Challenge Match: Whatukno vs LDragonFire: Government Loan Sharks in the Health Care Industry?

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
The topic for this debate is "Should The Country Force Health Care Professionals to Work for a National Health Care Program as Part of Paying Back Their College Loans?"

Whatukno will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
LDragonFire will argue the 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.

Character limits are no longer in effect. You may use as many characters as a single post allows.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

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 two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

Responses should be made within 24 hours. One single 24 hour extension can be used by a member by requesting it in the thread. If 24 hours passes without response, you may proceed with your next post. Members who exceed 24 hours run the risk of losing their post, but may still post up until their opponent has submitted their next response.

This is a challenge match. The winner will receive 2 ranking points, the loser will lose two ranking points.




posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 08:58 AM
link   
"Should The Country Force Health Care Professionals to Work for a National Health Care Program as Part of Paying Back Their College Loans?"

Thank you MemoryShock for setting up this debate, as soon as I saw this topic in the pub I absolutely wanted a chance to speak about this issue. I would also like to thank my opponent LDragonFire for (1) Thinking up this topic and (2) for being gracious enough to get this topic set up.
 


Health care professionals have to receive schooling for the carrier paths they choose. Often this schooling requires that the individual receive a loan in order to pay for tuition for the college that these soon to be professionals will receive. Afterward, the newly trained health care worker goes to a private practice, hospital, clinic, or other office to begin work (depending on the kind of schooling that the individual received.) They then work to pay off their student loans. It’s simple, straightforward and, status quo.

The AMA Reports:

Student debt statistics

• $139,517 – According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the average educational debt of indebted graduates of the class of 2007. The average debt of graduating medical students increased in 2007 by 6.9 percent over the previous year.
• 75.5 percent of graduates have debt of at least $100,000
• 87.6 percent of graduating medical students carry outstanding loans
Source: AAMC 2007 Graduation Questionnaire



Meanwhile The U.S. Census Bureau reports, in the US… 34.4 million people are uninsured, 34.4 million people in the United States do not have health insurance. Making it impossible to get quality health care for them or their children.


Health Insurance Coverage
Overview
• The number of uninsured children increased from 8 million (10.9 percent) in 2005 to 8.7 million (11.7 percent) in 2006.
Race and Hispanic Origin (Race data refer to those reporting a single race only)
• The number of uninsured, as well as the rate without health insurance, remained statistically unchanged in 2006 for non-Hispanic whites (at 21.2 million or 10.8 percent). For blacks, the number and percentage increased, from 7 million in 2005 to 7.6 million and from 19 percent in 2005 to 20.5 percent. The number of uninsured Asians remained statistically unchanged, at 2 million in 2006, while their uninsured rate declined to 15.5 percent in 2006, from 17.2 percent in 2005.
• The number and percentage of uninsured Hispanics increased from 14 million (32.3 percent) in 2005 to 15.3 million (34.1 percent).
• Based on a three-year average (2004-2006), 31.4 percent of people who reported American Indian and Alaska Native as their race were without coverage. The three-year average for Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders was 21.7 percent.
Nativity
• Between 2005 and 2006, the number of U.S.-born residents who were uninsured increased from 33 million to 34.4 million, and their uninsured rate increased from 12.8 percent in 2005 to 13.2 percent. The number of foreign-born who were uninsured rose from 11.8 million in 2005 to 12.6 million, and their rate was statistically unchanged at 33.8 percent in 2006.
Regions
• The Midwest had the lowest uninsured rate in 2006, at 11.4 percent, followed by the Northeast (12.3 percent), the West (17.9 percent) and the South (19 percent). The Northeast and South experienced increases in their uninsured rates — their 2005 rates were 11.7 percent and 18 percent, respectively.
States
• Rates for 2004-2006 using a three-year average show that Texas (24.1 percent) had the highest percentage of uninsured. The rates for Minnesota, Hawaii, Iowa, Wisconsin and Maine were lower than the rates of the other 45 states and the District of Columbia. The rates for these five states were not statistically different from one another.
• Fifteen states had an uninsured rate that was statistically higher than the national rate of 15.3 percent, while 29 states and the District of Columbia had rates statistically lower than the U.S. average. Six states had rates that were not statistically different from the national average.


This number has increased from the last report. This shows the US Health Care Crisis is indeed a problem.
 


How to solve this problem
Seems to me we have a solution that would benefit all parties involved in one simple sentence. The health care professionals would themselves by working Pro bono publico to an extent of course. People do have to live and I do understand that. However in this debate I will show how through simple economics a universal health care package can work, and at the exact same time, health care professionals can work, make a living, and pay off their student loans.

I will show that through a mandatory pro bono publico rotation on doctors that have existing student loans. Along with subsidies paid for by the government. We can offset the problems in the health care industry and give each person in this country quality health care that they sorely need.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
"Should The Country Force Health Care Professionals to Work for a National Health Care Program as Part of Paying Back Their College Loans?"

I would first like to thank MemoryShock and all the other Fighters and Moderators for all there hard work in both participating in the best debate forum on the net and for all the hard work that goes into these Debates, and of course all the free booze!!!!
I would also like to thank Whatukno for another opportunity for a Debate, that I hope will be both informative and challenging.

Opening Statement
One way to form a National Healthcare Network would be to expand existing programs that would allow you to pay off your student loans by working in this future National Healthcare Network. It is my goal to show how this would not be a good idea. It is my opinion that this would result in government bureaucracy and the lack of personal healthcare attention for the individual.

The first pitfall I think of is a National Healthcare Network made up of freshman doctors and other healthcare professionals who lack real world experience, so one would have to wonder about the quality of care there patients would receive.

Another problem I think of is the shear cost of such a program, in effect the government would be paying off student loans of healthcare professionals with interest, the costs in interests alone would be staggering and would call for massive tax increases to fund.

If you combine the inexperience and initial cost of the program, how much money would be left for care of the individual, to me the costs involved would result in standardized care that would be focused on caring for huge groups of people and not focused on the individual.

The last part of this system that concerns me is the massive amount of big government and red tape it would produce. Think of relating going to the doctor like going to your local Department of Motor Vehicle.

This program would also be unfair to other college loan participants. The government doesn’t help payoff loans for people that become nuclear scientists that work for NASA or any other engineering or other professionals that receive college loans and end up working for the government.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
My opponent does in fact raise some interesting questions. Questions that should be addressed with logic and reasoning…

The first issue is how to pay for this new incentive. I have been doing some research on this subject and it appears that our government budget is spent on a wide variety of waste. Things like subsidizing farmers to not grow corn for instance. I myself would rather see our taxpayer money invested in something that people do instead of paying people to do nothing.


But the United States is paying farmers not to grow crops on 35 million acres, to prop up the value of corn, he said, and much of that land could come back into production.

Source: N.Y. Times

It’s interesting that we pay farmers subsidies in order to control the price of food yet those food prices themselves are fluctuating and rising anyway. Not to mention the fact that now corn can be produced not only for food and feed but ethanol. It is time that this wasteful government spending program be put to better use.

And let us remember that wasteful spending in Washington results in hundreds of billions of dollars of waste spending each year. This money instead of going to worthless or needless pork barrel spending projects could be re routed to a national health care initiative.

Such a program is already been implemented in Iowa, this is the Federal Nursing Education Loan Repayment Program Repayment (NELRP)


Federal Nursing Education Loan Repayment Program Repayment (NELRP)
The Nursing Education Loan Repayment Program (NELRP) is a federal program that provides registered nurse recipients with loan forgiveness of up to 60% of their qualifying loan balance in exchange for 2 years of service at a critical shortage facility. Participants may be eligible to work a third year and receive additional loan forgiveness of 25% of the qualifying loan balance. While the amount of federal aid available nationwide is limited, funding has increased from $2 million to more than $10 million in an effort to counter the country’s short supply of registered nurses. Iowans are encouraged to apply.


So as we can see states themselves can also contribute to this program further offsetting the initial cost burden, making this idea not only fiscally feasible but beneficial and prudent, especially in this economy with such a shortfall of qualified personnel actually available for the job.

Managed by Medicare, this new national health care initiative would not create a new bureaucracy instead it would reorganize an existing entity in the government. Utilizing an agency within the government that pre exists and also exists to ensure people already this would only strengthen this department and allow them to better service Americans.

Unlike other professions, health care providers can and do keep our citizens healthy therefore enabling them to be productive members of society and thus increasing our GDP. While on the surface it would seem unfair for other professions until one realizes that those people in the other professions would benefit from this new initiative by the medical care they would receive free of charge.

New graduates in the health care industry would benefit from this by gaining much needed experience all the while their costly student loans would be differed and paid incrementally for a number of years while they worked. They would still receive a paycheck however part of that income would have been deferred to pay off their student loans and thereby relieving themselves debt and boosting this program.
 


By the Numbers:

Medical student loan debt averages out to about $100,000.00 per student. Multiplied by the number of physicians-in-training which has remained constant for 10 years now at 101,291, we get an approximate debt number of $10,129,100,000.00.

This could easily be paid off if we eliminate such wasteful spending practices like…

The federal government spends $23 billion annually on special interest pork projects such as grants to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, or funds to combat teenage “goth” culture in Blue Springs, Missouri.

Source:The Heritage Foundation

An additional $4,920,813,719.00 per year can be added to this budget simply by eliminating corn subsidies.

The money for this program is already being spent on pork barrel and other wasteful projects. By deferring this waste into a realistic and fiscally responsible plan each and every American can receive quality health care subsidized by the US government, and health care professionals can receive training and real world experience all without increasing the debt load on the US economy or any increase in tax revenue by US citizens.
 


The government agency already exists to handle this program. Medicare, an already federally funded program could be expanded to help more people receive the quality care that they deserve. All the while medical students can benefit from offsetting their student loans and also by differing some income to help support this new initiative they themselves can help pay their own student loans off while still making an income right out of school.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   
First Reply
Good post Whatukno, and you bring up some good points. Some of your ideas for financing such a program are very well thought out, and just makes since, but then again we are talking our government and it never is just that easy.

Altering the way the US Federal Government spends money in there annual budget could be a way of freeing up money for a National Health Care System however forcing doctors into becoming Medicaid or Medicare doctors might in itself be problematic. I don’t see health professionals staying for any real length of time, a year or two and most will be on there way to higher paying jobs this will run into the problems with inexperience and a high turn over rate reducing quality care. Forcing them to stay for a certain amount of time might cause many to choose another field of study.

Now lets discuss Medicare:


The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administers Medicare, the nation's largest health insurance program, which covers nearly 40 million Americans. Medicare is a Health Insurance Program for people age 65 or older, some disabled people under age 65, and people of all ages with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure treated with dialysis or a transplant).
Medicare


There is a clear separation here between Medicare and Medicaid, already two huge government bureaucracies, one aimed at people of and over retirement age and one aimed at low income. The basic problem I have with expanding these programs is to this point they really don’t work and they don’t provide the coverage needed to be healthy.

Medicare requires yet another government program for prescription drug assistance, and Medicaid doesn’t always provide full medical benefits such as vision or even dental coverage, I know this is true because my x-wife receives Social Security {SSI} benefits and she doesn’t have vision or dental coverage.

Question 1 I assume the goal of National Heath Coverage would be to provide Full coverage to all Americans?
_______________________________________________________________________
Now I’m going to attempt to show why it would Not be a good idea to force Health Care Professionals to Work for a National Health Care Program as Part of Paying Back Their College Loans.

You have shown us how the Federal Government could save thirty billion dollars a year in certain areas to free up money to help finance a program where health care workers could work off their student loan, working within a National Heath Care System.

Medicare currently has Forty million members and spends $396.3 million a year.



Now there are other costs involved more than just acquiring the professionals to work in the system, there are the hospital costs involved.



The photos are from usgovernmentspending.com
This is a grand total of $900 Billion dollars our government is currently spending on health care in American.

Now if we expanded this to all Americans plus with the federal Government paying 60% or more for student loans I just don’t see how it would be financially possible.

Question 2 How long would we require health care workers to work within this system?



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Physician, know thyself

Send in the interns. Typically a doctor leaving med school will of course have to conduct an internship at a hospital somewhere before being let loose out on their own. The sit com Scrubs does do a rather lighthearted take on this practice. A doctor will work underneath a resident doctor for a period of time before receiving a full license in order to practice medicine in the US, this is when a doctor could work as a restructured Medicaid/Medicare provider (remember a reorganization of this already established government agency is required)

That doctor would work for 75% of his normal salary, the 25% of his salary not collected would go to the fund to both pay off his student loans and to help fund the national health care initiative.
 



Question 1 I assume the goal of National Health Coverage would be to provide Full coverage to all Americans?


Answer: Not exactly, this would be for basic health care, preventative care, and emergency care only. Long term care and procedures that are deemed “elective” would have to be covered by additional insurance and or the normal routine Medicare/Medicaid system.

$ 1,203,770,037,587.00 would be the total amount that it would cost to insure every American for basic health care coverage. This number was derived from multiplying the average health care premiums given by About.com Health Insurance and multiplying that number by the US Census bureau 2007 estimate

Now the government automatically takes out a certain percentage of that gross income for Medicare tax already. That number based on the average US wage of 38,651.41 with 3 exemptions the Medicare tax taken out at the end of the year would be $560.56 (this of course is an average, some of course would pay more based on their earnings being more others it would be less) this number would add up to $169,076,755,767.92 far less than the 1.2 trillion dollars it would cost to insure all Americans.

$411,570,348,900.00 would be able to be allocated if the government would stop all wasteful spending.
An additional $1,358,000,000,000.00 is already being spent on such programs through the federal government.
As shown by this graph taken from usgovernmentspending.com Along with the spending they already are committing for Medicare/Medicaid we certainly would have more than enough to fund the program and help all medical professionals pay off their student loans.
 



Along with a contract between the government and pharmaceutical companies that would regulate drug prices this plan would not only be fiscally possible, its completely plausible and should be implemented. All the while no additional taxes would have to be raised.


Question 2 How long would we require health care workers to work within this system?


Only for the time that they were interning or paying off their student loans. It would be unfair to force every doctor to go this route, but those that are just starting out it would be a boon. An advantage to those starting out and an advantage for those that cannot afford health insurance. Also doing this would allow more people to go into the health care industry and thus alleviate the current problem with shortages.

The money for this initiative is already in place, It just needs to be allocated correctly.



[edit on 6-7-2008 by MemoryShock]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   
"Should The Country Force Health Care Professionals to Work for a National Health Care Program as Part of Paying Back Their College Loans?"
Second Reply

We can both agree that any type of National Health Care Plan would cost more money than most people can imagine. But you are attempting to justify spending Trillions of dollars on a plan that would be limited both in membership and care by creating a new Medicare type plan or expanding the existing one that does not work.


Question 1 I assume the goal of National Health Coverage would be to provide Full coverage to all Americans?



Answer: Not exactly, this would be for basic health care, preventative care, and emergency care only. Long term care and procedures that are deemed “elective” would have to be covered by additional insurance and or the normal routine Medicare/Medicaid system.

So this system of yours would indeed be separate from the existing Medicare and Medicaid programs? What about vision and dental coverage? With Medicare nursing home care is covered and is considered long term care.
Question 1 I want to know who would be covered by a National Healthcare System?


Canada has a national health care system, and each state or province has there own version of it. The USA version would most likely be similar and here lies just one more problem. In Missouri it is against the states constitution to change or alter a civil contract, and a student loan is a civil contract, so if this contract did not include in the deal that they would work off a portion of this loan within the system, the courts at least in Missouri would strike this portion of this law as unconstitutional. So if the Federal Government created a National Healthcare System that Forced healthcare professionals to work in this system it would spur legal battles all over the country thus adding to the already huge cost of such a plan.

So let’s say that in the end Missouri’s court ruling stood, then what? Would the government then start forcing these professionals to move into areas that medical coverage was needed?

I see medical unions, individual and groups of doctors all across the nation taking the government to court to fight the constitutionally of Forcing these professionals to work when, where and how the government tells them too. Without contracts before hand, there only choice would to have a volunteer program.

I also see lobby groups {like Pharmaceutical, and health insurance companies} in Washington fighting this all the way, thus rising the costs of this even more. Why did the recent prescription drug plan for Medicare did not get the right to negotiate with drug companies for cheaper prescription deals?

It is not advantageous for American Doctors and other professionals to have such a plan the Average doctor in America with a specialty makes twice what there counterparts in Canada makes.

You stated this:

$411,570,348,900.00 would be able to be allocated if the government would stop all wasteful spending.


Could you please show how you arrived at this number?



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Question 1: I want to know who would be covered by a National Healthcare System?

All Americans would be covered by this plan. From birth to death, the coverage would be there. Pooling existing resources under the Medicare/Medicaid system is the logical step in order to create a feasible national health care initiative. State and Federal entities exist already in a mismanaged and often confusing Hodge podge to provide these services, however if brought under the leadership of one agency, already established to help insure Americans that cannot insure themselves, this agency would have the means and the funding to be able to help every American have basic health care.


So this system of yours would indeed be separate from the existing Medicare and Medicaid programs? What about vision and dental coverage? With Medicare nursing home care is covered and is considered long term care.


No, this would not be separate from Medicare/Medicaid, this would be the result of a complete reorganization of the existing agency. In addition to the office of Medicare/Medicaid, further funding that already exists from Social Security would enable the assurance of long term care in the event of permanent disability and nursing home residency even through to Hospice care would be governed under the already existing agency if it were to be reorganized in the aforementioned fashion. As far as the complete details of the plan, I can only speculate that agencies already in existence that provide these services could be mandated under the Medicare/Medicaid entity and thus be able to provide a host of services to the population with their pooled resources this would be able to cover some vision and dental care.

Further boosting the income needed to fund such a program is already in effect, the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax This already funds both Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security and thus would help make this plan economically feasible.



Could you please show how you arrived at this number?


I simply added all the numbers from The Heritage Foundation to arrive at that number.


So if the Federal Government created a National Healthcare System that Forced healthcare professionals to work in this system it would spur legal battles all over the country thus adding to the already huge cost of such a plan.


Not if this was not grandfathered in, but pertained to only new applicants for medical school student loans. This therefore would be a new contract and thus not applicable by the previously mentioned Missouri law. This again would be a potential benefit for new doctors to be able to work, gain experience and all the while capitalize on a program that would enable them to work off their student loans. This would be a great help to those struggling after college.


I also see lobby groups {like Pharmaceutical, and health insurance companies} in Washington fighting this all the way, thus rising the costs of this even more.

I can foresee this as well, the rational idea would be that these Medicaid/Medicare professionals would prescribe more cost effective generic versions of prescription drugs. These versions while not having the same name as the name brand version of course are the same drug.

I can also foresee in this plan a strong enough congress to ignore big pharma on this issue. It would be in the best interests of big pharma to comply with this idea as to otherwise fight it would cut into their profits. This is because if this plan were to be implemented, millions of Americans that before were economically unable to go to a doctor, and get the prescriptions from that doctor filled would be able to. Besides the fact that this plan does not in any way shape or form force pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices or to otherwise cut into their bottom line.

As for health insurance companies, I can envision a partnership between the office of Medicaid/Medicare and the health insurance companies, lessening the burden on taxpayers all the while health insurance companies would reap the reward of a singular source of new customers. Slightly subsidizing health insurance companies for the return of backing Medicaid/Medicare with their corporate strength. Furthermore, health care providers could still sell more comprehensive coverage to customers that wish it. Still enabling them to gain customers and profits.

Companies could benefit from this plan because they would no longer have to pay the cost for a group rate plan instead it would already be taken care of. Companies may elect to further insure their employees with additional coverage.

It is not advantageous for American Doctors and other professionals to have such a plan the Average doctor in America with a specialty makes twice what there counterparts in Canada makes.

This is why this would only be a offering to new doctors out of med school. These doctors have much more to gain by having their student loans paid off by the government instead of paying it off themselves. This would also not be a permanent thing because doctors of course would want to make a competitive salary. So when the student loans are paid off, the doctor having fulfilled his obligations to the program could go into private practice or work at any hospital that they so choose.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   
"Should The Country Force Health Care Professionals to Work for a National Health Care Program as Part of Paying Back Their College Loans?"
Third Reply

I don’t know of one government run agency that is efficient, or that is held accountable for not running efficiently. Your link to the Heritage Foundation confirms this. I also don’t agree how you came up with the 411,570,348,900.00 figure the Whitehouse came up with $90 billion in waste and the Congressional Budget Office came up with $140 billion in waste I’m guessing they both found some of the same waste, so this figure you have posted is flawed. You think that our government can expand an already flawed agency to handle all of our nation’s basic healthcare needs, and you think it would be a good idea to force citizens to work within this system. I don’t agree.

Forcing people to work within this system to pay back there loans would be like being a share cropper or an indentured servant. Only the very rich would be excluded from this program as the majority of students do not attend college without government backed student loans.

This would create a moral problem with most of these workers, having to do there time in the system before they can begin there actual careers. The way it is now doctors leaving college have no problems paying there student loans, why would they want to change this. They have maximum wage earning potential, adopting this system would eliminate this potential.

It would be a system filled with younger less experienced personal and that equals substandard care system wide. Inexperience without proper guidance could and would prove fatal, or at least debilitating.

Generally speaking our government is not only very inefficient but often incompetent in the way money is spent and there doesn’t seem to be any accountability so to think all that would change because of just another big government program is wishful thinking, and it would Not be a good idea to turn over our healthcare system to them.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Closing Statement

"Should The Country Force Health Care Professionals to Work for a National Health Care Program as Part of Paying Back Their College Loans?"

I have hoped through this debate to have shown the following three points...

  1. Economics

    The money is indeed available to allow for health care professionals to pay back their student loans in exchange for a temporary assignment into a national health care program. This money would come from state and federal sources already in existence. This money also would come from the earnings of these professionals thereby making this idea feasible and economically prudent.

  2. Social Demand

    The demand for such a program from both the health care professional standpoint and the standpoint of uninsured Americans is there, both would benefit greatly from a national health care initiative alleviating pressures on people already struggling financially. An integrated health care network partnering with doctors nurses and government agencies would be able to cover basic health care for all Americans without the need to create a new agency, and without raising taxes.

  3. Desire

    This program has been talked about before many times, I hope to have shown mathematically how by cutting waste spending we can make a clear difference in the health care industry in this country. All the while not compromising any profits from pharmaceutical companies nor taking away any customers from insurance companies.



In Conclusion

The 1.2 trillion dollars needed to adequately fund such a program already exists. Allowing health care professionals to pay off their student loans in exchange for their work in the field of their schooling, allowing them to gain much needed experience and benefiting the public at the same time. I have hoped through this debate to have shown that this is indeed a possible and plausible plan able to be implemented.

The key to this plan is the reorganisation of an already existing government entity. A government entity that exists to help those with medical needs get the care they deserve. While not being completely comprehensive, this plan would insure basic health care for all Americans without the need to raise taxes or create another large government bureaucracy.


LDragonFire, I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate and again thank you for the opportunity to discuss this matter in detail.



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
"Should The Country Force Health Care Professionals to Work for a National Health Care Program as Part of Paying Back Their College Loans?"
Closing Statement

Originally posted by whatukno

  1. Economics

    The money is indeed available to allow for health care professionals to pay back their student loans in exchange for a temporary assignment into a national health care program. This money would come from state and federal sources already in existence. This money also would come from the earnings of these professionals thereby making this idea feasible and economically prudent.


The money to pay for health care professionals to pay back there student loans while working in a national health care system is indeed doable, what is not doable is a national healthcare system, the costs involved in this system are trillions of dollars a year and there is no way to finance such a program unless we raise taxes on a huge scale.


  • Social Demand

    The demand for such a program from both the health care professional standpoint and the standpoint of uninsured Americans is there, both would benefit greatly from a national health care initiative alleviating pressures on people already struggling financially. An integrated health care network partnering with doctors nurses and government agencies would be able to cover basic health care for all Americans without the need to create a new agency, and without raising taxes.


  • There is no demand for such a system from the health care professional they are a growth industry, you will not find any health care professionals laid off in this country, unless from there own incompetence.


  • Desire

    This program has been talked about before many times, I hope to have shown mathematically how by cutting waste spending we can make a clear difference in the health care industry in this country. All the while not compromising any profits from pharmaceutical companies nor taking away any customers from insurance companies.


  • There have been attempts to create a nationwide health care system since at least 1993, all have resulted in failure. I don’t think pharmaceutical companies or insurance companies would willingly help or join such a program, why would they, they are making record profits they wouldn’t want to change anything.



    In Conclusion

    The 1.2 trillion dollars needed to adequately fund such a program already exists. Allowing health care professionals to pay off their student loans in exchange for their work in the field of their schooling, allowing them to gain much needed experience and benefiting the public at the same time. I have hoped through this debate to have shown that this is indeed a possible and plausible plan able to be implemented.


    You are incorrect about the 1.2 trillion dollars, we are spending $900 billion dollars this year alone with only 40 million receiving Medicare and to say we only need another $300 billion to insure all Americans Plus pay off healthcare professional loans, plus actually provide medical services to all Americans, plus pay the prescriptions of all Americans plus pay for the hospitals, clinics and offices well truthfully at best estimates would only be a fraction of what would be needed to fund a National Health Care System for all Americans.


    The key to this plan is the reorganisation of an already existing government entity. A government entity that exists to help those with medical needs get the care they deserve. While not being completely comprehensive, this plan would insure basic health care for all Americans without the need to raise taxes or create another large government bureaucracy.


    Medicare/Medicaid is already a large government bureaucracy and as all other large government organizations, it is inefficient, and not that effective in giving the care to its members. Throwing money into this bureaucracy will not fix this problem; it will only cause much more red tape and would not address the individual medical needs. No one is happy being on Medicare/Medicaid.

    Thinking that we can force the government into spending our money wisely is just not going to happen. Thinking that we can effectively expand a already failed program to cover the needs of all Americans will not happen. The bureaucracy and the red tape involved with such a program is nothing like we have ever had, it would dwarf the IRS, the Social Security Administration, and would need more money than the Pentagon currently receives. This is a horrible idea, and the healthcare industry would throw there entire wealth behind making sure something like this never happens.


    LDragonFire, I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate and again thank you for the opportunity to discuss this matter in detail.


    I agree with you here, thanks for a well fought Debate, anytime you wish to debate any topic, I would love too.



    posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 12:06 PM
    link   
    Excellent work, gentlemen.

    We are off to the judges...



    posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 07:56 PM
    link   
    The winner by majority decision is whatukno.

    Excellent Work on both sides, Fighters.



    Overall, this was an excellent debate by both parties. Both were well researched and knowledgeable of the subject, presented their ideas clearly, and followed up with eye opening points. Neither, LDragonFire, nor whatukno, made a serious error in presentation, or facts, to my knowledge.

    Kudos to both for a job well done!

    That said, my vote goes the whatukno who stood positive, deflected the rebuttals with authority, and proved his points as listed in the opening statement.

    I've enjoyed this experience immensely.




    Well fought debate. Both whatukno and LDragonFire presented decent cases. Wukky gave a very good argument for why this program could be needed in his opening. He also provided a detailed economic analysis of how such a program could be funded. LDF provided the proper counter of the inefficiency of bureaucracy and he also brought up a good point in his opening of the fairness of such a program to other college grads.

    I also thought they both did a good job in defending/opposing the current Medicare/MediAid system in the US. I thought that whatukno provided the better argument for revamping these two organizations though. He also countered LDragonFire's argument's about the lack of experience of the doctors that would be in this new program.

    LDF's argument about Big Pharma and the Insurance industry was a good approach to take. Unfortunately, I felt he wasted this opportunity to hammer home his side. This for me would have been the best approach to take as there is ample evidence to show what kind of resistance/pressure that these two entities could force on the Government. LDF missed a chance with whatukno's statement of "a strong congress ignoring Big Pharma" to again tear down a main facet of his opponents side.

    Overall, I would have to give this one to whatukno. LDragonFire missed too many chances to poke holes in wukky's argument and put him on the defensive.. He had , like the monetary assessment, to rip apart wukky's side.



    posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 08:04 PM
    link   
    Congratulation Whatukno for a well fought debate, and just for clarification I agreed with Whatukno almost across the board for his case for this becoming a reality
    This can make it difficult to argue against something you believe in, but I agree after looking back I should have used the established industry against my opponent better, but we all live and learn!!

    It was a fun debate anyway and I look forward to the next debate or tournament.




    posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 09:29 PM
    link   
    LDragonFire, excelent debate, I found that your argument moreso supported and helped my position, asking the right questions proved invaluable for me to make my case in this debate.

    to you my friend for a well fought debate and an important subject that was facinating to learn about. Yes your points about big pharma and the insurance industry were well valid and hard for me to dismiss.

    This was a great debate I love doing these because I learn so much from them thank you





    new topics
    top topics
     
    2

    log in

    join