Obamacare should be abolished.
Debate Rounds (2)
https://www.youtube.com.... I believe Obamacare should not have been passed in the first place.
I expect that Pro will give an actual argument next round...
Obamacare no doubt has been increasing healthcare prices. According to section 2715 of Obamacare, it is mandatory that your healthcare plan has all the requirements that are stated in Obamacare, if your plan doesn't meet up to these requirements after 12 months of the passing of Obamacare then you will get a financial penalty. Therefore, you would have to pay for a better plan if your plan doesn't meet up to Obamacare's requirements. This has had a profound effect on American citizens, in California 1 in 4 adults reported that they will struggle to pay the debt that there healthcare plan will give them.
This will also puts strain on the states budget, though the government is covering all of the budget in the start. Support for the program will go down to 90% by 2020. Every year slowly less money will given to the states for funding Obamacare, Obamcare could end up costing millions of dollars for states in the near future. In the next 5 years, according to Nancy Pelosi Obamacare will "greatly exceeded" 70 million dollars annually for the states.
From this, I conclude that Obamacare should be abolished because of costs and strain it brings on the American citizens and the states. Obamacare must be abolished, Americans must stand up to this horrible bill and get rid of it once and for all.
http://www.gpo.gov... -Section 2715 of HR 3590 -14
Pro loses because he does not have any impacts. Just because Obamacare costs a lot does not mean it should be abolished. The fundamental role of government is to protect the lives of its citizens, whether from foreign invasion, crime, injustice, economic downturns, or even medical conditions. Rights violations can come in all forms, and the government is obligated to take measures against all of them; Obamacare is no different. If the government is willing to spend *56.8 billion* dollars to prevent terrorist attacks , which can at the most take away a few hundred lives per year, then surely it is justified in spending "70 million dollars" (a comparatively insignificant expense) to safeguard the lives of roughly *8 million* people . The monetary costs of Obamacare alone simply do not outweigh the immense benefits it produces in terms of the preservation of human life.
I rest my case. Vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pros entire argument revolves around cost. Con adequately shows how we spend much more for something insignificant compared to a minimal amount for something more significant. We spend more preventing terrorists than protecting millions of people without insurance (8mil on cons data). So the cost argument fails. The benefits of saving 8 million people > a few hundred million dollars.
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.