The Instigator
WesternGuy2
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
hassansadak
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved :The U.S. government should not require its citizens to have health insurance.

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...
WesternGuy2
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 465 times Debate No: 44111
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

WesternGuy2

Pro

Thanks for accepting this debate
I hope we have a great debate!
Evidence is only to be presented when asked for
Last speeches, no new evidence is to be presented
1st speech- opening
2nd- rebuttals
3rd- more rebuttals
4th- summary
5th- Closing statement
Good luck!
PRO- Case
Definitions:
Health insurance-insurance against loss due to ill health (Princeton University), especially the individual mandate that American citizens must have health insurance.
Observation:
OBSV 1- Individual mandate
Today"s resolution is specifically related to the individual mandate of health insurance, not about Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act. Thus, any argument in this debate that is brought up about Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act should be irrelevant but examples can be used as long as it refers specifically to the individual mandate clause of the act which includes any act to support the mandate as well.
Standard: Health of American citizens
As long as the Affirmative can prove that when US citizens are not required to have health insurance, and that in the long term, the Health is improved, we should win this debate.

With that said we have several main arguments
Contention 1: Solvency
Subpoint A- Loss of Jobs
According to senate.gov:
The U.S. medical device industry employs 422,778 workers, 80% of them at businesses employing fewer than 50 workers, who develop products such as pacemakers, artificial joints, and surgical tools.

The California Health Institute and Heritage Foundation stated that:
In order to pay for the insurance of those under the poverty level, the US Government has enacted an excise 2.3% tax on businesses that make medical equipment, harming small businesses immensely.
This has put more than 5.2 million low wage job at severe risk and business losses of $3.5 billion.

Subpoint B- Current mandates increase premiums
The Cato Organization stated that existing mandates have increased premiums by an estimated 20 to 50 percent. When all citizens are required to get health insurance, health insurance centers are able to rise costs as high as they want, as the people will have to keep buying premiums. This causes less and less people to not be available to afford the insurance.
National Academics- Between 1999 and 2008, family health insurance premiums have already rose 119 percent, making the prospect of a mandate even less feasible.

The impact is clear- Thousands of jobs are being lost because of the individual mandate. Not only that, but Obviously the US government should not require its citizens to have health insurance.

Contention 2: US Medical Research and Medicine Manufacturing will be harmed
Under an individual mandate, the health insurance companies will not turn a profit, which will harm many citizens.
According to an article by Mike Ward, an Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine at George Washington University:
3 US factories produce 90% of the generic drugs. The 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, which was essentially the individual mandate that applied to senior citizens, changed reimbursement from a wholesale to retail model, significantly reducing the ability of factories to maintain their existing profit model. Private insurers followed Medicare's lead.
Private corporations will not make products that are unprofitable.
This shows that the medial corporations are losing money, harming US citizens in two ways:
Subpoint A- Epinephrine Shortage
If medical companies decrease in profit, then they will stop manufacturing epinephrine. According to the earlier article, The first shortage of cardiac epinephrine occurred in 2010. It was unexpected. Medical directors had only a thirty-day supply of the drug and no future deliveries were available.
With this epinephrine shortage, people with heart attacks might die before they reach the hospital.
Subpoint B- Fungal Outbreaks
The change from wholesale to retail sale model dispersed medicine production from the three large companies that make 90% of medicines to thousands of other small businesses from around the country. This made it harder for government groups such as the FDA to make sure that the making of these drugs are in a clean area.
The result was that a contaminated steroid from a small business got into the manufactured medicine, causing the risk of medicine poisoning to 13,534 patients.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports 678 cases of infection, and deaths.
The impact is clear- If medical research and manufacturing are harmed, citizens of the United States might die, and we cannot implement this mandate.
hassansadak

Con

I'd like to start with the first issue you stated the effect the individual mandate has on jobs. Now let's begin with what the Individual mandate does it's a law that requires all citizens to buy health care and because of this more costumers means more people have to provide for those costumers it's actually basic math. There are currently 40 million uninsured in America let's assume every single one of them decide to get health care the average American according to http://news.ehealthinsurance.com... the average American family pays $414 a month now let's do the math that is an estimated $16,560,000,000 [ sixteen billion five hundred sixty million ] per month for the health care industry and let's accumulate your estimated loss of 3.5 billion that'd be 13060000000 { thirteen billion sixty million} Still a huge increase of net for insurance company who's dancing their way to the bank.

Sub point B - Current mandates decreases Government spending on individuals.
Currently America pays more money per person on health care then any other country in the world including countries that have insurance mandates. You may look at these graphs to see how much we America really pays for health care compared to other countries and there's a clear link between mandated countries and non mandated countries. http://pusz4frog.wordpress.com....

Yes the impact is clear - Thousands of jobs will be created because of insurance mandates South Korea who has an insurance mandate currently has an unemployment rate less then 4% seems it isn't effecting them much. There are six clear professions that will see a huge impact with an Insurance mandate http://www.foxbusiness.com...

I'd also like to ask what do you mean the government shouldn't force people to buy health care is this from a legal standpoint or a moral standpoint?
Debate Round No. 1
WesternGuy2

Pro

Thank you for accepting
I am sorry for the untimely response, I have been extremely busy

However, here I am, so I will first go over framework, then refute my opponents arguments, then strengthen my own.
First, I assume they agree with the framework since they haven't talked about
Now to refutations
First, they talk about how about 13 billion dollars is going to be dancing its way into the insurance companies bank.
However, there are a number of flaws in you argument.
First, you get a $414 number and use this for every PERSON, where the evidence uses this number for every FAMILY. This is a clear misuse of this evidence.
Second, there is a major flaw in the mathematics. First, some people don't take these health premiums because they are too expensive. In fact, because of the increase in premiums, According to New York Times, 6 million people are paying the penalties of not having health insurance, because they can not afford the increases in the health premiums. In fact, Despite the mandate, people will remain uninsured. According to CATO and Congressional Research, Michael D. Tanner reported that in 2016, 30 million Americans will be uninsured. This completely knocks down the number my opponent gave.
My opponent's Subpoint B seems nontopical as he doesn't understand this topic. This is about the individual mandate, not Obamacare or Health care. This is requiring all citizens to have health INSURANCE, and INSURANCE does not guarantee care. In fact, current insurance mandates INCREASE government spending increasing the debt.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the refundable health insurance tax credits and Medicaid expansion will increase the nation’s debt burden by $1.36 trillion in the first seven years that these provisions are fully implemented.
Also, my opponent cites a wordpress, which is unreliable and should be disregarded.
They also talk about jobs
However, they forget that there is a huge number of 5.2 million jobs left.
Lastly, they ask whether the standpoint that government shouldn't force people to buy health care is this from a legal standpoint or a moral standpoint?
I would like to say it is both. Since the government is forcing this mandate, it is a horrible thing to force someone to do something since it violates the right to life from the declaration of Independence (the legal standpoint) and since the D of I is also a document about morality, it is also immoral to take someone's right to life (the moral standpoint)
Hope that answers the question
Thank you
and please vote PRO

hassansadak

Con

My opponent has stated that by having an Insurance mandate Insurance companies , Pharmaceutical companies would lose money creating a job loss of 5.2 million people. Yet before this mandate even began Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies have been reporting record breaking profits and have become one of the most profitable industries in America. As you can clearly see in the link I've posted below out of the top 5 most profitable industries 2 of them are insurance companies.http://money.cnn.com...
With these record breaking profits Insurance companies are expected to make 5.2 million jobs by 2020 according to a new study done by Georgetown University"s Center on Education and Workforce.
Your sub point B is the Cato Organization states that existing mandates will increase premiums this same organization happens to have be extremely biased with a political agenda of free markets and seems to be against any sort of improvement to the health care industry.. A group that has an extreme political agenda shouldn't be used as a useful recourse in a debate.

Contention 2 my opponent has stated that Insurance companies would not make a profit under an Insurance mandate yet they've recorded record profits as they prepare for a Insurance mandate according to Forbes magazine
http://www.forbes.com...

My opponent has left out extreme details on the CBO's report yes it would cost us 1 trillion dollars according to the CBO but the laws spending cuts and tax increases are expected to make more then how much it costs. Here's the full analysis of the CBO. http://cbo.gov...
This article also goes against your statement that people won't sign up CBO expects the uninsured to be cut by half here's what they had to say.
On the other hand, the legislation would ultimately reduce the uninsured
population by more than half, which would sharply reduce the amount of
uncompensated or under compensated care provided to people who lack
health insurance. One recent estimate indicates that hospitals provided
about $35 billion in such care in 2008"an amount that would grow under
current law but would be expected to decline considerably under the
legislation.24
Not only does the CBO say the insured would be cut in half but they also expect increase in competition would reduce premiums in the non group market rather then increase premiums like you stated before.
"The exchanges would enhance competition among insurers in the nongroup
market by providing a centralized marketplace in which consumers could
compare the premiums of relatively standardized insurance products. The
additional competition would slightly reduce average premiums in the exchanges
by encouraging consumers to enroll in lower-cost plans and by encouraging plans
to keep their premiums low in order to attract enrollees. In particular, insurers
probably would adopt slightly stronger benefit management procedures to restrain
spending or would slightly reduce the rates they pay providers. Those small
employers that purchased coverage through the exchanges would see similar
reductions in premiums because of the increased competition among plans".
The CBO also expects a decrease in administrative costs. "New Market Rules Would Reduce Administrative Costs
Compared with plans that would be available in the nongroup market under
current law, nongroup policies under the proposal would have lower
administrative costs, largely because of the new market rules:"

As you can clearly see an Insurance mandate would decrease premiums decrease administrative costs add an estimated 5.2 million jobs by the year 2020.

Also from the legal standpoint the Supreme court agreed that it was constitutional to force people to buy healthcare it's the same thing as forcing someone to pay their taxes do you believe forcing people to pay taxes is also unconstitutional?
From the moral stand point I find it disgusting that we allow millions to go uninsured with thousands dying every year Harvard University estimated 45,000 deaths a year because of our healthcare system here's the link to their study http://news.harvard.edu... I think it's clear what we need to do as a nation
Debate Round No. 2
WesternGuy2

Pro

Thank you for a timely answer
I will now refute my opponent's refutations.
First, they talk about how how insurance companies will create jobs with the record breaking profits they have now.
However, my opponent does nothing to show how when the insurance mandate does come around, that they will still have these same profits. I would also like to see the Georgetown study. Thank you.
My opponent's only refutation for my second subpoint was that CATO is a biased group. However, it wasn't CATO that wrote this article, cited here (http://www.cato.org...) but a man named Glen Whitman. Glen Whitman is Associate Professor of Economics at California State University Northridge. His research interests include microeconomics, applied game theory, economic analysis of law, and economic methodology. He received his Ph.D. in economics from New York University in 2000 and his B.A. in economics and politics from the American University in 1994. He has done extensive teaching work for the Institute for Humane Studies and has contributed to journals including the Journal of Legal Studies, International Review of Law and Economics, and the UCLA Law Review. In 2003, the Independent Institute published his book Strange Brew: Alcohol and Government Monopoly. His current policy interests include paternalism and health care legislation. He blogs at Agoraphilia. My opponent has to prove that Mr. Whitman has a biased political agenda if they want to prove this article false.

My opponent refuted my second contention by saying that insurance companies would still make a profit. However, they are only reading my tagline and not my entire argument. 3 US factories produce 90% of the generic drugs. The 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, which was essentially the individual mandate that applied to senior citizens, changed reimbursement from a wholesale to retail model, significantly reducing the ability of factories to maintain their existing profit model. (This act was already passed, so we actually have factual evidence that this ACTUALLY happened). Private insurers followed Medicare's lead. Private corporations will not make products that are unprofitable.This shows that the medial corporations are losing money, harming US citizens in two ways:
First, there will be an epiniphrene shortage.
This is used in ambulances to save patients with heart attacks so they can reach the hospital ontime. However, with the indivudal mandate, this is not going to happen. There was a shortage of the drug.
Medical directors had only a thirty-day supply of the drug and no future deliveries were available.
Not only that, but the change from wholesale to retail sale model in the individual mandate dispersed medicine production from the three large companies that make 90% of medicines to thousands of other small businesses from around the country. This made it harder for government groups such as the FDA to make sure that the making of these drugs are in a clean area. The result was that a contaminated steroid from a small business got into the manufactured medicine, causing the risk of medicine poisoning to 13,534 patients. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports 678 cases of infection, and deaths.
My opponent has completely left the harms untouched, and therefore my argument still stands
He also talks about how this will save money.
However,
People under the poverty line will still have to pay deductibles and copayments. Also, without the epinephrine replacement, more of instances like such will happen. The Huffington Post reported that an agency still carries expired doses of two drugs in serving a city of 80,000 people, whose lives we will have to risk because of the individual mandate making drugs defective. New York Post- The Food and Drug Administration now lists 246 shortages -- a five-fold jump in just five years. The reason is because most of these drugs are being shortages because of low profit builds in the health industry.
Also, my opponent talks about how there will be a decrease in premiums.
Cato argues that Government Spending is the root of the problem, Government has become increasingly active in regulating and @257;nancing health care over the last 40 years—increasing health care spending from 25 percent to more than 50 percent of overall spending. This increased intervention has led to higher, healthcare costs.
According to another article by Cato- The mandate will do nothing to decrease the actual cost of health services. Worst of all, the mandate will create a set of political incentives that will likely drive up the cost of health insurance while impeding the adoption of more effective reforms.
The first article is by D. Eric Schansberg, who is a Professor of Economics at Indiana University Southeast. The second article is by the same Glen Whitman as stated earlier. If my opponent questions the credibility of the organization, I ask them to look at the author who wrote the article instead.
My opponent talks about competition. However,
Cato argues that Those countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and abstain centralized government control.
My opponent also talks about a legal standpoint to this issue. However, in a CNN article by Ilya Somin, an associate professor of law at George Mason University School of Law and co-editor of the Surpeme Court Review states that the individual mandate essentially gives the government almost unlimited powers. The federal government argues that there are a few provisions of the Constitution -- the commerce clause, the tax clause and a few others -- authorize the health care mandate. Their commerce argument is flawed because the government is essentially stating that health care is a form of interstate commerce. The tax clause argument likewise doesn’t apply, because if health care is not paid, the fine is a penalty, not a tax.
My amount ends his argument with an argument about how there are so many deaths linked to the health care system. However, my opponent is misunderstanding the resolution. We are talking about health INSURANCE, and not health CARE. Health Insurance DOES NOT guarentee health CARE. Despite the mandate, people will remain uninsured. According to CATO, Michael D. Tanner: in 2016: Congressional Research: 30 million Americans will be uninsured, 6 million are paying the penalties of not having health insurance, because they can not afford the increases in the health premiums. Obvously, instituting a mandate will not solve any number my opponent associates with health care.
Thank you, and please vote PRO
hassansadak

Con

hassansadak forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
WesternGuy2

Pro

Extend All Arguments
hassansadak

Con

hassansadak forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
WesternGuy2

Pro

Extend All Arguments
hassansadak

Con

hassansadak forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
WesternGuy2hassansadakTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't respond to several points made by pro and forfeited several rounds.