The Instigator
KingDebater369
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Raymond_Reddington
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

DDO Tier Tournament: The United States ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Raymond_Reddington
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,093 times Debate No: 56001
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

KingDebater369

Con

Definitions:

Ought - used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.

Guarantee - a formal promise or assurance (typically in writing) that certain conditions will be fulfilled, especially that a product will be repaired or replaced if not of a specified quality and durability

Health Care - the maintenance and improvement of physical and mental health, especially through the provision of medical services.

Universal Healthcare - a health care system which provides health care and financial protection to all its citizens.

As agreed upon, my opponent may go first.
Raymond_Reddington

Pro



Universal Health Care




Introduction




It was previously agreed that this debate was not about Obamacare specifically. Therefore the chronology and all statistics will come from a perspective of before Obamacare. There are many strong reasons to believe that universal healthcare should be provided by the United States government. I firmly believe that the access to good health care is a right that no one should be deprived of.




Argument 1: Economic
The United States is one of the wealthiest, powerful, and advanced nations in the world. It would be fitting for Americans to lead the world in a revolutionary and inexpensive health care system available to all its citizens. Such a great country should not have 46.3 million people, 15.4% of the population, with no access to health care. But it does [1]. Not only that but the majority of industrialized nations, nearly all, have universal health care systems except for the United States [4]. The lack of universal health care is not superior in anyway. Take this graph for instance which compares the spending per capita and the life expectancy of several countries





The United States spent more on health care per capita than any other nation for a lower life expectancy. [3] More was also spent as a percent of GDP







http://www.commonwealthfund.org...




The US performs poorly in many other medical areas as well such as the infant mortality rate (http://en.wikipedia.org...). In 2007 health care spending in the US totaled 2.2 trillion dollars, about 16.2 percent of the economy [1].




As wages in the US have increased the costs of health care have been rising at three times the rate.


[8]

At least 62.1% of US bankruptcies were related to medical expenses! [2] The lack of universal health care is incredibly difficult to maintain and it would be absurd to attempt it when there is a viable alternative.




Argument 2: A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE
Turning to a Universal Health Care system is the greatest option to ensure average Americans have fair accessibility to healthcare at a cheap cost. It has been estimated that switching to a Universal Health Care system could significantly help the United States economy grow. This is achieved by reducing the cost of healthcare to Americans.



“The bottom line shows the projected path of real family income without reform. The higher paths show family income under different degrees of cost containment. Our numbers suggest that if we slow cost growth by 1.5 percentage points per year, family income would be about $2,600 higher in 2020 than it otherwise would have been. By 2030, it would be nearly $10,000 higher.”




http://www.whitehouse.gov...



This alternative is undoubtedly superior. When this nation is presented with two options, the first to maintain the current system with more spending and lower quality and the second with less spending and undisputedly higher quality, the choice is obvious. We have an obligation to do what is in the best interests of this country.
Argument 3: Healthcare is a Right
The Declaration of Independence grants all Americans the inalienable right to "life". The Preamble to the Constitution says the government's duty is to "promote the general welfare". The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights grants that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one's family, including... medical care." It is only logical that all these vastly important authorities would find it necessary to ensure all citizens have access to medical care. The right to "life" is best maintained when people can see a doctor when they get sick without the fear of going broke. "Promoting the general welfare" of citizens demands that they are not ruined by economic or physical disaster in the event someone in the family gets cancer. An incident like that is punishment enough without being forced to bankruptcy or not getting access to the care that is needed. The UN Declaration of Rights is explicit enough in its position on Universal Health Care.
Argument 4: Benefits to Society
Having greater access to cheap health care could actually decrease medical expenses in the US. When people are freer to go to routine checkups and physicals without the deterrent of extreme costs it is likely that fewer people will get sick. Not only that but with more of the population regularly seeing doctors, any dangerous outbreaks or diseases will be easier to contain. A healthier country could also increase productivity. Poor healthcare and shorter life spans is estimated to cost the US 65-130 billion dollars annually [6]. Many Americans fear leaving their jobs because they don't want to lose their health insurance. Having readily available insurance could encourage entrepreneurship by allowing Americans to pursue other interests without losing the insurance that was previously with their job. An increase in entrepreneurship would lead to an increase in jobs.
Conclusion
Overall the benefits from Universal Healthcare are to important, and the lack of Universal Healthcare is just detrimental to America economically and socially. The alternative is not efficient enough to justify keeping it. The choice is obvious: America needs a Universal Healthcare system.
[1] http://www.census.gov...
[2] http://www.pnhp.org...
[3] http://www.who.int...
[4] http://www.oecd.org...

[5] http://www.who.int...
[6] http://www.nap.edu... (*note- this will bring you to a site and it will ask you to create an account to download the book. Just click on the download link right under the buy link. Then click “I don’t have an account”, after that click “download as guest”. All you need is an email address to get this book for free.
[7] http://www.pnhp.org...
[8] http://www.health.state.mn.us...
Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater369

Con

This is my first ever tournament! I look forward to fun and exciting debate. May the best debater advance.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Let’s examine the BoP. In order for Pro to win, he must prove both of the following:

1. That universal health care leads to better outcomes (whether in financial or well-being aspects)

2. That the government is obligated to provide for health care

I only need to negate one of these points in order to ensure victory, and the first 2 contentions of my case will be adressing the second point. [To further streghnthen my argument], my last contention will adress the first point.


Contention 1:
Kant's Categorical Imperatives

Kant's Categorical Imperatives have two parts. The First Formulation and The Second Formulation.

Sub-Point A: First Formulation

"Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law... Perfect duties come in the form ‘One mustnever (or always) φ to the fullest extent possible in C’, while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form ‘One must sometimes and to some extent φ in C’ (Pg. 1)" [1]

In the first formulation, Kant tries to draw the distinction between Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties. Perfect Duties (not to kill, not to steal, etc.) must always be followed in order for social order to be preserved. On the other hand, Imperfect Duties are left for individuals to pursue. Even while Imperfect Duties may present a benefit to society, they cannot be mandated. Otherwise, individual autonomy would be violated. Health Care is an Imperfect Duty, because it is not needed to preserve social order, and thus should not be mandated.

Sub-Point B: Second Formulation

"We should never act in such a way that we treat Humanity, whether in ourselves or in others, as a means only but always as an end in itself."[2]

If the government were to disregard an individual’s autonomy and enforce and Imperfect Duty for the benefit of others, the government would have then undermined the humanity of that individual and abused them as a mere tool to achieve its ends. Although the impact on liberties may be less tangible and more difficult to measure, they are, of course, still very important. The Imperfect Duty falls to individuals to take care of their own health and decide for themselves whether they wish to purchase insurance. Thusly, the societal aims of the general good as well as individual liberties are balanced.

Syllogism for this contention:
1.The Government should only act to enforce the imperatives of Perfect Duties.

2.Universal health care does not meet the standard of a Perfect Duty.

Conclusion: Thus, the Government should not act to enforce universal health care.


Contention 2:
Nozick's Entitlement Theory

Sub-Point A:

"Essentially, what Nozick says is that if a person originally obtained a resource without violating anyone else’s rights, or from another person voluntarily, then he or she is entitled to it.... “everyone has some entitlement or claim on the totality of natural assets... with no one having differential claims. The distribution of natural abilities is viewed as a ‘collective asset’” [3]

Nozick believes that no one is entitled to another’s holdings or goods that were acquired by that person. He argued that the government should not be in the business of transferring someone’s holdings or goods (e.g. property, wages, etc.) to another who did not acquire the holdings or goods in the first place. From this, it is possible to conclude how he feels about health care that is provided through taxation of citizens. Nozick argued that any taxation imposed by the state in order to provide services or benefits to others is both unfair and unjust.

Syllogism:

1. Individuals are entitled to the things they have (as long as they did not infringe upon the rights of others to get there things)

2. Government should not be allowed take someone's things and give it to another person - since the person has acquired his things rightfully

Conclusion: If someone has healthcare, and is paying for it by holding a job and working, it is unjust for the government to take money from this person (in the form of taxes), just so that someone else can receive the same benefits without working.


Contention 3: Universal Healthcare is ineffective and lowers quality for all

Sub-Point A: Having universal health insurance does not equate to receiving quality treatment

"Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment.”[4]

Although universal health care systems may provide insurance coverage for all citizens, it does not guarantee accessible and quality treatment. This can be attributed to factors such as inefficiency in switching from free market operations to government determined supply and price, often leading to shortages. As demonstrated by the figures above, this can lead to unreasonably wait times or even denied procedures. Thus, a health insurance system can actually hinder the true goal of providing health care.


Sub-Point B: Government-paid health care creates an incentive to abuse the system

“The employee is better off to charge a $50 doctor bill to the insurance company—even if the [insurance] company spends $20 to process it—and have the employer pay the extra $70 in a higher premium to cover the bill and the processing cost. The alternative—having the employer pay [the employee] an extra $70 in cash– yields the employee only about $42 [because of federal income, social security, and Medicare taxes] and costs the employer $75.36 ($70 + $5.36, the employer’s portion of the social security and Medicare tax on $70).” [5]

This proves, with figures, just how the private market-public good interplay works out in US tax code. The fact that government health care is tax-negative enough to force action to the private sector, and then the actual cost of private sector action on the employer shows the inefficiency of the cost of gov't provided health care.

Syllogism:

1. Universal health care does not gaurantee quality treatment for everyone. This means that there is no net gain in well-being.
2. People that get free health care tend to abuse the system. This only hurts the economy as a whole.
Conclusion: We can conclude that there is no benefit in terms of well-being or Finance

====================================================================

Sources:
[1] Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012. URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu...;.

[2] Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012. URL = <http: plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/kant-moral/>.

[3] Rice, T. "Individual autonomy and state involvement in health care" Journal of Medical Ethics. 2001. Pg 241-2

[4] Tanner, Michael, and Michael Cannon. “Universal Healthcare’s Dirty Little Secrets.” Los Angeles Times. 2007. Web.<http://www.latimes.com...;

[5] Hsieh, P and Zinser, L. "Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care”" The Objective
Standard. 2007. Pg. 4
Raymond_Reddington

Pro


Round 2


Rebuttals


A closer look at the Burden of Proof: Con immediately places the full BoP on me in his opening statement; however, while I am affirming the resolution, the resolution is also the status quo because the US has adopted Universal Health care. A foreseeable complaint is that we are not debating Obamacare specifically. This is easily resolved with an example, if I was to argue for progressive taxing in the US but with slightly different numbers, and my opponent was against the progressive tax in general, the concept of the progressive tax would be status quo. Therefore I am arguing in favor of the widely held status quo, but I am also pro, so the burden of proof is shared.



A greater understanding of Kant’s philosophy: A complete rebuttal of this argument requires that we go more in depth into Kant's philosophy. (Something important to note is that Kant's philosophy was meant for individuals to pursue. While some of his ideas might apply well to a government others seem downright absurd when adopted by government) A perfect duty according to Kant is to "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become universal law without contradiction". Con's examples of this, don't kill and don't steal, are perfect duties but this is a very limiting list. Con misrepresents the definition of a perfect duty by saying it is something needed to preserve "social order". What Kant was saying was that a perfect duty was something that could be universally practiced without being self-defeating. For example murder is immoral because if everyone was to murder eventually there would be no one left to murder. If everyone was to steal eventually there would be no more private property to steal. Applying these to a government; however, is not Kant's intention. If every nation were to go to war eventually there will be no one left to go to war with. Does this mean Kant believed war was always immoral? Of course not. According to Oxford English dictionary moral means "concerned with or derived from the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society". Our society does not condemn all wars as immoral. The governments standards for morality are not the same as an individuals. Nevertheless, health care would still meet the standard of a perfect duty. Firstly health care is already being applied universally in the US and it has not resulted in a contradiction. The US giving everybody health insurance does not result in the US not being able to give everybody health insurance. Kant's philosophy is not determining what should or should not be law, But rather what is moral or immoral for an individual.


(http://en.wikipedia.org...)


(http://plato.stanford.edu...)


(http://poignantboy.wordpress.com...)


Also note that one ethical philosophy is not the definitive standard in morality. Utilitarianism would encourage universal health care. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org...)




Rebuttal of sub-point A


This only applies if health care is truly an imperfect duty, con must prove that for this argument to be valid. I will refute it anyway for the sake of completeness. Health care is a basic service such as trash pick up or running water. No sane individual doesn't want health insurance. Many find it too expensive though; by pushing down the cost and mandating it we can ensure that no individual receives a death sentence when they are infected with a treatable disease.


Syllogism: the first and second claims have been negated so the conclusion is meaningless


Rebuttal of Nozick's entitlement theory:


This argument's focus is on taxation itself being immoral. According to the previous definition of morality and the fact that this society does not see taxation itself as immoral negates the argument. Not only would abiding by this theory basically remove all government funding, it could also support vast inequality. Picture a society of 10 people and $100. Assume that each person has between five and $15. In this situation entitlement theory would be completely moral. What if one individual have $91 though, and everyone else only had one dollar each. Regardless of the fact that the wealthy man did not steal his money, the entitlement theory would be downright immoral to use here. The main points of the entitlement theory are


1. "Principle of justice and acquisition" – initial acquisition of property


2. "Principle of justice and transfer" – how goods are voluntarily exchanged


3. "Principle of rectification of injustice" – how to rectify injustices



Now taxation would fall under the second category. The USA allows emigration. Therefore by living in the US people voluntarily subject themselves to taxation. There's nothing involuntary about this. The theory simply doesn't apply to taxation. Judges correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe that the syllogism for this argument is actually a syllogism. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org...)



Rebuttal of the abuse of the system argument


Any and all abuses of the system are rare and isolated incidents. I've already proved that the universal health care system is cheaper. Any initial problems could be quickly addressed to ensure cheaper health care in the future. As for people's "tendency to abuse the system" this is a huge generalization. Not only is there no evidence to support this, but it assumes humans are naturally deceptive. This is an unsupported assertion. Judges correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe that the Syllogism for this argument is actually a syllogism either.



The link for the poor quality in England and Sweden of health care is broken for me. If this is not true and it's working for the judges let me know and I will address this argument in later rounds.



Conclusion: I have successfully proved that from an economic and moral standpoint Universal Health care is necessary. Con's arguments come from two philosophies out of a huge number. Not only are the philosophies vastly misrepresented but I've refuted all of his arguments. The economic and abuse arguments are both unsupported and should not be taken seriously. In the end the resolution is upheld.


Debate Round No. 2
KingDebater369

Con

Argument 1: Economic
My opponent"s argument here is that the life expectancy and infant mortality rates are high in the U.S., despite the fact that the U.S. spends more money.

Rebuttal: The problem here is that my opponent is automatically assuming that low life expectancy and high mortality rates equate to having a bad health care system. While a good health care system may, by intervention, extend the life of a small percentage of a population, it has very little to do with the average life spans of the whole population. The number of years a person will live is primarily a result of genetic and social factors, including lifestyle, environment and education. [1]

Argument 2: A Viable Alternative
In this argument, my opponent states that Universal Healthcare is a viable alternative because by charging less money, the people will have more money, and the U.S. Economy would grow

Rebuttal: the problem with universal health care is that it does not guarantee equal quality and treatment. [refer back to my 3rd contention sub-point A]. This causes more patients to get severely sick or die while just waiting to receive their medical treatment.

Rebuttal 2: Raising other tax increases to fund reform could place a drag on GDP.[6] If that happens, that will make it far more difficult to escape the debt trap

Rebuttl 3: Furthermore, universal Health Care will lead to a moral hazard. The idea of a moral hazard is explained by Mr.Hoffman, who works for the Indiana law journal:

"The term "moral hazard" refers to the concern that the acquisition of insurance itself leads to a change in individuals' behavior. Those who have health insurance are more likely to use medical facilities than those who are uninsured, because their use of medical services is subsidized. Thus, health insurance can increase the cost of health care through unnecessary doctor visits." [7]

So as we can see, this will only hurt the economy further.

Argument 3: Health Care is a right
Here, my opponent tries to state that health care is a right

Rebuttal 1: My opponent uses the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, to state that Healthcare is a right. However, since the resolution states "The United States", this means that we must look at only United States rights.

Rebuttal 2: My opponent also states that the constitution states the clause, "promote general welfare". This clause, nor any other clause in the constitution gives congress the power to create a Universal Healthcare System. The "General Welfare" clause gives Congress the power "To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." [2] This clause is not a grant of power to congress " it is a limit to a power given to Congress, limiting the purpose for which Congress can lay and collect taxes. [3] If the "General Welfare" clause gives Congress the power to promote the general welfare, then why specifically list the other powers in Article I, such as the power to establish post offices and post roads, or to coin money? Wouldn't it be redundant to list them? James Madison, the "Father of The Constitution", argued that Congress derives no power from the general welfare clause, which merely serves to limit Congress"s power to lay andcollect taxes.[4] If the "General Welfare" clause doesn"t give congress any power, we can conclude that it doesn"t give congress the power to create a Universal Health Care System.

Rebuttal 3: In order for something to be a right in the U.S., it must be in the constitution. The constitution has had changes over the course of time [these changes are known as amendments], and any rights that are guaranteed under these amendments are also rights under the constitution. If we take in everything I have stated here into consideration, my opponent"s argument that the Health Care is a right fails because:

Universal Health Care is not a constitutional guarantee, because Congress has tried to pass Universal Health Care as an amendment before, and FAILED. [5]

I have a key question for my opponent:
If congress has tried to pass an amendment about Universal Health Care, and it failed to pass, then how is it a right?

Argument 4: Benefits to society

Rebuttal 1: First my opponent states, "Having greater access to cheap health care." As I have already stated before " Universal Health Care doesn"t guarantee access to health care. [Read: contention 3 sub"point A, of my original case]

Rebuttal 2: My opponent states that Universal Health Care will decrease medical expenses. There are some major problems with this argument:

1. As the perceived price decreases, demand will increase. In other words, when people believe that they won"t have to pay for their healthcare, they will use more health services. Allow me to explain this more clearly: As demand increases to exceed the available supply of health services, the government will have to take action. The government will have to limit the amount of services to keep the cost of the healthcare system from exploding. There are several ways to do this. First, they might impose rationing and limit the availability of services, which would completely undermine the purpose of Universal Health Care in the first place. A second option would be increase the amount that patients pay for their health care. This could be similar to the health insurance premiums and co"payments that many health insurance policies contain now.

2. Government Health Care will likely create a shortage of healthcare professionals. The government will undoubtedly attempt to rein in costs by imposing price controls. It has already followed this strategy in government healthcare programs that have already been enacted such as Medicare. Medical training, especially for doctors, is a long and expensive process. The motivating factor for many doctors is the financial reward at the end of the process. When the government removes the financial incentive for becoming a doctor, fewer people will choose to become doctors and shortages will result. If there is low supply and high demand, prices must go up.

3. The money used to pay health professionals, medicines and facilities has to come from somewhere. If consumers don"t pay for these services directly, then they will pay for it indirectly with high taxes.

Rebuttal 3: my opponent tries to state that there will be an increase in jobs. As I stated before, doctors and many people in the medical industry won't have an incentive to work anymore.

Sources:
Sources:
[1] John C. Goodman, et al., President National Center for Policy Analysis, 2004, Lives at Risk: Single Payer National Health Insurance Around the World, p. 51

[2] and [4] http://dailysignal.com...

[3] http://www.heritage.org... "it"possible"to"restore"constitutionalism

[5] Lunder, Erika K. et al. "NFIB v. Sebelius: Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate" CRS. September 3, 2012. 2.

[6] http://money.cnn.com..., S. "Unmanaged Care Towards Moral Fairness in Health Care Coverage"Indiana Law Journal. 2003. Pg 670
Raymond_Reddington

Pro

Introduction
All evidence supports the idea that a Universal Healthcare system is a positive change in the US from an economic, societal, and moral standpoint. Universal Healthcare has been proven to succeed in other countries and it the United States must follow their example.
Argument 1: Economic
This argument is centered around the idea that if the US is going to spend significantly more than other countries on health insurance than we should see significantly better quality in health care. Health care is directly related to life expectancy as well as a number of other indicators. Disease prevention and treatment is just one example of their connection.

"Recent OECD analysis suggests that health care spending growth has contributed to the improvement in life expectancy".[1] While there are other factors of course healthcare is one of the most important. If our healthcare was performing equal to or greater than other nations, which it should because we spend more than all other nations, if this was true we would be much closer to the universal standard in these issues. My opponent vastly understates the impact healthcare has on the health of the general population.

Argument 2: A Viable Alternative

Response to Rebuttal 1

My opponent"s main arguments against this come from the amount of Britons waiting for healthcare as well as the wait time for operations in Sweden. Of course these are two countries out of a very large number and the majority of countries have extremely successful healthcare systems. Either way my opponent"s arguments against Sweden and England still fail.

"Waiting times for preplanned care, such as cataract or hip-replacement surgery, have long been a cause of dissatisfaction. As a result, Sweden introduced a health care guarantee in 2005.This means no patient should have to wait more than seven days for an appointment at a community health care center, 90 days for an appointment with a specialist and 90 days for an operation or treatment, once it has been determined what care is needed."[2] My opponent"s problems with Sweden"s healthcare are incredibly outdated and have been successfully addressed. As of today "People in Sweden are living increasingly longer. The average life span is now 83.5 years for women and 79.5 years for men. This can be attributed in part to falling mortality rates from heart attacks and strokes" [2] Not only have Sweden"s problems been easily fixed they now have a much more successful healthcare system. Access to care in England is actually at least equal to the US and the quality is much higher [3][5]. The US does poorly in quick access to care when compared with most other countries like New Zealand and Netherlands. The US also had the highest percentage in cost being a barrier to recieving Healthcare. I highly advise Judges and Con to read source [3] to get a better understanding of how superior Universal Healthcare is. "The UK's health care system is one of the most efficient in the world, according to a study of seven industrialized countries."[4] Con"s arguments and statistics are outdated and irrelevant. Healthcare is still far superior in countries with Universal Healthcare.

Response to Rebuttal 2

The US already spends more on healthcare as a percentage of our GDP.


There is no evidence to support your conclusion that the US spending more on healthcare could hurt the economy. It could create jobs and help create a more productive (greater health leads to greater production) workforce. If anything it will significantly help the economy. If we could switch to spending as little on healthcare as countries with Universal healthcare, we would see incredible economic benefits.

Response to Rebuttal 3

For this argument Con cites a source 7 which he does not have. It"s an interesting idea but I doubt there is any evidence supporting the idea that people will "overuse" medical facilities. I do believe insurance will motivate people to go to the doctor an appropriate number of times it is absurd to believe that once someone is insured they will go to the doctor too much. There is just no motivation for it. There is motivation to go to the doctor an appropriate amount of times but not excessively. When the government began picking up trash do you think people were suddenly throwing away more trash? There is just no logical reason to overuse some services.

Argument 3: Healthcare is a Right

Response to Rebuttal 1

The US is a major member in the United Nations. When a human right is defined (a definition the US helped to create and agreed to) it is universal. The US has accepted the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Human rights are not particular to a country, they are universal.

Response to Rebuttal 2

"My opponent also states that the constitution states the clause, "promote general welfare". This clause, nor any other clause in the constitution gives congress the power to create a Universal Healthcare System. The "General Welfare" clause gives Congress the power "To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." [2] This clause is not a grant of power to congress " it is a limit to a power given to Congress, limiting the purpose for which Congress can lay and collect taxes.""

First of all note the contradictions in this quote which are bolded. Second of all pay attention to the sources he uses to back up this argument. Source 3 does not exist, and source 2 and 4 lead to an article with this title "Is Government Motors Lying about Its New Electric Car?" We can safely conclude that promoting "the general welfare" requires action.

Promote-to contribute to the growth or prosperity of [6]

General Welfare- The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens. [7]

So, if Congress has the power and responsibility to promote health of its citizens, and Universal Health Care will help grow that health, then Congress is obligated to enact Universal Healthcare.

Response to Rebuttal 3

"In order for something to be a right in the U.S., it must be in the constitution. The constitution has had changes over the course of time [these changes are known as amendments], and any rights that are guaranteed under these amendments are also rights under the constitution. If we take in everything I have stated here into consideration, my opponent"s argument that the Health Care is a right fails because: Universal Health Care is not a constitutional guarantee, because Congress has tried to pass Universal Health Care as an amendment before, and FAILED. [5]"

Let"s take a closer look at that logic. My opponent clearly believes that Universal rights don"t apply if they are not in the Constitution or one of its amendments. This logic is clearly flawed. The 13th amendment was actually rejected several times before it was finally ratified [8]. It can then be concluded that whatever the 13th amendment was proposing was not a human right. Freedom from slavery was not a human right until the amendment was ratified.

The same goes for the 19th amendment and women"s suffrage. All of these amendments that progressed human rights in the US were at one time, widely condemned. Had any one of them been attempted earlier in time they could have easily been rejected and declared "not a human right". This is absurd. It"s possible a Universal Healthcare amendment could be added to the Constitution in the future. Even if it is not passed this doesn"t mean Universal Healthcare is not a right. Much of the Constitution is vague as well. The "Promote the General Welfare" clause could very well be making Universal Healthcare a right. A lack of specificity is not an indication that the Constitution is not referring to healthcare.

Key question

"If congress has tried to pass an amendment about Universal Health Care, and it failed to pass, then how is it a right?"

The Constitution and its amendments is not the arbiter of what is and is not a fundamental and universal human right. Its job is to try and reflect what those rights are; however, it is not perfect. Just as in the suffrage and slavery examples there will always be a delay in recognizing something as a right. It may even miss some rights, but it is our job as a nation to nevertheless make sure these rights are fulfilled.

Argument 4: Benefit to Society

Response to Rebuttal 1

Your arguments do not stand because I have shown that your statistics are outdated and incorrect.

Response to Rebuttal 2

1. 1. Your assertions here have no supporting evidence. I have already shown that quality of care is actually much greater than quality in the US and other countries have not had to resort to "rationing and limit the availability of services". This has not hurt pricing earlier. I refer you back to my graph showing spending on health per capita and as a percentage of GDP. There is ample evidence to suggest Universal healthcare would raise quality and lower costs.

2. 2. There are a variety of ways to address this problem. "The approach most favored by experts at Harvard and elsewhere is to reshape traditional primary care: from a stream of patients waiting to see one harried doctor to a more efficient team practice in which patients with routine problems are seen by nurse-practitioners and physician assistants " trained specialists with master's degrees. The team frees the doctor to spend more time with patients with more serious complaints." [9] Even if we didn"t make this switch other countries with Universal Healthcare systems faced the same transition to training more doctors and they have been successful. There is no reason to believe we won"t be. Other possible solutions are to "Increase the number of medical graduates through increased recruitment of minority students domestically, as well as intensified recruitment of foreign-trained graduates" or "Increase the number of medical schools and classroom sizes." [10]

3. 3. There is no evidence to back this up. Increasing access to preventive care would actually decrease the amount of money spent on health care by decreasing the occurrence of more major and expensive problems. Enacting Universal Healthcare saves the taxpayer money. [11]

Response to Rebuttal 3

You made the argument several times actually that Universal Healthcare would increase demand.

"As the perceived price decreases, demand will increase."

"As demand increases to exceed the available supply of health services"

The incentive to become a doctor is greater than ever. The income of doctors will only be affected positively [12]. According to this study, more than half of US doctors support switching to a Universal Healthcare system [13]. There is no evidence to support anything to the contrary.

Conclusion

All of Con"s rebuttals have been refuted and all of the evidence supports my position. Universal Healthcare is the best Healthcare system available to the US right now and the government is obligated to enact it.

[1] http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org...

[2] http://sweden.se...

[3]http://www.commonwealthfund.org... *read page 8

[4] http://assets.ce.columbia.edu...

[5]http://www.nhs.uk...

[6] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[7] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

[8]http://en.wikipedia.org...

[9] http://www.aarp.org...

[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[11] http://progressivewomencolorado.com...

[12] http://www.medscape.com...

[13] http://www.reuters.com...

Debate Round No. 3
KingDebater369

Con

KingDebater369 forfeited this round.
Raymond_Reddington

Pro

Con has conceded.
Debate Round No. 4
KingDebater369

Con

KingDebater369 forfeited this round.
Raymond_Reddington

Pro

No round as agreed upon
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by KingDebater369 2 years ago
KingDebater369
Probably should have posted this in round 1, but this is how structure will go (this is for the judges, so that they can follow:

Round 1 Con: States Definitions
Round 1 Pro: Presents his case

Round 2 Con: Presents his case (no rebuttals)
Round 2 Pro: Rebuts to con's case

Round 3 Con: Rebuts to pro's case
Round 3 Pro: More Rebuttals

Round 4 Con: More rebuttals
Round 4 Pro: Rebuttals and conclusions

Round 5 Con: Rebuttals and conclusions
Round 5 Pro: No round as agreed upon
Posted by KingDebater369 2 years ago
KingDebater369
Ok, basically on DDO (Debate.org), we have community driven tournaments that go on. Every so often, someone will organize a tournament and ask people to sign up. The tournament here is a tier tournament because it's seperated by tier. When you join DDO, and you participate in a couple of debates, you will see that you have a rating. So this is the Low Tier tournament - intended for beginner debaters. There is a middle and high tier one as well. Check out this for post to see more about the tier tournament: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Tore_Mihror 2 years ago
Tore_Mihror
Excuse me for my ignorance, I am new to DDO, what is a DDO Tier Tournament?
Posted by KingDebater369 2 years ago
KingDebater369
No problem. I think everything will still be fine.
Posted by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
SeventhProfessor
Sorry, I had no idea the tournament would be starting so late. I can't judge for the next few weeks.
Posted by KingDebater369 2 years ago
KingDebater369
Thanks. I figured that the topic would be of common interest, and it's still controversial today.
Posted by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
Cool. Excellent topic, guys.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
KingDebater369Raymond_ReddingtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF by Con.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
KingDebater369Raymond_ReddingtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by orangemayhem 2 years ago
orangemayhem
KingDebater369Raymond_ReddingtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
KingDebater369Raymond_ReddingtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: ff