The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
6 Points


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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 955 times Debate No: 43999
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)




I believe that if obama is going to force us to have health care if we like it or not, he should be impeached for forcing the American people to go against their will by paying for obamacare instead of keeping their health insurance plan, he even said it himself "If you like your current health insurance plan, you can keep it" but he lied, and repented to lying to the American people on live television, do you think our country should be controlled by a liar and a person who want to force healthcare upon the American people?


I accept this debate and await my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Ok, well im almost our of arguments because i stated msot of them in my first round, one thing i would like to point out is that im not against healthcare for everyone, im just saying Obama shouldn't be forcing it on every US citizen.

Here are my arguments:

1.Obamacare is forced to the American people, which I think it shouldn't be.

2. Obama clearly stated that "If you like your current healthcare plan, you can keep it" but then came ou and said you cant, do you really want a liar running your healthcare?

3. I really like my doctor, he's nice, and he helps me stay physically fit by telling me exercises i can do such as swimming and or running.

4. I have to get a new doctor approved by the government, and our government is so evil I dont want them approving of my doctor.

5. I think Obamacare should be an option for American citizens, not put on them by force.

This ends my 2nd argument.


My apologies to my opponent; I wasn't sure whether or not Round One was merely for acceptance purposes.


1. My opponent made the following statement: "Obamacare is forced to the American people, which I think it shouldn't be."

Let me begin by saying that there is actually nothing in Obamacare that forces people out of their health plans. Instead, insurance companies are deciding to change their plans, throwing people off of their current coverage. Obamacare legally requires all health insurance plans to include a certain number of benefits that was above and beyond what many more affordable plans offered, thereby making certain plans illegal. Many of those plans were plans that people liked and were assured they could keep. Obamacare offered a “grandfathering” clause, which the administration later eviscerated after it had served its political purpose, ensuring even more people would lose their current coverage. So, no change is required by you under Obamacare unless your insurance company goes and changes your existing plan to comply with Obamacare[1]. Furthermore, the "American people" voted for this change. The final vote tally for the Senate version of President Obama's health care reform legislation in the House was 219-212, with 34 Democrats joining all Republicans in opposition[2]. Since the Senate (supposedly) represents the American people (state-wide), it can then be concluded that this reform was inducted by the American people.

2. My opponent continues by stating, "Obama clearly stated that 'If you like your current healthcare plan, you can keep it' but then came out and said you cant, do you really want a liar running your healthcare?"

As I have previously referred to in my last point, one of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act is a grandfatheringclause, which was intended to exempt the employer-sponsored insurance plans that were in existence at the time of the Affordable Care Act's passage from having to follow the contours of Obamacare. The problem with the line, "If you like your plan, you can keep it," is that it suggests that what's being grandfathered, here, is the customer's possession of a plan. But what was actually grandfathered were the plans that existed at the time, themselves. What that means is that everyone could retain their plans so long as no alteration was made to those plans by their providers. However, the very minute a provider made a tweak to those plans, they lost the grandfather protection, and compliance with Obamacare's new standards became necessary[3].

3-4. In both of these points, my opponent expresses his distress for the idea of losing his doctor. Nonetheless, this happens, regardless of Obamacare. As the LA Times explains, forcing patients to switch doctors “has been happening anyway because insurers are under enormous pressure from big customers to cut costs[4],[5].”

5. My opponent claims that he feels Obamacare shouldn't be put on the American citizens by force; I have already addressed this contention in my first point.


Furthermore, most everyone agrees that we need to decrease the number of uninsured Americans and reduce healthcare costs; there are key components of the legislation that most Democrats, Republicans and Independents do support. This includes:

- Allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26.

- Banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

- Banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because a person becomes ill.

- Creating an insurance pool where small businesses and the uninsured have access to insurance exchanges to take advantage of large group pricing benefits.

- Providing subsidies on a sliding scale to aid individuals and families who can’t afford health insurance

All of these components can be considered Pros of Obamacare[6].

This concludes my rebuttal for Round Two.

On to Con.







Debate Round No. 2


I can understand some of your arguments, but, I, and many other Americans believe it should be optional, if the democrats want obamacare, they can have it, but us, the Real Americans, should not have to have our coverage swapped/Changed


My opponent has chosen to repeat (and summarize) his previous arguments. All of which, I believe that I have already refuted. If my opponent is unclear as to what my arguments may entitle, I would suggest him to reread the last round. Furthermore, my opponent has failed to address and/or dismiss my counterarguments.

For the sake of the resolution, through which this debate was instated, I extend and uphold all refutations and counterarguments. And thusly, I would encourage the audience to vote PRO.

I give my thanks to CON for an eye-opening debate.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
I said that in response to RebelRebel's first post, which made it quite clear that he had very large ideological problems that he was bringing to the table. And no, it's not reason to believe I would argue ideologically. In fact, it's reason to believe I wouldn't, something buckethead proved by posting a rational response that got nothing but "you're not a real American" in response.

I did check your previous debates, though admittedly there's not much to go off of when most of the topics you tackled were "Golf is not a physical sport" and "The U.S. Congress should be replaced with monkeys." The sole time you discussed real world policy was "Texas Abortion Law," and I can't garner much from that since your opponent forfeited all of his rounds following the first.

So all I have to go off of are what you've said here, and what I see isn't promising. Perhaps you won't delve too deep into ideology (but even the few posts on that "Texas Abortion Law" debate seem to show that you would), but it seems that anecdotes would be a big part of any debate we'd have. I'm not going to spend a debate trying to convince you that the ACA should be helping you. That's a personal discussion, not a debate. If you want to have that, by all means, keep talking about the ACA and relating your story. I could tell you a personal story about how the ACA has helped people close to me as well. I'd rather have a debate about how effective it is for the general population, and I very much doubt you would be able to divorce yourself from your personal experiences.
Posted by Gordontrek 2 years ago
You were the first to say "This is officially too easy." That is just as much incentive for ME to believe that YOU were only here to argue over ideologies. You were also the first to tell me I was simply whining about my personal grievances with Obama/liberalism when I said the ACA has hurt me (and called Obama the Messiah). Don't talk to me about having a "dismissive attitude" or wanting to "sling some mud at Obama." If I debated this topic, I WOULD stay on topic, like I always do. If you don't believe me, feel free to check my debate history. If you wanted to talk about the ACA, that's what I'll talk about. If you wanted to talk about Obama, that's what I'll talk about. You are jumping right to conclusions based on two comments I've posted on ONE debate.
In fact, in this "little chat," I HAVE stayed on topic from the outset, Messiah nickname and all. I talked about the ACA, and that it has had a negative impact on me and my family. But of course, that's just whining about Obama and bringing my "personal grievances to bear," isn't it.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
Gordontrek, calling Obama "the Messiah" is more than enough for me to be aware of where such a discussion would go, but you've given me another reason. It seems pretty obvious that your argument will include a healthy dose of anecdote, and that your expectation will be that I have to prove that it should be helping you personally. That's not the debate I want to have either. The ACA isn't about you in particular, and it's not about the many friends I'm sure you have that would also attest to how it's harmed them. It's about the effect on the public in general, and while I'm sure you have arguments there as well, I'd rather not deal the absolutely dismissive attitude that you've made quite clear from the outset of our little chat here.

I'm not perfectly supportive of the ACA. I have numerous problems with it, especially with the way it's been implemented. So when you say that you are "forced to conclude that [I am] intolerant to criticism," you're talking to a critic. But you've made it quite clear that you're here to bring personal grievances to bear in your argument, and that you're more than likely to sling some mud at Obama in the process of arguing about whether this particular law has done more harm than good.

Perhaps a debate between us would eventually boil down to something worthwhile, but I'm not willing to wade through the muck to get there.
Posted by Gordontrek 2 years ago
whiteflame, neither am I here to engage in such a battle about ideologies. The fact is, the ACA has been nothing but a massive problem to my family and friends since it was implemented, and I would love to see you or someone else prove why it is actually helping me. That was what I said in my previous comment. I don't care what RebelRebel says or what his motives are. But if you think voicing my opposition to the ACA is nothing but whining about my grievances with liberalism and Obama, then I am forced to conclude that you are simply intolerant to criticism. If I say the ACA has hurt me more than it's helped me, that doesn't mean I'm here to sling mud about ideologies, because I spoke of the ACA and NOT specifically Obama or liberalism.
Posted by TheSquirrel 2 years ago
rAmen to that!
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
Gordontrek, I'm not here to have a battle of ideologies, as this seems to be shaping up. This is not the type of discussion that's going to be a civil exchange of information on a complex topic. Both you and RebelRebel have made it quite clear that you're more interested in addressing your own political grievances with liberalism as a whole and Obama in particular than you are in actually having a conversation about the merits and harms of the ACA. I've had that type of conversation before, dozens of times on Yahoo! Answers and Sodahead, and I have no interest whatsoever in allowing it to taint my experience here as well.
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
As I said, if Obama said the weather was nice and then a storm came in, is he a liar? Is that his fault? Lying implies intentional malice, which Obama did not have (at least not with regards to insurance).
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
That is not a lie. That is just a statement for what it would be at the current time. Democracy decides what goes. If the people didn't like what Obama was selling then it wouldn't of got passed. Someone accept this one.
Posted by RebelRebelDixieDixie01 2 years ago
He said if you like your current plan you can keep it, he even came out and said he lied
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
It really would be fairly easy for PRO. After all, Obama didn't really lie. It's not his fault business would rather people lose their plan than pay a few extra pennies. It's like if Obama said "the weather is nice today," and then a freak storm blows in and everyone started calling Obama a liar. It doesn't make much sense.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con makes no effort whatsoever to address Pro's argumentation and refutation. Con's points are solid and go uncontested, therefore Con wins arguments. Con also wins citations, since he is the only one to cite. Con wins conduct because of the "real Americans" line, really not good conduct to infer that your opponent is less American than you.