The Instigator
bocaj427
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
rruthbj
Pro (for)
Winning
16 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 4 votes the winner is...
rruthbj
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,639 times Debate No: 38058
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

bocaj427

Con

Why should I have to pay for others mistakes? So, the argument for "Obamacare" is that healthcare is a RIGHT not at privilege. I don't mean to sound very conservative but, please point out in the bill of rights, constitution, or any document made by or founding fathers that say it is a right. Good luck with that. So here is an example. Mike a non-smoking businessman makes 500k a year. Janice is a person who smokes is jobless, homeless, and has cancer. So, Mike should have to pay for Janice's poor choices? No. If you were to murder someone(not saying you will) should every one in America spend 30 minutes in jail because you made a poor choice? I think not. The fact is in life you have to make your own choices and if poor, deal with the consequences.
rruthbj

Pro

I do not know where it was said that you would be paying for others mistakes. The argument for Obamacare is that everyone in America is entitled to affordable health care. That the health and well being of your family should not be at the whim of your employer. In Minnesota we have a health exchange. It is just like a stock exchange. You are asked to put in information regarding your health and income. With your answers you will be given choices of the best type of insurance available for you, your spouse, your children. Each person should be able to have the insurance which best fits their health. With this approach you should be able to save money on your policies. The insurers are Blue Cross, Humana, Medica and HealthPartners. If the insurance companies have to compete, they will have to drop their prices, or lose business. The people who are going to be on Obamacare, will be on it because their employers insurance is too expensive or do not offer insurance. In other words the working people of America. You are not paying for anyone's mistakes. Unless you count the employers of America who do not want to pay a living wage or the benefits their employees deserve.
Debate Round No. 1
bocaj427

Con

bocaj427 forfeited this round.
rruthbj

Pro

Obamacare is just a start. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither will Obamacare. But it is a good start towards affordable healthcare. If you want to keep your doctors you will be able to. But you have to make an informed choice and check out which insurances are accepted at your doctors office. It would be prudent to give this a chance as it is the only game in town. It will not bankrupt the country. If the defense budget hasn't bankrupted the country yet, nothing will. With all the cuts to the social programs, there should be more room for health care. It will not, unless businesses let it, change the way your insurance is run. Businesses don't like Obamacare because they don't want to give benefits, good wages or anything else to their workers. It is only the bottom line for them. Obamacare will allow people to buy the insurance that is a good fit for their health and their budget. I don't see the employers offering to consider your healthcare costs. The political climate is very negative right now. It is all about money. President Obama is all about considering the common man. You can believe that or not, but he does a better job of keeping our interests in mind than the corporations. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
Debate Round No. 2
bocaj427

Con

bocaj427 forfeited this round.
rruthbj

Pro

In conclusion, Americans need to have affordable health care. This is the first step of many to find the easiest, most efficient, and most cost efficient health care. This is not nationalized health care. It is not for people who can't work. It is just health care that Americans can afford if their employers health care is too expensive or if their employers don't offer health care. It is worth giving it a try. It may help you, your kids, or your friends. It is customer driven. If one insurance company is not competitive, it will not be picked, and sooner or later it will have to drop its price. It is the way Americans do business. We have been strapped with what our employers offer for too long. Now we have a choice.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by catherinep 3 years ago
catherinep
Would this effect jobs? If obamacare will take up billions of dollars wouldn't think effect how we work? Our education? Taxes?
Posted by DMamanakis 3 years ago
DMamanakis
sw33n, we are guaranteed the PURSUIT of happiness, not actual happiness.
Increasing people's insurance costs REDUCES people's ability to be happy.
Increasing the cost of health care REDUCES people's ability to be happy.
Taking away people's choice REDUCES the people's ability to be happy.
And Obamacare doesn't FIX any one of these things, nor does it fix any of the "symptoms" you listed. If anything, it makes the problem worse.
Not to mention, the CBO is still estimating that 30 million will still be without insurance under Obamacare.
Obamacare does not create competition. It puts companies on the same footing, but it outlines the MINIMUMS, and a Price Range... so... um... what competition? Competition is offering a better service or product for less money. The lack of competition is what is causing the prices of healthcare to escalate.
If I could get a surgery, by a world class doctor, for $10k at one hospital, or at $5k at another hospital, where would I go to get the surgery?
Yet, because INSURANCE Companies set the acceptable price "within their network" there is no incentive to reduce the price and compete.

Yes, "why should I have to pay" might be a selfish statement. Yet, it is our RIGHT to be selfish if we choose to be. No government or individual should have the RIGHT to force me to not be selfish. After all, I EARNED THE MONEY, I DID THE WORK... so why would you or anyone else be able to tell me what I must do with MY money?
Don't take away MY freedoms.
Secondly, MORE FREEDOM = MORE MONEY. More money, in conservative circles, means more money being donated to charities, including hospitals.
People are willing to help if people ask and need it... if anything the internet has shown us the good and bad of this: scams involving "kids with cancer", or real need that receives 10s of thousands of dollars...

Obamacare has not delivered on a single promise. Prolly because it was sold to us on LIES.
Posted by sw33n 3 years ago
sw33n
That Document you're looking for is called "declaration of Independence"

"[we have] certain unalienable rights....Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Who's happy when they are constantly worried about losing everything if they were to have an accident or get a tumor. Who's got a right to life when they can't afford to have the surgery that will keep them alive. Who's free when all there money is going to covering there family with health care.

Obamacare creates competition. That main component to capitalism everybody love to praise. Obamacare with make the health provides stop charging so much. Health care should not cost this much. One problem is the medical suppliers. They charge 30 to 100 times the price for hospital supplies. The hospitals HAVE to buy from the medical supplier. You pay 10 cents for a pencil, they pay 10 bucks.

"why should i have to pay for someone else"

That's such a selfish statement. So you're totally okay with paying for wars in Iraq and Afganistan and bailing out the banks But paying to give everybody in your country healthcare is unacceptable? Come on dude, This isn't half your income we're talking about and it'll create such a better environment. Less stress which creates better health. People will have more money to spend and spending money is great for the economy.

Stop with this negative philosophy: "well we have dug ourselves into such a deep hole. trying to get back out is too much work so either keeping digging or just stay here."
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Obamacare has some good features, but overall it will raise costs and lower the quality of healthcare. The system adds 30 million recipients while cutting payments to doctors and hospitals. The cuts are already causing hospitals to cut staff, doctors to retire, and medical school enrollments to drop. The complex regulations add a new layer of bureaucrats who must determine compliance with regulations. For example, we have an industry of accountants and lawyers who determine compliance with income tax regulations, and that task costs tax filers about 20% of the money spent on the actual income taxes. The Obamacare regulations are just getting started and a compliance industry has already started to cope with the initial 15,000 pages of rules. However, the rules governing treatment will be much larger; one estimate is well over 100,000 pages. Government bureaucrats will determine which treatments can be covered and which cannot. So way more costs and many few health care providers.

An interesting bit of trivia is that smoking and obesity reduce total healthcare costs. People die younger and that lowers the total cost. People always die of something and the cost of dying of something else is about the same as the results of smoking or obesity, so the difference is the number of years of care for the maladies of old age. The bogus claim that it costs more is a result of ignoring the savings from reduced years of care. Dying young is not a good thing, but it costs less.
Posted by DMamanakis 3 years ago
DMamanakis
I would side with the against arguments.
Obamacare was designed to do several things: make healthcare affordable, make sure people will have healthcare...etc.
Problem is, it was originally supposed to help the less than 7% of Americans would couldn't get healthcare, and it has been applied to 100% of the people. Anyone with an economics background can see the problem with that.
Then, instead of making healthcare more affordable, insurance premiums have risen an average of 30% each year since the law was passed. Healthcare costs have risen even more.
We were also promised we could keep our coverage, if we wanted to... and now we know that was a lie.
We were promised we could keep our doctors, and again, we found out that was a lie.
Our politicians passed it without reading it.
There were 61% of the public that were against it, so they aren't being represented.
Congress has given waivers to get big corporations out of Obamacare, and then Congress gave themselves a waiver...
Obama has broken the law by postponing several provisions...
Unions are complaining that it is going to destroy the American Dream by reducing hours and creating more part time work not full time work...
and the list goes on.
It was a bad law to begin with, it is a bad law now.
Normally, we would simply repeal bad laws, but Obama and the Democrats want to force us to accept Obamacare, regardless of how unpopular the law is.
Why aren't our representatives representing us?
I think the original NEED is valid. People who cannot get insurance should have a way to get healthcare. So lets go back and figure out how we can do that.
Yes, healthcare costs are too high. So lets figure out WHY and lets come up with a solution to that also.
We shouldn't have to live with a bad law that hurts us more than it helps us.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
bocaj427rruthbjTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 3 years ago
Chrysippus
bocaj427rruthbjTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Although Pro posits a naively rosy picture of Obamacare, he is completely unopposed by Con. Conduct and arguments to Pro. Pro, use sources next time to back up your claims, and your arguments will be more convincing.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
bocaj427rruthbjTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited this debate, and his only argument was poorly formulated and failed to acknowledge that some wealthy people smoke, have higher health risks and can milk insurance programs too (it goes both ways). Pro's arguments acknowledged that some American workers are poorly paid, and can't afford regular health insurance. Obamacare is at least a start toward making insurance affordable and available to everybody. Pro easily won this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
bocaj427rruthbjTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited, leaving Pro's arguments unchallenged. It's bad conduct to forfeit in a debate.