The Instigator
eastcoastsamuel
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The United States government should not require its citizens to have health insurance.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,065 times Debate No: 31270
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

eastcoastsamuel

Con

Please note; by taking the side opposing my own in this debate, you will be in negation of the government requiring its citizens to have health insurance i.e. you will be essentially against the individual mandate.

The resolution at hand is, "The United States government should not require its citizens to have health insurance." As the negation in this debate, I will be arguing that the US government should require its citizens to have a form of health insurance. This is similar to the controversial individual mandate included as part of the "Obamacare" health care package passed in 2010. I wish my opponent good luck, and I look forward to a great debate.

Rounds:
1.) Acceptance (no arguments may be posted)
2.) Definitions, standards and opening arguments
3.) Rebuttals
4.) Further rebuttals and/or advancing arguments
5.) Closing statements (no new arguments may be posted)
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

constitutionally. it's against liberty to require people to buy insurance. at no other time has the government been able to mandate someone do something, simply because they exist. this is not in the constitution... it's forced into it.
if you would like, i can show why the commerce clause is not applicable, and why it should be considered an unconstitutional penalty, not a legitimate tax.

i imagine you will argue that we need people to buy into a program in order to sustain it, especially to pay for sick and poor people etc. but, if the program is all it's cracked up to be, people should not have to be coerced to join. the government has economy of scale advantage among many other advantages... it could create a program that would almost surely cause people to want to join, and then we'd have all the advantages of well funded insurance, without making people join, allowing a few not to if that floats their boat. libterty interests are protected.
Debate Round No. 1
eastcoastsamuel

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

I will post my opening arguments and then proceed to address my opponent's arguments.

Contention One: Health insurance saves lives
Each year, over forty-five thousand people die due to lack of health insurance [1]. The same study by Harvard University also found that those who lacked health insurance had a forty percent higher risk of death than their counterparts who had insurance. However, having insurance can help to save lives and improve quality of life. J. Michael Williams, currently an assistant professor of health care policy at Harvard found that having insurance has significant positive effects, especially in those with chronic ailments such as HIV, hypertension and traumatic injuries [2]. Having a mandate which requires citizens to purchase health insurance would help deal with these chronic ailments.

Contention 2: The individual mandate has worked
The individual mandate--the mandate that requires Americans to purchase health insurance--is known to be successful and has worked in the past. Following the passing of an individual mandate in Massachusetts, two-thirds of people previously uninsured became insured [3], and that if implemented nationally, we would see the effects all over the country [3]. Since it is well-documented that health insurance saves lives, and since the individual mandate has worked previously, then the individual mandate nationally would save lives.

Contention 3: Economy
When implemented in Massachusetts, the individual mandate helped lower premiums, making insurance cheaper as a result [3]. As previously established, evidence suggests that a national individual mandate would be successful, like in Massachusetts, so premiums would be lowered nationally as well. With the individual mandate, functioning of the labor market would increase along with an increase in labor supply and a lowering of the labor deficit, increasing the GDP by 100 billion dollars per year [4].

I will address my opponent's contentions in my next round post, in order to stick with the round order I posted in my previous round and to allow my opponent to add to the points made in the first round.

I strongly urge a ballot in negation of the resolution.

Sources: [1] http://www.pnhp.org...
[2] http://theincidentaleconomist.com...
[3] http://www.thedailybeast.com...
[4] http://www.whitehouse.gov...
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
eastcoastsamuel

Con

eastcoastsamuel forfeited this round.
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
eastcoastsamuel

Con

eastcoastsamuel forfeited this round.
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
eastcoastsamuel

Con

eastcoastsamuel forfeited this round.
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 3 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
i will argue that con says having insurance saves lives. this may be true, but doesn't address why we should require people to buy it. i've argued that we can have optional insurance, even if by the government, without forcing people to buy it. we can guarantee access while respecting liberty to not have it
No votes have been placed for this debate.