The Instigator
doktorbob
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Sitara
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Affordable Care Act should be repealed immediately.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/13/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,163 times Debate No: 37691
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

doktorbob

Pro

This argument seeks to demonstrate that the Affordable Care Act (ACA/Obamacare) is a terrible piece of legislation that never should have been passed and should be repealed immediately. My arguments are as follows:

a) The ACA is not effective. It does nothing to improve access to health care, does nothing to address the costs of health care, and actually makes health care more difficult to get access to.

b) The ACA is inefficient. It creates a huge number of new bureaucracies of unelected bureaucrats who have the ability to control the most intimate details of our lives, and it expends billions of dollars and creates tens of thousands of pages of Byzantine regulations that impede a physician's ability to do his job. All of this effort produces no real increase in the availability or quality of health care because of the way the law is structured.

c) The ACA has failed to meet even the most basic of its own deadlines and broken all of the promises made about it. Implementation has, in the words of one of the Senators who wrote the bill, become a "train wreck." Even the Labor Unions and the very Congress who passed it want exemptions from it because it basically ruins the health care system for anyone who is subject to the law. Even a cursory examination of the promises made about the ACA shows that virtually all of them have been broken: "If you like your doctor/insurance, you can keep him/it." "This will cost XX billion dollars." "Insurance premiums will drop." The list goes on.

d) The ACA makes working as a physician such an unattractive option as a career path that over 40% of currently practicing primary care physicians surveyed have said they will leave the practice of medicine before Obamacare goes into effect to avoid the burden it will place upon them. This will make finding a doctor incredibly difficult, as there is already a critical shortage of primary care physicians in some parts of this country and a large percentage of the doctors who are quitting have private rural practices... the kind we need more of.

e) The bill itself was passed by a parliamentary trick against the will of the People, by a Congress that deliberately excluded the opposition from the process and hadn't even read the bill when they passed it. Even now, 2/3 of the country thinks Obamacare should be repealed.

f) So many problems have come out of the implementation of the bill that it is a near impossibility for the government to meet any of the deadlines written into the bill. This has led President Obama to directly violate his role according to the Separation of Powers and change legislation he signed into law by simply refusing to enforce portions he doesn't like. These exemptions show in bold color the rot and corruption that exists at the core of this Administration, as the exemptions have been used to reward allies and punish enemies.

These points and several others that I will bring to bear if necessary make a strong case that the law was ill-conceived, badly written, poorly executed, and should be totally scrapped to make room for a clean start.

I welcome a challenger who will endeavor to prove me wrong.
Sitara

Con

I accept. Pro says: "a) The ACA is not effective. It does nothing to improve access to health care, does nothing to address the costs of health care, and actually makes health care more difficult to get access to." I say: I completely disagree. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, people with medical conditions can afford healthcare. There are many people who need medications that cost more than 1000 dollars monthly and healthcare coverage helps that. I certainly hope that Pro realizes this. This makes healthcare easier to obtain.
Pro says: "b) The ACA is inefficient. It creates a huge number of new bureaucracies of unelected bureaucrats who have the ability to control the most intimate details of our lives, and it expends billions of dollars and creates tens of thousands of pages of Byzantine regulations that impede a physician's ability to do his job. All of this effort produces no real increase in the availability or quality of health care because of the way the law is structured." I say: No one is saying that the ACA is perfect, but I feel that Pro is exxagerating things. I feel that by investing money in healthcare, sick people get back to work sooner, and with more people working, more money is poured back into the economy. Will Pro please tell me how that is a bad thing?
Pro says: "c) The ACA has failed to meet even the most basic of its own deadlines and broken all of the promises made about it. Implementation has, in the words of one of the Senators who wrote the bill, become a "train wreck." Even the Labor Unions and the very Congress who passed it want exemptions from it because it basically ruins the health care system for anyone who is subject to the law. Even a cursory examination of the promises made about the ACA shows that virtually all of them have been broken: "If you like your doctor/insurance, you can keep him/it." "This will cost XX billion dollars." "Insurance premiums will drop." The list goes on." I say: Do I need to remind you of my first two points? I am not saying that the ACA is perfect, but it is far better than what we have now.
Pro says: "d) The ACA makes working as a physician such an unattractive option as a career path that over 40% of currently practicing primary care physicians surveyed have said they will leave the practice of medicine before Obamacare goes into effect to avoid the burden it will place upon them. This will make finding a doctor incredibly difficult, as there is already a critical shortage of primary care physicians in some parts of this country and a large percentage of the doctors who are quitting have private rural practices... the kind we need more of." If socialized medicine is done the right way, practicing medicine will be a good option. So will receiving it. You also need to back up your claims with facts that are not from a right wing source, thanks.
Pro says: "e) The bill itself was passed by a parliamentary trick against the will of the People, by a Congress that deliberately excluded the opposition from the process and hadn't even read the bill when they passed it. Even now, 2/3 of the country thinks Obamacare should be repealed." This I agree to. I would support putting the ACA back up for a democratic vote by the people.
Pro says: "f) So many problems have come out of the implementation of the bill that it is a near impossibility for the government to meet any of the deadlines written into the bill. This has led President Obama to directly violate his role according to the Separation of Powers and change legislation he signed into law by simply refusing to enforce portions he doesn't like. These exemptions show in bold color the rot and corruption that exists at the core of this Administration, as the exemptions have been used to reward allies and punish enemies." I need you to give me specific examples and back them up with links, please. Thank you in advance.
Debate Round No. 1
doktorbob

Pro

Thank you to Sitara, who has taken up the challenge of debating the merits of the Affordable Care Act. I look forward to making the case for its repeal against your vigorous defense of the law.

Rebuttal 1:
PART A) A decrease in access to care.
Sitara said: "I completely disagree. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, people with medical conditions can afford healthcare. There are many people who need medications that cost more than 1000 dollars monthly and healthcare coverage helps that. I certainly hope that Pro realizes this. This makes healthcare easier to obtain."

The truth of the matter is that there are several reasons that health care will be made less accessible by the ACA.
1) The non-partisan CBO has projected that insurance premiums will rise by 27 to 30 percent for the average family. This is a direct violation of the promise that Obama made during his campaign that the price of insurance would actually go down by $2500, on average, per family. This is due to several factors, including the fact that 60% of current plans don't meet the minimum standards for Obamacare's policies and the issue that the inability of insurance companies to refuse coverage for "pre-existing conditions" negates any incentive people may have to get health insurance until they need it, because it's still cheaper than the fine for the majority of people currently without insurance, which means that the people that the law had intended to subsidize the costs of increased care outlays by the insurance companies aren't pooling their risk with the higher risk patients. This drives up premiums as well, which makes insurance less accessible to most Americans.

http://online.wsj.com...

2) The next way that health care will be less accessible to Americans is the simple fact that there may not be enough doctors to meet the demand for health care. After a little more research, I found a more recent poll that shows that up to 60% of doctors currently practicing are either seeking to quit medicine or would do so today if they felt like they could, as a direct result of Obamacare. There are more bureaucratic requirements, more restrictions on the way we practice medicine (I am a practicing family physician), and higher pressure to see more patients and do more with fewer resources than ever before. Up to 52% of physicians have limited their acceptance of Medicare and Medicaid patients because of the terrible reimbursement rates of those programs, and Obamacare seeks to expand the rolls of Medicaid to cover even more people. According to the survey, 100,000 physicians are planning to either close their practices, switch to concierge medicine (which doesn't accept insurance), or cut back the number of patients they will see. This is going to exacerbate the already critical shortage that exists in rural areas - and other areas all around the country - of physicians, especially primary care providers. Considering that we have 75 million Baby Boomers about to transition into the Medicare system which is already overtaxed and in need of more accepting physicians, this is a very worrisome number and definitely shows that access to medical care will be much less available... not more available, as Con has expressed.

http://www.westernjournalism.com...

3) Thousands of companies are cutting their employees' hours to under 30 hours per week to avoid the massive fines incurred for not providing health insurance coverage for their employees, when they're not just outright firing people. Even when they are not willing to cut back on the hours, they are opting in many cases to simply pay the fine, which is much less than the actual cost of the insurance, which as I have demonstrated earlier, has dramatically increased. Now, not only do they *not* have coverage, but they also have to live with a 25% pay cut or more due to the restriction on hours. The lack of wages and the unwillingness of employers to provide assistance with coverage combine to make insurance much less accessible to even middle-class people who had previously had access to coverage.

PART B) Inefficiency:
Sitara said: ": No one is saying that the ACA is perfect, but I feel that Pro is exxagerating things. I feel that by investing money in healthcare, sick people get back to work sooner, and with more people working, more money is poured back into the economy. Will Pro please tell me how that is a bad thing?"

I wish that I were exaggerating. The truth of the matter is that the Medical Device Tax that is part of the ACA has stifled research and development in several major fields of inquiry in medical technology because the companies don't want to pay the tax. Furthermore, there is nothing in the ACA which will actually help doctors do their jobs better or reduce the cost of medicine. In fact, the only thing that is happening in medicine is that there is more paperwork to do, less time to see a larger number of patients, and more regulations on what procedures, tests, and treatments we are "allowed" to do on our patients by an unelected set of Bureaucrats who know nothing about medicine. The ACA will not put people back to work... in fact, as I mentioned above, it is putting millions of people *out* of work, and it is sucking money out of the economy on multiple levels. Will Con please tell me how this is a good thing?

PART C) The broken promises:

Sitara did not adequately address my point regarding the many broken promises of Obamacare. Her only rebuttal is, " I am not saying that the ACA is perfect, but it is far better than what we have now." I heartily disagree, based on the points I have mentioned above which have not been adequately rebutted and the ones I will provide below, which further strengthen my case. The current system isn't perfect, but Obamacare takes all the parts of our healthcare system that make the practice of medicine burdensome, inefficient, expensive, and unpleasant... and makes them all worse. Not a single measure in the entire 2700 page bill... or the 28,000 pages - and counting - of regulations that have come from the law has done anything to increase the quality, availability, or efficiency of medicine in this country.

Furthermore, my points about the broken promises - keeping your doctor... the cost of the law... the timeline for implementation... these all still stand and have been completely unchallenged. These were points upon which the entire bill was passed, and they are proving, one by one, to be lies.

Even the few measures of Obamacare that people are trying to quickly usher into implementation are being put together so badly that they can't even guarantee the safety and security of the sensitive health information they are asking that we turn over to health exchanges in several states, and they are cutting back funding for that program even further still. The result is that we have a dysfunctional system of exchanges which can't get up and running correctly and put the safety and security of their patients at risk simply by obtaining the information they need to be able to function. Any of these exchanges, with the level of lax security they have, would be extremely vulnerable to a cyber-attack from either criminals looking to commit identity theft or a terrorist seeking to cause damage to our social infrastructure.

As Senator Max Baucus said, the whole law is a "train wreck."

PART D) Executive overreach and bureaucratic abuses:

Sitara said: " I need you to give me specific examples (of Administration's violations of the Separation of Powers and corruption, I presume) and back them up with links, please. Thank you in advance."

I will do so with great pleasure.

The Obama administration, in violation of the law he signed, has refused to enforce a key portion of the law requiring businesses to provide insurance for their employees, which was to go into effect in 2014. This is a part of the law that has no ambiguity: there is a hard deadline for employers to begin covering employees: Jan 1, 2014. In refusing to enforce this part of the law, Mr. Obama has arrogated to himself legislative powers to change a law that has already been written and signed into law, which he does not have the authority to do. If he were to acknowledge that the law was unconstitutional, this might be defensible, because the President does not have a duty to enforce laws which he believes are in violation of the Constitution. However, since he put the case before the Supreme Court, who found (much to my shock) that the law was constitutional, he is under a direct obligation to enforce every part of the law. He is refusing to do this, but only on a selective basis. Specifically, he is allowing businesses to avoid the devastating financial impact of compliance with the law until after the 2014 elections. I believe this is to shield his Democratic congressional colleagues from the backlash that will happen when the measure is finally enforced as it should be.
http://thehill.com...
http://freebeacon.com...

In another example, the Department of HHS has used their regulatory authority to infringe upon the religious freedoms of millions of people who have moral objections to providing birth control or abortifacts to people, by refusing to grant many Christian organizations exemptions to the clause that requires them to provide coverage for such products and services.

http://www.ncregister.com...

Obama has exempted members of congress, members of the unions and lobby groups that helped him get into the White House, and his political buddies.

http://thestir.cafemom.com...
Sitara

Con

Pro says: "1) The non-partisan CBO has projected that insurance premiums will rise by 27 to 30 percent for the average family. This is a direct violation of the promise that Obama made during his campaign that the price of insurance would actually go down by $2500, on average, per family. This is due to several factors, including the fact that 60% of current plans don't meet the minimum standards for Obamacare's policies and the issue that the inability of insurance companies to refuse coverage for "pre-existing conditions" negates any incentive people may have to get health insurance until they need it, because it's still cheaper than the fine for the majority of people currently without insurance, which means that the people that the law had intended to subsidize the costs of increased care outlays by the insurance companies aren't pooling their risk with the higher risk patients. This drives up premiums as well, which makes insurance less accessible to most Americans." I say: I agree that there are flaws in the ACA, but the solution is to scrap it, reform it, and put it up for a vote, not to just close your mind to the whole matter.
Pro says: "2) The next way that health care will be less accessible to Americans is the simple fact that there may not be enough doctors to meet the demand for health care. After a little more research, I found a more recent poll that shows that up to 60% of doctors currently practicing are either seeking to quit medicine or would do so today if they felt like they could, as a direct result of Obamacare. There are more bureaucratic requirements, more restrictions on the way we practice medicine (I am a practicing family physician), and higher pressure to see more patients and do more with fewer resources than ever before. Up to 52% of physicians have limited their acceptance of Medicare and Medicaid patients because of the terrible reimbursement rates of those programs, and Obamacare seeks to expand the rolls of Medicaid to cover even more people. According to the survey, 100,000 physicians are planning to either close their practices, switch to concierge medicine (which doesn't accept insurance), or cut back the number of patients they will see. This is going to exacerbate the already critical shortage that exists in rural areas - and other areas all around the country - of physicians, especially primary care providers. Considering that we have 75 million Baby Boomers about to transition into the Medicare system which is already overtaxed and in need of more accepting physicians, this is a very worrisome number and definitely shows that access to medical care will be much less available... not more available, as Con has expressed." I say: Part of the problem is an over taxed economy. I promise you that if you scrap all taxes save an income tax of say 50% for this example, that will help part of the problem. You see the thing is that when overtaxation occurs, the price of everything goes up until everything is out of control. I obviously do not support a libertarian model, but a 50% income tax and no other should help.
Pro says: "3) Thousands of companies are cutting their employees' hours to under 30 hours per week to avoid the massive fines incurred for not providing health insurance coverage for their employees, when they're not just outright firing people. Even when they are not willing to cut back on the hours, they are opting in many cases to simply pay the fine, which is much less than the actual cost of the insurance, which as I have demonstrated earlier, has dramatically increased. Now, not only do they *not* have coverage, but they also have to live with a 25% pay cut or more due to the restriction on hours. The lack of wages and the unwillingness of employers to provide assistance with coverage combine to make insurance much less accessible to even middle-class people who had previously had access to coverage." I say: Again, I support the reform and revote of the ACA, not the repeal thereof. I am against overtaxation.
Pro says: "I wish that I were exaggerating. The truth of the matter is that the Medical Device Tax that is part of the ACA has stifled research and development in several major fields of inquiry in medical technology because the companies don't want to pay the tax. Furthermore, there is nothing in the ACA which will actually help doctors do their jobs better or reduce the cost of medicine. In fact, the only thing that is happening in medicine is that there is more paperwork to do, less time to see a larger number of patients, and more regulations on what procedures, tests, and treatments we are "allowed" to do on our patients by an unelected set of Bureaucrats who know nothing about medicine. The ACA will not put people back to work... in fact, as I mentioned above, it is putting millions of people *out* of work, and it is sucking money out of the economy on multiple levels. Will Con please tell me how this is a good thing?" I say: Again, I am saying that the ACA has flaws, but the solution is to get ride of the bad stuff and keep the good. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as they say.
Pro says: "Sitara did not adequately address my point regarding the many broken promises of Obamacare. Her only rebuttal is, " I am not saying that the ACA is perfect, but it is far better than what we have now." I heartily disagree, based on the points I have mentioned above which have not been adequately rebutted and the ones I will provide below, which further strengthen my case. The current system isn't perfect, but Obamacare takes all the parts of our healthcare system that make the practice of medicine burdensome, inefficient, expensive, and unpleasant... and makes them all worse. Not a single measure in the entire 2700 page bill... or the 28,000 pages - and counting - of regulations that have come from the law has done anything to increase the quality, availability, or efficiency of medicine in this country." I say: Excuse me but I am trying my best to be a good debater and address your points. I have two windows open so that I do not miss anything. Now back to business. Dear God, how many times do i have to say that the solution is to fix it, not to trash it. I most certainly do not support over regulation no matter who does it, but the fact remains that many people cannot afford healthcare due to preexisting conditions and/or financial status. Some people have over 100 dollars worth of medications per month. The healthcare industry is already over regulating when they tell you what meds you can and cannot take. My insurance was supposed to approve one of my meds for 12 months, but they only approved it for 1 month, and it was a hurdle to get them to cover it at all, so I know all about over regulation. The solution is reform, not repeal, as our healthcare industry is broken.
Pro says: "The Obama administration, in violation of the law he signed, has refused to enforce a key portion of the law requiring businesses to provide insurance for their employees, which was to go into effect in 2014. This is a part of the law that has no ambiguity: there is a hard deadline for employers to begin covering employees: Jan 1, 2014. In refusing to enforce this part of the law, Mr. Obama has arrogated to himself legislative powers to change a law that has already been written and signed into law, which he does not have the authority to do. If he were to acknowledge that the law was unconstitutional, this might be defensible, because the President does not have a duty to enforce laws which he believes are in violation of the Constitution. However, since he put the case before the Supreme Court, who found (much to my shock) that the law was constitutional, he is under a direct obligation to enforce every part of the law. He is refusing to do this, but only on a selective basis. Specifically, he is allowing businesses to avoid the devastating financial impact of compliance with the law until after the 2014 elections. I believe this is to shield his Democratic congressional colleagues from the backlash that will happen when the measure is finally enforced as it should be." I 100% oppose that corruption. I am one liberal who is not afraid to speak the truth about the Democratic Party of America. Seriously, look up the effects of over taxation.
Debate Round No. 2
doktorbob

Pro

Thank you, Sitara, for a prompt response. I think that our positions aren't actually all that different. I believe that you will actually come to agree that the current law needs to be repealed and replace with something that will actually work, as I have argued... and as you have stated in your post. I will demonstrate below.

Rebuttal 2:

A) The problems we both agree exist within the current ACA.
-The law makes it more difficult for people to get access to health care, as evidenced by higher premiums, longer waits to see a doctor due to an impending doctor shortage, a smaller number of doctors willing to accept insurance, and fewer treatments they are "allowed" to do for you.

-The law encourages companies to cut hours and to fire people to avoid the penalties associated with refusing to pay the elevated premiums, thus lowering their wages and making it harder for them to make a living, let alone pay health insurance premiums.

-The law is riddled with loopholes, corruption, uneven enforcement, bureaucratic abuses, political favoritism, and other tools that the government can use to impose its will upon the people.

-The law over-regulates what treatments people are allowed to receive based on factors that have nothing to do with medicine, and it creates lots of barriers between doctor and patient, damaging the doctor-patient relationship.

-The law does nothing to address the real costs of medicine in this country and in fact has cost much more than originally projected.

-The law was passed by dubious measures by a Congress whose every move was to exclude dissent and push the bill through at any cost, despite the majority of the country's opposition. Now, 2/3 of the country wants the law repealed, and many of the same Congressional Representatives and Senators would not - or could not, because they were voted out in direct response - vote for the bill again if they had it in front of them.

These are all points with which you have agreed are problems with the law. Your position seems to be that there are still good things about the law that can't be accomplished without keeping the law in place. I offer an alternative, and it's one that you mentioned yourself in your most recent rebuttal:

B) How repeal is the most reasonable solution to the problems we agree exist in Obamacare:

Sitara said: "I agree that there are flaws in the ACA, but the solution is to scrap it, reform it, and put it up for a vote, not to just close your mind to the whole matter."

I totally agree. I think we should scrap the law. It was badly written by people who know nothing about health care and whose intention was never to make the health care system work better or be more accessible or affordable. It was written to allow the government to have many, many more levers with which to control the people of this country. I say that there are several excellent alternatives available to solve all of the problems that you have mentioned, and none of them require Obamacare to exist. Let's examine the problems you've mentioned about the health care system, and we'll see if I can't find a better solution than the one Obama pushed through.

Sitara said: "Part of the problem is an over taxed economy."
I agree. Obamacare raises taxes by $836 billion dollars over the next 7 years to fund itself. Many of these taxes hit businesses and industries the hardest, which has a net effect of slowing the economy down and making it harder for people to prosper. If we repeal Obamacare and replace it with a plan that is revenue-neutral and eliminates the inefficiency of top-down central planning, such as the very successful consumer-driven model that Indiana has in place, we can stop taxing the American people so much, leave them with more money in their pockets, and allow them to make their own decisions about what health care is the right amount for them and their needs. The increase in disposable income would immediately boost the economy from the consumer side of things, and the decrease in the deficit due to an almost 2 trillion dollar decrease would stimulate the economy on a macro-scale.

Here's the link for the tax hikes Obamacare is causing. http://blog.heritage.org...
Here's a link describing Indiana's healthcare system. http://www.weeklystandard.com...

Sitara said: ". I most certainly do not support over regulation no matter who does it,"
I agree. I believe that the only way to stop the over-regulation is to do away with the entire bill, since the bill is intentionally written in a lengthy, confusing way that makes it difficult to separate one part from another. Wouldn't it be better to present a simple, clean bill that accomplishes the same things you want without all the problems of the Affordable Care Act?

Sitara said: "the fact remains that many people cannot afford healthcare due to preexisting conditions and/or financial status. Some people have over 100 dollars worth of medications per month."
In a consumer-driven subsidy plan like the one in Indiana, this wouldn't be a problem. The difference is that instead of the government making the decisions about what care you're allowed to have for you, you get to make those decisions by paying for your care out of a Health Savings Account that the State contributes to much as it would have paid the hospitals or doctors or pharmacies directly under Obamacare. Now, you have the power to make decisions about your health instead of letting some bureaucrat do it for you.

In light of all of these things, it seems to me that you actually agree with me and think that Obamacare should be repealed.... and replaced with something a) that works better, b) that gets voted in by a fair and open referendum without any tricks, and c) that doesn't leave the door open to governmental corruption.

I could be wrong, of course. You keep telling me that repealing the ACA is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If that's so, then perhaps you could tell me a few of the things that Obamacare does to improve health care that a different plan couldn't do better.
Sitara

Con

Pro says: Thank you, Sitara, for a prompt response. I think that our positions aren't actually all that different. I believe that you will actually come to agree that the current law needs to be repealed and replace with something that will actually work, as I have argued... and as you have stated in your post. I will demonstrate below." I say: maybe so. I feel dumb now.
Pro says: "-The law makes it more difficult for people to get access to health care, as evidenced by higher premiums, longer waits to see a doctor due to an impending doctor shortage, a smaller number of doctors willing to accept insurance, and fewer treatments they are "allowed" to do for you." I say: Not to sound like I am 10 years old, but that totally sucks. I believe that healthcare is a right so that bothers me. Time will tell I guess.
Pro says: "-The law is riddled with loopholes, corruption, uneven enforcement, bureaucratic abuses, political favoritism, and other tools that the government can use to impose its will upon the people." I say: Over taxation causes a multitude of problems including this.
Pro says: "-The law over-regulates what treatments people are allowed to receive based on factors that have nothing to do with medicine, and it creates lots of barriers between doctor and patient, damaging the doctor-patient relationship." I say: The law already does that. Did you read about my experience with my HMO?
Pro says: "-The law does nothing to address the real costs of medicine in this country and in fact has cost much more than originally projected." I say: How so? I am detail oriented. LOL.
Pro says: "In a consumer-driven subsidy plan like the one in Indiana, this wouldn't be a problem. The difference is that instead of the government making the decisions about what care you're allowed to have for you, you get to make those decisions by paying for your care out of a Health Savings Account that the State contributes to much as it would have paid the hospitals or doctors or pharmacies directly under Obamacare. Now, you have the power to make decisions about your health instead of letting some bureaucrat do it for you." I say: Privatization is not always the answer. That is a big problem I have with libertarians.
Pro says: "In light of all of these things, it seems to me that you actually agree with me and think that Obamacare should be repealed... and replaced with something a) that works better, b) that gets voted in by a fair and open referendum without any tricks, and c) that doesn't leave the door open to governmental corruption." In that case, I do agree. I am so sorry.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
Right to Life is negative and Bodily Integrity implies Bodily Self-Governing.
Posted by anonymouse 3 years ago
anonymouse
Replace affordable healthcare with free healthcare like they had in Libya
Posted by Sitara 3 years ago
Sitara
I am having computer difficulties. Please accept my apologies if I post twice.
No votes have been placed for this debate.