The Instigator
jimtimmy
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
FREEDO
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

The 2010 Health Care Reform Should be Repealed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,842 times Debate No: 17486
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

jimtimmy

Pro

In March 2010, Barack Obama passed Health Care Reform Legislation. This legislation has generated substantial controversy. I argue that Health Care Reform should be repealed in its entirety.

The Bill represents a massive expansion of government into a sector that has already been severely distorted by government policies. It includes hundreds of new regulations, massive tax increases, and a huge increase in debt. On top of all that, this bill will lead to rationing and wait times like they have in other Universal Health Care Systems abroad in countries like Canada and in American states like Massachusetts.

The Canadian system has to deal with chronic waiting times and weak quality. In Massachusetts, where a form of Universal Health Care was implemented, people have to wait almost twice as long for care as they do in other states while prices have had massive increases. Massachusetts now has the most expensive Health Care System in the Country.

The 2010 Health Care Legislation included a massive expansion of Medicaid, a program that is very unsuccessful. Numerous studies find that Medicaid has a negligible effect on its recipient's health. This is largely due to the fact that Medicaid patients have to wait long periods of time for care, because most doctors don't take Medicaid Patients due to low reimbursements and innefficiency.

It also includes an employer mandate, which will simply worsen the problem our Health Care System already has: People don't pay for their own Health Care. We need to move towards a more consumer driven system for Health Care that will drive down costs and improve quality. This has happened with Lasik Surgery and Cosmetic Surgery where prices have fallen and quality has improved. Both of these services are not covered by insurance, meaning patients pay for their own Health Care. This gives consumers an incentive to shop for lower prices and more quality.

This debate is not just about the 2010 Health Care Reform. This is also about Single Payer Health Care Systems, and whether or not they have succeeded (I argue that Single Payer is a failure). Advocates of Single Payer or Socialized Medicine are welcome to this debate as well, even if they oppose the 2010 Health Care Reform. This debate is about broader Health Care Policy. I personally advocate moving towards a more consumer driven system, that will be included in this debate as well.
FREEDO

Con

INTRO

I welcome Pro to DDO and thank him for instigating this fine debate!

As a tip for a new debater, I strongly advise him to use sources in his next round. Making claims without reliable sources do no stand up well.

REBUTTAL

a. "It includes . . . a huge increase in debt."

I contend that this is false.

The "Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation [Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, Public Law 111-148); and, following that, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872), which together make "the health care reform"] will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period." [1]

b. "On top of all that, this bill will lead to rationing and wait times like they have in other Universal Health Care Systems abroad in countries like Canada and in American states like Massachusetts."

Actually, the health care reform does not create a government run health care program such as in Canada [2]. And Massachusetts does not have government run healthcare either [3]. The program that has been in Massachusetts as well as the health care reform package only serve to help everyone become insured [2, 3].

Furthermore, a waiting-line crisis does not exist in Canada [4]. That is propaganda with no substantiation. Canada has a much higher patient satisfaction rate than America [5].

c. "The 2010 Health Care Legislation included a massive expansion of Medicaid, a program that is very unsuccessful. Numerous studies find that Medicaid has a negligible effect on its recipient's health."

Incorrect. A study "by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) reveals that Medicaid recipients have far greater access to doctors, live healthier lives and enjoy more financial stability than those who must go without." [6].

d. "This debate is not just about the 2010 Health Care Reform. This is also about Single Payer Health Care Systems, and whether or not they have succeeded (I argue that Single Payer is a failure)."

The health care reform legislation has nothing to do with a Single Payer Health Care system [2]. I would have much preferred that it did, though.

SOURCES:
1. http://www.cbo.gov...
2. http://democrats.senate.gov...
3. http://www.mass.gov...
4. http://www.amsa.org...
5. http://soar.wichita.edu...
6. http://www.perrspectives.com...
Debate Round No. 1
jimtimmy

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

I will provide a rebuttal to his arguments here:

a. Con: "The "Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation [Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, Public Law 111-148); and, following that, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872), which together make "the health care reform"] will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period."

It is true that the CBO provided an estimate that showed Health Care Reform reducing the Deficit, but this estimate has come under intense scrutiny. The former Director of the CBO, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has estimated, in an New York Times OP-ED, that Health Care Reform will increase the Deficit by $562 Billion over the next decade:

"Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see."

Even this does not take into account everything. Government Programs are notorious for being more expensive. In 1966, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost $12 Billion by 1990 (Adjusted for Inflation). In fact, it ended up costing $107 Billion in 1990, almost 9 times as expensive as projected.

Another thing to add is that the Health Care Bill is funded largely by new taxes on the rich. While these taxes may raise some revenue, they will likely raise much less than expected. In response to higher tax rates, these wealthy will shelter more income, work less, and ultimately report less taxable income. How large these effects are is debatable, but there is wide agreement that they do exist. This means that the revenue projections are at least somewhat over optimistic.

For these reasons, I argue there is strong reason to doubt the CBO estimate of Health Care Reform's impact on the Deficit. In fact, I suspect that Health Care Reform may even increase the Deficit by more than the $562 Billion that Holtz-Eakin estimated.

b. Con: "Actually, the health care reform does not create a government run health care program such as in Canada [2]. And Massachusetts does not have government run health care either [3]. The program that has been in Massachusetts as well as the health care reform package only serve to help everyone become insured [2, 3].

Furthermore, a waiting-line crisis does not exist in Canada [4]. That is propaganda with no substantiation. Canada has a much higher patient satisfaction rate than America [5]."

I understand that the Health Care Reform Legislation does not create a Government Run Health Care Program. However, it does significantly expand the role of government in the Health Care Sector, and it does brings us closer to the system that they have in Canada.

I strongly disagree with the idea that the waiting time problem in Canada is just "propaganda". I do not know exactly how a "crisis" would be defined, but there is no doubt that waiting times are a large problem in Canada. A November 2010 Commonwealth Fund Study (and I will remind my opponent that the Commonwealth Fund is no fan of American Health Care), found that 41% of Canadians waited 2 or more months to see a specialist, while only 9% of Americans had to wait that long. It also found that 31% of Canadians had to wait 4 or more hours in the ER, only 13% of Americans had to wait that long in the ER. This study also found that 33% of Canadians had to wait 6 or more days to see a nurse or doctor when they need care, only 19% of Americans had to wait that long. Finally, the study found that 25% of Canadians had to wait 4 or more months to get non-emergency surgery, only 7% of Americans had to wait that long.

Whether or not this is a waiting time crisis is debatable, but there is no doubt that Canadians have to wait substantially longer than Americans for care.

As for the high patient satisfaction rate in Canada, I will concede this (although I have seen polls that show the higher patient satisfaction rate in Canada is much exaggerated). This does not, however, prove Canadian Care is better. You must remember that Americans have much higher standards than Canadians. Paul Ryan, for example, would not be very satisfied with most high quality beer when he is used to $350 wine (thought I would throw a little relevant humor in).

c. Con: "Incorrect. A study "by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) reveals that Medicaid recipients have far greater access to doctors, live healthier lives and enjoy more financial stability than those who must go without." [6]."

It is likely that Medicaid Recipients get better care than the uninsured, but not by as much as one would expect. The point I was making is that Medicaid Patients have far worse access to care than privately insured patients. There was a study in the "New England Journal of Medicine" that found that 66% Children on SCHIP or Medicaid were denied an appointment when they needed care, only 11% of Children on Private Insurance had their appointments denied. This study confirms an earlier Health Tracking Survey from the Center for Studying Health System Change that found that interns were 8.5 times more likely to reject Medicaid Patients than Privately Insured Patients.

More Recently, a study from the Government Accountability Office found that Doctors were far more likely to take private patients than Medicaid Patients, but also slightly more likely to take uninsured patients than they were Medicaid Patients. (I link to all of these studies at the bottom of this post)

Even though it is possible that Medicaid Patients get better treatment than the uninsured, it is not convincing that the Medicaid Program is worth its high cost. Medicaid Patients have access to substantially less care than private patients and only slightly more (if any more at all) than uninsured patients.

My argument is that we should not be expanding a program that already is having major problems in providing adequate care to its recipients. Given the studies I outlined earlier, it seems that Medicaid does not provide adequate care.

d. Con: "The health care reform legislation has nothing to do with a Single Payer Health Care system [2]. I would have much preferred that it did, though."

I partially agree with this. After all, the Health Care Reform Bill could not, in any way, be classified as Single Payer. However, in my original argument I was referring to how I wanted this debate to be about larger Health Care policy, not just the 2010 Legislation.

Apart from that, many strong supporters of Health Care Reform are advocates of Single Payer and simply saw the final result as the best they could get. Even though the bill does not bring about Single Payer, I do believe that it brings us much closer to a Single Payer System, as it does represent a major expansion of government into the Health Care Sector.

SOURCES:

http://www.nytimes.com...

http://blogs.forbes.com...

http://blogs.forbes.com...

http://blogs.forbes.com...

http://www.commonwealthfund.org...
FREEDO

Con

REBUTTAL 2

a. A Case for the Reliability of the CBO

It it is a apparent that the majority of Con's arguments are centered around the discrediting of the CBO. I'd like to set the record straight on that.

In 1999 the CBO launched an internal investigation to review how it's forecasts have matched up with reality. The results show that since 1976 they have never been off by more than 6% and is usually never off by more than 2% [1].

Secondly, the CBO's prediction on the health care reform legislation is backed up by other non-partisan sources. Including, but not limited to, The Joint Committee on Taxation [2,3] and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities [4]. Pro's source used for his claims against the CBO is a single person, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, someone who works close with Republican politicians [5].

I'd like to see where Holtz-Eakin pulls out the idea that the Medicare savings are unrealistic. By what standard? The laws are in the legislation to save the money. Why exactly won't they work? You have the burden of proof here.

I'll be dropping the arguments on government run healthcare since they are irrelevant to the subject of this debate. I would be happy to debate Pro on it in another debate if he wishes.

ARGUMENTS

Even though it is unnecessary for my burden in this debate, I like to be thorough. Here are some arguments of my own.

a. Beneficial for Small Businesses

According to the Council of Economic Advisers [6]:
"The U.S. health care system imposes a heavy "tax" on small businesses and their employees. Due to high broker fees, fixed administrative costs, and adverse selection, small businesses pay up to 18 percent more per worker than large firms for the same health insurance policy. Some of these higher costs are passed on to small firm employees in the form of lower wages, and some eat into the profits of small businesses that could otherwise be used for research and development and for much-needed investments. This implicit tax disadvantages small firms in both the market for the best workers and the market for their products.
Because of their higher health care costs, small businesses are far less likely to provide health insurance for their workers than larger businesses. Only 49 percent of firms with 3 to 9 workers and 78 percent of firms with 10 to 24 workers offered any type of health insurance to their employees in 2008. In contrast, 99 percent of firms with more than 200 workers offered health insurance. Consistent with this pattern, 29 percent of non-elderly adult workers at firms with fewer than 25 employees were uninsured in 2007. In that same year, just 10 percent of workers in firms with 500 or more employees were uninsured. Workers at small firms that do offer health insurance also tend to have less generous plans than workers at large firms.
The fraction of small firms offering health insurance has been declining in recent years. From 2002 to 2008, the fraction of firms with 3 to 9 employees offering health insurance to their workers declined from 58 to 49 percent."

and

"Small businesses that meet certain criteria would be able to purchase health insurance through an "insurance exchange" – allowing them to choose among a multitude of plans that would provide better coverage at lower costs than they could find in the current small group market.
Many small businesses that provide health insurance for their employees would receive a small business tax credit to alleviate their disproportionately higher costs and encourage coverage. The tax credit would be targeted to those firms with employees whose average wages fall below a certain threshold.
The current reform options include financial incentives for medium- and large-sized firms to provide health insurance coverage through so-called "pay-or-play" provisions. Firms with payrolls or employment levels below a certain threshold, which would include the vast majority of small businesses, would be exempt from the pay-or-play provisions.
The creation of an insurance exchange would also provide better and lower-cost options for workers in small businesses that do not offer health insurance. Low-income individuals and families would receive sliding scale subsidies to help them purchase insurance. Additionally, health insurers would not be allowed to screen potential enrollees for pre-existing conditions.
The proposed reforms could help spur entrepreneurial activity by increasing the incentives for talented Americans to launch their own companies, and could increase the pool of workers willing to work at small firms. Further, successful reform would reduce the phenomenon of "job lock," in which workers are reluctant to leave a job with employer-sponsored health insurance out of fear that they will not be able to find affordable coverage. Small firms that are unable to provide health insurance for their employees bear the greatest cost of this phenomenon.
Reductions in absenteeism and improvements in worker productivity resulting from better health outcomes because of expanded coverage would particularly benefit small businesses."

b. Lives Will Be Saved

The primary goal of the legislation is to insure as many people as possible. Studies show that about 45,000 people die every year in the United States due to being uninsured [7]. So, let us assume for a second that Pro is correct about the economics of the plan. We still must ask ourselves what price we would put on a human life, or thousands of them. It is a hard task to set such a price and argue for it's justifiably.

c. The Patient's Bill of Rights

The health care includes a measure known as the patient's bill of rights, something which will greatly increase patient satisfaction.

Some rights that it establishes are[8]:

.Stop insurance companies from limiting the care you need.

.Remove insurance company barriers between you and your doctor.

.Reviewing Insurers’ Premium Increases.

.Getting the Most from Your Premium Dollars.

.Keeping Young Adults Covered.

.Providing Affordable Coverage to Americans without Insurance due to Pre-existing Conditions

For an explanation of all these please visit the source.

SOURCES
1. https://www.cbo.gov...
2. http://www.cbo.gov...
3. http://www.jct.gov...
4. http://www.cbpp.org...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://www.whitehouse.gov...
7. http://www.cbsnews.com...
8. http://www.healthcare.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
jimtimmy

Pro

A. the CBO

I do not accuse the CBO of wrongdoing. I am, however, saying that the CBO was forced to work under the assumptions that the writers of the Health Care Bill made. With these assumptions, there is a very small decrease in the deficit.

However, there are certainly some things that are wrong with this analysis. First, the huge amount of revenue expected to come from tax increases on the rich will certainly not all materialize. There will be at least some behavioral response to these tax increases, resulting in less reported income.

As for Medicare, I would argue that Holtz-Eakin is exactly right that "saving" $463 Billion is unrealistic. Talking about Medicare savings in a campaign is much easier than actually making cuts in practice. This is especially true in light of the fact that the party that will be in charge of these "savings" is the same party that will likely run their entire 2012 campaign in support of traditional Medicare. It would be hard for this same party to then cut $463 Billion from the program they focused an entire campaign on.

Based on these realities, I would still argue that the CBO report has some significant shortcomings, and just slightly adjusting for some of these shortcomings shows Health Care Reform adding to the Deficit.

On another note, I would love to debate government run Health Care with my opponent.

I will now respond to the arguments that my opponent made for Health Care Reform:

A. Small Business

Con argues that Health Care Reform will help small business. I will respond to that argument here.

In his last post, my opponent argues that the Health Care Bill will help small business by allowing them to pay less for Health Insurance. My opponent seems to ignore the vast new complex regulations created by the Health Care Bill. There will be pages of new regulations and forms, making it harder to start a new business.

To make things worse, the Health Care Bill will actually INCREASE the cost for Health Care. Basic economics tells us that more regulations and complexities will increase costs. On top of this, there a number of surcharges on Insurance Companies in the Health Care Reform Bill, which will be passed on to consumers through higher prices.

My opponent also mentions a tax credit that is supposed to help small businesses buy insurance. This is true, but the bill also includes large tax increases that will hit a significant number of Small Businesses. This will, overall, hurt small businesses.

Finally, I stronly disagree with the idea that Health Care Reform will improve Health Outcomes. The Health Care Bill largely relies on an expansion of Medicaid to increase access. However, as the studies I mentioned in my last post showed, Medicaid Patients do not get much better access to Health Care than uninsured patients. Likewise, the bill will lead to much larger Health Care wait times and less Medical Innovation. This could actually, in the long run, lead to worse, not better, Health Outcomes.

B. Lives Will be Saved

I agree completely here. However, I don't see it as very humane to have 41% of people waiting 2 or more months to see a specialist (as they do in Canada). It is also not humane to have a government system that virtually puts a halt to Medical Innovation (new medicines and technologies aren't coming from Canada or Britain). Me and my opponent seem to have different views of what is humane.

It seems that my opponent believes that Health Decisions are too important for individuals to make in a private market, and should therefore be made by the government. I believe the exact opposite, that Health Care Decisions are so important that only individuals and free markets are capable of bringing about the best possible outcomes.

C. The Patients Bill of Rights

My opponent posts the Patients Bill of Rights (I add my comment after the point):

.Stop insurance companies from limiting the care you need.-

My Comment:

Insurance Companies may limit care, but not to the extent that governments do. I would like to see a consumer driven system where individuals were in complete control of their own Health Care. However, I do not see why Government Rationing is so preferrable to Insurance Company rationing (especially if Insurance Companies involve much less rationing).

.Remove insurance company barriers between you and your doctor.-

My Comment:

Again, I don't want an Insurance Company between me and my Doctor, but I would prefer the Insurance Company to the Government. However, I would like to see a system that is dominated by individuals, not Insurance Companies or the Government.

.Reviewing Insurers' Premium Increases.-

My Comment:

I'm not sure what exactly this entails. If it means price controls, then this is a major problem. Price controls restrict supply and lead to chronic shortages. There is no doubt that prices are a huge problem in our system, but price controls are not the answer.

.Getting the Most from Your Premium Dollars.-

My Comment:

This basically means that the government is going to force Insurance companies to spend on certain things. This is a terrible idea. The government cannot dictate how Insurance Companies need to spend their money like the private market should be able to. This is a good talking point, but is a policy mess in practice. It will lead to all sorts of corruption, while failing to improve quality.

.Keeping Young Adults Covered.-

My Comment:

Again, this means that the government forces young adults to buy Insurance. Why this is a goal is a mystery to me. If a young adult does not want Health Insurance, they should not be forced to buy it.

.Providing Affordable Coverage to Americans without Insurance due to Pre-existing Conditions-

My Comment:

Yes, those with pre-existing conditions need to be covered. However, forcing insurance companies to cover them will raise prices for everyone. If Insurance Companies are forced to cover everyone, people will have an incentive to wait until they are very sick to buy insurance. If they are required to insure them at a low cost, as they are in the Bill, these costs will be passed on to other insurance patients. If price controls are imposed to stop these (as they may be under the bill), shortages will result.

Instead of this, we should give block grant payments to every state to allow them to find their own solutions to this problem. This is not a perfect solution, but it seems like the most practical
FREEDO

Con

REBUTTAL 3

a. "the huge amount of revenue expected to come from tax increases on the rich will certainly not all materialize."

Please explain why this is the case, in the next round, with sources. Until then, the point is moot.


b. "Talking about Medicare savings in a campaign is much easier than actually making cuts in practice."

The bill is not some campaign speech. The method of saving is written into law. You have failed to elaborate why this would not succeed.

c. "There will be pages of new regulations and forms, making it harder to start a new business."

Source?

d. "On top of this, there a number of surcharges on Insurance Companies in the Health Care Reform Bill, which will be passed on to consumers through higher prices."

Source?

e. "the bill also includes large tax increases that will hit a significant number of Small Businesses."

Source?

f. "Medicaid Patients do not get much better access to Health Care than uninsured patients. Likewise, the bill will lead to much larger Health Care wait times"

Here, you claim that it will reduce health outcomes through lesser quality care and longer waiting lines while ignoring the fact that these people weren't receiving any medical care to start off with. Whether medicaid is good quality or not is irrelevant to the fact that it is giving care to people who otherwise would not have it.

g. "I agree completely here."

So...you agree that the health care reform bill saves lives and you still disagree with it's implementation. That leaves me to ask you, what is the price of a human life? Whatever the market is offering?

h. "It seems that my opponent believes that Health Decisions are too important for individuals to make in a private market, and should therefore be made by the government."

Ad hominem, red herring.

i. "Insurance Companies may limit care, but not to the extent that governments do."

Provide a source showing that the health care reform bill will ration care.

j. "I'm not sure what exactly this entails."

View my source for explanation.

k. "Again, this means that the government forces young adults to buy Insurance."

False. You didn't view the source for further explanation as I suggested. This means no one will have to buy insurance until they are 26 because they will be allowed to be kept on their parents insurance.

l. "Yes, those with pre-existing conditions need to be covered. However, forcing insurance companies to cover them will raise prices for everyone."

So lets see, on one hand we have sick people unable to get care because it was preexisting. On the other hand we have those who are non-senior(due to medicare) adults who aren't poor(due to medicaid) that don't want to pay higher prices. Who's side should we take?

CONCLUSION

Many of Pro's points would be redundant to reply to because they were not properly substantiated. I expect further substantiation in the rest of the debate.

Also, I'd like to point out an opinion of mine. Insurance companies are just as much a form of government as the official one. Regulating an inherently authoritarian system does not increase it's degree of authoritarianism. As a Socialist, I would actually prefer to abolish insurance companies and have their service controlled by the people.
Debate Round No. 3
jimtimmy

Pro

I thank my opponent for responding to my last argument. However, I do believe that some of his responses were inadequate.

For a number of my arguments made in my past post, my opponent simply responded by asking for a source. I understand the importance of sources in a debate. However, there are times when sources needn't to be cited.

For well known facts, a source is not always necessary. For example, would I need to cite a source to claim "a Health Care Reform Bill was passed in 2010". Even though sources could be cited, it would be a waste of time to try to prove this point.


Having said that, I will defend all of the statements that I made that my opponent mentioned:





a. "the huge amount of revenue expected to come from tax increases on the rich will certainly not all materialize."



This is not a particularly controversial statement among economists (although, the extent to which it is true is). Basically, the tax increases in the bill increase tax rates for the rich. These higher tax rates increase an additional disincentive to earn income on top of the tax rates that already exist.

That means that the reward of earning income at the top is reduced and the incentive to dodge taxes is increased, therefore less income is earned. This means that, while taxes increase, the tax base decreases. This means that less income is taxed, but at a higher rate.

Therefore, more revenue is raised, but not as much as projected. This is a fairly solid theory, but the near unanimous support for this idea in empirical literature should quell all doubt. Even liberal economists acknowledge that this effect doest exist to a degree.

At the bottom, I cite an article by Economist Alan Reynolds explaining this in depth, and giving the numerous estimates for just how much High Income people reduce their income in response to higher tax rates. Generally, empirical research has found that there is a large response.



b. "Talking about Medicare savings in a campaign is much easier than actually making cuts in practice."



The Medicare Savings are largely based on cuts to provider reimbursement rates. If these come to fruition, they will lead to Doctors rejecting Medicare patients at Similar rates to Medicaid Patients. However, they will likely not come into place.

Even though the bill relies on these savings, Congress has already extended the well known Doc Fix outside of the Bill. Other savings are not into law. Instead, they appointed a board, known as IPAB, to install cost controls. This board can only make recommendations to Congress, which will likely reject politically unpopular proposals.



c. "There will be pages of new regulations and forms, making it harder to start a new business."



This is not a claim that should require a source. The fact that the bill is long (2,700 pages long) and that it includes many regulations should be a simple enough statement to not require a source to be cited.

There are many new regulations in this bill. These include an employer mandate for larger businesses, making it more expensive to expand and start new businesses. There are also numerous forms and complications in the bill that make owning a business far more complicated.

Although I don't believe these simple claims require a source, I will cite a source to support these claims.



d. "On top of this, there a number of surcharges on Insurance Companies in the Health Care Reform Bill, which will be passed on to consumers through higher prices."


Again, my opponent simply responded by asking for a source. This is not a particularly controversial claim. It is a simple fact that these are included in the Health Care Bill. Therefore, I did not think a source was particularly necessary.

Surcharges on Health Insurance Companies are part of the increased revenue used to pay for the bill. Again, I will link to a source here at the bottom.



e. "the bill also includes large tax increases that will hit a significant number of Small Businesses."



Again, it is a fairly well known fact that the Health Care Bill is largely funded by tax increases aimed at individuals making over $250,000 a year. A large number of these individuals are Small Business Owners.

Again, I'm not exactly sure why a fact that is this well known need a source.


f. "Medicaid Patients do not get much better access to Health Care than uninsured patients. Likewise, the bill will lead to much larger Health Care wait times"



I disagree with the point my opponent is making here. First, it is not clear that Medicaid patients do get better care than the uninsured. A survey from the GAO found that Medicaid Patients have worse access to physicians than Uninsured patients.

Another large study from the University of Virginia found that surgical Medicaid Patients were 13% more likely to die than surgical patients that were uninsured. These studies would suggest that Medicaid patients get worse care than patients that are uninsured.

Of course, my opponent cites a recent study from Oregon showing Medicaid patients have better Health Outcomes than uninsured patients. In my view, this study mostly relied on self reported Health, which is different from actual Health outcomes.

Regardless, the evidence is not even clear that Medicaid makes patients better off at all, even though it costs over $300 Billion a year. So, basically, we spend massive amounts on a program that does not even clearly have any positive impact on the Health of the recipients.




g. "I agree completely here."

I think my opponent mistook my statement here. I agree that the value of Human Life should be of utmost importance in any debate. However, I disagree that the bill saves lives.

In fact, through rationing and lost medical innovation, this bill will cost lives.



h. "It seems that my opponent believes that Health Decisions are too important for individuals to make in a private market, and should therefore be made by the government."



My opponent called this statement an Ad Hominem and Red Herring. I don't see where he is coming from on this.


i. "Insurance Companies may limit care, but not to the extent that governments do."

All Government Health Care systems ration care. In my second argument, I showed that Canada's system involves very long waiting times.

Rationing is the only mechanism through which the government can control costs. In fact, the Bills plan to use IPAB to reduce Medicare Payments is, in fact, rationing (even if they don't call it rationing).



j. "I'm not sure what exactly this entails."


Check my last post on price controls. To summarize, Price Controls always lead to shortages.



k. "Again, this means that the government forces young adults to buy Insurance."



This is far from false. A mandate to buy insurance is a key part of bill, basically forcing people to buy insurance.



l. "Yes, those with pre-existing conditions need to be covered. However, forcing insurance companies to cover them will raise prices for everyone."

I offered solutions in my last post that could take care of those with pre-existing conditions without causing significant harm to the rest of the system.



On a final note, Insurance Companies are very different from the government because people aren't forced to pay insurance companies by law (although Health care Reform changed that). Free Markets, by definition, are not authoritarian, Government is. Unfortunatley, our modern Health Care system is far from a free market


Sources:

http://www.cato.org...

http://blogs.forbes.com...

http://www.avikroy.org...

















FREEDO

Con

FREEDO forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
jimtimmy

Pro

No further arguments from Pro this round...
FREEDO

Con

FINAL REBUTTAL

a. Necessity of Sourcing

Pro claims that not all assertions need be sourced in a debate. For this he uses the example "a Health Care Reform Bill was passed in 2010". I argue that this is distracting because such a claim is not equivalent to those Pro was making.

The only assertions not worth sourcing are:
1. Those which depend solely on logic rather than facts.
2. Those which are an assumption in the debate to begin with.
3. Those with do not effect the debate.

An example of number 2 would be Pro's example. Another example would be that we are using English to do this debate. All other assertions which are dependent on facts, non-assumed, and are relevant to the resolution, must be sourced to substantiate their legitimacy. Otherwise, the quality of the debates would simply lack.

b. Increases Taxes on the Rich and Decreased Revenue.

Pro claims that:
1. Increasing taxes on the rich will decrease the revenue collected from them.
2. This is nearly unanimous among economists.

Pro does provide a source. This source shows that there is an economist who agrees with this position. I can do that too[1]. Except that my economist also demonstrates facts rather than just theories. They explains that the historical record does not concur with Dr. Reynolds. The highest average annual growth in gross domestic product correlates with the time period when tax rates on the rich were highest.
Then I have another economist who asserts that there is a consensus among economists opposite to what Pro proposed [2].

c. Medicare Savings

Pro claims the board established by the health care reform legislation to limit the spending on medicare has no actual power to change it's spending and must consult congress. This is in-fact false. The IPAB replaces MedPAC, a board which used to be limited as Pro describes. IPAB has no such limitation, it is free to cut spending as it sees fit [3].

d. New Regulations and Forms Make it Hard to Start a Business

Pro made several claims of which type of regulations the bill creates that he argues will make it harder to start a business. He says that he has a source, as he ought to. Unfortunately, I'm not able to locate it. None of the three sources that appear in his post seem to have anything to do with this point. It's possible that he had text cut off when he posted, this has happened to me. Looking over the review can prevent a mistake like this. Also, numbering your sources can prevent some confusion.

Also, I'd like to point out that if this were true it does not refute the benefits to small businesses that I pointed out earlier, which are quite substantial.

e. Surcharges

Again, Pro says he has a source and I don't see it. Something must have gone wrong.

Even if these surcharges exist it is not necessarily true that the cost will be passed down to those buying insurance, indeed, it certainly will not be passed down to those who have free of cheaper insurance due to the legislation.

f. Taxes on Small Business Owners

Pro's attitude towards sourcing is a bit discouraging. It is not the obligation of someone viewing the debate to find out everything we're referring to. The vast majority of people are completely uninformed about politics aside from the repeated headlines. It's simply professional to be well-sourced in a debate. Not to mention that it's one of the voting factors.

Now, I didn't at first realize what Pro meant. Until he clarified I thought he was referring to a tax directed at small business owners, not the tax on those with $250,000 yearly incomes, of which some may happen to be small business owners. In-fact, this is highly over stated. 98.1% percent of small-business filers have income too low to be subject to the tax [4].

g. Necessity of Medicaid

Here it seems like Pro ignored my comment. I argue that even if Medicaid isn't giving as good of care as private insurers, which Pro admitted is an unclear issue, it is getting care to people who otherwise would not have it. That is something you just can't put a price tag on.

h. Morality of the Bill

Pro asserts that through rationing care the bill will not save lives. I have already demonstrated that the bill does not ration care and that, in-fact, it does the opposite by preventing private insurers from ever doing so.

i. Ad Hominem

The statement: "It seems that my opponent believes that Health Decisions are too important for individuals to make in a private market, and should therefore be made by the government."

Firstly, it's a personal attack. Secondly, it's an irrelevant personal attack. Thirdly, it's a false, irrelevant personal attack. Obviously, my intentions are not sinister, wanting to take away people's choices and give them to the government. The bill gives people power over their own lives by being able to afford health care and increases personal choice by regulating the abusing power that insurance companies have exercised over patients, particularly through the Patient's Bill of Rights.

j. Rationing Care

Here Pro simply makes several completely unsubstantiated claims.

k. Forcing Young Adults to Buy Insurance

Pro by some stretch of the imagination finds it justified to simply reassert what I clearly just negated. Reread my explanation if you want to see me say it again.

l. Insuring Those With Pre-Existing Conditions.

Pro finds it hard to figure this out. Read slowly. Insurance companies would not insure those with pre-existing conditions. Pro wants to insure those with pre-existing conditions. He also doesn't want to force insurance companies to insure them. He can't have it both ways. He said give the states grants and let them decide. Just what other solution does he think they would have? These are sick people who would not have care that now have it thanks to the bill. It's black and white here, c'mon. The only other policy that would get care to all these people without forcing insurance companies to do it would be with a national health care service.

Also, we're not debating what the best health care system would be. We're debating whether the health care system is better now that this legislation has been implemented.

CONCLUSION

I have negated all of the attacks Pro made against the bill with substantial evidence. Pro frequently made claims without proper substantiation and at times resorted to logical fallacies. Vote Con for best argument and sources. Vote Pro on conduct for me forfieting a round.

SOURCES
1. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...
2. http://www.edlotterman.com...
3. http://www.ama-assn.org...
4. http://www.cbpp.org...
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
Completely understandible.

Lol, its not as if our lifes revolve around debate.org...

Its no problem.

Ill just do a post that doesn't involve any new arguments or rebuttals so we don't have to wait 3 days for mine.
Posted by FREEDO 5 years ago
FREEDO
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU, I was at a sleep over. Conduct goes to Pro.

Please don't post any new arguments. The debate will just be one round shorter.
Posted by Makhno 5 years ago
Makhno
I'll be following this.
Posted by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
Makhno,

I'm sorry. I realized that it wasnt particularly clear after I wrote it, but I thought it would be a shame to delete... :)

I would honestly love to debate any of the topics I touched on in the opening. If you oppose the 2010 Health Care Reform, but support farther reaching legislation such as Single Payer Health Care (as I know many do), I would love to debate that.

If you would like to debate, just pick any of the topics on Health Care to respond to, and I will debate that

Srry it took me so long to respond, my computer is acting a bit slow
Posted by Makhno 5 years ago
Makhno
Could you clarify which topic do you want to debate?
Each and every paragraph of your opening statement is a good topic in itself. :)
Posted by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
HAHA, that would be hard to debate someone who you agree with.
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
I almost accepted this because I thought the resolution said should NOT be repealed! Good luck, I'll be following this.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
jimtimmyFREEDOTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: freedo argued from a high moralistic standpoint that wasn't rebbuted that well. That ff gave points to pro tho.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
jimtimmyFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct FF. Con had great arguments, and pro never refuted them fully. He also proved the obama bill was fully universal and even if it was it is possible that would be good. he also proved the bill pays for itself, but that's debatable but pro didn't full debunk it. Also pro had the BOP in the debate as he asked for a change in the status quo, he never met the BOP. Con won this debate
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 5 years ago
SuperRobotWars
jimtimmyFREEDOTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited a round but Con did have better arguments and sources.
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
jimtimmyFREEDOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: FREEDO loses one point for conduct for the forfeit. Overall it was an excellent debate but Con had the advantage of being able to argue from the moral high ground wheras all Pro could do was try and discredit existing universal healthcare systems and question the statistics Con provided.