The Instigator
Iamthejuan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Sakartvelo
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

The Affordable Care Act is ultimately has more positives than negatives for our society.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Sakartvelo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,113 times Debate No: 43490
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Iamthejuan

Pro

I believe the Affordable Care Act is a step in the right direction for our country, and ultimately better than the unregulated insurance marketplace that we had before. Con is arguing against the A.C.A. Just to be clear, that means his burden is to show that it is more negative than positive.

There are several reasons I am for the A.C.A.

1. Healthcare should be treated as a necessity, not a commodity.

2. Prior to the A.C.A., Americans have been paying the most per capita for health-care (and higher education) of any 1'st world country.

3. The A,C,A, is being protested by people like the Koch brothers. When billionaires are campaigning against a bill like this, their interests are not likely our own.

4. College students are able to retain affordable insurance under their parents, nobody can be denied coverage, those who make less money pay cheaper premiums, contains tax credits for businesses, and here is the biggest one: The A.C.A. requires companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance to all of them (so no more cutting hours and hiring more part-time workers to avoid paying benefits).

5. Doing anything that is even remotely effective is better than doing nothing at all. Provided that the A.C.A. has done more harm than good, it is greater than what we were doing before about our healthcare crisis: nothing.

6. From an economic standpoint, the more people who buy health insurance, the lower the prices should go. Also, the A.C.A. will ensure that people don't get buried in debt over illness, which means they are less of a drain on the economy in the end.
Sakartvelo

Con

Hello, so in this debate I will be showing why The Affordable Care Act in fact has more harms than benefits for the society of the United States. I will begin my debate by going through the Pro's arguments and rebutting them through a point-for-point analysis, then I will expand upon the rest of my argument.

1. "Healthcare should be treated as a necessity, not a commodity."

We need to start this debate by putting this piece of legislation in context. While it may seem, due to simplified media speculation, that all the ACA does is provide healthcare for those who can not afford it, this is far from the reality of the situation, and in fact, while the idea of inexpensive or "free" healthcare is enticing and could be potentially enacted under an appropriate piece of legislation, the ACA is simply too poorly put together to serve as an effective piece of legislation.

Prior to the Affordable Care Act in the United States, healthcare was still treated as a necessity and not as a commodity. Those who could not afford to pay their bills were, in most cases, offered free treatment. Those making less than $20,000 a year, or those who met other qualifications such as a specific number of children in the household (differing per state), received state-subsidized insurance free of charge. Before the ACA, those who had this subsidized insurance could go to medical practitioners who accepted the government insurance program. They would also be covered in hospital visits. Now, there was also a significant population who did not qualify for the free insurance programs. These individuals often fell into an income bracket of around $50,000-$100,000 a year. These individuals also did not purchase insurance because it was likewise too expensive for them. Now, under the ACA, they aren't getting "free" insurance, they are getting insurance at a slightly lower cost, but still, many of these families can not afford to pay this insurance premium, which, in some cases, can exceed $5,000 per year. However, thanks to the poorly written ACA, they are now forced, by law, to pay money which they don't have for the "affordable" insurance, or otherwise pay a significant fine. Does this sound helpful to you? The ACA is merely giving free insurance to those who already have free insurance, and it is forcing individuals who currently cannot pay for insurance, to pay for it.

2. "Prior to the A.C.A., Americans have been paying the most per capita for health-care (and higher education) of any 1'st world country."

I will defer you to my rebuttal for your first point, which shows that the ACA actually is more financially taxing on low income families than the status quo. I will also add that the ACA will in fact force insurance premiums to go up, as insurance companies will have to charge extra due to the enormous inflow of new individuals into their plans. Thus, the passage of the ACA will in fact make the per capita cost for health-care in the US even higher than it currently is.

3. The A,C,A, is being protested by people like the Koch brothers. When billionaires are campaigning against a bill like this, their interests are not likely our own.

I do not believe this is a valid point. Just because the ACA is being protested by billionares doesn't mean the general public doesn't appose the poorly written legislation as well. Refer to my first point, where I discuss how many low income families oppose the ACA because it forces them to pay for the new government insurance programs with money which they don't have. Again, it's never "free" insurance, someone has to pay for it. Also, all of those who are currently insured will have their premiums increase, so they also oppose the ACA.

4. "College students are able to retain affordable insurance under their parents, nobody can be denied coverage, those who make less money pay cheaper premiums, contains tax credits for businesses, and here is the biggest one: The A.C.A. requires companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance to all of them (so no more cutting hours and hiring more part-time workers to avoid paying benefits)."

While I will agree that some of these portions are beneficial, such as college students beings able to retain their parent's coverage, and nobody being denied coverage, we still need to look at the legislation in a broader context of what it does as a whole. Again, just because a few of its individual parts may have some merit, it does not mean that the legislation as a whole is beneficial to our society. First of all, as I said in my first point, those who "make less money" as the OP puts it, still have to pay out of pocket with money that they don't have, with yearly premiums sometimes exceeding $5,000. Furthermore, while the ACA may prevent the hours of employees from being cut to avoid insuring them, it won't prevent the employees themselves from being fired to save on costs. All companies look for the cheapest possible way to function and make a profit. In many cases, with medium-sized companies, dozens of workers may be laid off to get the overall employee count to below 50.

5. "Doing anything that is even remotely effective is better than doing nothing at all. Provided that the A.C.A. has done more harm than good, it is greater than what we were doing before about our healthcare crisis: nothing."

This is quite simply not true. Doing "anything", i.e the Affordable Care Act, is actually more harmful to our society, as I have shown in my above points, than the status quo. Furthermore, the Pro erroneously assumes that, before the ACA, "nothing" was being done in terms of healthcare, but if you will simply refer to my first point, it clearly outlines that
a) Individuals at or below the poverty line received free healthcare
b) In many cases individuals who could not afford to pay hospital bills were not required to pay them

However, by passing the legislation, we actually have all the harms of
a) Increased insurance premiums
b) Forcing people to purchase insurance which they can't afford
e) Massive layoffs
c) Overcrowded hospitals
d) Closed-down hospitals

6. "From an economic standpoint, the more people who buy health insurance, the lower the prices should go. Also, the A.C.A. will ensure that people don't get buried in debt over illness, which means they are less of a drain on the economy in the end."
This, as I have shown in my 4th point, is not true. Currently insurance companies set their premiums at a rate that can compensate their current volume of customers. A sudden inflow of customers paying the prices that the government sets rather than the prices the companies require will drive prices up for those who are currently insured or do not fall into the lower income brackets. And no, this doesn't include just the millionaires- it includes the majority of the middle class as well.

One more point I would like to make is the issue with the ACA and hospitals.
There are two main issues here:

A) A large inflow of newly insured individuals will begin going to emergency rooms for any sort of injury, regardless of whether or not it is actually an "emergency". We already see this happening with individuals who are on state-subsidized insurance, and the problem will only grow under the ACA. Our emergency rooms are already full beyond capacity.

B) The ACA will force hospitals to shut down. This is already happening in Norwalk Hospital in Norwalk, CT. The state of Connecticut is withdrawing $30 million in funding from the Norwalk Hospital because it says that, due to the ACA, insurance companies will pay for all emergencies and hospitals no longer need state funds to pay for individuals who cannot afford their own insurance. The issue here is that $30 million is a static number not adjusted to the amount of money the hospital will actually save due to the ACA, because insurance companies don't pay for an emergency 100%. Thus, the hospital is still going to have to pay the co-fee and will be short tens of millions of dollars, and thus is currently at risk of shutting down.

Thus, we see that while the ACA does have good intentions, its poorly written nature prevents it from being an effective piece of legislation, and thus it is more harmful to our society than it is beneficial.
Debate Round No. 1
Iamthejuan

Pro

"Prior to the Affordable Care Act in the United States, healthcare was still treated as a necessity and not as a commodity."

Untrue.

http://thinkprogress.org...

http://economy.money.cnn.com...

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

http://money.cnn.com...(notice these are counted in thousands of millions)


It isn't even feasible that a plethora of companies run by shareholders and C.E.O.'s would possibly offer healthcare "for the good of society". They are doing it for profit. The idea behind "necessity versus commodity" is that necessities should not be for profit --or if they are, the profit margin does not come before the needs of society. Take a look at what these insurance companies have been doing with your premiums (besides investing them and giving you nothing in return).


http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org...

"Anthem Health Plans of Maine argues that regulators violated state law and the U.S. Constitution when they reduced requested premium increases in each of the past three years, depriving the company of "a fair and reasonable return."

Ah, I see, everyone who is poor needs to magically find a better job; while their employers should make 58 million a year.


"Those who could not afford to pay their bills were, in most cases, offered free treatment."


--If this were accurate, medical bills would not be the number one cause of bankruptcy. http://www.cnbc.com...

"Before the ACA, those who had this subsidized insurance could go to medical practitioners who accepted the government insurance program."

--You still can in most cases. Now more people are able to get medicaid and chip, in states where they expanded it. Ironically, states that did not have some of the highest rates of uninsured, like Texas. Unless your employer switches your plan entirely, you are fine.


"They would also be covered in hospital visits."

--Unpaid E.R. visits are one of the biggest contributing factors to our medical expenses, that our taxes end up paying for one way or the other. Many people also put themselves in debt by being hypocondriacs and going to the hospital over every little thing. The plans under the A.C.A. mandate preventative care coverage and certain procedures, as well as capping out of pocket expense and deductibles. Less people will get sick if they are able to get medical care while younger, and less people will frequent the E.R. unless they feel it truly necessary.

"Now, there was also a significant population who did not qualify for the free insurance programs."

--Right...


"These individuals often fell into an income bracket of around $50,000-$100,000 a year."

The range began much lower. You had to be dang near broke to qualify at all. Our poverty level also hasn't been adjusted in over 70 years. 50 k is really the start of "middle class" these days.

"These individuals also did not purchase insurance because it was likewise too expensive for them."

--Uh huh...

"Now, under the ACA, they aren't getting "free" insurance, they are getting insurance at a slightly lower cost, but still, many of these families can not afford to pay this insurance premium, which, in some cases, can exceed $5,000 per year."

--This has been claimed by many, and yet many others claim the opposite. Everyone I have found saying this admits they either didn't look at the exchanges or didn't enter their information to see what subsidies they qualify for. I personally got a gold plan for $50 a month. I'm an A & B student just now being insured for the first time in my life. I have no moral qualms about the fact that someone who makes 5 times as much as me for the same amount of effort or less (like insurance company c.e.o.'s) is helping to pay for it.



"However, thanks to the poorly written ACA, they are now forced, by law, to pay money which they don't have for the "affordable" insurance, or otherwise pay a significant fine."

--A larger pool of insurees means more accurate forecasts, and lower premiums if healthcare were treated as a necessity. Under free market capitalism, a larger pool means insurers raise rates because they know people will blame Obama instead of them. Which is why single-payer is going to be next on the liberal agenda. Also, it is not a matter of if, but when you will need medical care, and with our current costs, you would be among those trying to figure out how to file a medical bankruptcy (many places, you can't).

"Does this sound helpful to you?"

--No, but you aren't describing the A.C.A. You are describing the average conservative'sunderstanding of the A.C.A.

http://www.hhs.gov...

"Prior to the A.C.A., Americans have been paying the most per capita for health-care (and higher education) of any 1'st world country."

I will defer you to my rebuttal for your first point, which shows that the ACA actually is more financially taxing on low income families than the status quo."

--50 k is NOT low income. I know a lot of people who would drop out of college right now for that kind of base salary. Families below 110% poverty level are exempt from the mandate and the tax hit. If you make above poverty and refuse to participate in the exchanges, you are actually helping to stifle the effectiveness of the A.C.A. and that is why you are being fined. Also, you are not understanding that it is the insurers raising their rates out of spite, admittedly because their profit margins are under attack. God forbid they have to sell their 747 and buy smaller planes. Finally, as I have already stated, the majority of families claiming that their rates would go UP have NOT looked at the subsidies, or had very cheap, crappy plans before. It was left to the insurer to decide whether to cancel plans or raise rates, and in many cases they were very deceptive about it --often tricking people off of grandfathered plans.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

http://health.wusf.usf.edu...


"The law has already made insurers provide customers with preventive care like mammograms and contraception without copays, has allowed 3 million adults under age 26 to stay on their parents’ insurance, and has lowered prescription drug prices for Medicare recipients." -- http://health.wusf.usf.edu...

"Just because the ACA is being protested by billionares doesn't mean the general public doesn't appose the poorly written legislation as well."

--Are you saying that you believe lobbyists are looking out for US, and not the people who pay them?


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

These peoples' sole focus is neither the betterment of America or the prospering of its people, but rather "how can we derail the black man".

http://www.theguardian.com...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com...

"as part of what Charles Koch has called a "radical philosophy," the Koch brothers have founded and bankrolled conservative think tanks like the Cato Institute, with the long-term goal of shrinking government until it is small enough to be drowned in the bathtub, in the famous words of Grover Norquist (partially funded by the Koch brothers). They have financed the tea party, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Washington's deficit obsession, which brought us the painful austerity measures of the "fiscal cliff" and sequestration. -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

http://www.forbes.com...


http://www.forbes.com...

"those who "make less money" as the OP puts it, still have to pay out of pocket with money that they don't have, with yearly premiums sometimes exceeding $5,000."

-- For one thing, those who make less money get the biggest subsidies. Secondly, 5000 barely covers one surgical procedure. Thirdly, insurance SHOULD get cheaper with more people enrolling, if the private insurers weren't doing it solely for profit margins.

"Furthermore, while the ACA may prevent the hours of employees from being cut to avoid insuring them, it won't prevent the employees themselves from being fired to save on costs."

--
Companies with fewer than 50 employees wont be affected. Do you really think businesses that rely on 100 employees are going to cut back to 50 to save on healthcare? The loss of productivity would not justify this. Not to mention, whenever businesses that make billions in profits are willing to lay-off to save money, it is a sign of greed, which is why free-market doesn't work in real life.

There are also tax credits for small businesses included in the ACA.

"All companies look for the cheapest possible way to function and make a profit."

--Right...


"the Affordable Care Act, is actually more harmful to our society"

--You say this because you have only heard about it, and do not actually know how it has helped many people who are actually poor. On the off chance you or your family makes above 100k, I am sorry to tell you, but nobody feels sad if you are taking a tax hit over this.


A large inflow of newly insured individuals will begin going to emergency rooms for any sort of injury.

Your opening argument was that E.R. is now more expensive, but you expect more people to go?

The ACA will force hospitals to shut down.

--Not likely. Plus it contradicts your previous statement about more people using them.

insurance companies will pay for all emergencies and hospitals no longer need state funds

That's the way it is SUPPOSED to be.
Sakartvelo

Con

I thank my opponent for his reply, although I do not believe that he fully discussed the points I was making, so I will clarify and also highlight several of my arguments which my opponent did not address in his rebuttal.

But first I would like to point out a key flaw which resonates throughout the opponent's argument. The pro side seems to be under the impression that, within a capitalist society, it is somehow reasonable that an insurance company would value the needs of society over their own personal profits. Although this is a great idealistic principal and all, it simply is not the reality within the United States, and the Affordable Care Act does not in any way fix this issue. Instead, it makes the issue even worse, because it inflates the healthcare market, driving up insurance premiums and decreasing the quality of healthcare which each individual receives within hospitals due to a massive influx of individuals who go to the emergency room for non-emergency injuries. This already happens and has happened on a smaller scale with individuals with free Medicaid insurance, thus it would happen with an even greater frequency under the ACA. Thus, while imagining an idealistic reality wherein everyone is selfless and free healthcare works like clockwork is nice, it is not realistic, and leaves us bound for failure. Again, i'm not in opposition to free healthcare; I am in opposition to the very poorly written legislation that is the Affordable Care Act.

According to the reputable Forbes.com, furthermore, the ACA is expected to raise regular insurance premiums by as much as 32% http://www.forbes.com...

Now I will go through the Pro's rebuttal and address his points.

"Before the ACA, those who had this subsidized insurance could go to medical practitioners who accepted the government insurance program."
--You still can in most cases. Now more people are able to get medicaid and chip, in states where they expanded it. Ironically, states that did not have some of the highest rates of uninsured, like Texas. Unless your employer switches your plan entirely, you are fine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The main issue with a large influx of individuals newly insured under the ACA to private practices is that the private practices simply will not accept them. As someone who works in a private medical practice, I can tell you that, unless a doctor is truly strapped for money, it is highly unlikely that he or she will accept the brutally minimalist terms and prices which the the ACA insurance policies offer. Essentially, the ACA insurances under-pay doctors so much for treatments that it simply isn't worth it for the vast majority of doctors to accept the insurance plans of these patients. Furthermore, and here's where the poor writing in the Affordable Care Act comes into play: the ACA has caused an increase tax on medical equipment for many private practices. Don't ask me why they did it, it seems utterly illogical to me, but it is quite literally in the legislation, and thus private practice prices will go up as a result of the ACA since the medical equipment will be under heavier taxation.

"--Unpaid E.R. visits are one of the biggest contributing factors to our medical expenses, that our taxes end up paying for one way or the other. Many people also put themselves in debt by being hypocondriacs and going to the hospital over every little thing. The plans under the A.C.A. mandate preventative care coverage and certain procedures, as well as capping out of pocket expense and deductibles. Less people will get sick if they are able to get medical care while younger, and less people will frequent the E.R. unless they feel it truly necessary."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's simply a matter of fact that if one has free healthcare coverage, one is more likely to go to the emergency room over a minor injury, since they are not the ones paying for it. Again, this has already been occurring with individuals who have been on state-subsidized insurance plans, and it is one of the main reasons why American hospitals are so overcrowded and have such an inferior quality of care compared to other nations such as the United Kingdom. Overcrowded emergency rooms have forced people to wait up to 24 hours for treatment, resulting in even the death of some individuals in the emergency room because they could not be treated in time.

http://www.cnn.com...

"--This has been claimed by many, and yet many others claim the opposite. Everyone I have found saying this admits they either didn't look at the exchanges or didn't enter their information to see what subsidies they qualify for. I personally got a gold plan for $50 a month. I'm an A & B student just now being insured for the first time in my life. I have no moral qualms about the fact that someone who makes 5 times as much as me for the same amount of effort or less (like insurance company c.e.o.'s) is helping to pay for it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very self-centered outlook; just because the insurance may be inexpensive for you, does not mean it is inexpensive for others, and it is quite simply immoral to force a family who makes only $50,000 per year (pre-tax) to pay $5,000 or more for an insurance policy they can't afford under the ACA. Just because you personally are able to afford the insurance policy does not mean a family of four who has to think about putting their children through college can afford to spend $5,000+ per year on a service which they can not afford.

--A larger pool of insurees means more accurate forecasts, and lower premiums if healthcare were treated as a necessity. Under free market capitalism, a larger pool means insurers raise rates because they know people will blame Obama instead of them. Which is why single-payer is going to be next on the liberal agenda. Also, it is not a matter of if, but when you will need medical care, and with our current costs, you would be among those trying to figure out how to file a medical bankruptcy (many places, you can't).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will refer you to my previous sources which prove that insurance premiums will go up significantly due to the Affordable Care Act.

http://www.forbes.com...

http://www.cnbc.com...

I will also reiterate that although I am not opposed to a free healthcare system in it of itself, I am opposed to the ACA because of its extremely poor orchestration. For example, wouldn't it be far more practical to give families the OPTION of cheaper healthcare WITHOUT forcing them to pay a hefty fee if they refuse to purchase it? Not only is this unconstitutional, it is just simply impractical. It makes no sense to force families to purchase a service which they can not afford or instead pay a fine which they can also not afford.

"--No, but you aren't describing the A.C.A. You are describing the average conservative'sunderstanding of the A.C.A. "
------------------------------------------
I am not a conservative, I am a moderate who has healthcare experience and who has actually read the ACA. For this reason, I stand against the legislation due to how poorly it is written. It is important to read the ACA yourself, and not merely listen to what the media tells you about it, because it contains many sections which may not affect your life directly, but which do negatively affect the lives of millions of other Americans. And no, not the billionaires, i'm talking about the middle class.

Furthermore, if the pro thinks that $50,000 a year is by any means a large amount of money for a family to be earning, he is severely mistaken. $50,000 a year disqualifies you from government aid programs but also does not allow you to have any luxuries like a "private jet" like the pro claims. It is difficult enough for these families to scrape together enough money to put their children through college. Charging them $5,000 extra per year is impractical and highly detrimental to these lower middle class families.

"--Are you saying that you believe lobbyists are looking out for US, and not the people who pay them?"

No, I am saying that while lobbyists may oppose the ACA for one reason, the general public opposed the ACA for entirely different reasons, as I have highlighted throughout my rebuttal.

"These peoples' sole focus is neither the betterment of America or the prospering of its people, but rather "how can we derail the black man"."

The pro seems to have a highly skewed view of companies within the United States and what their priorities are. I will war the Pro against shifting this into a debate on race, as that is off topic. It is not the priority of any company within the United States to "derail the black man". Companies simply seek out profit. Is there anything wrong with this? No. If companies did not have profit as an incentive, they would cease to exist and we would enter a state of communism. I am not by any means an advocate for big business, I am simply stating the reality that we currently live in.

"Your opening argument was that E.R. is now more expensive, but you expect more people to go?"
-----------
More people will go to the emergency room for non-emergencies because they no longer have to pay anything out of pocket due to the ACA.

The pro also did not address my point about how the Norwalk Hospital is threatened to shut down due to the ACA.

Thank you, I await your response.
Debate Round No. 2
Iamthejuan

Pro

Iamthejuan forfeited this round.
Sakartvelo

Con

Hello, so since my opponent has forfeited the final round and thus I have no remaining points to rebut, I would like to use this final speech to summarize why the Con has won this debate and why the Affordable Care Act is in fact more harmful than helpful to our society.

Throughout the debate, I have proven that the ACA is in fact a costly, ineffective, and poorly written piece of legislation. I have been stressing that, although the idea of everyone having healthcare is great; the ACA is not the appropriate piece of legislation to accomplish that goal. Indeed, the ACA in fact harms most people more than it helps them, because it forces people who already can't afford insurance to pay for a slightly cheaper insurance plan which still normally exceeds $5,000 a year. For a family of four making $50,000 a year, that's completely unreasonable, considering the doctor and care they will receive will be sub-standard. The ACA is not friendly towards the medical community, and offers doctors far less than what their treatments actually cost; thus no successful or self-respecting doctor will accept the ACA plan because it is economically unfeasible. The only doctors you will get under the ACA are the ones which are either not properly qualified or those which are strapped for cash and just desperate to treat anyone, rather than a dedicated professional.

These points have gone un-rebutted by the opponent, thus, it stands the the ACA is in fact more harmful to society than it is helpful, meaning that the con must win the round today.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Iamthejuan 3 years ago
Iamthejuan
Yes, I think it is more fair that way when dealing with something like this.
Posted by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
Ok. BoP is on us both then.
Posted by Iamthejuan 3 years ago
Iamthejuan
I forgot to add, my burden is also to show the A.C.A. is more positive than negative. In theory, we may both fail at this, in which case this should be called a tie.
Posted by Iamthejuan 3 years ago
Iamthejuan
Welcome, birdlandmemories! I look forward to this debate!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
IamthejuanSakartveloTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, count me disappointed. After seeing Con's first round post, I was really excited by this debate. But in the end, that round alone was enough to seal the debate, even with Pro's responses. In most cases, Pro simply misses the point of Con's arguments, and is outright dismissive of many of Con's arguments, something that Con alerts him of very thoroughly in later rounds. Con does a masterful job of reframing the debate and bringing Pro down from an ideological perch that, even from the perspective of someone who agrees with his side, seemed mostly unwarranted. I don't agree with all of Con's arguments, and some of his logic on reframing the ACA it comes off as a bit tortured, but they are by far the best-supported and most logical arguments in the debate. Pro's forfeit easily gives conduct to Con.