Round 1. Apothecary85 vs. Bigdanprice: Attack of the Bird Flu

The topic for this debate is "The Bird Flu Scare illustrates the desperate need for Nationalized Medicine in all Western Countries".

Apothecary85 will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Bigdanprice will argue con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words.

Credits or references at the bottom do not count towards the word total.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only one image and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you

[edit on 27-3-2006 by Nygdan]

In opening I would like to thank everyone for making this possible and wish everyone the best of luck and above all have fun, may the best man/woman win.

Nationalized medicine should be provided by the state for all of the people. Simply because if the state can take care of its people and keep them healthy then healthy people can work the economy and the various other sectors that make up a society. However, if a society cannot provide an equal chance for all its citizens to receive adequate health care then as a whole society runs the risk of collapsing in on itself, especially in wake of a possible pandemic. With the possibility of a pandemic sweeping the world, it would be faulty to turn a blind eye and not be prepared for what might possibly be the worst pandemic since the bubonic plague which claimed the lives of millions around the world. Thus it is wise to supply health care on the basis of an organized and nationalized system. Fortunately in Canada we are fortunate enough to have health care provided to us by the state, and most Canadians would agree that this is an essential service that we will gladly fork over our hard earned loonies and toonies in order for us to be kept in the best of health and reduce medical bills substantially. Nationalizing a system gives everyone an equal opportunity to receive treatment that means rich and poor alike, if we do not have nationalized health care, families who earn less will be placed in a very peculiar situation, as they may not be able to afford health care or treatment, thus if they are sick or injured they will not be able to be productive and good citizens, they may miss work, and an injury that goes on untreated or for that matter a sickness, it only gets worse without treatment. And now if we apply a scenario of a mass pandemic, one can deduce that without nationalizing healthcare we run the risk of not being prepared to effectively treat all of our citizens equally and only makes a bad situation worse, I’d like to explore one scenario if I may, lets say the bird flu does mutate and human to human transmission starts happening in western countries, many of our brothers in the United states might be worried that if someone in their family gets sick, the likelihood of everyone in that family and community around that person getting sick goes up dramatically. Now in the case of the United States which we know has privatized health care, that might exclude a poor income family from receiving treatment, left unchecked and untreated the virus could possibly spread rapidly over a wide demo graph especially in poor urban centers. Left untreated, we as a collective society run the risk of letting a disease ravage a population, which in turn would have a detrimental effect on the economy, which in turn if the economy collapsed then we may see society start to slip into a chaotic environment. Above all else it is wise to nationalize a health care system as it lets everyone have an equal opportunity to receive treatment, which in turn if we can provide health care to all then we will have a far less casualty rate. This in turn can help us to contain and prevent a pandemic from spreading further.

I, like Apothecary85, would like to take this opportunity to thank the debate organisers, and wish the best of luck to all those taking part:

This house believes: ‘The Bird Flu Scare illustrates the desperate need for Nationalized Medicine in all Western Countries’
The Argument against:
The Western world has been at the forefront of medical thinking for millennia, from Hippocrates to Jenner, we (the west) have driven to aid our fellow man, and over the years this has evolved into a set of different views on how to deal with the health care needs of the population. There are two main systems:

• National Healthcare
  
• Private Healthcare
  

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. There is little doubt that a system of Nationalized Medicine is of great benefit to the general public, for those who need the most basic medical care. However in the treatment of any kind of serious illness, it is woefully inadequate to meet the needs and demands of modern medical treatment. It has no benefit whatsoever in terms of an Avian Flu pandemic, as this would be dealt with on an emergency basis, with governmental strategies being put in place, indeed it would be dealt of more in terms of national security. The need for Nationalised medicine is neither desperate or indeed necessary.

A Private healthcare system allows, the patient to have a much greater control over their care, and access to more modern and effective treatments, rather than what the government can afford in a nationalised system. Front line services, such as emergency treatment, are still free, but instead of pouring your taxes into one huge pot for the government to dole out as they see fit, you with medical insurance, can access the best possible care, that is relevant to you. Just because a system is nationalised does not mean it is free, you pay for it with your taxes, and you have no say on how your money is spent.

With regards to a response to pandemics such as bird flu apothecary tells us:
‘And now if we apply a scenario of a mass pandemic, one can deduce that without nationalizing healthcare we run the risk of not being prepared to effectively treat all of our citizens equally and only makes a bad situation worse,’

This statement makes the assumption that emergency medical care is not free at the point of use, the fact is that it is free in both nationalised and private medical care systems, along with the fact that nations have separate strategies for major health care events such as Avian Flu.

In this debate it will be shown that:

• National Health is no better placed than Private health care to combat major health events such as Bird Flu
  
• The obvious benefits of a private system of health care, and how they out way the advantages provided by a National Health System. And how a private healthcare system does not exclude the poor, but infact benefits them.
  
• Individual stratergies of nations to combat major health events.
  

I look forward to hearing Apothecary85’s reply…

apothecary85 forfeits his response, bigdanprice, please prepare another response.

I would like to encourage Apothecary85, not to let missing the deadline, be a stumbling block to completing the debate. As a result I will not post my full response, instead I will outline my argument so far and will provide some resources so we can continue this debate in an fair fashion. The debate is sometimes more important than the information provided.

Avian Flu is not a new thing to the west, indeed it struck Britain in the early 1990s, and was relatively unreported. Granted there was not the human to bird transmission that we see now. World Pandemics are also nothing new, the Great Flu Epidemic after WW1 killed more people than the war, and yet without nationalised medicine, we coped. Today our medical treatment and technologies far surpass that of the 1910s, and is far better placed to handle epidemics. Indeed it is in Belgium, which has no real system of National Health, that the first vaccine for the first H5N1 strain is being tested as we speak. Indeed private medical companies who have more freedom to invest in new technologies.

Some background:

Source 1
There are 15 types of bird, or avian, flu. The most contagious strains, which are usually fatal in birds, are H5 and H7. The type currently causing concern is the deadly strain H5N1, which can prove fatal to humans.’

The World Health Organisations latest figures show that off a 186 cases of bird flu contracted by Humans 105 have died: Source 2

Source 3
TREATMENT
No specific treatment
Sanitary prophylaxis
a. Avoidance of contact between poultry and wild birds, particularly waterfowl
b. Avoidance of the introduction of birds of unkown health status into a flock
c. Control of human traffic
d. Proper cleaning and disinfection procedures
e. Practice an “all in-all out” system in the poultry farm
In outbreaks
a. Slaughtering of all birds
b. Disposal of carcasses and all poultry products
c. Cleaning and disinfection
d. Allow at least 21 days before restocking

This source shows that the current treatments for Bird Flu, concentrate on the birds themselves, which is a job for government agencies to deal with, Defra in the UK. It shows that whether you have a system of nationalise healthcare in your country, it doesn’t matter. In the event that bird flu arrives, it still doesn’t matter, as emergency treatment is free for all. So in fact those systems of Private medical care will be better placed to push forward the search for any care for the Human form, as they have independent money to invest in the search.

So the question comes to this which is better:
Nationalised Healthcare
Private Healthcare
A) to combat bird flu
B) for the general health of a nation, which we will begin to explore now:

For many this question comes down to an ideological point:

en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Source 4‘Although some view healthcare from an economic perspective as being no different from other products or services, others believe it has many characteristics that encourage government intervention or regulation……Healthcare professionals are bound by law and their oaths of service to provide lifesaving treatment.’

Whilst long this next article from Wiki, provides us with definitions of what countries actually use to provide medical care. Private medical care is rarely entirely private enterprise indeed they are more usually ‘public insurance systems’ There are a few models:

Source 5 ‘Social security healthcare model, where workers and their families are insured by the State. Publicly funded healthcare model, where the residents of the country are insured by the State. Sickness insurance model, where the whole population or most of the population is a member of a sickness insurance company.’
In almost every country with a government health care system a parallel private system is allowed to operate. This is sometimes referred to as two-tier health care. The scale, extent, and funding of these private systems is very variable.

Whilst there is an argument for government involvement in all aspects of care, governments will never be able to provide the level of personal care that private medical care can as a system of health. This will be explored in greater depth in the coming statements.

I invite Apothecary85 to step up and reply…

Apothecary85 has missed the deadline and forfeits the debate. Bigdanprice advances to Round 2.