The Instigator
am1r
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Grantmac18
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

The US government ought to guarantee universal healthcare for its citizens.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Grantmac18
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,490 times Debate No: 28943
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

am1r

Pro

Resolved: The United States ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens. I affirm (agree).
I value morality and my standard is giving the most benefits possible to citizens. The following definition is provided for clarification in the round.
ought: Used to indicate obligation or duty
Justifications: We analyze the implications of this resolution through morality. It is our duty as a society in this situation to save as much money as possible, thus helping the citizens of the US, and save as many lives as possible, both of which can be achieved through extending universal healthcare to all citizens of the US. My standard holds true because one of the US government"s main purposes is to give the most possible benefits, social, economic, and otherwise, to its citizens. Universal healthcare does this. Burdens: The Aff must prove that if the US were to guarantee universal health care for its citizens, improvements to the healthcare system would occur as a result. The Neg must prove that if the US were to guarantee universal health care for its citizens, improvements to the nation would not occur as a result, but instead negative effects would follow.
Contention 1: Universal healthcare in the US would lower mortality rates, since private insurance somewhat raises mortality rates.
a. Thornton, Ph.D in Economics says: quote "results indicate a negative relationship between private insurance and mortality, thus suggest that extending insurance to the uninsured population would result in an improvement in population health outcomes. The estimate of the marginal effect of insurance coverage indicates that a 10% increase in the population-insured rate of a state reduces mortality by 1.69-1.92%.
b. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, "The United States has the highest per capita health expenditures of any country in the OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development]. The U.S. spends 16 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on healthcare compared to 8 percent for the United Kingdom and Japan, and 10 percent for Germany and Canada. Yet all the other countries mentioned have a higher life expectancy at birth and lower infant mortality rate than the U.S." endquote. Through universal healthcare, we can lower these mortality rates. This argument achieves my value because human lives are saved when mortality rates are reduced, so it it also links to my standard because it shows how guaranteeing health care for all citizens reduces mortality.

Contention 2: Universal healthcare will benefit the US, economically. (Warrant from Wash. Post by Ezra Klein)
a. The Congressional Budget Office found that universal healthcare will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion. J.
Similarly, Dr. Mohit says about universal healthcare being implemented quote, "our country would save a minimum of $950 billion per year. This is equivalent to one third of our national budget." endquote. One way that universal healthcare will save money is preventative care will be practiced, so people can get care when their health problems are first starting, not when they are deep into a sickness.
b. The Council of Economic Advisers (to the White House) or (CEA) finds that quote, "Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance. C. CEA projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. A key factor driving this trend is the tendency of small firms not to provide coverage due to the rising cost of health care." endquote. It also finds that quote, "[Universal healthcare] would increase the economic well-being of the uninsured by substantially more than the costs of insuring them. A comparison of the total benefits of coverage to the uninsured, including such benefits as longer life expectancy and reduced financial risk, and the total costs of insuring them (including both the public and private costs), suggests net gains in economic well-being of about two-thirds of a percent of GDP per year. It would likely increase labor supply. Increased insurance coverage and, hence, improved health care, is likely to increase labor supply by reducing disability and absenteeism in the workplace. This increase in labor supply would tend to increase GDP and reduce the budget deficit. The CEA report makes clear that the total benefits of health care reform could be very large." endquote.
This achieves my value premise because it is moral for the American people and the economy to prosper, and so they are given many benefits.

Contention 3: Universal healthcare will yield many benefits to the US.
Globality Health finds that quote, "Evidence suggests the implementation of a universal health care system benefits a country"s economy. Aside from a healthier workforce and lower mortality rates, universal health coverage (UHC) can boost the economy in more general ways. A study, carried out by the consultancy firm KPMG, looks at the effects of UHC on the economy of South Africa. The results show the economic benefits of introducing UHC in 2011 have so far outweighed the costs associated with introducing the system and funding it with increased taxes. The study from KPMG shows the expenditure of R13 billion this year on healthcare could create an additional R650 million in economic activity nationally. This positive impact is likely to stem from increased productivity from a healthier workforce and increased life expectancy. It has been shown, for countries which have implemented national health insurance scheme or UHC, benefits come from a healthier population. Increasing the average life expectancy by one year could potentially increase the country"s GDP per capita by 4 percent. As UHC leads to improved health among workers and a decrease in time off due to illness, it will impact on productivity levels. Several international studies have estimated an increase in labour productivity between 20 and 45 percent in the medium to long-term." This achieves my value premise because if universal healthcare is implemented, it would affect our country positively, which would be moral, and many benefits would given to citizens.

Because of all these reasons, universal healthcare is desirable for the US.
Grantmac18

Con

I thank my opponent for his submission and I will begin by stating my position followed by a rebuttal and conclusion in the second and final round.

DEFINITIONS

Topic
: The US government ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens.

Ought: defined as an obligation or duty.

Universal Health care: An organized health care system that provides health care benefits to all persons in a specified region.*

*This definition seems to fit best into the given context, it can, however, be altered at Pro’s request.

The resolution states that the US government ought to guarantee universal health care […], the moral obligation, presented by Pro would claim that all citizens must be guaranteed health care benefits. Yet, US citizens were already receiving health care benefits; for example, Employer Supplied Insurance (ESI), Medicare, and Medicaid who continue to provide health care benefits to the disadvantaged, elderly, and employed [1].

Furthermore, Medicaid is specifically intended to provide benefits to the most vulnerable; the poor. Each state is reimbursed a portion of their expenditure from the federal government, with poorer states, based on average per capita income, receiving the most funding [1]. The moral obligation of aiding those who are aged and financially disadvantaged is a sentiment shared by most, Medicare and Medicaid offers health care benefits to these groups. It would seem a tad redundant to claim that the US government ought to guarantee health care benefits to groups who are disadvantaged and already have access to benefit programs.

The social implications of instituting a UH system must account for the aging population, lack of primary care capacity, and the closing of hospitals. These factors all suggest that, according to Lynn Massingale, MD, patient volume in emergency departments will increase [2]. While at this point, we can only speculate as to the severity of the issue its significance and impact can be observed in other nations with a UH system. To summarize my argument, to state that the US government ought to guarantee UH for its citizens under the proposition of a perceived moral obligation is, quite simply, a morally righteous and oversimplified response to health care progression. In a heavily polarized political climate such as the US to guarantee a UH policy seems to suggest obedience as opposed to morality.

[1]: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...

[2]: http://healthcarereform.procon.org...

Debate Round No. 1
am1r

Pro

am1r forfeited this round.
Grantmac18

Con

I'm not sure what occurred but my opponent did not submit an argument, thus he has forfeited the second and final round of this debate, which resulted in a failure to refute my arguments. Sadly, this should result in an uncontested victory for me.

Though not obligated, I will refute Pro's position by declaring that while it may be desirable for some citizens to receive universal healthcare coverage, namely those previously without benefits. It is not a service that the US government is obligated to provide and that was the focus of this debate.

I'd like to thank the voters, assuming this receives a vote, and my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Grantmac18 4 years ago
Grantmac18
Brilliant, thank you kind sir. I look forward to our exchange.
Posted by am1r 4 years ago
am1r
Actually never mind; I just edited the debate instead.
Posted by am1r 4 years ago
am1r
@Grantmac18: I will make that change and repost/ start a new debate.
Posted by Grantmac18 4 years ago
Grantmac18
Sadly, I cannot accept this debate as is, I would gladly accept if you would be so kind as to agree to alter your definition of ought. My proposition is to define it as follows: "used to indicate duty", with duty being defined as a moral or legal obligation.

This would allow the issue to evolve into a more philosophical debate, currently Con would have to prove that UH is both financially and socially irresponsible; which is of course not supported by any reliable evidence.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
am1rGrantmac18Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture causes a loss for conduct and arguments.
Vote Placed by CIIReligion 4 years ago
CIIReligion
am1rGrantmac18Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO Forfeited, so CON won!
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
am1rGrantmac18Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit win.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
am1rGrantmac18Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, so obvious win for Con. S&G for a few nitpicky things in R1, followed by forfeits. Possibly too harsh, but Pro forfeited, so it'll be a loss anyway.
Vote Placed by Nobodycares 4 years ago
Nobodycares
am1rGrantmac18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Argument and conduct to Con simply because Pro forfeited the rebuttal round, Pro did not provide any sources whereas Con did.