The Instigator
U.DuncanNHS
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BenRauhNHS
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Obamacare

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 565 times Debate No: 38989
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

U.DuncanNHS

Pro

Obama care provides a variety of benefits to the American public including getting insurance for 25 million uninsured Americans by 2014. Also Obama care prevents insurers from refusing to cover or raising their prices for people with preexisting conditions. Furthermore Obama care has expanded numerous programs like Medicare and Medicaid to benefit more people. In addition to that Obama care is also reducing the cost of health insurance because it was too inefficient. Our healthcare system needs reform, out of the developed world it costs the most and is the most inefficient. Obama care is also upgrading numerous health centers and building new ones which will produce more jobs. Also children can now stay on their parents insurance until the age of 26 which is beneficial because of the rising cost of college loans so this step might help people start off without crippling debts. Furthermore states are required to set up insurance exchanges where people can find the best deal on insurance. In addition to that if someone is denied medical coverage there is now an external appeal. In the end those are just some of the variety of benefits that Obama care provides to the American
Buzenberg, Bill. "Obamacare facts separated from spin by Wendell Potter, FactCheck.org." www.publicintegrity.org. 15 Aug. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.
Johnson, Avery. "What You Need to Know About the Affordable Care Act." online.wsj.com. 28 Sep. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.
BenRauhNHS

Con

While it is true that Obamacare offers benefits to certain Americans, such as low income families and some of those currently without health care insurance, the Act does more damage than good. For example, 25 million uninsured Americans will not suddenly be able to gain health insurance within the next year; this figure was set as a goal by the government for the span of the upcoming decade (The Washington Post). That being said, more Americans insured under the same health insurance company will only result in more problems - not only for those presently insured, but also for the doctors and hospitals across the nation.

Obamacare does not lower the cost of health insurance for everyone. In fact, the "Affordable Care Act" does quite the opposite for those currently insured and for the younger generation, such as us 10 years from now, based on your source (Obamacare Facts Separated from Spin by Wendell Potter). One reason why our health care costs will gradually rise is due to the now legal necessity for insurance companies to cater to the greater demands of our Seniors, who now may not be legally dropped by the health insurance provider for over-pulling the pool of available health care funds. As the government forces insurance companies to grant health insurance to Seniors and those with pre-existing medical conditions, the insured and healthy Americans must absorb these costs by paying an increasingly high premium to their insurance companies. The main group of insured Americans who will see lower health insurance costs is Seniors, yet there is still an asterisk on this group for two reasons. One-quarter of our Seniors rely on Medicare Advantage, as of today. However, Obamacare makes major cuts to this private section of Medicare, so much so that half of these Seniors will not be able to keep this same coverage. Also, Seniors will be seeing more and more problems arising from their medications and health care. The Democratic solution to a faulty health care system was new taxes, such as $27 billion on drug companies and another $20 billion on medical device makers. This translates to higher future costs for medications and a greater difficulty in gaining access to quality health care for Seniors, supposedly benefiting from a reduced rate of health insurance.

With a larger number of insured Americans comes more difficulties for doctors and hospitals. Obamacare's overhauled Medicaid program has added 18 million people since the ACA was passed. The average reimbursement to our doctors: 56% of the market rate for medical procedures. When private health insurance companies were left alone, doctors saw an average rate of around 70-72% of the market rate, which was large enough for doctors and hospitals to operate off of for decades. Now the government is only offering 56%, a figure that pushes private health care providers to consider banning patients with public health insurance. This increased regulation and decreased reimbursement is crippling our health care providers, who are already weak and dangerously low in numbers. Our country cannot afford to have 66% of doctors reject patients covered under brand new public health insurance.

Lazo, Luz. "Left Behind: stories from Obamacare's 31 million uninsured." Washington Post. 8 September 2013. Politics. Web.
"The Impact of Obamacare." Heritage Foundation-Leadership for America. 2013. Web. 16 October 2013.
Debate Round No. 1
U.DuncanNHS

Pro

Your sources are very biased; the heritage foundation recently supported the shutdown of the government to try to stop Obama care. Also it was started by one of the founders of the tea party, which is known for being anti-Obama and believe that anything he does is not god for the country. Your second source uses estimates from the CBO fro some parts of its argument but then ignores other parts and contradicts them. Also it automatically includes states that are leaning towards opting out as opting out which changes the numbers.
One claim you make is that having all Americans insured by the same insurance company will create problems for Americans, doctors and hospitals. However that is not how Obama care works, in reality what actually occurs is a competition between many different insurance companies whose prices are listed on a government website. Our government doesn"t allow monopolies and there are laws against it. One example is the USPS, another government organization that certainly doesn"t have a monopoly and has many competitors, as well not requiring any U.S tax dollars.
The reason that healthcare insurance will decrease overall is due to a variety of reasons. While it is true that seniors will use more health insurance and cause an increase for younger Americans it is not as drastic as you suggest. Also while Medicare advantage is losing funding, regular Medicaid is increasing and will pick up more seniors. In addition increased competition cause by an open market will decrease costs and the more people paying insurance the more it will decrease. Furthermore the taxes don"t increase the cost that much, and Americas medical expense is already overpriced compared to almost every other country.
Your last argument contradicts itself by saying that millions of people are being added to public health insurance but then says when private health insurers are left alone doctors receive 70% average. Yet private health insurers are being left alone, they"re required to not deny coverage now but that doesn"t mean they will pay less to hospitals. One of the "harmful" increased regulations you talk about actually requires insurers to put more of the money they receive into actual insurance instead of profit or management helping offset people with preexisting conditions.
Finally health care reform was needed, health insurance and healthcare costs were rising at ridiculous rates, and compared to other countries our healthcare costs are still some of the worst in the world. Other solutions to this problem were suggested yet were shot down by the Republican Party and this was the only one that could be passed. The basis of Obama care itself is republican yet even now the bias of the right wing tea party rejects it because it came from Obama and the democrats not because of any real concerns.

Buzenberg, Bill. "Obamacare facts separated from spin by Wendell Potter, FactCheck.org." www.publicintegrity.org. 15 Aug. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.
Johnson, Avery. "What You Need to Know About the Affordable Care Act." online.wsj.com. 28 Sep. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.
Lazo, Luz. "Left Behind: stories from Obamacare's 31 million uninsured." Washington Post. 8 September 2013. Politics. Web.
"The Impact of Obamacare." Heritage Foundation-Leadership for America. 2013. Web. 16 October 2013.
G. F. Anderson and P. Markovich, Multinational Comparisons of Health Systems Data, 2010 (New York: The Commonwealth Fund, July 2011).
BenRauhNHS

Con

No point was made that Obamacare would put all Americans under the same insurance company. The point was to take any individual insurance company, public or private, and use it as an example to break down the cost of insurance from all angles. Using this example, specifically a private insurance company, it is important to understand that when the Affordable Care Act required private insurance companies to accept patients with pre existing medical conditions, they were doing exactly the opposite of "leaving them alone." Private insurance companies would have a pool of available funds that would go towards medical expenses for the insured, usually around 70% of their gross income. The other 30% was needed to keep their business running and pay employees. With the ACA, these insurance companies were suddenly forced to spend 80% on medical expenses, and run their companies off of the remaining 20% while accepting all of the new patients applying for their service. This translates to a 33% cut in the insurance company's funds for operation. On top of this, the new applicants with pre existing conditions would take more money from the pool than add to it - the exact reason they were denied in the first place. In order to cover for these new patients, insurance companies put the extra 10% to the pool to begin with, but the rest of the margin is taken out of the hands of the doctors, hence the difference from a 70% reimbursement to 56%. If the government would take the billions of dollars they spend on trying to regulate the private market for insurance, not to mention enter the market themselves, and put this money towards tax relief for those denied coverage, they would not only save a huge percentage of their current healthcare spending, but they would also give their service to citizens in need much more efficiently.
Debate Round No. 2
U.DuncanNHS

Pro

"That being said, more Americans insured under the same health insurance company will only result in more problems". Second you have no sources for this section, I am unsure where this information is coming from. The ACA does require insurance companies to spend more on medical expenses which is a good thing, before that 30% was mostly profit. Reducing their profit doesn"t translate to a cut in funds for their operation. If anything it will help decrease costs because the insurance companies will have to be more efficient in order to make the same margin of profit that they used to. Also just because they have patients with pre-existing conditions doesn"t mean they"ll just pay the doctors less, they have plenty of money and with all the new people being added they"ll have even more. The regulation is needed; without regulation government gets cheated out of their money which is shown by countless examples such as during the civil war people would sell shoddy equipment to the government for inflated prices. If there were no regulation then insurers would just increase their costs because the government would be paying for it expanding the cost past the billions that would go to tax relief. That is exactly what happened before the ACA was passed with a very inefficient system. The ACA is trying to make healthcare and insurance more efficient and keep costs down. In addition there are thousands of unnecessary deaths every year just because people don"t have health insurance.

Buzenberg, Bill. "Obamacare facts separated from spin by Wendell Potter, FactCheck.org." www.publicintegrity.org. 15 Aug. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.
Johnson, Avery. "What You Need to Know About the Affordable Care Act." online.wsj.com. 28 Sep. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.
Lazo, Luz. "Left Behind: stories from Obamacare's 31 million uninsured." Washington Post. 8 September 2013. Politics. Web.
"The Impact of Obamacare." Heritage Foundation-Leadership for America. 2013. Web. 16 October 2013.
G. F. Anderson and P. Markovich, Multinational Comparisons of Health Systems Data, 2010 (New York: The Commonwealth Fund, July 2011.)
Docteur, Elizabeth; Oxley, Howard (October 19, 2004). "Health-system reform: lessons from experience". Towards high-performing health systems: policy studies. The OECD health project. Paris: OECD. pp. 25, 74.
Woolhandler, S.; et al. (September 12, 2012). "Despite slight drop in uninsured, last year"s figure points to 48,000 preventable deaths". Physicians for a National Health Program. Retrieved September 26, 2012.
Kavitha A. Davidson (29 August 2013). The Most Efficient Health Care Systems In The World. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 01 September 2013.
BenRauhNHS

Con

This is a hypothetical example used to show the effects on any one specific health insurance company, and the sources referenced are the same as those identified in round one.
As for the information in this round, each section must be broken down. First, the transfer of funds through insurance companies. While the ACA requires insurance companies to spend 10% less on themselves and 10% more on their patient's healthcare costs, this does not translate to a greater reimbursement for doctors. In fact, as previously stated, the federal government only reimburses 56% of the market price for healthcare procedures while five years ago, private insurers would reimburse over 70%.
On the other side of these numbers is the 10% taken away from insurance companies. The 10% is a full third of any private insurance companies" previous income. The fact is, a company cannot withstand a cut to one-third of their income without making internal cuts themselves " most importantly, cuts to their own employees. Healthcare companies can make efficiency improvements as any modern business can, but certainly not to make up for a cut of this size to their income.
The next argument needs further clarification. Referring to private healthcare companies, it was stated that, "just because they have patients with pre-existing conditions doesn"t mean they"ll just pay the doctors less, they have plenty of money and with all the new people being added they"ll have even more." The point made here is backwards; the new citizens being added to private healthcare coverage are the reasons doctors are being paid less and others under the same coverage will continue to pay increasing premiums. The ACA requires private insurance companies to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions. The reasons for their rejection in the first place were that they used up more of the pool of available funds than they added to it. In other words, their medical expenses were greater than what they paid the insurance company. Now that insurance companies are legally obligated to cover these people, the insurance companies must find ways to cushion the amount of funds drawn on these people. The only ways to go about this are to raise the cost of insurance for everyone, and/or reimburse doctors for less than they could previously rely on.
As far as regulation, this is healthcare not the Civil War. As explained and defended, private healthcare companies did not require government interference to the extent of the ACA, and the country, specifically doctors, certainly did not need the government to enter the health insurance market with public coverage options that reimbursed doctors with only 56% of the market rate of the procedures. The government is absolutely not being cheated out of their money while they spend billions of dollars through the ACA trying to reform the system, while entering the market with poor business ethics themselves.
Finally, the ACA is still to blame for current inefficiencies. The recently opened online health insurance marketplace is a disaster for Democratic intentions. The poorly developed website was built to handle tens of thousands of users at a time, however the site flatlined with only a few hundred users online, and the site crashed just after midnight on October 1st, the day of its opening. President Obama himself recognizes the huge failure of the site, saying there is "no sugarcoating" the issue. He made a statement to Americans to go back to the "old-fashioned way" and sign up in person or over the telephone. In other words, after massive spending and months of development, the online marketplace failed due to the government"s inability to communicate with the two leading contractors hired to design the website. Instead of leaving the management duty of the website to a qualified company, the government took it upon themselves to oversee the development of the website, allowing for its failure immediately following its "grand opening."

Bohn, Kevin. "Report: Healthcare website failed test ahead of rollout." CNN. CNN Politics. October 2013. Web. 23 October
2013.
Buzenberg, Bill. "Obamacare facts separated from spin by Wendell Potter, FactCheck.org." www.publicintegrity.org. 15
Aug. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.
Johnson, Avery. "What You Need to Know About the Affordable Care Act." online.wsj.com. 28 Sep. 2013. Web. 14 Oct.
2013.
Lazo, Luz. "Left Behind: stories from Obamacare's 31 million uninsured." Washington Post. 8 September 2013. Politics.
Web.
"The Impact of Obamacare." Heritage Foundation-Leadership for America. 2013. Web. 16 October 2013.
G. F. Anderson and P. Markovich, Multinational Comparisons of Health Systems Data, 2010 (New York: The
Commonwealth Fund, July 2011).
Debate Round No. 3
U.DuncanNHS

Pro

U.DuncanNHS forfeited this round.
BenRauhNHS

Con

BenRauhNHS forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
U.DuncanNHS

Pro

U.DuncanNHS forfeited this round.
BenRauhNHS

Con

BenRauhNHS forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.