The Instigator
Dylan_Ingle
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
bsoten
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Obamacare

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,392 times Debate No: 41035
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Dylan_Ingle

Con

I am strongly against Obamacare. There may not be a whole lot that I know about it, but I know enough that it is completely pointless. It is making insurance raise a dramastic amount and there are several people even losing their insurance. Let's see what you have to say about it PRO.
bsoten

Pro

The elements of a truly productive nation require certain things; equality in health, education, protection under the law, economics, and social. All these things make for a strong yet flexible middle class. The Constitution was written to be strong, yet flexible, so there's room for most everything else; including health care for the nation. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (what you call Obamacare) was designed to fix gaping holes in the American nation health care system. Through these holes, billions of dollars flowed to the pockets of insurance companies and hospital administrations. That money is paid by American taxpayers. You have a choice, you can pay what you already pay, which is a lot, or you can pay less. If you like the idea of paying less, then the ACA is the only option on the table that can make that happen. Either way, you're gonna pay. I'd prefer to pay less.

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.
Debate Round No. 1
Dylan_Ingle

Con

I started this debate to see what others opinion was on this topic. I want to learn more. You may even be able to explain why this is happening.

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?
bsoten

Pro

This isn't a debate. Please don't start a debate if you're just looking for answers to your questions. That's what Google is for. I suggest you search for factual information about the ACA for websites the aren't a ".com". Look for scholarly sites with ".org" or ".edu", and possible even ".gov" (depending on the subject). Stay away from sites that are directly associated with the news media, that are clearly partisan (political), or related to for profit organizations like the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. If you're going to debate something, you have to already have a firm stance on a topic. Debating is about making substantive, informative, persuasive statements. You must also be as prepared to loose as you are to win.

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.
Debate Round No. 2
Dylan_Ingle

Con

Dylan_Ingle forfeited this round.
bsoten

Pro

bsoten forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Oromagi 3 years ago
Oromagi
So in the space of a couple of minutes, Con opens one debate complaining about other people's ignorance "Ignorance is Getting Out of Control" AND starts a debate against "Obamacare" with an admission of ignorance: "There may not be a whole lot that I know about it, but I know enough that it is completely pointless."

Physician, heal thyself.
No votes have been placed for this debate.