A just government should provide health care to its citizens.
Debate Rounds (5)
I would like to start out by giving a few definitions. The definition of healthcare according to merriam-webster.com is; efforts made to maintain or restore health especially by trained and licensed professionals. Government according to dictionary.com is; the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration. A citizen is a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection. (dictionary.com)
My value is justice. Justice is the quality of being just; righteous; or having a moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause. My v.c is maximizing justice. Because I want to stress the fact that justice is only fair. We as a government are obligated to uphold the safety and wellbeing of our citizens, because if we don't protect them who will.
My first contention is that the government does have a moral obligation to the people. And knowing this we should be willing to do everything in our power to uphold it. Like I mentioned before if we don't take care of our people who will? Jonathan Cohn wrote "I DON'T WANT America to begin rationing care to their citizens in the way these other countries do." All Jonathan wants is the best healthcare he can get. He doesn't want our government to follow the crowd he wants us to be different to be more unique after all we are the United States of America. So why not give him the best healthcare that we can provide. No we won't be perfect at first but at least we can say we tried, and are still trying to provide not only Jonathan but all of our citizens with the best possible health care. So by upholding our duty to the people we are not only strengthening our government but are making our citizen happy which should be what we are striving for. Jonathan is not the only person suffering from not having good health care. Different women around the world got together and made a blog expressing their situations. For example there is a 55 year old lady who suffers from Migraines. She's been diagnosed with an episodic type rheumatoid arthritis. She has a bad back and a hysterectomy...ALL making her uninsurable on private insurance UNLESS her employer covers. The same lady's husband is 62 and has suffered from depression and is totally managed with medication and just went through renal failure 2 years ago… out of work for 6 months. He is now uninsurable. The lady said; "My boss has been covering us on a small business plan that was not so great at $1000 a month for each family (his and mine). Last year it was raised to $2000 a month per family (TWO PEOPLE) on a business policy! We had to cut benefits. Now for $1500/mo. We have a $5000 per person per year deductible. With no dental, vision and prescription at $50 PER prescription for ONLY generic. They will not cover any new drug at all....Those migraines? I get 9 pills a month allotted by the insurance. NINE PILLS - 4 headaches worth. If I need more? It is $306.50 for 9 more! I cannot afford to go to any doctor since my co-pay is $50 per visit. I haven't had more than a 20 cent raise in 5 years because of my healthcare policy. My boss cannot afford both. So they are killing me and killing his family too." This is just one of many people who have suffered from having little or no healthcare; as a government who is supposed to assist people in every way possible needs to do their part in assisting these people with getting healthcare.
My second contention is if we don't listen to our citizens then we will end up like those overseas. Sure everyone would have insurance but when it comes to simple healthcare we would have none. Meaning that people would have to wait hours just to be seen by a doctor who isn't that qualified. This would cause our citizens to die faster. From the years 2000-2006 137,000 people from the ages 25-64 have died from the lack of health care or being uninsured.(https://docs.google.com... ) and just recently in 2009 CNN did a story about how 45,000 American deaths associated with lack of insurance. If we as a government were doing what we were supposed to do the number of people dying from a sickness that can be cured wouldn't be as high. Like I've mentioned before we have a duty as a government to keep our people safe. That includes making sure that they have the best healthcare that we can provide. But finally "…after a century of striving, after a year of debate, after a historic vote, health care reform is no longer an unmet promise. It is the law of the land. (Barack Obama) by this being one of top priority's now our people won't have to worry as much about dying from a simple cold, or even the chicken pox.
I accept the debate and I thank the opponent for picking such an interesting topic. I am actually on the fence about this issue. Perhaps this debate will allow me to learn enough to take a defined stance. For the purposes of this debate, I will argue against the resolution. My starting points shall be:
dancerchick2015 forfeited this round.
This is very poor form. I'm not restarting the debate. If you wanted this debate formatted, you should have noted this in the resolution. Please forfeit the rest of the debate if you don't plan to finish. A missed round is excusable, the garbage that followed...is not. Finish or forfeit please.
Argument extended to next round.
dancerchick2015 forfeited this round.
Opponent has forfeited. Please vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.