The Instigator
Locke33
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
bladerunner060
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Everyone should not have to buy obamacare

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 5 votes the winner is...
bladerunner060
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,090 times Debate No: 29149
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (19)
Votes (5)

 

Locke33

Pro

Obama care is a service, like dental service or doctor service or lawn care for that matter.

Obama "giving" us free health care is false we all have to pay more taxes for that weather we want it and or need it or not.

It is unconstitutional to make you have to buy a service.
Same as if the government made it mandatory for everyone to eat at McDonald's twice a week for example, that violates your freedom well so does mandatory Obama care.

Garrett.house.gov states two ways Obama care is unconstitutional here, "Exceeds the Scope of the Commerce Clause " The purpose of Congress"s power to regulate commerce among the states was to end interstate protectionist measures and establish a national free trade pact. The Constitution does not give Congress the power to create commerce in order to regulate it."[1]

Well this new Obamacare is regulating commerce isn't it.

And number two, " Imperils Religious Liberty " ObamaCare forces religious institutions to provide services that violate their faith."[1]

Such as abortion and free birth control even if you do belief those things are ethical, I hope you agree that it is completely wrong and against the freedom that is America to force a company to provide those things for someone.

Those are two reasons why it's unconstitutional. But even though I do not agree with those things or want Obamacare I still have to pay for it and that's wrong.

If you don't buy it this is the penalty, "The minimum penalty/tax in 2016 will be $695 per person and up to 3-times that per family. After 2016, these amounts will increase at the rate of inflation."[2]

That is wrong and unconstitutional and violates the freedom of everyone in this great country.

Good luck to my opponent.

[1]http://garrett.house.gov...

[2]http://www.businessinsider.com...
bladerunner060

Con

Thank you to Pro for setting up this debate.

Unfortunately, it is premised on several errors of fact.

Obamacare does not "give" us free health care. A single-payer system would do that; that is not what is in place. What is presently called "Obamacare" is a series of regulations of the insurance industry that was already in place (regulations that were initially proposed by Conservative thinkers, no less),

My opponent points out one of the biggest flaws in the constitutional argument against the proposal: "Well this new Obamacare is regulating commerce isn't it."

The idea that "ObamaCare forces religious institutions to provide services that violate their faith" is also a matter of factually inaccurate information. "...all "churches or any other type of house of worship are expressly exempted from the requirement that they offer health insurance to their employees that includes any provision for contraception. The issue under discussion involves whether"other"entities owned and operated by a church should be obligated to do so under the law." [1]

To try to claim that it violates religious freedom to require employers to provide basic care is to say that it violates religious freedom to have a minimum wage. Obamacare doesn't address churches themselves, but rather employers in the private sector, no matter their beliefs. Just as the federal minimum wage regulates the minimum wage, so too do the new rules for insurance cover regulation of employees.

The idea that "Obama care is a service, like dental service or doctor service or lawn care for that matter" is flatly wrong. It is a series of regulations, geared primarily towards businesses. But it does also require the individual to purchase health insurance, or to pay a higher tax rate. However, this is no different than any other tax break/increase within the tax code. I question whether Pro would claim that the "Hybrid Vehicle Tax Credit" was unconstitutional? Technically, it meant a higher tax rate for those who did NOT purchase a hybrid vehicle during the period in which the credit was active (Jan. 1 2006 to Dec. 31 2010). [2]

Pro claims "But even though I do not agree with those things or want Obamacare I still have to pay for it and that's wrong."

By that argument, anyone who disagrees with any aspect of government operations should be able to withhold taxes because they don't like it. Such an argument has never been accepted by the courts.

My opponent says that, overall, Obamacare "...is wrong and unconstitutional and violates the freedom of everyone in this great country."

I draw my opponent's attention to the 16th amendment, which grants powers of taxation to the federal government to "provide for the ...general Welfare of the United States". [3]

I further draw my opponent's attention to Article III of the Constitution, which holds that "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;"to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;"to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;"to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;"to Controversies between two or more States;"between a State and Citizens of another State;"between Citizens of different States;"between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."[4]

As we should all be aware, the Supreme Court ruled Obamacare constitutional.

[1] " http://www.forbes.com...
[2] -- http://www.irs.gov...
[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Locke33

Pro

Yes, I miss wrote on Obamacare giving us free healthcare, It provides free healthcare benefits to anyone who signs up for the program. Everyone is forced to pay a tax for it, and use it, or pay a fee, so basically yes it is free healthcare benefits with hiked up taxes for everyone who wants it or not and if they do not use it a penalty. This post backs up my point, "The CBO estimates that the health reform law will cover 30 million more Americans in 2022. But it also predicts that 30 million Americans will remain uninsured. Some will be illegal immigrants, who aren"t eligible for the reform law"s insurance subsidies. About 6 million are expected to live in states that do not participate in the Medicaid expansion.
That still leaves millions of Americans eligible for benefits but not enrolled. The CBO, for example, expects that nearly 6 million of those newly-eligible for Medicaid just won"t sign up for the program. They already have some reason to be skeptical: The health law"s High Risk Insurance Plans, meant to be a bridge to 2014 for those with preexisting conditions, have seen lackluster enrollment."[1]

So anyone living in America legal or not just has to enroll and receive the Obamacare benefits. If they don't use them as I have stated a penalty.

And yes I stand firm on this infringing religious liberties look at Hobby Lobby,
"The company is facing $1.3 million a day in fines for each day it chooses not to comply with a piece of the Affordable Care Act that was set to trigger for them on January 1. The craft store chain announced in December that, because of religious objections, they would face the fines for not providing certain types of birth control through their company health insurance." [2] If thats not infringing on rights or at least religious rights, then I would say we have none. They have found a way to postpone the penalties due to a loophole.

Second Obamacare does regulate Commerce(go into an area of business such as healthcare and use government power to control this area of business)by forcing people to use Obamacare, which intern makes the majority of people incapable to get the healthcare of your choice, and not to mention helps to put other healthcare companies out of business, so much for creating jobs.

Lastly your two last sources are both wikepedia which are factually incorrect for the most part, but what you did was use parts of the constitution( the right for congress to tax and that judicial power shall be extended to all cases(paraphrasing) to make Obama care seem constitutional but in fact all you did was use other parts of the constitution to cancel out parts of the constitution, if a bill, or law is upholded by all parts of the constitution but still infringes on even one it is therefore unconstitutional(Merriam-Websters dictionary definition).Since Obama care infringes on more then one as I have previously stated then it would be unconstitutional.

My opponent simply used parts of the constitution to battle others. I believe the constitution to be without error and when a group of humans(error prone) rules against the constitution by using some of it, I find that incorrect.

Closing: I should not have to buy/use/ purchase Obamacare,and, or should face the penalties for not using it. At this point we all have to pay for it,since our supreme court ruled against other parts of the constitution to unconstitutionally(Merriam-Websters definition) pass the bill under the label of a tax. The bill is unconstitutional, the ruling is unconstitutional, and forcing someone to use, pay for a service is unconstitutional.

Sources
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[2]http://religion.blogs.cnn.com...
bladerunner060

Con

Thank you to my opponent again for this debate. Due to space I've had to ellipse some quotes. Brackets are edits to ensure sense.



"Everyone is forced …"

Again, a misunderstanding of what Obamacare does. I urge Pro to look up what the law is.

The law mandates:

"A shared responsibility requirement...requires...all individuals not covered by an"employer sponsored health plan ... or ... public insurance programs, [to] secure an approved private insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the"Internal Revenue Service, or waived in cases of financial hardship."[1]


If they don't use them as I have stated a penalty.”


Stating it doesn't make it so. There is no requirement to use the benefits, nor has Pro made the case that that is so.


...I stand firm on this infringing religious liberties look at Hobby Lobby”


So, as far as this argument goes, follow its premises and ALL legislation that requires a business to do anything infringes on that business's religious liberties.


That is patently ridiculous.


The company is facing ...”


In the first place, the employer regulations were not stipulated in the original terms of this debate, which was "Everyone should not have to buy obamacare".


In the second place:

If Hobby Lobby said it was against their religion to abide by minimum wage laws, would forcing them to abide by them infringe their religious liberties? Or how about if hardhats were against a construction company's religion?


These examples show that a business claiming rights infringement on religious grounds is invalid. If Hobby Lobby were a church, they would be exempt from the provisions. But they are not a church, they are a business engaged in interstate commerce.


With the exception of churches and houses of worship, PPACA's"contraceptive"coverage mandate applies to all employers and educational institutions. ... Regulations made under PPACA rely on the recommendations of the"Institute of Medicine, which concluded that access to contraception is medically necessary "to ensure women's health and well-being."”[1]


Second Obamacare ... forc[es] people to use Obamacare, which intern makes the majority of people incapable to get the healthcare of your choice, and not to mention helps to put other healthcare companies out of business...”


Again, Pro seems to be confusing Obamacare with a "single payer" system. What is called Obamacare is a series of regulations on the health care industry. Folks are perfectly allowed to get the "healthcare of your choice". [1]


Lastly your two last sources are both wikipedia which are factually incorrect for the most part...”


This argument is nonsensical and dishonest. Questioning a source is fine, but Pro is being dishonest considering he cannot show anything about the source which is "factually incorrect for the most part".


I believe the constitution...”


Pro makes a good point about the constitution in general, however, has failed to show any reason that the legislation is question is against the constitution.


Closing: I should not have to buy/use/ purchase Obamacare...”


Pro unfortunately shows a lack of understanding about the subject at hand. He treats "Obamacare" as a single entity, as though it is a single-payer system, and does not understand that the constitution expressly allows the government to tax the people for the general welfare. He completely dropped the point I made about taxes earlier, where I pointed out that tax credits have long been issued to encourage the purchase of certain items (e.g. hybrid vehicles). That alone establishes the motion as incorrect, and by dropping the point I feel Pro has conceded the debate.



In closing, you don't have to like the legislation to realize that it is constitutional, and you do not have to agree with the legislation to recognize that Pro has not made his case.


I urge a vote for Con. Thank you.

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

Debate Round No. 2
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Deadlykris:

And the Sixteenth Amendment, which is what the SCOTUS based their opinion on, and which I pointed out?
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
I couldn't let this go to a shutout. To answer the inevitable charge of bias, I say, certainly. Everyone has their biases, and I'm no exception. We all rate each point based on our own biases, whether we admit it or not. And in my biased opinion, the decision of the SCOTUS, while having the force of law, does not, in point of fact, define constitutionality. It only does so in regards to law.
Posted by Locke33 4 years ago
Locke33
Thank you for the advice.
Posted by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
Locke33 - I think you may be able to pick up a debate challenger if you restate your resolution to be something that you are for. If you don't like Obamacare individual mandate and think that it's unconstitutional, then change your resolution to something along the lines of "The Obamacare individual mandate is unconstitutional." or "People should not be forced to buy health insurance." You can then argue Pro for the resolution and find a challenger to argue Con. Good luck!
Posted by Locke33 4 years ago
Locke33
To force you to buy something is unconstitutional is what i ment, you are correct that was a little slow of me. You shouldn't be forced to purchase a service. If you are for it please do accept my challenge.
Posted by Bull_Diesel 4 years ago
Bull_Diesel
i kind of want to take this but it's already hard to read. I happen to be against obamacare. But it looks like you might be a little slow.

"It is unconstitutional to make you have to pay for something." really? taxes are unconstitutional? being sentenced for committing a crime is unconstitutional? don't think so.
Posted by Locke33 4 years ago
Locke33
I think services should be provided at state level and health care should not be one of them, obamacare invades in private sector business forcing people to purchase Obama care or face a fee, as I posted in the 1st round of my debate. This invades on private sector healthcare businesses and by force the government is taking monopoly on healthcare. That my friend is unconstitutional and a socialistic idea no matter if the supreme coast ruled it a "tax" or not and its a "tax" that infringes on religious liberty also making it unconstitutional.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Just because they're the politically-appointed authority, doesn't make them automatically right. Just like if you were pulled over for running a red light, when the light was green, just because the police officer says you did, doesn't mean you did.
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
The Supreme Court is the constitutionally proscribed supreme authority on what is and is not constitutional and as the supreme authority on what is or isn't constitutional, what they say is, quite literally, law. That you disagree with said supreme authority is... well... as hilarious as it is inconsequential. They say otherwise and therefore you are invariably wrong. But that nonsense aside, let's talk about services. Is it your opinion that the gov should NOT provide ANY services?
Posted by Locke33 4 years ago
Locke33
The gov. Should not be able to force you to pay for anything they descuise it as a tax.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Bull_Diesel 4 years ago
Bull_Diesel
Locke33bladerunner060Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with most of the other voters. Arguing the constitutionality was going to be a tough road from the start. Pro needs a few more debates under his belt to get the feel for how to argue effectively. Con's arguments were much more well-worded, but just because something seems nice doesn't make it accurate. Con did a better job of making this look like a debate, but the minimum wage comment and his approach to the forced contraceptive religious institution thing was kind of weak. Federally mandated minimum wages are unconstitutional, but they exist. Just because the supreme court rules in favor of something doesn't mean it's definitely constitutional, or they wouldn't ever overturn decisions. Sources and Arguments to Pro, but Con did a good job.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Locke33bladerunner060Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never viably refuted the constitutionality argument; citing the Supreme Court's decision is a strong argument, to be sure, but not airtight; in the end, what matters for the purposes of this debate is what the Constitution says, not what the SCOTUS says. Arguments to Pro. No other points awarded.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
Locke33bladerunner060Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate guys! I'm going to give arguments to Con as Pro's arguments rested on a constitutional premise, while Con showed the supreme court ruled in favor of Obamacare. Con also shows that there are exceptional clauses within Obama care that keep everyone from having to buy into it (churches, etc.)
Vote Placed by rross 4 years ago
rross
Locke33bladerunner060Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con backed up his arguments more. This would have been a better debate if the resolution had been worded differently. Con's argument was sound that having to buy something and having to pay taxes that go towards something are not equivalent. Sources: I'm sick of people complaining about Wikipedia. Yes, it's inconsistent, but I think if you're going to object to it you have to provide counter evidence.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Locke33bladerunner060Tied
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: The constitutional objection seemed an unlikely way to win from the start--the Supreme Court already ruled it constitutional, and the commcerce clause has been used in similar ways in the past. Con addressed each of Pro's constitutional objections. Obamacare amounts to a tax incentive, which has been done many times before, eg. to support hybrid cars and the like. In response to the religious objection, Con points out churches are excluded and we do not allow businesses a bank check on every matter (like minimum wage) due to religious objections. Con also pointed out factual errors in Pro's arguments. The burden of proof was not met by Pro, and so I must vote Con.