The U.S. government should require its citizens to have health insurance.
I NEGATE the topic...
RESOLVED: The U.S. government should require its citizens to have health insurance.
Before we present our main arguments, we’d like provide a proper framework for today’s debate…
1. This debate revolves about insurance care and whether or not it should become mandatory. Even though laws like Obamacare can be brought up as examples, this is not the main focus of the resolution and the debate.
2. To show whether the motion stated is good or bad, we shall have fiat power, which is the power to show what would happen if the resolution was true or false.
3. An individual healthcare mandate directly leads to universal health care, which is when every citizen in a country is insured.
The standard, or the most important issue of today’s debate shall be the social welfare of American citizens.
With all that said, we have three main arguments …
CONTENTION 1: Premium Increases
My first argument is that the individual mandate is not feasible because the premiums are increasing.
The impact is clear. People would not be able to pay for insurance showing that the individual mandate would not be effective and hurt the government at the same time.
CONTENTION 2: Quality of life
Our second main argument is that mandated health insurance hurts the quality of health care. If we have to pay for mandatory health care with increasing premiums, shouldn’t we get the best healthcare possible?
Subpoint A: Medical Errors
The impact is clear. People are dying due to overworked doctors and once 40 million people get health insurance, the amount of people dying will skyrocket. In addition to that, many people will not be receiving care by these overworked doctors.
Subpoint B: Shortages
When private companies have a reduced profit due to serving patients with pre-existing conditions because of the mandate, the companies stop making important drugs like epinephrine to maintain their profit level.
The impact is clear. To make the individual mandate compliable, the government must force medicine companies to lower prices. Since these companies wouldn’t generate as much of a profit, a lesser amount of medicine would be produced, as shown by the 2003 Medical Modernization Act, except it would be much worse since it on a much larger scale.
Subpoint C: Research and Development:
The health insurance industry is a huge funder of medical research. When there profits are reduced by treating more sick patients, they reduce their funding to research and development. Without the industry funding medical research and development, the research would be much worse and we wouldn’t be able to find important cures.
The impact is clear. If the mandate were active, then the quality of health care would drastically decrease due to the lack of supply, lack of medics, increased waiting time, and reduced spending in research.Thank you and vote for the negation
Okay Now Judges i will be refuting my opponents argument.
Now i will add a piece of evidence to help strentgthen my side
Now comes word, via a large study by the University of Virginia that surgical patients on Medicaid are 13% more likely to die than those with no insurance at all, and 97% more likely to die than those with private insurance.Since medicaid is a form of a government insurance, it should be taken in consideration.
Logic: Except that Medicaid is broken. Medicaid so severely underpays doctors—reimbursing them at 72 percent of already-stingy Medicare rates—that many physicians refuse to see Medicaid patients. Medicaid patients, in turn, fill up emergency rooms, where they delay the care of the seriously injured, yet another way which this decreases the quality of healthcare.
Thank you and vote for the negation
And the hyperlinks
The reason why i started out by looking at the poor Americans is because they would be the majority that wouldn't have medical insurance yet. On top of that more than 50% of Americans already have health care of which we can more than likely determine was thanks to the Obama's Affordable Care Act. Also on top of that with more people investing in health care more people would see an opportunity to start their own insurance companies thus creating competition which will result in cheaper prices and a better quality of insurance available because each company will strive to be better and provide for their clients which is a good boost for the people.
Secondly with accidents happening everyday will never know what our future will be. We don't know what could happen to us each day when we walk out the door of our respective houses everyday and this is why I believe we should insure ourselves to protect us from the uncertainty of the world outside. If more people die with healthcare than those without doesn't really make a difference to us,the people of the United States. The fact that they died couldn't be held. Death is an inevitability what we plan on doing is helping save those who are sick and critically injured by giving them the best medical care available at cheaper prices and that is what i Believe should count in this debate not statistics that might not even have relevance and still those people might have die in a plane crash,a car accident,a drug overdose or even at war. We cant stop those but we can save the people that are injured better than if they were hurt and didn't die on the scene
awesomeness forfeited this round.
terrorizedorphan1 forfeited this round.