The Instigator
DoubtingDave
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
TheHitchslap
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

The PPACA "ObamaCare" Should Be Repealed

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 6 votes the winner is...
TheHitchslap
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,474 times Debate No: 37115
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (6)

 

DoubtingDave

Pro

Thank you TheHitchslap for accepting this debate.


Resolved
: The Patient Protection Affordable Care Act "ObamaCare" ought to be repealed.


In this debate I will argue that Obamacare should be repealed, and my opponent will argue that it should remain as law.

I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate the topic, whoever may accept, and I'm looking forward to a good debate.

Rules

This opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. I will give the Pro case at the start of the second round.

Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:

DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.

DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.

DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. The definitions given in the challenge stand as a condition of acceptance.

DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Arguments and evidence may be presented in R4 in rebuttal to any previous argument, but no new arguments are allowed.

DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.

DR 6. Dropped arguments are not immediately counted as concessions. They may be taken up again or left to be judged as part of the case.

TheHitchslap

Con

I thank DoubtingDave for the challenge, and I accept his terms and conditions.


Although not a case for my position for the debate, I do ask that the voters in this case -- though biased as they may be -- remain objective as possible and vote on the individual cases of the debate, rather than partisan lines. This is a particularly controversial subject and one in which still divides America even today, leaving the big 2 bitter enemies.

Thank you

Let's get this going!
Debate Round No. 1
DoubtingDave

Pro

I would like to begin by thanking TheHitchSlap for accepting this debate. I look forward to an exciting debate and hope to learn a few things from you.

I would like to echo what my opponent has said to the voters, please be as objective as possible. Although this is a hotly controversial topic, please vote according to whoever had the better arguments.

Contention 1: ObamaCare is bad for the economy

ObamaCare is truly wrecking the US economy. According to Gallup[1] polls, nearly half of small businesses claim that ObamaCare is going to be bad for them.

More than half claim that ObamaCare is going to reduce the quality of health care while raising cost of health care.






All of this translates to higher costs and businesses having to cut back. Businesses must be willing to take risks and if the government (or anything for that matter) were to discourage businesses from taking risks, the result is higher unemployment.

Indeed, small-businesses have been reducing hours and reducing their staff because of this law



This is not a good trend and thus does not surprise me that unions are turning against the law![2]

As an example, Stryker Corp, a manufacturer in medical devices, will lay off 1,000 works as a result of the medical device tax.[3]

Contention 2: The Unaffordable Care Act

Despite the name “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, we see that ObamaCare is anything but affordable. The PPACA contains twenty-one (21) new tax provisions[4] increases taxes on certain medical devices including pacemakers and custom wheel-chairs.[5] If we want to decrease healthcare cost, increasing taxes is NOT a way to do so.

Contention 3: ObamaCare is Unworkable

ObamaCare, as it sits, is an unworkable load of mess. We see this three-fold:

One, ObamaCare has missed half of its legally implemented deadlines[6] including the out-of-pocket price-caps[7], Medicare cuts[8], and the delay of the employer mandate.[9] With delays and missed deadlines like these, we must wonder whether or not this is an admission from the Obama administration that ObamaCare is unworkable.

Secondly, we see that ObamaCare is unworkable due to the fact that many Americans are unfamiliar with the Law. A Gallup poll[10] shows that 43% of uninsured Americans were unaware that ObamaCare requires them to get health insurance before 1 January 2014






Conclusion

ObamaCare is an unworkable mess that ought to be repealed.

TheHitchslap

Con

Rebuttals:

My opponent states that Obamacare is bad for the economy, is unaffordable, and finally unworkable, and simply cites a bunch of gallop polls as “proof” of this. But I ask him what's the significance of those polls? Simply because a small business doesn't like it in no way means the economy would be harmed. Furthermore, this is simply an ad populum fallacy, the claim that everyone hates it therefore it should go cannot stand here, because that in no way means Obamacare is “bad” or “good”.

In fact, what is a “small business” anyways according to gallop? Is it a number of people employed? Or the amount of revenue they bring in? And why only 600? There is simply too many questions here to possibly justify this line of argument. If Donald Trumps business only employs say 10 people, but makes a revenue of over 10 billion a year does gallop call this a large or small business? And how does this translate into bad economics? This improves quality of life, which in turn is a business incentive as 100% of the people are now covered not just 85% of them.

Secondly, it is in fact affordable. Before Obamacare, the federal government was expending about 17% of GDP to cover only 85% of Americans. Per capital it was number 1 in the world, for spending $8k per person for healthcare. After Obamacare, it is now expected to fall about 200 billion by the year 2021 in healthcare expenses to the state, and cover 100% of the population. Thus we see that Obamacare is not only affordable, and good for the economy (better quality of life is always good economics), but is actually saving the government money as well. [http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...]

Finally, he claims it's unworkable because it's failing to meet it's own deadlines, but the problem isn't the actual implementation of the program it's self, it's the republican resistance to it. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) claimed that he was going to resist everything Obama asked for in the senate because he wanted Obama to be a “one term president” instead of if his ideas were good or not. In fact, this legislation has had a fury of legal challenges to it, even though it was ruled constitutional, and even then states are still trying to fight it's implementation. No wonder it hasn't met it's deadlines. Republicans are trying to fight it grit-tooth-and-nail despite it being ruled perfectly legal and in fact benificial.

[http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org... ]

C1: The Fundamental Function of the State is to Interject When it is in the Best Interest of the Community.

My opponent will no doubt argue that the Right of Contract is somehow violated as a result of Obamacare having been implemented between market-forces, people, and insurance companies. However, this cannot be true, as the contention above notes, the fundamental assumption of the state relies on it's monopoly of power to be exercised when “such restriction protected the community, health and safety, or vulnerable groups, as in the case of Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S.412(1908), where the Court had found in favour of the regulation of women's working hours.”. This was noted not only in Muller v Oregon, but also in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. Obviously, the impact of Obamacare concerning heathcare thus trumps the right of contract upon insurance companies.

C2: Unlike Other Industires, the Healthcare Philosophy Runs Contrary to Free-market Philosophy

Free-market assumptions rely on low-barriers to entry, personal responsibility, and voluntary transactions. The problem with this is that, as noted by Time Magazine journalist Steven Brill, healthcare runs completely contrary to this philosophy. In a free-market, if the consumer needed to purchase new shoes, s/he can walk up the street with money, and exchange that currency for the goods, although if s/he does not like the goods, they may leave and purchase shoes somewhere else. However, healthcare in a drastic situation does not in fact allow this. An example of this would be an unconscious stroke patient arrives at the emergency room via ambulence (which was not called by said patient), s/he cannot consent to the prices they are subjected to for the care either directly or indirectly, nor has s/he actually choosen to enter the market in this case. Ergo the free-market cannot be used in healthcare. Coupled with doctors ethics which compells each certified physician to save the patient regardless of monetary transactions and you have a system ripe for universial healthcare!

C3: It is Universially Agreed Upon that the Alternative to Obamacare Would Deny Some of the Populace Healthcare

This was outright admitted by the Republican Ron Paul, who upon being questioned about this simply proclaimed “well that's what liberty is all about, taking risks!” and then went on to say “well the church will take care of them!” Note that they never denied that the GOP's system cannot cover 100% of the populace, indeed it admits that some are not worthy of it financially, and becausde of the philosophy as shown above, I therefore submit this as evidence that if we accept the philosophy, then logically it follows that the opposite (some cannot have it) ought to be scorned. Espescially when the US guarentee's it's populace the right to life. Part of the right to life is the being taken care of should you become sick.

-(youtube)/watch?v=xTuW-a_qFlA
-(youtube)/watch?v=7BXTKrbGbZs

C4: Other Countried Already Adopted Similar Legislation, With the Exact Same Claims Against Universial Care (Such as Canada in the 50's)

Pretty straight foreward: Canada under Thommy Douglas had this same debate in the 1950's. With the exact same argument's against it's universial healthcare, it has not only ceased the debate today, but even conservatives would be crazy to reppeal universial care due to it's historical signifigance, but also because of it's popularity, it is a Canadian icon. Brittian, and France also have similar systems, same as Germany.

[Canadian History for Dummies, Will Furgeson, pg 313]

In conclusion:

Just because small businesses claim they do not like it does not mean it will translate into poor economic activities, indeed one thing investors look for is quality of life, furthermore, it actually decreases sending on healthcare, and it is workable, the problem is the resistance to it!

I personally argue that it's the fundamental role of the state to impliment such a program in the best interests of it's people, along with the fact that healthcare philosophy is contrary to free-market philosophy, and the fact that other systems simply don't cover nearly as many people, and we see the impacts of universial care in other countries, I think the case for Obamacare holds firm, and concluse that this legislation is awesome for america and should remain in power!

Thank you!

Debate Round No. 2
DoubtingDave

Pro

Fixing Healthcare the Right Way

My opponent made a few good points in this debate and I do agree that healthcare needs to be reformed; however, I believe ObamaCare is NOT the correct way to do so. In this round, I will proceed to give my way on reforming the healthcare system.

The problem with our healthcare system is that we do not have a true free market healthcare system in place. My opponent admits this point under his c2 that the healthcare industry does not run under free-market principles. However, ObamaCare will make this point even worse. In order to fix this problem, here are some steps we must do that ObamaCare does not address.[1]

- Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).

- Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.

- Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.

- Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.

- Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

- Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.

- Enact Medicare reform.

- Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

ObamaCare addressees none of these.

With that said, the reason why are spending so much money on healthcare is because of too much, not too little, government interaction.

Due to college and public speeches, I have not been able to complete this round. I will finish off next round.



[1] This is the Heritage Foundation’s Plan: http://blog.heritage.org...

TheHitchslap

Con

Drops:

My opponent advocated for a free-market system of healthcare, but dropped my point that it does not cover everyone, and because of medical ethics differing from free-market philosophy, the free-market cannot be used here. Effectively negating all of his points.

I shall repeat what I stated in the previous rounds as to why this cannot be used:

This was outright admitted by the Republican Ron Paul, who upon being questioned about this simply proclaimed “well that's what liberty is all about, taking risks!” and then went on to say “well the church will take care of them!” Note that they never denied that the GOP's system cannot cover 100% of the populace, indeed it admits that some are not worthy of it financially, and becausde of the philosophy as shown above, I therefore submit this as evidence that if we accept the philosophy, then logically it follows that the opposite (some cannot have it) ought to be scorned. Espescially when the US guarentee's it's populace the right to life. Part of the right to life is the being taken care of should you become sick.

-(youtube)/watch?v=xTuW-a_qFlA
-(youtube)/watch?v=7BXTKrbGbZs

If the governments responsibility is to the community, it makes no sense whatsoever to have a system set up that would only account for some of the populace. Fundamentally, it must account for ALL it's people. The freemarket system cannot account for all peoples and thus it must be refused and Obamacare stands.

In fact, part of what my opponent claims ought to be abolished is what insurance must cover. But as previous studies notes the impacts of this is severe in this case. They mean outright death.

The bulk of this was refuted by my previous statements to which my opponent dropped.

Obamacare decreases costs, and is expected to have the government 200 billion by 2021

And as the video I uploaded notes as well, that the public option uses it's power via masses to cut prodecures (saving money) and forcing companies to keep prices low by negotiating with doctors on the basis of how many people they have signing up for it. What the video didn't discuss, was how the market prices would fall as well, because insurances would have to charge a lesser rate to cover everyone because of the public option or fall out of the economy for being too expensive.

Finally, as the facts show, my opponent is simply wrong about the impacts of Obamacare

Obamacare is in fact an expansion of medicare as well. http://obamacarefacts.com... the very purpose of obamacare was to reform the healthcare system. My opponent simply copy and pasted onto his argument to try and save time, but some of those claims that obamacare simply doesn't cover is sillyness. It is voluntary as well, you do not need obamacare you can stick to your insurance, but those who do not have it, can now afford it.

Thank you. I have met my BOP and Obamacare ought to stay. My opponent dropped a good portion of my arguments, and I shall hold back here due to 1) the video and 2) because my contentions remain the same and my opponent didn't really give me much to try and defend obamacare against as he has BOP.

Debate Round No. 3
DoubtingDave

Pro

I wish to apologize to my opponent, but due to school and other activities, I have not had the time I initially thought I had to complete this debate.
I would like to do a video debate with you on this topic if you wish, though for now I must concede.
TheHitchslap

Con

I thank my opponent for challlenging me on this topic, and I accept his apology. Life happens man!

Thank you again, and audience please give me the win (arguments extended)
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
I agree with Roy's analysis on almost everything .. except the following:

"I don't see why the exact definition of small business is relevant. Whatever the class of businesses polled, the owners are expert on their business, and they have good reasons for their opinions."

The definition of a small business is relevant, because by what standard of measurement does a business become "large" versus "small" ? Is it by people employed? Revenue generated? Services or goods produced? All of these factors vary, and thus to establish a "small" business over a "large" business is essential to get a better understanding the polls.

Furthermore, while those owners may be experts of their own business. They are NOT experts on the economy, and I think that's important to note. The experiences of the business owners will vary, whereas we can (and sometimes do) have a common consensus in economics of impacts of a policy by some standard of measurement with observations. Besides, the end goal of a business owner is to generate short-term profit as much as they can (especially to please stock-holders or self-gain) which is going to overwhelmingly influence how they do and do not respond to polls. If the legislation infringes on their agenda, they will likely frown upon that legislation and vice-versa regardless of impacts in a more general, or broad look at a policies impacts and it's benefits/deficiencies.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
The use of poll data in the debate is interesting. If the general populace is polled on whether Obamacare will be positive or negative on the economy, the result is not good evidence as to whether it actually be good or bad for the economy. That's because the average person is not an expert on the economy nor on Obamacare, and a poll of uninformed opinions is not likely to be very reliable. However, asking business owners what the effect will be on their business is a different story. Each business owner is an expert on the economics of his own business. Each business owner is very likely to know how Obamacare will affect the costs of his business. The business owner is very interested because he has to comply with all the new regulations and taxes that affect his business. The tax regulations (23 new taxes) have been written, and the rules for employee coverage are pretty well established. The main uncertainty is that the government is still writing exemptions. So when a business owner is polled on the effect on business, it is not a case of ad populum fallacy.

I don't see why the exact definition of small business is relevant. Whatever the class of businesses polled, the owners are expert on their business, and they have good reasons for their opinions.

About 80% of health is due to lifestyle, not the healthcare system. The US has very poor lifestyles: obesity, lack of exercise, smoking, alcohol, drugs, auto accidents, youth pregnancy, suicides, and gang violence all affect the statistics. One consequence is the need for a very expensive emergency system. Before Obamacare, correcting for social problems (drugs, accidents, suicides, etc.) the US had the best healthcare system in the world, despite the poor health lifestyles (obesity, exercise). For example, East Asian women living in New Jersey live longer than in Japan or China. It's going to get worse.
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
Donald to be quite frank

I actually live in Canada, and it's insulting hearing those lies.

We do NOT have a year waiting list. Not even close.
Posted by donald.keller 4 years ago
donald.keller
Hitchslap brought up a weak case about Canada... I don't feel he understands the size of the waiting list in Canada. Here, you walk right into the officer, and 45 minutes later, you are in. There, you walk in, sign up, and wait a year.

Healthcare doesn't take into account how, when the governments paying, people will use up the potential. Your soar? Go in and get pills, you're not paying. Of course if you restrict it, you end up like Britain. There, you could have major issues, and they will refuse you help until you 110% need it. You can't even offer to pay for it yourself, you have to wait until they say you may go in.

Another issue is found business-side. When Governments paying, what was a check up suddenly becomes an X-ray and a one-night stay. We see this in any Government paid job.

Myself won't put forth an argument, just assertions. I can't fully support myself In a debate regarding this let. I will make the argument that Universal Healthcare violates the concept of Bodily Autonomy. The right to Govern your body. Self Govern implies Self-Responsibility. You don't hold this right only when it's convenient for you.
Posted by DoubtingDave 4 years ago
DoubtingDave
Arguments up this evening. I have to go to work and it'll be around 4:00 est when I have them up
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
Oh believe me!
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Thanks Obama
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
Thanks Subutai
Posted by DoubtingDave 4 years ago
DoubtingDave
Thanks Subutai.
Posted by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
This is going to be good. Two great debaters on a very controversial subject.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
DoubtingDaveTheHitchslapTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded. He also did not respond to the claim that all poll data is an ad populum fallacy.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
DoubtingDaveTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 4 years ago
ClassicRobert
DoubtingDaveTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by 2-D 4 years ago
2-D
DoubtingDaveTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to con since pro conceded; stronger arguments from con overall.
Vote Placed by Mikal 4 years ago
Mikal
DoubtingDaveTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: concession
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
DoubtingDaveTheHitchslapTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.