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


Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 9/25/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 537 times Debate No: 38135
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Yes I think it is right for everyone in America to have free healthcare. Unless you completely hate people there is no reason not to. What I do not think is right is the way the government gets the money to pay for the billions of peoples healthcare. Those people who have worked hard their entire life deserve their money just as anyone else. If they would like to donate or give money that is fine but by no means should it be forced. There are also people with circumstantial money. Just because their net income is over 225,000 dollars does not mean they keep any of that and could in fact just barely be getting by. For all of the people in that situation is it really fair to take more of their money? You may say how there are many rich people and have more money than they know what to do with, however there are over a billion people in the country and more than a million people have worked hard from nothing to get where they are. Healthcare is important and can save lives but if it is to be given to everyone, a fair way of obtaining the money must be thought of. Isn't our country all about equality?


Thanks, Con.

I have to admit I'm a bit perplexed by Con's argument. Although the title of Con's argument is Obamacare, Con does not really address the issues of Obamacare.

Con states that everyone in America should have free healthcare, but this is not an accurate description of Obamacare. Con moves on to a general argument against progressive tax rates, with an emphasis on people whose net income is over $225,000. This may be a reference to Obamacare, since that program included a Medicare surtax that increases tax on net investment income by 3.8% for individuals whose gross income exceeds $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers). Or con may be referring to the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 which raises the top tax rate to 39.6% for single filers with taxable income above $400,000, married filers with income over $450,000, married filing separately over $225,000 and heads of household with taxable income over $425,000. The American Taxpayer Relief Act is not a part of Obamacare, being passed 2 years after that bill. [1]

Two arguments seem to be against progressive tax:

*people who have worked hard deserve to keep their money
*some rich people spend all of their money and have no surplus

There is also an argument that there are people with circumstantial money, but I think Con needs to provide a definition for circumstantial money.

The final argument is that healthcare is a public benefit, but should be paid for by some method other than taxes, which con implies are unfair and unequal. Although Con's line of reasoning is not cohesive, I suspect this is Con's thesis.

Con does not suggest even one fair alternative to taxes, nor does Con place the responsibility for decision-making on any other body: "a fair way...must be thought of" passive voice, no subject.

I would argue that there is little value to Con's argument that taxes are not the way to fund healthcare if Con is not able to provide an improved strategy for financing this project.

I think Con & Pro can agree that the government did not wish to regulate healthcare to the extent Obamacare now mandates, but the Insurance industry forced the government's hand. By exploiting the forced markets of healthcare and jacking up premiums well over the cost of providing medicine, insurance companies pushed beyond the limits of greed that government can reasonably ignore.

I expect Con & Pro can also agree that the cost and effectiveness of Obamacare are unknown variables, so we have no way of knowing whether the current tax provisions will be proportional to the healthcare benefit.

I refute that the current taxes included in Obamacare, 3.8% tax increase on net investment income for investors making more than $200,000 gross, is unfair or unequal.

Think about the optimal amount of public goods and services the government should provide? If the government creates a rule that says everyone must pay an equal share of their income, revenue will be restricted to the rate that the lowest earning workers can afford to pay. By way of example, split up a million dollars among 100 people according to the current division of wealth in the U.S.
That is, the first one in line gets $346,000, the second person get $116,000. The tenth one in line gets about $20,000, twentieth gets about $10,000, fortieth gets about $2,500, sixtieth gets about $1000, eightieth gets about $50 and the last guy gets $2. Now, let's say we decide to buy some health care. If everybody must contribute equally, than the most the last guy can give is $2. $2x100/100= $2 so everybody gets a box of band-aids . Now try contribution according to the rough outlines of current U.S effective tax rates- The first guy in line puts in $77,158, the second person puts in $25,752, tenth adds about $4000, twentieth about $1,800, fortieth about $400, sixtieth about $121, eightieth about $2.70 and the poorest guy adds one penny. Now our total collection is just shy of a quarter million dollars and our budget per person is $2,490. We can now afford some prevention like flu shots, even a trip to the doctor if somebody gets hurt. Progressive taxes are more efficient.

But why should the richest guy pay so much more to make sure that everybody gets to see a doctor, you ask? Well, everybody going to the doctor is a public benefit. Getting shots and check-ups and care when you're hurt keeps all 100 people alive. If 5 or 10 people died every year while another 20 or 30 kept calling in sick, that million dollars at the top starts shrinking pretty fast. The richest guy's cut remains high, but the total amount of wealth shrinks rapidly. Everybody has an interest in seeing the whole group thrive, so progressive taxes are more productive.

Besides which, can we really argue that the richest guy really deserves his cut of the wealth? GDP per capita for a U.S. citizen is just shy of $50,000 while that of India is just under $1500. I can't see that Americans work 33 times harder than Indians or are for some reason 33 times more deserving. Most of that disparity is an accident of birth and Americans depend heavily on the hard work of Indians to maintain U.S. industries, provide cheap goods and services, and buy our products. The same is true Nationally. The U.S. depends on the collective hard work of everybody to maintain our collective productivity. Is a CEO at the top really working harder and more deserving than a guy working two jobs at the bottom? No. Progressive taxes are more just.

I refute Con's assertion that somebody making $225,000/yr is equally unable to afford a tax raise as somebody who makes $25,000/yr just because the richer person is just as likely to spend all their money. While there's no denying that some rich people are cutting it just as close to the edge as some poorer people, there is also no denying that money is less valuable to the rich than to the poor. $100 is a nice dinner out for someone making $225,000/yr. $100 is a weekly food budget for somebody making $25,000.

I refute Con's twice stated contention that there are over 1 billion American citizens. According to U.S Census data the U.S. population stood at 313,933,954 on July 4, 2012.[2]

For round 2, I would respectfully request Con to restate his thesis as succinctly as possible so that we might narrow our focus.


Debate Round No. 1


billary-clinton forfeited this round.


Con forfeits. Continue arguments from previous round.
Debate Round No. 2


billary-clinton forfeited this round.


Con forfeits. Continue arguments from previous round.

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 3 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 failed to make a good case for his side in the one round he posted; Pro clobbers him with a monster of a round, answering every point thoroughly. Conduct, arguments, and sources to Pro.