The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

should the U.S. government address the rising cost of health care

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2012 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,055 times Debate No: 27431
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




The cost of health care in the United States is growing more rapidly than the incomes of those who pay for it. If these costs continue to rise as rapidly into the future, the standards of living and economic security of retirees and workers alike will be put in jeopardy. Employers will increasingly shift health care costs to their employees. Government budgets will be dominated by the need to finance the cost of Medicare and Medicaid benefits.



I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent for instigating this interesting and politically inclined topic :)

Today I will be arguing the U.S. government is under no further obligation to address health care costs at their current levels.

Observation1: As the resolution doesn't specify any specific philosophy, and the Pro's round 1 implies that we are talking conditions in the present, we will be arguing that the US should address healthcare costs at this time.

Observation2: As we are arguing over the present, all current programs, practices, and evidence should be relative to the present. Examples from previous time periods are irrelevant and future implications must be tied in with substantial proof.

Should: Used to express obligation or duty [1].

Obamacare: An informal term for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 [2].


My argument revolves around the obligation the resolution places on the US government. The argument itself is simple: the government has already addressed the issue enough to place further obligation. In 2010, the piece of legilslation known as "Obamacare" passed through Congress, putting certain limitations on Health Care companies and providing a Government-funded system for those who still can't afford the privatized health care in a system commonly referred to as "two-tier" healthcare. Because the US has already provided this system to address healthcare spending, placing further obligation on the US government would be redundant and unneeded, and thus there is no obligation on the state.

Because my opponent did not provide any actual evidence in his first round, neither will I. However, he must actually prove that Obamacare will not help health coverage enough when it passes in order to prove that the US has further obligations in the upcoming rounds. If he fails to prove that Obamacare can't do it's job, then the resolution must be negated due to the reasons stated in the paragraph above.

Works Cited:

Debate Round No. 1


rmz250 forfeited this round.


Extend Arguments
Debate Round No. 2


According to a new study from consulting firm Deloitte, almost one of out of 10 employers said they are going to drop coverage for their employees because of Obamacare, while another 10 percent said they “remain unsure” about what they are going to do. As the vast majority of Americans have health insurance through their workplaces, this is a huge blow.

Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) dealt another blow with its updated outlook on the health care law, as it attempted to integrate the Supreme Court’s ruling into its projections.

Although Obamacare spends more than $1 trillion to get people covered, CBO predicts it will still leave 30 million Americans uninsured, falling far short of what was promised.

CBO’s announcement said that Obamacare could cost less than originally projected—but the reason for the drop was that fewer people will be covered.

Even with the updated cost estimate, Heritage’s Kate Nix explains: “The law will now add $1.17 trillion in new government spending over 10 years—paid for by massive tax hikes on all Americans and robbing money from the Medicare program.”

Although President Obama campaigned on the dream of universal coverage, that remains simply a dream. In fact, each time the CBO has updated its projections, the number of uninsured under Obamacare increases.

works cited


I will split my opponent's arguments into two rebuttals. These will be cost and performance. I wouldn't typically use new evidence, but because my opponent did not argue last round, and this is the only round I have to rebut his case, I have no other choice.

One of the attacks my opponent brought up was the cost of Obamacare, this being 1.17 trillion dollars in government spending. However, if you haven't noticed, what my opponent is advocating is also that the government has to intervene in providing healthcare. All Obamacare does to raise these prices is provide healthcare to everybody, which is exactly what my opponent is claiming the governement should do. So, all of his points against healthcare costs are moot as he will also impliment one of these systems.

The first attack against Obamacare was that it leaves 30 million uncovered. However, this is actually an improvement uder the current system.

Accodording to the Supreme Court Obamacare decision in June, "“CBO and JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] now estimate that the ACA, in comparison with prior law before the enactment of the ACA, will reduce the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 14 million in 2014 and by 29 million or 30 million in the latter part of the coming decade, leaving 30 million nonelderly residents uninsured by the end of the period,”" [1]. This shows that Obamacare actually helps the level of uninsured in the US. And, as the number of uninsured continously decreases the longer Obamacare is in effect, we can assume that a steady decrease will continue over time.

Additionally, these people who are currently uninsured actually have the choice and ability to become insured under Obamacare. According to President Obama "If you’re one of the 30 million Americans who don’t yet have health insurance, starting in 2014, this law will offer you an array of quality, affordable, private health insurance plans to choose from,” [1].

So not only will the number of ininsured decrease under Obamacare, those who will be uninured during the act will have the ability to become insured at any time. Because of this, Obamacare actually fulfills the United State's obligation.

The main voter in the round is that my opponent never addressed my argument on the obligation placed by the resolution. Because of this, he practically accepts the fact that he needs to show how, even with Obamacare in place, the US has future obligations. The way he went about this was trying to disprove Obamacare itself, which he failed to do. Because he couldn't actually prove that the United States requires any further obligation, and he doesn't dispute the fact that he has to prove this, you must negate the resolution, thank you.

Works Cited:

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Contra 3 years ago
I nobody takes this by tomorrow I will. PM me if I forget.
No votes have been placed for this debate.