The United States Should NOT Mandate Health Insurance among all citizens
Debate Rounds (2)
Citizens-People who live or reside in the U.S. that are proclaimed U.S. citizens.
Health Insurance- Any degree of insurance to protect against ill health.
Based on our observations Pro must prove through this debate that first It is a disadvantage to require health insurance among citizens and second on a cost benefit analysis the cost of doing this far outweighs the benefit after all things are considered. As Pro, we must prove that through cost benefit analysis the cost outweighs the benefit and in 3 contentions we can show and prove that to you. We will first analyse how mandating health insurance will protect the health of the U.S. and our second contention will analyze the economics and the public in this situation.
The first contention will be analyzing the bill in perspective to the health of the general public in the U.S. Going to see that doctor may not lower your weight or even change your lifestyle but it will help lower your risk of different things and overall help us. According to everydayhealth.com just having general check ups can save someones life. "Health professionals stress that these regular exams are important to help identify risk factors and problems before they become serious. If diseases are caught early, treatments are usually much more effective. Ultimately, having a regular doctor's visit will help you live a long and healthy life." Although you may seem healthy on the outside a different story can be told inside your body and having insurance can help deal with these problems. The uninsured has risen 60% in the past 4 years to 46 million people! At a simple check up Depending on your age, sex, and family medical history, a checkup with your doctor may include:
Blood, vision, and hearing tests to evaluate your overall health
Diabetes and Cancer Checks
Discussions on Drug and Alcohol
All of this can help decrease the chance of different diseases and protect you. With so many people uninsured it shows that just these simple examinations and/or discussions are being missed out. The facts are straight that health insurance can help someone get the care they need for a lower cost which will be examined in our next contention. See easily through facts the benefit of a mandate declaring all citizens to have health insurance is way more beneficial than costly due to the fact that more people, and in general the U.S., will be healthier.
My Second contention analyses how the economy and the public will be benefited by this change. To fully see and understand how we found this, a quote by csmonitor.com shows a prime example e"One day soon, I would like to walk into my neighborhood supermarket, load up my cart with goodies and walk out the door. When I"m confronted by security about the matter of paying for the stuff, I"ll just tell them to make everyone else in the store pick up the tab." This quote pulled from csmonitor.com is the introductory to there take on this matter. Looking at this from an economic point of view it may seem at first that prices will rise and overall it will be more expensive to purchase health insurance but, clearly contradicted just from this quote. Currently under our health system those that have health insurance must also pay for those that don"t. Someone must pick up the bill! Mandating will first of all lower the cost in that perspective as if you choose not to purchase health insurance you will be punished not the people who aided by the law and actually purchased or received health insurance from their workplace. With more people going to different private health insurance companies there is more competition for these people which, as simple economics, pushes the price down. Simply seen by usatoday.com we will look at the Netherlands. Everyone living or working in the Netherlands is required to purchase health insurance.yet the percentage of health expenses as a share of Gross Domestic Product, 2007 is 9.8% compared to the U.S 16%. Hospital bed occupancy is 64% compared to the U.S. 67%. Percentage of people who want to completely change the health care system, 9.5% compared to the U.S. at 33%. These simple statistics show that in one country alone following this system is way more beneficial than costly. So, with the public having cheaper fares on Health Insurance and the overall benefit to the U.S. concerning the general public.
In the past two contentions I over viewed and analyzed this bill. Our first contention looked at how the general public's health and then in our second contention the economy and the public situation was reviewed. So clearly seen from our contentions and statistics that the benefits ,of a cost benefit analysis, far outweighs the cost.
I would like to start out by giving an important definition that the Con missed.
Mandate " to officially require (from Merriam-Webster)
This is important because it means that the government is only requiring its citizens to purchase healthcare, not giving it to them.
Also to clarify things, I am not advocating the current health care system, I am simply showing that we should not mandate healthcare.
I will first make my own case, then go on to attack my opponent"s.
People should not be required to have healthcare because requiring healthcare violates personal freedom. American society was created on the idea that people should be free to do what they want (within reason), but requiring healthcare would go directly against this. The government has no right to tell people what they have to buy or what they have to own. If a person decides that they do not want healthcare, why should the government be able to deny that?
Now, onto my opponent"s case.
In his first contention, my opponent claims that the government should mandate healthcare because healthcare is good. I agree that healthcare is good, but Con"s argument does not show why the government should mandate healthcare. The Con has successfully proved that healthcare is good for your health, but has not shown the why this means the government should require it. By Con"s logic, the government should outlaw all alcohol, tobacco, soda, candy, and everything bad for your health.
Con"s second contention, which he claims is about the economy and the public, but it really proves nothing. The quote he gives about a grocery shopper does not relate to this debate at all. Even if the quote related, it would work against him because the other shoppers should not have to pay for the groceries of others. The only economic benefit that the Con shows here is the benefit of removing the current healthcare system. Nowhere does he show that mandating health insurance would have a greater economic benefit than simply allowing people to choose whether or not they want health insurance. Next he gives the example of the Netherlands, but this does not support his position either. First, he says that they spend less money on health insurance, but that is because of our current health care system. If we were to allow people to choose if they wanted healthcare, then it would be even lower. The hospital bed occupancy is close enough that it does not impact this debate and can be attributed to other variables. The Con also claims that more people in the US want to change the healthcare system, but once again that is because the current system is bad, not because mandated healthcare is good.
I am winning this debate because I have shown that it is a violation of freedom to force people to buy something like healthcare and because the Con has no substantial arguments that support his position. Vote Pro!
Jack2 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.