The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

Do you think ObamaCare was/is simply a scam to get Obama elected again?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 603 times Debate No: 42061
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




Obama knew he was going to have a hard time being reelected, and I feel like this was his cushion. He knew if he half started something "good" that he could get a majority of votes for reelection. Many people have said that it is the main thing that had them voting for him again, as they wanted to see the law finished and put into the public. However now that it is fully in place, we now see how much of a failure it is.

First off, is the horrible site. It constantly went down (and for some states, is going down) and a lot of people it never processed. The site led to many not getting the "cheap" healthcare they were promised by ObamaCare.

As well, this law depends on the health people buying into healthcare. As ObamaCare FORCES people to buy insurance they won't need (such as needing a plan with heart attack insurance, when you're in your twenties) and this forces these people to pay more money for the people who do actually need it.

As well, Obama is now trusting the insurance companies to simply send him a bill, and he will just pay the money. We can't just "trust" these companies to always say the right amount. If these companies are wrong, we're wasting more tax-payer money.


The resolution that I must challenge is as follows:
P1: The Affordable Care Act was a “scam”
P2: The goal of this scam was to get President Obama re-elected to a second term

Premise 1: Was it a “Scam?”

The definition of “Scam” (provided by the Free Online Dictionary) is: A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle. [1]

Although these words are often used to insult the Affordable Care Act, they do not define correctly the new health care laws. This collection of reforms is better defined as “Legislative Policy.” Opponents of these policies may not like them, but it still remains that these are legislative policies, and not a simple “scam.”

For example, to correctly qualify as a “scam” the health care laws cannot possibly have been enacted by Congress – as they were. Because the Congress legislated these reforms into the legal code, they cannot possibly constitute an act of legal fraud.

Since our current Congress often insults our newfound rights under the Affordable Care Act by calling our abilities a “fraud,” I will also define the term “fraud” as well.

Again, from the Free Online Dictionary: Fraud - A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

Simply put, since Congress was within its Constitutional Power to enact these laws, they cannot possibly be “illegal.” Even were these laws to be found to be inconsistent with the US Constitution, they would still not have been definably “frauds” or “scams” since every word of the policies were made known to the legislators, voters and stakeholders who supported and opposed the laws. Additionally, the Roberts Court found that the Affordable Care Act was constitutional, and legal. [3] The decision can be read in its entirety using the source links below.

Opponents of health care reform may have good reasons to distrust the new health care laws. However, these were legally enacted public policies that have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Therefore, although they may (or may not) represent terrible public policy, they cannot be defined as “scam.” The use of this term is an ad homen fallacy that does not empower the critics of the law.

Premise 2: Was the purpose of health care reform to promote the president’s re-election?

It is obvious that, in a democratic republic such as ours, that office holders would seek to please the voting public. I am less certain that President Obama would have forgone his health care initiative had he thought that it would prevent his re-election. Pro has never supported this assertion, and so it does not bear much attention.

Nevertheless, we want our elected servants to serve us, and we reward those who do with re-election. The sky is also blue at times.

Conclusion: Arguably a matter of poor public policy, the Affordable Care Act was not an illegal act of election-rigging, voter fraud, or any other illegal scheme to ensure that President Obama would serve a second term in office.


Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by James.Price 3 years ago
The Affordable Care Act was signed into law with the goal of extending Medicaid, lowering health care costs, and reducing the number of uninsured Americans. Also included were provisions that will prevent insurers from suddenly reducing benefits, increasing premiums, overspending on executive pay, discriminating against pre-existing conditions and other needed reforms.

I do not see where the law states that its goal was to "allow Americans to keep their plans." I could be seriously misinformed by MSNBC. Therefore, the "lie" that you bemoan was not decisive.

Nor was it a lie. These were not insurance coverage plans, but dangerous scams that were only intended to defraud the poor and the working class. These scams have been made illegal, and a cause c"l"bre for right wing punditry. Because, freedom.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
It's nearly impossible to win a one-round debate because there is no rebuttal.

it's not hard to prove that Obamacare was sold fraudulently, but Pro presented none of the evidence of that. Obama knew that "If you like your plan, you can keep it. Period." was a lie, and the plan could not have passed without that lie. However, even if Pro had proved the fraud, he would still have to prove the fraud was done to achieve re-election. Pro didn't exclude the possibility of a "noble lie," done to achieve government control of health care and to redistribute wealth -- which leftists hold to be good things.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 3 years ago
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: Con wins no fraud and no scam which negates the resolution. He sources these things.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
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: Con gave a much more well-formatted, convincing argument, and he actually cited sources, unlike Pro.