Debate Rounds (3)
The current medical system isn't even close to perfect or efficient. The ACA also isn't perfect or efficient, but it will move us close to efficiency if it's allowed to work without being sabotaged. The argument against the ACA and talk of "socialism" is really a veiled argument for continuing the excessive profits for insurance companies and hospital administrations.
When someone goes to the emergency room, it is the law that the hospital treats the medical issue. Hospitals are required to provide after care and therapy, but what they are required to provide in an emergency costs a lot. We taxpayers pay that cost. Those without health insurance, that can't afford preventative care, end up going to the emergency room when they get too sick. No one wants to be sick. No one wants to go to the emergency room for a tooth ache. No one wants to miss work, thus loosing money. No one wants to go bankrupt because of high medical bills. No one wants to have to make a choice between paying paying medical bills and their rent/mortgage. Since every is born, eventually requires medical care, and dies, the medical system should be a system of cradle to grave care, and not excessive profit.
The notion of America having the best health care system in an illusion. Insurance companies were, and still are, in the business of making money. There isn't anything illegal about that, but where the rubber meets the road, they weren't promoting health care, they were promoting profits. Those people that lost their insurance coverage were paying for junk insurance. There are insurance policies that don't provide any actual medical coverage.
The ACA raised the bar on medical care and coverage to meet a more universal standard of care that some of insurance companies , only interested in making money, couldn't meet. So these sub par profit minded companies, either raised the price of their service many fold, or they simply canceled the insurance policies. Many people got very upset at "loosing" their insurance coverage, but in reality, they weren't truly covered in the even they actually got sick. They were paying for something that wasn't really going to cover them if they actually got sick. They were paying for something that was an illusion. Mean while, the insurance company got paid. Those policies that did pay for some level of medical care paid money to cover hospital admin fees and not actual care to the patient.
In the current system, not everyone pays their fair share for medical coverage. Since it's illegal and immoral to deny medical service at emergency rooms, those that do pay taxes have to foot the bill for those that don't. Under the ACA, everyone has to contribute to the medical system that everyone will eventually use at some point in their lives. If you couldn't get insurance before, the market would be opened up to address that issue. If you refuse to secure your own insurance, then you will get little or no tax refund. That money will go towards paying into the national medical care system that will eventually lower the excessive costs of medical care.
Here is the problem I see with it:
One teacher at school said that her insurance is going from $75 to $345. I then talked to another teacher who is in charge of the insurance here at school. This is what he told me, "...Every year, the insurance goes up about 7% so what is she trying to say?"
I hope you are good at math because 7% of $75 is NOT $345. That is the problem I am seeing with Obamacare. Why did the government shut down? Because the republicans wanted to fix Obamacare so people wouldn't have this problem. They wanted to hold off for a little while but the democrats were not going to let that happen.
My stepsister recently got Obamacare. She is paying a little over $200 a month and she has absolutely no clue what her deductible is. I see that as another problem! She may not be the brightest in the world, but shouldn't her insurance company tell her what her deductible is?
For this day forward, please base your debate topics off of logic, which is the standard for a good argument. Logic = consistency. Inconsistency leads to contradictions. A proper argument means that, using deductive reasoning as a valid method, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true.
An example of this would be:
1. If I am breathing, I am alive.
2. I am breathing.
Therefore, I am alive
You could also use inductive reasoning, which is similar to deductive reasoning, except that the conclusion is probably true.
An example of this would be:
1. All emeralds I have seen are green.
Therefore, the next emerald I will see will be green.
A deductive argument can be valid or sound. Valid, in this context, is defined as the conclusions necessarily follow the premises. Validity is very important because it is an objective way of critiquing an argument. Soundness means that the conclusions are actually true, and correspond with the real world.
1. I have an apple.
Therefore I have a fruit. (valid and sound)
1. I saw a horses with a single horn and wings.
2. A unicorn is a mythical horse with a single horn and wings.
Therefore, I saw a unicorn. (valid but not sound)
1. If you have a car, then you have four wheels.
2. I have four wheels.
Therefore, I have a car. (invalid and not sound = unsound)
If the structure of the premises are invalid
Therefore the conclusion is unsound
To answer of your first questions, I'll reference the Congressional Budget Office:
"The largest cost driver in what people are paying does not have to do with health care reform, it has to do with things that were happening well before health care reform and would continue to happen regardless of whether there was health care reform (www.cbo.org)." There is always more to the story. Basically, because the insurance and pharmaceutical companies are in business to make money, the idea of the ACA, regardless of it's benefits to the nation as a whole, would cause them to either oppose the ACA or increase the cost of coverage, or both. The coverage they provided before seemingly unregulated, very restrictive, conditional, and full of hidden fees and penalties.
I don't know enough about your sister's specific issues to answer your second question in greater detail, but please reread my first comment starting from the 4th paragraph. With that said, health care reforms are about what's best for the nation; ie productivity. Individuals may appear to get "screwed" for a time. Everyone needs to get educated about their particular circumstances by asking the right questions from the right people. Those that seek to subjugate depend of ignorance. Don't be ignorant. No one can know everything, but doing scholarly research is the surest way to not fall for partisan/corporate propaganda.
Dylan_Ingle forfeited this round.
bsoten forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.