The Instigator
RoyLatham
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
NDWolfwood5268
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

New US Health Care legislation is likely to resulting in requiring change of providers

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,634 times Debate No: 9584
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

RoyLatham

Pro

President Obama has repeated the claim "under new health care legislation, if you like what you now have, you will get to keep it." http://abcnews.go.com... Since none of the existing proposed legislation has this feature, it seems unlikely that anything coming out of the present Congress will have it.

1. Under HR 3200 (the Pelosi House Bill http://www.opencongress.org...), a government option is proposed, priced at 20% below insurance competition. The low rates are justified by simply cutting the reimbursement to providers. Under the legislation, small businesses can drop their existing health care and instead pay a fine of 8.5%. Estimates of the number who will lose existing coverage by this mechanism range up to 121 million people. The Heritage Foundation puts it at 83 million. Whatever the number, it is certainly not zero. Those people will not have the option of keeping their existing health care.

"... a new report by the Lewin Group (commissioned by the Heritage Foundation) finds that the House Democrats' health care bill would shift more 83.4 million Americans from private health care coverage to the government plan. To put that in perspective, that would mean that nearly half (48.4 percent) would lose their private health coverage." http://spectator.org...

2. In the Baucus mark-up from the Senate Finance Committee, and all other legislation proposed by Democrats of which I am aware, the law requires coverage at a minimum of 65% of actuarially expected costs. http://alankatz.wordpress.com... This will make a large number of existing insurance policies illegal. In some states, a majority of the policies. [Senate testimony, yesterday] The people with those policies they will be unable to keep them.

3. Some people have insurance available to them, but choose not to buy it. They prefer to buy health care as they need it. This may be unwise, or not, but it is what they want. (It includes some who choose to go to another country for health care, in whole or in part.) Under proposed legislation, this will not be allowed. Therefore they will not able to keep what they have.

4. Under HR 3200, if a person loses their job they have no choice but to take the government option. (p. 16, op cit)

It is possible that the Democrats will accept legislation that permits keeping what a person now has, but it seems unlikely. President Obama make his big speech with the standard claim when HR 3200 was the only bill on the table, and he did not acknowledge the real problems. It is therefore apparent that the Democrats are playing a game of semantics, claiming that if the lose of choice is an inevitable consequence of the legislation rather than in explicit language, it doesn't count. It counts.

Perhaps the loss of current health care plans is a net benefit, perhaps not. That's not the subject of this debate. The debate is about the truth of the assertion that "if you like your current health care, you will get to keep it." The statement is is in all likelihood false.

The resolution is affirmed.
NDWolfwood5268

Con

Ok, I thank my opponent for this debate, and hope that we may learn something from each other. This is a hot topic and demands the public be informed. This is also my first debate here, so forgive me if my conduct is slightly off.

This was a bit longer then intended, sorry... I'll simply give an opening general statement, go through each of my opponents points, and summarize my views in closing.

-OPENING-
I will attempt to demonstrate that the health reform prop does not require you to change providers, as is the presidents words. My opponent states that he has claimed "under new health care legislation, if you like what you now have, you will get to keep it." The first video I found, he says you will not be required to change, affirming pro's claim.

-REBUTTAL-
1. These people don't have much of an option to start with. Now, I don't know about my opponent, but the jobs I've had so far that provide health care benefits didn't let me choose the provider, just the coverage option. I fail to see how this is significant, as pro is merely stating that by the employer choosing the government option over the others, the employees hence have no choice. I argue that the employer had the choice all along, and no one forced the employer to change. We must work off of who has the choice in the first place, otherwise not I nor anyone else can refute pro's claims, since the employee is, in these instances, powerless even in the current system.

2. I fail to see how this affects the individual's choice of coverage plans. The purpose of the reform is to change things. This usually comes about by changing/making laws. By making large swaths of insurance provider's policies illegal, the system is doing what it set out to do; change how health care works. Now, we can assume other providers will change to adapt the new regulations rather then close up shop. They are not eliminating competition, merely trying to change the way companies do business, hence, pro's claim that people will be unable to keep their providers is baseless unless he can provide evidence that these providers intend to not change their practices to be legal with the new system.

3. I reluctantly comment on this. I wasn't able to find an exact reference saying such a thing. Can pro please cite me a source? For now, I'll just say, if the public option exists as I last heard it did (apparently 8 hours ago according to MSNBC.com, see footnotes), everyone will be able to choose to use the government health care or not. Even if they are forced to have the goverment option, they don't need to USE it. They just have a back up as well ASSUMING it is forced on them. They can use any alternative they like. Again, cite please?

4. I found what I believe to be the correct document, went to page 16, and found nothing. Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but I don't see the clause that states what pro states. As such, I will reject this for now until clarified as I can't comment on what I don't see. If pro can provide a link to this document, I'll come back to it.

*5* - "claiming that if the lose of choice is an inevitable consequence of the legislation rather than in explicit language, it doesn't count. It counts."

I would like to conclude on a quick point about certainty. Obama can only speak for as much as he's aware of. What I mean is that one insurance company can, in theory, change it's policy, drop coverage, or close shop JUST so that their clients are forced to change providers JUST to prove Obama wrong. We must assume he speaks in a practical sense about what he knows and can control. He, nor anyone authoring this legislation, intends to put a company out of business or limit your options as a consumer that I know of. If it happens unexpectedly, can we truly hold him accountable? And I want to point out, none of this is 'inevitable' as outlined in the quote above.

-CLOSING AND COUNTER ARGUMENTS-
a. I would like to point out that my opponent has made no argument that says people will be FORCED to use the new system outlined in the health insurance prop in any way.

b. In point 2 he assumes that businesses will drop coverage rather than trying to compete with the government standard. I feel this is a misconception I heard a lot of in the channels of 'teh intarwebs' I frequent. This competition is intended so that other providers will supply more acceptable coverage based on the policies of the government by simply making the government another competing business in the free market. What the government is doing with the bill is simply creating a new health insurance provider that will set the bar for what others will need to provide. Free market principles still apply, in that businesses can compete with the government and the consumer still has the choice of who to go with since the public option exists.

c. Obama has stated you will not be REQUIRED to change health care providers. This is true. The providers themselves will be required to change their practices, perhaps, but I see no evidence that they will eliminate policies and certainly none that they will, themselves, close down the business, meaning all existing options are still viable unless an announcement has been made by your company otherwise, or telepathy has come into use. Either way, Obama can't account for individual company practices and I think it's unfair to force him to account for ALL of them.

I feel I have refuted my opponents points and provided some evidence to the contrary. Con affirmed. I await my opponents reply, and good luck!

Sources:
- http://www.whitehouse.gov...
- http://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 1
RoyLatham

Pro

I am glad that Con has taken this debate. We are getting into some important issues.

Con's arguments, if I understand correctly, is that because pending legislation does not directly require a person to change their existing health care provider, that the assertion "you won't have to change" is technically correct, even though as a consequence of the legislation it is extremely likely that a substantial number of providers or the policies currently provided by insurers will become unavailable.

1. Con argues that because the people who receive private health care through their employers "don't have much of an option to start with" the fact that perhaps half of them will lose what they now have should not count.

(a) Whether what they now have offers much of an option or not, the statement "if you like what you have you will get to keep it" is nonetheless false. The government plans to undercut the free market by at least 20%, and perhaps 30% to 40%. Many employers will elect to pay substantially more in an attempt to compete with the government's unlimited resources and power to set the rules. Con provided no evidence that the estimate of 83 million losing coverage is wrong, so therefore the lose of the ability to "keep what you now have" is substantial.

(b) Many employers in fact offer many health care options. There tends to be more options in urban areas where there are more providers. My experience in Silicon Valley is that employers in my area offer three to eight health care insurance options to employees.

2. Under the Baucus mark-up and all other legislation, a large percentage of existing health insurance policies, in some states a majority, will become illegal. Con says, "I fail to see how this affects the individual's choice of coverage plans." The effect is that if the plan you now have and like becomes illegal, you will not be able to choose it. It is reasonable to suppose that many insurance carriers will offer amended plans that conform with the new laws, but at higher prices to meet the required coverage. A person may for various reasons like to have a lower level of coverage at lower cost. They will not get to keep what they have.

3. Con says, "everyone will be able to choose to use the government health care or not." I think that misunderstands the issue. Some people currently do not have any health care insurance and are "happy with what they now have" ... which is to say they are happy buying health care services as the need arises. At issue here is the fate of people who do not want to purchase health insurance, but rather are happy fending for themselves. All of the legislation proposed by Democrats has a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance, whether they want to or not:

"The Senate Finance Committee's bill: ... Everyone must get coverage through an employer, on their own or through a government plan. Exemptions for economic hardship. The bill requires individuals and families to buy coverage as long as it costs no more than 8 percent of their income."

"The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee's bill: ... Individuals will have to have insurance, enforced through tax penalties with hardship waivers."

"House Democratic Bill: ... Individuals must have insurance, enforced through tax penalty with hardship waivers. "

http://www.google.com...

4. There is controversy over what HR 3200, page 16, requires. The least onerous interpretation is that those who leave an employer will not be able to by the coverage they had with the employer directly from the private carrier. Instead they must elect to buy through what is offered in the government-run "pool." There are other restrictions as well:

"the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

'Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day' of the year the legislation becomes law.' ... So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers." http://www.investors.com...

5. "Obama can only speak for as much as he's aware of." Yes, and Obama is aware that if the government undercuts the free market by 20% to 40%, that many employers will drop the coverage they now have. Therefore he must be aware that his statement that "if you like what you now have, you will get to keep it" is false.

Currently, Medicare refuses to pay market prices for health care services. The health care system survives survives by private insurers paying extra to compensate for the Medicare underpayment. The Democratic Senator from Nebraska said Wednesday in the Finance committee that every hospital in his state would go bankrupt if it were not for the private insurance system compensating for government underpayment. The proposed government option in HR 3200 cuts payments to providers by 20% in order to achieve the savings that allows them to undercut the free market. But as the free market shrinks, hospitals will be forced to charge the private insurers more to compensate for the still reduced payments from the government. That makes private insurers even less competitive, so the chance that you be able "to keep what you know have" will become even smaller as carriers are forced out of the market.

a. Pro argues, "I would like to point out that my opponent has made no argument that says people will be FORCED to use the new system outlined in the health insurance prop in any way." They will be forced to use the new system because (1) undercutting the free market by 20% to 40% will cause much of the market to disappear, and a person cannot keep what is unavailable, (2) many of the policies people now have will be outlawed, so they cannot keep them, (3) if you are happy being uninsured, you won't be allowed to keep that status, (4) and rules mandate switching to the government run pool.

b. Pro argues that the government option is just intended to provide fair competition with the free market. Whatever the intent, private enterprise cannot compete with the government's unlimited ability to subsidize losses through tax dollars; ability to set payments to providers by law independent of costs and markets; ability to exempt themselves from regulations by the states, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other laws; ability to exempt themselves from federal, state, and local taxes; the ability to raise capital at little or no cost; and the ability to mandate that consumers buy their product. The government is therefore not in any sense competing with private enterprise. It has all the features in place to ensure that they will succeed in driving out most of the private competition. None of the proposed legislation offers all of the government advantages to private enterprise for the purpose of ensuring fair competition. If Con believes all these government advantages are unimportant, I challenge him to say so directly.

c. Con restates the arguments made and rebutted in (a). Easily foreseeable results need not be directly mandated to be counted upon. The argument that a person will be able to get something does not equate to "keeping what you now have."

The assertion that "if you like what you now have, you will be able to keep it" is clearly untrue.
NDWolfwood5268

Con

Hey, sorry for the delay. I'm lazy on weekedns >.<

Anywho, first, my main argument isn't that he's 'technically' correct. I think Obama IS correct, but assuming sections of your argument are true, he would be 'technically' correct. I acknowledge this isn't the debate, though. I'm just stating that wasn't intended to be my argument.

1. I still don't consider this argument to consequential to our debate. The EMPLOYER is the one we must talk about, and it sounds like Pro is focusing on the individual employee. My argument against this point is that the employers has the choice, not the employee (well, they have some choice, but based on options the employer gives). What I'd say is a valid argument in this respect is whether the employer can keep their current plan. If they elect to go somewhere else, that's fine too, but I don't believe Pro can say that, since the employer chooses to offer coverage from a different provider, the employee has no choice. If we take that statement for granted, and Obama said his statement of not having to change providers REGARDLESS of the health care reform bill, he'd still be false since an employer could, with some notice or without depending, change providers and the employee may or may not have a choice in the matter.

2. Well, first, the parts I found on the Baucus markup mentioned it only in passing within news articles and then, only said it was one proposal. I'm reluctant to comment further, if Pro could provide a link to some literature I may be able to address this further in R3.

For now, I still maintain that this is

a) hypothetical considering the legislature mentioned may not make it into the final draft of the prop and

b) Pro says 'some' states 'most' will be illegal. I can't comment on how vast this might be, assuming it's true (again, link please?).

My understanding, mostly from browsing http://www.whitehouse.gov... and some other pages there, state merely that the limiting aspects of coverage plans will be illegal, i.e. caps, pre-existing conditions, and the likes limiting you from getting health care. If this is what Pro is referring to, I'd argue

a) that all it's doing is making things better, though Pro stated this is irrelevant, so

b) it's not exactly 'changing' coverage, just making it easier to get. The basics of your plan should be the same as far as I can see, with no real noticeable differences. Now, most of that statement comes from thinking how this would effect my coverage, so if you have a counter example let me know.

3. I still haven't seen this explicitly stated, as Page 16 lacks mention of it, and I found no other reference besides the president and his staff saying you can keep no coverage. For the sake of this debate, I'll assume these are not to be used as evidence as we're debating the accuracy of Obama's claims themselves.

4. "There is controversy over what HR 3200, page 16, requires."

-This is key, I interpret it with a more liberal view I guess. It doesn't say to me that you'd be explicitly forced to take insurance coverage to me, unless you have none, which now I would direct readers to point 3 as my argument there would now apply here. This is where it sounded as if you might be forced to take the government option in lieu of none, and I don't think no coverage is applicable, yada yada, re-read 3.

"the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

'Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day' of the year the legislation becomes law.' ... So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers." http://www.investors.com......

-I'm reading this from page 16, and even taking it alone, Pro's quote above only seems to talk about 'when' you must have coverage by. I looked at the link, and commenters seemed to be slightly perplexed/mad at how it's misrepresented and provide some points to the contrary. It doesn't ban private insurance policies and my evidence for that statement is the bill itself. I ask Pro for a section of the bill that does state this, as I can't find one. The quote used above from the bill, again, only talks about when you need coverage by, and the paragraphs before and after are merely laying out what kind of coverage the following sections apply to. AKA, "if your coverage is a, and b, and c then listen to what follows, otherwise, d". I didn't read to d, but the section quoted doesn't STATE anything. It only says what the following statements apply to. And Private insurance isn't one of them, from my reading.

5. The idea I'm trying to get across is this. If there's 3 lemonade stands on the street, and they all sell a shot glass worth of lemonade and sell that shot glass for $20 a pop, there is something wrong here. But who are you to argue? They're selling the lemonade YOU need. Then, their parents decide to open up another stand that sells full glasses of lemonade for $5 a piece. Why? Because $20 is outrageous. This is the same idea here. The government sees that current prices and policies are outrageous, so they plan on 'showing them how it's done' so to speak. This should have the result of merely lowering costs, improving eligibility, and providing more coverage. I argue that we can assume that private insurers will attempt to meet government policies. I also suggest that they will do so by providing MORE policies and not getting rid of old ones, unless required to, which I still haven't seen full proof of (point 2). So you'll get to keep what you have, but you'll have more and better options. Choose wisely.

a. Pro argues, "I would like to point out that my opponent has made no argument that says people will be FORCED to use the new system outlined in the health insurance prop in any way." They will be forced to use the new system because (1) undercutting the free market by 20% to 40% will cause much of the market to disappear, and a person cannot keep what is unavailable,

-Assumption: the market will disappear rather then try to compete. Another assumption: the government will be sufficiently better than the private options. I don't see evidence for this and I think the US government has a bad track record for public services.

(2) many of the policies people now have will be outlawed, so they cannot keep them,

-Point 2. See it. Thanks

(3) if you are happy being uninsured, you won't be allowed to keep that status,

-Point 3. See it. Thanks.

(4) and rules mandate switching to the government run pool.

-Not sure which point this is.... 4? Yes, I think refer to points 3 and 4, focus on 4.

b. "...If Con believes all these government advantages are unimportant, I challenge him to say so directly."

-I do. I cite other countries as examples. They have government run health care, and they have private health insurance companies competing with the government. The government, with their resources, COULD harm private insurance, but I don't see evidence that they WILL.
The assertion that "if you like what you now have, you will be able to keep it" is clearly untrue.

The assertion that "if you like what you now have, you will be able to keep it" is clearly untrue.

-I have shown how I believe this statement of untruth to be untrue. I feel I have successfully rebutted the claims above. Most of the evidence Pro offers seems to be market predictions and, while grounded in fact, are not promises themselves, therefor, do not prove Obama's statements false. The bill seems to prove otherwise, as a matter of fact. I look forward to Pro's responses.
Debate Round No. 2
RoyLatham

Pro

This debate is not about whether or not people would be better off if they are forced by the government to do x, y, or z. It is solely about the truth of the assertion that under pending legislation, "if you like what you now have you will get to keep it."

1. Con has not contested the estimate that under proposed legislation 83 million people will lose their current health insurance. It was put at 119 million by the Lewen Group. Con claims that this ought not count as caused by the legislation, even though it follows as a consequence.

The statement made repeatedly by the President is "that if you like what you now how have, you will get to keep it." That implies that he and his fellow advocates have taken into account all of the indirect effects of the legislation. The assertion was not that "this legislation will indirectly cause 83 million people to lose their health care." Not even, "ignoring indirect effects ..." The statement is made categorically that "if you like what you now have, you will get to keep it."

I will use an extreme example to show Con's error in logic. Suppose the legislation said, "all employers who choose to continue their present health care will be promptly shot dead." Under Con's logic, if employers then discontinued their current coverage, it would not be a consequence of the legislation, but rather solely of employer choice. They could, after all, choose to be shot. Well, nobody is going to be shot. However, economic incentives are nonetheless extremely powerful, and their consequences are predictable.

Congress passes economic incentive frequently with the well-founded presumption they will affect behavior. For example, there are hundreds of "tax loopholes" designed to cause specific behaviors -- such as the home mortgage interest deduction provides a strong incentive for home ownership. The rule is that indirect consequences are considered in legislation, and, of course, they should be. Con's notion that we should not now take them into account is unsustainable.

Pass the proposed legislation and 83 million people will not get to keep what they now have.

2. I provided a link discussing the 65% actuarial requirement. That reference linked to the CBO http://www.cbo.gov... that explains the economic impact of actuarial requirements. The minimum requirement of the Baucus mark-up is 65% actuarial value. http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com... Other legislation has the same 65% actuarial value requirement.

So how many people would lose what they now have?

"But insurers and actuaries say that one-third to one-half of policies bought by individuals and families fall short. About 17 million people buy insurance on their own, in this individual market. ... Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, who helped write the Finance Committee bill, acknowledged that the federal standards were "high in relation to what is selling in the marketplace in some parts of the country. ... the Congressional Budget Office says, the actuarial value of policies bought in the individual insurance market now averages 55 percent to 60 percent."
http://www.nytimes.com...

Not counting plans provided by employers, about 9 or 10 million people would lose what they now have. Among the employer plans that would be outlawed is the well-publicized case of the health savings and insurance plan selected by a vote of the employees of Whole Foods. http://online.wsj.com...

4. I provided a reference summarizing each of the major health care legislation proposed by the ruling Democrats in Congress. Each one of them makes buying insurance mandatory, such as "Individuals must have insurance, enforced through tax penalty with hardship waivers." There is nothing ambiguous about that, and it is independent of the infamous p 16 of HR 3200. Con ignored the reference I gave, which covers virtually all pending legislation in favor of expressing confusion over an irrelevant citation he introduced. All of the legislation requires enrollment in health insurance, so if you now like buying services on the open market you will not get to keep what you now have.

""According to a new study from the Employment Policy Institute, authored by two economists from City University of New York (one, June O'Neill, spent four years as head of the Congressional Budget Office), 43 percent of the 47 million can afford insurance and choose not to purchase it." http://vincentgioiasblog.blogspot.com...

Those 20 million people will not be permitted to keep what we now have.

4. Most of the interpretations of page 16 of HR 3200 are that it will greatly limit choice when a person either loses a job or starts his own business. However, it is legal jabbering that will ultimately be interpreted by a government bureaucracy to mean whatever they want it to mean. That is the pattern in all of the thousand page bills. So what it comes down to in these ambiguous areas is: do we trust the government to preserve as much choice as possible? Not a chance. Their business is making choices for you.

5. Con says, "The government sees that current prices and policies are outrageous, so they plan on 'showing them how it's done' so to speak. This should have the result of merely lowering costs, improving eligibility, and providing more coverage." I clearly pointed out in Round 2, that the way the government "does it" is to (a) use unlimited tax dollars to subsidize losses; (b) set payments to providers by law independent of costs and markets; (c) exempt themselves from regulations by the states, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other laws; (d) exempt themselves from federal, state, and local taxes; (e) use taxpayers to raise capital at little or no cost; and (e) mandate that consumers buy their product. Con asserted that these advantages were insignificant, but provided no reason whatsoever why they were insignificant.

Suppose you or I or Con wanted to start a grocery store, and somehow the advantages (a) through (e) were obtained over competitors. All competitors not having those advantages would be forced out of business. How could they possibly compete while the chosen store could rack up unending losses, require customers to buy product, escape taxes and regulation, and control what they paid providers? Health care is just the same. Con should tell us specifically what mechanisms private enterprise should use to compete with each of the five government advantages. How for example, should private enterprise compete with infinite taxpayer subsidies for loses? Or exemption from all regulations and taxes?

One common bit of nonsense floating around is that health insurance companies could just cut profits. Total industry profits are $12.9 billion, corresponding to an industry average profit margin of 3%. http://www.cnsnews.com... Cut profits below 3% for very long and investors will choose to move capital to more profitable industries. The 3% profit is earned by cutting fraud and abuse. Fraud losses in private health care are commonly put at well below 1%, whereas in government-run Medicare estimates run as high as 20% of the approximately $500B in annual expenditures. http://www.npr.org... With perceived infinite resources and no profit motive, the government has little incentive to curb fraud and abuse.

In sum, it is not possible for private enterprise to compete with government, so whatever private industry exists at the start of the introduction of the government option, it will rapidly reduced. People will not be able to keep what they now have because it will not exist.

The resolution is clearly affirmed.
NDWolfwood5268

Con

NDWolfwood5268 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
NDW, A belief that is held without reasons is a product of faith, a type of religious belief. I asked how private enterprise possibly compete against the governments advantages, and you only expressed faith that it was possible. that makes it a topic for "religion" not "politics."
Posted by NDWolfwood5268 7 years ago
NDWolfwood5268
BAH! I completely forgot about round 3 in lieu of school!

Sorry about that. Great way to end my first debate here, eh? Well, I guess it doesn't matter too much as I still would have mostly just restated my existing points, claiming they still apply.

I just add this: Choice still exists, and it's up to each individual (or employer). Incentives can sway choices, but I propose that insurance companies still will offer counter-incentives to compete with the government and Roy is assuming they won't. He may be right, but I propose he is wrong. I suggest that private businesses will compete with the Government and not be snuffed out as predicted by some of Roy's sources.

Again, sorry I skipped out on round 3 and thanks for the debate!
Posted by NDWolfwood5268 7 years ago
NDWolfwood5268
Sorry to hear about the bug, Roy. Take your time. My argument looks long, but I think I quoted you a bit much so...
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
RR, No, you cannot. That was my point 3. See the references in my 2nd round posting.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
NDWolf, I'm glad you are delaying. I have come down with some sort of bug, and it will give me a chance to recover.
Posted by NDWolfwood5268 7 years ago
NDWolfwood5268
Hey, just wanted to let you know, I plan to do a bit of reading before responding and most likely will not get to it 'til tomorrow night. Just letting you know I'm gonna be a bit.

It's great your making me do some homework on this hehe.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Let's say my health care plan is to make lots of money, not pay taxes, and pay health care costs out of pocket.

Can I keep that health care plan? :P
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Thanks. :)
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Puck, It's the infamous page 16. It was the subject of a previous debate here on ddo. Searching the web for "health care page 16" produces quite a variety of opinions on what the language of the bill means.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
RoyLatham, have the text where a person who loses their job they have no choice but to take the government option? Searching the bill with no page numbers is proving difficult.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
RoyLathamNDWolfwood5268Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
RoyLathamNDWolfwood5268Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60