The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,062 times Debate No: 58520
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




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.

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.


I accept.

First of all, look at the Obamacare expansion of plans necessary. From a personal experience, the requirement for Obamacare expansion has caused many health insurance companies to be forced to upgrade the required plan, therefore making the consumer pay lots of money out of the pocket. This would show catastrophic in others.

Second of all, look at the states that did not go into Medicaid. They didn't go in because of the catastrophe that it made in the job market and the markets. For the job market, now people cannot get full time jobs because there employers refuse to hire full time. It is not beneficial for them anymore to have full time employees. Saying that this is going to cause 17,000 to die, what does that statement mean? That means that 17,000 will die of something? What will they die of? Not paying more bills?

Trust me, it is not all about politics.
Debate Round No. 1


dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.


I have no way to actually respond to this. Forfeiting is your choice.
Debate Round No. 2


it forces some plans to be upgraded, but this is only for private insurance. medicaid is not private insurance, and i've shown that non private plans in other countries are very well established to be cheaper and more efficient.
as to the plans being upgraded, sure, but it also causes some plans to be cheaper. it is effectively taking from the rich to give to the poor. you have to be against this point to be against the private plan part of it, and i'm not so sure it's such a bad thing. i might be willing to admit that we only should have did medicaid expansion, cause then the overall cost wouldn't go up, potentially. i do admit i dont see plans that are down graded, but only upgraded. there's at least the marketplace acting on it to keep it cheaper, but that's be the case without expanding private insurance requirements, so again i could see beig against the private plan thing.
for moral reasons, we should increase the requirements some for some people, just not as much as the government already did.

again, with the employees full time point, that is for private insurance. not medicaid. also, that part time rule only covers employers with lots of employees. like fifty or so. richer companies can afford to buy insurance, and have group rates and a competitive exchange to keep it cheaper.
also, if they decide to keep people with fewer hours, that would add more jobs to the labor force. that is always a good thing. not that government should be making those decisions, but when it's in an example like this where it's only to do good for people, it's not a bad thing.

what is your evidence that medicaid expansion caused problems in the market? unemployment has only gone down since the housing crash, and indexes and productivity indices have only gone up. it might not be as fast we we'd like, but that's still the case. me thinks you are just 'gut thinking' your ideas here.

i have no idea how you think people would not die without health insurance. that's what insurance does, enable you to pay for and / or receive health care. thus preventing death. everyone doesn't just get health care in america automatically. we live in an archaic society. before the expansion people had no care. it's not just increases in expectations of care, but giving care to begin with.
with that said, obama care in general, regardless of what you think about medcaid expansion, has saved lives too. before obamacare, and this is a well established fact, about forty thousand people would die. the number of deaths have been cut in half. big surprise, it was pretty much poor people that died, and a little more than half of all states opted into it, thus saving a little more than half of their lives. we can dispute studies and such, though we shouldn't given how well established this stuff is, but if we look at the big picture as i just did, it makes sense that way too.

i apologize for the forfeit. if you would like more responses to yours, i am willing to redebate, as i have more time.


I would prefer a re-debate
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 7 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I appears that the debaters are going to do a "re-do", which implies that this debate should be nulled. Let me know if that was not the intent, and I'll correct my vote.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.