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

should the united states repeal obama's health care plan?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,770 times Debate No: 14470
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




I would be arguing that the United States should not repeal but rather amend the plan/bill.
Round one: intro
Round Two:main speech
Round three: clash/questions
Round four: answers/facts
Round five: conclusion/ closing speech


I accept your challenge. I will be Pro repeal of the health care plan.
Debate Round No. 1


When looking at this topic we must see that for many years, the availability of a good health care insurance has always seemed like a ten year old wish for more than 46 million citizens, that is until now. We must find that the obama health care bill have provided more than 75% percent of these citizens.

I stand in the act that the United States should not repeal the act but rather amend this bill so it fits both cost efficiency and philosophical choices of the citizens.

contention one: cost efficiency
Perhaps the most arguable reason to repeal this bill is simply because it does not fit the cost range placed by our citizens. The United states government as well as its citizens must see that this is a mere setback that will fix itself whit in the next few months or years. The United states must see that it is the only developed country without a stable health insurance to protect its citizens, other countries who have better health insurance than we do, took there chances as well as a very high budget in other to accomplish there goals. moving further we must also take in consideration that the obama's health care bill is far more efficient than that of what we have currently; not only does it covers many more Americans, but it also moderates the taxes so that they are put in proper use. We must also take in consideration that this same law also help maintain a supstable relationship between you and your doctor.
"White House aides said the proposal keeps the best features of the Senate bill, while making insurance more affordable for lower- and middle-income Americans. It would extend insurance to about 31 million Americans by providing them with tax credits to offset the cost of coverage and expanding the Medicaid federal-state insurance program." (

Contention Two: public philosophy
Like I mentioned earlier in my speech, the United states is the only country that does not provide its citizens with an efficient health care insurance. Part of the reason for this problem, is that the united states is not willing to take any risk thus living us in the shadows of many countries such as France and even Japan. This health care plan gives us a variety of choices to chose from. we must see that with our current health care plan, the individuals has no choice nor do they have a plan. This plan gives these citizens a layout plan as to show them what they are paying for and exactly how the system works. We must take in consideration that the Universal health care is simply the answer to our problems simply because it provides us with a very stable system in which every one can get insured as well as afford it.

"The Obama plan will have the following features:

•Guaranteed eligibility.

•No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.

•Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.

•Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

•Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan. (

Contention Three: market and relationship
"there is no perfect market*" The United states citizens must see that this plan help stabilize the current market. whit in our current market, the patients and the physician do not have a good relationship. This system will create a situation in which both parties have a good relationship. When a patient goes in for a treatment, they have absolutely no choice as to what medicine is prescribed to them. The physician gives us the prescription needed as well as the supplier. It is significant that the patient have a good relationship with the physician as well as a strong trust.


+In Response to Cost Efficiency+
Our nation is a heavily taxed one. With this bill the poor would be getting a lot for a small amount of money, where as the rich would be getting nothing for a lot of the money. The money has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is the pockets of the people who work for the money and it goes into the pockets of those who don't. This is completely unfair is the gov't stepping far beyond it's bounds. Let us remind the people viewing this debate that people who aren't in the poverty level have to pay for their own insurance and, now, the insurance of the unefficient citizens of our great country.
Not to mention, for every plan the gov't impliments there are always "unforesee" costs that make the cost go much higher than quoted and takes even more from the working classes pockets. These costs will lead to an overwhelming amount of patients for a much smaller amount of physicians. This will cause the government to skimp on the medical care, which will lead to underpaid and, therefore, less effective physicians.

+In Response to the Unofficial Employer Mandate+
The government is going to force buisnesses to provide health care for their workers or pay a fine if they have over 50 employers. This will lead to massive lay offs in our already fragile economy, kicking the brick of the teetering ledge, per se.

+In Response to Public Philosophy+
Con states that we are running behind countries in health care, and I believe that is a false idea. Health care reform has caused great pains for its citizens in many countries, making long lines for simple injuries and month-long waits for more specific injuries.

+In Response to a Better Patient-Physician Relationship+
There is no way that the health care system will cause any change in the relationship of doctors and their patients. I don't see where you derive this knowledge from.

I believe we should not be changing the already unstable health care system we have. We need to fix it. It is a known fact that the US spends the most on health care out of all nations, yet falls far behind in the actual care. If we try to completely change the system, it could cause some very lasting consequences on the situation. I think we need to streamline the system we have and make the cost/care ratio go down before we go implementing something that could seriously off-balance this country, and even more importantly we need to focus on supplying jobs to those that need the coverage, rather than everyone else having to pick up the slack.

Debate Round No. 2


My opponent reluctantly argues that "With this bill the poor would be getting a lot for a small amount of money, where as the rich would be getting nothing for a lot of the money" however; he failed to realize that like i mentioned in my first speech, this bill was created to moderate the tax so that both the poor and rich pay a moderate amount according to there salary. This does not mean that the rich have to pay a ridiculous amount of money, it means that you pay again a moderate amount of money for your health bill.

Secondly i must address the issue that my opponent mentioned and i quote ' for every plan the govt implements there are always "unforesee" costs that make the cost go much higher than quoted ". Health care bills are different from other mediocre bills as it is both accurate and precise to the desired result. This is a bill deals with many people thus is looked upon much strictly by both the senate and the house of representatives. My opponent also made a very false statement when he stated that this will lead to the lack of medical physician, however this is quit opposite. With the amount of money saved by this act and the amount of money raised due to increased amount of insurance bowner's the government is able to enhance its medical fields.

I am unable to respond to the employee mandate simply because my opponent did not explain his opinion on the matter.

Question: i would like to ask my opponent to give a much more dept opinion towards the liberty of the people as well as his philosophical stand of the topic.
In conclusion, i would like to state that my opponent did not give his opening argument thus going against the rule and he did not fully explain himself


I am sorry. I didn't realize I had to put it in paragraph form for my opponent considering I am merely pointing out the flaws in the health care system that Obama proposes. I will post my opening now, to satisfy my opponent.
Our health care industry has problems, it is very apparent. We pay the most and get very little in return. However, this is not the answer. With the health care reform we will be plagued with
•Heavy taxes for the working class and no taxes for the many users of the benefit
•Businesses laying off workers to not have to pay the necessary fines
•Long waits for any health care
•Overall, a worse economy

Most of all, consider this simple proof. The poor people get everything out of this plan. The rich people get what they already have. The poor people don't pay for this plan. The rich people pay for this entire plan. So, I ask you, how is this fair in any way?

There is an alternative. If we can regulate where the money is put by the current health care system, we can shorten costs. We can offer tax cuts to doctors (the members of society that probably want it the most) for service for the more poor patients. We can stimulate the job market with that money. We could pull out of the wars and save us some more money It would solve the problem of our recession along with the problem of health care in one fell swoop. There are more effective ways to use that same money than by injecting pure money into health care. It is a bad idea and there are better ideas out there, we just have to search for them.

•How do you think they could keep us from getting more out of debt with this new bill?
•How can you determine that health care bills are "accurate and precise", from a source?
•How can you determine that employers won't lay off workers to scrape below the employer mandate?
•How can you determine that it is the democratic thing to do, when you are allowing gov't to take control of it's peoples' health?
•How does this bill improve patient-physician relations?
•How were you suggesting money is saved by this act as stated above?
•Do you believe that there are possibly better alternatives?
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you for posting your argument/ i am sure it is much comprehensible to both me and the audience.

My opponent despite of every proof still believes that the poor is benefits more from this law than the rich; however just like i mentioned earlier, this bill was meant to maintain both equality and a fair market to both the poor and the rich.

My opponent also argues that there are other alternatives such as the regulation of where the money is out by the current health care system; however, he failed to realize that the United States is simply not that organized especially with our current health care system. The current system is simply a flaw that cannot be fixed without having to spend excessive money that could be put into the new law simply to find a solution. We must also see that even with the amendment of the current health care system, the United States cannot regulate the tax properly as to organize where it goes to. I would also like to argue that my opponent do not understand the health care market. Unlike other markets, the health care system is simply more complicated as it deals with the life of people.

*This bill is not meant to get us out of dept but to regulate the rate and amount of money the U.S borrow from other countries. It also creates a space or situation in which the United States rather than working to improve its health care system, will be able to deal with their debts.*
* this source deals with different aspects of the bill: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act supports mental health parity. This means that mental health conditions will be treated equally to physical illnesses. You will be able to get the mental health care that you need according to your provider's recommendations. Psychiatric medications must be covered under insurance companies' formularies. Of course, the precise benefits and out of pocket expenses will vary according to the plan that you select." (

* with the amount of tax benefits given to the employers i am most certain that the employers and employees will benefit rather than loose from this bill*
* it is democratic because it offers the citizens more choice than they have as of right now. for instance the citizen is able to choose what company to join or work week as well as having a full plan on what will happen over time so to avoid any surprises.*
*Barrack Obama and Joe Baden's plan strengthens employer–based coverage, makes insurance companies
accountable and ensures patient choice of doctor and care without government interference. Under the plan, if
you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500
per year. If you don't have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance
options.* ( ( this will answer all of your questions.)


Thank you.

---My question---
*how does this create inequality between the rich and poor?
* what other alternative rather than the one given in your speech do you have?
*What is your view on the Individual choices provided by the current bill that is left out in the new bill?
*how do you propose the U.S regulate where the money goes (taxes)?
* Do you prefer our current bill?


NomadJD forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Since my opponent forfeited his round, he was never able to answer my questions.

In conclusion I urge you to vote in negation simply due to the reason that I provided a very good and structural argument as well as a good analysis of the topic. I also provided "reliable" sources which my opponent failed to give.

Thank you.


NomadJD forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by wierdman 7 years ago
thank you.
Posted by Greyparrot 7 years ago
Great debate topic!
Posted by lovelife 7 years ago
What about it would you want to amend?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.