ObamaCare should be repealed
Debate Rounds (3)
Without Obamacare, we would have to keep spending more and more on social security, Medicare, and etc. Obamacare is there to assist those who cannot afford medical insurance and or those who have very low incomes while making up for that through raising taxes of the more affluent and putting light burdens on businesses. If it were not there, the increased debt from our current health insurance programs would exceed that of the current debt of Obamacare.
Though its existence increases debt in the long run if changes to it are not made despite increased taxes and forced corporate assistance, Obama plans on cutting the debt in other places of spending, such as the military(where spending is beyond excessive).
Also, repealing it will cost around 6.2 trillion USD over the next 75 years.
Obamacare does not take from social security, it works with it, along with Medicare, Medicaid, and etc.
The lower middle class and the poor will receive significant tax breaks actually, from Obamacare. The only tax hikes will be for the more affluent.
http://www.cbsnews.com...) so I have no idea where you are getting this 7 trillion dollar debt from
2. A total of 2.6 trillion dollars is gone from social security and part of that money has been allocated towards obamacare. http://www.forbes.com...
3. Why should we give the poor tax breaks when they pay so little in taxes, and why should we increase taxes on the rich when the 1% pays more than 50% of our income taxes each year. The answer is not to keep taxing the rich until they pay 75% because that money would be used to fuel more idiotic programs like Obamacare.
"repealing it will cost around 6.2 trillion USD over the next 75 years." -Me
"A health care repeal would cost 109 billion ( http://www.cbsnews.com......)"
The article from CBS News cites the Congressional Budget Office, which says that the 109 billion cost of repealing Obamacare would be for the years 2013-2022, not over the course of the next 75 years.
Also, it only takes into account of direct spending(spending from the program, because it is the topic of the headline), not the exponentially increasing spending of the other health insurance programs such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and etc.
The article used this article as its source: http://www.cbo.gov...
"A total of 2.6 trillion dollars is gone from social security and part of that money has been allocated towards obamacare. http://www.forbes.com...;
That article does not mention the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare/Obama's Health Insurance Policy at all.
"Why should we give the poor tax breaks when they pay so little in taxes . . ."
The poor earn less, and therefore should pay less because the more affluent still have financial advantages over them.
" . . . and why should we increase taxes on the rich when the 1% pays more than 50% of our income taxes each year."
If you think about it, the government has to pay for a lot of things, such as protection, public works, health care, and etc. You are suggesting that we start taking more from the poor and less from those who can more than afford it -on top of lavish luxuries.
"The answer is not to keep taxing the rich until they pay 75% because that money would be used to fuel more idiotic programs like Obamacare."
I apologize if I sound terse but this is a formal debate and insulting your opponent's position is not respectful.
TeaPartyRepublican forfeited this round.
I am finished. Thanks for the debate though.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forefeited, and did not refute any of Con's arguments in anyway. Con gave strong arguments, plus refuted all of Pro's arguments. On top of that, Pro forfeited, so clear win for Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.