The Instigator
Charlie_Danger
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kenito001
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Policy-ish Debate (Read for Resolution)

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...
kenito001
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,557 times Debate No: 8862
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Charlie_Danger

Pro

Resolved: The United States Supreme Court should mandate that The United States Congress should fully fund federal and state prison health care reform by substantially increasing education, health screening, risk reduction, disease treatment and vaccination services.

Both of us have to answer via the comment box any questions that the opponent asks before posting our speech or be disqualified. However, questions are limited to ONE comment per round. Citing sources MAY be done by placing a comment immediately after the round.

I don't know how to do policy debate, so lets pretend this is just some messed up form of debate. I am trying to prove that current prison healthcare programs are failing, encouraging disease spread throughout greater society, and that the lack of health and resources makes U.S. prisons the new gulag.

Advantage 1: Disease
(1) The alarming prevalence of communicable diseases among prisoners poses a serious public health problem. Even those with short-term sentences can become infected in prison with a communicable disease, which can mean a virtual death sentence. Prisons offer the optimum environment for the growth of TB. The problem now, however, is inconsistency in administering these programs and in helping prisoners overcome the stigma attached to HIV. To receive medications, prisoners must wait in long lines. Medications for treating HIV are uniquely packaged, allowing other prisoners to identify them and their recipients. These conditions make many prisoners reluctant to request diagnostic tests and receive needed treatment. Prison screening programs and treatment initiatives are inadequate and inconsistent. Prisoners are often not notified that they have an infection. When they are released, they become free carriers of the infection. Because prisoners constantly come in contact with other prisoners, staff, guards, health care professionals, and the general public through visits, the rampant spread of communicable diseases throughout the nation's prisons affects society as a whole. Many contract chronic, life-threatening contagious diseases while in prison. The impoverished environments of prisons are breeding grounds for hepatitis C, TB, and HIV/AIDS; drug abuse; and violence. If these diseases go undetected in prison, people emerge infected. The "diseases" flourish and spread in the outside communities, becoming epidemics affecting the general population. Society pays the price.
Without federal action 1.5 million prisoners will be released with infectious diseases yearly threatening public health.
(2) The fight to end health disparities in the United States won't succeed unless local, state and federal leaders place more emphasis on improving the healthcare available to inmates in the nation's jails and correctional facilities, according to a new report by the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons. The current situation is appalling. The inadequate healthcare that they receive while incarcerated contributes to the health disparities that are causing men, women and children around the country to be disproportionately diagnosed with a wide range of diseases. Experts conservatively estimate that 400,000 inmates across the country suffer from some. They get little treatment while incarcerated, thus they are returned to their communities with conditions that are likely to contribute to undesirable behavior. Moreover, the Commission's report also found that 1.5 million prisoners are released each year with life threatening, infectious diseases. That means people with HIV, tuberculosis, staph infections and Hepatitis are also returned to their communities where contagious diseases are passed on. A major hurdle for prison wardens is that even if jails and prisons want to vastly improve healthcare services for prisoners, they lack the resources to do so.
Advantage 2: Repugnant Practices
(3) The profitable business of running a gulag. The for-profit side of running a gulag began to explode during the Reagan years when incarceration rates began increasing dramatically. There's also a big need for uniforms and assorted weapons that can and have killed as many as 167 victims. Unlike oil, there's no chance of running out bodies. That means understaffing, low pay for poorly trained staff, poor and unsafe conditions, little or no life-enhancing or self-help programs like educational opportunities or counseling services to rehabilitate those in need like ilicit drug users, and even worse medical care than the third world kind in the publicly run system. Unlike most businesses, quality control is not one of their concerns. If humans suffer to enhance the bottom line, who will care. In running a gulag, you just gotta keep 'em under control locked in cages, and if you use, abuse and lose some along the way, there's plenty more supply to fill the available beds. The result is the US gulag, the shame of the nation.
The nature of incarceration requires a fundamental societal obligation to preserve the health prisoners.
(4) There are legal, ethical, social, and public health reasons why prisoners, as wards of the state, must be supplied with health care. The legal reasons for providing health care to prisoners were stipulated in the 1976 Supreme Court Estelle v. Gamble decision, in which the Court held that deprivation of health care constituted cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. There are fundamental ethical reasons why prisoners should be given medical care. The very poor, the aged, and the disabled are generally provided with assistance in the form of federal and state Medicare and Medicaid programs. Federal law requires that hospitals provide medically necessary emergency health services regardless of a patient's health insurance status or ability to pay. Prisoners have none of the choices just enumerated. If the correctional institution's staff denied care, the inmate would have no alternatives. society has embraced the concept that, when incarcerated, a person cannot see to his or her own medical needs, and, therefore, society must do so. Health care is given to prisoners for social reasons too. Proper care helps to preserve their physical function, which makes it possible for ex-inmates reintegrating into society to embark on productive activities and avoid becoming a burden to all. , prisoners include a larger share of risk-taking individuals than a similar sampling of free persons, and statistics show that they have a larger proportion of the health problems associated with risk taking—hepatitis B and C, HIV, TB, and syphilis. Disease prevention education, vaccination where appropriate, and disease surveillance are basic public health tools that can be used in the correctional setting with public health goals in mind. . Why is it, we ask, that the health of prisoners seems more important to the state than the health of other U.S. residents? I have no solution to the apparent paradox.
The federal government has an ethical obligation to protect prisoners.
(5) Incarceration means that personal freedoms are denied to the prisoner—loss of choice over sanitation, diet, recreation, and cell mates to name a few. Moreover, overcrowding provides ideal circumstances for stress related disorders and transmission of diseases such as tuberculosis and HIV, as illustrated in this issue by Reyes and Coninx (p 1447).2 The more prisoners' freedoms are limited, and the worse the general prison conditions, the greater the responsibility of the state to protect prisoners: this leads to a misunderstood principle that prisoners actually acquire rights while in custody, principally protection from harm and access to services, including health services.

Because the proof is overwhelming, I encourage an AFFIRMATIVE ballot.
kenito001

Con

I stand NEGATIVE on Resolved: The United States Supreme Court should mandate that The United States Congress should fully fund federal and state prison health care reform by substantially increasing education, health screening, risk reduction, disease treatment and vaccination services.

The AFF defines the burden of proof on his side of the flow as: "I am trying to prove that current prison healthcare programs are failing, encouraging disease spread throughout greater society, and that the lack of health and resources makes U.S. prisons the new gulag."

The AFF need not prove that the prison healthcare programs are failing if I agree with him (which I do). Therefore, the AFF's entire criteria stands. However, the AFF fails to prove that " ""Congress should fully fund"" federal and state prison health care reform by... increasing education, health screening, risk reduction, disease treatment, and vaccination services." If the NEG case proves that other means may be conducted to reach the desired results specified in the resolution, then the NEG wins the debate.

First, I will start by addressing the AFF case.

There is nothing to address in the AFF case, as you will see in the NEG case. Because I do not disagree with the state of healthcare in the prison system, there is no argument to be made.

The AFF does fail, however, to support that "the US Congress should fully fund...", so he is not upholding the resolution.

Furthermore, I will critique the wording of the resolution. It is impossible for the "U.S. Supreme Court" to "mandate the U.S. Congress" to do anything (Source: The United States Constitution). The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, as specified by the Constitution, but unless an appeals case is brought before the Court challenging a law preventing the Supreme Court from doing this (or a part of the Constitution), then it cannot be done. Furthermore, even if that were to happen, the Court would not hear the case because it is not within their jurisdiction (although Marbury v Madison established judicial review) for the Court to rewrite the Constitution. They merely interpret the Constitution, and for the Court to mandate Congress to appropriate funding is unconstitutional.

Now to the NEG case...

The NEG's only argument for the debate is the privatization of the prison systems. Privatization would allow prisons to become profitable as companies (such as utilities, food suppliers, etc.) compete for contracts. This would lower the costs of the firm (prison) and increase their revenues, making them profitable. If they are profiting, then they can improve the healthcare for prisoners.

To win this round, I will defend privatization as a superior counter-plan and critique the Resolution because it cannot be fulfilled.
Debate Round No. 1
Charlie_Danger

Pro

Charlie_Danger forfeited this round.
kenito001

Con

kenito001 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Charlie_Danger

Pro

Charlie_Danger forfeited this round.
kenito001

Con

kenito001 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Charlie_Danger

Pro

Charlie_Danger forfeited this round.
kenito001

Con

kenito001 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Charlie_Danger

Pro

Charlie_Danger forfeited this round.
kenito001

Con

kenito001 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
Policy Debate sorta fails on this Website... its too hard to do.

Was this the 2009-10 policy topic? Poverty?
cause if so this case isnt exactly the most topical one I have ever read
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Wretched debate, but I give the edge to Con, based on his argument that the Court does not have the authority to require that something be "fully funded." The argument might possibly have been refuted, but it wasn't.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Basically all of it is quotes. It's a policy AFF remember?
Posted by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
Use quotes. It's difficult to distinguish what you've written from what you've copied.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Hmm ... I'll be interested to see how this turns out.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Sorta. It just makes it a little less confusing for noobs, like me.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Block text... ew.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
fresnoinvasion
Did you set the debate up so that the resolution is your plan text?
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
(1) American Journal of Public Health Public Health Implications of Substandard Correctional Health Care
Zulficar Gregory Restum.. Washington: Oct 2005. Vol. 95, Iss. 10; pg. 1689, 3 pgs

(2) Gail C Christopher [vice president for health, women and families at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, and director of the Health Policy Institute] . New Pittsburgh Courier. (City Edition). Pittsburgh, Pa.: Jul 12-Jul 18, 2006. Vol. 97, Iss. 28; pg. A4, 1 pgs. "Prisoner health is society's concern"

(3) Lendman 06
(Stephen Lendman; received a BA from Harvard University in 1956 and an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of PA in 1960 following 2 years of obligatory military service in the US Army) March 16, 2006, "The US Gulag Prison System"

(4) Paris 08
(Joseph E. Paris, PhD, MD, is a chemist turned medical doctor. He entered correctional medicine through the Florida Department of Corrections in 1985 and was the first Florida correctional physician to prescribe AZT to an inmate. Dr. Paris retired from Department of Corrections work at the end of 2005 and began part-time public health work with HIV patients. He is a founding member and past president of the Society of Correctional Physicians, past president of the Florida chapter of the American Correctional Health Services Association, and a board member of the Certified Correctional Healthcare Professionals and the Correctional Medical Institute) February 2008, Volume 10, Number 2: 113-115., "Why Prisoners Deserve Health Care,"

(5) Michael Levy, Visiting fellow a a National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra 2000, Australia. [Prison Health Services.]
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Charlie_Dangerkenito001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03