This debate is impossible to accept. If you somehow manage to accept, you will have to forfeit or it will be considered a loss.
The resolution of this debate: "US should implement Universal Health Care".
Please note that the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) is not Universal Health Care. , so I am not here to debate Obamacare, but instead advocate for Universal Health Care similar to that of Canada and majority of West Europian countries.
To clarify the resolution further: Every American resident citizen should have access to free health care. They should have same access regardless of their wealth.
If you have questions regarding the debate, please ask in the comments. I am looking for a serious debater.
4 rounds, 72 hours, 10,000 characters, Voting: 2500 Elo
For the sake of the reader, the format will be:
Round 1: Acceptance Only
Round 2: All arguments/contentions in this round
Round 3: Rebuttals only (No new arguments)
Round 4: Defense of contentions (No rebuttals) and a conclusion
1. No forfeits.
2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be within the debate or in comments.
3. No new arguments in the final round.
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.
5. No trolling.
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution).
7. No deconstructional semantics.
8. Burden of Proof (BoP) is shared
9. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.
I look forward for an exciting debate.
I want to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
I have to admit that this issue runs very deep in me. While I do look for a great debate, I really hope that I can change the readers' and my opponent's stance on this issue. But I'm not naïve to assume that my arguments would have any factor at all (sigh).
Contention 1: The Moral Argument for Universal Health Care
The main argument for Universal Health Care (UHC) is that it's fundamentally a moral issue. Just as an example, someone may not receive a transplant if he or she is uninsured! A 22 year old was "refused a transplant evaluation" because he was uninsured . In an article titled "Need an Organ? It Helps to Be Rich" the writer explains that "[p]atients who are uninsured or unable to pay are sometimes denied lifesaving treatment because hospitals can't afford to foot the bill for the surgery or the extensive recovery" . It speaks about the story of an uninsured patient who's in a dire need for a transplant, but can't receive one. He explains it:
"There's really nothing I can do. I don't have the insurance to do it right now. They are treating the symptoms. I'm managing, but I know I'm slowly getting worse and it's not going to get any better."
This is not so different that the story of a New Jersey woman who had a 51 pound tumor removed . What does this have to do with the contention? I'll let the woman explain it herself:
“But I couldn’t go to the doctor right away because I was going to be 65 in June and had to wait for the Medicare to kick in.”
Healthcare costs have caused bankruptcies and financial distresses. A study has shown that "medical bills are the main cause for bankruptcies" . The main cause! How can this be moral? How could anyone stair at these facts and shrug their shoulders: "It's their faults that they don't have the cash!"?
Contention 2: The Health Argument for Universal Health Care
WHO reports that UHC leads to "better access to necessary care and improved population health, with the largest gains accruing to poorer people" .
UHC facilitates access to preventive care. IOM reports that "uninsured adults are less likely […] to receive recommended screening services" . In fact, not even all health insurance plans cover all preventive care (they are required to provide some). Preventive care is extremely important for the health of an individual .
Uninsured patients are likely to have regular checkups to manage their diseases. Up to 25% of diabetes patients go without a checkup for two years! Uninsured women have 30-50% higher risk of dying. Insurance reduces mortality by 71-85% of HIV patients in the first 6 months. I didn't mention the impact to mental health, hospital care, traumatic injuries…etc. These numbers are real and they are significant .
Contention 3: The Uninsured Insured
Many focus on the impact of UHC on the uninsured. But as long as you are insured, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. Right? Well, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you are wrong!
Many health plans have high deductibles. ACA's bronze plan has an annual deductive of $6,600 (with some exception). Joe Schmick, a Republican, says: "Do I really have insurance when I have to pay this much out of my pocket? It doesn’t feel that way" . These insured citizens face the same challenges I've listed above of skipping care and avoiding preventive care. Do we only care when things get really bad?
Only a true UHC will solve this problem. An individual's goal and focus would be to promote their own health only, and for the government to facilitate that ability. No one would have to evaluate the pros and cons on DDO to see if they should check a doctor or not, or whether they should do preventive care.
Contention 4: The Economic Argument for Universal Health Care
The impact of a lack of a UHC on the economy is significant. Here's just a few:
1. Competitive Advantage
US spent more than 17% of its GDP on health care, higher than any developed country ! This is expected to rise to 25% by 2025. Autoweek reports that "Japan's health care gives Toyota edge [over GM]". GM could have launched 3 additional new-model programs every year if it didn't have to pay for its retirees' health care . Do I need to say more?
2. Strain on Business
GM claims that healthcare costs add between $1,500 and $2,000 to the sticker price of every automobile it makes . Health-care premiums are skyrocketing , and ironically, insurance brokers blame ACA. This causes a real strain on businesses, leading to more businesses cut health benefits  and cutting jobs.
3. Job lock and Loss of Productivity
Job lock is "the inability of an employee to voluntarily terminate employment with a particular company because he or she would lose current health care benefits" . This leads to a reduction in entrepreneurship, and it can be close to 4 million Americans . One study showed that, in California alone, in 2002 job lock affected 179,000 people, with $772 million in foregone productivity .
Contention 5: The Greatest Nation in the World Ought to Be Great
The United States is the only nation in the developed world without a universal health care. As I've shown earlier, the US spends more than any country in the developed world.
You would expect with all this spending that the US citizens are faring better than the rest of the world. Wouldn't you? At least you would be ranked (somewhere at the top, or the middle). But the US was ranked 37th in the world ! US ranks below France, Italy, Spain, Austria, UK, German and Canada. This is embarrassing.
All of the countries that have fared better, have Universal Health Care. I argue that if someone is doing something right, and you're doing it wrong… copy what they do!
I do appologize for going so late, I've been quite busy and I've had to rush this due to my lack of time. I also request that my opponent hold off on his next round for as long as he can so that I may be able to post my next round.
Contention 1: Kant's Categorical Imperiatives
P1.The Government should only act to enforce the imperatives of Perfect Duties.
P2.Universal health care does not meet the standard of a Perfect Duty.
C1: Thus, the Government should not act to enforce universal health care.
""Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law... Perfect duties come in the form ‘One mustnever (or always) φ to the fullest extent possible in C’, while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form ‘One must sometimes and to some extent φ in C’" 
According to the above we see that Kant establishes two duties of that of the government; Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties. Perfect Duties are those things of which the government must provide to ensure that the government and that society is fully functional. What are these things you may ask? These things are the simple things ensured under that of the Social Contract that you give up for a Civilized Society (not to kill, rape, steal, etc...). These things are indeed key as we can see that this ensures that of a Minarchy at the minimum. What that means is that the Government is to ensure that the people are safe. Everything else falls into that of the Imperfect Duties. Now note that these things may protect and benefit the public, we can see that if they're not of the Social Contract like ideals that they automatically fall into this category and SHOULD NOT be carried out by the government, but by Private entities.
“Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law” 
We can see that if the government intervenes on the behalf on the people to infringe on that of an Imperfect duty that they would undermining humanity to achieve their due ends. We can see and must ensure that the Imperfect Duties are carried out by the Private Entites as things like people's health and Private debt is something that is to be delt with by the individual NOT the government. 
Contention 2: Universal Health Care is inneffective.
"Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment.” 
Here we can see that even in nations that have this health system that it actually makes this issues worse in terms of waiting for treatment and to extend the damage we can see this hurts the freedom of the individual and that is something that needs to be preserved.
“The employee is better off to charge a $50 doctor bill to the insurance company—even if the [insurance] company spends $20 to process it—and have the employer pay the extra $70 in a higher premium to cover the bill and the processing cost. The alternative—having the employer pay [the employee] an extra $70 in cash– yields the employee only about $42 [because of federal income, social security, and Medicare taxes] and costs the employer $75.36 ($70 + $5.36, the employer’s portion of the social security and Medicare tax on $70).” 
Here we can see that the affects of the Universal Health Care is disasterous to our economy as the costs are keeping pace with that of one of the Top US economic movers. We can see that this will severely harm our nation and that this law will cost our nation a total of 2.9 MILLION jobs.  This is abserd, because instead of focusing on national healthcare it would be better for our nation to focus on economic growth and advancement, but this is doing the exact opposite by killing jobs for the sake of a lost cause as this doesn't ensure that you will get better treatment. No, it's a loss of jobs, economic growth, and finially a great loss in Medical Treatment. This is something that my opponent cannot account for, because even if it's free to get your brains blown out it doesn't mean you're going to do it and you sure wouldn't want to do it. The only economic growth you may see is that on the insurance companies side due to the federal government colluding with Insurance Companies to require that everyone purchases their product.  Even at that the Insurance Companies are finding themselves down in profits by 0.3% in late last year from the year before. This is another threat to freedom as the federal government is creating an economic monopoly which poses on Economic Freedom. Here I would like to quote Economist Milton Friedman on the matter, "There is no special role for government in the medical care field at all. There is the same role for government in this area, as there is in every other field – to enforce laws against fraud and deception, to help some people who are in dire distress. For ordinary medical care, there is no case for government financing at all. The costs of ordinary medical care are well within the means of the average American family. And the problem of sometimes it being large and sometimes it being small is readily handled through the availability of private insurance arrangements.
" [Youtube video]
Here we can see that the federal government, nor any nation's government, should involve themselves in this field as for it harms the economic freedom by limiting the choice of health care and this is the type of collusion that Saul D. Alinsky would support.
We can also see what my opponent is purposing is a form of price Control and price controls can harm a buisness for one of two reasons. 1. That the Government sets the price to high and the public buys less and less of the product and as a result this harms the buisness and the economy and it shows that the people do not want said product. This product's price then raises again in order to make up for the lack of growth forcing the government out of buisness.2. The governemtn sets the price to low and people will buy the product out and there will be a shortage of said product. Many people state that the rising premiums is due to the collusion of the private industry, but here we can see that this isn't due to the collution of the Private Companies, but this is more or less the collecting and merging of Private Industry in this industry. We can see that the lack of Competition harms the pricing and option as with more competition we can see that there are more companies competitng for lower prices to get custumors who try to get a better deal. We can see that this merging has harmed the economy and that Nationalization will harm it even more.  Furthering we just need to look at the Yugos which is a car from the former Yugoslavia. Due to the industry being Nationalized we can see that the quality of the car never improved due to no incentive to improve buisness due to the lack of the market competition. The same thing can and will happen to the health care if you nationalize it.
Contention 3: Rand Paul Counter Plan Solves.
I'm afraid that I'm running out of character space and room here so I'll have to be brief on this.
-Federal Employees have better health care options and choices than the average American.
-Federal Employees have over 150 Health Care Options.
-Offer Average Americans these options instead of 1 insurance mandated by the government as their main care.
-Private citizens may also selected a secondary care if they wish and it would be separate from their premier that would be from their job.
-This would thus solve Disadvantages of my opponent's case while solving the free market issues that his causes.  and [youtube video Milton Friedman]
2. (Lectures and Drafts on Political Philosophy, translated Frederick Rauscher and Kenneth Westphal (in preparation). Relevant contents: “Naturrecht Feyerabend” course lecture, fragments on political philosophy, and drafts of works in political philosophy.)
3. (Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012.)
4. (Tanner, Michael, and Michael Cannon. “Universal Healthcare’s Dirty Little Secrets.” Los Angeles Times. 2007.)
5. (Hsieh, P and Zinser, L. "Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care”" The Objective
Standard. 2007. Pg. 4)
8. ( Commanding Heights the Battle for the World Economy. 2004.)9. Paul, Rand. Taking a Stand. N.p.: Center Street, n.d. Print.
I want to thank my opponent for his argument. I held from posting this round as per his request.
Rebuttal 1: Kant's Categorical Imperatives
I was shocked to see Con present a Kantian argument against Universal Health Care. It's well known that the Kantian arguments support the argument for Universal Health Care, not against it. Here are three Kantian defenses of UHC . I will explain this complex philosophical argument to the reader to the best of my ability, and show how this will play significantly for my favor.
But before we continue, Con didn't explain why Kant's Categorical Imperatives should be considered as the standard to be used for defining morality. Even if the Kantian argument holds, Con fails to show why we should adhere to the Kantian standard. In any case, I will show how the Kantian argument will turn this contention for my favor against Con's claim. I ask the reader to bear with me because this is very philosophical and can be confusing.
Kant's argument that humans "have an absolute worth that makes it necessary that all humans treat each other as one wishes to be treated" . And that we should never treat someone as means, but only as ends . So if I steal from someone an object, then the person I stole from is a mean to the object I stole, which makes it an immoral act. How about Universal Health Care? We all want to have access to Universal healthcare. No one wishes to be denied healthcare nor to be forced to pay bills that have a significant financial impact. Everyone wished to be able to do preventive checks to ensure we are healthy. According to Kant, this would be the maxim that we should promote for. Therefore Universal Healthcare would be considered Perfect Duty (Falsifying Con's second premise).
Finally, Kant's arguments are very extreme. Based on Kant's analogy, the government shouldn't collect taxes as it's not considered a Perfect Duty. Not to mention we cannot kill a terrorist even if we are saving millions of lives ! That's absurd. So I apologize to Con, but this contention is dead.
Rebuttal 2: Universal Health Care is ineffective?!
Cherry Picking Fallacy
Con's argument is considered a Cherry Picking fallacy . Con presented some issues in the British and Swedish health systems, and concludes that UHC is ineffective. That's like saying that the Golden State is a terrible NBA team, because they lost to terrible teams in the NBA (LA Lakers, Utah, Brooklyn…etc) . This type of cherry picking is fallacious, and for the record Golden State won the NBA championships and had an amazing record of 67-15 .
To properly evaluate if the Universal Health Care is effective or not, let's look at studies that consider several factors pertaining to quality of health care. The Commonwealth Fund ranked seven countries based on Measures of Quality, Efficiency, Access, Equity, and Healthy Lives . Where did the US fall in this list? Dead last. The other 6 countries ranked in order are: Netherlands, UK, Australia, Germany, New Zealand, Canada. All of those countries have UHC . Not satisfied with this study? Another study shows that the US is ranked 37th in the world. The top 20 (I stopped checking) health care systems in the world all provide Universal Health Care to their citizens. If UHC is ineffective, why is the US ranked 44th in the world in effectiveness, and all West European countries and Canada are deemed more effective than it?  To claim that UHC is ineffective is a laughable argument.
Con brings an odd argument: "The employee is better off to charge a $50 doctor bill to the insurance company…etc" According to the strange analysis, the alternative is "having the employer pay [the employee] an extra $70 in cash". What is Con talking about! Since when UHC requires an employer to pay the employee, and on top of it, charge it for taxes. Con doesn't understand UHC. This is invalid.
It's UHC, not Obamacare
Con then brings an argument that UHC would lead to 2.9 loss of jobs. That's false! What Con is referring to is the impact of ACA (a.k.a. Obamacare), not UHC. The reason that there are job losses is because businesses with 50 employees or more must provide health coverage. This caused some businesses to "cut back employee hours to part-time to avoid paying for their health coverage" . This debate is not about ACA or Obamacare, it's about UHC.
I've already shown the UHC reduces strain on businesses, increases productivity and provides companies competitive advantage. This claim works for my favor against Con.
The Conservative Economist
Pro then brings the opinion of a biased economist Friedman, who was a major advisor to Republican U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Conservative British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher . In his argument, he states: "The costs of ordinary medical care are well within the means of the average American family. And the problem of sometimes it being large and sometimes it being small is readily handled through the availability of private insurance arrangements." So I agree that someone may be able to obtain private health care, but did Con forget about deductibles? As I've shown in Round 2, when someone has to pay more than $6,600 in deductibles, this leads to people skipping care (See the Uninsured Insured – Round 2). And people can be denied coverage. Cancer Support Community explains: "If you do not have health insurance at the time of your diagnosis, private health insurance will likely be difficult to obtain after your diagnosis. […]If you’ve been uninsured for more than 63 days, your task will be more challenging" . So this argument is false.
Con argues that nationalization of UHC will harm the economy. He brings a very odd example of the "Yugos" car, and how nationalizing it impacted its productivity. But Con doesn’t fully understand UHC. The last country to implement UHC was Israel. What was the impact on the economy? A study explains: "It is important to note that since the introduction of [UHC] in 1995, the share of health in GDP has been stable, in contrast to a rise in the preceding decade" . So this argument actually tips to my side. As I've shown in Round 2, the share of health in GDP in US will increase from 17% to 25% by 2025. That's not sustainable, and therefore UHC is definitely a better system.
Rebuttal 3: Rand Paul Counter Plan Solves?!
I find Con's argument very interesting. Why? He uses the Kant's argument (Contention 1) against Universal Health Care. But if that argument stands, then it would refute this contention because Rand Paul's proposal isn't considered a Perfect Duty, and therefore ought not to be enforced. It's clear that Con is biased as he is an avid supporter of Rand Paul. I find it disappointing.
Second, Pro doesn't explain why Rand Paul's proposal would work, and not face the challenges that he listed against UHC. Or is that just another biased argument? While I sympathize with Con for not having enough space, but unfortunately I can only rebut what Pro has claimed. Unfortunately, Pro's argument is a bare assertion. Con provided the Rand Paul's book as a source, and I actually had to read parts to it to find Rand's proposals. Con, please provide page numbers. That's not acceptable.
So Rand Paul advocates for nothing new! He simply advocates that people should have access to insurance care (specifically the ones that federal employees have). That's not so bad, except there was no mention of the costs of these plans and the deductibles associates with them. If the plans and deductible are very low, and no one can be denied coverage even if they're diagnosed with a disease (e.g. cancer), then this is essentially very close to UHC. So I picked a random plan  (Don’t expect me to study the entire set). The premium for one and his family is $462.17 per month, and a $700 deductible. So the total cost in a year before the insurance company covers costs would be: $6,246.04 per year. And it's not 100% coverage. There are copayments if you need insurance. So, while I respect Rand's effort, (It's definitely better than no health care), it still leads to the issues I've listed before: Skipping care, less preventive care and financial burden. It also means that anyone who's diagnosed with complex diseases (cancer, AIDS) can apply for full coverage, and won't be denied coverage. This is great. But wouldn't this plan face the same issue of rising insurance coverage for everyone? Con's argument is hypothetical, biased, doesn't provide good health care (Skipping care, less preventive care and financial burden) and doesn't necessary relieve the impact to rising health insurance costs.
 R. Paul Olson, Moral Arguments for Universal Health Care: A Vision for Health Care Reform, pp. 185
My opponent and I agreed to tie this debate. We will be finishing this debate at a later date.
I have not made any agreements with Con and therefore this is considered a forefeit and deemed as an immediate loss according to the rules..
Of course I'm just kidding. We agreed to tie this debate. :)