The Instigator
linate
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
riverbendebate18
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

people will die otherwse - all states should have opted into the medicaid expansion

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 2 votes the winner is...
linate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 372 times Debate No: 60029
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

linate

Pro

all states should have opted into medicaid expansion

it basically amounts to politics alone being the reason people are dying.

obamacare included a medicaid expansion for people with low income.
(people with more than little income are part of the normal obamacare insurance exchange program, that may or may not include subsidies.

the main reason the states should have opted into the expansion, is because so many people will die if they don't. an estimated 17,000 people will die because they opted out of the expansion.

http://healthaffairs.org...

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net...

also, getting medicaid to one's state is a financial boon to that state. it causes funds to flow to the state. it's in the states interest to take the money. even if there were some strings attached, or a co pay with teh state, overall it is more beneficial cause it's basically free money, at least with respect to the state.

also, government run insurance is known to be more cost effective than other programs anyways... usually. the USA spends 17% of its GDP on healthcare, and has worse results than other developed countires. the other countires spend 10% on health care and get better results. most of those countires have govenment health care. (some have tightly regulatd private markets, but this is getting into another debate)

also, the states can work with the federal government to create their own program. it's not like they are without options.

while there may be principled reasons to be against the expansion, none are sufficient to overcome the above points. even if you quibble with some of the points, the fact that 17000 people will die otherwise is sufficient reason to take the expansion. if you have quelms with the system, work to reform it. in the mean time, take what you got.

the polticians knew it would make them look bad to take the expansion, so they went against it.

it basically amounts to politics alone being the reason people are dying.

----------------------------------

what about the argument that states don't want to give up their autonomy or increase their bank rolls? what if con said this?

con basically said. all states accepted orgiinal medicaid as it gave them money, helped poor people to some degree, and allowed the states to determine eligibility.

con says many don't want the expanded medicaid because in this version they would be religuishing control of elibility, and having to pay a portion of the bill. con admits that that portion is ten percent.

the problem. states on average already pay 43% for its beneficiaries under the old rules. under the new rules, they only pay 10%. and more to hte bottmline, the average state's share after the new rules are estimated to range as an increase of only 1.1 to 2.8%.

http://www.cbpp.org...

so states would be according to con, quibbling about losing a little more money, but while at hte same time getting a ton more money in return to their state. getting that large of influx of cash to your state, for such a small obligation yourself, is a no brainer in terms of stimulating your economy, at least from the perspective of the states.

also, states would be according to con, placing a relatively small degree of control over their dealings, inproportioally higher than the amount of money they can get, and above the value of the human lives involved.

is it worth getting a lot of money to your state and saving a lot of lives.... in return for a very small state budget increase, and very relatively small reliquishment of control?

yes, it definitely is.
riverbendebate18

Con

Thank you to PRO for instigating this issue.

PRO Failure to Use Factual Information, Various Mistakes
_______________________________________
First off, PRO states that "17,000 people will die because they opted out of the expansion." This statement is utterly and completely false.

I researched the PRO sites listed and found that the "17K will die" is in the comments section, written by someone not employed by the Health Affairs Blog, making that information unreliable.

The second link appeared with a poster from tumblr.com. Surely, a social media site is in no way reliable and is completely untrue.

These statements show poor research by my opponent.

I'm asking that he come up with a more specific and factual link to his research or I should ought to receive the citing point.

Also, I would like to point out that my opponent stated that I had made various statements.
Here's an example:
"so states would be according to con, quibbling about losing a little more money, but while at hte same time getting a ton more money in return to their state. getting that large of influx of cash to your state, for such a small obligation yourself, is a no brainer in terms of stimulating your economy, at least from the perspective of the states."

Note that this is my first constructive of the night and had not inputted any of that information. Please also notice occasional grammar mistakes and difficulty of understanding what he is trying to put forward.

Rebuttal
_______________________________________
Since I already proved that the "17K will die if medicaid is not expanded" figure is not factual, I'll skip right to the PRO's point of stating that government run healthcare is known to be more effective.

First off... where did that information come from? Any source?

Second, government run healthcare is socialism in a nutshell.

I'll prove that government run healthcare is the farthest thing from effective.

The Huffington Post wrote an entire article explaining how health care in Canada is counter productive and costs more than it's worth (I). Keep in mind, this was the same program my opponent was promoting, yet again showing poor research.

Medicaid is in a way socialism, since it is government run. So, states that didn't take Medicaid saved time and frustration rather than 'lost 17K lives'.

The next few paragraphs from my opponent are referring to arguments that I never made, so I'll skip over those until PRO can explain them.

Conclusion
__________________________
In conclusion, I have proved that my opponent has made wrong statements from the very first sentence he wrote. There is no valid figure that explains that states that don't opt into Medicaid will have 17K die. It just doesn't make any sense at all.

Back to you, pro.

Bibliography
I - http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...
Debate Round No. 1
linate

Pro

seventeen thousand is well established. here is another article with reference to a harvard study

http://www.dailykos.com...#

it was well established before obamacare that about forty thousand people died yearly due to no healthcare. about half of states opted into insurance, that means about half will live. the math makes sense.

even that article that con said was against government health care, was actually just against canadian care. here is the same article talking about the greatness of other government run health care countries

"But the worst part is that things don't have to be this way. While Canadians are getting a raw deal for their health care dollars, patients in Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland receive universal access to health care without lengthy queues. Patients in Australia, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, and France enjoy better outcomes from the health care process than Canadians from their universal access health care systems. And vitally, payers in these countries all face a smaller bill for health care than Canadians."

i can find articles that say the french system, for example, is better than the USA in terms of wait lines and reduced expesnse and anxiety. it's an article by a libertarian, even.

con didn't respond to the well known fact.... the USA spends eighteen percent GDP on health care, while most industrialized countries spend ten. look it up. i behoove you to. insurance compaies are a middle man who serveds no purpose but to charge profit and adminstrative costs. i could go on and on but all con has to do is read my initial post.

con is simply under the folk lore that anything the government does is going to be worse than anything else. in healthcare, this is proven not to be true.
riverbendebate18

Con

riverbendebate18 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
linate

Pro

reiterate
riverbendebate18

Con

riverbendebate18 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by linate 2 years ago
linate
i will cite this.... the CBO a very independent research entity by the government

"The Congressional Budget Office and related government agencies scored the cost of a single payer health care system several times since 1991. The General Accounting Office published a report in 1991 noting that "[I]f the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."[40] The CBO scored the cost in 1991, noting that "the population that is currently uninsured could be covered without dramatically increasing national spending on health" and that "all US residents might be covered by health insurance for roughly the current level of spending or even somewhat less, because of savings in administrative costs and lower payment rates for services used by the privately insured.[41] A CBO report in 1993 stated that "[t]he net cost of achieving universal insurance coverage under this single payer system would be negative" in part because "consumer payments for health would fall by $1,118 per capita, but taxes would have to increase by $1,261 per capita" in order to pay for the plan.[42] A July 1993 scoring also resulted in positive outcomes, with the CBO stating that, "[a]s the program was phased in, the administrative savings from switching to a single-payer system would offset much of the increased demand for health care services. Later, the cap on the growth of the national health budget would hold the rate of growth of spending below the baseline."[43] The CBO also scored Sen. Paul Wellstone's American Health and Security Act of 1993 in December 1993, finding that "by year five (and in subsequent years) the new system would cost less than baseline."[44]"
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
linateriverbendebate18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
linateriverbendebate18Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: ff