Should universal health care be implemented in the US given current conditions
The first round will be acceptance. My opponent should be arguing that it may be a good idea to implement universal health care in the United States given current conditions.
I would first like to state that our current health care system is flawed greatly and I agree that it needs to be fixed. We need to fix our health care system but implementing universal health care is not a good choice and I will explain why.
Going to the debate one of the first reasons why we shouldn't allow universal health care to be implemented is because of costs. The US is currently 19 trillion in debt the deficit is currently at 494 billion dollars as of today and it keeps climbing higher as we speak (1). Although it's possible to pay for universal health care, it's still not worth it since there are better health systems that are cheaper and can produce better results. I will be introducing health systems that are more cost effective and effective later, for now I will provide two reasons as to why it would be illogical cost wise to implement universal health care.
1) It would cover all US citizens, even those who can afford it.
It's simply not logical to help someone who doesn't need help. Let's take for example Donald Trump. Do you think he can afford to pay for his own health care? Absolutely! So why then would the taxpayer's dollar go towards paying for his health care? It's simply logical to only help those who truly need help and truly cannot afford to pay for their own health care.
2) Regulation of the economy and special interests
The second reason is that there's too much room for corruption, special interests, and the government would gain more power through regulation of the economy. If the US were to implement universal health care exactly who would we be paying, the insurance companies, the current health industry, or would the government create their own insurance company? Either way there would be a conflict of interests. Let's take for example two health insurance companies, company A and company B, there would also be a government run health insurance company. Let's say that company A is a multi-billion dollar company and company B is a multi-million dollar company. Company A charges less money and covers only hospitals and medical centers that are a part of company A's venture or are mainstream, while company B charges more money but covers more alternative medicinal centers. How can you guarantee that company A wouldn"t lobby the government to leave out company B from being paid? How could you guarantee that the government wouldn"t take advantage of this situation and create a government run health insurance company that would just act like any other health insurance company and profit through taxes? The problem here is that there"s too much conflict of interests and similar situations that could easily happen just like the one mentioned above. Of course it"s not limited to only these situations but there are many other situations similar to this one that could occur.
One of the next main reasons as to why universal health care shouldn"t be implemented in the US is because health is more than just an issue of whether or not we can access a doctor. The issue of health is more than just health care; many people associate health with having access to a doctor health but health is much more than that. Health is directly related to our diet, relationships, exercising routine and much more, in other words, being healthy is basically a lifestyle. The American lifestyle is one of the unhealthiest styles of living, our environment, our diet and especially our exercise and relationships. The government would be more useful if they would clean the environment, or enforce stricter regulations on food. Even if the government were to do the above there would still be problems with corruption, since there already are. For example, the ex-Monsanto executive Michael Taylor is the Deputy Commissioner of the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) (2). Whether or not you agree with Monsanto"s practices you can know that it"s probably not correct to have a businessman as one of the heads of the FDA. This is just one simple example of the corruption that exists. Ask yourself if the FDA is already corrupt, how then could we manage to implement an even bigger plan such as universal health care?
The last point that I"ll be making for this round will be on the actual implementation of this plan. Whether or not you should do something doesn"t just depend on the morality of it and the outcome but also whether or not you can actually do it. For example do you think that we should press a button and make all issues be solved? We shouldn"t do this simply because it"s going to be next to impossible to actually do such a thing. Similarly it"s very important to realize that in order to actually implement such a plan (that actually works) especially in the United States is extremely difficult. Let"s take for example Obamacare; although I don"t agree with this idea, I do know that if Obama could actually implement his plan it would probably be much better than it is. One of the reasons why Obamacare doesn"t actually work very well is because it"s very difficult to implement such a plan with the way our government works. Right now the presidential election is happening. There"s only one major candidate right now that actually supports universal health care and we should all know its Bernie Sanders. The problem though is very clear, Bernie Sanders although lately has been gaining momentum is definitely losing and even for Bernie Sanders to win would be very difficult. Imagine if he actually did, it would be next to impossible for him to actually implement all of his plans with our congress, senate, supreme court and especially all of the opposition he would face such as the major corporations many politicians and much more. The problem with universal health care is that it"s very difficult to actually implement in the United States. These are some of the reasons as to why universal health care shouldn't be implemented. I look forward to my opponents response and hope we have a great debate!
Jumping right in, my opponent says that Universal healthcare should not be implemented because of cost, yet shortly afterwards admits that it could be paid for. If we CAN pay for something that will improve our country and the happiness of our citizens, something that I believe should be a basic human right, then I believe we absolutely should. My opponent also says that there are other healthcare systems that are better and more cost effective; if so, please tell me more about them, because I think Universal healthcare is a good system that is most likely our best option. If you know of a better system, let us know more about it.
Furthermore, a properly implemented Universal Healthcare plan would actually help stimulate our economy. The annual cost of healthcare in the US is currently growing at an exponential rate, and a study conducted by the CEA shows that even if we slow that rate of growth by only 1.5%, our countries gross domestic product would increase by nearly 8% by the year 2030. What that means is that the income in a typical American family would be about $10,000 higher annually, and the unemployment rate would go down by about 2%, or 500,000 people every year (1). And that's only with a decrease of 1.5%! It would save the average person money on healthcare, bolster their health, and thus make them more productive workers. It also helps reduce "job lock", and encourages small businesses and entrepreneurs by "leveling the playing field". For many people, their only access to healthcare is as a benefit through their job, forcing them to either stay or lose their coverage. With universal healthcare, it is much easier for people to choose a career they actually like, or start their own business, which helps money flow in our economy (2).
My opponent also says that the billionaire class such as Donald Trump should not have healthcare provided for them because they can pay for it themselves. However, the average taxpayer would not be paying for Donald Trump's healthcare, as Donald Trump would theoretically be paying MORE taxes than them, and that extra money would help Universal Healthcare work. A homeless unemployed man can't pay for his own healthcare, but Donald Trump can easily pay for healthcare for dozens of people, and if his taxes are already higher, he is helping insure other people, and healthcare should not be denied to anyone.
To address my opponents' concern that Universal healthcare would create a conflict of interests, I will just say that I am obviously arguing for a Universal Healthcare system done right, not simply a corrupt replacement of our current system. Of course if it is not implemented properly, such as in the scenarios my opponent outlined, then the results could be less than ideal. But if implemented carefully and properly, as I believe it should and could be, than these scenarios would all be avoided, and the payoff would be huge.
My opponent says that health is more than just having access to a doctor, that the Americans should change their lifestyle, and that the government should regulate food and the environment. While this is certainly true and we agree on this point, it is irrelevant to this argument. Just because having Universal Healthcare won't magically solve all of the health problems in America does not mean that it should not be implemented, and even if Americans all managed to live a perfectly healthy lifestyle and our environmental problems were all solved, people would still need access to western medicine or prescription medication on certain occasions. There is a reason that life expectancy goes up alongside the advance of medical science. The government could easily implement a Universal Healthcare plan AND do more to fix the problems with our environment and food supply.
As for the actual implementation of an effective Universal Healthcare plan, yes it might be difficult, but it is not impossible. Every other major western country has implemented a Universal Healthcare plan of some sort, and I believe that if EVERY OTHER similar country has done it, we Americans can probably manage someway or another. Obamacare is an example of a healthcare plan that has many problems, and I agree that it could have been implemented much more effectively, but the fact is, it HAS been implemented, and an improved system could easily enough be put it its place. My opponent also brings up Bernie Sanders; while this debate is not about the election, you cannot say that a candidate can't win when they won 8 out of 9 of the last primaries. And that is a perfect example of how something difficult can still work. However, the topic of this debate is not about if Universal Healthcare COULD be implemented, it is about whether or not it SHOULD be. So for the sake of this argument, we should both assume that proper implementation is indeed possible.
Now I will present some of my own arguments for Universal Healthcare:
I think that in our economy, all people should ethically be given access to healthcare, and that it should be a basic human right. Not everyone can afford healthcare, but most people need it at some time. Making people choose to either pay thousands of dollars to insurance companies that give them limited benefits, or die of disease is not morally right in my opinion. The pharmaceutical and insurance companies have become much too overpriced and have too much leverage over people, given that their services are often essential.
As I said before, America is one of the only advanced western civilizations that STILL does not offer Universal Healthcare, and most countries that do, such as Sweden or Denmark, have happier average citizens. For example, in Denmark, citizens are about 77% happy, and in the United States, only 70% (3). One of the main reasons for this is the difference in our healthcare systems.
Given the money that Americans already spend on taxes, we should absolutely get Universal Healthcare coverage without having to pay anything more. Money could be relocated from other areas where tax dollars are spent is excess, such as military spending. So a good Universal Healthcare plan would be essentially free (it would still be paid for by taxes, true, but the amount people are taxed would not increase), and it would greatly benefit our citizens.
A properly implemented Universal Healthcare plan would boost our economy, increase the health, lifespan and happiness of Americans, and generally improve our country, all without costing the average American anything more than what they already pay in taxes, bringing us up to par with other advanced western countries. And I can't see why anyone wouldn't want that!
To begin the next round I will be rebutting my opponent’s arguments.
First my opponent has stated that universal health care can be paid for. This is very true but my argument wasn’t whether we can pay for it. My argument is that we can’t afford to pay for universal health care given our current situation which is a lot different. My opponent has provided a study by the CEA yet it hasn’t helped him. The study he provided by the CEA was never in favor of universal health care. As you can see in the actual study, the words “universal health care” are nowhere to be found (1). The first CEA report he provided has actually hurt his own argument in regards to universal health care. My opponent has stated that, “a properly implemented Universal Healthcare plan would actually help stimulate our economy.” Yet, he hasn’t provided any evidence to support his claims. Shortly after, he claims that, “The annual cost of healthcare in the US is currently growing at an exponential rate, and a study conducted by the CEA shows that even if we slow that rate of growth by only 1.5%, our countries gross domestic product would increase by nearly 8% by the year 2030." If you read this very closely the study has concluded that the current annual cost of health care is growing at an exponential rate. If we were to slow this rate by 1.5% then according to the study the economy would grow. According to this study about 46 million Americans are currently uninsured (1). Adding just them to our coverage and cutting rising health care rates by 1.5% would be extremely difficult, adding all Americans and cutting rising health care rates by 1.5% would be close to impossible.
To conclude this paragraph
I have quickly reviewed the first study he has provided. Based off of the study and my opponent’s conclusion I’m led to believe that my opponent hasn’t even read the study. My opponent hasn’t proven how a properly implemented universal health care plan would help our economy and these specific arguments that he has provided are false. On top of that they go against his very arguments as I have proven this in the above paragraph.
For the next part I’ll be addressing my opponent’s arguments about the Billionaire class.
First it’s important to understand that my opponent has put Donald Trump and the billionaire class in one section that can afford to pay for health care. It’s important to understand that it’s not limited to just the billionaire class but also most of the upper middle and wealthy classes in America that can also can afford health care. My opponent has stated that since Donald Trump would theoretically be paying more taxes than others that would mean that he would be paying for others health care and in turn he would help the plan of universal health care. Although I do know that we need to tax the rich more taxing them too much can create problems and become more dangerous than good. One problem for example could be a a massive flee of all the rich businessmen. Usually the rich don’t sit around and wait to be taxed. France has proven that just imposing more taxes on the rich can lead to the simple act of most wealthy businessmen relocating themselves to another country. When François Hollande the president of France introduced a new tax policy in 2012 that was higher than before and targeted the rich more he learned an ancient truth: Wealth taxes don’t redistribute wealth; they redistribute people. Shortly after this policy change many wealthy businessmen left the country including the richest man in France, Bernard Arnault (2). This is one example of how the wealthy will always try to avoid taxes. Even if under my opponents plan the US adopted an extremely strict tax policy and really went after the wealthy there would most definitely be a war between the wealthy and the US government which would be gambling with our economy and probably wouldn’t turn out very well.
Conflict of interests
My opponent has dedicated a paragraph to addressing this but in his entire paragraph he hasn’t stated how we would prevent a conflict of interests aside from stating that we should implement this plan properly. My question is exactly how? My opponent wants us to take his word for it as he has stated that he wants this plan to be implemented right. He hasn’t explained to us exactly how universal health care would be implemented and I ask him to elaborate on this issue more and describe exactly how we would prevent a conflict of interests from happening.
Seeing health as more than just health care
My opponent has agreed with me on fact that health is more than just health care and overall a lifestyle obviously this is common sense. Although my opponent agrees with me he has stated that, “it is irrelevant to this argument.” My opponent is wrong and it’s definitely relevant to this argument. In the very study he provided from the CEA it has a paragraph titled,
Reorienting the financial incentives of providers toward value rather than volume.
In this paragraph there are important insights so I have decided to put the whole paragraph below.
Giving patients a greater role. Engaging patients in medical decision-making can lead both to better alignment of treatment strategies with patient preferences and to lower costs: well informed patients are more likely to be comfortable with less invasive, extensive, and expensive 56 Of course, different sets of measures could be specified for different patient populations. 57 Becker, Kessler, and McClellan (2005). 20 treatment options.58 Another strategy involves creating financial incentives for patients needing complex surgeries to use high quality, lower total cost “centers of excellence.”59 It will also be important to encourage individuals through education and incentives to make healthier lifestyle choices, such as exercising and healthy eating. This is important because healthier lifestyle choices have positive, direct benefits on lowering costs.60
As you can see the study by the CEA and used by my opponent doesn’t even agree with his views(1). My opponent thinks that viewing health as more than just health care is irrelevant to this argument but as you can see the very sources he provides disagree with his viewpoint. This again is another reason as to why I am led to believe that my opponent hasn’t even read the sources he has provided.
The actual implementation of this plan
My opponent has stated that, “the topic of this debate is not about if Universal Healthcare COULD be implemented, it is about whether or not it SHOULD be.” Maybe my opponent hasn’t read my arguments well enough just like how he probably hasn’t read his own sources that he’s provided. Near the end of my argument in round #2 I said, “Whether or not you should do something doesn’’t just depend on the morality of it and the outcome but also whether or not you can actually do it.” My opponent hasn’t refuted this argument at all and has only said that it’s not a part of this debate. It’s important to understand that whether this plan can actually be implemented is very important since being able to do something does depend on whether or not you can actually do it. If you can’t do something then you shouldn’t do it. My opponent also thinks that health care should be a right. If you would want to amend the constitution then your chances are very low. From 1789 to 2014 approximately 11,623 measures have been proposed to amend the constitution, to date the US only has 27(3). I ask my opponent to elaborate on exactly how we would make access to health care a right. Further, I also ask opponent to address this argument and elaborate on exactly how universal health care can be implemented.
I will say that since I don’t have enough room to write my full argument I will further elaborate it in the next rounds. I acknowledge that I haven’t addressed everything but I will make sure to in the next upcoming rounds.
As usual, this argument will begin with me refuting my opponent's opinions.
Now. I believe my opponent does not understand some of the various points I am making, due to the nature of some of his "rebuttals". He says all in the course of one sentence that it is true we can pay for universal healthcare, but also says that "we can't afford to pay" for it. My opponent doesn't seem to realize that these are synonymous statements, and he has contradicted himself. If we can pay for universal healthcare, we can by definition afford it. With all due respect, maybe my opponent should review his argument before clarifying what he is trying to say.
My opponent's statement that the study by the CEA has hurt my argument is false; even if it has not strengthened my argument, it still has done nothing to disprove it. I do apologize for not looking for the exact wording "universal healthcare" in the article I cited, however the spirit of the statistics remain true (for example, even if the plan proposed by that study was not exactly a universal healthcare plan, it WAS a reform which would help provide coverage to more Americans for a reduced cost, thus slowing the rate of growth of insurance cost, a result that would also be achieved and even amplified by an entirely universal healthcare plan paid for by redistributed taxes. So the increase in GDP and benefit to our economy would theoretically be higher than what was proposed in that plan). I have provided several new sources that all support the statement that Universal Healthcare would benefit our economy (1, 2, 3). Please look them over at your leisure, and do some fact checking before you incorrectly attack the fact that a Universal Healthcare plan would benefit our economy.
Furthermore, on the subject of sources, my opponent's only cited sources in his last argument are broken links to a Google search, not actual sources. He also provided Wikipedia as a source for his previous argument (a notoriously unreliable source due to the fact that anyone could edit its information, even my opponent). I neglected bringing this up before for the sake of keeping this debate on topic, and avoiding petty arguments about details, but since my opponent decided to take this debate that direction, I thought I should point it out. Perhaps my opponent should check his own sources more carefully before attacking mine.
I would like my opponent to expand on his statement that implementing an effective Universal Healthcare system would be close to impossible in America; so far he has made this accusation many times but never backed it up.
Now I will address my opponent's accusations about taxes and the Billionaire class. My opponent bases this entire argument on the assumption that my plan would involve "an extremely strict tax policy" on the wealthy; I challenge my opponent to find a quote in any of my arguments where I propose this plan. Never did I say that the wealthy should be taxed an extreme amount more than they already are. MAYBE they should be taxed a slight bit more, but nothing that would come close to causing this so-called "war" between the upper class and the government in America.
About conflict of interests, it would be a simple matter to draft preventative measures into a bill for Universal Healthcare. In the examples my opponent provided in the second round, the bill could include a statement that the government cannot leave an insurance company from being paid, or run the healthcare system for profit. Both of these situations seem like common sense and should be easy to avoid. However, as I said before, this debate is not actually about how Universal Healthcare COULD be implemented, it is about whether or not it SHOULD be. It's in the title. My opponent doesn't seem to understand this, despite being the one who instigated this debate. If we could stay more on topic, this debate might be more productive.
When addressing health as more than healthcare, my opponent cites the same CEA study I cited before, just after claiming it was not relevant to this debate. If you are going to ignore my argument that Universal Healthcare would benefit the economy, then you cannot expect me to take your argument seriously after citing the same source. Now, I already said I agreed with my opponent that the government should do more to make our food and environment healthy, and yes, I believe educating the people of America about healthier lifestyles is also beneficial. However, neither of these issues address the topic of Universal Healthcare. Yes, health IS more than just healthcare. But Universal Healthcare is just a subset of that issue. Universal Healthcare IS healthcare, and nothing more: a plan to provide insurance for free or a low price to all Americans. It is not a plan to force Americans to exercise more. This debate is about Universal Healthcare specifically, NOT the whole subject of health. Again, it's in the title. Any plans for cleaning food sources or the environment, and educating the people, would be separate plans that could be used in conjunction with a Universal Healthcare plan, and that is what the CEA study was referring to. They would not actually be part of the plan. So yes, they are irrelevant to this debate.
My opponent's next statement, that "whether or not you should do something doesn't just depend on the morality of it and the outcome but also whether or not you can actually do it" is, again, false. In round 2, my opponent used a rather poor example and said "do you think that we should press a button and make all issues be solved? We shouldn't do this." This statement is based around a misused word; my opponent says "shouldn't" when he really means "couldn't". SHOULD we press that button to solve all issues? Absolutely we should! Who wouldn't want to do that? The problem is, we CAN'T. My opponent should review his phrasing on statements like this. He also says, "if you can’t do something then you shouldn't do it." Again, he is confusing himself by misusing "shouldn't". If a loved one is dying but you don't know how to save them, should you still try? Yes! However, using his logic, my opponent would say that you shouldn't.
The same applies to this debate. My opponent demands that I propose a fool-proof plan for implementing Universal Healthcare in order for him to admit that it SHOULD be implemented. But I am not a politician. Once again, I'm not here to debate how Universal Healthcare COULD be implemented, but if it SHOULD be. I will say again, it's in the title. If my opponent could stick to the topic of this debate instead of repeatedly straying into the land of legislation, then that would be fantastic and we could reach a more concise conclusion.
About healthcare being a right: I am not saying that an actual constitutional amendment should be put in place, but I believe it should be something that everyone has access to, because of how essential it often is. My opponent simply misinterpreted what I said.
I look forward to the next round, and I hope we can both continue to enjoy ourselves throughout this debate and reach a civil agreement by the end!
My opponent keeps hiding from reality.
Over the course of this debate my opponent has kept on dodging questions and seems to be always concerned about what’s relevant to this debate. When this debate was started it was supposed to be a debate based on reality and not science fiction. In the title it’s clear that this debate is about a current political issue. That’s why a part of the title states, “given current conditions.” My opponent really doesn’t want to argue one of the most important parts of this debate and that’s the actual implementation of the plan. I believe if it was an easy argument for him then he probably wouldn’t complain about whether or not it’s relevant to this debate and would probably argue it instead. Anyhow lately he’s gotten very technical with definitions. If he wanted to debate this way he should have let me know before the debate. This debate was supposed to be on common sense and logic. That’s why I never provided definitions or made rules at the beginning. If he wants to debate technically then maybe he should also use proper definitions for his own arguments. For example at the end of round three he states “I hope we can both… reach a civil agreement by the end!“ Technically a civil agreement is an agreement that’s usually reached through court. (1) Now do we all understand what he means? Absolutely. He doesn’t actually mean that he hopes we reach an agreement through court but rather just an agreement. This is just one simple example of how I wanted this debate to be. This debate was supposed to be casual where neither of us got technical and just focused on the issue of this problem not definitions. I ask my opponent to keep this debate on topic, relevant to reality and relevant to the real life issue we are debating on.
Since my opponent has asked me to provide a better plan on health care I will provide a very general outline of a couple plans that are better. I will keep it simple because my opponent has only stated that he believes we should implement universal health care which is a very general outline of a big plan. It’s only fair that I’m allowed to do the same.
Universal health care plan (modified)
I don’t like this plan but it’s better than the universal health care plan my opponent supports. What if we took the same plan but modified it to only pay for those who couldn’t afford to pay for health care. For those who could only pay a certain amount the government could help them pay and maybe split the bill in half. Really the man reason as to why this plan is better is because it will save our budget a lot. I ask my opponent to state why he thinks standard universal health care is better
A competitive but safe market
This plan is a lot safer for the real world since it’s easier to implement and there’s less room for corruption. In this plan the proposal would be keep the market competitive to lower prices but still keep a sense of security with some government aid. To keep the market competitive we would repeal unnecessary laws that made the market less competitive. This would help prices to become lower. Since it’s not right to force individuals to participate in a program they don’t want to we could give them tax credits if they decided to choose alternative medicine or some other form of medicine that the government doesn’t cover. This would help ALL health companies to stay competitive not just the pharmaceutical and big health companies. In order to keep a sense of security the government would pay for any costs that an individual couldn’t afford. Of course this plan depends on a lot of changes within our government, especially with our budget. That means that in order to be able to pay for this plan we would also have to cut other parts of our budget that aren’t necessary. Remember this is just a general outline of a bigger plan. My opponent’s plan is just to somehow implement universal health care the right way.
Just these two plans that I have mentioned will definitely work better than universal health care. They are easier to implement and there’s less room for corruption. When I outlined the modified universal health care plan I have to say that I don’t agree with it but it’s better than a standard universal health care plan.
I will now refute some of my opponents arguments
My opponent wants me to expand on my argument that implementing universal health care would be close to impossible. It seems strange that he’s mostly been arguing that the implementation of universal health care is irrelevant to this debate but he still wants me to expand my argument on this important point. I’m glad to say that at least my opponent has addressed this point and I will easily refute his argument. My opponent thinks that drafting a bill with preventative measures would prevent fraud. The problem with this is that you can never guarantee if that plan would even pass through congress. Our current congress has a 2% passing rate (2) and if we had a president that doesn’t agree with this bill he could easily veto it even if the bill did somehow manage to pass. Further, if the president is corrupt and works for special interest groups and corporations he could easily put a line item veto on any preventative parts of that specific bill. Obamacare is an example of a program that couldn’t be fully implemented because of corruption and parts of government blocking this plan. This is just a simple example of how difficult it is to actually implement anything in our government.
One of the next reasons as to why it would be difficult to make sure this plan is implemented right is because our government itself doesn’t work well. Think about it for a moment. Which program or office of our government actually works efficiently? Not really any part does. Anyone should know this if they have tried to work with the IRS or the DMV. If the government can’t even manage itself then we can’t trust the government to somehow manage such a complex program such as universal health care. Let’s just take another example, here’s just one person who’s in our government. How can you expect for us to have an efficient program when we have people like Hank Johnson. https://www.youtube.com...
My opponent has made plenty of false accusations.
Throughout the course of this debate my opponent has made too many false accusations. He’s made so many in fact that I don’t have enough space refute them all. If you have been following this debate then make sure to read the comments. At the bottom of the comment section a debate starts between me and my opponent. Since I don't have enough room to refute them all I will later refute the rest in the comment section. Next I will refute some false accuasations he's made.
1) My opponent has stated that, “my opponent cites the same CEA study I cited before, just after claiming it was not relevant to this debate.” This is false. If you have read my argument in round three NOWHERE in my argument did I state that the study he brought was not relevant to this debate. Further, he’s the one, who has stated that, Any plans for cleaning food sources or the environment, and educating the people, would be separate plans that could be used in conjunction with a Universal Healthcare plan, and that is what the CEA study was referring to This is again another false statement. The CEA study specifically said, “This is important because healthier lifestyle choices have positive, direct benefits on lowering costs” I think that my opponent doesn't understand what direct benefits mean but he originally provided the study not me.
Recently my opponent's tone has become rather hostile, and it seems he refuses to read my responses. Am I concerned about what is relevant to my debate? Absolutely! And I should be. My opponent is continuously taking this debate off topic and discussing things such as legalities and how a plan COULD be implemented. Now, for those of you actually reading this debate, you will know that I have said this before: WE ARE DEBATING IF UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE UNITED STATES. WE ARE NOT DEBATING HOW OR IF IT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED. Unfortunately, my opponent has yet to learn the meanings of these two words.
The word "should" is loosely defined as being "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness" (1). "Could" is defined as being "used to indicate possibility" (2). My opponent seems to have made a mistake when titling this debate. He wants to debate how possible implementing Universal Healthcare is in the US, but in reality what we agreed to debate was whether or not it would be morally correct to implement Universal Healthcare because it would benefit our country. It is true that this is about a current political issue, but "given current conditions" just means everything would be like it is now. Nowhere in the title or opening statements does either of us say we would be debating if Universal Healthcare COULD be implemented. If we could stick to debating what we both agreed on, that would be fantastic.
My opponent also accuses me of being overly technical with definitions; I would just like to say that I am only being "technical" about this particular definition because the topic of this debate depends on it. My opponent is trying to debate something entirely different from what we agreed on, and it is important that we get that straight. The reason I am dismissing some of my opponent's arguments is because they should be an entirely different debate, and the ARE irrelevant here. If I used the same logic as my opponent, I could all of a sudden start debating whether or not 911 was a conspiracy, and if my opponent said that was irrelevant (which it is), I could accuse him of ignoring an important issue. This is a logical fallacy. But if this is a debate using common sense, my opponent should already know that.
Next I will address my opponent's healthcare plan:
First of all, my opponent starts the argument for his plan by saying he doesn't even like it. If you don't even like your own plan, why would you support it?
Now, there are dozens of problems with my opponent's plan: If, as in this plan, we only provided healthcare to the poor, do you really think that is fair to everyone else? How many people would actually support this kind of plan? If the government is helping to pay for healthcare for the poor, is that money coming from taxes? If so, that means the middle class and wealthy would be paying for healthcare for the poor and getting absolutely nothing in return. Does that not seem a little totalitarian to you? My opponent also says that his plan would save our budget a lot, but provides no studies or sources to support this argument. In addition to this, actual Universal Healthcare would actually benefit our economy and gain us money in the long run, as I proved in previous rounds.
My opponent also says his plan is easier to implement and less corruptible, but again provides no proof. He says that we would "keep the market competitive" in order to lower prices... But the fact is that if we "keep the market competitive" at the level it is now, prices will not go down, and they will continue to rise. He says we could try to solve this by repealing "unnecessary laws", but does not specify which laws he is talking about or how that would help. He says that anyone who does not want to participate in his program would not have to and would instead be given tax credits. The problem with this, however, is that if enough people opt out, there will not be enough funding from taxes for the program to even work. And what about the wealthy who don't even have the opportunity of opting in? Would they still be paying taxes towards this, or would they get tax credits? If they do, who is paying for the homeless people's healthcare when they cannot afford to pay? The government? But where is THAT money coming from? Either way, there is a budget shortage because of the flawed logic of this plan. Unless of course, as my opponent says, we make "a lot of changes within our government"... yet he calls a simple Universal Healthcare plan impractical. His plan is infinitely more complicated and impractical than Universal Healthcare.
But at the end of outlining his plan, he says, with NO support anywhere in the plan for this statement, that it would be better, safer and easier than Universal Healthcare. This statement is OBVIOUSLY false.
My opponents' plan is heavily flawed, it has not been carefully thought out, it is immoral as it denies coverage to wealthy and working class citizens, there is no proof for any of his arguments, and, even though this is not supposed to be part of the debate, it would be much harder to implement than Universal Healthcare.
Despite all this, my opponent still says Universal Healthcare should not be implemented just because it might be hard to implement. While what my opponent says about how Universal Healthcare could be vetoed is all true, the same applies to any other plan, and is amplified in regards to his own plan (think of trying to implement "a lot of changes within our government" instead of just passing one simple bill). Universal Healthcare would also provide the most coverage and benefits to our country, and it is quite simply our best option.
About what my opponent says regarding the CEA study: my opponent was the one who pointed out that this study was not actually about Universal Healthcare. Universal Healthcare is exactly what this debate is about. Therefore, you in essence said the study was not relevant. If you admit that it IS relevant, than all of my statistics from Round 2 still hold true and your attacks in Round 3 were all false accusations.
I believe I have addressed all your arguments, and I hope you think your plan out more carefully before calling it superior to Universal Healthcare.
To conclude this debate I’ll mostly be making closing statements.
For those of you following this debate feel free to check out the comment section. My opponent and I have been debating a lot in the comment sections and it would be a pity to miss those arguments.
First I’ll be refuting some of my opponents’ arguments.
My opponent and I have kept on arguing about the topic of this debate. My opponent stated in round 3 that he wants me to expand my argument about the implementing of this plan. I did, yet in the next round he says that I’m off topic. Do you think this is right? He asks me to expand my argument about implementation and then when I do answer his question he later says I’m off topic. Next my opponent says the word should is “loosely defined” this is one of the reasons as to why he should know that when I used it I was using its (first) and second definition: used to indicate what is probable (1). The reason why this is justified is because given that this is a political issue in political context whether or not you should do something does depend on whether you can actually do it. In other areas of life should is defined using its first definition. The problem is that in political context the word should won’t usually just refer to what we need to do but also whether or not we can do it. Since this is a political issue I’m using the word correctly given context. Further my opponent states that it would be fantastic if we could both stick to the debate. He’s being a hypocrite since he asked me to expand on my argument about implementation even though he thinks it’s of topic. He’s also being a hypocrite when he thinks that I haven’t read his arguments. He already admitted that he hasn’t read the first CEA study he has provided when he stated, “I do apologize for not looking for the exact wording "universal healthcare" in the article I cited”. On top of that he hasn’t responded to many of my arguments. For example in round 4 he literally devotes most of his time to arguing against my plan and then at the end says he thinks he’s responded to all of my arguments. He hasn’t. Now I haven’t addressed all his either arguments but at least I acknowledge this.
In regards to the CEA study even after round 4 it seems as though my opponent still hasn’t read it. He says that it’s not relevant to the debate. Well if it isn’t then he shouldn’t have brought it up in the first place. Anyhow I think my opponent doesn’t understand the essence of the study. To conclude the part he quoted (since I already explained this) the study never said that expanding alone coverage would benefit our economy. Simply put it stated that in order to successfully reform our health care one thing we would need to do is cut growing costs by 1.5%. If those statistics are true (which they are only a prediction, not a fact) then my opponent would need to be able to provide evidence as to exactly how he’s going to cut these costs in order to grow our economy while still being able to expand our coverage to all Americans. If he can’t prove this than the statistics and study he brought out is simply useless. I already provided many reasons in round three as to why the study hurts his argument. Anyone reading this should know.
The first plan I provided I don’t support. I said that it’s better than standard universal health care though. My opponent still hasn’t stated why it’s worse. He only said that I don’t support it which is true. That wasn’t the purpose of it though. It was just to provide a plan that was better than universal health care not one that I support.
My opponent has used most of his space in round 4 to attack it. First my opponent has stated I haven’t provided that much evidence which is true however he hasn’t provided any evidence against my plan so he’s again being a hypocrite. If he wants to prove me wrong then he can’t just say that because I haven’t provided any evidence it means I’m wrong. He has to try to prove me wrong by at least providing evidence against my case.
My opponent also thinks my second counterplan is immoral because it denies coverage to the wealthy. Well sorry but they can easily afford their own health insurance. My opponent already said that the wealthy would be paying for other’s health care. What’s the difference between both our plans here? He also said that it denies coverage to the working class. It doesn’t. It only denies coverage to those that can afford to pay for it.
I have highlighted the benefits of my plan and freedom of choice is one of them. Why should we force anyone to participate in a system? This is getting us closer to government tyranny. Further he states my plan is close to tyranny. I don’t know what he’s thinking when he states this. My plan promotes freedom of choice. His is plan forces all of us to participate whether we like it or not. His logic is twisted if he thinks that my plan is close to tyranny and somehow his isn’t. Dr. Ron Paul is one supporter of a plan similar to mine. The only real difference is that I think that the government should chip in a little bit while Dr. Ron Paul doesn’t think this way. Besides that, his plan and mine are very similar. He brings up a lot of good points about this plan while also argues against socialized medicine here’s a video of him talking about this. https://www.youtube.com...
Throughout this debate my opponent and I have been arguing about the topic of this debate. I have been arguing that we should view this issue how it’s supposed to be viewed and that’s as a real life issue. My opponent though still wants to debate about this issue but specifically only the outcome. He doesn’t want to debate about the implementation, the potential consequences and many more issues related to this specific issue. Why do you think that he doesn’t want to argue the implementation of this plan? I believe it’s because he knows it would be very hard to actually debate this and doesn’t want to. I bet he would argue about the implementation of this plan if it was an easy thing to do and if it were easy to argue. My opponent has argued a lot against me but throughout this debate hasn’t addressed many of my arguments even though he’s claimed he has. In round 4 he used most of his space just to argue against my counterplan even though I also provided many other arguments that he should have addressed. Throughout this debate my opponent has made too many false accusations. I can address these in the comment section, but if you have been looking at the debate in the comment section my opponent only wanted to debate about sources. I still welcome him to debate me in the comment section. I have provided a lot of evidence, a lot of sound logic to this debate, I originally wanted this issue to be viewed as a real life issue but unfortunately my opponent doesn’t want to debate this way. I have already justified the reasons as to why we should be debating this issue as if it were a real life issue since it is. I think my opponent shouldn’t have entered this debate unless he was willing to debate the issue as a real life issue. Usually in politics we debate more than just the outcome. In politics we usually also debate how we can implement such a plan and maintain it. I have challenged him to another debate where we actually view this issue as a real life issue instead of debating about a fantasy world where only the outcome matters.
This debate has been full of miscommunication.
The first and most obvious case was in the very titling of this debate; my opponent made a mistake by not saying we would be debating the probability of implementation. Then, despite this obvious error, he continued not to listen to me pointing this out, and simply asks why I don't want to debate that. Well, the answer is obvious: we never agreed to debate if a plan COULD be implemented, so why should I have to? But I have spoken on this issue enough already. Just because my opponent can't understand this doesn't mean the people reading this debate won't.
Obviously my opponent isn't the only one who made mistakes. I cited the CEA study which was not SPECIFICALLY about Universal Healthcare (although the principles apply). However, my opponent keeps saying that I made a mistake and should not have cited it (which is more or less true), yet still continually points to that study throughout the debate. It should go without saying that this doesn't make much sense.
These kinds of logical fallacies have run rampant in this debate, and I think we can both agree that this was not as productive a debate as we hoped.
Here I will refute my opponent's final arguments:
Most of what I say in the following paragraphs I have already stated, but as my opponent seems to have missed these points, I will restate them here for his benefit.
My opponent says that I asked him to argue more about implementing this plan. This is simply not true. In round three I said I would like him to provide evidence as to why Universal Healthcare would be impossible as "he has made this accusation many times but never backed it up." My opponent tried, but his argument of course fell flat. And we have already argued enough about the topic of this debate; it should be obvious to people who is right as soon as they read the title.
Not to get too deep into proper word usage, but my opponent seems to think his usage of "should" is justified just because this is a political debate. That just doesn't make sense. Again, you are confusing the words "should" and "could". My opponent should sit down with a dictionary and review his statements (if he refuses to just use common sense) (1).
I never said I didn't read my own source; that is preposterous. My opponent really needs to read everything he quotes more carefully. In the quote he provided you can see that I did not say what my opponent thinks. But the fact that my opponent is still bringing up my source from round 2 in the final round should tell you something: my opponent has run out of valid arguments and has sunk to name calling.
As for how much Universal Healthcare would slow the growth of healthcare costs (again, my opponent uses the CEA study as a crutch), the obvious answer would be almost 100%. The reason why is because nobody would directly have to pay for their own healthcare anymore. Of course this wouldn't be completely accurate because money would still be relocated from other areas of spending, but insurance would no longer have the leverage to charge nearly as much as they do now. Logically, a 1.5% decrease is easily achievable.
And I already admitted that the CEA study shouldn't have been brought into this. That is more proof that my opponent doesn't read my arguments.
About my opponent's plan:
First of all, my opponent says he doesn't even support his own plan. If this is true, than he shouldn't have provided that plan in the first place, as both of us agree it is a horrible idea!
And I have stated why it is worse, many times, in round 4. It is in no way better than Universal Healthcare.
Anyone can see why my opponent's plan is bad. To recap, it denies coverage to many people, it forces people to pay extra taxes and get nothing in return, it is full of budgetary problems and couldn't be paid for the way it was outlined, and it is much more complicated and impractical than Universal Healthcare.
I exposed many additional problems with my opponent's plan in Round 4.
The fact is that in your plan, you are STILL forcing people to pay taxes for the healthcare for the poor, without getting anything back. And if they opt out, which seems likely, than your plan can't be paid for because there's no money going into it.
Note on my opponent's closing statement: I don't want to argue about the implementation of this plan because that's not what we agreed to argue about, not because I can't. Would you want to turn this into a debate about whether or not the tooth fairy is real? Of course not, because that isn't what this debate is supposed to be about.
Again, my opponent keeps saying that I have not addressed all of his arguments, but doesn't point out what he wants me to address. I believe I have addressed all of his points, and he is simply trying to distract from the overall debate. If he really wanted me to address specific points, he should clarify which ones.
Universal Healthcare would increase the health, happiness, and lifespan of Americans. It would boost our economy, and encourage small businesses with the freedom to choose whatever career you want (without worrying about coverage benefits), helping to get money flowing. Healthcare should ethically be provided for everyone because of how essential it is. Almost every other major western country in the world has provided healthcare for all their citizens. Implementing Universal Healthcare would be very beneficial and have very few or no downsides, as my arguments throughout this debate prove.
My opponent has continuously dragged this debate off topic and made false statements, provided little to no evidence, and doesn't even know what we are supposed to debate about. He has said virtually nothing about why implementing Universal Healthcare would be bad, only saying it would be unlikely. Please look at this, and decide for yourself who had the better argument.
I look forward to debating my opponent again, and thank you to everyone who read through this.
Vote for pro!