Repeal the Affordable Care Act
Debate Rounds (3)
2) It fails to address the long-term drivers of our debt crisis
3) It treats everyone unfair
C) United States should repeal the Affordable Care Act
2) The Affordable Care Act will provide fair coverage to those who could previously not afford insurance due to strict restrictions, this essentially will cut down our debt crisis in the long run.
3) The Affordable Care Act has been funding scholarships for students in order to double the number of health care providers in future years.
Conclusion: We should not repeal the Affordable Care Act.
As a response to your second premise, the Affordable Care Act is not unfair with everybody. Although it provides health care for everybody, it has some disincentive for young, middle-class people. They are healthy and rarely visit the doctor whole year round. However, their premium increased because of the new plan they are being funneled into. According to articles.latimes.com, this new plan will increase their premium up to 43%; not many people could afford this especially the middle-class family. The law is far likely to cut down deficit because statistically one-sixth of the U.S economy is dedicated to health care and the rise in the cost of health care is inevitable. "Total health care spending in the United States is expected to reach $4.8 trillion in 2021, up from $2.6 trillion in 2010 and $75 billion in 1970," (http://www.ahip.org...).
Scholars from different universities say that the Affordable Care Act uses shady accounting to hide its overall cost. They try to shift the attention to funding scholarship to students because of the unthinkable increase in tax. In addition, they will be adding new taxes fee which was started this year. I personally think that we don't need more health care providers. What we need is to lower the cost of health care in order for people to afford it because I don't think it is fair that if you don't buy the insurance (for whatever reason but particularly the high cost of it), you get to pay a penalty.
The Affordable Care Act is not a piece of legislation that was meant to cut down on our budget deficit but simply meant to insure that many more people are covered despite the rising health care costs. Even young middle-class Americans can stay covered under their parents insurance until the age of 26. On the flip side of your argument, those that are "young, middle-class people" also cannot afford doctors fees and hospital visits if they do not have insurance either, at least this way they will be covered and will pay less if something were to happen. With the Affordable Care Act in place there will be 15 million more low income families covered with medical insurance and despite rises in health care costs, many families are eligible to apply for, and receive, financial aid.
The Affordable Care Act is funding scholarships and loan replacement programs for those going into the primary care workforce. This will not only essentially guarantee that we will have enough workers in hospitals and other health care departments, but also will create jobs and careers for Americans. It also funds and expands community health care centers.
It is clear that the goal of the Affordable Care Act is to insure everyone regardless of their gender, social status and preexisting conditions. However, the leading effects of it is what people are concern the most. Yes it is true that young middle-class Americans can stay with their parent's insurance until the age of 26, but that is not where the problem is coming from. The problem is the high cost of premium they are charging these families when most of these families do not see their doctor for more than twice or thrice a year. Middle-class families can barely afford health insurance and it would be more tragic if they were getting charged for more money by their premiums.
They are using these funding scholarships and loan replacement programs to shift the public's attention. The Affordable Care Act is not contributing a positive impact on employment. In addition, it is cutting millions of jobs and hours of employees because of its regulations. Furthermore, employers are unwilling to hire people because it would cost them money to insure them as to what the law requires. Also, by hiring more people at the hospitals or other health departments doesn't solve the issue at stake because the problem is fiscal cliff and money spending.
In response to "Middle-class families can barely afford health insurance and it would be more tragic if they were getting charged for more money by their premiums", which do you believe is more expensive? A slight raise in premiums to protect your family in case of an emergency or footing the entire doctors/hospital bill? Out of all the taxes that we pay this should be one that is the most beneficial and most important for everyone.
Lastly, a few months back everyone was complaining about the lack of jobs, now that the Affordable Care Act is providing jobs the complaints have been moved somewhere else.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Both debaters argued the premise of Obamacare on a)Businesses b)Deficit c)Student Loans. Sources were difficult to follow for Pro as it leads to only home pages. Con's source was more direct, though some are biased. So both are equal. As for arguments, I beleive Con wins just by '1' point. His elaboration was much superior compared to Pro.
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.