The Instigator
16kadams
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

obamacare

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
bluesteel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/1/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,264 times Debate No: 19087
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

16kadams

Con

I am against obama care. First round acceptance, and clarify you stance. No rebuttals.

1. raises cost
2. takes longer to get an appointment.
3. decreases care.

The burden of proof is on me. I prove that obamacare is bad, and you deny it and show me why. And I have to give a healthcare plan that will help everyone. And you can argue that one too.
bluesteel

Pro

Thanks for the debate 16kadams.

Since the burden of proof is not on me, I hand the debate back to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Con

Obama care raises cost. many people say it will lower them, but I beg to differ. There are 2 types of cost, cost to the citizen and cost to the government itself. At the end of this round I will show my video about the government spending, but now I talk about the individual.

1. Mandated insurance. Surprisingly this raises the cost, basically saying that you have to cover a minimum of x,y,and z. So if everyone is forced to pay for things like better insurance that they don't need (like it covers everything) then you pay more. If you only need it to cover things why not let it cover less aka person to person chooses.
2. Preventive services are more likely to increase costs than reduce costs. A recent article in the journal Health Affairs notes that 80 percent of preventative care services increase costs instead of saving costs. By requiring more preventive services, costs will rise as health care consumption increases. This is quoted from
3. The average 60-year-old consumes about six times as much health care as the average 20-year-old, but Obamacare mandates that insurers charge the oldest individuals in the risk pool no more than three times the lowest rate. As a result, young individuals will pay much more than the actuarially fair amount for their premiums. Management consulting firm Oliver Wyman estimated that premiums will rise by 45 percent for those age 18–24, 35 percent for those age 25–29, and 26 percent for those age 30–34.[4]
4. Obamacare includes many new taxes, including a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices and annual fees on health insurance providers. A tax placed on insurance companies or medical device companies will be passed to consumers in the form of higher premiums.

The CBO expects these taxes to be passed on to consumers.[9] Anthem estimated that premiums would rise by 2.5 percent in fully insured markets because of the annual fee on health insurance providers and by 0.5 percent because of the fees on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs and medical devices.[10]
5.Since heath plans will be required to extend coverage to any qualified applicant and will not be allowed to vary premiums based on health status, healthier individuals will likely wait until they are sick before they buy health insurance. With fewer healthy individuals buying coverage, premiums will need to rise to cover the costs of the sick, which will in turn drive even more individuals in good or even fair health to drop coverage. The result could be a classic insurance adverse selection "death spiral" and an implosion of Obamacare.

Some of this was copy and pasted from http://www.heritage.org... Because I don't have the time to reword that.

takes longer to get an appointment. Here's a video:

Decreases quality of care. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.

Here's the video I was talking abut in federal spending:

sources: http://www.conservapedia.com...
http://www.heritage.org...
http://www.physiciansagainstobamacare.org...

Please watch the videos
bluesteel

Pro

Thanks for the quick reply 16kadams.

==Procedural note==

Please disregard my opponent's videos. He can use them as sources, if and only if he advances their argument himself, in written form. I should not have to use my character limit to refute videos that are subject to no such limit.

==Burden of proof==

My opponent says in round 1, "I have to give a healthcare plan that will help everyone."

It's easy to poke holes in a plan, but much harder to offer a viable alternative for universal health care. My opponent should already lose since he failed to offer an alternative. I only accepted this debate because he accepted the burden of proving there was a better universal health care regime.

==Rebuttal==

R1) Mandated Insurance

My opponent argues that mandating minimum coverage raises costs because people have the right to have crummy insurance. However, Obama answered this objection at the Blair House Summit. He explained that the goal of ANY universal health care system is to ensure that everyone has insurance that will cover them if they get ill. Obamacare requires people to have a basic level of insurance since certain insurance plans are hardly any better than NO insurance. The example Obama gives is the "ACME" insurance he had on his car when he was a young man. He got in an accident and called the insurance company and they LAUGHED IN HIS FACE. The insurance met the requirement of the law that "everyone have car insurance," BUT his deductible was so high that the insurance didn't really cover any damages. Obamacare remedies this: it requires you get an insurance plan with a reasonable deductible.

If someone had a deductible of $2 million, this means that their insurance will not "kick in" and start paying until they accrue $2 million of medical expenses. This is effectively the same thing as being uninsured. No "universal health care" regime could claim to be "universal" without this requirement. ACME insurance companies would merely spring up so people could meet the law's requirements, without "actually" being insured.

The last important response is that this "minimum coverage" doesn't raise costs for people who are already insured. If you have insurance through your employer, your insurance DEFINITELY meets the minimum requirements. The mandated insurance only raises costs for people who currently pay nothing (are uninsured), since paying some premium is more than paying nothing. But Obamacare DOES lower the cost of insurance for these people, compared to what they would pay now. It does so in three main ways: 1) it provides 4 million tax credits to small businesses so they can insure their employees; 2) for people this doesn't cover, it sets up State Insurance Exchanges that aggregate individuals into a collective so they have the purchasing power to demand lower rates, much the same way large companies can demand lower rates in a competitive bidding process; 3) it offers a tax credit to families earning less than $88,000 per year.

A study by the Department of Health and Human Services (using CBO data) found that State Insurance Exchanges would decrease the cost of purchasing insurance by $2,300 for a middle-class family. [1] The study further found that a low-income family of 4 could save $14,900 a year through the use of tax credits. [1] And the small business tax credits will save small businesses $6 billion a year. [1]

In addition, Obamacare results in cost savings to people who are currently insured. There are two main ways: 1) by forcing young people to have insurance, insurance companies can reduce premiums for everyone since this low-risk group reduces the total liabilities an insurance company faces; 2) uninsured people cost insured people a lot of money. When an uninsured person needs medical care, they go to the emergency room (ER). 85% of ER visits are for such non-life threatening conditions. Since the hospital cannot recover their costs from the uninsured, they compensate for this by charging their INSURED customers more. This forces insurance companies to raise premiums. When the uninsured STOP using the ER as their free primary care facility, hospitals can start charging everyone normal rates and premiums go down. The HHS study found that employer insurance premiums would decline by $2,000 per family by 2019. [1]

R2) Preventative Care Raises Costs

My opponent argues that Obamacare REQUIRES preventative screening. This is untrue. It doesn't force anyone to get preventative screening. It merely forces insurance companies to waive the co-pay of APPROVED preventative screening (such as breast cancer screening when you are over 50). A few things to consider:

First, co-pays are relatively small. My co-pay is $10. Waiving a $10 co-pay on my annual colonoscopy when I'm over 40 is HARDLY going to force insurance companies to raise premiums.

Second, co-pays are only waived for APPROVED preventative care . The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has approved breast cancer screening for women over 50, for example, because it saves lives and money. [2] In fact, 12.5% of breast cancer survivors owe their lives to breast cancer screening. [2] Catching it early saves costly interventions later on down the line, like expensive experimental drugs.

R3) Age Rating Bands

My opponent discusses age rating bands, which mean that the elderly cannot be charged more than ______ times more than a young person. My opponent's Heritage evidence says a ratio of 3:1 was considered in the House, but never says whether this ratio made it into the final bill. I was unable to locate any such provision in the final bill. [3]

In addition, many States already have age rating bands of 3:1 or even LOWER. [4] Nationally, premiums for the elderly are currently around 3 times that of premiums for people 18-24. [5] Thus the huge rate increases that Heritage cites are highly doubtful.

In addition, Obamacare will also save people A LOT of money on their premiums. Obamacare requires that insurance companies spend between 80 and 85 percent of their money on medical care. No longer can they reap huge profits by dropping coverage for sick people and giving ridiculous bonus packages to executives. The General Accountability Office states that the 80 percent requirement is already forcing insurers to cut broker commissions and lower premiums; the new rule will save 9 million Americans $1.4 billion in the first year alone. [6] [7]

R4) Excise taxes, etc

My opponent claims Obamacare will tax the medical industry, which will raise premiums by 2.5%. This is a TINY increase in premiums considering the cost savings from the 80% rule and the uninsured no longer using the ER as their free primary care facility. This 2.5% increase would be MORE THAN offset.

My opponent claims he will offer an alterative plan that can insure all Americans. I'm curious to see how he pays for it…

R5) Covering pre-existing conditions

Most people agree that forcing insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions is an unqualified GOOD THING. It is one of the things that Republicans and Democrats both agreed on. For pre-existing conditions, not only did insurers used to refuse to cover the uninsured who had pre-existing conditions, but would also REFUSE TO RENEW coverage for people diagnosed with certain diseases (cancer, diabetes, etc). [3] What is the point of having insurance if they can DROP you when you get sick, as soon as your policy comes up for renewal? [8]

Again, I'm curious how my opponent's universal health care system deals with this problem.

The "death spiral" my opponent cites assumes that people will remain uninsured until they NEED coverage. This makes no sense – under Obamacare, people are REQUIRED to have insurance. There is no option of remaining uninsured.

R6) Decreased quality of care

My opponent claims there will be "government-mandated procedures." Nowhere in Obamacare are doctors or patients forced to undergo certain procedures. My opponent claims, "Rules WILL be put in place as to when doctors can perform expensive procedures." Two problems with this: first, Obamacare doesn't do this. My opponent uses future tense because this is not intrinsic to Obamacare. Second, insurance companies ALREADY do this. Nearly all insurance companies DO NOT COVER expensive "experimental" drugs or procedures (which is pretty much anything "new"). People can still attempt to pay for those procedures on their own, as they do now.

==My case==

Obamacare is good. Insurance reform is key to saving the economy. Half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. [9]

I've already provided most of the reasons Obamacare will lower fees. By extending employer insurance to dependents up to age 26, Obamacare puts more young people in the insurance pool, thus lowering the overall liabilities of the insurance industry, meaning lower fees for everyone. Obamacare offers massive tax credits to help the poor afford insurance. Obamacare offers tax credits to small businesses so they can offer employer insurance to their workers. Obamacare creates State Insurance Exchanges so individual purchasers can use aggregated purchasing power to barter for lower fees, the same way large businesses do currently. Obamacare massively lowers premiums by preventing the uninsured from using the ER as a free primary care facility. And Obamacare caps industry profits by requiring that 80% of insurance companies' money goes to medical care, as opposed to corporate pay and hefty bonuses. Lastly, Obamacare requires insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and does not allow them to drop coverage, which is the only fair thing to do.

I eagerly await my opponent's counter-proposal on how to cover everyone.

[1] http://www.healthcare.gov...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[3] http://www.healthcare.gov...
[4] http://bangordailynews.com...
[5] http://www.ahipresearch.org...
[6] http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org...
[7] http://www.healthcare.gov...
[8] http://www.collinsbenefits.com...
[9] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Con

O.K. I will give my alternative now, ad I do not deserve to lose because I never said when I needed to post it. It is people who pay extra for health insurance get to go to a private hospital, and get good care. People who don't pay still get care at a public hospital. The public one has interns and residents doing the job, trainees. This mat sound bad, but obviously they have a normal doctor overlooking them. So everyone gets healthcare, but the people who pay more get more. And I pay this with local taxes which is much more efficient and works A LOT better.

Please tell me why people have a right to health insurance. Other then obamacare there is no law that says this. Not one, unless your 65. And does the constitution say this? NO!

Cost, say it only raises it for people who have insurance. WRONG! Only about 50% of America pay taxes, and guess what, those people are going to pay for all of obama care. So right there 50% of Americans get to y for the hobo down the street so aka costs raise. This articles show that those privately insured will face higher premiums: http://blog.heritage.org...
A 4 million tax break. Sounds great doesn't it? well guess what those small business will see that disappear. Since over 20 years obamacare will cost 1 trillion they will get taxed more. Yes they will still have that 20% discount, but that is short term. Let say now after the tax credits make me pay 20% of my taxes instead of 40%. well then obamacare costs 1 trillion then I will not get a discount anymore. With that much extra debt I will be now paying 30% of my income, then 40 etc. So taxes in the long run will raise. And the tax credit for he 88,000 dollar family. Sam deal with em too, good in short term, bed in the long.

Once again, State insurance sucks, it is less efficient as you can see in the Lego video it takes almost times longer to get in an appointment, so If I have certain deiseses it WILL be to late.

Makes it cheaper to buy insurance. Sure, but will that help WITH HIGHER PREMIUMS. Not in the long run. Once again it is all short term fixes you are stating. And will save business 1 billion a year, well once again it wont help once taxes raise.

Nope it raises cost to people who are insured. One reason is the taxes raise, 2 Big Government solutions can make even bad problems worse. With virtually nonexistent problems like our alleged healthcare crisis, it's a cinch., 3 At least ObamaCare will reduce our healthcare costs, even if at the expense of our children and grandchildren, who will have to pick up the tab for Obama's profligate spending. But wait — ObamaCare actually raises healthcare costs:

One of the major impacts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is that individuals and families will see higher health insurance premiums. Obamacare imposes several costly new mandates and restrictions on health insurers and providers that will raise health cares costs and therefore premiums. 4 the average premium increase will be even higher: 87 percent of the individual market is projected to see a premium price increase of 41 percent. Costs rise. Som of this was pasted from: http://rightwingnews.com... and here's another site FOR YOUR REFERENCE: http://www.independent.com...

Here's Michelle Bachman on the subject, and she has read the bill: http://www.issues2000.org...

Here's a site about obama care and preventive medicine: http://www.johntreed.com...

CO-pays 10$. Cool, premiums will still raise. an extra few million Americans with 10%$ co- pays is a lot. It will add up, trust me. It's simple math. Yes catching it early does help, so let's take the benefit of the doubt, because you and I probably haven't read the bill and don't know if it truly will enforce preventive medicine, lets just say it doesn't then wont the uneducated not get the screening until their dying, then us taxpayers have to pay a lot of money for the person because of obamacare. Whops she died not we have to pay for all of it for nothing. And even if it does cver screening we still have to pay for the screening ALL the TIME.

Here's a site on the 3:1 thing: http://www.docstoc.com...

Other states have a 3:1 already? Well only one, Massachusetts because their the only state with a obama-care like bill in place. So many? No only one, obamacare is all 50.

Already addressed premiums because they raise! It is still simple math.

How will it save 80%? LOL! Hilarius, Government spending rarely decreases anything. Its a new government plan that will ruin everything. Here's a forum on the topic: http://www.debatepolitics.com...

Pre - existing conditions. Well I think that is a good part of the bill. The system needs reform there is no doubt about it. But I don't like how it was done last time. We need a system that isn't total government control. So there are parts of the bill I like, but as a whole it is bad.

My plan isn't Universal because it is not Socialized medicine.

There is an option of being uninsured, all they would do is fine you. Most people will rather take a fine instead of paying 600$ a month.

Decreased Quality. It is true, My dad is a physician and he says that it will totally ruin the system by ruining his pay, raising taxes, slowing medical research, ruining training doctors, and limit the amount of doctors in the field. Does any of that sound appealing?

Lower fees, BS. I have already disproved you on multiple occasions. And Once again My dad agrees with me that it will raise fees drastically over time, but only lower them for a short time.

Obamacare is bad fore businesses: http://www.debatepolitics.com... http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com... http://healthblog.ncpa.org...

And you said it helped businesses? Good luck.
bluesteel

Pro

Thanks for the quick reply 16kadams.

==My opponent's "plan"==

My opponent says that people don't have a "right" to health insurance. This is irrelevant since we both agreed this debate comes down to which plan "covers everyone" better.

My opponent's plan is to build a brand new hospital in each city, staff it with doctors and interns, and provide free care, while levying "local taxes" to pay for this.

First, my opponent's plan is inordinately expensive since it essentially starts from scratch and builds brand new hospitals all across the U.S., when the uninsured simply need INSURANCE, not their own brand new hospitals.

Here is my rough cost estimate:

It costs $13 million to build one hospital. [1] There are 19,354 cities in the US. [2] That means just building a hospital in each city costs $252 billion.

It would cost up to $24 billion a year just to staff each hospital with cleaning staff (janitors, etc). [3]

In the U.S., we need 2.4 physicians per 1,000 people. [4] There are 51 million uninsured. [5] Thus we need 122,400 doctors to staff our hospitals, including both general practitioners and surgeons. Using a conservative average salary of $200,000, that's another $25 billion a year in wages. [6]

Next add in equipment costs (beds, x-ray machines, computers, MRI machines, heart monitors, etc). Each MRI costs $1.5 million. Giving ONE to teach hospital would cost $30 billion. It's a reasonable assumption to assume that the cost of all the other equipment a hospital needs is not less than buying 10 MRI machines for that hospital. So add on another $300 billion for equipment costs.

My opponent says Obamacare costs $1 trillion over 20 years. Over 20 years, my opponent's plan would cost far more than $1 trillion. The wages alone, over 20 years, add up to $1 trillion, by themselves. The equipment and building costs add up to another $500 billion.

AND I haven't even included the cost of giving away free medicine and treatments yet. The cost of a coronary bypass is $55,000. [7] Given how many coronary bypasses there are in the U.S. each year, the cost of free health care for THIS PROCEDURE ALONE could be $23 billion a year. [8] That's $460 billion for ONE PROCEDURE over 20 years. Adding in medicine and free health care, my opponent's plan now EASILY costs at least $10 trillion over 20 years.

Staffing these hospitals with interns doesn't save that much money since you still have to pay interns and there are a lot of tasks that they are not qualified to perform. Most private hospitals are teaching hospitals and if you don't pay the interns the "going rate," they will prefer to work at the private hospitals.

Next let's examine his payment method: local taxes. My opponent never says WHAT he will be taxing locally. Raising $10 trillion over 20 years through local sales taxes would require enormous sales tax increases, for example.

In contrast, Obamacare actually saves the government money, for example by eliminating subsidies for the horribly wasteful Medicare Plus program. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Obamacare will reduce the deficit by $210 billion over 10 years. [9] "Reducing the deficit" means that Obamacare NOT ONLY pays for itself, but ALSO generates $210 billion in EXTRA revenue for the government. So yes, it costs money, but it saves money too, so we won't need to raise income taxes, as my opponent suggests when he says "only 50% of people pay taxes." My opponent counts the cost of Obamacare but IGNORES the cost SAVINGS.

==Decreased quality of care==

My opponent says that in the "Lego" video we can see that wait times increase. I HAVE heard that wait times are much longer in Canada, which uses a single payer health care system, meaning the GOVERNMENT insures people, as opposed to requiring them to have private insurance. However, in France, which maintains mostly private coverage, wait times have not increased. France is rated the best health care system in the world, yet spends half as much per capita on health care as does the United States.

==Procedural note==

Next, my opponent just posts a bunch of links. I'm not going to refute these arguments unless my opponent actually makes them.

==Premiums will rise==

My opponent cites a blog (RightWingNews) to show that premiums would rise 41%. The blog never says why. This number supposedly comes from Jonathan Gruber, who is cited as "an Obamacare SUPPORTER" from MIT, yet I can't find this number anywhere in his published writings. It's just bandied about in a number of conservative blogs, none of which provide a link to a real, published source.

My opponent never answers all the reasons I gave why Obamacare lowers premiums: younger people in the risk pool lower total liabilities; the uninsured stop using the ER as free primary care; State Exchanges aggregate purchasing power; insurance companies must spend 80% of their budget on medical treatments, which caps their profit margins, forcing them to pass on more cost savings to consumers.

My opponent drops the HHS study: State Insurance Exchanges save the average family $2,300 a year. Low income families can save $14,000 through tax credits. Small businesses will save $6 billion a year in tax credits.

==Preventative care and $10 co-pays==

Honestly, haggling over $10 co-pays is just silly. It doesn't "add up," at least not to very much. Preventative medicine DOES save money though. A breast cancer exam costs maybe $1000. An experimental gene-therapy drug to treat metastasized Stage IV breast cancer can cost up to $200,000 PER MONTH. Clearly, catching it early, when it can be easily removed, is cheaper.

==Age rating band of 3:1==

My opponent never answers my arguments. He doesn't even prove this provision made it into the final bill. Most states already have this requirement. And seniors in this country already only pay three times as much as people aged 18-24, according to national statistics, so this would have no effect anyways.

==People will refuse to get insurance==

Obamacare's fine is either $695 or 2.5% of household income, whichever is greater. [10] If you're poor, getting fined nearly $700 makes no sense, since Obamacare will subsidize you enough to get health care for free. If you're wealthy, not getting health insurance is stupid because 2.5% of household income is A LOT of money.

None of the rest of the arguments is coherent enough for me to respond to. Michelle Bachmann having "read the bill" hardly makes her an authority on it. My opponent claims that "neither of us" have read the bill, yet I've done enough research to understand each of its provisions and have linked my opponent to a timeline of when each provision kicks in, if he would like to read it (previous round, source 3).

Vote Pro.

[1] http://www.reedconstructiondata.com...
[2] http://www.straightdope.com...
[3] http://www.whitestoneresearch.com...
[4] http://www.commonwealthfund.org...
[5] http://www.usatoday.com...
[6]
http://www.payscale.com...(MD)_Degrees/Salary
[7] http://healthcarebluebook.com...
[8] http://www.medicinenet.com...
[9] http://www.tnr.com...
[10] http://blogs.investors.com...
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Con

1. my plans cost:
Texas has adopted my plan in many areas, and other states and districts have certain plans like this, reducing costs, and keeping the premiums lower (better then obamacare). So with this on the table subtract a few thousand cities and royalties/taxes better premiums- a few thousand city's and staffers= less cost in the long run
Obamacare= higher taxes less quality less training bad businesses spending federal pissed republicans :) like me more expensive insurance= WTF America were in a deep hole now. To see y you tube video on the topic look at my video on the comments.

My plan is cheaper then Obamas plus it wont raise the federal debt because its paid locally by states and local city's. My plan would cost more, but not on the federal budget, and i would be made over many stages. 1. big city's 2. after they regain a surplus or stabilize locally then make smaller hospitals in small towns 3. The interns don't get paid because their still in training and the doctors watching them will rotate to other ares nearby changing their pay from saller amounts to bigger ones. So maybe a fellowships pay to a partnership. (a fellow ship makes you s specialist at something in training, a partner ship is you partner up with someone and make anywhere from 100,000 to infinity)

This will cost the same as the ER treatment that we have now. Only people injured or uninsured go there anyway so it will actually be less slightly. Plus my plan encourages people to get insurance so they can get good care. So don't pay and get moderately good care, or pay and get state of the art care. And y plan would include tax breaks for insurance company's and people with insurance for more incentives, bringing costs down over time. The Break would be 5% for insurance holding citizens and 10% for company's. So this medical field will grow and encourage people to get insurance. So costs may go down tremendously over time. And I will bring other tax plans into this that will encourage my plan. It will make a stage tax plan. The rich get a 20% ax (lower then the 40% for me or the 50-70% of the really rich) and the other bracket gets a 5%. With the tax break for the wealthy, those who create the jobs, then job creators would make jobs making people more rich and then people could afford insurance. Plus I would enact a you cant turn someone down because of a pre- existing condition also making the field more prosperous.

And the intern thing. They would have to work at the public one. Forced, it would be required for their training, so there would always be a group of interns at any given public hospital.

My plan cannot take 20 years, it would be implemented slowly over 30 or 0 years, and it would cost less because if the locals say we don't have enough money they can suspend for a while, and with the bug city priority they would technically only need to build one in places that have a population of 500,000 people or more in the 20 years, the rest can take from 1-100 years or more if needed. So once again, my plan is better in the long run.

"In contrast, Obamacare actually saves the government money"
this is false, consult the video on the bottom for more detail. It describes it with visual aid much better than I could.
Here's a site on this that covers this issue and many of my other points: http://townhall.com...
Also my plan kills of these subsidies and gets rid of medicaid, also reducing spending.
Ignores the cost of saving. Yes in some cases ObamaCare reduces spending, but there a lot more spending then saving in that bill. it's like saying 100-1=a lot of saving. No you still add %99 of that bills spending into the budget.

"However, in France, which maintains mostly private coverage, wait times have not increased. France is rated the best health care system in the world, yet spends half as much per capita on health care as does the United States."

notice 3 thing in this. 1. private coverage
2. rated best
3. spends less.
The rated is obviously because f the mostly private insurance, obama still adds about 16 million people to the government dull, and even though that's only some, that is a lot more then France. So since their system is actually similar to mine that should prove something.
Spends a lot less. True, their population is much less, and their healthcare system was reformed correctly, not perfectly, but they did pretty well.
I believe in privatization. So the private coverage sounds great, as of now their healthcare plan sounds like mine and works, proving my point.

O.k. I'll tell you about the links then. They all have to do with more spending, decreased quality, and worse/longer wait times. Oh and more costs.

Gruber: http://econlog.econlib.org... this summarizes his statements.

The ER statement. Well I have insurance and I went to the ER once, and paying for a doctors appointment is expensive too so that will man = cost.
Younger people: well older people will be on the plan too so = cost
and your state exchange aggregate is government interference which is always bad for the economy as has been proven. So economy goes down, bad. If you tell a company what to spend on then they can't have free market, so that is a bad point to take.

Yes the tax credits etc. well that wont stimulate the economy once taxes rise. so not they see a tax break on a 40%, later they will see one for 70% so they are still paying a lot, we have seen this in England.

Now math the 10$ co-pay. 16 million Americans are UN-insured. So lets d the math: 16 million times 10 = one hundred sixty million. That adds up quite a bit.

I've been searching the 3:1 was put in the bill. Starting in 2014, Obamacare will limit insurers to a 3:1 age variation in premiums. These legislative restrictions on age-rating health insurance force carriers to reduce rates for older individuals while significantly increasing rates for young adults. Heritage.org claims it is in the bill in writing. But neither you or I can affirm this because I haven't read it, you haven't, our scourges haven't and almost no on has read the WHOLE thing. But i have read part of it's areas online, well in summery, and it is in there. (this was about a month ago so if i can find the site I will give it to you, I remember because I wrote the stuff down so I could get an opinion.)

"Obamacare's fine is either $695 or 2.5% of household income, whichever is greater."
choose one pick one, defend it cant refute it without clarification.

"None of the rest of the arguments is coherent enough for me to respond to. Michelle Bachmann having "read the bill" hardly makes her an authority on it."
well that gives her more authority to talk about it with more knowledge then you or I. She has read most of it, so she can give you and me a lot of info on it. I have researched it too, and it is not pretty, well it is bad but my plan would work much better.

"1. Did you know that . . . since Jan. 1 of this year (2011), you cannot use your flex-account at work (FSA) or health savings account (HSA) to purchase over-the-counter medicines?

2. Did you know that . . . since July 1 of last year (2010), Americans have been paying a 10 percent excise tax on all indoor tanning services?

3. Did you know that . . . starting in 2018, if your health insurance is "too good" or considered a "Cadillac" plan, then you will incur a new 40 percent tax on your health plan?

4. Did you know that . . . Obamacare has 21 new or higher taxes in it, totaling over $500 billion in increased taxes going to the government over 10 years?"

http://www.theblaze.com... Finish it at this link.
bluesteel

Pro

Thanks for the quick reply 16kadams.

==My opponent's plan==

Texas has built free public hospitals? Source?

I searched "free public hospital Texas" and only found one thing on Snopes, which turned out to be true. Texas' Parkland Memorial Hospital (a private hospital) was able to have 70% of their clients be illegal immigrants by using a blend of Medicaid, State and local taxes. [1] But my opponent's claim is suspect.

My opponent says his plan is "cheaper" because it is "paid locally." That makes no sense. If his plan costs $10 trillion over 20 years, it costs that amount, regardless if the $10 trillion is paid nationally or locally. However, the tax burden will be felt FAR heavier locally since states and localities have far less money than the federal government and states cannot deficit spend. States and localities are REALLY strapped for cash right now. According to Cato, state and local debt increased by 55% from 2000 to 2006. [2] I don't think ANY of the states would be happy with my opponent's plan.

My opponent doesn't respond to my cost estimates, so he basically concedes that his plan costs at least 10 times as much as Obamacare, but achieves no cost savings. All he says is that interns don't need to be paid, but we're not allowed to use slave labor in this country anymore. Interns just went to medical school and have huge debts; they obviously need to get paid. Interns DO get paid now. [3] In addition, they are only interns for one year, and residents for two more after that.

My opponent drops the CBO study that Obamacare pays for itself and more. So Obamacare costs nothing because it saves so much money that it pays for itself. It even adds $210 billion to the government coffers.

His only conceivable refutation is "here read this link and watch this video." I continue trying to advise him that debate requires him to explain his arguments himself.

I also just have to take a second to LOL. My opponent clearly hates the "socialization of medicine," yet his plan is to build free, government run hospitals throughout the country. That's far more reminiscent of how Communism would solve this problem than is Obamacare. It is also more reminiscent of single payer systems too. All of my opponent's "quality of care" arguments would obviously apply to his free government-run hospitals with slave-labor interns doing all the work. Sounds more like a "death factory" than a hospital.

==Reducing income taxes==

The next component of my opponent's plan is to REDUCE income taxes in order to pay for the plan. His logic is that lower taxes leads to more job creation and thus more tax revenue, in the long term. This idea is based on the extremely discredited Laffer curve. Reagonimics (tax cuts) failed to generate jobs during both Reagan's time and George W. Bush's tenure as president. Even assuming that this widely discredited theory were true, my opponent's tax breaks still eliminate at least half of the government's revenue in the short term.

With more than half of the government's revenue gone, the government would basically be forced to abolish the military, Social Security, and Medicare.

==Slavery==

My opponent says interns would be "forced" to work at the public hospital for free. That's slavery.

==Cost savings==

My opponent still does not refute my cost savings argument or the HHS study. I won't bore you by repeating them once again (I'll do so in round 5, under "voting issues"). But the two biggest effects are clearly from: the cap on industry profits and the uninsured no longer using the ER as free primary care.

==Gruber==

Cool, thanks for the link. The 41% figure isn't in there. Guess that answers that question.

==$10 co-pays==

My opponent presumes here that all of the uninsured will start getting breast cancer screenings, which are only recommended for WOMEN over FIFTY. I can't believe my opponent is haggling over TEN DOLLARS when his plan routinely gives away FIFTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLAR procedures for free.

==Age rating bands of 3:1==

It's in the bill? Link? Source? I went to the entire bill at one point and hit control F and couldn't find it.

And my opponent still doesn't answer my two KEY responses: states already require this AND according to national statistics, premiums for the elderly and the young ALREADY fall within this range.

==Fines==

Obamacare fines are either $695 or 2.5% of family income, whichever is larger. My opponent asks "which is it?" The answer: WHICHEVER IS LARGER. Take 2.5% of your family's income: if that's less than $695, you pay $695 in fines; if that's more than $695, you pay the 2.5%.

==Bachmann==

Lol.

==4 New arguments==

Fun, more copy and pasting to refute. I urge my opponent to stop pasting new arguments from various sources and stick with refuting my arguments and extending the arguments he's already got.

1. Health savings accounts

These are special accounts where people can save money, tax free, in case of a medical emergency. Given that the government is not taxing them, it makes sense to require that they stop using their health savings accounts to purchase non-prescription medicines like Nyquil and Tylenol.

2. 10% excise tax on tanning salons

So? It's a progressive tax given that the poor don't go to tanning salons. A tan costs like 40 bucks. Are you really going to cry because now it's $44 for a tanning bed session. It's a GOOD tax anyway since tanning gives you skin cancer. According to international cancer researchers, tanning beds are as likely to give you cancer as arsenic or mustard gas. [4] Obamacare undoubtedly saves itself money by discouraging some people from using tanning beds.

3. Cadillac plans

These are only the BEST plans that only the uber-wealthy can afford, with annual premiums of $30-40,000 plus. [5]

4. New taxes

One of the things Obamacare did was raise the Medicare payroll tax. Why is this fair? Because the last three rounds of HUGE Medicare benefit increases (part B, C, and D) were all done WITHOUT raising this tax. If you get more benefits, you have to pay in more.

In addition, my opponent's plan would have to increase taxes by even more than this, so I don't get why he's still arguing this point.

[1] http://www.snopes.com...
[2] http://www.cato.org...
[3] http://forums.studentdoctor.net...
[4] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
[5] http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org...
Debate Round No. 4
16kadams

Con

I have multiple scources for this claim. 1. I lived there for 6years, 2. My family lives there, well mst of it, 3. http://www.criticalaccesshealth.com...; And this site shows how OBAMACARE will kill these hospials: http://www.texastribune.org...

My plan is cheaper because it will cost more at first but less in the long run. Because of the incentves for company's to give insurance. And my plan will work better because it will increasecompetition, not decrease it. It's basic economics, obama care will hu economy in the long term and mine wont.

I did respond to your pricing. DO I NEED TO BE MORE CLEAR. I talked about it multiple times.


"My opponent drops the CBO study that Obamacare pays for itself and more. So Obamacare costs nothing because it saves so much money that it pays for itself. It even adds $210 billion to the government coffers.".

You say i make no sense... jez. Its simple, If the goverment pays for more things it wount pay for itself. That's self explanatoy thats why I didnt respond to that. Things tat my 9 year old sister can figure out make is obvius.


"His only conceivable refutation is "here read this link and watch this video." I continue trying to advise him that debate requires him to explain his arguments himself."

Thats what i've been doing! the video is just a scource!

My plan isnt socialized, because obamaCare takes over a whole indistry. Mine helps the private sector acheive its goal. COmmunis is goverment control, mine is actually goving more control and benifits to the people not the goverment. So you assumption is false.

"All of my opponent's "quality of care" arguments would obviously apply to his free government-run hospitals with slave-labor interns doing all the work. Sounds more like a "death factory" than a hospital."

They aren't slaves, The medical interns ere in med school. My dad's a doctor so they are in training at school. He did surgerys in med school and he wasn't a 'slave'. So my care is increased in privae hospitals. Becuase the interns graduate and become doctos at the pther hospital, having experience. The public one having sub-par healthcare helps the real doctors. So it increases care for people who actually pay for their care. So my plan is still better.

==your income taxes comment== I like how you do that = sign thing.

That makes no sense. Lwering taxes saved us in the 2001 reccession, it was breif. Notice under Carter the economy was on the dec, after reagan and his economics took control the economy ined, declined, then inclined again. So it does create jobs, so look up the facts, not the assumptions. Here's a site if you want more explation: http://www.conservatismtoday.com...

Since I am using localy paid taxes, lowering federal taxes won't hurt the spending process. So your assmption forgot my whole deal on where the taxes came from. Since the plan is under state control they can do what they want. Build 5 hospitals in 80 0ars if they want, but my plan allows more choice, therefore making it better.

"With more than half of the government's revenue gone, the government would basically be forced to abolish the military, Social Security, and Medicare."

I would not have to do that because it is paid locally. You just said that, memory. So since all of that is federal then none of that would dissapear. So that fails. My plan still holds here too.

Yes they would be forced to work there. I am forced to go to school, your forced to go to school too (collage is optional though) so that is slavery too, We are forced to work at school. So it is not slavery, and interns get pay on certian occasions, it is small but its there. So it is hardley at all savery.

I did refute all of what you said, and plus you still to respond to both of my videos, the coays add up, every single tax raise on ma care (only said something about a few of them), havent effely shown your case on obamacare spending beause it is obvious that spending and more spending does NOT = less spending. It's all simple logic. And my france comment, so if my plan is lire's ad there;s is supposedly best how is mine bad? The HHS study is wrong. I have countless links on how it increases spending.

Gruber:

I have a link for the 41%, and also all of his statement debunk your whole theory, and hae made the bill partially. So w=that being said, that means all of what you have said is false.



"My opponent presumes here that all of the uninsured will start getting breast cancer screenings, which are only recommended for WOMEN over FIFTY. I can't believe my opponent is haggling over TEN DOLLARS when his plan routinely gives away FIFTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLAR procedures for free."

Undemy plan people without insurance will decrease over time, so tat 55 thouthand will diminish slowly. And the 10$ co-pay is permanent nder obamaCare so every year that adds up, where as my plan decreaces spending overtime, another fallacy. Do you want me to get a lawer, write thisbill, then send it to you so I can be more clear!

3:1

brain melted I read so much of obama care and don't know where to look. If you tell me it's likely section ill read it and tell ya'll in the comments section after this ... So tired.

Obamacare fines are either $695 or 2.5% of family income, whichever is larger. My opponent asks "which is it?" The answer: WHICHEVER IS LARGER. Take 2.5% of your family's income: if that's less than $695, you pay $695 in fines; if that's more than $695, you pay the 2.5%.

Odd you think a bill would choose one ot the other, that's the problem with politics. They just want you money, and the mandate is unconstitutional anyway, its at te suprme court now, and since it is a 5:4 conservative advantage then this topic may be uselles in a few weeks, lets hope.


Why LOL Bachman?

Your argumants save people money. Cool, except when the taxes rise, Gruber on that link said all of this, so so far someone who made the bill said its gonna do opposite of what it was supposed to, so most of your points are invalid anyway so why refute them?

The tax on tanning salons. I don't care for them but it is not the goverments buissns to dictate what things you can do, indirectly through taxes, or through law unless it is terrible for you i.e. drugs. Skin cancer isn't linked to organized crime.

Yes cadilac plans are epensive, and those rich people deserve bette rbecause they pay more, under obama care people pay more or less ut get the same care, obamacare = unfair

Medicare and medicaid and the army will all be cut due to obacare so none of this matters.












bluesteel

Pro

Thanks for the debate, 16kadams.

== My opponent's plan ==

His plan is to build thousands of hospitals throughout the country and force the local governments to pay for it.

My KEY responses here were:

1) His plan costs at least $10 trillion over 20 years, with no cost savings. Obamacare costs only $1 trillion over 20 years, and achieves $1.21 trillion in cost savings (according to the CBO).

My opponent's ONLY answer is that we can make interns work for free, but there are two problems with this: a) interns have already graduated medical school and have massive student loan debt; they don't want to be slave labor and b) doctor's wages were only one small component of the $10 trillion; the other components were: cost of building hospitals, cost of medical machinery, cost of giving away free procedures and medicine, cost of cleaning staff, and cost of non-intern supervising doctors and surgeons.

Given his plan is more expensive and his number 1 objection to Obamacare is cost, he should clearly lose.

2) Local governments are strapped for cash.

California has slashed billions of dollars from our state school system because we are so desperately in need of money. Governor Jerry Brown is raising the retirement age for our pension system to 70 and is creating a hybrid defined benefit/401K retirement plan because we can no longer afford our state pension plan; refusing to implement Brown's pension cuts would require payroll cuts of 30% (i.e. laying off 1/3 of government workers). The situation in states is dire. According to Cato, state and local debt rose 55% between 2000 and 2006.

Conclusion: STATES AND CITIES CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY FOR THIS.

Lastly, and further hurting his credibility, when I asked my opponent to provide evidence that Texas did this on a wide scale, he provides a broken link. His other link is to a public hospital in Texas that would be hurt by Obamacare because the quality of care is so low there that once people have insurance, no one would choose to go to the public hospital. That's why Obamacare is less "socialized" than my opponent's plan: it allows consumers choice.

The last thing I need to respond to here is whether tax cuts lead to job creation and ultimately more tax revenue. Here is a study by Anisha Desai that job growth was much lower than normal during the Bush years, in spite of tax cuts. [1] The conclusions from Reagan's "supply side" economics are the same: "A central component of supply-side economics is the Laffer Curve - named for its inventor, the economist Arthur Laffer - which shows that low tax rates produce more
[government] revenue than high ones . . . In the media and [academia], however, the Laffer Curve is widely discredited." [2]

== The rest ==

The rest of my opponent's previous round was pretty incoherent. One of his responses was something to the effect of "gah, my brain exploded" (see the 3:1 section). So I'm not going to try to parse through his responses (he still leaves most of my refutations untouched). I'll just restate the main voters on Obamacare.

== Voting issues ==

1) Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions. It's breach of contract for your insurance company to be allowed to drop you when you get sick. We buy insurance with the belief that it will be there when we need it. It's ridiculous that if you get cancer, your insurance company can refuse to renew your policy after a few years.

2) Obamacare extends insurance to dependents up to age 26. This is important for anyone going to graduate school.

3) Obamacare saves people a ton of money.

Here are all the ways how:

a) Obamacare ensures that the uninsured will no longer use the ER as free primary care. Currently, hospitals are forced to charge insured people MORE to make up for the losses from non-payment that they are constantly taking in the ER. Currently, 85% of ER visits are for non-emergencies, meaning they are uninsured people seeking free care. This would massively lower costs.

b) Obamacare caps insurance industry profits. If you watch the documentary Sicko, the insurance industry used to do pretty horrible things to increase profit margins, like retroactively cancelling policies of sick people for stupid reasons ("you failed to disclose that you had a yest infection 10 years ago"). Obamacare ensures that 80% of insurance money MUST be spent on medical treatment. In the rules first year, a study found that 9 million Americans will save $1.4 billion on their premiums.

c) Obamacare provides tax credits. The HHS study found that poor people could save up to $14,000 per year using tax credits. Small business can save 6 billion a year.

d) State Insurance Exchanges let people pool together and demand lower rates, using a competitive bidding process for who gets to cover them. This is how large employers, like Costco, get lower rates for their employees. The Exchanges would save the average family $2,300 a year, according to the HHS study.

4) Obamacare saves the government money. Obamacare raises Medicare taxes to a more fair level, given that they were never increased to cover the additions of Medicare Part B, C, and D. It abolishes the wasteful Medicare Plus program. The CBO says in total, Obamacare saves so much money that it pays for itself AND generates an additional $210 billion in revenue for the government.

For all these reasons, Obamacare is superior to my opponent's plan. Vote Pro.

[1] http://www.faireconomy.org...
[2] http://www.yorktownuniversity.com...
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ChrisWalczyk 11 months ago
ChrisWalczyk
I truly do not understand how ignorant and pathetically mindless the American people can be by believing that healthcare is just going to be handed to them at the cost of the middle and upper class. Not only Obamacare is unconstitutional, but it is absolutely unaffordable in every sense of the word. Our nation"s current debt is over 16 trillion dollars! For the f irst time in our nation"s history, we are unable to pay back our debts to foreign nations because there is virtually no government income. I do not understand how the American people believe that a healthcare system that will cost 1 trillion dollars, will help our nation"s economy. This is the exact reason why Obamacare is without a doubt, unaffordable. Even if the U.S. Government is able to collect 1 trillion dollars from hard working Americans over the next 10 years, do you really think that these people are just going to be handed health insurance? The answer to this question is unequivocally no. It"s simple, if you are a Medicaid patient, or a low-paying Medicare patient, your doctor will refuse to see you. Do you really think that medical doctors in the United States stayed in school 11 to 14 years after high school to accept 8 dollars for a 45 minute appointment, 20 dollars for a 300 dollar medical procedure, and 2, 000 dollars for a 50, 000 dollar surgical operation? This is how much these insurance companies will be paying if 60, 000, 000 people do in fact get health insurance over the next 10 years. It"s unbelievably ridiculous that these uninsured Americans actually believe that they"ll just be able to walk right into a doctor"s office a get healthcare for the ridiculously low amount of money that these insurance companies are paying. It"s not about the Affordable Healthcare Act"s constitutionality; it"s about the simple fact that it is unaffordable in a nation who"s debt is over 16 trillion dollars! These are the facts, and this is what the American people have to understand.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I never conceded anything you guys, obamacare cant save because people living on the government duh wont help the debt. DERP DUH SIMPLE!
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
My dad who is a doctor helped me make my hypothetical 'bill'. He says it is a lot better then obama care, and says obamacare will screw us over. He says it will increase markets as well as better quality care. So with a doctor on my side helping my with this I dont see how i lost in that point F-16. He is a lawyer too.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Typo in the previous comment. I meant PRO wins in every category.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
RFD:

Pro proved that Con's plan is more expensive than Obamacare which negated Con's contention about cost. He didn't really explain how and why the plan being paid locally would make it cheaper. Pro's point about pre-existing conditions was very well-articulated and went unrefuted. Pro was able to prove that it is both cheaper and helps more people.

This is one of those few debates where I feel justified voting all 7 points in favor of one debater despite there being no forfeits. Con had multiple spelling errors, bad grammar and sentence structure and poor presentation. His round 4 was incoherent. He constantly asks the reader to take a look at his videos which is unfair to his opponent because those videos would then have to be refuted using valuable character space, so he loses points for sources as well. Many of his claims weren't found in his sources, and ones that he cites are extremely suspect. Pro loses conduct for personal attacks which makes unfair assumptions about what his opponents hates, etc. Con wins in every category.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
oh i did on the other one
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
what tips
Posted by Lordknukle 2 years ago
Lordknukle
I see that you didn't use my tips.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I have a you tube video on the topic:
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
and all my other scources
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 2 years ago
Chrysippus
16kadamsbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct tied; all other points to Pro. Con had many, many spelling errors, and his syntax was so garbled at times I could bare make out what he was trying to say. Pro thoroughly refuted his arguments; although there are significant problems with Obamacare Con failed to make a coherent case against it, and his proposal was poorly thought out and illogical. He also relied heavily on biased and unreliable sources.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
16kadamsbluesteelTied
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 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: See comments.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 2 years ago
BlackVoid
16kadamsbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes that Obamacare pays for itself with the immense amount of savings. His counter-proposal was proven to run into the trillions of dollars, and citing one hospital in Texas doesn't prove that this plan will work on a universal scale. I'm giving sources to Pro because Con frequently uses links as arguments themselves rather than using them to support his own. "Obamacare is bad for businesses (insert link here)" isn't an argument.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
16kadamsbluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: Solid debate. The issue of Obamacare got really focused on the costs and pro brought up some points about the inefficiency of the already existing healthcare system and as convincing as that was I thought it only resulted in a tie. Con did bring up the constitutionality of it (only one sentence though) and longer waiting periods but he did not elaborate on them which could have given him the arguments. I gave him sources because I enjoyed the lego video, pro had better spelling though. Great job