The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The U.S. government should require its citizens to have health insurance.

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: 8/1/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,175 times Debate No: 36240
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




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.

  • Forbes predicts that individuals will pay more out of pocket expenditures with a requirement. Overall, the authors found that “premiums for younger, healthier individuals could increase by more than 40 percentThe CBO even states that this would add $15, 000 dollars to every family in the US with health insurance. Judge, the other team may argue that people that are born with pre-existing conditions should get insurance, but are you willing to add $15,000 dollars to your total expenditure, knowing the fact that this figure will skyrocket over the next few years?

  • Depending on the state, mandated benefits for health care have actually increased premiums by a minimum of 20% and maximum of 50% in the past.

  • Kaiser Family Foundation states that the Massachusetts’s individual mandate on health care creates 15% higher premiums than the national average. It shows that the individual mandate will increase premiums in a national level, too.

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

  • Every single year 98,000 people die every year because of mistakes from overworked doctors, and instead of alleviating this problem, requiring health insurance will only add more victims to the 98,000 people who die every year. As we can see in Massachusetts, doctors are now at a stage that they have stopped taking patients clearly hurting the people. This is because the waiting times are increasing so much that people in serious conditions die in the lounge because the doctors can’t help them since they didn’t come early enough.

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.

  • Almost 80% of the life-saving drugs that local paramedics use to treat patients are in short in supply at any given time.

  • Secondly, Three United States factories produce 90% of the generic drugs. The 2003 Medicare Modernization Act changed the costs of EMS1 and dextrose , significantly reducing the ability of factories to maintain their profit. Other companies followed. The first shortage of cardiac epinephrine and 50% dextrose occurred in 2010, which are two important cardiac drugs. Medical directors were scrambling with just a 30-day supply and no future deliveries were available.

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.

  • According to NBC news, The US is number one in medical research. In research and development for medical discoveries, the health insurance industry spends a 54% of the research.

  • LOGIC: By forcing insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions, companies will be losing billions of dollars. When they lose billions of dollars, they must put less money into research. If less money goes into research, then the health of citizens across the WHOLE WORLD will decrease. Since the US is number one in medical research, they are the ones that find the cures. These companies then patent it and charge money to access these drugs. Countries get most of their important research/cures/drugs from the US. So, an individual mandate means less money into research which means less profit from foreign nations.

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




SO this is my first mistake i apologize in advance in not following any correct procedures or any of such mistakes i make secondly i am South African so i don't really know much about America other than what my English and History teachers teach me in class so now onto my argument: In today's society America sits at a position where the unemployment rate is increasing and the ability to pay for high insurance payments will be a problem for the 40 odd million people living below the poverty line, yet i believe that the united States government has the money capacity to pay partial amounts of their current national budget on medical insurance especially if they can give $1 billion to the South African government they will be willing to help the people of their own country especially since it will help industrial production in their own country so what i am saying is that if there is an economic problem involved,the American government should subsidize the insurance companies to lower costs. From the research i have made i have been able to discover that over 26% of United States citizens have been involved in accidents which has resulted in deaths,on top of that they were the people between the ages of 1-44. The working class,the people that will work to create a stronger economy and help the currently weakened economy. Now i am not saying that medical insurance could have saved all of this 26% of deaths but if it could even help provide medical assistance,better treatment and even save just a small amount of 10 peoples lives would it not be amazing? every life is important and all people are equal as what the American ancestors have so greatly discerned so why cant we save those 10 people,give them the gift of life, let them help our community better themselves. Using a study conducted by the Milken institute i have discovered that many Americans suffer from chronic diseases that could have possibly been avoided and treated in a positive way rather than just killing or disabling them. By making medical insurance mandatory we are providing them with better medical treatments than what would usually available to them we would also be lowering the costs of the exorbitant hospital bills we see in today's society so thus by making the US government require it citizens to have health insurance i believe we will be improving the standard of living in the United States in terms of American medical well being. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1


Okay Now Judges i will be refuting my opponents argument.
  • So my opponent gives this sympathetic argument about 40 million people who cannot afford health insurance and we should mandate so that they can get it. Also, There are only 6 million people who can't afford health insurance according to fox news. Here are my refuationsThe problem is that if we mandate health insurance, we won't neccessarily give help to the people under the poverty line. And if we do then comes the other wrondoings. The Cato Institute has reported that premiums after the mandate would be projected to driven up by 20%-50% if compensation were to be provided, affecting even the minimum benefits package as seen in states such as Massachusetts. By 2016 premiums would have risen by 30%, an increase that is 46% faster than current rises. Secondly, The Congressional Budget Office's states that the mandate will add $15,000 on middle-class families that earn an annual income greater than 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four) PER YEAR and are not provided with health insurance by their employer. Also tax rates will increase by over 20%. Since this debate is on the overall benefit to all 312 million americans, we have to value the majority.
  • First, all those people who would be saved if they had health insurance is false for many reasons. First, look at my whole quality of life argument. The Quality of service will decrease resulting in a huge amount of causalties proven in the second contention. Also, the quality of medicine and availability will go down resulting in many deaths. Second, Amitabh Chandra of Harvard University states that in a recent study, Americans received less than 60% of recommended care and that mandating health insurance isn’t the only reform that the health system needs. He goes on to state that higher spending isn’t associated to lower mortality, which means that more generous insurance doesn’t translate to better care.
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


So basically opposition has brought up a lot of statistics basically telling us that more people die with medical aid and that the entire population should be considered in the equation and not just the minority well i will start off by first rebutting oppositions major points:
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
Debate Round No. 2


awesomeness forfeited this round.


terrorizedorphan1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.