The Instigator
jonpistone2
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
JBlake
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

The Obama Care bill should NOT have been passed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 5 votes the winner is...
jonpistone2
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,541 times Debate No: 11869
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

jonpistone2

Pro

I would like to say a few words here before starting my opening argument.
I respectfully request that only an American Citizen please join this debate on the 'con' side. I have nothing against view points from other countries on health care, but with a bill where American tax dollars are being used, I find it to be a more honest debate between two citizens directly effected. If I could have, I would have voted No to this bill and look forward to debating with someone who would have voted yes. (http://www.examiner.com...) Thank you.

On to the topic:

My contention is that the health care system in America is and has been broken for quite some time now. It is an important topic but not more important than our economy, jobs, etc. This bill was very politically motivated and rushed though without getting all the facts ahead of time. It is a simple case of throwing money after a problem and hoping some of it sticks. This plan will cost even more money than expected and will not cover ever single American. Health care reform is an important issue but there should have been a smaller and more controlled plan proposed rather than this monster overhaul of health care.

Aside from this bill costing more money and putting America more in debt, there is also a problem in terms of the government controlling yet another aspect of American lives. The main argument against health care is against the insurance company, but this bill will effect the doctor's jobs far more than the insurance companies. Additionally, this bill has a lot of special exceptions and deals for certain people and states as well as additional government take-overs that are not related to health care. This alone makes this bill unfair for the American people as whole.

Again, we need health care reform. Every American should have the right for some sort of basic coverage of their health. This plan does not do that, it is not opening a small door for the few uninsured to walk through and have some basic access. It is taking over the whole industry and making decisions for the industry which it has shown a very poor track record of doing in the past.

It comes down to this simple point. If I had a vote on this exact bill, I would have voted NO. I welcome my opponent to share his or her thoughts on this issue next. Again, I request that my opponent be a citizen of the United States and is someone who would have voted Yes to this specific Obama Care bill. Thank you.
JBlake

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for providing the opportunity to debate this topic. Good luck, and welcome to DDO!

------------

I will begin by breaking down my opponent's main points:

1. The bill was politically motivated and rushed through.
2. This bill will not cover every single American.
3. This bill provides the government with yet another control over American lives.
4. This bill will affect doctor's jobs far more than it affects insurance companies.
5. This bill provides too many special exceptions, even some not related to health care.
6. This bill takes over the entire health insurance industry.

-------------

I will now answer each of these points in the order in which they appear:

1. The bill was politically motivated (a) and rushed through (b).

a) Nearly all bills are politically motivated. This in itself is not a problem. If Pro would like to go further in depth to explain why politicians should not vote on a bill based on their political ideology I would be happy to discuss this point. As it stands, however, I do not see a problem with congressmen voting by their political ideology.
b) My opponent claims that this bill was "rushed through" the legislative process. Looking closely on this point we will see that the bill was anything but rushed through (even though some Democrats may have attempted to rush it). Health care was one of the first issues that the Obama Aministration and the current congress addressed. The debate over health care began in the spring of 2009 and did not pass until the end of March 2010. Congress and the nation as a whole has been debating this issue for over a year now. This hardly constitutes "rushing" it through.

2. This bill will not cover every single American.

The only people who will not be covered are illegal immigrants and Americans who avoid the "individual mandate." Therefore, the only American citizens who are not covered are those who choose to not be covered (with the resulting penalty for not being covered).
http://www.csmonitor.com...

3. This bill provides the government with yet another control over American lives.

I ask that my opponent expand upon this point. In what ways does it expand control over American lives? I cannot respond to this point if I don't know exactly what controls he objects to.

4. This bill will affect doctors' jobs far more than it affects insurance companies.

My opponent is wrong on this point. Certainly the new regulations placed on insurance companies means that the affect on them will be considerable. This would mean that the affect on doctors' jobs will be similarly considerable. I fail to see how this bill will come to this result. This bill does not take over hospitals or doctors' jobs. These institutions and jobs will remain as they are currently.
The only change that I foresee is an increase in the number of patients. Individual doctors will either see an increase in patients or there will be an increase in the number of doctors (or both). Neither of these seems troubling to me. In fact, this is precisely what we are hoping for - expanded access to health care.

5. This bill provides too many special exceptions, even some not related to health care.

Certainly this bill provides many special exceptions. However, it is a good starting place. As the years go by and we notice problems arising from these special exceptions we can take steps to correct them. In short, the exceptions are not enough, by themselves, to warrant not passing this essential piece of legislation. If they cause problems in the future we can fix them.
If there are any special exceptions that Pro finds particularly concerning, I invite him to bring them up. I hope that he will explain why special exceptions generally (or specific exceptions) warrant not passing the bill.

6. This bill takes over the entire health insurance industry.

This is just completely untrue. Certainly it creates a number of regulations on private insurance companies that were not there before. However, these regulations have been needed for a long time. I see no evidence that private insurance companies will be taken over by the government. If Pro has such evidence, I hope that he will present it in the next round.

---------

Due to space constraints I was unable to make my own case. I will do so in the second round. Good luck to Pro in Round Two.
Debate Round No. 1
jonpistone2

Pro

To touch upon some of the points my opponent listed:

1a) Elected officials voting along political lines is something that often happens, I agree. This bill, on the other hand, had many closed door meetings and in turn, includes specific political deals. This plan exempts unions from paying the Obama care taxes the rest of the people must pay. (http://content.usatoday.com...)

2) This bill does not cover people who choose to not pay a private insurance company money for their services. Why is this a problem and why must these people be penalized under the Obama care law, enforced by the ever rowing IRS. (http://www.cnsnews.com...)

3) The government now has taken over the student loan industry. While they have been about 20% of the market in the past, they will now be in control of 80% of these loans. There will also be increased regulations on the remaining private lenders and could lower their 20% of the market. (http://online.wsj.com...) Once the government has a monopoly over student loans, it is unclear exactly how they will exercise their power and control over the industry. This bill also controls the rationing of health care to patients, particularly the elderly. Obama has admitted that he wants the government to decide what health care Americans receive. (http://www.washingtontimes.com...)

4) This bill will cause an increase in patients for the fixed number of doctors we have at the moment. The government is cutting Medicare and Medicaid (http://sweetness-light.com...) which will result in cutting payments to doctors. This bill will also dictate which treatments a patient can receive rather than the treatment by which the doctor says the patient needs.

5) My opponent recognizes the unfortunate special deals this bill includes and says "Certainly this bill provides many special exceptions." He then continues by saying, "However, it is a good starting place." But I would like to remind my opponent that this is not a starting place, it is the ending place. A starting place would have been to let patents shop across state lines or to increase those Medicare and Medicaid cover, etc. This is a bill which will cost hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars to drastically change the health care industry. (http://www.washingtontimes.com...) As my opponent claims, this bill was a work in progress for a long time and not rushed though. I would hope (but don't personally feel) that they would only pass a large piece of legislation once they were ready and confident it would work, not just an expensive starting point.

6) This bill forces everyone in America to pay money to a private industry (the first time in our nations history this has ever happened) unless they want the IRS to issue them a penalty (http://dailycaller.com...). It will also put forth regulations on what insurance companies can and cannot cover. Further, it dictates which treatments a patient can receive, particularly later in the life (http://nrlc.org...). This is not a minor regulation put in place over a few insurance companies, this is a major issues. It dictates what insurance companies can cover and therefore dictates the treatments which doctors will provide their patients. This is what would be considered a massive takeover of the health care industry.

-----

There are numerous problems with the Obama care bill. My opponent has pointed out, and I agree, that this "is a good starting place". But this is something that still needs to be debated and problems need to be ironed out. This plan exempts unions from special health care taxes as well as congress (http://www.humanevents.com...) (http://www.humanevents.com...) The bill includes a takeover of a totally unrelated student loan industry and conveniently leaves out the 'doctor fix' which is totally related to health care (http://www.foxnews.com...).

This bill has been reviewed by the HHS and numerous flaws were found. The neutral HSS experts reports that this bill will cost more money than Obama projected, and possibly jeopardize access to care for seniors. (http://www.cnsnews.com...) After a trillion dollars are spent, costs and premiums will still rise for the American people. These are just some of the problems with this bill and again, it is a starting place, not something which should have been voted Yes to at this point.
JBlake

Con

Responses, again in the order in which they were previously addressed:

1. Note that Pro agrees that voting along by ideology and along political lines is both common and not concerning. He is concerned by the "closed door" meetings. This is another common practice in the legislative process. It should also be of little concern to the public, since the final result of the political maneuvering is available to the public for viewing (the bill itself).

2. This bill does not cover those who choose not to pay. There is not much that can be done about this point, short of making our system a single-payer system. Does Pro advocate a single-payer system? People will choose to opt out of insurance and choose to instead pay the fine. This seems to be more of their problem, since this bill provides them with ACCESS to insurance. If they choose to eschew this access, then that is their problem.
You might say that some people choose not opt out because they cannot afford it. This is also not a concern because people who cannot afford it are not subject to the fine, and have subsidies available to make the insurance affordable. This information is available on the link I provided in Round One. (http://www.csmonitor.com...) It can also be found in this summary of the healthcare bill. (http://www.cbsnews.com...)

3. We could get into a separate debate on the merits of the student loan addition to this bill. To save space, I will not argue that here. Instead, I will ask Pro whether this point is enough, by itself, to warrant not passing the health care bill?

4. It will cause an increase in patients, sure (this is one of the main points of the reform). However, nothing in this bill suggests that the number of doctors will remain static. Medicare and Medicaid are not the sole sources of money for doctors. The increase in patients should make up for the funding lost to medicare and medicaid cuts.

5. The special deals are an unfortunate side affect of our political system. It is quite commonplace. The bright side is that they usually do not last forever. This is the point that I was trying to make in round one, that Pro did not address. Although the special exceptions do exist currently, they can be removed in later years. These exemptions wee necessary for the bill to pass, but can be removed in later years.

6. Pro breaks down number six into a few more points. They are as follows:
a. Opposition to the individual mandate.
b. Regulations on what insurance companies can and cannot cover.
c. The bill provides for rationing of care, especially later in life.

Responses:
a. The individual mandate is necessary in order to ensure that the system is adequately funded. If people are allowed to opt out without penalty then the new (and very necessary) regulations on the insurance industry could very well kill the insurance industry. If insurance companies are forced to insure everyone, then a large number of unhealthy people will purchase their insurance. Unhealthy people will have more hospital visits, costing the insurance companies money. If people are allowed to opt out, then the majority of the insurance industry's customers will be unhealthy (because healthy people will likely opt out). If most of their customers cost them money, the industry will quickly go broke.

b. The regulations now being placed on the insurance industry have been needed for a long time. I ask my opponent to cite specific regulations to which he objects.

c. Pro objects to rationing health care. However, he fails to mention the fact that health care is already rationed through private insurance companies. (http://patients.about.com...). The main difference between government rationing of health care and insurance company rationing of health care is that government rationing is not motivated by profit.

---------

Conclusion
The health care bill does have a few problems. This cannot be avoided. There are problems with any piece of legislation, many are unforeseeable. However, I argue that these problems can be fixed later, as we come up on the problems. When something turns out to be a problem later, we can fix that provision at that time.
(ran out of space again)
Debate Round No. 2
jonpistone2

Pro

1) While voting along party lines is nothing new, it is still concerning in this case that these closed and locked door meetings resulted in special deals for states, special groups and unions. Those special deals are a problem in this bill. This bill is forcing the American public to pay into a system regardless of their desire to do so and then exempts specific groups of people. (http://www.mofopolitics.com...) That is not fair legislation and creates questions as to why these deals were put in place to begin with? Was it to get extra votes? Yes (and my opponent admits this in point #5).

2) It is true that this bill does not cover those who do not choose to pay, but let me point out that the only choice people have is to pay a private company to be covered or not to pay a private company. They still have to pay either way. This is the first time in American history that to be a citizen in good standing, one must pay money to a private industry or be held in penalty by the government. This bill may not cover those who do not wish to pay the private entities, but those people will still be paying money for others to receive care. This is wrong and some states and attorney generals would argue violates the constitution, though that will be something for the courts to decide and is unclear at the moment.

3) The addition of a totally unrelated piece of legislation being added to the most controversial law passed in recent memory should not be overlooked at all. In fact, the reason the initial Congressional Budget Office numbers came out favorable to Obama Care was because of the interest they expected to be made from student loans and had nothing at all to do with the debt Obama Care itself would create. Additionally, the 'doctor fix' was left out of this particular bill even though it is fully related, though this too costs a lot of money. The student loan take over is not only a problem in terms of the government taking over and regulating more of the private sector but also in the dishonest way it attempted to frame this bill as to decrease the debt. This health care bill will increase the debt (http://www.cnsnews.com...) in a time when our focus should be on decreasing the debt and job creation.

4) If the universal coverage in Massachusetts is any indication, my opponent is correct, we will not see the number of primary care doctors staying the same. We will actually see that number decrease. There is a chance the government takeover of the student loan industry can be used as an aid to direct medical students into primary care with some sort of student loan decrease or things of that sort, but that gets into a very sticky situation. (http://online.wsj.com...) If no special deals are made for primary care doctors, there is no indication that their numbers will increase. Most medical students avoid primary care because they have very busy days filled with patient and poor hours and because of the poor payments they get in return to not only live their lives but also pay off huge student loan debts. This bill will cause a problem to both main areas. It will increase the number of patients being cared for by these doctors and will cut Medicare and Medicaid payments. This is a growing problem and not passed in this very costly Obama care bill.

5) Back to the special deals, see #1 and remember this is not just a 'side affect' but rather a major problem because it 'bought votes'. This is a crime in our legal system when it is found in any place other than our government. These special deals were added to 'buy votes'. My opponent even admits "These exemptions we(r)e necessary for the bill to pass..." This is bribery and it is happening in such a way as to pass controversial legislation that forces the American people to pay private entities money, regardless of the use of their product, or the IRS will implement a fine. It is no wonder the American people are outraged at the government getting bigger, such as taking over the student loan industry, and that they are passing such legislation which may or may not violate the constitution.

6a) It is not the job of the individuals to provide for the rest of the country. I understand this legislation is forcing everyone to do so, but using this enforcement as part of your argument as to why it should have been passed does not hold water. I agree the government is forcing healthy people who don't want insurance to pay into the system. They are forcing insurances to cover people who are at high risk. And to make both work the government must force payments from those who have more money than others. To answer my opponent, yes, I understand the government is forcing many people against their will.

This bill has countless flaws and should not have been passed.

I reached my character limit. Thanks for the debate JBlake.
JBlake

Con

I have two finals this evening then I am going out with some friends. I won't have time to meet the 24 hour deadline.

I will take the handicap of only having two rounds of debate.

Thanks for the debate, Jon Pistone. Welcome to DDO, and Good Luck!
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by jonpistone2 6 years ago
jonpistone2
VERY good point!!!
Posted by Rezzealaux 6 years ago
Rezzealaux
Should've pointed out that one of the times, I think it was the first time it was attempted to be passed, nobody outside of the creation committee got to see the bill until the last couple minutes before the vote. There's several other transparency issues, but I can't remember them all.
Posted by jonpistone2 6 years ago
jonpistone2
I wish things could have ended differently JBlake...was very curious to hear some of your replies in that 3rd round.

that said...thanks for such a nice debate and for your kind words welcoming me to this page.

Enjoy your night and i look forward to another debate with you soon!! :)
Posted by jonpistone2 6 years ago
jonpistone2
Welcome JBlake. I look forward to a wonderful debate!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 6 years ago
Rezzealaux
jonpistone2JBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:50 
Vote Placed by Piffler 6 years ago
Piffler
jonpistone2JBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by lindseyloo92 6 years ago
lindseyloo92
jonpistone2JBlakeTied
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:40 
Vote Placed by davidwayne 6 years ago
davidwayne
jonpistone2JBlakeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 6 years ago
rougeagent21
jonpistone2JBlakeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30