The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Obamacare (ACA) Should Be Replaced with a Single-Payer Healthcare System

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Comrade_Jude has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 481 times Debate No: 98269
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I believe that we should replace Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly referred to as "Obamacare", should be replaced by some form or variation of a single-payer healthcare system.


Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to debate this topic with you.

For this debate, I will be arguing against the implimentation of a single-payer healthcare system within the United States of America.

To the Pro: Good luck, and good debating.
Debate Round No. 1


I'm not sure if I'm doing this right... I believe in a single payer healthcare system first and foremost, because I believe that healthcare is human right and not just a privilege for the rich. I believe that it is wrong that some of the wealthiest Americans can get the best healthcare imaginable while for others they have none what-so-ever. According to Dr. Robert L Zarr, president of Physicians for a National Health Program, 1 person dies every 16 minutes in America due to not having access to healthcare. I believe that all Americans, rich or poor should have access to the same healthcare.


First and foremost: If you are not sure you are doing this right:
  1. Research previous debates
  2. Read any FAQ sections available
  3. Ask community members any further questions you may have
  4. Questions still outstanding? Fake it til you break it brother...or until you figure it out.
Please allow me to lend a helping hand on one small piece for you here. In all debates, no matter the platform or topic, you want to stick to facts as much as possible. Terms like "I believe", "I feel", "I think", and "In my opinion" should be avoided as much as possible. If you do use them, make sure you provide two to three hard facts to show that your feelings are justified by truthful reality.

A good rule of thumb I use is: "Your mom cares about your feelings, the universe cares about facts."

In order to label healthcare as a Human Right, we must first define "Human Right". We must then define the boundaries of what "healthcare" entails in the argument. Finally, we must prove the two components "Human Right" and "healthcare" are compatible in combination.
  1. Human Right -- A Right believed to belong to everyone. Fundamental Rights belonging to the individual, unable to be taken by government. Rights inherent to all people regardless of race, religion, residential location, age, sex, nationality, etc. Findamental Rights gained simply by being human; can neither be created nor can a group or person issue, ration, limit, or remove. Held by all persons equally, universally and forever. 1,2,3,4,5
  2. Healthcare -- As Pro has / is arguing for replacing the Affordable Care Act with single-payer healthcare, we can assume healthcare boundaries are equivalent to the current ACA.
Having completed the first two parts, defining terminology and boundaries, the last step is to verify compatibility. As we have learned previously, Human Rights are gained in birth, are not created; are not able to be issued, rationed, limited, or removed by anyone including government; and are held by all persons equally, universally and forever. We run into a number of issues at this point:
  1. Healthcare, insurance, physicians, medicine, etc.; none of these are naturally ocurring in the universe -- all are man-made & created.
  2. Government, insurance companies, medical practitioners, pharmacies, etc. currently do, or would in a single-payer system, issue, ration, limit, and remove healthcare from the individual.
  3. All human beings across the planet hold these Rights equally, universally and forever. This means that every single person alive today would be entitled to single-payer healthcare.
As we can see, each and every definition provided regarding Human Rights has been violated during compatibility verification; these two items are fundamentally incompatible.

In birth, each human inherently posesses a set of Rights. These Rights include, but are not limited to: Life, liberty, speech, education, and movement. 4

I would agree that in the United States, a free, Capitalist economy, those persons with the money to purchase better healthcare can and do receive better services. I would say welcome to America, however, even single-payer, universal healthcare systems offer public clinics and services for the public, and better, faster private clinics and services are available for those who can afford them. Canada's healthcare system is the main system used as a comparison and point of reference when discussing a single-payer system for America. Canada boasts both a public, and private healthcare system; private being a better system, available ony to those wealthy enough to be able to afford it. 6

All Americans are garaunteed by federal law, medical coverage by The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. § 1395. Under this law, and all accompanying court rulings, no person entering an emergency room in the U.S., regardless of any factors including citizenship, may be denied medical care. 7

The statement made by Dr. Robert L. Zarr of 1 death every 16 seconds is from a paper entitled "Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults". This paper makes the statement that over 45,000 Americans die each year from a lack of health insurance. However, this study is fundamentally flawed. The study notes the insurance status of a group of people in 1993. It then subsequently notes how many of those people died by 2001. However, there is a section entitled "Limitations", in which the authors note that the study used a single point in time documentation of insurance status. This means that any persons who gained either public or private insurance, anytime between 1993 and 2001, did not have their status updated. So in truth, we have no idea how many of those 45,000 a year actually had insurance and which did not. Additionally, the insurance status of respondents was never even verified. By any standards, this invalidates the study, voids any claims made in citation of the study, and nullifies any information, data and assertions made within the study. The study claims to use additional studies that show if a person is uninsured at the start, they will be uninsured a few years later. However, upon review, this study, entitled "Health Insurance Coverage And Mortality Among The Near-Elderly" actually reports the opposite, citing increases of covered population by percentage per year of 46.6%, 58.4%, 66.1%, and 74.5%. The study actually shows that over time, more people were being insured. 8,9

Additionally, at least two of the authors: David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler are founding members of Physicians for a National Health System. The doctor Pro cited, Dr. Robert L Zarr, is the president for this group. This group's only purpose is to enact, and lobby for, a single-payer healthcare system. This is a CLEAR conflict of interest and should draw massive scruitiny to the study.

Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MakeSensePeopleDont 1 year ago
Weird. All day it just says "Debate Round Forfeited Comrade_Jude has forfeited round #3. Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options." It won't let me continue to my next round's arguments.
Posted by jo154676 1 year ago
Oh pro using an emotional argument is bound to get you in trouble.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.