The Instigator
MassDebator255
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CD-Host
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Obamacare is not good for the country

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,508 times Debate No: 18031
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

MassDebator255

Pro

I believe that the health care bill that President Obama has passed is not good for our country. I think their were other better options on the table that were passed over to satisfy this presidents political agenda. The main problems that explain why I think this is wrong for the country are: 1. A mandate that individuals purchase insurance. This means the government will decide what type and when we are to receive health care, and what fines and penalties there will be for those that refuse to pay in to health care. 2.A "pay-or-play" mandate for employers. Employers would be forced to either pick up a substantial part of their employees' insurance premiums or pay a tax. As businesses absorb this blow, jobs will disappear and workers will face lower wages. 3.A national health insurance Exchange. Proponents of this approach say it would "streamline the purchase of health insurance" by giving consumers one place to purchase government-approved insurance policies. In fact, it would be a vehicle for the federal government to get into the business of sweeping regulation of health insurance that inevitably would destroy choice and innovation.4. The cost. This bill is estimated to cost $1 trillion plus dollars over 10 years. Right now there are about 30 million people estimated to be uninsured. this is roughly 10 percent of the country. Logic then suggest that there must be 90% total coverage as of right now. Obama claims that his health care will insure coverage up to 95% of our country. 95-90 is 5%. So those of us with insurance, will be paying taxes to subsides 5% of the country's health care. 1 trillion dollars is alot of money for only 5 percent of the country. And this number is just an estimate. As most people will agree, numbers always change. Look at social security and Medicaid. These programs are broke, and this was not the "projection" when these programs were first debated. So what makes us think that 1 trillion dollars will not increase to 2 trillion or 3 trillion? chances are, that is exactly what will happen. Further, there is no way that insurance premiums will go down or stay the same when insurance companies are required to cover children on their parents plans until the age of 26, not to mention that now insurance companies will be required to cover people despite pre-existing conditions.
Lastly, ill be the first to say that there is a health care affordability problem. NOT a health care problem. America is the best and most innovative when it comes to actual health care, we have the best specialists in the world. But this care is not always affordable to everyone. There are solutions to this problem, though what obama has crammed down Americans throats are not part of any valid solution. I welcome anyone who thinks that they can challenge the logic of this assertion.
CD-Host

Con



OK lets get started, thank you for this opportunity to defend Obamacare. Pro made 4 very specific charges

1) That the system involves a mandate

This is absolutely true. The approach that Obama choose was the Republican approach (Nixon/Dole/Romney) which leaves America with a private health insurance system. If you are going to have coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, you need to make sure that people don't game the system by paying out of pocket until something is seriously wrong and then buying insurance. Hence if you are going to require insurance companies to cover everyone you need a mandate.

No harms were specifically listed in the Pro case for a mandate.


2) A "pay-or-play" mandate for employers.


The harm listed here is specific, "As businesses absorb this blow, jobs will disappear and workers will face lower wages." Obviously it is the case that all things being equal increases in costs of employment result in either decreased employment or decreased wages or both. That's true of any tax. Its also true of any expense.

For employers currently paying for healthcare the premium reductions caused by universality and the decrease in overhead expenses (since insurance companies can't get out of payment as easily) will cause healthcare costs to reduce. So employers that don't provide insurance will have a tougher time, and those that do will have an easier time. Which is precisely the desired behavior, using the tax system to incentivize private action.

In general the business has been very supportive of the Patient Protection Act (Obamacare). They view the current system as a triple tax: [1]




      1. They pay taxes to medicare
      2. They pay for the employee's insurance
      3. That insurance cost bundles high administration and coverage for the uninsured. Thus it is much higher than it would be if there was universality.


3) Exchanges will lead to regulation.


Insurance today is regulated primarily at the state level. The exchanges aren't in any way between states. There is no particular reason this statute would cause the Federal Government to decide it wants to directly regulate insurance contracts. Pro has presented no evidence for this cause and effect.


4) The cost


Now this is where I think the bill is a delight. The United States has a quality of care worse than many 3rd world countries with a cost of care 50% higher than France's. Our system is an unmitigated disaster from a cost perspective, far and away least efficient on the planet. [REfs]

As for the math in point (4) my opponent missed Medicare & Medicaid which is well over 1/2 of the entire insurance system, in his math.

Finally there is a comment that we have the best care. I see no evidence for that. I'd like Pro to produce some evidence.

[1] See Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org...


[Refs] Graph of Healthcare cost vs. life-expectancy: http://user.cloudfront.goodinc.com...
The classic 2004 article in Health affairs: http://content.healthaffairs.org...

http://www.kff.org...
A quick graph of the USA on the Healthcare spending relative to the GDP per Capita trend line.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...
This article lists the 4 main reasons for higher costs, Obamacare addresses 1 to some extent and 2.
1. higher prices for the same health care goods and services than are paid in other countries for the same goods and services;
2. significantly higher administrative overhead costs than are incurred in other countries with simpler health-insurance systems;
3. more widespread use of high-cost, high-tech equipment and procedures than are used in other countries;
4. higher treatment costs triggered by our uniquely American tort laws, which in the context of medicine can lead to “defensive medicine” — that is, the application of tests and procedures mainly as a defense against possible malpractice litigation, rather than as a clinical imperative.

Debate Round No. 1
MassDebator255

Pro

MassDebator255 forfeited this round.
CD-Host

Con

This is likely going to be a series of forfeits. So I'll just post some advantages the Patient's bill of rights which came from Federal law a decade ago.

All patients should be guaranteed the following freedoms:

  • To seek consultation with the physician(s) of their choice;
  • To contract with their physician(s) on mutually agreeable terms;
  • To be treated confidentially, with access to their records limited to those involved in their care or designated by the patient;
  • To use their own resources to purchase the care of their choice;
  • To refuse medical treatment even if it is recommended by their physician(s);
  • To be informed about their medical condition, the risks and benefits of treatment and appropriate alternatives;
  • To refuse third-party interference in their medical care, and to be confident that their actions in seeking or declining medical care will not result in third-party-imposed penalties for patients or physicians;
  • To receive full disclosure of their insurance plan in plain language, including:
  1. CONTRACTS: A copy of the contract between the physician and health care plan, and between the patient or employer and the plan;
  2. INCENTIVES: Whether participating physicians are offered financial incentives to reduce treatment or ration care;
  3. COST: The full cost of the plan, including copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles;
  4. COVERAGE: Benefits covered and excluded, including availability and location of 24-hour emergency care;
  5. QUALIFICATIONS: A roster and qualifications of participating physicians;
  6. APPROVAL PROCEDURES: Authorization procedures for services, whether doctors need approval of a committee or any other individual, and who decides what is medically necessary;
  7. REFERRALS: Procedures for consulting a specialist, and who must authorize the referral;
  8. APPEALS: Grievance procedures for claim or treatment denials;
  9. GAG RULE: Whether physicians are subject to a gag rule, preventing criticism of the plan.


Debate Round No. 2
MassDebator255

Pro

Ok sorry folks for forfeiting round 2. I had other things going on and was unavailable. And im sure my opponent WISHES that the rest of this will be me forfeiting....FAT CHANCE. LOL.

1."If you are going to have coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, you need to make sure that people don't game the system by paying out of pocket until something is seriously wrong and then buying insurance."
This is Exactly what is going to happen. If people dont comply(and they wont), then they will be fined and only in serious cases they will be jailed. Well, it just so happens that the fines would be less than the cost to purchase healthcare. And this is an invetablitlity! Premiums will go up because insurance companies are now being forced to cover people despite pre-existing conditions. This is akin to my house being on fire before i purchase home owners insurance. If insurace companies nit pick everything now, they surely will then. And there isnt enough regulation to insure that premiums wont increase. If a man needs a $250,000 heart transplant, but has only made one or two payments, then how would the insurance companies compensate for this? especially if thousands of these ill people are needing to be covered at the same time? They will increase the premiums, thats how. And so because of this, no one will buy insurance until they need an operation, they will take on the penalties gladly and laugh to the operating table. This will inevitably CRUSH the insurance system, making way for a single payer, government type healthcare system. The mandate will not have enough people paying in to the system for it to cover people with pre existing conditions.
2."For employers currently paying for healthcare the premium reductions caused by universality and the decrease in overhead expenses (since insurance companies can't get out of payment as easily) will cause healthcare costs to reduce. So employers that don't provide insurance will have a tougher time, and those that do will have an easier time. Which is precisely the desired behavior, using the tax system to incentivize private action."

This law is death by a thousand cuts for small business owners. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the overhaul will cost about $115 billion more than first projected, bringing the total to more than $1 trillion. Small businesses will also now have to deal with an onslaught of new taxes and burdensome paperwork. One of these new taxes is a so-called health insurance fee. It's a massive $8 billion tax (that escalates to $14.3 billion by 2018) on insurance companies based on their market share. This tax will be paid almost exclusively by small businesses and individuals because the law specifically excludes self-insured plans, the plans that most big businesses and labor unions offer, from having to pay the tax.

While the health insurance fee was designed to "go after" large health-insurance companies, the reality is that insurers aren't simply going to absorb this new tax; it will be passed on to customers. Specifically, it will be passed on to the plans that 87% of small businesses and individuals buy. A study by the Federal Policy Group published last October found that the amount of taxes passed on to the typical family of four could be $500 or more per year.

Adding insult to injury, the law also requires all businesses to issue IRS 1099 forms to document every business-to-business transaction of $600 or more. To someone who's never run a business, this may sound like nothing. But Congress hopes to raise $17 billion in added tax revenues and fees from this new mandate. That's hardly nothing to congress, but the result is detrimental to people, small businesses and the economy. Im not sure how, when looking at the facts anyone can argue that this bill can do anything BUT harm the country.
3."Insurance today is regulated primarily at the state level. The exchanges aren't in any way between states. There is no particular reason this statute would cause the Federal Government to decide it wants to directly regulate insurance contracts. Pro has presented no evidence for this cause and effect."
The problems with a FEDERAL exchange is the same ones that massachussetts has(the health care bill was largely modeled after mass. healthcare):From Stateline's Healthbeat:

"The Commonwealth Connector, Massachusetts' version of a health insurance exchange, has failed to attract many small business purchasers and individuals who are not eligible for subsidies. That's the assessment of a new report from a nonpartisan, privately funded research group in the state, the Pioneer Institute. Small businesses and individuals who do not qualify for subsidies make up only 1.5 percent of the Connector's membership. And less than 1 percent of small group insurance purchases in the state are made through the exchange, the report found. Although Massachusetts' groundbreaking health care overhaul became the model for the federal health law, the report's author said the Connector needs repairs before it can comply."

In other words, the state-run exchange has managed to attract people who qualify for generous insurance subsidies—and almost no one else. You have to wonder: If these sorts of government-run insurance marketplaces are so great, how come the only group of people in the Bay State who seem to be taking advantage of it are those who're getting taxpayer-funded subsidies to do so?
4. The cost
First, my opponent missed my point. I know that 43 million people were enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid( about 15%, not 50%)(http://www.kaiseredu.org... ), but that doesnt take away from what i said. Obama claims 95 percent will be covered. 90 percent are currently covered. The ESTIMATED(wrongly) cost is a trillion bucks. so we are spending a trillion bucks to cover 5 percent of the population.
My opponent wants proof that we have the best healthcare.(i said we had a healthcare affordability problem, not a healthcare problem). I can show links, but first i want my opponent, and anyone else who reads this to use their head. Think really really really hard. Now name for me an award winning hospital(dont google it) OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES!!! i can name several that are here: Harvard medical, UCLA, The Mayo clinic, Johns hopkins, Duke University. I can go on and on.When people in other countries need THE BEST care (as opposed to acceptable care, because its cheap), they come to the United states. We have the best medical schools, the best specialists. We may not be the best in preventative medicine, (we are working on it) but when it comes to Cancer research and survival rates, we are first, when it comes to heart surgeries and transplant and care, we are first.Every serious illness the united states is on the cutting edge. Our FDA approves Chronic care medicine for the public faster than any other industrialized nation. And when it comes to medical technology, the United States is the leader in that field.

5. NEW REASON OBAMACARE IS NOT GOOD...
The number : 47 million people without insurance is a blown up number..its false. and misleading.
Everyone has access to health care. They may not have health insurance, but the law mandates everyone who shows up at emergency rooms must be treated, insurance or not.Census figures also show that 18.3 mn of the uninsured were under 34 who may simply not think about the need for insurance. that puts the number at 29 million.Many may be able to afford health insurance, but for whatever reason choose to not buy it. In 2007, an estimated 17.6 mn of the uninsured made more than $50,000 per year, and 10 mn of those made more than $75,000 a year. now were down to12 million. An unbiased panel commision by the CBO estimates that only 8 million are truely uninsured because they cant afford or dont have the means to acquire health insurance.
CD-Host

Con

1) The harm listed was the individual mandate. I asked for harms of the mandate which was the original claim in round 3, and we don’t have any. We do have a new point of disagreement. Which is the cost structure of the individual mandate:

Well, it just so happens that the fines would be less than the cost to purchase healthcare. And this is an invetablitlity! Premiums will go up because insurance companies are now being forced to cover people despite pre-existing conditions. This is akin to my house being on fire before i purchase home owners insurance.

That’s actually specifically what the mandate prevents. The cost of the fines will be higher than the likely out of pocket expenses. Say for example a 25 year old has a mean likely out of pocket expense of $3k and a median of $1k (median would be lower because catastrophic costs). Assume the insurance is $3300. The fine needs to be higher than $2300 not higher than the $3300 to make the choice to purchase insurance rational. And if he doesn’t purchase it, the fine covers the risk just as well as a premium would.

2) “pay-or-play for employers. Here there was a specific harm listed and it was addressed in round 1. In particular the business community has been supportive of the Patient Protection act (Obamacare), because they like the cost containment structures. This counter argument wasn’t addressed.

Instead we see more hyperbole about a taxes and insurance companies. A small tax representing less than ½% of the cost healthcare is the focus. Just so that I don’t have to debate the “horrors of paperwork” any small business that wants to can join a Professional employer organization (PEO) and co-employee their employees with someone who is responsible for all healthcare, payroll, disability... costs. Generally additional costs are a few hundred dollars per head per year. And that’s for all HR costs. If we assume that small businesses are already absorbing 80% of the work this makes it about $50 / head / year. I’ll triple that for a margin of error and make it under ½% of wage costs.

So even with that triple how is that “death by a thousand cuts”?

3) The 3rd harm was federal regulation. In round 1 I pointed out that the exchanges don’t change anything with respect to the regulatory framework. We are now moving onto whether exchange are going to be used. I don’t see any reason to argue this. They don’t exist under current law and they aren’t key to the system so:

Heads: They are good and get used.
Tails : They are bad and no one uses them and its like the current system no worse or better in this one aspect.

4) On the issue of cost I commented and documented heavily how high US healthcare costs were for inferior care. There were no counter statistics presented. What was presented was an argument that the US has all the best hospitals based on the assumption that Americans can’t name good foreign hospitals. In real life, while hospitals like John Hopkins are internationally well known and the US has 17 internationally known hospitals those hospitals are simply on par with the world’s leaders:

  1. Bumrungrad International Hospital, Thailand
  2. Parkway Health Care, Singapore
  3. Wales Hospital, Australia
  4. Centro Médico ABC Hospital, Mexico
  5. Hospital Punta Pacifica, Panama
  6. The London Clinic, United Kingdom
  7. Klinik Hirslanden, Switzerland
  8. The American Hospital, France
  9. Vienna Hospital, Austria

This is not a situation where the US is uniquely great, other than a disproportionate share.

5) Finally a new reason is presented which is an argument that everyone has access by stealing care from hospitals under the mandates. Having an unfunded mandate has destroyed the emergency care system in states with high levels of uninsured persons for example LA:

http://projects.latimes.com...

Debate Round No. 3
MassDebator255

Pro

First i want to thank my opponent for a nice friendly debate. He has argued well, but not well enough. I ask that voters vote pro, as i have shown that obamacare causes more problems than fixes any, thus is harmful to our country and our struggling economy.

Lets get some facts straight. What is the penalty of not complying with the individual mandate? My opponent seems to think it is high enough to give incentive to people to comply. The actual bill says otherwise. Here is an excerpt from the actual bill: After 2016, the flat dollar amount is indexed to inflation. The flat dollar penalty is
capped at 300% of the flat dollar amount. For example:
o A family of three (two parents and one child under 18) would have a flat dollar
penalty of $1737 in 2016;
o A family of four (two parents and two children over 18) would have a flat dollar
penalty of $2,085 in 2016 because the 300 % cap would apply
(PPACA �� 1501 and 10106 adding IRC �5000A(c); � 1002 of Reconciliation Bill).

Now lets look at the alternative: Buying Insurance.:
•On average, the annual premium was $2,985 for a single person and $6,328 for a family.
•The annual premium differed from state to state. For example, the premium for a family health plan in New York was $13,296, while a similar plan in Iowa was $5609.
•The annual premiums for health plans were also different depending if the annual deductible was high or low. For example, family plans with no deductible had an average premium of $12686 each year, while plans with an annual deductible of $10,000 had an average premium of $5380 each year.(http://healthinsurance.about.com...)
So as you can see, you DONT BUY INSURANCE: $2085 for a family of four VS BUYING INSURANCE: $6328 for a family of four. Now who wants to pay that much when they could just pay the penalty and when something really bad happens, they can run off and get insurance and they cant turn them down for a pre-existing condition? And the result will be higher premiums because consumers are going to be the ones who bear the brunt of the extra money being spent by covering these people. Eventually, the entire insurance system will collapse, paving the way for a government run single payer system, which is worse than what we have now. We all know the governments track record when it comes to running programs successfully.
2. My opponent says that " In particular the business community has been supportive of the Patient Protection act (Obamacare), because they like the cost containment structures. This counter argument wasn't addressed."
On the contrary, every site that i looked up speaks to this being false.(My opponent also neglects to add any proof to his random statements). Recently some 20 states, led by Florida Attorney Gen. Bill McCollum--and recently joined by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), representing some 350,000 small businesses--have filed suit against ObamaCare, claiming that the legislation is unconstitutional.They say the federal government has no authority to require people to buy health coverage, plus the law imposes numerous financial hardships on the states.
Here is a website of Small Business owners and what they think about Obamacare: http://www.speaker.gov... Major findings of the study include:

• By overwhelming margins, small employers who have some knowledge of the new law think that PPACA will not reduce the rate of health care (insurance) cost increases, will not reduce the administrative burden, will increase taxes, and will add to the federal deficit. They agree that PPACA will result in more people having health insurance coverage, but do not think it will yield a healthier American public.
• Fifty-seven percent of a cross-section of companies that employ 50 or fewer workers and offer coverage may stop doing so.
• Twenty percent of small employers currently offering expect to significantly change their benefit package and/or their employees' premium cost-share the next time they renew their health insurance plans. Almost all significant changes expected involve a decrease in benefits, an increase in employee cost-share, or both.
• Since the law's enactment, one in eight (12%) small employers have either had their health insurance plans terminated or been told that their plan would not be available in the future. Plan elimination is the first major consequence of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) that small-business owners likely feel.
• Eighteen percent of small employers think they are "very familiar" with PPACA and another 40 percent think they are "somewhat familiar" with the new law.

NEXT:"In round 1 I pointed out that the exchanges don't change anything with respect to the regulatory framework."
Why would a phenomenally successful private insurer ever want to compete with itself by offering a heavily regulated Health Insurance Exchange product that has unaffordable premiums because of adverse selection? Because of the requirement of risk adjustment within the Exchange, and because individuals and employers with high health care costs will seek relief in the Exchange, all products offered by the Exchange will be too expensive.

The Health Insurance Plan of California (later PacAdvantage) was designed not unlike the current federal proposals - an insurance exchange especially geared for small businesses. Because of adverse selection, it became a victim of the death spiral, and closed in 2006 at the expense of millions of dollars that were passed onto the residents of california. This costs money, and that is one thing that we are all short of. This will add to our deficit. Thus, it is harmful.
THE COST; you are missing my point. What im talking about is the cost to pay for this overhaul of healthcare will be passed on the the american public, and the healthcare plan isnt making anything better! Most people would be a little less reluctant to give up a little extra hard earned money if they felt confident that what they were paying for is better than what they already have. NEWS FLASH: they dont. The estimated cost is a trillion dollars. This is unsustainable, and destined to balloon into a quite larger number. What happens when (like social security) the government runs out of their money needed to cover millions of americans? They'lll do what they always do, steal it from other programs at the expense of that program. Or they will raise taxes on americans who already cant afford their bills. The bottom line is that the cost is too great. Especially when there were suggestions that would have made healthcare better, affordable and heres the kicker: IT WOULD HAVE COST NOTHING!!!!
what was that plan? Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. How would this make it more affordable? Because if health insurance for a single man in Cali costs 200 bucks, but in arizona, costs 70 bucks, then it would force the company in california to lower their prices so as not to loose millions of customers, otherwise everyone will jump ship to where it is the cheapest, and the more expensive company would close down. This is called the free market. It would work and all it takes is a law change, not 1 trillion dollars. Picture wal-mart. Wal-mart has forced other chains to lower prices to compete. Otherwise they go out of business. This is how allowing states to compete would lower healthcare costs and ultimatley make it better.
Well im running out of room. I ask that the voters vote for me because my opponent has not dissproved how obamacare is harmfull. He has tried to dismantle my arguments and has failed. He has not shown any reasons why obamacare is GOOD! He has not shown how obamacare will fix existing problems. Thanks for viewing and voting.
CD-Host

Con

I’d like to thank my opponent for this debate.

Lets address the issues. On the individual mandate my opponent has given figures. My claim was that median out of pocket medical cost for the uninsured + fine > insurance cost.

My opponent proved that:
insurance cost > fine. Which is fully consistent with my equation providing that:
median out of pocket cost for the uninsured > 0.

And of course that is the case. My opponent mentioned that $10,000 deductible for a family plan cut the premium from $12686 to $5380. So that means approximately 73% of all those deductible dollars would have been spent. If we construct a worst case scenario where 49% of the people consume 100% and the rest uniformly use the rest that would still put the cost at 48% i.e. $4800 well in excess of the fine. So using my opponents own data there is plenty of room for the effect. This is besides the fact the fine can be easily increased, if the desire is to drive people to the insurance companies.


The next issue is business support.

Obviously different agencies do and don’t support different aspects of this bill. Healthcare dissatisfaction with any plan runs about 70% of the US so small businesses supporting repeal is not unusual. Small businesses in general provide bad or no care and the law makes that expensive it is not shocking that segment of the business community would be opposed.

If we look at big business which currently pays for healthcare we find a different attitude. Let’s example the 3 most credible groups / business lobbies.

First off, a good chunk of this legislation came from the business roundtable (http://www.californiahealthline.org...)

  • Individual insurance mandate
  • Value-based purchasing, in which payment rates would be based on quality measures;
  • Innovation centers to experiment with alternate methods of provider reimbursement;
  • Accountable care organizations;
  • Bundling, in which providers are paid a lump sum for treating a single condition;
  • Financial penalties for avoidable hospital readmissions
  • Comparative effectiveness research.

Read more: http://tinyurl.com...

And of course the US Council on Foreign Relations (international business group) that I discussed at length in part 1 are supporters.

The US Chamber of Commerce sees the law as too consumer friendly but supports both increased regulation and federalization. (http://www.uschamber.com...), which my opponent had listed as anti-business harms.


As for the exchanges my opponent is not addressing the key argument that the exchanges just provide another mechanism. It is expensive to provide healthcare for the sick. We can either do it or not do it. We can either have them purchase subsidized using the standard market or the exchange market. The cost that needs to be considered is the extra cost of the exhange not of the medical care. The exchanges in and of themselves are a mechanism for implementing policy, not policy.

He also brings up purchase across state lines which would create a national insurance market and thus necessitate national regulation of healthcare. His whole argument in part 1 was that national healthcare regulation was a negative.

I think I’ve shown that my opponent is essentially repeating contradictory talking points and the law holds up to analysis by credible well researched groups. Thank you and vote con.

Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by MassDebator255 3 years ago
MassDebator255
You needed to prove how Obamacare was GOOD for the country, since i said it was bad. You never did this. It wasnt my responsibility to provide alternatives, only to prove how what Obamacare IS, is BAD. I did that. The two voters still agreed after the fact. And they didnt say that you presented better arguments...they said we were tied. Im losing because of the forfeit,(a technicality considering despite the forfeit, i still was able to make my case) and because of supposed gramatical and spelling errors..this is not objective...Whos arguments were better? there should not be a tie...and if there IS a tie, then the tie breaker should be who you agreed with after the debate...which is me.
Posted by CD-Host 3 years ago
CD-Host
The two voters are a libertarian and a conservative. For them to actually support the Patient Protection act would be a fundmental change in attitude about the role of government. I don't have to do that. All they are saying is that I presented better arguments on this one topic, this one time. Not that I caused them to re-evaluate their entire political philosophy.

Most likely we both feel like the arguments were ducked. You never addressed the deep structural problems in terms of costs of American healthcare and what you wanted to do about it. A far better pro-case would have been to have presented a real libertarian solution involving repeal of medicare, medicaid and a some sort of subsidized cash based system.
Posted by MassDebator255 3 years ago
MassDebator255
You know, its crazy, that both people that have voted, both agreed with me before, agreed with me after, yet I am losing this debate. If my opponent has not convinced you that he was right, then his arguments were not as good as mine. I have lost points because of arbitrary things like spelling and grammar. That is ridiculous, this has spell check. And if I've made grammatical errors that my opponent didn't make, id love for someone to point them out. And some said that our arguments were equal....WTF? My opponent dodged my questions and points as if it were a red herring. It is a FACT, as I have pointed out, that Yearly health insurance costs are higher than the proposed fine for not having insurance...Yet my opponent disagrees with this and never showed any valid proof. I used THE ACTUAL BILL... The two voters said my opponent had better links....so what if his arguments are bunk...and just because it has .gov at the end does not make it better...of course the government is going to be in support of their own mandates...The voting system here does not really insure objectivity, they might as well let anyone vote, and it should just be yea or nay...my arguments are essentially better, but I'm losing on a technicality..anyone with a brain, who actually reads the arguments, can see that I should be winning this debate..but I digress.
Posted by CD-Host 3 years ago
CD-Host
I wish I had more time right now. I'd love to take con on this one.
Posted by brian_eggleston 3 years ago
brian_eggleston
Wall of text so didn't read beyond the title but I would suggest that if you are financially disadvantaged, universal health care (or something approaching that), would be a very good thing.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 3 years ago
Lordknukle
MassDebator255CD-HostTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe that the arguments presented were about equal. However, Pro gave huge walls of text which made it nearly impossible to read (hence -1 spelling and grammar). Con provided more sources.
Vote Placed by Sketchy 3 years ago
Sketchy
MassDebator255CD-HostTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seemed much more professional during the debate, and definitely had better sources. Con gets better conduct due to Pro's forfeiting Round 2. The arguments themselves were very good on both sides. I believe Con was slightly more convincing, but it was so close that I voted for a tie.