used money.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

Right, even the Soviet Union understood the importance of trade and money, but they just couldn't calculate.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

Wrong again. They were simply too greedy. If stupid people, people whose mental view is narrow and short and are immature of mind, have a choice of getting a lot of power and everything they could ever want you think they would let the change just go away? No, they would take it all and keep it until they can or until it occurs how wrong they'd been the entire time.Trade and money are worthless. It really does not take much to understand why. But then I understand why you, and many others, cannot understand it; humanity, you and many others included, is too stupid, or is too immature; moneyless society is far too advanced to be realized in current time, as is obvious.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

Unfortunately, this argument is going nowhere because you haven't given any reasons as how an system without trade or money would work except lame rheortic using terms like greed, stupid, mental and immature whereas as I have given clear reasons as why these are essential to human prosperity and progress.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

Then perhaps you should read my arguments again.You have given me nothing that shows how trade and money are essential. Neither can you, for the obvious reason that they are not necessary.Clearly objective thinking, at least in this subject, is not a strong aspect of you.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

Really, YUP, still nothing. Then perhaps, you should read my arguments again.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

That's the thing, it has never even been tried. Sure, there have been ideas about similar in the past, but always, every single time, greed got in the way.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

It wasn't greed that got in the way, it was the inability of any system but the price system to communicate the sheer volume of information about what resources should go where, and what (and who) should produce goods and services. There was a study that calculated the amount of time for several of the fastest computers on earth to determine the needs and demands of a relatively small group of people and commodities. The time to calculate was something like 3x the age of the universe. Central planning CANNOT WORK. No central authority can possibly have enough information about local and individual conditions to calculate your needs as efficiently as you communicate them through the price (in money, time and labor) you actually pay for resources. The modern central banking system has removed a small part of that communication system (by setting interest rates) and has virtually destroyed the US economy.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

It wasn't greed that got in the way, it was the inability of any system but the price system to communicate the sheer volume of information about what resources should go where, and what (and who) should produce goods and services.This is just so narrow-minded.What resources go where comes from demand. You do understand what demand is? Some people wanting or needing certain resources, they send their order to the right place from where the resources are delivered. Money has nothing to do with anything in this process, even though currently it is attached to all of it, slowing things down and giving extra work.Your view of reality is very messed up, you literally do not even know how presently things work. People and their needs determine how much of something is needed, not money.Central planning CANNOT WORKWho the fuck has been talking about central planning?!?! I have not. You're extremely biased, you cannot think objectively because of it.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

To support the sheer number of humans on earth, it is. Unless you advocate starving 99% of the population, then trade is necessary.Even with trade, when the world was largely agrarian, it took 99% of the population producing foodstuffs to feed 100% of the population. The specialization that trade enables has allowed us to feed a vastly larger percentage (99%) of the population with a vastly smaller labor force (1%).
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Free Health Care

To support the sheer number of humans on earth, it is. Unless you advocate starving 99% of the population, then trade is necessary.Are you kidding me? Products will always be produced for the people. You think not being able to acquire food to stay alive because there simply is no money to buy it is not starving to death? As I said, the products will always be there, ready to be used but presently they will only be used if they are paid for. What is the point of making something if it will not be used? What is the point of making something right now just to have it lie somewhere for years until it finds a use? All the while there are people who need it, but can't because they do not have money.Money has nothing to do with population control. If you haven't noticed then the number is increasing and conditions are getting worse.Also, how could there be starvation if everything people need is constantly being produced to be used by the people for free?Even with trade, when the world was largely agrarian, it took 99% of the population producing foodstuffs to feed 100% of the population. The specialization that trade enables has allowed us to feed a vastly larger percentage (99%) of the population with a vastly smaller labor force (1%).You literally do not know what you are talking about. This, right now, is the present not the past. That which was in the past does not apply anymore, or are you saying humanity is still as stupid? A large portion still is but not as much.
Debate: Health Care Should Be Free
Side: Pay to Live

>>"Products will always be produced for the people....Also, how could there be starvation if everything people need is constantly being produced to be used by the people for free?"Who is producing these products?Why are they producing the products?How could they be produced without trade?How could they get from producers to consumers without trade?>>"You literally do not know what you are talking about. This, right now, is the present not the past. That which was in the past does not apply anymore, or are you saying humanity is still as stupid? ..."I am saying that neither human nature, nor the laws of supply and demand have changed. The only way to take advantage of the increased efficiency of production, afforded by the division of labor, is through trade. And that the most efficient way to trade is with a commodity medium of exchange, which has been spontaneously chosen by the mutual consent of the traders in the market.