args

Universal health care nuts should also be in favor of universal food, shelter, clothing, etc.

My opponent's R3 argument revolves around inconsistency. He maintains that people who advocate for universal health care should also be in favor of universal food, clothing, shelter, etc. Now while he brings up some good points in terms of discussion, he has very little merit in terms of DEBATE. This dialog is not solely about the exchanging of ideas, but about proving and disproving the resolution. As Con, my beliefs are irrelevant -- I simply must explain why people who may be for UHC should *NOT* also be in favor of universal food, shelter and clothing. My opponent has affirmed his very own inconsistency by continuously pointing out his reasoning as to why universal food, shelter, clothing AND health care are all unfavorable. Therefore, Pro is suggesting that instead of just promoting ONE "bad" idea (universal health care), liberals should be promoting FOUR bad agenadas. How does that make any sense? It doesn't. Thus if you are a fiscal Conservative and AGAINST universal health care, chances are you would also be against universal food, shelter and clothing... so why would you want people advocating for those things? Especially at a time like this, where it's likely that more liberal agendas will be taken into consideration now that the Bush regime is coming to an end. Therefore if you are in opposition to universal food, shelter and clothing, you should vote Con, as you agree that those "nutsos" who advocate for UHC shouldn't also be pushing for more universal provisions. To those that DO support universal health care, you shouldn't also support universal food, shelter and clothing and here's why: it would turn us into a communist nation. Granted Pro has used the "why shouldn't the government provide the even more important things in life" logic, but as I've pointed out, even if food, clothing and shelter ARE greater necessities than health care (which they usually are), it doesn't mean that we should resort to being a communist nation, as it would hurt us - the United States - economically and politically both domestically and globally. So to re-cap, it is possible that we provide UHC that grants us BETTER HEALTH CARE FOR A FRACTION OF THE COST. This benefit would apply to everyone regardless of economic status. Supporting this one notion in particular does NOT mean that you should support communism and all that comes with it (social repercussions, for one). Pro has not provided one reason as to why you SHOULD support communism, except to say, "Why not?" or "it could be easily argued they they should go all the way" in referring to providing universal relief... except Pro didn't explain WHY 'they' should go all the way. Essentially, Pro has been advocating for communism yet does not support this reasoning other than to say "it doesn't make any logical sense to offer one of life's needs over those that are more important." I disagree. I say that if providing universal goods for all of the basic life needs would make us communist, then screw it -- we don't wanna go down that path for innumerable reasons (most of which have little if any relevance to this debate). However if it's possible that health care is provided WITHOUT having to be communist - or without having to raise taxes through the roof - then I'm all for it. It's as simple as that. Pro has attempted to skew my words, the facts, and provide misguided reasoning to get you to see his side. For instance, "I gather you would also be in favor of universal food and shelter if we could afford to do that too. The truth is we can. We can afford to do it all. We can actually afford (if we pooled all our resources) to create an entire country full of dependents and provide their every need. " Here Pro leaves that bit about pooling resources in (parenthesis) as if it's a little side note, when really, it goes against everything I have been arguing. I have said repeatedly that I do not believe in the US being communist, and yet Pro accused me of supporting universal goods... even though... I am against those things as Con...? Hmm, okay. The truth is that I *would* be in favor of providing universal food, shelter and health care IF it was of no expense to me or any other of my fellow Americans (regardless of how rich they were). However that would be pretty impossible and could never really be an option, so why bring it up? Pro was attempting to present me as a Communist by saying "if we could afford it" I would support it. That's not true at all. I'm very much aware that if we pooled our resources together we could certainly afford those things. However I am not advocating for us to pool our resources together and either are those who are in favor of UHC. By supporting UHC, you wouldn't be asking for a great increase in taxes (IN FACT IT WOULD SAVE YOU MONEY), whereas providing all of those universal goods would be very expensive AND require the pooling of funds... so AGAIN, I am not in favor of those things. Next my opponent attempts to argue that health care is far more easily accessible and affordable than the reality. First of all, his assumption that people are choosing to spend their money on cell phones or car paymemts is a blatant lie. I've already addressed in previous rounds how this assumption is unsupported and uncited, most likely because it is untrue in most cases. If Pro wanted to argue otherwise, he should have done so with factual evidence instead of just his own two cents about something he probably knows very little about. Second of all, even if that were true, Pro is ignoring the fact that UHC would also be cheaper (and of better quality) for those people who are already paying for their own private health insurance! I would also like to point out that the cost of health insurance is far more expensive than the $80 Pro claims it to be, at least where I live. It's also particularly convenient that he chose young people for his example, whereas in reality, it's the Baby Boomers - the elderly - that are suffering and paying incredibly high insurance rates (much higher than $80! Ha!) and cannot afford quality health care. The key word here is quality, as even those who can afford it are often subjected to crappy policies that cover little to nothing and are sometimes pointless or not worth it. But anyway, to re-cap, Pro is the one being inconsistent here: he continously explained why universal anything would be a bad idea, but goes on to state why people should advocate for not just one but all of these things...? By his logic, you should not support one and not the other. Well a lot of people support the one regardless of whether he agrees with it or not, so if he really thinks these things are all a bad idea, he should not logically conclude people support 4 bad ideas instead of just 1. Now if he's only saying that supporting one and not the other doesn't make any sense, again he is wrong: people should not support universal food, shelter and clothing because it would turn us into a communist nation (and Pro hasn't explained why that wouldn't be a bad thing). Supporting these things would also significantly raise our taxes, whereas supporting UHC would not. It would in fact be CHEAPER and BETTER QUALITY insurance. Pro has not disagreed with this. So right here, we can see how there is no inconsistency, but simple logic in supporting UHC. For instance, I now have health insurance, but UHC would improve the quality and cost of health care for all. Charging tax payers for other universal needs would NOT benefit me or many others. Therefore I - a supporter of UHC - do not support those other policies, and have successfully negated the resolution.