Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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. 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. 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.
3-4. 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,.”
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.
This concludes my rebuttal for Round Two.
On to Con.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 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||6|
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.
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.